Feb. 15, 2001
Reagan, Clinton and the Spectrum of Mainstream Punditry
By Norman Solomon The power to depict history is entangled with the power to
create it. George Orwell observed long ago: "Who controls the past controls
the future; who controls the present controls the past." And so it is in
2001, as American media outlets draw conclusions about the presidencies of
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. For conservative pundits, the two are
open-and-shut cases of virtue and depravity; honor and its absence. The
Gipper's recent 90th birthday brought an outpouring of tributes from top
Republican image-crafters and media commentators, often one and the same.
Reagan is now "lauded and embraced not only by the country but by its opinion
leaders, its media, its historians and elites," Peggy Noonan rejoiced. The
Wall Street Journal's editorial page was an apt place for the gushing from
Noonan, a former Reagan speech writer, still enraptured, still spinning, more
pleased than ever with the mega-media adulation of her hero: "All week in the
Reagan specials they celebrated, without saying the word, his character. But
that's what his political victories were about.... He swam against the tide,
moved forward, made progress, and got, ultimately, to shore." Liberal pundits
show little interest in disputing President Reagan's greatness. Evidently,
it's easier for columnists and editorial writers to forget or forgive than it
is for, say, the thousands of people in Nicaragua or Angola whose grief was
scarcely reported in the U.S. press during the 1980s, while the Reagan
administration funneled large amounts of money and weaponry to "freedom
fighters" who massacred their loved ones. Now, bygones are pretty much
bygones along the Potomac. A tacit understanding prevails: If you can't say
something nice about Ronald Reagan, better not to say anything at all. The
present-day media verdict on Bill Clinton's legacy is a whole other matter --
polarized and contentious. His longtime foes are eager to define his
presidency as eight disastrous years (mitigated by a strong economy).
Meanwhile, lots of liberals take a completely different stand. While
acknowledging negative effects of his personal flaws and ethical shadiness,
numerous boosters have given Clinton's presidency high marks. "Clinton has
been a very effective president," CNN's liberal Bill Press wrote in
mid-January with typical homage. "He can leave office proudly, having led the
United States into the 21st century." Farther leftward, some have also jumped
at the chance to sum up the Clinton record in glowing terms. "Clinton's
historical reputation will more than surmount the petty complaints of
contemporary critics and leave him remembered as one of the hardest working,
most competent, fundamentally decent and smartest men to ever serve in the
office," syndicated columnist Robert Scheer concluded. "He was an excellent
president." To share in such a sweeping judgment requires us to downgrade the
importance of certain subjects -- and certain people. For instance: As he led
the charge for the "war on drugs," President Clinton was instrumental in
filling the nation's prisons with more and more Americans -- most of them
poor and dark-skinned -- to the point that 2 million are now behind bars.
Just how important is that reality? If a president did so much to bring it
about, how excellent could he have been? Six months ago, on the opening night
of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, bright colored signs
flashed all through the amphitheater, operating as enormous cue-cards for the
assembled loyal delegates -- "Thank you Bill" -- while they dutifully chanted
for maximum media impact. Such orchestration is a task of political advance
teams. Journalists, hopefully, have different sorts of work to do. In spite
of their better insights, year after year, many liberal pundits functioned as
de facto apologists for Clintonism, with the implicit rationale that his
right-wing enemies were much worse. In the process, the main priority often
seemed to be shilling more than truth-telling. But journalists -- whether
reporters, news analysts or commentators -- should serve different purposes
than partisan spinmeisters. Assessments of the Clinton presidency are not
only relevant to the past. At Clinton's insistence, his big-money pal Terry
McAuliffe is enthroned as the chair of the Democratic National Committee. The
people in charge of the party seem determined to keep pace with the
Republicans in saturating their endeavors with corporate loot. If the overall
politics and policies of the Clinton presidency were A-OK, then there's a lot
more where that came from.
