Catching up a bit here after a month or two of holidaying, slacking off and finding little to write about beyond repetetive stories about Palin and/or Obama's respective similarities to Reagan.
Deserving of a mention, though, is this ad, which appeared on American TV screens in September:
A direct reference to the definitive TV spot of Reagan's 1984 campaign, little this season has more forcefully demonstrated Republican's nostalgia for Reagan's presidency, and their willingness to use it as an argument. The ad was made by the GOP's current star creative, Fred Davis (behind "Demon Sheep" and "I am not a Witch") for the PAC, Citizens for the Republic - which explains its euology for Reagan's America. The group was founded by Reagan in 1977 to support conservatives in the 1978 elections and prepare for his 1980 run, and was revived thirty years later by a self described "hardy band of Reaganites" for similar purposes. Its chairman is Craig Shirley, a man devoted to promoting Reagan in the public imagination, while its directors are all former Reagan officials.
The ad itself names no candidates, presumably bypassing campaign finance laws, but more than that, the Citizen's apparent lack of alignment to anyone but the beloved former president, and the activity of now at least two conservative PACs bearing the Reagan brand (son Michael's being the other one), seems to highlight the lack of obvious conservative leadership as 2012 approaches. We'll see what they do after November.
Showing posts with label Craig Shirley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Craig Shirley. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
18th.
The Siena College Research Institute has released the results of its fifth presidential ranking survey, placing Reagan 18th. The results, collated from the participation of 238 scholars, can be found in pdf here, and some analysis here.
Craig Shirley is hopping mad that Reagan scored so middling, but more so that he ranks below Obama, who came 15th. I'd agree that Obama is a weird presence on the list, and tha his ranking is distorted by the glamour and intensity of contemporary politics, and probably by the progressive bias within academia. I'd also say that the choice of Craig Shirley, a public relations man and former Reagan employee, as a contributor emphasises this. Sensitive to the liberal leanings of historians, or at least the accusation of liberal bias, Siena may have sought the insipid political "balance" found on cable news shows. If I were to rank Shirley on some list, incidentally, he'd gain points for imaginative language - "Reagan put the neck of Soviet communism under the heel of his cowboy boot and crushed the life out of it" - but lose points for forgetting Reagan's important, career-transitioning autobiography, Where's the Rest of Me?, in his effort to portray Obama's memoirs as narcissistic self promotion.
Nevertheless, I also agree that Reagan should be higher. Looking at the breakdown, it shows that he scored highly in leadership and communication abilities, including his relationship with Congress. Brilliantly, and somewhat ambiguously, he is also ranked the third luckiest president. He is let down by his judicial and executive appointments, which may be a bit harsh, but the tendency towards the ideologically correct over the morally and legally scrupulous was certainly damning. He also scores very low, 34th, on "background", explained as "family, education and experience". Quite how you rank a presidential family, I don't know, and Reagan's education seems to me pretty average. He was, though, an immensely experienced presidential candidate - a two term Californian governor and union leader, a corporate insider and cultural elite.
His position is also let down by an unreasonably average score on "imagination". Did political hacks like LBJ, JFK, Clinton - and Obama - really have stronger imaginations than Reagan? The man was trained in Hollywood, for gooodness' sake. On "integrity", he comes a below average 26th, which on balance I think is fair. He had considerable personal integrity, but this was undermined by a lack of self-awareness, and it was not a quality which defined his often illusory, deceptive presidency. Finally, Reagan's lowest score is on "intelligence", where he comes 36th, 7th from bottom. Reagan's intelligence is often underestimated, so this seems unfair, but it is, after all, an illustrious list with many bright people on it.
As Shirley points out, on the polls which measure the public's ranking of presidents, Reagan has recently put in some very high appearances. I don't think this demonstrates the worthlessness and out-of-touch elitism of this list, though, but it suggests to me a category which is not included in the survey, and which might improve Reagan's score. There should be room for measuring a president's "resonance" or "remembrance" or even just "legacy". Presidents can still lead and wield symbolic power long after they are gone, and it is then that they become iconic and "great". Lincoln and Washington were successful and extraordinary executives, for example, but their greatness lies in their continued imprint on American politics and identity. An acknowledgement of Reagan's lasting power, whatever his political or personal mediocrities, should elevate him to a more suitable position in the top dozen presidents.
Craig Shirley is hopping mad that Reagan scored so middling, but more so that he ranks below Obama, who came 15th. I'd agree that Obama is a weird presence on the list, and tha his ranking is distorted by the glamour and intensity of contemporary politics, and probably by the progressive bias within academia. I'd also say that the choice of Craig Shirley, a public relations man and former Reagan employee, as a contributor emphasises this. Sensitive to the liberal leanings of historians, or at least the accusation of liberal bias, Siena may have sought the insipid political "balance" found on cable news shows. If I were to rank Shirley on some list, incidentally, he'd gain points for imaginative language - "Reagan put the neck of Soviet communism under the heel of his cowboy boot and crushed the life out of it" - but lose points for forgetting Reagan's important, career-transitioning autobiography, Where's the Rest of Me?, in his effort to portray Obama's memoirs as narcissistic self promotion.
Nevertheless, I also agree that Reagan should be higher. Looking at the breakdown, it shows that he scored highly in leadership and communication abilities, including his relationship with Congress. Brilliantly, and somewhat ambiguously, he is also ranked the third luckiest president. He is let down by his judicial and executive appointments, which may be a bit harsh, but the tendency towards the ideologically correct over the morally and legally scrupulous was certainly damning. He also scores very low, 34th, on "background", explained as "family, education and experience". Quite how you rank a presidential family, I don't know, and Reagan's education seems to me pretty average. He was, though, an immensely experienced presidential candidate - a two term Californian governor and union leader, a corporate insider and cultural elite.
His position is also let down by an unreasonably average score on "imagination". Did political hacks like LBJ, JFK, Clinton - and Obama - really have stronger imaginations than Reagan? The man was trained in Hollywood, for gooodness' sake. On "integrity", he comes a below average 26th, which on balance I think is fair. He had considerable personal integrity, but this was undermined by a lack of self-awareness, and it was not a quality which defined his often illusory, deceptive presidency. Finally, Reagan's lowest score is on "intelligence", where he comes 36th, 7th from bottom. Reagan's intelligence is often underestimated, so this seems unfair, but it is, after all, an illustrious list with many bright people on it.
As Shirley points out, on the polls which measure the public's ranking of presidents, Reagan has recently put in some very high appearances. I don't think this demonstrates the worthlessness and out-of-touch elitism of this list, though, but it suggests to me a category which is not included in the survey, and which might improve Reagan's score. There should be room for measuring a president's "resonance" or "remembrance" or even just "legacy". Presidents can still lead and wield symbolic power long after they are gone, and it is then that they become iconic and "great". Lincoln and Washington were successful and extraordinary executives, for example, but their greatness lies in their continued imprint on American politics and identity. An acknowledgement of Reagan's lasting power, whatever his political or personal mediocrities, should elevate him to a more suitable position in the top dozen presidents.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Newt and Shirley
The American Spectator announces that Craig Shirley is to write the authorised biography of Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich is best known for his science-fiction writing, but has also in recent years got into the movie business. He and his wife run Gingrich Productions, which rides the wave of conservative film-making that began about five years ago in reaction to Michael Moore. They have their own festivals and everything. The Gingrichs have produced and hosted Rediscovering God in America (parts I and II), Nine Days That Changed the World (about John Paul II's visit to Poland) and Rendezvous with Destiny about the life and presidency of Ronald Reagan. On top of this, Gingrich has pretty much confirmed a 2012 presidential run. A campaign biography is on the cards, then, and Shirley seems a sensible choice.
Craig Shirley is the author of Reagan's Revolution (2004), about the 1976 campaign, and has more recently written on the 1980 campaign in Rendezvous with Destiny, which should be worth a read if only for its first use (I think) of the newly opened campaign papers at the Reagan Library. So Shirley and Gingrich share a fondness (for Shirley's books are very fond) for Reagan, and also for unimaginative titles. Each also has a long history with the Republican party - Shirley at least as far back as 1984, when he campaigned for Reagan. He now runs a public relations firm and writes shallow and snarky editorials about why Obama is no Reagan (because Reagan appealed to the common-sense citizenry rather than the "wisenheimers of Washington": D.C's elite lobbyists, pundits and PR men. Please read the services which Shirley & Banister Public Affairs provide).
Gingrich's energetic life and career could make an interesting story, though his straight transition from academia to Congress might not fit the traditional presidential story of hardship, self-education, enterprise and outsider credentials. Gingrich, though, has faith in biography, and its practical, inspirational purpose:
I'm not sure if I want to be Newt Gingrich, but watch this space.
Gingrich is best known for his science-fiction writing, but has also in recent years got into the movie business. He and his wife run Gingrich Productions, which rides the wave of conservative film-making that began about five years ago in reaction to Michael Moore. They have their own festivals and everything. The Gingrichs have produced and hosted Rediscovering God in America (parts I and II), Nine Days That Changed the World (about John Paul II's visit to Poland) and Rendezvous with Destiny about the life and presidency of Ronald Reagan. On top of this, Gingrich has pretty much confirmed a 2012 presidential run. A campaign biography is on the cards, then, and Shirley seems a sensible choice.
Craig Shirley is the author of Reagan's Revolution (2004), about the 1976 campaign, and has more recently written on the 1980 campaign in Rendezvous with Destiny, which should be worth a read if only for its first use (I think) of the newly opened campaign papers at the Reagan Library. So Shirley and Gingrich share a fondness (for Shirley's books are very fond) for Reagan, and also for unimaginative titles. Each also has a long history with the Republican party - Shirley at least as far back as 1984, when he campaigned for Reagan. He now runs a public relations firm and writes shallow and snarky editorials about why Obama is no Reagan (because Reagan appealed to the common-sense citizenry rather than the "wisenheimers of Washington": D.C's elite lobbyists, pundits and PR men. Please read the services which Shirley & Banister Public Affairs provide).
Gingrich's energetic life and career could make an interesting story, though his straight transition from academia to Congress might not fit the traditional presidential story of hardship, self-education, enterprise and outsider credentials. Gingrich, though, has faith in biography, and its practical, inspirational purpose:
"I don't care what you want to be. If you want to get rich, read the biographies of people who got rich. If you want to be a famous entertainer, read the biographies of people who got to be famous entertainers." - Taken from Joan Didion's fantastic study of weird, 'Newt Gingrich, Superstar' (1995)
I'm not sure if I want to be Newt Gingrich, but watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
