Sean Wilentz of Princeton specializes in American history, but he must know his classics as well.
That?s because his latest book, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008, is a Trojan horse.
Sold as a liberal historian?s reassessment of Ronald Reagan?s long-term impact on American politics, the book actually serves as the vehicle for an attack on Reagan?s politics, a defense of the Clinton administration, and a rehash of the lawyer?s brief for the case of the ?stolen? election of 2000.
The following quote gives you an idea of Wilentz?s assessment of the 40th president:
Reagan was also a polarizing figure ? a divider, not a uniter ? beloved by Republicans but despised by Democrats. The fifty-point gap between how supporters of the respective parties viewed him dwarfs the thirty- to thirty-five-point gap of his successor, the supposedly preternatural polarizer Bill Clinton. At the close of his presidency, Americans gave Reagan high ratings for his ?charisma? and communication skills, as well as for his administration?s relations with the Soviet Union and its conduct of foreign affairs generally. But the public split evenly over his economic policy and disapproved of his performance on judicial nominations, civil rights, education, ethics, housing, crime, welfare, and the deficit.
The quote ignores the impact of Reagan Democrats (who certainly did not despise him) and fails to explain why a public that disliked so many of Reagan?s policies at the close of his presidency nonetheless gave his vice president such a clear victory in the 1988 presidential race.
Wilentz never offers a satisfactory explanation for his decision to label a 35-year chunk of American history as the Age of Reagan, given his disdain for the age?s namesake.
If you?re inclined to read The Age of Reagan, Steven Hayward?s book of the same name is a much better option.
