The Media Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton

[erpowers]

I recently read the book "Between the Branches" and the reading made me wonder if the media has a great deal to do with the perceptions of success among the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. At one point in the book the author discussed the presidential-congressional relations during the Reagan years. During that chapter the author quoted a few people about Reagan. One person talked about how Reagan was the "master of the 15 percent win" the person went on to say that Reagan was great at making a big deal about winning 15 percent of what he wanted, but losing 85 percent of what he wanted. That same person claimed that Jimmy Carter was just the opposite, he would win 85 percent of what he wanted, but some people would make such a big deal about how he lost the other 15 percent.

The book pointed some other things about Reagan, like the fact that when congresspeople went to visit him to talk about issues he would just read from cue cards. When asked about specifics he would just point to other people, from his cabniet, in the room and let them explain the issue. There was also a mention of the fact that Reagan is remembered in one way but the reality was different.

In dealing with Bill Clinton the book points out that before the Republicans took over congress Clinton was able to pass 89 percent of his measures. However, once the Republicans took over Clinton's average dropped greatly. It seems that the author claims that Clinton was not completely unsuccessful during his first year in office.

So, has the media colored the why many see the successes of Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton? It seems as if Reagan is promoted as the successful president who got congress to do what he wanted, while Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are at least at times promoted as accomplishing only a few things. However, the facts seem to disagree at least partly with that storyline.

[ananda]

1. As far as Reagan and Bush are concerned..

When "success" is so destructive and harmful,
what --good-- is it?

[Buzz Clik]

2. I like Jimmy Carter, and I voted for him. But let's not get too starry eyed.

I'm not sure about the 85% success rate under Carter at all. But if we assume the 15% failure rate is correct, then all I can say is his failures were huge: the price of everything doubled and the Iran hostage crisis and the associated failed rescue attempt just to name two. Much of his horrid relationship with the media was self-inflicted: his white trash brother was was constantly on the front page; talking about "Montezuma's revenge" at a live press conference with the President of Mexico; the attack of the killer bunny; and on and on endlessly.

[ReformedChris]

3. Don't forget about the Panama Canal Treaty: VERY unpopular decision (right one, but still unpopular)

Thanks for bringing up the Killer Mutant Bunny, one of the funniest presidential moments of all time that didn't involve Georgie.

[Selatius]

4. You can't really blame Carter for inflation. That was the Federal Reserve's doing.

They pursued a policy of low interest rates at the expense of low inflation, and they did it at a time when energy prices due to the Oil Embargo drove prices upward, and when the Iranians overthrew the pro-US dictator, Carter had no control over its affects on oil prices as well. As far as the disasterous attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran, I won't dispute where you placed the blame there.

[Buzz Clik]

6. I don't blame Carter for inflation or the hostage crisis. But they happened on his watch.

[LSdemocrat]

5. I suspect this has a large measure to do with the DC establishment hating "outsiders"

Read "The Clinton Wars" by Sidney Blumenthal to see just how hostile the DC establishment was to the Clintons. Really enlightening book by one of the best political writers around.