RSS Feed Menu“Make it new” was Ezra Pound’s advice to writers. Craig Shirley’s enthralling new history of the 1980 presidential campaign eminently fulfills that advice. Here is a story you’d think was as well-known as any in American history – and yet on every page, Shirley brings to light something important over which the dust has already gathered as thick as a pharaoh’s treasure.
One example:
Perhaps you remember the story of Jimmy Carter’s stolen briefing book? A dismissive Jimmy Carter had scheduled his one and only debate of the 1980 campaign very late, Oct. 28, exactly a week before voting day. Carter had assumed that he would crush the supposedly empty-headed Ronald Reagan and wanted the crushing to be remembered by voters as they headed to the polls.
Bad move: The “there you go again” debate broke open what had been till then a neck-and-neck race.
For years, many Democrats – including Carter personally – argued that Carter was defeated by a dirty trick. Here is Carter, as interviewed by National Public Radio in 2005:
“We found out later that one of Ronald Reagan’s supporters inside the White House had stolen my briefing book, my top-secret briefing book that prepared me for the debate. And a very prominent news reporter was the one who took the briefing book to Ronald Reagan and helped drill him on the things that I might say if he said certain things.” The “prominent reporter” is meant to be the columnist George F. Will.
So what actually happened? Shirley unravels the whole weird story. It starts in Winnipeg, Canada.
Winnipeg was the birthplace of Paul Kobrinsky, later Paul Corbin, a onetime labor organizer and police informant, hustler, fraudster, schemer, and habitual liar. Corbin held membership in the Communist Party USA and also worked as an investigator for Sen. Joe McCarthy. He strewed deserted wives and children across the landscape. An illegal immigrant to the United States, he gained citizenship after serving in the Marine Corps as a company cook in the Pacific. Later he expanded that experience, inventing stories of ever more extreme heroism to impress friends and clients.
Corbin drifted into service of the Kennedy family, becoming especially close to Bobby for whom he functioned as a political spy. I’m going to have to accelerate the story here of Corbin’s dirty work, but Shirley lovingly narrates every appalling detail.
(OK let’s pause for one: “Corbin himself later bragged to some poker friends that he had the goods on Democrat Al Gore. Joseph Sweat, one of Corbin’s associates in Tennessee, remembered that Corbin accused Gore, then a young congressman, of renting rooms in a motel in Cookeville to watch pornography. … Asked how he knew, Corbin replied, ‘The desk clerk, I paid him a little bit and he gave me the receipt.’” 434)
By 1980, Corbin was hanging around the Ted Kennedy campaign. After Kennedy lost, Corbin vowed revenge on Carter. He had a weapon at hand: a friendship with a White House aide who worked for Carter’s head of scheduling. That friendship translated into access. “Jerry Rafshoon, in charge of Carter’s media, recalled seeing Corbin around the Carter White House late in the 1980 campaign and thought it odd that this Kennedy man and Carter hater would be there.”
The Carter briefing books were assembled in the Situation Room and photocopied on nearby machines. Corbin got hold of a copy of the material – very possibly stealing his copy off the desk of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. On October 25, Corbin personally delivered them to Bill Casey, former OSS man and Reagan’s campaign manager.
The story of the stolen books emerged in 1983 and excited a ferocious hullabaloo. A congressional committee investigated. Corbin was questioned and denied everything. Casey was questioned, but his famous mumble ensured (as the leader of the inquiry told Shirley) “they couldn’t understand a word he said.” We know the truth thanks to then – Congressman Dick Cheney. A member of his staff knew Corbin and the whole story. But nothing could be proved: Although the books were covered with fingerprints, Corbin’s were not among them. Anyway, what crime was committed? The incident faded into history, remembered only by an aggrieved Carter, convinced to this day that the theft cost him the presidency.
And so the story goes over Shirley’s pages, month by month, day by day, hour by hour.
Shirley loves and admires Ronald Reagan and believes in his cause – but he also retains few illusions about the workings of American politics. He writes very much in the spirit of the old Pennsylvania boss Matt Quay. When Quay heard that Benjamin Harrison attributed his narrow victory in the 1888 presidential election to Providence, he snorted: “Harrison will never know how close a number of men were compelled to approach the penitentiary to make him president.”
Shirley has the most detailed tick-tock I’ve ever read of the negotiations over the proposed Reagan-Ford “dream ticket” of 1980: “Some conservatives were frustrated [by the plan], including Reagan’s longtime friend and supporter Tom Winter, co-owner and co-publisher, along with Alan Ryskind, of Human Events. Reagan had been a faithful subscriber for years, corresponded with the two men, had dinner with them – and in turn the publication was devoted to Reagan. On the other hand, they reviled Ford. When Winter heard about the Dream Ticket he went off and got so sullenly drunk that he was later found by friends slumped in a chair, babbling incoherently.” (359) Shirley chronicles George HW Bush’s increasingly tense and snappish agony while waiting for Reagan to come to him, Reagan’s reluctance to approach a man he regarded as “unpresidential,” and the scheming, pleading, and even (in the case of Barbara Walters) weeping of reporters clawing to get the first interviews with the relevant players.
Shirley has a clear point of view on Reagan the man. Contra Reagan’s ill-chosen authorized biographer Edmund Morris, Shirley insists that it is
myth that Reagan was somehow ‘unknowable.’ I did not know the man well, but after working on his campaigns; after immersing myself in his writings, speeches, columns, diaries; after conversations with countless who knew him; and after reading hundreds of books and articles and monographs about him, I feel at least I understand him.
Reagan often said that he genuinely liked people and maybe that’s why they liked him. He was garrulous, chatty, could be very thoughtful, but when people disturbed him or got on his nerves, especially strangers, he’d simply clam up. (592)
And this, the books coda:
One month before the 1980 election, Scotty Reston, fabled liberal columnist for the New York Times, wrote that Reagan ‘hates races, even the tiresome race for the presidency. He may not have a sense of history but he has a sense of humor and knows he cannot reform the world.’” Shirley counters: “With the exception of the remark about Reagan’s wittiness, untruer words were never penned. (599)
But this book is full of true words, deep insights, long memories, and occluded details. In the years since 1980, American conservatives have divided over what to make of the Reagan legacy. But that grand hour of decision, that heroic triumph and redirection of American society – that still gives modern conservatism its outline and unity. Shirley summons that hour back to throbbing, vivid and immediate life.
Oldskool // May 29, 2010 at 11:55 am
“In the years since 1980, American conservatives have divided over what to make of the Reagan legacy. ”
I would have to disagree. The Regan era is has already become mythical to conservatives. To hear them tell it, America was a wonderland in the 1980’s even though he did plenty of lousy things and gets credit for a lot of the good that fell into his lap.
He let the AIDS virus go unaddressed because he wasn’t fond of the gays. He was the anti-Robin Hood, gutting social programs and catering to the rich. When he pulled troops out of Lebanon it gave our current enemies an image of us as a paper tiger. Joe Wilson probably had more to do with the USSR failing than Reagan’s rhetoric. And he was most certainly aware of Iran Contra.
Most of the things Republicans demigogue Dems for today are things Reagan himself did: exploding the deficit, making secret deals with Iran, offering a job to a senator he didn’t want to run, etc.
Name anything the Right campaigns against today and it’s a safe bet Reagan did it first. His legacy is more Lee Atwater and Dick Cheney than the rainbows we hear about today.
WoodbridgeVa // May 29, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Frum hopes to use this forum to encourage conservatives to reach out to those on the left and find common ground where cooperation is possible. Oldskool reminds us why this would be a waste of time.
TerryF98 // May 29, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I guess the truth hurts Woodbridge.
easton // May 29, 2010 at 6:36 pm
From a historical perspective, this is interesting, as to how it applies to now, not so much. The entire Federal Budget was 1 trillion then, the Dow breaking 1000 was greeted with hosannas. The biggest invention with relation to computers was the mouse and the floppy disk. Republicans choosing to live in the ever distant past are like the Generals who fight the last war, they generally lose.
This last line is telling: In the years since 1980, American conservatives have divided over what to make of the Reagan legacy.
So much for the party of creating your own legacy, it has been nearly 22 years since he left office. Children born then have since grown up and graduated from college. Why on earth do Conservatives imagine that the upcoming generations would be enthralled him. Far more importantly, which Republican today has the vision to inspire and lead America? Caribou Barbie? Mannikin Mitt Romney?
ottovbvs // May 29, 2010 at 7:10 pm
…….Overall Reagan’s presidency was a mixed bag and he badly tainted it personally with his sign off on the Iran Contra fiasco…….basically he was average and that’s where he shows up in all those scholarly presidential surveys but the right are heavily invested in turning him into some latterday FDR or Truman because other than TR (who was a Democrat in all essentials) they don’t have a 20th century president who deserves the appellation “Great”…….but that’s no problem for Republicans becaude they invent their own reality ……in this case Reagan’s “Greatness.”………..hence the fancy funeral, these endless rightwing laudatory biogs and elderly conservative spinmeisters singing his praises, and ok so those scholarly panels only rank him as average so we’ll create our own panel and rig the result but even with a stacked jury they only got him to 9th I think it was…….it’s basically a rather sad necrophilia to make up for their own failures and lack of any serious governing philosophy……I’ve nothing much against the guy……I voted for him twice……he certainly wasn’t a failure but the 80’s were not some golden age (Clinton’s presidency much better fits that description) and he certainly wasn’t one of America’s greatest presidents…….those historians are right……..he was average
msmilack // May 29, 2010 at 7:14 pm
What bothers me about Reagan is that he lied, on the record, about his service in the military. Certainly, people from both parties recall the time(s) when he claimed he was one of the soldiers who helped liberate a concentration camp only it turns out that story was a role he played in a movie (and this was many years before Alzheimer’s diagnosis). I guess you could say he was our first true celebrity president though there was a lot more to him than, say, Palin who is entirely artifice with no substance. I first took Reagan seriously as a historical figure because Obama did during his campaign, when Obama referred to Reagan as one of the presidents who changed the culture (his democratic opponents jumped on him for this at the time). But I am left with this question: what is really true about Reagan? I saw an interview with his son (Ron Jr) recently where he said Reagan wouldn’t have taken the time to talk to Palin: “My father would have known she doesn’t have a thought in her head, so he wouldn’t have wasted five minutes on her”. Meanwhile, Palin refers to Reagan like they are of like mind (of course Pain also claims the founding fathers didn’t actually draw a line between church and state –she pretty much makes it up as she goes along). I think the Obama bashers, especially the not-so-closeted bigots like Peggy Noonan will someday see Obama as I now see Reagan: a true changer of the culture. I almost feel sorry for Noonan and the other close minded conservative writers and thinkers who are unable to appreciate greatness in their own lifetime. Almost, but not quite; truth will win over their misconceptions.
mymy // May 29, 2010 at 8:39 pm
I read the book.It is a great read.Didn’t know what a nasty person J.Carter was.Didn’t know how the R.establishment worked against Reagan.I came of age during Reagan and still think of him as my President.I guess I’m not alone considering the lines at his laying in state and the attendance at the Reagan Library.
mymy // May 29, 2010 at 9:29 pm
sorry for the mis-spell 2 glasses of wine do that to me
Mercer // May 29, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Conservatives revere Reagan’s rhetoric but ignore what he actually did as President. When Lebanon turned into a mess he withdrew the marines. He raised taxes to fix social security. He signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviets. All of these actions would be denounced by today’s conservatives.
COProgressive // May 29, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Mercer wrote;
“Conservatives revere Reagan’s rhetoric but ignore what he actually did as President.”
And ignore what he actually did is in their best interest.
Reagan takes office National Debt $907 Billion.
Reagan leaves office National Debt $2,857 Billion a WOPPING 315% increase in the National debt in eight years!
But hey, it’s no big deal. Dick Cheney told me so……
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” – Dick Cheney – Economic Genius(?)
BoolaBoola // May 30, 2010 at 2:33 am
What always weirds me out about Reagan is the way some conservatives thought of him as a redeemer, someone whose presidency could somehow wipe away the stain of Vietnam.
It seems totally irrational. Reagan had nothing to do with Vietnam.
Complete Business Guide // May 30, 2010 at 2:53 am
Make Money on the Internet With an Effective Marketing Campaign…
I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
gmckee1985 // May 30, 2010 at 3:56 am
Reagan was a fantastic president. Most historians agree.
However, I prefer Calvin Coolidge, and perhaps Dwight Eisenhower to him.
ottovbvs // May 30, 2010 at 7:18 am
gmckee1985 // May 30, 2010 at 3:56 am
“Reagan was a fantastic president. Most historians agree.”
……..They don’t…….the historical panel that has been reviewing presidents for years graded him average……a stacked panel of conservative historians which was widely regarded as a joke put him at eight or nine……when are you going to enter the real world instead of just making stuff up?
ottovbvs // May 30, 2010 at 7:29 am
gmckee1985 // May 30, 2010 at 3:56 am
……..Just to stop you continually producing these porkies here’s a link to a summary of all the presidential ranking polls……if you look at the historian polls other than the rigged ones produced by the ed page of the WSJ (a real source of objectivity ho ho) Reagan is always in the average area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Mercer // May 30, 2010 at 9:45 am
” Reagan is always in the average area”
The last three surveys conducted on the grid at your link have him in the top quartile. Considering that most historians are liberals that is impressive.
Sunny // May 30, 2010 at 11:11 am
Every presidency is a mixed bag, and Reagan’s is no exception. You can bring up apartheid or AIDS or Iran/Contra (though congress didn’t exactly behave with integrity there, either) campaign tricks. Still, I have thought since his presidency (and I came of age then, too, able to vote for the first time on his second term) that he understood what Louis the 14th, the Sun King, understood — that his job was, as much as anything, the face of the United States.
What his diaries reveal is a man who genuinely liked people, most of them, including reporters (though he expresses reservations about Alexander Haig) and deeply loved his wife. He notes bemusedly that in his first 100 days, he’d met with more Democratic groups and individuals than he had with Republicans, and not just policy meetings but invitations to dinner and a movie or some fun event. His friendship with Tip O’Neil was genuine, and his sense of humor was just plain refreshing. Which meant that when it came time to pass important legislation, he had a network of people with whom he’d built a _personal_ relationship who were willing to look for areas of common interest to address things.
That leadership style — the friendly approach respecting the person on the other side even if strongly objecting to his position — is what makes the veneration of him and elevation to near god-like status so wildly ironic. The self-deprecating, friendly humor and willingness to treat the opposition with respect is *not* the hallmark of the pundits who lionize him.
lloyd // May 30, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“Make it new” was Ezra Pound’s advice to writers.
“Make it up,” was Texas Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy’s tactic in rewriting history for the next generation of American school student (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPQ3ktQNqImWyQ23yXKoCFXWrN1QD9FRH8600).
Having lived through the Reagan era with my memory intact, I have to conclude that Craig Shirley took McLeroy’s advice.
BoolaBoola // May 30, 2010 at 11:16 pm
I think Reagan’s campaign was overrated. Carter made every mistake he could think of, and then some. It seemed like every day he found a new way to shoot himself in the foot.
One of Carter’s worse mistakes was re-authorizing registration for the draft. Liberal college students like me, who should have been his base, puked all over him for that.
gmckee1985 // May 31, 2010 at 12:44 am
……..They don’t…….the historical panel that has been reviewing presidents for years graded him average……a stacked panel of conservative historians which was widely regarded as a joke put him at eight or nine……when are you going to enter the real world instead of just making stuff up?”
No, moron. When are you going to quit spouting off Daily Kos talking points?
Reagan was a FANTASTIC president. C-SPANs ranking by historians of both left and right put him at #10….Even liberals such as Douglas Brinkley put him among the best.
Reality does not seem to be a strong point of yours…
blowtorch_bob // May 31, 2010 at 1:22 am
The legacy of Ronald Reagan is currently washing up onto the shores of the Louisiana coast line.
gmckee1985 // May 31, 2010 at 2:06 am
Yeah, clearly Ronald Reagan caused oil companies to drill that far offshore instead of at a closer and more shallow depth…..You’re really intelligent…
Rabiner // May 31, 2010 at 2:26 am
Gmckee1985:
Being the 10th best President while above average isn’t what I’d call ‘fantastic’. 9 Presidents ahead of him would of been governing for 80 years out of the 190 years before Reagan took office. Considering how terrible his policies have been shown to be historically it isn’t surprising many people don’t think he was great. The only think he did for conservatives in my estimation is change the political landscape of the United States without achieving many concrete achievements.
He screwed up his dealing with the AIDS epidemic.
He screwed up with Iran-Contra.
He screwed up with the War on Drugs.
He cut domestic spending on mental health services and lead to a generation of mentally ill homeless in cities.
He screwed up the budget by ballooning the national debt.
He cut taxes far too much and while he is remembered for his 1981 tax cuts he raised taxes nearly every year of his administration afterward.
He had some successes too but the good doesn’t outweigh the bad in my mind. the Soviet Union would of collapsed regardless of Reagan. Reading about the political, social and economic divisions within the USSR which was very evident with glasnost and perestroika in the mid 1980s.
gmckee1985 // May 31, 2010 at 3:56 am
“Many people” meaning partisan democrats. Nobody that matters.
Historians on the other hand rank Ronald Reagan very favorably. I think I’ll stick with them and ignore the goofy partisan arguements from internet trolls.
ottovbvs // May 31, 2010 at 7:48 am
gmckee1985 // May 31, 2010 at 12:44 am
“Reagan was a FANTASTIC president…..Reality does not seem to be a strong point of yours”
……..I gave you the entire list or surveys…..amongst the surveys of historians other than the ones of concocted by the WSJ ed page he was consistently in the 20’s (ie. the middle) …….that’s what I call reality not your bombastic rants