The political discourse of America in recent history has been driven by a narrative – a durable myth

 John Shammas

Image © Michael Noirot

Reagan’s voice commanded a receptive audience during a period of economic stagnation with his talk of values, responsibilities and duty prevailing over a worn and laboured liberal rhetoric which lost itself in almost-exclusively discussing rights and entitlement schemes. Even today, Reagan’s critics fall so easily into playing the role of an apologist for the out-of-touch, tax-and-spend stereotype – a stereotype of which the conservative media sell to their demographic at a rate similar to that with which Apple shift iPhones. Meanwhile, the key contemporary GOP field today – the Bachmans, the Palins and the Gingrichs of this world do not have to function as stand-alone politicians: instead their key occupation is to merely serve as apparatus to the echo-chamber of the Reagan myth.

Reaganism constitutes a politics of post-modern structuralism which has such obvious and explicit endurance today. It is driven by a mythology that highlights the fact that the key battleground issues of the 1960’s have never been fully resolved. The disputes, shifts and changes of the era cannot be solely defined and dictated by political or partisan preference. Crucially, the durability of the Reagan myth feasts of the evanescence of a counterculture informed by individual choices, moral standing and personal identity which has dissipated into consumerism, materialism and ideological separation.

And the emphasis here must ultimately arrive at that last point: ideological separation. So often, in his election campaign in 2008 and even in last week’s State of the Union address, Obama idealistically speaks of bi-partisanship, cooperation and ideological synthesis. However, he has been wholesomely defeated in his campaign. The essential legacy that Reaganism has engrained upon our politics is displayed in how viscerally and unapologetically we define ourselves in ideological terms. Partisanship is not an issue. Partisanship is the issue. 

Affirmative action, crime, welfare, school prayer and abortion are extensions of battles that long precede the Reagan era, however the echoes of the actor from llinois today consciously dictate the political discourse on these issues on both sides of the paradigm. You’re either for tax-cuts, or tax-hikes. Small government, or big government. You either watch FOX, or you watch MSNBC. We have arrived at a politics of resentment. Make no mistake – Rove, Norquist, Gingrich et al have all reserved a place for Reagan’s fiery ideological deadlock at the table of American political discourse.

To state that Reaganism has simply increased the distance of which separates Left and Right, emphasised disparity and endorsed polarisation is in fact arriving short on the issue. Whilst that might seem initially bold, we must not undervalue what constitutes the intrinsic nature of the Reagan legacy. Such widespread, tangible marginalisation within the media, or more immediately within our parliaments and our senates would not be possible without the actor-turned-president. Can we genuinely imagine a world in which Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity or any of the FOX News entourage entertain discussions on the nationality of their President not because of the colour of his skin, but because he is a Democrat?

Although I am sure Ronald would be quick to tell us otherwise, bringing down the Iron Curtain is today not the most visible political legacy of Reaganism – nor is the existence of Rocky IV – it is something much more widespread. Since the 1980’s, political ideology (on both sides) has shifted overwhelmingly towards the right. Democrats no longer occupy centre-left. They occupy the centre-right – they’re the new Republicans. As for the Republicans, they have shifted from residing on the centre-right of the political spectrum to residing in a mental hospital.