FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The World of Make-Believe: Nancy Reagan in the White House

“It’s true that Mrs. Reagan has an interest in astrology.”

Marlin Fitzwater, New York Times, May 4, 1988

What is expected of America’s first ladies? Having deposed the king as a suitable head of state, the American Revolutionaries decided to go for a pseudo-aristocratic option with all the spousal trimmings. After a brief flirt with the idea that George Washington might himself be crowned, the Republican model was embraced. The standard White American Male would come with a standard White American Female and inhabit what would, in due course, be the White House.

The curriculum vitae of such a first lady has altered with time. Lady Bird Johnson prompted syndicated columnist Max Freedman to wonder whether her campaigning on her husband’s behalf marked “the emergence of women as central figures in a national contest instead of being on the edges of a campaign.”[1]

None of this mattered with the late Nancy Reagan, whose role is already being given the cosmetic makeover and fashion re-design she so desperately sought herself. Her role is being touted as that of carer for her ailing husband, a defender of the ill, a reminder of glory days. For all that, the BBC would still remark that she “was one of the most influential first ladies in US history”.

Many of the tributes have reflected on her role as first lady, though these are decidedly guarded when not gushing. According to President Barack Obama, she “redefined the role in her time here”. He spared those bothering to read his statement the details about what that transformation entailed, preferring to focus on her role in becoming “a voice on behalf of millions of families going through the depleting, aching reality of Alzheimer’s”.

More to the point, the Ronald and Nancy Reagan show, when it arrived in Washington in 1980, announced to the world that thespianism had well and truly come to Washington. As Gore Vidal noted with customary bite, Nancy, on her arrival, wooed “Washington’s old guard, the Bright Old Things as they are dubbed”.[2] The BOT establishment were charmed, then bemused by the couple’s absolute disregard for power, politics, history, literature or art.

Not even the valiant efforts of The National Review editor William J. Buckley, Jr. could dispel that suggestion, though he was closer to the mark in observing that the first lady was not “by any means simply the silent female appendage some people so mistakenly suppose her to be.”[3] She had firm “positions, stated and unstated, on most (a) people, (b) issues, and (c) matters.”

What did matter to the first lady, apart from protecting Ronnie from wicked influences, were such things as redecoration and the whole show. Appearance was everything, evidenced by her advice to current first lady Michelle Obama to have as many state dinners as possible. The White House kept her busy, as did designer dresses in the order of $1m. There was little chance here of “trickle down” economics in her view of the world. Everything would be flowing her way, whatever the supply side economists were going to say.

A troubling conduit for Nancy’s influence over White House and presidency was astrology, though previous presidencies had not been immune from an interest in it. She expressed her reasons for turning to astrology in her memoir, My Turn (1989). Resorting to extra-terrestrial forces and the coded messages of star signs was prompted by an assassination attempt on husband Ronald. “I’m scared every time he leaves the house,” she explained to the anointed astrologer and confidant Joan Quigley. In May 1988, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater would confirm that fact to the press corps, though the Reagan love affair with astrology went back to their California days.

For her part, Quigley was delighted, feeling a swollen pride that comes through in her tedious What Does Joan Say?: My Seven Years as White House Astrologer to Nancy and Ronald Reagan (1990). The document acts as both dump and revelation, revealing that Quigley influenced the timing of press conferences, “most speeches, the State of the Union addresses, the takeoffs and landings of Air Force One.”

The papers at the time acknowledged this uncomfortable extension of astrological persuasiveness in the White House inner circle, though it was perfectly in accord with the casual indifference of the couple to the serious dimension of politics. Hollywood and astrology were hardly alien to each other, both being fabrications of illusion.

The New York Post suggested that Quigley was, in no small part, running the establishment with her astral meddlesomeness, while Nancy, finding herself exposed, suggested that no such dominance was ever established. “While astrology was a factor in determining Ronnie’s schedule,” she countered, “it was never the only one, and no political decision was ever based on it.”

In terms of plausibility, Quigley’s account has it over Nancy. The White House staffers, perplexed and then concerned, received the first lady’s ire when scepticism entered discussions and the operations of the rumour mill. The autocratic Chief of Staff Donald Regan was dismissed by first lady diktat in February 1987, something she claimed was instigated by advice from then Vice President George H. W. Bush. Along with adviser Michael Deaver, she duly encouraged Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert Strauss to persuade the president about Regan’s faults.[4]

Regan, from his perspective, smarted enough at this palace coup to aim at the Reagan presidency in his own For the Record (1988). Time and time again, he claimed, the astrologer was there to guide Nancy’s decisions, be it her husband’s operation and health, to the issue of the Iran-contra scandal.

“It’s no secret that [she] wanted to get rid of me. She thought I was bringing the President down and apparently didn’t care for me personally. She fanned the flames of bad publicity.” As Public Relations Queen, she would do all to protect the Great Communicator, conceal the state of his health, and poison relations when needed.

The passing of this last half of the Reagan duo was bound to give some Republicans the leaky eye. As with eyes filled with moisture, sight is blurred and clarity eschewed. The GOP presidential nominee of 2012, Mitt Romney, spoke of the Reagans as that couple who, with “charm, grace, and a passion for America… reminded us of the greatness and the endurance of the American experiment.”

That experiment, for the most part, was the most daring of illusions, unsurprisingly centred on the bringing of Hollywood to the White House. Political and economic reality was entirely subverted, being for other people, and the world of make-believe, a title aptly deployed in Laurence Leamer’s book by that title on the Reagans, triumphed.[5]

Notes.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/whats-the-point-of-a-first-lady/380753/

[2] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1983/09/29/the-best-years-of-our-lives/

[3] http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1985/06/reagans198506

[4] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/06/nancy-reagan-speaks-out-about-obamas-the-bushes-and-her-husband

[5] http://www.amazon.com/Make-Believe-Story-Nancy-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0060151021

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail