Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
After former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and I finished our onstage conversation on Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Reagan hosted a dinner in Sec. Rumsfeld's honor. Afterwards, as guests left the dining room for coffee in the study, Mrs. Reagan lingered at our table, signaling to take the seat next to her, which was now vacant. During the conversation over dinner, Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater--the speech that had made Reagan a figure of national importance--had come up. Mrs. Reagan wanted me to know something about it.
"Everything was all set for Ronnie to record the speech," she said, "and then we got a phone call form Barry."
Goldwater had been talking to his advisers. They had decided against having Reagan speak on Goldwater's behalf after all. Taken aback, Reagan asked Goldwater to reconsider. Goldwater agreed to do so, telling Reagan he'd call back as soon as he could.
"There we were," Mrs. Reagan said, "sitting on the floor with the telephone between us, not knowing what would happen. Finally Barry called back. He said, 'They still don't want you to do it, but I've decided you should go ahead.'
"That speech almost didn't get given. It came that close. Just imagine how things might have been different."
Just imagine.
My friend, the late historian Arnold Beichman, often marveled at the open-endedness and contingency of history. Marx was wrong a hundred ways, Arnold always insisted, but in none more so than in supposing that history was closed, determined, inevitable. Arnold's favorite example? The 1944 Democratic convention. Franklin Roosevelt wanted the convention to nominate a man of the left as his running mate--Roosevelt's short list included William O. Douglas. Party bosses insisted on Harry Truman instead. Just three years later, Harry Truman, having become president on Roosevelt's death, was standing up to the Soviet Union to set in place the essentials of the containment policy the United States would follow for more than four decades. "Would Douglas have stood up to the Soviets like that?" Arnold would ask. "Inconceivable."
If a few party bosses hadn't stood up to FDR, in other words, the United States might not have risen to the challenge of the Cold War.
And if Barry Goldwater hadn't called Ronald Reagan back, I learned Wednesday evening, the United States might not have won the Cold War--not when we did and as we did.
History certainly leaves a lot to chance. Or--I make bold to stand with the wisdom of five or so millennia in putting it this way--to Providence.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
Incredible. Thank you, Peter.
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
What a great story. Thanks so much for sharing. And what a joy it must've been to see and talk to Nancy Reagan!
Nov '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
The image of the two of them sitting on the floor of their hotel room, waiting for a phone call, not knowing what in the world they were going to do if it didn't come through, is so human and relatable. What married couple hasn't had an occasion, or more likely, occasions, of such uncertainty and helplessness? You face the challenge. You do what you can, you make your argument. You wait. And try to reconcile with the fact its out of your hands. Amazing.
Thank God my home state's old Patriarch made the call.
Mar '11
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
This is probably not the right place for this, but you did open the door. Unless you're serious about Providence as a factor in history, I really don't understand your philosophy of history.
You have some great anecdotes about Reagan and Truman, but I'm not sure I can square your interpretation with any method of historiography. It's one thing to see the close calls we've had—which of course include almost not getting a president with a working moral compass to end the Cold War and one with an inborn strategic ability to begin it. It's quite another to think that without Reagan, or Truman, things would have somehow gone seriously wrong.
When your friend talked about the contingency and open-endedness of history, he was simply saying that any day in history is like today, ie, contingent and open-ended, because it once was today. If you're saying that Truman, or Reagan, were the "necessary men" of the moment, aren't you falling victim to the historical fallacy, or hindsight? Aren't you setting yourself up, as one famous historian said, as a judge in hell?
Jul '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
Amazing.
Has there ever been a more handsome President than President Reagan? There should be a contest.
Mar '11
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
"Or--I make bold to stand with the wisdom of five or so millennia in putting it this way--to Providence."
Providence.
Jan '11
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
It's stories like that one which make me wonder how cool it must be to be Peter Robinson. Nancy Reagan chatting at your table ... meanwhile, my car won't start and I had to call AAA. Contrast ...
As for your point, I'm fascinated with that same principle. In fact, there's a couple of nice, readable books called "What If?" (by Robert Crowley) that are great books for the porcelain-and-tile reading room. One chapter speculates about how history would have been different if Hitler had moved into the Middle East instead of trying Barbarossa. He'd have had a full supply of oil instead of divisions slaughtered in Russia. What if the early Jewish nation had been wiped out entirely, instead of having a remnant survive?
I'm not a professional historian, so I won't pretend to endorse Crowley's descriptions of what would have happened. But his premise is well-done, and his setup is intriguing. After that, the fun is in the debate that follows.
May '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
Mickey Kaus could have been a conservative if he had met Peter before Rob.
May '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
Just went to watch the speech. The farm subsidies program is still firmly in place however. I wish there could be as much energy behind killing farm program as there is behind defunding NPR.
Dec '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
Think if you hadn't been at this dinner, Peter...we'd never know this story.
Or if Al Gore had never invented the interweb, you wouldn't have been able to communicate it (other than via snail mail).
All hilarity aside, let this story be a lesson to all of us. When we see greatness coming, even if it might outshine our own real or perceived greatness, give it room to breath. Support it. We almost missed out on Reagan because Goldwater's people didn't want a rising star to outshine the respectable gleaming satellite of their boss. Understandable, given the intense nature of political campaigns, but the jealousy and in-fighting among like-minded people of (otherwise) good-will is often more damaging to a movement than outside forces.
God bless.
Edited on Mar 18, 2011 at 9:27pmMay '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
How 'bout if Ford hadn't committed his Eastern-Europe gaffe, and then doubled down on the gaffe, in his debate with Carter? That election ended up being quite close--close enough that the gaffe may have been the difference.
We may have had a President-elect Ford in '76, and then very possibly Dems to start the eighties, after which Reagan likely would have been too old to run.
Providence, yes.
Nov '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
I can't help but draw what to me is an obvious parallel to Palin in 2008. Now, whether or not Palin was an appropriate choice or analogous to Reagan in terms of leadership qualities etc. is a separate thing. My point is that there is no question that McCain's intentions in the matter were undermined by the campaign's apparently aghast handlers.
(That is, unless someone is prepared to argue that McCain's choice of Palin was to deliberately employ her as a lightning rod for ridicule; to deflect negative attention from himself.)
Palin never had a chance to be the running-mate McCain had in mind, or to show the public face of the most popular Governer in the nation as individuals involved in the campaign continually undercut her. She was the subject of what was possibly the most vicious, sustained, personal and widespread campaign of delegitimization in the history of the hard left, and instead of rallying to her we saw members steering her away from addressing criticisms, setting up attack interviews and leaking "insider" criticisms reinforcing attacks from the left.
An act of conservative cannibalism that continues to this day.
Edited on Mar 19, 2011 at 12:18pmMay '10
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
Another interesting example I just learned from Donald Rumsfeld's book: for a couple of days in '73, the buzz around Washington was that Rumsfeld was going to be Agnew's replacement as VP. If that had happened, there would have been a President Rumsfeld in '74.
And then - who knows? Maybe he would have beaten Carter in '76. No President Carter, probably no President Reagan.
(For the record, though, Rumsfeld believes he was never going to get the nod - this was just Nixon's way of diverting attention from his real pick.)
Mar '11
Re: Nancy Reagan On the Contingency of History
This should be the slogan:
R.J. Moeller: When we see greatness coming, even if it might outshine our own …, give it room to breathe. Support it. … jealousy and in-fighting … is more damaging to a movement than outside forces.
· Mar 18 at 9:25pm
Edited on Mar 18 at 09:27 pm
It's worth more for Hopen'Change than a thousand self-esteem leadership seminars.