HBO Filmmaker Slams Reagan: His Policies Hurt Those He Sought to Help
Those who admired Ronald Reagan may want to steer clear of tonight's HBO documentary on the former president if that film's director's comments, on Monday's Hardball, are an indication of how slanted the project will be, as he denied many of Reagan's historic accomplishments. From reinvigorating the economy to defeating the Soviet Union, Eugene Jarecki, who also wrote the film, was egged on by MSNBC host Chris Matthews to disallow the 40th president much of his legacy as he charged Reagan's economic policies "hurt the very people he sought...to most help" and claimed the idea he ended the Cold War was "a myth."
Matthews, wasted no time in getting Jarecki to slam Reagan's policies, as seen in the following exchange:
(video, audio and transcript after the jump)
MATTHEWS: What do you make of him, in terms of the bad side of him? I want to talk about the part you didn't put in, perhaps, in the documentary. He didn't really care about the environment. He seemed to have a hard time figuring out the role that social policy, Social Security, Medicare, how they helped real people. Yet if you he confronted a case of a real person in trouble he would sort of write a check to that person. How do you put that together?
EUGENE JARECKI, FILMMAKER: Well as many people in the film told us, especially his family members, talked about a man who, yes, on a personal level could really have his heart go out to people. If you had a problem, he'd give you the shirt off his back but then he would turn around and engage in policy making that was deeply hurtful to people. As if, when he saw a group of people, he had trouble seeing them as a group of individuals he might care about. And so the heartbreaking part about him, and it is in the film, a little bit, in part of the whole bigger picture that we show about him is that Ronald Reagan, in many ways, presented himself as a friend to Main Street America. He'd come from the heartland. He'd come from a small town. And yet, at the end of the day that Reader's Digest America, that's the very America his policies did the most to hurt. I think he didn't mean to do that. I agree with definitely the portrait of Ronald Reagan where this is a man of deep care and deep intentions and deep love of his country. But I think there were mistakes made. There were policy ideas he had, Reaganomics and others that just hurt the very people he sought, I think, to most help.
Later on in the interview Jarecki also shared that "Everybody wants to play the sort of 'Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War' game...it's one of the many myths we hear about him" and on Iran-Contra told Matthews: "I think there were many voices around...who thought what he was doing in the Iran-Contra affair was both impeachable and also felonious" and added "when told it would break the law, Ronald Reagan forged right on ahead. So I don't know that even the best advisers would have been able to stop him."
The following exchanges were aired on the February 7 edition of Hardball:
[5:48pm EDT]
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday would have been yesterday. And tonight on HBO a new documentary takes a look at President Reagan's life - the good, the bad and let's face it, the unknowable. Here's a clip.
(Clip from documentary)
MATTHEWS: Eugene Jarecki's documentary Reagan debuts tonight on HBO. Thank you, Gene. It's always interesting into these character studies. And I'm your classic viewer because I grew up watching Ronald Reagan on GE theater, every Sunday night at 9. It was number three. It was in the top ten almost all the time. I really liked the guy. Then I disagreed with his politics and then I liked him again as an historic figure. I'm one of your mixed up guys. What do you make of him, in terms of the bad side of him? I want to talk about the part you didn't put in, perhaps, in the documentary. He didn't really care about the environment. He seemed to have a hard time figuring out the role that social policy, Social Security, Medicare, how they helped real people. Yet if you he confronted a case of a real person in trouble he would sort of write a check to that person. How do you put that together?
EUGENE JARECKI, FILMMAKER: Well as many people in the film told us, especially his family members, talked about a man who, yes, on a personal level could really have his heart go out to people. If you had a problem, he'd give you the shirt off his back but then he would turn around and engage in policy making that was deeply hurtful to people. As if, when he saw a group of people, he had trouble seeing them as a group of individuals he might care about. And so the heartbreaking part about him, and it is in the film, a little bit, in part of the whole bigger picture that we show about him is that Ronald Reagan, in many ways, presented himself as a friend to Main Street America. He'd come from the heartland. He'd come from a small town. And yet, at the end of the day that Reader's Digest America, that's the very America his policies did the most to hurt. I think he didn't mean to do that. I agree with definitely the portrait of Ronald Reagan where this is a man of deep care and deep intentions and deep love of his country. But I think there were mistakes made. There were policy ideas he had-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
JARECKI: -Reaganomics and others that just hurt the very people he sought, I think, to most help.
MATTHEWS: You know I think he did some really important things historically. And I think one was dealing with the Soviet Union. An early signal, I think, very important was the breaking of the PATCO strike. It sent a signal. They had backed him in the election in '80. He broke those guys when they wildcatted and that sent a signal. I got this word through sources. I mean I think it was Dwayne Andrews told Tip O'Neill, and I heard it from him, that over there in the Soviet Union they said "Wow! This guy's for real this isn't Jimmy Carter we're dealing with. This is a strong president we're dealing with." That's one story. How did he get the idea that Gorbachev was somebody different? He wasn't one of these old Molotov communists that were automatons. That he could actually deal with them as a human being and, and deal with the end of the Cold War with this guy?
JARECKI: Well I think there's no question everybody wants to play the sort of "Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War" game. And we've been listening to that myth. It's one of the many myths we hear about him. And what you then learn, as I did, when I got into the footage was I learned about how deeply taken Ronald Reagan was by Mikhail Gorbachev personally and I think by the almost movie-esque idea that the leader of one country could make friends with the leader of another country, across this extraordinary gap. And I think it's the friendship between them i.e. negotiating with our adversaries that's one of Ronald Reagan's real, great strong suits that one would want to praise about him.
MATTHEWS: Yeah and I'll just say I don't think someone like George Herbert Walker Bush would have gotten a clue.
JARECKI: Sure.
MATTHEWS: I think a lot of people around him, like Ed Meese, didn't understand it's not all ideology. There are people out there you can deal with. Here's one of my friends, Nancy Reagan, I think she's, I want to talk to you. Because I think she got rid of Don Regan, one of the worst pests that Reagan ever had.
JARECKI: She did.
MATTHEWS: He almost ruined his presidency. Tip O'Neill called up his friend, Lee Iacocca. He said, "Get a hold of Sinatra, get a hold of Nancy and get rid of that guy, that bum. He's hurting the President." It worked, didn't it? They got rid of him.
JARECKI: Yes, yes. One of the things we go over in the film is the extent to which Nancy Reagan was such a vital element in her husband's success. And there's no question that Stuart Spencer, a long time friend and adviser of the President, talked about the way in which the way Nancy watched the President's back. And, in many ways, what he characterized, and James Baker did this as well, is that Ronald Reagan himself, was a lot more guileless-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
JARECKI: -in many ways than the people around him. And Nancy did a very necessary job in discovering whether people were working for her husband's agenda or their own-
MATTHEWS: Yeah like Don Regan!
JARECKI: And isn't that the story of today? You know we have so many people with their privately held agendas, using Ronald Reagan in ways that I don't think are fair to who he was and cared about.
MATTHEWS: Well let's take, well said. Let's take a look at Nancy Reagan, Eugene.
(Clip from documentary)
MATTHEWS: Yes or no? Would there have been an Iran-Contra catastrophe if Jim Baker had stayed as chief of staff for the whole eight years?
JARECKI: I think there were many voices around Ronald Reagan who thought what he was doing in the Iran-Contra affair was both impeachable and also felonious-
MATTHEWS: Okay.
JARECKI: -and Ronald Reagan was advised about that. And one of the things we discover in the film are the documents that have now come to light that showed that when told it would break the law, Ronald Reagan forged right on ahead. So I don't know that even the best advisers would have been able to stop him.
MATTHEWS: Okay, well thank you. Okay, Eugene Jarecki, thanks for joining. Reagan the documentary airs tonight on HBO.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
- Geoffrey Dickens's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Welfare and Food Stamps
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 8:27pm.
I'm guessing that this heartless President felt it best for people not to be reliant on the federal government for basic needs. Reagan had a pretty rough childhood. It didn't hold him back.
It's the basic, simple premise, that it's fine for me to give somebody a personal handout, if I feel that's suitable, but it's not fine for me to tell somebody else that they have to provide that "handout" or charity to somebody else.
Pretty simple stuff.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
The Libs are Divided
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 8:35pm.
Part of them are desparately invoking Reagan and trying to connect him to Obama in order to make O look more presidential. The other half are continuing to vilify Reagan as the worst person to stalk the earth since Hitler. Of course, we know they all hate really Reagan. Just some are more honest about it while others are just trying to be deceptive to the general populace.
Blah Blah Blah
Submitted by donabernathy on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 8:37pm.
two Balloon Heads..... Pick'n up their propaganda checks...
roflmao
But Obama is Reagan like how exactly?
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 8:40pm.
This from the group of as%%%%%s who are doing a documentory with this supposed "newsguy" Matthews on Bill Clinton who DID commit crimes and DID get impeached?.
But that womanizing, gutless coward was/is "President of the world".
Simply put, "F^&^&^& everyone who works for this F76*%^&&^ network and F8675bft anyone that watches it and thinks it is real news".
How many sexual assaults, payoffs and lies during the President of the worlds administration Tingles?
I am stepping away as this whole assault on a damn good man is really p78776ng me off.
Tomorama,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:04pm.
I'm not clear, is it that you don't like Clinton or Matthews?
<sarc> I know the feeling.
As usual
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 8:46pm.
The Left equating personal charity with government redistributive seizure of personal assets.
Redistribution
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 8:55pm.
But Governmental Redistribution provides the ruling class with power and wealth! It's not just a philisophical argument.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Reagan on loop
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 8:48pm.
Seems these days the defense of Reagan stories is on an infinite loop. My three cents - while Reagan did some great things, his faults and missteps should not be ignored. Since Reagan isn't up for official sainthood this is as good a time as any to debate his legacy, both the good and the bad.
Some people like cake.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 8:53pm.
And some people don't like cake.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Absolutely wrong
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:16am.
While we have this piece of excrement running the WH, we need to show by contrast what a great president looks like. And unlike the Messiah, everyone makes mistakes.
Keep this stupidity in your pants where it belongs.
The Left Cannot Stand Honest Sensible Politicians
Submitted by joinamerica on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:00pm.
I am sincerely puzzled at what it is the left wants from their politicians. To be lied to? To be tricked? To be bribed?
Can you imagine if any film maker took a careful look at the absolute catastrophe of the misnamed "Great Society/War On Poverty"? Look at our inner cities, 50 years after the infusion of billions and billions (trillions?) of dollars into these areas. They have been under continuous Democratic rule for half a century and look at them. Once, long ago, poor people were poor but respectable. Today's poor, after 50 years of government handouts, are anything but self-respecting. Their communities are permeated with drugs and crime, their illegitimacy rates continue to skyrocket, their schools are the worst in the nation.
Liberal ideas and policies have failed so completely that there is no rationale for continuing them, except as a means to buy votes. And never, ever, will one of these leftwing showbiz types have the courage to even consider taking an honest look into what a failure our welfare state has proven to be. But they are very pleased to insist that Reagan's far more effective and truly empowering policies are harmful for people.
Purely irrational.
joinamerica - war on poverty is impoverishing
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:14pm.
I don't usually like to c/p but this is from Heritage (biased I know)
Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).....
Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).
In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third from $522 billion to $697 billion. The combined two-year increase will equal almost $263 billion ($88.2 billion in FY 2009 plus $174.6 billion in FY 2010). After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two and a half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual federal welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.
Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.
While campaigning for the presidency, Obama lamented that "the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month." Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.
we should rush to judgement*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:01pm.
We don't have a lot of time to debate the good and bad of a president. Not one long past, but the one sitting in the chair today. The liberal media did all they could to lie and cheerlead for Obama. We are in serious trouble in this country, economy is tanking, divisiveness is rising. We do need to debate the good and bad of Obama because 2012 may be the most important time in our history. I respected RR but it is imperative we focus on this president.
There is a blue sky
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:13pm.
Fortunately God gave man free will, as well as a constantly evolving brain that allows for humans to make decisions for themselves. Only a fool would believe what he is told without using critical thinking to self educate on such serious matters as governmental operations, or even who may have been a great leader. They'll rip you off.
Better time and place perhaps to use that "will"?
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 10:58pm.
Genius, nobody is cannonizing Reagan, but any anger is directed at the same buffoons like Matthews who are USING the former Presidents Birthdate to bash him while ad after ad are for this same networks whoring of the facts when it comes to an impeached adulterer in W J Clinton.
I am still ticked at Reagan for getting out of Lebanon so fast in 1983, I am still a little ticked that he raised taxes a little too much for my liking..............
And I WILL NEVER GET OVER HIS BRINGING RON Jr upon us.
That being said, the continual bashing of Reagan who was more of a deep thinker and a man than any of these panty waist liberals who couldn't hold a candle to him on the actual love and respect he gave this country is appaling.
On his B-day we get this, on Clintons there will be knee pads passed out and the chubby girls and "leg tinglers" start a conga line, but "Miss strong and powerful pants suit" is just fine with it as long as Miss powerful get's to keep the Clinton name.......
All being served up by this third world type media that picks sides in real time arguments instead of hmmmmmm "All the news that's fit to print"...
Hrrrmph, "All the news that's fit to omit"......
I'm certain that Lil Ron...
Submitted by KyWriter on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:59pm.
...would dive in here and slap their heads together for insulting his father's memory.
On the other hand, it's more likely he would just slip on a pair of briefs and pile on with the rest of them.
Debate Reagan's legacy with who, exactly?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:13pm.
Members of the media who just recently have said good things about Reagan in an attempt to burnish the credentials of the LOTUS?
The same media who trash Palin (or any conservative) ad nauseum, and laud Da Messiah (or any liberal) as exemplary in all areas of thought and action?
Yeah, that'll be an even sided event as far as deciding whether or not Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, made any mistakes worth noting or accomplishments worth hiding away in a locked media compartment.
Of course Reagan fell short on some occasions, but if his good points are not defended at every turn; if his legacy is left to the machinations of the Left, the Lib-Dims will bury all his good deeds just as his corporal body was buried.
Irrevocably.
MD
The commies hated Ronald Reagan the entire eight years...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:19pm.
...of his presidency, and it wasn't just the commies the world over, but the ones right here in America.
Clearly, nothing has changed.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
hero's falling short
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:27pm.
Both the inability of allowing your heroes to fall short and the need to tear down others is narcissistic personality disorder (really good article if somewhat dry - at least it starts with a song). Not that everyone who posts to political web site is narcissistic even though it could be argued that the anonymous nature brings out the inner narcissist. But is clear that as a society that as we become more “intellectual” and less labor intensive we are becoming more narcissistic. That is, if you believe in that psychological stuff.
Well, let's see what kind of
Submitted by celator on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:21pm.
Well, let's see what kind of "films" Jarecki spends his time and money producing.
"Why We Fight"-- Is American foreign policy dominated by the idea of military supremacy? Has the military become too important in American life? Jarecki's shrewd and intelligent polemic would seem to give an affirmative answer to each of these questions.
"The Trials of Henry Kissinger"-- A film about the war crimes of the American diplomat, Henry Kissinger.
"Reagan"-- With a firm grasp of Reagan's story, Jarecki avoids the predictable and takes the long view on Reagan's life and influence, while staying centered on him as a man of deep contradiction; an American whose patriotism paradoxically led him to impeachable acts. (bold mine)
Summaries from Internet Movie Data Base:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1822382/
Hmmm, seems like a trend here. Another useful idiot, it looks like.
Let us debate, Kennedy,
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:30pm.
Let us debate, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter before we tear into Reagan, he had to deal with their wonderful legacies.
Was he even alive when Reagan was President?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:40pm.
I don't see a date of birth for Eugene Jarecki. I wonder if this is just another garden variety liberal revisionist trying desperately to gain attention for an otherwise trite piece of garbage.
can't blame Jarecki
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:45pm.
his central source for creating the movie was Ron Reagan Jr.
GIGO.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:46pm.
Garbage in....garbage out.
gigo
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:49pm.
sorry forgot to cite
Reagan increased the black
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 10:58pm.
Reagan increased the black middle class by more than sixty percent to nearly 4 million. He sure hated black people. Indeed, all you have to do is look at Detroit and LA and New Orleans to see the real results of 'compassionate' liberal socialist policies.
Eugene Jarecki, the Edward D.
Submitted by richflanj on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 9:48am.
Eugene Jarecki, the Edward D. Wood of our time.......