Reagan: A Story Half-Told
When one enters the Reagan Library, there isn’t much thought put into how biased the conveyance of Reagan is; naturally, knowledge in a museum is presumed to be objective and telling. Though there is some truth in what is presented by the curators of the Reagan Library, the narrative of Reagan is incredibly biased, and this can be seen past the innocuous air presented by the museum which subliminally implants the notion that Reagan has done no wrong.
Upon entering the exhibits of the museum, after having viewed a video noting on Reagan’s accomplishments, participants are graced with a room that emphasizes Reagan’s humanity. Most items are akin to this letter to his wife, Nancy. The purpose, it seems, it to set the foundation for the journey attendants are about to undergo; Reagan is introduced as a normal man who is sweet, kind, and is incapable of malicious intent. It is intoxicating, really, how relatable Reagan appears in this setting. He has passions, goals, and ambition as any one does, and these are stressed in the first part of the museum. Stories of love, acting, and horseback riding disarm anyone who may have ill notions of Reagan upon entering the museum.
After meeting Reagan, attendees are then informed of his presidency, and this is all a bit implicit. Only facts supportive to Reagan are described in detail, such as his landslide victories in taking the electoral college (on both accounts), and an emphasis is placed on how Reagan is essentially the savior of the American Dream and capitalism through Reaganomics. The museum does this mainly with relations to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fight against communism. Realistically speaking, however, the fall is contributed to a multitude of factors, and was not solely due to Reagan’s contribution. It was moreover being president at the right time. This quotation from Reagan’s diary is used to exemplify how humble Reagan is. After painting this superhero image of Reagan, viewers are reminded of his humanity, suggesting that even though he is this great human being, he possesses no hubris.
I noted this picture of Reagan casually putting away in the oval office. The museum’s atmosphere is littered with this humanization of Reagan; even in his workplace he is portrayed as this fun, relatable guy. By the time someone is through the museum they truly feel like they understand Reagan, and that he is a friend. Honestly, I was catching myself having the thoughts, “Did Reagan really do anything wrong?” The museum betrays its audience with controlled facts. They’re not displaying any lies, but there also a great lack of truth to Reagan’s presidency in the museum.
One of the two sections of the museum that don’t directly discuss Reagan are those that discuss his wife and one that directly discusses communism. Hitherto this point of Reagan’s story, the museum has been well lit, warm, and it’s as though one has been walking through the halls of one of the greatest men to have ever lived. To say there was some juxtaposition to the section discussing communism is a bit of an understatement. The lighting of the room and the image here are dramatically different to the rest of the museum. The room on communism is dimly lit, cold, and violent. Needless to say, with the quotations and images expressing totalitarianism and oppression make The United States, and more specifically Reagan’s presidency, look like a paradise.
After being thrown back into the more comfortable atmosphere and being taught a bit more of Reagan’s greatness and reliability, patrons are left with this.
There are no captions. No employees to tell you how much Reagan loves jellybeans or how he saved the pride of the American people. Just a segment of the Berlin Wall. I feel this is done in part to let you, the citizen, reflect on the whole of Reagan’s story. Now, keeping in mind that the past hour or so was spent embedding the notion that Reagan is the sole proprietor of the resurgence of American Dream, one would likely remark the exhibit as a homage to Reagan’s success, further solidifying the image of Reagan the museum is trying to convey. Effective, I would say.
When viewing political information I always have a sense of ambiguity; I never am sure of how biased the source is and don’t know if the information I just ingested is true. Leaving the museum this feeling was never more prevalent. Coming into the Reagan Library I thought him as a decent man, but when knowingly being subjected to an environment designed to make him likable, I then like him less. Simply the nature of that underhandedness is enough; the details are not very determinant with that intention behind them.
I’m then left to question every sentiment I encounter. in this case, it was not Reagan so much, but more the entity of his presidency. It was the curators who decided what to make visible to the public, and I do not find Reagan’s personality notably questionable. To reiterate, the truth was being conveyed, just not the whole truth. In some cases maybe not even a fifth of the truth. For what it’s worth, Reagan was a man who had passions and goals; who loved genuinely and was a real, and the museum conveyed that.
I do not believe that the museum had an accurate portrayal of Reagan’s presidency, however. To understand that the museum can only offer so much, and even then it’s a process of dissecting every part of the process and picking out the facts. To truly grasp what Reagan’s presidency was research must be done. An easily overlooked blemish of Reagan would be the Iran-Contra Affair, in which Reagan’s fear of communism lead him to illegally sell weapons to totalitarian insurgents. Quite a thing to disregard when giving an in-depth understanding of political affairs. Keeping an open mind is key, and it is important to not misconstrue romanticized accounts and facts; but, finding the facts in those tales is integral to true understanding.
