ONLINE CHAT WITH DINESH D'SOUZA (October 13, 1999)

MODERATOR: Thank you all for joining us today with our chat with Dinesh D'Souza. Mr. D'Souza is author of Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. He will be discussing Reagan's legacy and the new bio by Edmund Morris. Let's go ahead and begin with the first question...

bobandnancy: Overall, what is your opinion of Morris' bio?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: It's terrible. To think that Morris wasted fourteen years and came up with this! Even if he could, I don't see Reagan reading this. Don't get me wrong, there are flashes of insight, and parts of the book are beautifully written. But overall, I learned nothing new about Reagan. And there's lots of foolish condescension that shows Morris, not Reagan, to be the true political amateur.

Clyde: What level of damage will the Morris book cause to the Reagan Presidential Legacy?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: None. Morris' book has been subject to an incredible public whipping. He has virtually no defenders. Even Morris's own reasons for using multiple fictitious characters and for calling Reagan an ignoramus and an apparent airhead sound hollow and ill-considered. When the dust has settled, Reagan will be seen as a great president. Admittedly today's generation of historians won't admit this. These guys have opposed Reagan all his career. But younger historians, who don't have a stake in the outcome, will recognize that landmark events occurred in the 1980s. And if Reagan didn't do them, who did...

newzhawk: Mr. D'Souza - you were such a delight to see on the talk shows last week--so sure of yourself and your evaluation of the Reagan record. Which candidate do you see as someone that will have the ability to know the right answer and point it out to the American public like Reagan?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Reagan was a great president, in the same league as Washington and Teddy Roosevelt. I don't think we'll have another like him for a while. But I'd settle for a "worthy successor," just as FDR had Truman. Right now, I don't see anyone who really deserves to inherit the Reagan mantle. But maybe someone will grow into the role.

conlib: Mr. D’Souza, did Pres. Reagan suffer from early symptoms of Alzheimer's during his last term? If so, how was it manifested?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: No. Reagan did become frustrated, particularly during Iran-contra, and sometimes he was tired and forgetful, but he showed no symptoms that were not attributable to the normal aging process. Remember that Reagan was routinely examined by doctors, especially in the second term. No Alzheimer's detected until 1994.

bobandnancy: Do you disagree simply with Morris' style? Or did he get facts wrong as well?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: The style wouldn't be bad if it illuminated the real Reagan. My problem is with the overall portrait of Reagan and Reaganism. For example, Morris gives you no sense of what America was like in 1980 when Reagan was elected. Double-digit inflation, 21 percent interest rates, a Soviet bear on the prowl, an energy crisis, hostages in Iran. Nowhere does he paint this picture.

Laur: Mr. D'Souza -- you do not think that young historians will not be affected by the attitudes of the older historians about Reagan?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Not really. Lots of presidents are re-evaluated by history. Recently Eisenhower's and Truman's reputations have soared. Kennedy will be seen, in retrospect, to be a mediocre president, elevated solely by martyrdom. Younger historians love to overturn the existing intellectual consensus. And in this case, the historical consensus is so out of line with the facts.

Angus2: Mr. D’Souza, I think Morris's book "Dutch" was for the purpose of denigrating Reagan--pure and simple! Do you think he succeeded?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: I think Morris's premise was that Reagan was not an intellectual, so therefore he was a dummy. So Morris's book is a failed attempt to explain how a dummy could be so successful. He attributes it to Reagan's good looks, acting skills and tenacious will. Still, he's schizophrenic throughout the book because frequently Reagan saw things (like the collapse of Communism) that all the learned pundits didn't. Morris can't account for this. That's why he got writer's block for years. He just couldn't figure Reagan out. Still hasn't.

myonslow: Do you think this book in the long run will have people so outraged that Reagan and his policies will end up bigger, stronger and better in the eyes of the people than he was to begin with?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: When Reagan dies there will be an incredible avalanche of goodwill toward him. His larger-than-life stature will be confirmed. Morris's failure creates the opportunity for other historians to do the definitive biography.

TGB: Mr. D’Souza, if Reagan were healthy, what do you think he would think of the conservative movement in 1999?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: In a sense conservatives have been suffering from post-Reagan success. The cold war is over, the private sector (not the government) is running the country. The only battle we haven't won is the culture war. I don't think Reagan would be happy about the way our side is fighting that.

APSEC1: Dinesh, what is your assessment of the present situation in S Asia, w/certain `outside factions'-i.e. B-A-C/NATO INSISTING on continuance of anti-societal destabilization/NOT allowing internal developments(infrastructure etc.).

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Alas, I don't know much about South Asia.

newzhawk: Why do you think Nancy Reagan chose John McCain as her pick for GOP candidate--and do you think this would have been R. Reagan's choice?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: McCain is a great guy. But so was Jimmy Carter. So was George Bush. Great guys don't necessarily make great presidents. My sense is that McCain is too captive to what elites in the media think. He has great physical courage, but does he have intellectual courage?

chalcedony9: Do you recommend people read "Dutch," while keeping aware of the fictional characters? Or is it better to just ignore it?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: There's no harm in reading the book. Probably better to do it in the library. Why support an effort that, even while it concedes that Reagan was a great president, ultimately takes a sneering view of the man?

ventoal: Mr. D’Souza - the media are going crazy trying to portray Reagan as a total Airhead. Do you think this was Morris's agenda all along?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: This is what the left wanted Morris to say. They would have loved it if Morris said Reagan had Alzheimer's disease all along. Fortunately Morris didn't say that. But the airhead charge is supported by nothing but longstanding prejudice. Reagan's humor, for example, showed how spontaneously quick-witted and mentally alert he was.

LisaDee: Sylvia Morris, like her husband, had unprecedented access to her biography's subject (Clare Boothe Luce) and smeared her as well. Do you think they both intentionally downplayed their personal feelings so they could write such smearing biographies?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: I do. This tactic of cozying up to your subject, gaining their confidence, and then exposing them, is morally distasteful (even if it's condoned by the canons of journalism). You're right that Sylvia Morris pretended to be a friend to Clare Luce in her last years, so Mrs. Luce confided in Sylvia Morris, and then wham!

JC_Bowman: Dinesh: Is there an attempt by the left to characterize all Conservatives as pseudo-intellectuals? Obviously if we do not reach the same conclusions as the left, we do not have the same intellectual capacity. Is that a problem we must address?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Not all conservatives. Newt Gingrich is viewed as smart (but evil). Bill Buckley is seen as smart. George Will too. I've never been attacked as a dummy, although I've been charged with other things. So conservatives are seen by liberals as either--a) foolish (like Dan Quayle) or b) evil. Personally I prefer to be seen as evil.

themuzicman: Mr. D'Souza - Do you think there is any chance of someone writing a better biography of Reagan, either Mr. Morris or someone else, using the information gathered by Mr. Morris?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Morris does have an archive, and if he makes that publicly available it would be helpful. Other people could make more sense of his material than he did. It would be great if someone like the British historian Paul Johnson (an Englishman who understands America) would take on this project. I might approach him with the idea.

iceleftd: Mr. D'Souza, most conservatives seem to be eager to deify Ronald Reagan. Apart from Morris’s awful approach to his work, by all accounts he seemed to present a very ambivalent or downplayed assessment of Reagan. Where is the truth in your estimation? Also as a fellow biographer, how do you react to Morris' work being received with such gravity?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Morris's work is highly controversial, but I wouldn't say it's being received with "gravity." Most of the comment has been dismissive. I don't think we should deify Reagan. He was a flawed man who had, for example, a bad relationship with his children. But he was an extraordinarily successful president. He came to change the world and he did. Not many others can say that.

griffwampatuba: Mr. D'Souza, your book, while much shorter, tended to capture the "spirit" and style of Reagan rather well (like Chesterton's "Aquinas") since you were able to focus on the proverbial forest. Mr. Morris seems to have gotten so caught up in the "trees" that he missed anything else. Do you think there is something inherent in Reagan's character or personality that makes it hard for Morris to grasp the essentials?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Yes, Reagan was outwardly gregarious but very few people could get close to him. People like Don Regan thought they were his friends, but Reagan didn't see it that way. I don't think Reagan is biographically interesting in the way that Teddy Roosevelt was. So my book was more of a biographical essay that tried to capture what Reagan stood for. I want him to get some of his due credit during his lifetime.

chalcedony9: Mr. D'Souza, do you feel that perhaps your book was a bit TOO praising of Reagan? If I remember right, you passed over Iran-Contra with barely a mention.

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Iran-contra was a big deal in 1986 but it had virtually vanished by 1987 when Gorbachev came to Washington to sign the INF treaty. I give 2-3 pages to Iran-contra in due recognition of its relative historical unimportance. I pay more attention to other flaws in Reagan that were more serious. So my book isn't uncritical. But remember, it was written to counter the overwhelmingly negative bias that's out there.

cba: Dinesh, in my view, we seem to be losing the war of words - with libs lying through their teeth about things and conservatives either failing to respond at all or failing to use strong word pictures - even truthful ones. How do you see this and what can we do to push the strong response method?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Reagan never criticized the vices of the American people. He focused on bringing out the best in people. He was optimistic and forward-looking. He invoked the past, but only to create a better future. He laughed off criticism. He used self-deprecating humor. He kept his eye on the big picture. We should learn from his rhetoric.

serferdude: What will the biographers say about Clinton years from now, and will his only favorable biographies be written in Chinese?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Clinton's true political legacy is that he became the unwitting custodian of the Reagan revolution. In 1992 he tried to undo Reaganism and failed. By 1994 he realized that he couldn't beat Reagan and so he became a reluctant born-again Reaganite. He moved the Democratic Party back to the center. These are his achievements. But as a man, I don't think Clinton has any admirers, even in his own family.

Laur: Mr D'Souza, what do you consider to be Reagan's most important trait as a leader?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: His ability to act without regard to the public opinion polls and even the face of unified opposition from elites (including conservative pundits like economic adviser Martin Feldstein, who warned Reagan not to cut taxes and raise defense spending at the same time or he would get a crippling deficit). Reagan acted on his beliefs, and he has been thoroughly vindicated.

chalcedony9: I read an article that predicted there would soon be announced that some publishing company had hired a historian to write a REAL biography. Do you think this will happen?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Haven't heard that. But there are lots of good historians who could do a fine job. I suspect that there will be lots of biographies in the next 10 years. Morris will be a quirky footnote.

TGB: Mr. D’Souza, what do think Reagan would say to Pat Buchanan?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Pat, I just don't know what happened to you. Can we have the old Pat back?

RAD_Cnsrv: What was Reagan's real view of the abortion issue?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Reagan hadn't thought much about abortion in the 1960s when he signed an abortion bill with a "health of the mother" exception. The rise in abortions that followed that legislation spurred Reagan to strengthen the qualms he already had. He was strongly pro-life by the 1970s. On his last day in office he said his greatest regret was not being able to do more to reduce abortion.

iceleftd: Mr. D'Souza: Much has been made recently about the purported disrespect that the Reagans had for the Bushes. Is there anything to that whole mess or is it just tripe?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: There was cultural tension between the Reagans and the Bushs. The Reagans were self-made people and so were their main supporters. They saw the Bushs as born with a silver spoon in their mouths. By contrast, the Bushs saw the Reagans as upstarts with lots of audacity but little breeding. Morris could have vividly captured this. Instead he gives a one-sided picture: the Reagans saw the Bushs as "the help." This is too simplistic and misses the real story.

BlackSheepOne: Mr. D'Souza, how is President Reagans general health? Is he physically well?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: He is physically strong but the Alzheimer's has taken its toll. As far as I know, the only person Reagan recognizes (and only on good days) is Nancy. Ultimately Alzheimer's kills you because your mind has to tell you to put your right foot in front of your left. So Reagan seems to be in the last stage of the disease. He could live another year or two, or he could go tomorrow.

RAD_Cnsrv: Should Reagan be given the credit for ending the Cold War?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Yes. Obviously Reagan had help: Margaret Thatcher, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walensa, the Pope. And Gorbachev played a critical role. Without Reagan and Gorbachev, the Soviet empire would still be around today.

MODERATOR: This will be the last question...

serferdude: What is your favorite Reagan quote?

SPEAKER_Dinesh_DSouza: Reagan visited his alma mater, Eureka College, in the mid 1980s. He was approached by a reporter to said, "Isn't it true that you graduated from Eureka, not exactly Princeton, with a C average?" Reagan said, "Yes. And even now I wonder what I might have accomplished if I had studied harder."

MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Mr. D'Souza, for taking the time to be with us.