Tear Down This Myth by Will Bunch - Literature review Example

Tear Down This Myth Tear Down This Myth Introduction Tear Down This Myth is a book by award-winning journalist Will Bunch that unravels the tale of how a right-wing cabal seized the diverse legacy of Ronald Reagan and revived their vanishing ideology when they turned him into a bronze icon. They were successful to the level where every Grand Old Party (GOP) presidential candidate, in 2008, dashed to claim Reagan’s mantle, no matter how disgraceful the fit. With a somewhat clear vision and a chronic wit, Bunch (2009) exposes the truth concerning the Ronald Reagan legacy. With a masterful insight, the author exposes this unsafe effort to redesign Americas future through rewriting its past. As the Obama government charts its course, he claims, it must do so creatively by the dead burden of unearned and misplaced reverence (Bunch, 2009). This paper will review this writing basing it on the information the author uses to support his arguments, likes and dislike about the book, elements of style used in the work, the author’s central claim and finally, seen flaws in the clarity or logic of the author’s claim. Question 1 The author sites examples from historians, Reagan’s tax cut and other leaders’ policies that echoed Reagan’s endeavors as information to support her arguments. Bunch (2009) argues that, in spite of Reagans worship of the last 15 years, his standard fame as president was lower compared to that of half a dozen of other contemporary presidents. Bunch (2009) supports his points by claiming that, when Reagan was in office, most Americans opposed a majority of his policies and principles and, by 1988, seven years into his presidency, most citizens strongly felt that the country was cruising on the wrong path. Reagans 1981 tax reduction, weighted greatly towards the wealthy people, did not lead to the financial recovery of the 80s. It was caused rather by decreasing oil prices, the return to normalcy of the business cycle, and the firm fiscal principles of the head of the Federal Reserve chosen by Jimmy Carter. However, Reagans tax reduction did assist in ushering in the deregulated current era of Wall Street and CEO greed (Bunch, 2009). A majority of historians also concur that Reagans waste-driven army buildup did not succeed in the Cold War, but the internet effort in the Soviet Union did. Reagan mythmakers always tend to ignore his actual contributions -- his eagerness to speak to his Soviet opponents, his real desire to get rid of nuclear weapons, as well as the astounding task of a "liberal" Hollywood-produced TV film. Bill Clintons and George H. W. Bushs rolling back of Reaganomics in the 90s prompted years of peace and wealth together with the intransigent campaign to blow up the allegory of Ronald Reagan and reinstate right-wing domination over Washington (Bunch, 2009). This attempt led to bankrupt energy policies, war, in addition to coming generations of debt. His story did become more positive and rose at just the right time, when American citizens had had enough of the "dissatisfaction" of the Jimmy Carter days and needed an individual who pledged to make the country feel good regarding itself once more (Bunch, 2009). However, Reagans positive legacy as president these days hinges on events, which most historians argue were to some enormous actions out of his control: financial recovery, which was predictable, particularly when global oil prices decreased to their normal levels, and a conclusion to the Cold War, which was more persuaded by internal proceedings in the Soviet Union plus Eastern Europe than the United States wants to admit (Bunch, 2009). Question 2 The author offers a recollection of stories of Reagans reign, which are both good and bad. Bunch (2009) reminds the reader that Reagan was not mainly popular throughout most of his reign and that the majority of Americans had good reason to question whether the nation was in able hands. Bunch discusses the Iran-Contra saga, which almost ended Reagans term in office as he was nearly impeached. Far from being an economic regime downsizer, Reagan added a stunning $2 trillion to the U.S. debt and also grew the management. Bunch reminds the reader that Reagan was the novel "cut and run" actor, as well, pulling American troops out of an unsuccessful mission in Lebanon weeks just after 241 Marines were brutally murdered there in a terrorist attack (Bunch, 2009). Readers are also reminded that Reagans proposal to Iran to set free hostages only resulted in more American citizens being seized and that his financial plans spread the germs of greed and deregulation, which Americans are still reaping. We also observe Ronald Reagan, the leader who detested committing troops to battle, who was a realist economist who increased taxes when his drip down theories did not efficiently work and whose individual relations with the Soviets came close to driving the world to nuclear war (Bunch, 2009). The second part of the Bunch’s book presents the people included in turning Reagan into a poster child for theories, which he did not adopt. Individuals such as Grover Norquist and others are exposed transforming Reagan into a campaigner of constant tax reductions, elimination of long-time fiscal principle and intervener in international affairs (Bunch, 2009). George W. Bush keenly utilized his mantle, and now even Obama is not capable of escaping his shadow. Question 3 Other than laying out the important facts, Bunch (2009) writes well and interestingly. He is extremely fair in his work. For example, it is trouble-free for one to think that the assault Grenada, such a small nation, coming close to the heels of the naval barracks tragedy, was destined to divert the public attention from Reagans incompetence. Bunch disagrees on this, pointing out, but not totally convincing, that the assault had been in his government agenda for a while for some time. Bunch (2009) argues well that Reagans fame grew at the end of his term only when he had been so destabilized by his own mistakes that he had to call it quits to politics. Also, he was lucky in becoming an Alzheimers casualty, gaining people’s compassion as he left office. Will Bunchs iconoclasm is intensely essential. It is also superbly entertaining. The author used clear-cut language that even a high school student could easily understand the content. In some instances, Bunch (2009) opted to use strong words such as stating that Reagan’s story arc became more buoyant instead of simply saying that Reagan’s story became more positive. Also, worlds such as malaise that were used to describe people’s feeling towards Jimmy Carter could make someone think that people hated Jimmy Carter, but it simply means that they were uncomfortable with him being the head at that time. In some cases, Bunch’s (2009) sentence structures were not grammatically correct such as beginning sentences with “and,” “but” and “because.” However, overall, the errors in the work were minimal, which means the work went through proper editing before its publication. This made the work efficient as one understood the points that the author was giving. Question 4 The main claim of Bunch (2009) is that conservatives recast what he ponders as a discordant former leader, Ronald Reagan, into a symbol in order to revitalize the Right’s political podium. Throughout this book, Bunch uses the mantel “Everybody wishes to be Reagan” that appeared to reverberate all through the 2008 Republican primary election. He shifts from that point to offer a summary of how mythologers have established a legend through a mixture of stagecraft and revisionism, and then goes on to review the both positive and negative, mostly focusing on the negative, history of Reagan as president and political figure, and analyses it against the "myth." The author thinks not only leaders such as George W. Bush try to copy endeavors from Reagan, but also the recent leader, Barack Obama, used to Reagan mantle during his primary and national campaigns. Bunch (2009) thinks that trying to iconize this leader by both Bush and Obama only came natural to them, and it was not something the two forced themselves to do. What Bunch (2009) argued concerning Reagan giving himself credit for ending the economic challenges during his reign and also the Cold War is what Americans have also been doing today. They intervene into a crisis, play the least part and give themselves full credit. Question 5 According to Bunch (2009) Reagan is often described as an arms hawk who took down the Soviet Union with aggressive military expenditure. This is not a tenable claim because it does not consider his arms control efforts. The Soviet relations and the Cold War were vital to the Reagan myth/legacy. The traditional story line is a rather straightforward one: Reagan spent billions on the arms race, which bankrupted the Soviet states, as his belligerent rhetoric – “tear down this wall!” and “evil empire”– intimidated its leaders into permitting the fall of the Iron Curtain. However, the reality is more complex. One thing for sure is that the United States arms upsurge started under Jimmy Carter, and most of the expenditure proved eventually wasteful. Now that there is also access to past material from the Soviet Union, people also know that their bellicose moves reinforced hardliners at the cost of Soviet reformers. Reagan was correct on one thing: socialism was a soon failing, as a fresh generation of USSR elites led by Gorbachev also rose up. This is why majority of individuals, during that time, and many historians nowadays, give Gorbachev credit for ending the Cold War and reforming efforts, which he started, such as perestroika and glasnost. References Bunch, W. (2009). Tear down this myth: The right-wing distortion of the Reagan legacy. New York: Free Press. Read More