November 06, 2003,
12:06 p.m. The latest critique of the conservative movement which should be a critique of anyone dedicated to the thought that our knowledge of history is bad enough is that we censored a CBS miniseries on President Ronald Reagan because we think Reagan "untouchable." That is a mischaracterization. Many of us are proud of Reagan, and think he and his achievements should be highlighted. We feel the same way about his failings. Show the man in all his glory and all his defeat, we are not ashamed of history. We should all be ashamed of bad history, though of dressing up fiction as fact. What offended us was a portrayal of Reagan that put words in his mouth he never uttered and attributed positions to him he never held. Let's get one thing straight once and for all. There was no censorship here. There was vociferous protest, from historians, from writers, even from former Tip O'Neill staffer Chris Matthews. And a decision was made by CBS to shunt the miniseries to the margins of cable where it belonged, if anywhere. The hysteria over historical accuracy is best exemplified by that great scholar Barbra Streisand, whose husband portrayed Ronald Reagan in the now-shelved CBS miniseries. Streisand writes: "I don't believe Democrats often, if ever, try to muscle the First Amendment like this." Never mind the small fact that the First Amendment applies against the government, not CBS. But I suppose Professor Streisand's point is why Dr. Laura still has a television show. Others, like Doug Kmiec on NRO (who was there in the Reagan administration and knows), have written on what Reagan and his administration did for the burgeoning plague of AIDS and its sufferers. Few have noted what Ronald Reagan actually said about it though. For example, a historically accurate letter Reagan wrote to Elizabeth Glaser in 1988: Dear Mrs. Glaser:When the CBS-sponsored show claimed Reagan felt AIDS victims should die a sinner's death, it contradicted the record. Perhaps if the CBS miniseries attempted accuracy, there would have been less concern. But we don't need false portrayals of living (but incapacitated) historical figures, in the nastiest forms possible. It's not decent, and it sure is not helping us understand history better something we could all afford to do, including Professor Streisand. Seth Leibsohn is the Vice President for Policy at Empower America. | ||||||||
|
|
|
|||
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/leibsohn200311061206.asp
|
||||