Esoteric Political Speech: How Reagan's Eulogizers Served to
Distance His Legacy from the Republican Party Under Bush *
June 12, 2004
Terence Hoyt, PhD, Moral and Political Philosophy

       Reagan's death was sad for me. Brian Mulroney, the former Canadian Prime Minister, told us that French President Mitterand once said Reagan had a better "notion de l'état" than anyone he had ever met.   That is to say, he had an idea/understanding of the nation. This is why I loved Reagan - I intuitively sensed that he grasped something fundamentally good about the United States in a way I hadn't seen any other public figure in that faithless time grasp. It is with this care as my backdrop that I write this meditation on remarks made in particular by Ron Reagan - the President's son - at the end of the ceremonies, as well as on remarks in which certain traits were ascribed to Reagan by his many eulogizers.   I argue that we can reasonably hold that Ron Jr's remarks in particular were made to undermine efforts on the part of the partisans of Bush to wrap him in Reagan's legacy.  Such a claim may appear to the reader to be overly specific. After all, it will be said, 'who cares about one remark, and how can it possibly matter'?  Our culture has to a great extent lost its political and moral imagination - so reliant have we become psychologically on one dimensional ideas and formulaic answers to complex political, moral and social questions.  But those individuals who care about the common good - that is, the good of the nation as a whole - will take advantage of those opportunities they have to influence, even in a small way, the well being of the country. Political speech with large audiences can afford such individuals significant opportunities to do good.  It is a sign of the materialism implicit in our social and moral philosophy and our lack of faith that we do not take such speech seriously.  But it is clear that those who planned the Reagan ceremonies do take seriously the idea that public speech can have an impact for the good and that they meant to convey specific meanings and ideas to their audiences.  The relevant remark made by Ron Jr. is as follows: "After my father was shot, he came to believe that God gave him a responsibility to do good." He then added: "A responsibility, not a mandate". He paused, and took a deep breath, and finished by saying: "And there is a big difference between the two".  Both his style and what he said indicated that he meant to speak between the lines here, and it is for the most part these few lines which I talk about.  I argue, seriously but also for the fun of it, that there are three esoteric meanings present in these lines - and that these meanings taken together function as a repudiation of Bush as well as a means of separating Reagan from Bush.  I ask the reader to be open to an exercise in moral and political imagination, and follow my attempt to show how political speech in general and Ron Reagan's remarks in particular carry significant import and meaning.   

     These few lines by Ron Reagan are an example of esoteric political speech at its best.  Esoteric political speakers/writers mean to speak to more than one audience within any single grouping of people. Good political speech always has parts of it which are 'between the lines' because the speaker cannot go around and whisper into the ears of only some in the group one thing, while speaking the rest out loud to the group as a whole.  Esoteric political speech has a long history in the West - perhaps the best known example occurring around the time when the Catholic Church was dominant and philosophers and scientist had to write their ideas ‘between the lines' lest they get into trouble with the Church authorities. The most important historical consequence of effective esoteric writing is perhaps the formal separation of Church and State in the West  - beginning with the foundation of the United States - perhaps the single most significant practical manifestation of esoteric writing. The purpose of esoteric speech is to appear to be saying one thing to one audience, but really be saying something else to another audience which is the intended "target audience". In the case of the above remarks by Ron Jr. - as well as another contrast made several times during the week - the first audience consists of those who themselves agree with Bush, but more importantly, assume that all other Republicans agree with Bush. The other audience is made up of those individuals who are open to hearing a critique of Bush, wherever it may come from. In this case, this will include foreign audiences - who of all groups will be most open to hearing the esoteric meaning of this particular speech.  In the remark above, again, those who favor the Bush Administration will upon reflecting on the term "mandate" assume that he is making the usual contrast between liberals and conservatives. This line of thought will go like this: "Liberals assume they have a "mandate" to make government bigger, etc. etc. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't act like they have a mandate. They want small government." Clearly, those who assume they have a mandate are bad for Ron Reagan - and the particular conservatives dispersed throughout the audiences of this speech will do what is essential for the esoteric writer - assume, whether consiously or not, that Ron Jr. is referring to what they would characterize as a liberal philosophy of government . This interpretation would be called the "surface meaning".  In esoteric writing, there will usually be such a surface interpretation. One might think of the "surface meaning" - the exoteric - as a distraction to prevent anger on the part of an important constituency.  This may sound conspiratorial to American ears, but such a practice is in fact very common in political speech - even everyday political speech. Listen from now on to political speech aimed at large groups and notice that it is often possible to find at least some remarks in the speech which may reasonably be interpreted as aimed at a "target audience".  In this country today, the usual target audience is political activists.

     When there is more than one possible reasonable interpretation of political text - the most concrete interpretation; the one most closely tied to some actual experience or event is the one that ought be chosen. And on that criterion, Ron Reagan's remarks are best understood as a means of sharply separating Reagan's legacy from Bush and his partisans. The use of the term "mandate" by Ron in this view is very significant. Moreover, it has a wonderful double application - to both the Reagan years and to the foundation of Bush's presidency. When we reflect on this one concept made use of by Ron Jr. - the concept of  "mandate" - we find all that is needed to separate Reagan from this Administration. Here's how:  Recall that all through the 80's, there was much talk about Reagan having a ‘mandate'. The left complained because Reagan was pushing his agenda - they questioned whether he had a mandate to make what they saw as radical change. (I argued then that the left would end up functioning like the 'boy who cried wolf' insofar as they purposely used over-heated rhetoric to 'score' politically - and now I'm wondering if these worries weren't justified. Of course, the 'boy who cried wolf' eventually gets it right, but by that point, due to the prevalent misunderstanding of the function of political speech in our society and the overall misuse of language in the past by the left, few are listening.)  Ron's words again: "My father believed he had a responsibility, not a mandate.... and there is a big difference between the two". Continuing on along the meditative interpretation of his remarks: ... Their content points to the theme of humility.  In sharp contrast to Bush, Reagan could in fact reasonably be said to have a "mandate" for his policies.  Ron Reagan buttressed the image of his father as humble - the trait most often ascribed to him during the ceremonies - by making the contrast he did. Part of being humble is, to continue Ron's contrast, to act like one has a "responsibility" to do good and not a "mandate". (It's important in attempting to understand the meaning of this political text to keep in mind that the word "responsibility" is always in an oppositional relation to "mandate".)  But what of the term "mandate"? What is its sense here? I understand the term "mandate" as follows:  In contrast to "responsibility" - by which Ron Jr. seems to have meant a submission to the moral idea of doing good in general - that is, in whatever unforseeable form it may take - a "mandate" is overly specific and thus too narrow.  It overestimates how many contingencies it can forsee. To believe I have a "mandate" is to assume that there is one way to do good, and only one way. In this either/or; black and white thinking, other ways are then bad.  To behave this way - to govern this way - is to think and act like a fundamentalist - as if one knows what God wants. A President who has the power of government at his control is inappropriate when he acts like only one set of policy choices - foreign or domestic - are good.  It is arrogant to (even) act as if one is certain that one is absolutely right, and that all other views on policy are wrong.  When we bring into the picture that here we are speaking of a group which is in control of the powers of government, the level of inappropriateness increases tenfold. Such a way of governing lacks humility. Bush and his most partisan supporters are not like Reagan - according to the adjectives used to describe Reagan during the week.   

     ... While Reagan had subtlety, nuance, and grace, Bush lacks such qualities. He has no sense of his own, or the nation's - limits. Above all else, Bush has no sense of humility - the key quality which was praised by eulogizers of Reagan. For all these reasons, Bush endangers us. Wise statesmen out there now will see this, and while some statesmen - or women - may have no political power, they may have an opportunity to use words to "wake some up" about our current state of affairs, if not now, then perhaps in the future when intellectual historians will read recorded text more closely than we are likely to do today.  Nancy Reagan, of whom we can be sure read Ron Jr's remarks beforehand, is perhaps ironically a wise stateswoman.

     There's more. Recall now the way Bush got into office.  As mentioned above, Bush does not by any reasonable standard have a mandate to govern. Not in the way we can reasonably claim that Reagan did. The very foundation of Bush's governance is highly ambiguous. Perhaps this is why he acts insecurely - acting as if he must get all relevant political forces to bend to his will.   Given the lack of a mandate, one would expect Bush to be humble. But he is not humble. He acts as if he has a mandate. Applying Ron Jr.'s contrast between acting like one has a "responsibility or a mandate", Bush has chosen to act like he does have a mandate. According to the logic of the central contrast within the esoteric speech, he thus acts irresponsibly. (In making this particular contrast, the speaker is telling us that one must make a decision to act either "responsibly" or as if one has a "mandate". If one chooses or has chosen to act one of these ways, he logically excludes behaving the other way.)

      By contrast, Reagan, who could be seen by others to have a mandate defined as Ron Jr's speech suggests, did not act as if he did.  While in words he spoke as if he would not compromise, in his actions he did compromise with opponents on his policies.   The best example is his raising of taxes when the deficit went up.  This is another way Reagan was both subtle and humble, and made use of the highest form of esoteric speech - by consciously doing something which in fact went against his words when he thought it was essential to do so.  He as such did not get carried away with his own rhetoric - thinking that he had a direct insight into "the one true way to to govern."  But he had to do this esoterically - lest a constituency central to his vision be alienated.  Notice that conservatives at the time paid and continue to pay no attention to Reagan's raising of taxes, while they did to Bush's doing the same. The actions were not essentially different - but the ability to use speech effectively was. Bush Jr. is the diametric opposite of Reagan, and as such perhaps best seen as an extension of his father, who not only never grasped the "the vision thing" but really did not care about a vision.  Bush Jr. in particular has no sense of the metaphorical role of speech, and takes his own words literally. This disinclination to be open to speech which is metaphorical is endemic to our mostly Protestant culture, and a key reason why Bush and his partisans sincerely cannot understand how it is that Bush is arrogant.  He is arrogant if not simply because he takes his own political speech literally.  

     For those who wish to make a strong yet subtle distinction between Reagan and this president, they might cease at a critique of the particular policies of the present Administration. But the critique will be stronger and "solidify", as it were, if it can take on multiple meanings simultaneously. And this speech fulfills this function. Bush is not only irresponsible, according to this line of thought, because of bad policies and a lack of any sense of humility, but more importantly, for a formal reason: Because he has acted throughout like he has a mandate when he has none and never had one - not for his domestic policies and certainly not for his foreign policy. To summarize so far:  The first meaning of Ron Jr.'s final remarks is that Bush is not like Reagan because he does not have the qualities of Reagan and in particular the quality of humility. The second meaning of the remarks by Ron Jr. is more subtle: that Bush and his partisans are irresponsible because he and they have acted throughout like he has a mandate. According to the logic of the need to make a choice between acting as if one has a mandate or acting responsibly, Bush is irresponsible and thus blameworthy.  

     But wait - we are not completely finished  - there is a third meaning.  It turns out there are three levels of meaning in these few words - words which were stated literally at the end of the ceremonies. This third meaning is the most important functionally. The words once again: "My father came to believe that God gave him a responsibility to do good. Not a mandate, a responsibility. There is a big difference between the two". The last symbolism which adheres to remarks made in public by the Reagan family - remarks made at the final moments of the memorial service to Reagan - is found in the particular clause: "There is a big difference between the two".  The meaning of this last esoteric speech is found when we no longer interpret the "two" here as a "what" - e.g. as two ways of governing, but as a reference to a "who". The "two" on this level refers to two individuals: Reagan and Bush.  

Don't count on seeing Nancy Reagan help Bush get re-elected.

Terence Hoyt
tjhoyt@loyno.edu
thoyt@tulane.edu

* I am indebted to Leo Strauss' "City and Man" for his analysis of the distinction between esoteric and exoteric political writing.