In today's New York Times (registration required), veteran Broadway critic Frank Rich declares that, well, yes, Ronald Reagan really was a good actor:
"Though he never studied with Lee Strasberg, he practiced the method; his performance was based, however loosely, on the emotional memory of a difficult youth as the son of an itinerant, sometimes unemployed alcoholic. That Reagan triumphed over this background during the Depression, developing the considerable ambition needed to work his way through college and eventually to Warner Brothers, informed the sentimental optimism that both defined (and limited) his vision of America as a place where perseverance could pay off for anyone. It was indeed the heartwarming role of himself...
"The problem is not merely that Mr. Bush lacks Reagan's lilting vocal delivery. As any professional actor can tell you, no performance, however sonorous, can be credible if it doesn't contain at least a kernel of emotional truth."
One problem that Bush faces with the Reagan legacy is that he appears to be campaigning as a son of Reagan, instead of the son of George H.W. Bush. On Fox News Sunday today, Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol endorsed this approach, saying Bush 43 could run campaign ads asking: "Who would Reagan vote for?" and "Win one more for the Gipper." (Kristol is son of Irving Kristol).
This hereditary mentality, typical of the Bush dynasty--Bush 41 ran as Reagan's presumptive heir,too--misses a crucial point about Ronald Reagan: he was his own man. Unlike the Bushes, pere et fils, Reagan asked to be judged by his deeds, not by who his parents, or wannabe parents, might have been.
To really follow in Reagan's footsteps, George W. Bush must be able to affirmatively answer Reagan's 1984 question to the American people:
"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
