Respecting the facts

David Shaw’s “History Is All the Drama Needed for Reagan’s Story” (Nov. 9) was hands down the best column I have read discussing a topical issue. I appreciated the way he presented the issues, how the producers [of “The Reagans”] could have made it better, and I also appreciated his inclusion that most reporters or journalists are Democrats or liberal, while the people running the media companies are probably conservative. That is absolutely the type of balanced analysis that more journalists should deliver.

I came of age when Reagan took office and can remember the feeling in the country in the late ‘70s, which President Carter accurately referred to as a malaise, and how Reagan changed that. The first election I was able to vote, in 1984, I voted for Reagan. I honestly think that had Reagan been a Democrat and the Cold War ended the way it did, you would read a lot more about the role of the U.S. in bringing down communism, but for some reason, liberals and Democrats just can’t bring themselves to give him credit.

But I also really liked Clinton (though not to the same degree). And the same thing goes for conservatives who simply can’t give the guy credit for a lot of what he did either. It’s so annoying that instead of just sticking with the facts, which can be compelling enough, both sides have to embellish things, which just discredits what they have to say. And in the end, the facts are almost always more interesting.

Ken Montgomery

Los Angeles