The Presidency of Ronald W. Reagan consumed eight years of American history: 1981 – 1989. But its greed-fueled legacies continue to haunt us.
On October 21, the woman responsible for one of those legacies–government by astrologer–passed away at age 87.
Yes, Joan Quigley is dead.
For those unfamiliar with that name: Quigley was the court astrologer to Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
Ronald and Nancy Reagan in the White House
Nancy Reagan met Quigley on “The Merv Griffin Show” in 1973.
Quigley gave Nancy–and through her, Reagan himself–astrological advice during the latter’s campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1976.
That effort failed to unseat President Gerald Ford–who was defeated that November by Jimmy Carter.
Four years later, in 1980, Reagan defeated Carter to become the 40th President of the United States.
On March 30, 1981, a mentally-disturbed loner named John W. Hinckley shot and critically wounded Reagan. Fixiated on actress Jodie Foster, he believed that by shooting the President he could gain her affection.
For Nancy, the assassination attempt proved a watershed.
Shortly after the shooting, Merv Griffin told her that Quigley had told him: If Nancy had called her on that fateful day, she–Quigley–could have warned that the President’s astrological charts had foretold a bad day.
From that moment on, Nancy made sure to regularly consult Quigley on virtually everything that she and the President intended to do.
When Reagan learned of Nancy’s consultations with Quigley, he warned her: Be careful, because it might look odd if it came out.
Many–if not most–of these calls from the White House to Quigley’s office in San Francisco were made on non-secure phone lines.
Joan Quigley
This meant that foreign powers–most notably the Soviet Union and Communist China–could have been privy to Reagan’s most secret intentions.
Nancy passed on Quigley’s suggestions as commands to Donald Regan, chief of the White House staff.
As a result, Regan kept a color-coded calendar on his desk to remember when the astrological signs were good for the President to speak, travel, or negotiate with foreign leaders.
Green ink highlighted “good” days; red ink “bad” days; yellow ink “iffy” days.
A list provided by Quigley to Nancy made the following recommendations–which Nancy, in turn, made into commands:
Late Dec thru March bad
Jan 16 – 23 very bad
Jan 20 nothing outside WH–possible attempt
Feb 20 – 26 be careful
March 7 – 14 bad period
March 10 – 14 no outside activity!
March 16 very bad
March 21 no
March 27 no
March 12 – 19 no trips exposure
March 19 – 25 no public exposure
April 3 careful
April 11 careful
April 17 careful
April 21 – 28 stay home
Donald Regan, no fan of Nancy’s, chafed under such restrictions: “Obviously, this list of dangerous or forbidden dates left very little lattitude for scheduling,” he later wrote.
Forced out of the White House in 1987 by Nancy, Regan struck back in a 1988 tell-all memoir: For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington.
In 1988, after her secret role in the Reagan White House was revealed, Quigley told the Associated Press that she was a “serious, scientific astrologer.”
The book revealed, for the first time, how Ronald Reagan had actually made his Presidential decisions.
All–including decisions to risk nuclear war with the Soviet Union–were based on a court astrologer’s horoscopes. Rationality and the best military intelligence available played a lesser, secondary role.
The last time major world leader to turn to the supernatural for advice had been Russian Czar Nicholas 11. His advisor had been Grigori Rasputin, a Siberian peasant whom Empress Alexandra believed was the only man who could save her hemophilic son–and heir to the throne.
In 1990, Quigley confirmed the allegations an autobiography, What Does Joan Say?: My Seven Years As White House Astrologer to Nancy and Ronald Reagan.
The title came from the question that Ronald Reagan asked Nancy before making important decisions–including those that could risk the destruction of the United States.
Among the success Quigley took credit for:
- Strategies for winning the Presidential elections of 1980 and 1984;
- Helping Nancy Reagan overhaul her image as a spoiled rich girl;
- Defusing the controversey over Reagan’s visiting a graveyard for SS soldiers in Bitburg, Germany;
- Pursuing “Star Wars” as a major part of his strategy against the Soviet Union;
- The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty;
- Protecting Reagan from would-be assassins through timely warnings to Nancy; and
- Moving Reagan from seeing the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire” to accepting Mikhail Gorbachev as a peace-seeking leader.
Thirty-three years after he became President, Ronald Reagan remains the most popular figure among Republicans.
His name is constantly invoked by Right-wing candidates, while his deliberately-crafted myth is held up as the example of Presidential greatness.
A number of precedents of the Reagan administration–like government by astrologer–might lend themselves to easy abuse. Thus, voters should consider this carefully before elevating “another Reagan” to the Presidency.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
2012 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, CIVIL WAR, CNN, DANIEL DAY-LEWIS, EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, SLAVERY, STEVEN SPIELBERG, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT, USA TODAY, VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
“LINCOLN”: ISSUES PAST AND PRESENT
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on December 3, 2014 at 11:26 pmSteven Spielberg’s Lincoln is more than a mesmerizing history lesson.
It’s a timely reminder that racism and repression are not confined to any one period or political party.
At the heart of the film: Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) wants to win ratification of what will be the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
An amendment that will forever ban slavery.
True, Lincoln, in 1862, had issued the Emancipation Proclamation. This–in theory–freed slaves held in the Confederate states that were in rebellion against the United States Government.
(In reality, Confederate states had no intention of complying with any procolmation issued by Lincoln.)
But Lincoln regards this as a temporary wartime measure.
He fears that, once the war is over, the Supreme Court may rule the Proclamation unconstitutional. This might allow Southerners to continue practicing slavery, even after losing the war.
To prevent this, Congress must pass an anti-slavery amendment.
But winning Congressional passage of such an amendment won’t be easy.
The Senate had ratified its passage in 1864. But the amendment must secure approval from the House of Representatives to become law.
And the House is filled with men–there are no women menmbers during the 19th century–who seethe with hostility.
Some are hostile to Lincoln personally. One of them dubs him a Negroid dictator: “Abraham Africanus.” Another accuses him of shifting his positions for the sake of expediency.
Other members–white men all–are hostile to the idea of “equality between the races.”
To them, ending slavery means opening the door to interracial marriage–especially marriage between black men and white women. Perhaps even worse, it means possibly giving blacks–or women–the right to vote.
In fact, the possibility that blacks might win voting rights arises early in the movie. Lincoln is speaking to a couple of black Union soldiers, and one of them is unafraid to voice his discontent.
He’s upset that black soldiers are paid less than white ones–and that they’re led only by white officers.
He says that, in time, maybe this will change. Maybe, in 100 years, he guesses, blacks will get the right to vote.
(To the shame of all Americans, that’s how long it will eventually take. Not until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 will blacks be guaranteed legal protection against discriminatory voting practices.)
To understand the Congressional debate over the Thirteenth Amendment, it’s necessary to remember this: In Lincoln’s time, the Republicans were the party ofprogressives.
The party was founded on an anti-slavery platform. Its members were thus reviled as “Black Republicans.”
And until the 1960s, the South was solidly Democratic. Democrats were the ones defending the status quo–slavery–and opposing freed blacks in the South of Reconstruction and long afterward.
In short, in the 18th century, Democrats in the South acted as Republicans do now.
The South went Republican only after a Democratic President–Lyndon B. Johnson–rammed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress.
Watching this re-enactment of the 1865 debate in Lincoln is like watching a rerun of the 2012 Presidential campaign. The same mentalities are at work:
During the 2012 Presidential race, the Republicans tried to bar those likely to vote for President Barack Obama from getting into the voting booth. But their bogus “voter ID” restrictions were struck down in courts across the nation.
Listening to those opposing the amendment, one is reminded of Mitt Romney’s infamous comments about the “47%: “
“Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what….
“Who are dependent upon government, who believe that–-that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it.
“But that’s-–it’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.”
In the end, however, it is Abraham Lincoln who has the final word. Through diplomacy and backroom dealings (trading political offices for votes) he wins passage of the anti-slavery amendment.
The movie closes with a historically-correct tribute to Lincoln’s generosity toward those who opposed him–in Congress and on the battlefield.
It occurs during Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address: “With malice toward none, with charity for all….To bind up the nation’s wounds. To care for him who shall have bourne the battle and for his widow and his orphan….”
This ending presents a vivid philosophical contrast with Romney’s sore-loser comments: “The president’s campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift.”
Watching Lincoln, you realize how incredibly lucky we were as a nation to have had such leadership when it was most needed. And how desperately we need it now.
Share this: