
Letter from Ronald Reagan to his son - brucejaywallace
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/05/love-dad.html
======
DanielBMarkham
As an armchair history buff, I love famous historical people who were also
prolific letter-writers. It gives a great insight into the person, especially
when the letter was between family members or close friends and never intended
for public consumption. (Reagan was one of these people) As much as I like
Letters of Note for the great letters, for me having a stream of letters makes
the person much more three-dimensional.

The book on the Adams-Jefferson letters has been on my reading list for a year
now. Can't wait to get time to read it. <http://amzn.to/MudjlA> I believe
there is a similar book for Reagan, but I haven't researched it. Enough stuff
on the list already.

~~~
ChuckMcM
One of the great things about writing a letter is that it takes enough time
and energy that you invest a bit of thought before you send it. I worry about
21st century thinkers who will be judged not only by the things they chose to
write well, but the one-offs they sent out in the heat of the moment over
email.

~~~
_delirium
I wonder if some of that impression isn't anachronistic projection, though.
_Today_ you think of a letter as something that takes time/energy/thought
investment. But it was not at all uncommon for frequent letter-writers of
previous eras to write many letters in a day, closer to the way we write
emails than the way we write letters. Probably not _quite_ as routine as the
average email, but people who wrote thousands of letters during their life
treated it as just as normal way of communicating. It wasn't that strange for
letters to be dashed off in short periods of time, and like with email, the
amount of agonizing/revision/thought that was put into a particular letter
varied greatly.

On your latter worry, it seems like there's some of that with earlier eras'
figures as well. For example, some people's opinion of Simone de Beauvoir and
Jean-Paul Sartre has shifted for the worse since their correspondence was
published, since much of it is more like a sordid chatroom log, full of
offhanded gossip about other people and such, than like the philosophical
works they intended for public consumption.

~~~
Retric
The time spent writing them my be similar to email. But, you could generally
change your mind about sending them for much longer than email.

------
makhanko
Regardless of the fact that this was written by a former US president, what’s
truly amazing is that somebody could take a subject old as the world – love
and marriage and write such a simple, genuine, straight to the point message,
without a hint of bullshit that happens to reads like a novel.

~~~
cynthiaherald
If you think about it, it may be much harder to do so in a hand written letter
too....compared to typing 75 words per minutes. Writing is slower, makes you
more purposeful with every word, etc.

------
nessus42
I'm not as impressed by this letter as others seem to be. Reagan's only advice
is don't cheat and say "I love you" every day? Who goes into a marriage
expecting to cheat? And if you even have the slightest inkling of wanting to
cheat at the start, you're almost certainly marrying the wrong person. The
letter provides no insight that I didn't already have by the time I was ten.

The true challenges of marriage come when the other person doesn't support
your ambitions in life, or you don't support theirs. When you feel that they
are constantly critical of you, or you of them. When they gain 100 pounds, or
when you do. When for no particularly good reason you become engulfed with
jealousy. Or they do. When infatuation gives way to whatever deeper feelings
lie beneath. Or maybe you discover that the deeper feelings aren't there and
you need to cultivate them if the marriage is to survive.

The challenges and joys of marriage are so much deeper than this letter
conveys. This letter is like the "Just say no" to drugs campaign. Everything
is boiled down to meaningless simplicity.

~~~
aggronn
I think you glossed over the deeper meaning of the letter, which addresses
exactly what you're describing. Its not a how-to on the various problems you
may or may not face, written during a time when the only problem with marriage
was male infidelity--its a overarching philosophy where he only used one
example for illustration.

You get what you put in.

The context implies that there is another side the coin, and that this isn't a
scientific destruction of the institution of marriage. It, and I think this is
implied, assumes that the other person is also putting in what they hope to
get out, and that you're marrying the right person.

~~~
nessus42
I didn't gloss over any deeper meaning to the letter--it's not there. It's a
very focussed and on-point sermon on remaining faithful. He barely even
touches on why men sometimes cheat, other than to prove their manhood. But
without addressing the real reasons, the message is just a lot of hot air. The
real reason that most people cheat is because they don't feel loved, not
because they just need another notch on their belt. They feel like they've
already given 110% and their efforts are not appreciated, and the other person
doesn't love them for their true selves, only for whatever tangible benefits
they provide to the other person.

If I got such a letter from my father, I'd think, Pappa don't preach, throw
the letter into the trash, and mark it down to yet another way in which my
father didn't bother to get to know me or understand me at all.

~~~
jhermsmeyer
You kinda did gloss over, well, everything that makes this letter good.

The letter is powerful because of how it said what it wanted to say. The
examples and imagery are vivid; the message consistent.

What you wrote: "The real reason that most people cheat is because they don't
feel loved" is right there, wonderfully articulated, in this letter.

The hard part of being married, and the hard won wisdom contained in this
letter, is the realization that most of the time people fail us because we've
failed them first. It's a recursive nightmare and the only escape is to
forgive and continue to commit.

Easy to boil down to a tl:dr of "don't cheat" and dismiss. Knowing is not the
same as doing (day after day), though.

~~~
nessus42
I never said that the letter didn't say what it intended to say. Nor did I say
that it doesn't say what it intended to say well.

My point is that it's not a message worth saying, just like the message, "Just
say no" is not worth saying. It's a pointlessly simple message that is not
likely to affect its target audience or change any outcome. This message is,
in fact, insulting to its intended audience, Reagan's son.

Maybe, just maybe, the part about the wife always knowing when something is
going on, would have an effect down the road, but the bulk of the message is,
"Men are dirty dogs. You're a man and consequently, you're a dirty dog. All
men want to do is dip their wicks, and therefore you will want to dip your
wick. When you do, you will ruin your marriage, even if you think you won't,
and then you will blame your broken marriage on your loving wife, just like
all dirty dogs do. If you want to be happy, refrain from being the dirty dog
that you know you are."

The fact of the matter, however, is that most men are not dirty dogs. The
reasons that they cheat (which are the same as the reasons that most women
cheat) are largely not due to just a desire to dip their wicks. The reason are
much more complex, and by the time they do cheat, their cheating is a symptom
of something deeper that is wrong with the marriage, and not the root cause of
the marriage going bad, as is portrayed in Reagan's letter.

------
brucejaywallace
Great, unconventional advice on marriage to his son. This is time-proof advice
for any generation too.

------
alexscheelmeyer
I would be more inclined to accept his message if it could not be boiled down
to "If it is not working for you, you are not trying hard enough". Also, more
marriages have probably failed due to the husband being a wimpy "I love you
every day no matter what"-kind of guy than due to adultery. Adultery is the
consequence of a failing marriage, not the cause. When you are the president
with power over a nation it can counteract the wimpyness. For a software
developer? Not so much.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
That's just status anxiety. It's easier (and more fulfilling) to fix the wimp
factor.

You'd have to do that, eventually. The wife is just acting as the canary in
the coal mine.

------
theorique
Very wise words. And a very interesting look at the personal, family world of
a very public figure of the late 20th century.

------
rekoros
I wonder why Michael got a divorce a year later. Maybe he didn't read the
letter?

~~~
toemetoch
Maybe that was his father's motivation to write the letter in the first place,
he might have seen a predictable path in this relationship or how his son
deals with things.

------
nickpp
How qualified was Reagan to give marriage advice? How many marriages did he
have? Was he a marriage counsellor? Did he study marriages? Statistics on
couple behaviors?

Or is this like listening to the Kardashian's opinion on... child rearing or
something?

~~~
bstewartnyc
Ronald Reagan was a wise man and great president.

~~~
ktizo
I'm more on Spitting Image - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3u3PwCZfM4> \-
and George Carlin's - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hm7D2Ms_zc> \- side
with this one.

~~~
mb_72
I think it's ok to take ideas and information as being somewhat independent
from their creators. Bad people can produce good ideas, just as good people
can produce bad ideas. I might feel very uncomfortable with Shockley's views
on genetics and reproduction, but I'm happy he co-invented the transistor.
Similarly, I can read Reagan's letter and get something out of it without
needing to consider his acting or political career.

