On March 18, the New York Times published a bombshell story . In the article, Peter Baker, the New York Times's chief White House correspondent, detailed how Ben Barnes, a Republican political operative, undertook a secret trip in fall 1980 with his political mentor, former Texas Gov. John Connally, to the Middle East. They met with the region’s leaders in an attempt to contact the Iranian government, which was holding over 50 Americans hostage. The message that Connally wanted to convey to Iran was simple — that Iran should delay releasing the hostages until after the presidential election. Keeping the Americans in Iran would guarantee President Jimmy Carter’s defeat, and the Iranian government could negotiate a much better deal with President Ronald Reagan.

There are many problems with this story, which Baker rather sheepishly admits. “Confirming Mr. Barnes’s account is problematic after so much time,” Baker writes.

But no — the real reason verifying Barnes’s tale is so difficult is that it’s not true.

For decades, Reagan’s critics have desperately made the case that his campaign covertly contacted Iran during the 1980 election in order to block the hostages’ release, thus derailing Carter’s reelection. The theory first gained prominence in 1991, when former Carter national security official Gary Sick published October Surprise: American Hostages in Iran and Ronald Reagan’s Election. In the book, Sick claimed that Reagan’s campaign Chairman William Casey met with the ayatollah’s agents in Madrid in the summer of 1980 and secured a deal with Iran to send Iran weapons after a Reagan victory in November in exchange for keeping the Americans in Tehran until after the election. Sick even charged that Reagan’s running mate, George H.W. Bush, visited Paris in the fall and helped finalize a deal with Iran.

However, just like Barnes, Sick offered no proof about a deal. Also, his claim about Bush being in Paris at that time was easily debunked. Still, the idea that the Reagan campaign deliberately sabotaged negotiations between Iran and the Carter administration has taken root in liberal circles, and the lack of any corroboration has not deterred their embrace of this conspiracy theory.

Why so many on the Left believe in the October surprise is easily explained. They hope to besmirch Reagan’s legacy. Reagan’s presidency was transformative, but in the way liberals despise. In his eight years in office, Reagan cut taxes and regulations and presided over the biggest economic boom America had ever known. He championed freedom and liberty and once only half-joked, “The top nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.”

Reagan was also one of the most popular presidents in American history. His approval ratings were consistently high, and in 1984, he was overwhelmingly reelected, getting 59% of the popular vote and winning 49 states. Reagan’s policies not only led to an economic rebound. They also won the Cold War. When he took office in 1981, Reagan was determined to bring about an end to the Soviet Union. He succeeded. And when he left office in 1989, America was strong, prosperous, and united.

Today, Reagan is a hero to conservatives, and his enduring popularity galls liberals to no end, and so they stoop to peddling wild conspiracy theories about him. There was no "October surprise" in 1980. Reagan won the election fairly, and any attempt to claim otherwise is a lie.

Dr. Justin P. Coffey is a professor of history at Quincy University and is the author of Spiro Agnew and the Rise of Republican Right.