NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
June 9, 2004
Reagan's will
The United States has had some very great Presidents; Ronald Reagan belongs with Washington Lincoln and F.D. Roosevelt. Each of these arose under impossible circumstances and each prevailed -- not without good luck -- against what had seemed the tide of history. All were vilified not only by their enemies but by their natural allies (though especially Lincoln and Reagan) each had to overcome the lethargy and doubt of the nation he endeavoured to defend. These clich?s these empty eulogies we are hearing from the media this week about "the great communicator" about Reagan's charm and humour and optimism are about as far off the mark as it is possible to get. While there is truth in each point they do not explain what Reagan did. George Bush the Elder came closer in his awkwardly droll remark about "the vision thing" when his predecessor left office. Reagan's underestimated mind and will had carried the day. He took the leadership of a nation in catastrophic retreat turned in upon itself after self-imposed defeat in Vietnam and setbacks ranging from Watergate to the oil shocks to the demoralizing effects of such court judgments as Roe v. Wade. All the classic indications of decadence were advancing: the disintegration of Church and family; urban crime gone out of control; mushrooming taxation regulation and bureaucracy. The Soviet sphere of influence was expanding. The U.S. had been freshly humiliated by the mad mullahs of Iran; was powerless against the invasion of Afghanistan and Soviet-sponsored insurgencies from Ethiopia to Angola to Nicaragua. The NATO alliance was beginning to crack under the threat of medium-range Soviet missile deployments against an increasingly spineless Europe. As a cold warrior myself I remember the situation vividly. The parade of defeatism and morbid self-blame was trumpet-majored by the prim and incompetent Jimmy Carter. By the time Reagan left office the United States had effectively won the Cold War -- without a shot being fired. Reagan almost alone saw the enemy' s weakness and how it could be told. In opposition to almost every "expert" on Russia arms control and world affairs he and his magnificent Secretary of State George Schultz engaged the Soviets in a ruinous arms race -- one which only the U.S. could win and which would compress the adversary's dysfunctional socialist economy. The Strategic Defence Initiative ("Star Wars") and the words "evil empire" were among the novelties employed to reduce a once-confident enemy to bewilderment and finally despair. The reversal of the U.S. policy of d?tente at the summit of Reykjavik in 1986 was the masterstroke. The American economy came roaring back despite hugely increased defence expenditures and a public debt that was allowed to soar rather than concede tax hikes to a free-spending Congress. This was another victory of mind and will: a Thatcherite determination to build firewalls against the encroachment of the State on every aspect of private life. Through deregulations the groundwork was laid for the technological revolution upon which President Clinton coasted. "Optimism" does not quite describe the moral quality which President Reagan communicated to America at large. He was truly the opposite of a defeatist; but his optimism was not the shallow cheerleader's cry. For it was not how he communicated but what he communicated that changed the American outlook. He communicated decency and good faith and virility. He made plenty of mistakes as many as Winston Churchill or the other great Presidents before him. In the global contest with Soviet Communism it was not given to him to see the historical re-emergence of a global Islamic Jihad. He was wrong to accommodate Iran's ayatollahs and to withdraw from Beirut -- the terrible consequences of which we have only begun to realize. But that was not the war of Reagan's generation and to this day it remains beyond the ken of most observers. Reagan saw his own battles whole. He thought for himself. He wrote his own speeches or boldly re-drafted what was written for him. He had clarity of thought freedom from the cowardice and wincing hypocrisy that define our liberal "intellectuals" -- an intelligence at home with large matters where they are vexed by small. He had a wonderful ability to play the fool (George W. Bush shares it) requiring a genuine personal humility founded in true religious faith. And with this the ability to politely ignore the yammering idiots and get on with the job. He was hated by all the right people; he did not hate them in his turn. May God deliver this great and gracious man. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top