Excellent observations here from Tech Central Station
Growing Up With Ronald Reagan
By Frederick Turner
When I was a young professor at the University of California in the late sixties I despised Governor Reagan, the more fool I. His whispery voice and downhome manner struck me as both cornpone and phony, and his occasional use of a more intellectually sophisticated vocabulary annoyed me, because it felt as if he was assuming scholarship he did not have in order to appear respectable. He was like Robert Stack using his magisterial manner to shill for some crackpot ghost or flying saucer show, or, later, Pat Robertson in a coat and tie interviewing a creationist with a PhD from Podunk Christian University. I was embarrassed whenever I saw him on TV; he was so uncool, he was the Frank Burns of politics.
I was, as I say, a fool. The fog began to clear from my eyes when the Iranians released the hostages on the eve of his inauguration, obviously terrified of what Reagan would do if they didn't. They believed in him, so to speak, and maybe they had seen something that I had missed. Still, he was just an actor, I thought. How could they take an actor seriously? But I was saying this to myself at the very time that I was writing about how Hamlet grows up into a man who can truly act, by "playing the part" of someone who can actually do something. I had failed to apply my own knowledge to the world.
Later I read the Austrian free market economists, and realized two things: one, that they had essentially won the argument with the socialists, both on the theoretical level and on the level of practical results; and two, that Reagan had realized this twenty or thirty years earlier, and it was I, the socialist, who had been the pseudo-intellectual, and not he. Later still, after I had been practicing the martial arts for a few years and had been in enough championship bouts to validate the ancient teachings about clarity of spirit and trained instinctiveness of decision, I came to another realization. The enemy can only be defeated through his own feelings; he can only be defeated if you recognize him as your enemy; and he will only concede when he realizes that you are crazier -- more committed to victory -- than he is.
And there were indeed enemies in this world. As Yitzhak Rabin said, "You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends." Ronald Reagan could well have coined the same words. If we pretend that our enemies are really our friends, and that if we make nice with them they will do what we want, then we will never be able to make peace with them. Why should they make peace -- looking at it from their point of view -- when we do not even respect them enough to recognize them fair and square as our enemy? Christ said "love your enemy," but he did not say "don't have enemies," because that is not in our power. We love our enemies by respecting them, and we are able to make peace with them if we respect them enough to take them seriously, and put them in a position where it is in their interest to make peace with us. We make peace with them, but peace comes through strength, and trust must be verified. When I became a father and a man, and I actually encountered situations in the world where I was asked to do things and say things I did not agree with, and had to refuse those in authority and those who had power to harm me, I changed. I had to fight. I had to grow up.
It is a weak child's way to blame his parents when someone bullies him, to run to them tearfully and rage against them when they tell him to fight his own battles. The rage should rightly be directed against the injurer, but the weak child respects only the one he fears. And since he dare not rage against the injurer, he rages against his authority figures, whom he does not fear because he knows they love him, and whom he does not respect because they will not harm him. This is the pathology of our "baby boomers" -- or that part of them who yearn for and can never grow out of the Summer of Love, the happy time when the parents were indulgent enough to give them everything they wanted, but fuddy-duddy enough to be dismissed as competitors. Those who never grow up in our society always blame our own responsible officials when something goes wrong. Reagan taught us to place the blame where it belonged, on the enemy, and to make peace with them as our enemies -- without firing a shot, as Margaret Thatcher put it. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
The intellectuals and the Europeans persistently "misunderestimated" Reagan (in George Bush's splendid phrase). Part of being an adult is that one realizes that one makes a better fighter if one does not give away one's "strategery," and a better trader if one does not make a big show of one's intelligence. One knows that one is going to win, and one knows that the trade will be made on terms that are at least as profitable to oneself as to one's bargaining partner -- but one does not parade one's degrees and one's medals. Intellectuals in America believe that complication in expression is the great sign of intelligence; adults know that the acme of intelligence is to express something simply. The intellectuals despised Reagan for his simplicity, and set out to create the most obfuscatory language ever devised by human beings: deconstructionism. Safe in their cocoon of verbiage they might be safe from the world and never die. Europeans always saw war and bargaining as ways to get territory, to expand the motherland, and have enough money to look after all the "enfants de la patrie" from cradle to grave. They could not understand a grownup American president who bargained for the opportunity to compete, fair and square, whose ambition was not to dominate other peoples but to free them from tyrants and make them stronger, better trading partners. The Europeans and intellectuals thought Reagan was brain dead; but he was Old Possum: he was only playing brain dead. Don't throw me in the briar patch, Br'er Rabbit always said; and they threw him in every time. "Possum," the American icon of the advantages of being underestimated, means "I have the power" in Latin. Reports of the death of American power are now as then, in Mark Twain's word, exaggerated.
So who was the fool? Rudyard Kipling had the answer:
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man-
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:-
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Reaganomics were likewise just a matter of being adult. The child lives in a world of gift, and rightly so. The world owes children a living. But to remain in a world of gift alone is to never grow up, to fail to gain the resources needed to have children of one's own and care for them responsibly. To move from being a receiver of gifts to a giver of them we must pass through the vale of earning and trading and selling. The child sees this as a wicked and cruel and unnecessary journey, and never realizes that trade and earning and selling have their own mysterious sociality, their own form of love. Two trading partners can both profit by the deal, and the harder the bargain is driven, the better the bargain. But to bargain, as to fight, one must take the position of being somebody, with all the risks of being somebody and all the sacrifice of all the other things one might have been. To bargain and to fight one must "put away childish things."
Indeed, there is a stage in real grownups' lives when they become more givers than earners or fighters or sellers. We all do when we die, at least. The grownups among us can become net givers before we die. But the only way to get there is through the work of life. I realized this at the death of my own father -- a great giver if ever there was one -- and I now feel an echo of that death as we prepare for the funeral of Ronald Reagan. The work of life is only possible if we accept that we are going to die. But the eternal children in our society refused, and still refuse, to accept that they will die. Their anguish at the cost of the Iraq war is the great symptom of that refusal, of the inability to grow up. There should be no costs, they feel; when we were children there were no costs, in a socialist society there would be no costs.
George W. Bush all too obviously, all too embarrassingly, had to grow up, and he did it before us, in public, for all to see. He went through that terrible moment when he had to give up alcohol, his refuge and solace, if he was to hang on to his wife and his potential as a father. He had to give his life over to a higher authority, one to whom he would be responsible when he died. He thus implicitly accepted death at that moment, accepted costs and tradeoffs. He stands as an example to his generation of how to begin to follow in the path of a Reagan, how to grow up. Thus the current hatred of the President is, strangely, at bottom a fear of death.
The cruelty of Alzheimer's is that it separates the soul from the body in a terrible unnatural way. The body still lives, but the soul is away or asleep. When friends of mine died after a period of dementia I felt an enormous relief -- it was as if their souls, in all their vitality and intelligence and humor, had woken up, released from the clogged brain that had trapped them. I say this as one who does not philosophically separate body from soul. We, his friends, his world, his posterity, had become the new body of the dead one's spirit. I feel that now. We need Ronald Reagan's great spirit among us, as the last stage of the growing-up of the world begins.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
From the Wall Street Journal:
In Solidarity
The Polish people, hungry for justice, preferred "cowboys" over Communists.
BY LECH WALESA
GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.
Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.
I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.
I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.
The 1980s were a curious time--a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.
In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.
Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn't fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.
I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, "High Noon." Under the headline "At High Noon" runs the red Solidarity banner and the date--June 4, 1989--of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the "Wild" West, especially the U.S.
But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.
As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didn't express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world. And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
Mr. Walesa, winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, was president of Poland from 1990 to 1995.
In Solidarity
The Polish people, hungry for justice, preferred "cowboys" over Communists.
BY LECH WALESA
GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.
Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.
I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.
I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.
The 1980s were a curious time--a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.
In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.
Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn't fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.
I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, "High Noon." Under the headline "At High Noon" runs the red Solidarity banner and the date--June 4, 1989--of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the "Wild" West, especially the U.S.
But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.
As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didn't express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world. And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
Mr. Walesa, winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, was president of Poland from 1990 to 1995.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Personal Presidential Portrait
Memories of Ronald Reagan.
By Tony Snow
When it comes to Ronald Reagan, we are all pointillists, hoping to create a whole portrait from dots of experience. Consider four scenes from late in his public career:
Scene One: President George H. W. Bush is sitting in the presidential limousine after visiting the Reagan office in Los Angeles. "He's such a great guy," Bush says, smiling and shaking his head in wonderment. He describes a private meeting — just the two presidents and Bush's national-security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. Reagan broke the ice with a joke, leavened a conversation with a few stories, and afterward treated the entire entourage with self-effacing geniality. The 41st president seems pleasantly surprised that he was greeted as a friend, not a former minion. Reagan had gifts for many things. Self-importance was not one of them.
Scene Two: An envelope arrives from the Reagan office. It contains a marked-up copy of an op-ed piece for the New York Times. Reagan had rewritten the first line, the conclusion, and sentences that summarized the major arguments. He swapped out a handful of adjectives, too. Light editing: yet what began as a dry treatise on the balanced budget amendment has become a Reagan piece, with Reagan's voice. No man ever had more genius as an editor. If you read his public speeches, drafted by dozens of ghostwriters over three decades, you'll notice they sound the same — and unlike anything else.
Scene three: Reagan delivers his valedictory at the Republican convention in 1992. He is speaking late in the evening because Pat Buchanan got the primetime slot. The Lion of Dixon, straining at times to swat away the fog of forgetfulness and confusion, delivers the most beautiful speech of the year, a paean to the sweetness, poignancy and promise of American life. The address lays bare the secret ingredient of Reaganism: love — with all its unapologetic power, ardor, ferocity, and loyalty.
(This is Reagan's secret ingredient. No public figure so openly broadcast his devotion. Reagan understood that love, alloyed with faith, imparts unparalleled strength. Hardship only fed his ardor — from the night he dragged his drunken father out of the snow and into the warmth of the family home, to disappointments in Hollywood, to gunshots and cancer surgery during a presidency, to the final onslaught of Alzheimer's. Reagan accepted reversals as the will of a God who knew better. That is the essence of love: Even in the midst of raging storms, one dreams of sunlight.)
Reagan's late-night speech closes with a blown kiss: "And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city on a hill. Before I go, I would ask the person who has made my life's journey so meaningful, someone I have been so proud of through the years, to join me. Nancy...
"My fellow Americans, on behalf of both of us, goodbye, and God bless each and every one of you, and God bless this country we love."
Scene Four: One last note from the Reagan office, this one for the American people, dated November 5, 1994. It is written in his hand, and concludes: "When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.
"Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you."
Four dots. How many more have we to portray the man?
Memories of Ronald Reagan.
By Tony Snow
When it comes to Ronald Reagan, we are all pointillists, hoping to create a whole portrait from dots of experience. Consider four scenes from late in his public career:
Scene One: President George H. W. Bush is sitting in the presidential limousine after visiting the Reagan office in Los Angeles. "He's such a great guy," Bush says, smiling and shaking his head in wonderment. He describes a private meeting — just the two presidents and Bush's national-security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. Reagan broke the ice with a joke, leavened a conversation with a few stories, and afterward treated the entire entourage with self-effacing geniality. The 41st president seems pleasantly surprised that he was greeted as a friend, not a former minion. Reagan had gifts for many things. Self-importance was not one of them.
Scene Two: An envelope arrives from the Reagan office. It contains a marked-up copy of an op-ed piece for the New York Times. Reagan had rewritten the first line, the conclusion, and sentences that summarized the major arguments. He swapped out a handful of adjectives, too. Light editing: yet what began as a dry treatise on the balanced budget amendment has become a Reagan piece, with Reagan's voice. No man ever had more genius as an editor. If you read his public speeches, drafted by dozens of ghostwriters over three decades, you'll notice they sound the same — and unlike anything else.
Scene three: Reagan delivers his valedictory at the Republican convention in 1992. He is speaking late in the evening because Pat Buchanan got the primetime slot. The Lion of Dixon, straining at times to swat away the fog of forgetfulness and confusion, delivers the most beautiful speech of the year, a paean to the sweetness, poignancy and promise of American life. The address lays bare the secret ingredient of Reaganism: love — with all its unapologetic power, ardor, ferocity, and loyalty.
(This is Reagan's secret ingredient. No public figure so openly broadcast his devotion. Reagan understood that love, alloyed with faith, imparts unparalleled strength. Hardship only fed his ardor — from the night he dragged his drunken father out of the snow and into the warmth of the family home, to disappointments in Hollywood, to gunshots and cancer surgery during a presidency, to the final onslaught of Alzheimer's. Reagan accepted reversals as the will of a God who knew better. That is the essence of love: Even in the midst of raging storms, one dreams of sunlight.)
Reagan's late-night speech closes with a blown kiss: "And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city on a hill. Before I go, I would ask the person who has made my life's journey so meaningful, someone I have been so proud of through the years, to join me. Nancy...
"My fellow Americans, on behalf of both of us, goodbye, and God bless each and every one of you, and God bless this country we love."
Scene Four: One last note from the Reagan office, this one for the American people, dated November 5, 1994. It is written in his hand, and concludes: "When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.
"Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you."
Four dots. How many more have we to portray the man?
Thursday, June 10, 2004
So Now They Think He Was Charming
by Ann Coulter
America's greatest president has gone home. God worked through Ronald Reagan on Earth and now He's taken him back. Reagan is survived by his wife, three children, and the hundreds of millions of people he saved by winning the Cold War. Thanks to him, the United States of America never ceased to be, as Reagan said, "a place to escape to" -- the last stand on Earth.
No thanks to liberals, I might add. More enraging than their revisionist history of Reagan, is liberals' revisionist history about themselves. Now liberals claim they liked Reagan at the time. This is extremely believable -- aren't we all fond of someone who regularly exposes us as liars, cowards and hypocrites? It's just human nature.
In fact and of course, liberals loathed Reagan. Their European friends loathed Reagan -- the protests against our current president are positively anemic compared to the massive protests against President Reagan when he went to visit our dear "allies," whose sorry asses we spent billions of dollars defending against the Soviets for 50 years. Even the moderate Republicans currently trying to insinuate themselves onto Reagan's legacy weren't especially fond of Reagan at the time -- especially when attacking him publicly would get them invites to the tonier Georgetown cocktail parties. Only authentic Americans loved Reagan.
From the descriptions in the media, you would think the reason Reagan was beloved by Americans was that he was an affable fellow who could tell a good joke. That's a description of Bob Dole, not Ronald Reagan.
Reagan was a March hare right-winger. He had enough faith in the American people to know that as long as the facts were clear, they would rise to the occasion and be March hare right-wingers, too. As Reagan himself said, back in 1964: "Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and me believe that this is a contest between two men ... that we are to choose just between two personalities."
Reagan forced Americans to confront the real ideological divide between conservatives and, as he said, "our liberal friends." But now liberals are trying to muddy the political waters by passing off Reagan's popularity as a result of his personal magnetism. I note that liberals were strangely immune to that magnetism at the time. Only now do they talk about Reagan's outsized personality as if he worked some sort of beguiling magic over the electorate and tricked them into supporting policies they never quite understood.
While Reagan had undeniable magnetism, what set him apart was that he had the courage to speak the truth and trust the American people. In the 1964 speech that launched his political career, "A Time for Choosing," Reagan never smiled. He told no jokes -- though he did say some amusing things inasmuch as he was talking about "our liberal friends."
In the throes of the Cold War -- still hot in Vietnam -- Reagan forthrightly said liberals refused to acknowledge that the choice was not between "peace and war, only between fight and surrender." In words that would have come in pretty handy in Spain just a few months ago, he said liberals tell us "if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us." All who disagree with the "peace" crowd, he said, "are indicted as warmongers." To this, Reagan said: "Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender."
This wasn't sunny old grandpa carrying candy around in his pocket for children. After watching Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War in December 1972, Reagan told President Richard Nixon, "under World War II circumstances, the network (CBS) would have been charged with treason."
Reagan quoted "Mr. Democrat himself," Al Smith, for the proposition that the Democratic Party was no longer the party of Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland, but was now the party of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. (And that was 30 years before they tried to push Hillarycare on us.)
Reagan was a bulldog, completely, implacably right-wing on every issue. He was the right-wing Energizer Bunny. He never quit and he kept beating liberals. He cut taxes 25 percent across the board his first year in office; he walked away from Gorbachev at Reykjavik; he fired all those air traffic controllers -- and wouldn't let them come back even when they wanted to; he gave speeches about "welfare queens" and polluting trees; he nominated Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court; and he enraged grim liberals when he warmed up his radio mike by saying, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
But now they're telling us Reagan was a "pragmatist." Well, not according to him. As he was wrapping up the Republican primaries in 1980 and moderate weenies in the Republican Party were trying to move him to the "center," Reagan said: "No, I'm not moving my positions any. ... I believe the same things that I've been speaking on for years, and I don't see any reason to change."
Thank God he didn't. Because Reagan lived, the world is a better place.
by Ann Coulter
America's greatest president has gone home. God worked through Ronald Reagan on Earth and now He's taken him back. Reagan is survived by his wife, three children, and the hundreds of millions of people he saved by winning the Cold War. Thanks to him, the United States of America never ceased to be, as Reagan said, "a place to escape to" -- the last stand on Earth.
No thanks to liberals, I might add. More enraging than their revisionist history of Reagan, is liberals' revisionist history about themselves. Now liberals claim they liked Reagan at the time. This is extremely believable -- aren't we all fond of someone who regularly exposes us as liars, cowards and hypocrites? It's just human nature.
In fact and of course, liberals loathed Reagan. Their European friends loathed Reagan -- the protests against our current president are positively anemic compared to the massive protests against President Reagan when he went to visit our dear "allies," whose sorry asses we spent billions of dollars defending against the Soviets for 50 years. Even the moderate Republicans currently trying to insinuate themselves onto Reagan's legacy weren't especially fond of Reagan at the time -- especially when attacking him publicly would get them invites to the tonier Georgetown cocktail parties. Only authentic Americans loved Reagan.
From the descriptions in the media, you would think the reason Reagan was beloved by Americans was that he was an affable fellow who could tell a good joke. That's a description of Bob Dole, not Ronald Reagan.
Reagan was a March hare right-winger. He had enough faith in the American people to know that as long as the facts were clear, they would rise to the occasion and be March hare right-wingers, too. As Reagan himself said, back in 1964: "Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and me believe that this is a contest between two men ... that we are to choose just between two personalities."
Reagan forced Americans to confront the real ideological divide between conservatives and, as he said, "our liberal friends." But now liberals are trying to muddy the political waters by passing off Reagan's popularity as a result of his personal magnetism. I note that liberals were strangely immune to that magnetism at the time. Only now do they talk about Reagan's outsized personality as if he worked some sort of beguiling magic over the electorate and tricked them into supporting policies they never quite understood.
While Reagan had undeniable magnetism, what set him apart was that he had the courage to speak the truth and trust the American people. In the 1964 speech that launched his political career, "A Time for Choosing," Reagan never smiled. He told no jokes -- though he did say some amusing things inasmuch as he was talking about "our liberal friends."
In the throes of the Cold War -- still hot in Vietnam -- Reagan forthrightly said liberals refused to acknowledge that the choice was not between "peace and war, only between fight and surrender." In words that would have come in pretty handy in Spain just a few months ago, he said liberals tell us "if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us." All who disagree with the "peace" crowd, he said, "are indicted as warmongers." To this, Reagan said: "Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender."
This wasn't sunny old grandpa carrying candy around in his pocket for children. After watching Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War in December 1972, Reagan told President Richard Nixon, "under World War II circumstances, the network (CBS) would have been charged with treason."
Reagan quoted "Mr. Democrat himself," Al Smith, for the proposition that the Democratic Party was no longer the party of Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland, but was now the party of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. (And that was 30 years before they tried to push Hillarycare on us.)
Reagan was a bulldog, completely, implacably right-wing on every issue. He was the right-wing Energizer Bunny. He never quit and he kept beating liberals. He cut taxes 25 percent across the board his first year in office; he walked away from Gorbachev at Reykjavik; he fired all those air traffic controllers -- and wouldn't let them come back even when they wanted to; he gave speeches about "welfare queens" and polluting trees; he nominated Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court; and he enraged grim liberals when he warmed up his radio mike by saying, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
But now they're telling us Reagan was a "pragmatist." Well, not according to him. As he was wrapping up the Republican primaries in 1980 and moderate weenies in the Republican Party were trying to move him to the "center," Reagan said: "No, I'm not moving my positions any. ... I believe the same things that I've been speaking on for years, and I don't see any reason to change."
Thank God he didn't. Because Reagan lived, the world is a better place.
Goodbye to 'The Gipper'
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic – daring, decent and fair."
So Ronald Reagan said of America in his second inaugural address. And so it shall be said of him.
He came from another time and place, Ronald Reagan did, a time long ago when love of country was as natural for a boy growing up in Illinois as was a faith that nothing was beyond the capacity of the great and good people whence he had come.
He had a lifelong love affair with America, with her history, heroes, stories and legends. Now he is now one of those legends.
In life and as an actor, he always relished romantic and heroic roles, whether as the lifeguard who pulled 77 swimmers to safety, the legendary George Gipp of Knute Rockne's Notre Dame or the statesman who walked out of a summit meeting in Iceland rather than compromise the security of the country he was elected to protect.
When America began to tear herself apart over morality, race and Vietnam in the 1960s, the old certitudes he articulated and the old virtues he personified held a magnetic attraction for a people bewildered by what was happening to their country. When he spoke, he took us to a higher ground, above petty and partisan squabbles and divisions, where we could dream again and be a people again.
In the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, Reagan's speech of blazing defiance vaulted him into the leadership of the conservative movement. And after Watergate, defeat in Vietnam, the Soviet empire rampant and America held hostage, the country, unready for Reagan or conservatism in 1964, took a chance in 1980.
And when she did, America won the lottery.
With the help of tough Paul Volcker at the Federal Reserve, Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, after they took effect in 1983, ignited a 17-year boom unlike any in the 20th century. America was back.
Reagan's sunny persona, his grace under fire after the attempt on his life, endeared him to his countrymen. When he came out of the anesthesia after the surgery to remove the bullet so near his heart, he looked up at the nervous nurses hovering over him and said, "OK, let's do the whole scene over again, beginning at the hotel."
His refusal to compromise principle, his resolve to restore the morale and might of the armed forces of which he was now commander in chief, converted America to conservatism and created a constituency all his own: Reagan Democrats. I do not know if Ronald Reagan would have cared that they named that building in Washington after him, but he would have loved that big aircraft carrier.
In the 1960s, it was a handicap in a presidential campaign to be a conservative. Republicans shied away from the label a hostile media had equated with extremism. With Reagan, it was an honor. He was never embarrassed or ashamed at being a man of the right.
Every year, he would speak at CPAC. In every State of the Union, he demanded a line be inserted calling for an amendment to the constitution to protect the life of the unborn. He believed God had spared him and that the time left to him was to be spent doing God's work here on earth.
Where other politicians feared to tred on the battlegrounds of philosophy and principle, Reagan rushed in. Nominated in 1980, he demanded a "no pale pastels" platform – and then ran on it.
He had a wonderful sense of humor, and he loved stories. Seconds before going out to face the press in prime-time news conferences 80 million Americans and the whole world would watch, he was still telling jokes. He was devoid of ego and of the boastfulness so common in this capital. "There is no limit to how far a man can go," read a plaque in his office, "so long as he is willing to let someone else get the credit."
What did he achieve? Ronald Reagan let the American eagle soar. He cut tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent, restored our spirit, rebuilt the armed forces into the most formidable the world had ever seen and led us to bloodless victory in the Cold War. Time declared Mikhail Gorbachev Man of the Decade. America knows better.
Branded by a hostile city as "an amiable dunce," he paid no heed. He was more concerned with what his friends at Human Events wrote than what his adversaries at the Washington Post or the New York Times said.
He was warned that his determination to challenge the Soviet Empire philosophically, and strategically in Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua, risked war. Yet this 70-year-old man who began his presidency calling the Soviet Union an evil empire ended it strolling through Red Square arm-in-arm with the last leader of that empire.
A British statesman once said all political lives end in failure. As always, Ronald Reagan is the exception. We shall not see his like again.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic – daring, decent and fair."
So Ronald Reagan said of America in his second inaugural address. And so it shall be said of him.
He came from another time and place, Ronald Reagan did, a time long ago when love of country was as natural for a boy growing up in Illinois as was a faith that nothing was beyond the capacity of the great and good people whence he had come.
He had a lifelong love affair with America, with her history, heroes, stories and legends. Now he is now one of those legends.
In life and as an actor, he always relished romantic and heroic roles, whether as the lifeguard who pulled 77 swimmers to safety, the legendary George Gipp of Knute Rockne's Notre Dame or the statesman who walked out of a summit meeting in Iceland rather than compromise the security of the country he was elected to protect.
When America began to tear herself apart over morality, race and Vietnam in the 1960s, the old certitudes he articulated and the old virtues he personified held a magnetic attraction for a people bewildered by what was happening to their country. When he spoke, he took us to a higher ground, above petty and partisan squabbles and divisions, where we could dream again and be a people again.
In the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, Reagan's speech of blazing defiance vaulted him into the leadership of the conservative movement. And after Watergate, defeat in Vietnam, the Soviet empire rampant and America held hostage, the country, unready for Reagan or conservatism in 1964, took a chance in 1980.
And when she did, America won the lottery.
With the help of tough Paul Volcker at the Federal Reserve, Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, after they took effect in 1983, ignited a 17-year boom unlike any in the 20th century. America was back.
Reagan's sunny persona, his grace under fire after the attempt on his life, endeared him to his countrymen. When he came out of the anesthesia after the surgery to remove the bullet so near his heart, he looked up at the nervous nurses hovering over him and said, "OK, let's do the whole scene over again, beginning at the hotel."
His refusal to compromise principle, his resolve to restore the morale and might of the armed forces of which he was now commander in chief, converted America to conservatism and created a constituency all his own: Reagan Democrats. I do not know if Ronald Reagan would have cared that they named that building in Washington after him, but he would have loved that big aircraft carrier.
In the 1960s, it was a handicap in a presidential campaign to be a conservative. Republicans shied away from the label a hostile media had equated with extremism. With Reagan, it was an honor. He was never embarrassed or ashamed at being a man of the right.
Every year, he would speak at CPAC. In every State of the Union, he demanded a line be inserted calling for an amendment to the constitution to protect the life of the unborn. He believed God had spared him and that the time left to him was to be spent doing God's work here on earth.
Where other politicians feared to tred on the battlegrounds of philosophy and principle, Reagan rushed in. Nominated in 1980, he demanded a "no pale pastels" platform – and then ran on it.
He had a wonderful sense of humor, and he loved stories. Seconds before going out to face the press in prime-time news conferences 80 million Americans and the whole world would watch, he was still telling jokes. He was devoid of ego and of the boastfulness so common in this capital. "There is no limit to how far a man can go," read a plaque in his office, "so long as he is willing to let someone else get the credit."
What did he achieve? Ronald Reagan let the American eagle soar. He cut tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent, restored our spirit, rebuilt the armed forces into the most formidable the world had ever seen and led us to bloodless victory in the Cold War. Time declared Mikhail Gorbachev Man of the Decade. America knows better.
Branded by a hostile city as "an amiable dunce," he paid no heed. He was more concerned with what his friends at Human Events wrote than what his adversaries at the Washington Post or the New York Times said.
He was warned that his determination to challenge the Soviet Empire philosophically, and strategically in Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua, risked war. Yet this 70-year-old man who began his presidency calling the Soviet Union an evil empire ended it strolling through Red Square arm-in-arm with the last leader of that empire.
A British statesman once said all political lives end in failure. As always, Ronald Reagan is the exception. We shall not see his like again.
from washingtonpost.com:
Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer's
Reagan-Inspired Zeal For Study Continues
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Ronald Reagan's death from Alzheimer's disease Saturday has triggered an outpouring of support for human embryonic stem cell research. Building on comments made by Nancy Reagan last month, scores of senators on Monday called upon President Bush to loosen his restrictions on the controversial research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. Patient groups have also chimed in, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday added his support for a policy review.
It is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum.
But the infrequently voiced reality, stem cell experts confess, is that, of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit.
"I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small," said stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, echoing many other experts. "I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner."
Stem cell transplants show great potential for other diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes, scientists said. Someday, embryo cell studies may lead to insights into Alzheimer's. If nothing else, some said, stem cells bearing the genetic hallmarks of Alzheimer's may help scientists assess the potential usefulness of new drugs.
But given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions.
It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.
"To start with, people need a fairy tale," said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."
Human embryonic stem cells have the capacity to morph into virtually any kind of tissue, leading many scientists to believe they could serve as a "universal patch" for injured organs. Some studies have suggested, for example, that stem cells injected into an injured heart can spur the development of healthy new heart muscle.
Among the more promising targets of such "cellular therapies" are: Parkinson's disease, which affects a small and specialized population of brain cells; type-1 diabetes, caused by the loss of discrete insulin-producing cells in the pancreas; and spinal cord injuries in which a few crucial nerve cells die, such as the injury that paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve.
In part as a result of her friendship with Hollywood personalities Doug Wick, Lucy Fisher, and Jerry and Janet Zucker -- all of whom have become stem cell activists because they have children with diabetes -- Nancy Reagan became interested in stem cells and their oft-cited, if largely theoretical, potential for treating Alzheimer's. Over the years, she has become more vocal on the issue.
On May 8, with her husband's brain ravaged by Alzheimer's disease, Nancy Reagan addressed a biomedical research fundraiser in Los Angeles and spoke out forcefully.
"I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this," she said, in an oblique cut at Bush, who placed tight limits on the field in August 2001 to protect, he said, the earliest stages of life.
Since Reagan's death, many others have joined the call to enlist embryonic stem cells in the war on Alzheimer's, including some new converts. Among the 58 senators who signed the letter to Bush were 14 Republicans and several abortion opponents -- evidence that the Reagan connection is providing "political cover," said Sean Tipton of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a stem cell advocacy group.
But in contrast to Parkinson's, diabetes and spinal injuries, Alzheimer's disease involves the loss of huge numbers and varieties of the brain's 100 billion nerve cells -- and countless connections, or synapses, among them.
"The complex architecture of the brain, the fact that it's a diffuse disease with neuronal loss in numerous places and with synaptic loss, all this is a problem" for any strategy involving cell replacement, said Huntington Potter, a brain researcher at the University of South Florida in Tampa and chief executive of the Johnnie B. Byrd Institute for Alzheimer's Research.
"We don't even know what are the best cells to replace initially," added Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, who studies stem cells and Alzheimer's disease at the University of California at San Diego. "It's complicated."
Goldstein and others emphasized that future Alzheimer's patients could benefit if stem cell research is allowed to blossom.
Scientists suspect, for example, that stem cell studies could help identify the molecular errors that underlie Alzheimer's, which in turn would help chemists design drugs to slow or even reverse the disease.
But that line of work could face formidable political hurdles. That is because the most frequently cited approach would require not just stem cells from spare embryos donated by fertility clinics -- a currently untapped source of cells that many want Bush to make available to federally funded researchers. It would also require the creation of cloned human embryos made from cells taken from Alzheimer's patients.
From such embryos, stem cells bearing the still-unidentified defects underlying Alzheimer's could be removed and coaxed to grow into brain cells in lab dishes, and their development could be compared to the development of normal brain cells.
While that experiment could shed important light on the earliest -- and perhaps most treatable -- stages of Alzheimer's, a majority in Congress have said that the creation of cloned human embryos is an ethical line they are unwilling to cross.
Less controversial uses of stem cells may also lead to insights, Goldstein and others said. The key, said Harvard stem cell researcher George Daley, is not to get "preoccupied with stem cells as cellular therapies." Their real value for Alzheimer's will be as laboratory tools to explore basic questions of biology, Daley said.
Unfortunately, said James Battey, who directs stem cell research for the National Institutes of Health, "that is not necessarily the way I hear the disease community talking. They tend to focus on the immediate use of stem cells for their disease or disorder."
It is not clear whether the recent wave of stem cell support will persist as it becomes clearer that cures remain far off -- and, in the case of Alzheimer's, unlikely. Basic research with stem cells is just as deserving of support as therapeutic trials, Battey said, "but it's a much harder sell."
"The public should understand that science is not like making widgets," he said. "We're exploring the unknown, and by definition we don't know where it's going to take us."
Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer's
Reagan-Inspired Zeal For Study Continues
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Ronald Reagan's death from Alzheimer's disease Saturday has triggered an outpouring of support for human embryonic stem cell research. Building on comments made by Nancy Reagan last month, scores of senators on Monday called upon President Bush to loosen his restrictions on the controversial research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. Patient groups have also chimed in, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday added his support for a policy review.
It is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum.
But the infrequently voiced reality, stem cell experts confess, is that, of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit.
"I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small," said stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, echoing many other experts. "I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner."
Stem cell transplants show great potential for other diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes, scientists said. Someday, embryo cell studies may lead to insights into Alzheimer's. If nothing else, some said, stem cells bearing the genetic hallmarks of Alzheimer's may help scientists assess the potential usefulness of new drugs.
But given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions.
It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.
"To start with, people need a fairy tale," said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."
Human embryonic stem cells have the capacity to morph into virtually any kind of tissue, leading many scientists to believe they could serve as a "universal patch" for injured organs. Some studies have suggested, for example, that stem cells injected into an injured heart can spur the development of healthy new heart muscle.
Among the more promising targets of such "cellular therapies" are: Parkinson's disease, which affects a small and specialized population of brain cells; type-1 diabetes, caused by the loss of discrete insulin-producing cells in the pancreas; and spinal cord injuries in which a few crucial nerve cells die, such as the injury that paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve.
In part as a result of her friendship with Hollywood personalities Doug Wick, Lucy Fisher, and Jerry and Janet Zucker -- all of whom have become stem cell activists because they have children with diabetes -- Nancy Reagan became interested in stem cells and their oft-cited, if largely theoretical, potential for treating Alzheimer's. Over the years, she has become more vocal on the issue.
On May 8, with her husband's brain ravaged by Alzheimer's disease, Nancy Reagan addressed a biomedical research fundraiser in Los Angeles and spoke out forcefully.
"I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this," she said, in an oblique cut at Bush, who placed tight limits on the field in August 2001 to protect, he said, the earliest stages of life.
Since Reagan's death, many others have joined the call to enlist embryonic stem cells in the war on Alzheimer's, including some new converts. Among the 58 senators who signed the letter to Bush were 14 Republicans and several abortion opponents -- evidence that the Reagan connection is providing "political cover," said Sean Tipton of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a stem cell advocacy group.
But in contrast to Parkinson's, diabetes and spinal injuries, Alzheimer's disease involves the loss of huge numbers and varieties of the brain's 100 billion nerve cells -- and countless connections, or synapses, among them.
"The complex architecture of the brain, the fact that it's a diffuse disease with neuronal loss in numerous places and with synaptic loss, all this is a problem" for any strategy involving cell replacement, said Huntington Potter, a brain researcher at the University of South Florida in Tampa and chief executive of the Johnnie B. Byrd Institute for Alzheimer's Research.
"We don't even know what are the best cells to replace initially," added Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, who studies stem cells and Alzheimer's disease at the University of California at San Diego. "It's complicated."
Goldstein and others emphasized that future Alzheimer's patients could benefit if stem cell research is allowed to blossom.
Scientists suspect, for example, that stem cell studies could help identify the molecular errors that underlie Alzheimer's, which in turn would help chemists design drugs to slow or even reverse the disease.
But that line of work could face formidable political hurdles. That is because the most frequently cited approach would require not just stem cells from spare embryos donated by fertility clinics -- a currently untapped source of cells that many want Bush to make available to federally funded researchers. It would also require the creation of cloned human embryos made from cells taken from Alzheimer's patients.
From such embryos, stem cells bearing the still-unidentified defects underlying Alzheimer's could be removed and coaxed to grow into brain cells in lab dishes, and their development could be compared to the development of normal brain cells.
While that experiment could shed important light on the earliest -- and perhaps most treatable -- stages of Alzheimer's, a majority in Congress have said that the creation of cloned human embryos is an ethical line they are unwilling to cross.
Less controversial uses of stem cells may also lead to insights, Goldstein and others said. The key, said Harvard stem cell researcher George Daley, is not to get "preoccupied with stem cells as cellular therapies." Their real value for Alzheimer's will be as laboratory tools to explore basic questions of biology, Daley said.
Unfortunately, said James Battey, who directs stem cell research for the National Institutes of Health, "that is not necessarily the way I hear the disease community talking. They tend to focus on the immediate use of stem cells for their disease or disorder."
It is not clear whether the recent wave of stem cell support will persist as it becomes clearer that cures remain far off -- and, in the case of Alzheimer's, unlikely. Basic research with stem cells is just as deserving of support as therapeutic trials, Battey said, "but it's a much harder sell."
"The public should understand that science is not like making widgets," he said. "We're exploring the unknown, and by definition we don't know where it's going to take us."
Changes in Greensboro
I read today on the Greensboro blog edcone.com that the Burlington Industries building on Friendly Avenue is due to be demolished because a tenant can't be found, and the Wachovia Building downtown is vacant. I remember when both of those architecturally modern buildings were shiny and new, and it's a little unsettling now to think of them being empty and unused.
I read today on the Greensboro blog edcone.com that the Burlington Industries building on Friendly Avenue is due to be demolished because a tenant can't be found, and the Wachovia Building downtown is vacant. I remember when both of those architecturally modern buildings were shiny and new, and it's a little unsettling now to think of them being empty and unused.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
We Loved You, Too, Mr. President
by Jack Kemp
So much has been written and broadcasted about the life and politics of Ronald Reagan since his death on Saturday that it is hard to imagine anything else left to say about his legacy. Even the Reagan Revolution in tax and economic policy, with which I was so closely involved, seems thoroughly covered at this point, although it still remains a mystery to the left.
In reflecting on what more to say about this great American, it struck me that notwithstanding their importance, it wasn't Reagan's wisdom, his wit, his courage, his vision or his skills at communicating that vision or his ability to lead the American people toward that vision that set him apart. It was his indefatigable optimism and an overflowing love for his fellow human beings - one in particular, his wife Nancy - that made Reagan who he was and were the underlying source of everything he accomplished.
No one could be around Reagan or hear him talk without being infected by his optimism and perceiving that genuine feeling of affection, care and concern for his fellow man. But it was Nancy Reagan who later revealed the source of his optimism and his love - his faith in God. It wasn't an ostentatious or self-absorbed faith that manifested itself in rigid certainty about matters of this Earth; it was a deep, abiding knowledge that we are all playing bit parts, albeit eternally important parts, on this earthly stage and being directed by a higher power. It was that certainty of faith that freed Reagan of hubris to be humble - meek in the true sense of the word - in his relations with other people, with other nations and in the decisions he made as president.
Nancy put it this way, "Ronnie has always been a very religious man. He has always believed that God has a plan for each of us and that while we might not understand his plan now, eventually we will." She also revealed in an unguarded comment about his love letters to her how Reagan's strong faith made it possible for him to lead others: "He often wrote to me of what was most important to him in spiritual terms, and I admired his faith, although I did not share the firmness of his convictions. I did, however, draw strength from his faith over the years - as did we all.
Reagan never preached from the bully pulpit; he conversed with the people. He never thought he had all the answers or that he was put on this Earth to reveal and implement God's plan for the rest of us, neither when he was governor of California nor when he was president of the United States. His faith wasn't expressed in a rigid certainty of what God's plan was or how he fit into it but rather was faith-created and drove an intellectual honesty that allowed him to be remarkably flexible whenever it was necessary to adjust courses.
His flexibility was first revealed to me in 1979, when I saw him do a 180-degree turn on economic policy, reject the old-time Republican economic religion of fiscal austerity and embrace across-the-board tax-rate reductions to combat stagflation. As he said in his first inaugural address, "To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I've just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy."
Reagan had a hunger and thirst for the truth that led him to continually reassess the assumptions on which he was operating. He didn't agonize Hamlet-like or flip-flop from one position to another. He never wavered on principles, but his humble nature and affection for his adversaries meant he was always re-evaluating how he was applying those principles and how to achieve a practical result.
Reagan's hallmark - what made him a great politician while remaining true to his moral compass - was his ability to find practical outcomes without abandoning principle. With the Soviet Union, for example, we faced the most dangerous adversary America has ever confronted, a foe that not only possessed but openly brandished weapons of mass destruction. Yet Reagan was prescient when he said in a 1981 speech at Notre Dame University that, "The West will not contain communism, it will transcend communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."
Who else but Reagan could have foreseen the demise of that evil empire in our lifetime? With all due respect to William Manchester, one of Churchill's biographers who called the great British prime minister the "last lion" of the 20th century for defeating fascism, it was Reagan ultimately who was the true "last lion" of the 20th century for defeating communism without firing a shot.
Reagan's solution wasn't to defeat communism on the battlefield or best it diplomatically but to transcend it economically and morally. When the Soviet Union was almost prostrate economically and verging on civil war in its outer provinces, Reagan had the courage and the wisdom to seek peace through strength, not belligerency. He joined forces with Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher to apply the most powerful kind of pressure - moral suasion backed by military strength - while at the same time providing the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, the maneuvering room to bring Soviet communism to a peaceful end.
Ronald Wilson Reagan was a peacemaker who loved freedom for all mankind. We loved you, too, Mr. President, and we will remember you always.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2003 HUMAN EVENTS.
by Jack Kemp
So much has been written and broadcasted about the life and politics of Ronald Reagan since his death on Saturday that it is hard to imagine anything else left to say about his legacy. Even the Reagan Revolution in tax and economic policy, with which I was so closely involved, seems thoroughly covered at this point, although it still remains a mystery to the left.
In reflecting on what more to say about this great American, it struck me that notwithstanding their importance, it wasn't Reagan's wisdom, his wit, his courage, his vision or his skills at communicating that vision or his ability to lead the American people toward that vision that set him apart. It was his indefatigable optimism and an overflowing love for his fellow human beings - one in particular, his wife Nancy - that made Reagan who he was and were the underlying source of everything he accomplished.
No one could be around Reagan or hear him talk without being infected by his optimism and perceiving that genuine feeling of affection, care and concern for his fellow man. But it was Nancy Reagan who later revealed the source of his optimism and his love - his faith in God. It wasn't an ostentatious or self-absorbed faith that manifested itself in rigid certainty about matters of this Earth; it was a deep, abiding knowledge that we are all playing bit parts, albeit eternally important parts, on this earthly stage and being directed by a higher power. It was that certainty of faith that freed Reagan of hubris to be humble - meek in the true sense of the word - in his relations with other people, with other nations and in the decisions he made as president.
Nancy put it this way, "Ronnie has always been a very religious man. He has always believed that God has a plan for each of us and that while we might not understand his plan now, eventually we will." She also revealed in an unguarded comment about his love letters to her how Reagan's strong faith made it possible for him to lead others: "He often wrote to me of what was most important to him in spiritual terms, and I admired his faith, although I did not share the firmness of his convictions. I did, however, draw strength from his faith over the years - as did we all.
Reagan never preached from the bully pulpit; he conversed with the people. He never thought he had all the answers or that he was put on this Earth to reveal and implement God's plan for the rest of us, neither when he was governor of California nor when he was president of the United States. His faith wasn't expressed in a rigid certainty of what God's plan was or how he fit into it but rather was faith-created and drove an intellectual honesty that allowed him to be remarkably flexible whenever it was necessary to adjust courses.
His flexibility was first revealed to me in 1979, when I saw him do a 180-degree turn on economic policy, reject the old-time Republican economic religion of fiscal austerity and embrace across-the-board tax-rate reductions to combat stagflation. As he said in his first inaugural address, "To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I've just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy."
Reagan had a hunger and thirst for the truth that led him to continually reassess the assumptions on which he was operating. He didn't agonize Hamlet-like or flip-flop from one position to another. He never wavered on principles, but his humble nature and affection for his adversaries meant he was always re-evaluating how he was applying those principles and how to achieve a practical result.
Reagan's hallmark - what made him a great politician while remaining true to his moral compass - was his ability to find practical outcomes without abandoning principle. With the Soviet Union, for example, we faced the most dangerous adversary America has ever confronted, a foe that not only possessed but openly brandished weapons of mass destruction. Yet Reagan was prescient when he said in a 1981 speech at Notre Dame University that, "The West will not contain communism, it will transcend communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."
Who else but Reagan could have foreseen the demise of that evil empire in our lifetime? With all due respect to William Manchester, one of Churchill's biographers who called the great British prime minister the "last lion" of the 20th century for defeating fascism, it was Reagan ultimately who was the true "last lion" of the 20th century for defeating communism without firing a shot.
Reagan's solution wasn't to defeat communism on the battlefield or best it diplomatically but to transcend it economically and morally. When the Soviet Union was almost prostrate economically and verging on civil war in its outer provinces, Reagan had the courage and the wisdom to seek peace through strength, not belligerency. He joined forces with Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher to apply the most powerful kind of pressure - moral suasion backed by military strength - while at the same time providing the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, the maneuvering room to bring Soviet communism to a peaceful end.
Ronald Wilson Reagan was a peacemaker who loved freedom for all mankind. We loved you, too, Mr. President, and we will remember you always.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2003 HUMAN EVENTS.
Dan Rather's Eulogy for Ronald Reagan.
June 06, 2004, 04:41:30 EDT
President Reagan led the West in a decisive hour of a long battle for the survival of Western culture, Western ideas and ideals.
He was a son of the West. Born in the American Mid-West, he grew to full manhood and died in its far West. All of his life, he favored the West Wind.
He dressed the part, acted it, spoke it, and lived it. The Reagan presidency began on the front steps of the Capitol. His inaugural ceremony the first in history facing West, toward the Mall and its monuments.
His letter of November 5, 1994, announcing his Alzheimers, poignant, yet devoid of self-pity, tells us he was once again looking West. But, Ronald Wilson Reagan also could not resist one more look back over his shoulder.
He now makes his final ride, confident in the knowledge that, as he wrote, "For America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead."
May we share his optimism. And may his steed hold steady as he completes his journey.
We will think of him always, when the West Wind blows.
June 06, 2004, 04:41:30 EDT
President Reagan led the West in a decisive hour of a long battle for the survival of Western culture, Western ideas and ideals.
He was a son of the West. Born in the American Mid-West, he grew to full manhood and died in its far West. All of his life, he favored the West Wind.
He dressed the part, acted it, spoke it, and lived it. The Reagan presidency began on the front steps of the Capitol. His inaugural ceremony the first in history facing West, toward the Mall and its monuments.
His letter of November 5, 1994, announcing his Alzheimers, poignant, yet devoid of self-pity, tells us he was once again looking West. But, Ronald Wilson Reagan also could not resist one more look back over his shoulder.
He now makes his final ride, confident in the knowledge that, as he wrote, "For America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead."
May we share his optimism. And may his steed hold steady as he completes his journey.
We will think of him always, when the West Wind blows.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
President Reagan's Speech at Pointe de Hoc
Ronald Reagan -- Pointe de Hoc, Normandy, June 6, 1984 (The 40th anniversary of D-Day)
We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied peoples joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.
We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but forty years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.
The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers -- at the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine-guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting only ninety could still bear arms.
Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.
Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your 'lives fought for life...and left the vivid air signed with your honor'...
Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith, and belief; it was loyalty and love.
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
Ronald Reagan -- Pointe de Hoc, Normandy, June 6, 1984 (The 40th anniversary of D-Day)
We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied peoples joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.
We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but forty years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.
The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers -- at the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine-guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting only ninety could still bear arms.
Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.
Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your 'lives fought for life...and left the vivid air signed with your honor'...
Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith, and belief; it was loyalty and love.
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
In Memoriam: President Ronald Reagan
It seems impossible to say anything about Ronald Reagan that someone else hasn't said better or more eloquently. Maybe I'll address some of my own thoughts in the next few days. In the meantime, here's a perceptive post from a National Review Online reader.
AMERICA'S GANDALF [Jonah Goldberg]
From a reader:
Jonah,
This will perhaps sound cheesy, but I've always thought of Reagan as America's Gandalf. If you read the Silmarillion--and pay careful attention to passages about Gandalf in LOTR--you learn that Gandalf is a figure sent to bring hope, encouragement, and wisdom to Middle Earth as it faced it's Great Enemy:
“Other evils may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." --Tolkien, LOTR (Bk. V, Ch. 9, p. 190).
"They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." -- Ronald Reagan
I was about 11 years old when Ronald Reagan took office and I will never forget the enthusiasm, the courage, the childlike joy that he conveyed to, and surely instilled in, my heart.
Best wishes to you & your family,
[Name withheld]
It seems impossible to say anything about Ronald Reagan that someone else hasn't said better or more eloquently. Maybe I'll address some of my own thoughts in the next few days. In the meantime, here's a perceptive post from a National Review Online reader.
AMERICA'S GANDALF [Jonah Goldberg]
From a reader:
Jonah,
This will perhaps sound cheesy, but I've always thought of Reagan as America's Gandalf. If you read the Silmarillion--and pay careful attention to passages about Gandalf in LOTR--you learn that Gandalf is a figure sent to bring hope, encouragement, and wisdom to Middle Earth as it faced it's Great Enemy:
“Other evils may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." --Tolkien, LOTR (Bk. V, Ch. 9, p. 190).
"They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." -- Ronald Reagan
I was about 11 years old when Ronald Reagan took office and I will never forget the enthusiasm, the courage, the childlike joy that he conveyed to, and surely instilled in, my heart.
Best wishes to you & your family,
[Name withheld]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
