The American left was truly terrified of Ronald Reagan. They pretended to detest him for his cowboy jingoism, supposed intellectual deficiency (he only went to Eureka College, you know) and his obstructionist stance across our National Path to Greatness. Which was largely defined, of course, by ever-increasing government control by Wise Government Bureaucrats over the public sphere, progressive re-distribution of income and humorless scolding. Moving down the National Path of Greatness necessarily meant focusing more on the “warts” side of the American “warts and all” equation here at home. On the international stage we had loose “containment” hiding behind a détente which in reality gave license to an expansionist Brezhnev Doctrine.
No sense dwelling on the restless energies and unparalleled accomplishments of a great nation. In that direction lay self-satisfaction and inertia, the death knell to “progress.” No sense fighting against communist expansionism, someone could get hurt. Listen for the warning signal children, step in to the hallway, put your head between your legs and close your eyes.
It will all be over soon.
Reagan flipped the coin on all of that. When, in the midst of a “national malaise,” he proclaimed that it was “morning again in America,” the left cringed. When people started to actually believe him, they went into full panic mode. When he labeled the Soviet Union an evil empire, the realists tut-tutted, and shook their heads. Trying to match his re-armament sent the creaking Soviet economy into a tailspin from which it could never recover, and his willingness to choose between the Polish Solidarity movement and the communist government that pretended to represent the interests of the working class led the disintegration of of European communism, and eventually the Soviet Union itself.
In a neatly ironic exercise of the material dialectic, America gave us Reagan, causing the Soviet Union to in turn offer up their Gorbachev, who conceded Poland back to the Poles. The rest was history.
President Reagan added to the costs of Soviet foreign policies in the third world and their arms build-up at the very moment of greatest Soviet vulnerability. The Reagan Doctrine as a policy involving all the aspects of the program to unseat the Soviet Union, was something that evolved out of an initial ideological stance put forward by President Reagan early in his administration but that could only come to fruition in the second term. Although there was much confusion in the first term at the lower levels, at the operational and strategic levels there was a common thread — a combination of the man and the moment, an aspiration and many forces came together. Reagan helped pull these forces together. That is what made it a historical development — a leader and his vision coincided with a historical moment.
Many of the same journalists and academics who tried to argue that communist expansionism was unavoidable, and perhaps even beneficent would spend their later energies arguing that its collapse was structurally inevitable, that Reagan’s strategic offensive had nothing to do with it. At home, they called the 80s a “decade of greed,” while the 90s were a “decade of growth.” The collapse of the dot com economy at the end of that era was an inconvenient footnote on an objectively greater materialism. Forgivable in this case, because we had the “right people” at the helm.
The Gipper made us believe in ourselves again, and for that he could never be forgiven. Nor would anyone ever be allowed to replace him. Because there are all those warts standing across the National Path to Greatness. In this the media will play their role, according to Mark Steyn:
If we’re talking about letting the Left “set the rules,” Mr. Marcus’s column reminded me of a larger point: Don’t take your opponents at face value; listen to what they’re really saying. What does the frenzy unleashed on Sarah Palin last fall tell us? What does Newsweek‘s “Mad Man” cover on Glenn Beck mean? Why have ”civility” drones like Joe Klein so eagerly adopted Anderson Cooper’s scrotal “teabagging” slur and characterized as “racists” and “terrorists” what are (certainly by comparison with the anti-G20 crowd) the best behaved and tidiest street agitators in modern history?
They’re telling you who they really fear. Whom the media gods would destroy they first make into “mad men.” Liz Cheney should be due for the treatment any day now…
The media would like the American Right to be represented by the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, decent old sticks who know how to give dignified concession speeches. Last time round, we went along with their recommendation. If you want to get rave reviews for losing gracefully, that’s the way to go. If you want to win, look at whom the Democrats and their media chums are so frantic to destroy: That’s the better guide to what they’re really worried about.
Watching the pack go braying off into a chase doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve got a valid target in their sights. But if we can rise above the din, it is at least educational and even entertaining.
I’m not going to bother with a google search; but who was the Republican leader in the house before Newt Gingrich? Wan’t it Bob Michel from Illinois? Regarded as a nice guy by the Dems, b/c he didn’t raise a ruckus in the House. And look what happened when Gingrich took over…….
Agricola/
Bob Michel was John McCain before there was a John McCain. “Mr. Accommodate” personified. A nice guy, WWII Vet, CIB, etc., but….all too comfortable where he and the Elephants were–the permanent opposition. EVERYTHING that conservatives thought was/is wrong with the Republican party.
Steyn is dead-on. Better to be feared than liked. Respected? Yes. Liked? Es no muy importante.
Virgil, I tend to agree with you and Count Von Bismarck, People can like some fairly loathesome things and people.
Ditos VX. Double Dittos and right-on.
VX
I would add to that mix “educated”. Unfortunately, few Americans read conservative blogs, fewer still make any attempt to sort through the ABC/NBC/CBS vs Fox issue and determine for themselves were truth lies. The left is educated AND organized. I forwarded lex an email this morning on “educating our children” and here’s an excerpt:
* The TV demagogue Glenn Beck demonized White House aid Van Jones, a gifted African-American expert on green jobs. And then he revealed the Grand Conspiracy: Van Jones was actually part of a White House plot to create a “Hitler youth brigade.”
* Crazy thinking like this hyper-ventilated the right-wing pressure groups who wanted to stop President Obama from making an address to school kids telling them to stay in school. To them he’s another “Hitler” (or “Mao” in some circles).
The antidote to the wave of militant ignorance sweeping our land is more speech, more thought, more education — democratic education developing an informed citizenry — and one that knows the difference between a Hitler and a democratically elected President. And it’s why we’re asking today for your support to help underwrite The Nation’s Student Outreach Program.
For decades now, The Nation has built this program dedicated to encouraging informed, critical thinking among students. As an independent political weekly we seek to inspire students interested in writing and journalism to become, like the magazine, truth-tellers to power.”
The Left fears an educated conservative far more than a hundred average Joes that couldnt’ find Afghanistan on a map. And their machine is very good at subtly increasing the degrees of freedom within which they operate. check out this little gem:
http://patriotupdate.com/stories/read/1133/VIDEO-Power-and-Danger-of-Obamas-O-Logo
They GET IT. We on the other hand, have not clearly understood that the rules have changed. the light bulb is dimly glowing but needs a constant source of increasing phased and regulated voltage to shine. Rush isn’t that source, not sure Glenn is either. But who is? Honestly I don’t know. Palin is nothing but a piece of meat thrown to starving dogs. No amount of “heel” commands will stop them from tearing it apart. Huckabee – not likely. So where is the next great unifier, cheerleader, and leader?
“Where is RPT where is Task Force 34. The world wonders”.
G-Man@9:20am 29 Sept/
HE’S NOT COMING! HE’S NOT COMING!
You ask: But Who? I would direct you to one of the best comments I’ve seen on this subject made by a young gal in ARK named Freeman Hunt. This is one intelligent way-beyond-her-years-young lady. Scroll down to her 12 June post (she posts infreq) and read “He is Not Coming.” and tell me what you think. Her site is FreemanHunt@
http://freemanhunt.blogspot.com/
A young lady wise beyond her years, whose understanding will serve her well throughout life.
Thanks for the link, VX.
That was a good read, thanks for the link.
Dad always used to say,
“A hit dog always hollers………….”
Dhimmicrats are a bellerin’ ain’t they?
Subsunk
G-Man … There is an old axiom to the effect that in politics it is unwise and unfunctional to abandon the good in search of the perfect. The Republicans did that in the last election and look where it has gotten us. We ‘educated conservatives’ thought that the electorate must wake up and see that Obama was pitifully inexperienced for one of the toughest jobs in the country. Turns out he is and he’s failing us.
I’ve been watching Beck now for a couple of weeks, fascinated by the ruckus he has stirred up among the complacent Democrat elites. Yes he’s a populist demagogue. He’s a bit embarrassing, to be frank. But he’s stirring up the right kinds of doubts in the general population. And a lot of the time he’s ‘dead on,’ as they say.
Marianne
P.S. As far as Sarah Palin goes, I have to respect a politician who is so talented that she can sum up a major political issue in two words, “death panels” and cause the train virtually to run off the tracks.
Agree about Beck; a bit extreme at times, but on balance he is doing our Country a very good service. Unlike BHO and the traditional media.
Palin- Her new book, “Going Rogue” speaks volumes as she has no patience for politics as normal. Go along to get along is most definitely not her mantra. She may be able to do what Perot had the chance to, though he FUBAR’d it.
Terrified of Reagan? Horse feathers!
In fact, a great number of those on the Left defected from their party to vote for Reagan in 1980 and again in 1984. Hardly “terrified”, they were called “Reagan Democrats.” And this ‘lefty’ was one of them in 1980. (However, I had learned from my mistake by the time of the ’84 election.)
The Right continues to deify Reagan still, two decades later. They attribute anything and everything that is good, to him (valid or not) and conveniently and completely ignore his faults and failures… Iran Contra, Controllers Strike, quadrupling the national debt, the failure of “trickle down” Reaganomics, etc. Indeed Reagan said the debt was “the greatest disappointment” of his presidency.
Nevertheless, politics since the Reagan years have changed dramatically. Any attempt to associate the “then” with the “now” likely results in twaddle.
Wait a minute…
The PATCO Strike: It was illegal for that strike to occur. Controllers knew it. Reagan called their bluff. If I defy my employer by failing to show up for work, I should get fired.
“Trickle Down Economics”: I seem to recall a pretty decent recovery and growth in the economy in the Reagan years. The tax cuts enabled more businesses and people to keep their money and therefore spend more, which meant more successful businesses and more jobs.
The Black Monday crash in 1987 was a bad shock but was not due to Reagan’s economic policy which I have read generated sufficient economic activity that gov’t revenues actually rose – but were outstripped by increased spending. Was the debt entirely his fault or was there assistance from Congress who saw revenues rising and decided to spend more?
Some of that spending was on the military – which went from bad shape (think Grenada) to being powerful enough to stand up to any aggression around the world and led to the ultimate breakup of the Soviet empire. Was this a bad thing?
Iran Contra: A scandal and a bad event, yes. Was it a defined stated policy of the Reagan administration? Not sure.. But they were his people who pulled it off so it happened on his watch.
And what a crime it was, getting kidnapped Americans released in Lebanon while assisting those trying to oust a dictatorship in our backyard. Has something like that happened before? Hmmm… Bay of Pigs, Castro assassination plots.. but JFK is all right. How about today, when we openly support an illegal attempt to overthrow the constitution of the Honduras. What’s worse? Or is this comparison “twaddle?”
Don’t forget Reagan’s the military aggressions against Iran: re-flagging tankers in the Gulf of Hormuz so the Navy could provide protection, an obvious escalation against otherwise peaceful RPG armed pleasure boaters, I guess. And don’t forget blowing up those oil platforms and sinking that Iranian destroyer. It’s obviously would have been much more effective to issue stern warnings about mining the Gulf. I know, more twaddle….
The Reagan years were not all wine and roses. But in the times of trouble after the Carter years I think he was what we needed.
George V.
The firing of the Air Traffic Controllers was righteous, and much needed. As to the debt, he promised to drag defense out of the hole the Demonrats had pushed it into starting in the mid 60s, and that he would run deficits if he was forced. The Nuts on the Hill, once more Demonrats, forced it on him.
I would say that you simpli subsided back into your normal insanity by 1984. I didn’t like the fact that Reagan didn’t face down the socialist leaders running Congress at the time, but I also understand you only have so much time and energy and that had to be devoted to the defeat of the Soviets in the cold war. He did the right thing, despite the fools on the left.
Steyn nails it, as usual. AMEN! AMEN!
Palin clearly was a huge threat to the left, and as we have seen, almost as much a threat to the squishy “moderate” loser RINOs. I hope she recuperates and comes back with plenty of ammunition for targeting any worthless donkey or RINO.
Beck has good instincts on the issues and is unafraid to call the left out on their antics. I cannot take much of his schtick, but like to hear his take on the issues.
Liz Cheney- Potentially our own Maggie Thatcher. More articulate and with spine (or other body parts in short supply amongst the Republicans) than any politician I have seen on our side in a long time. Liz for whatever office she wants, we need her!
Unfortunately, the left-loving media has, and will continue to, demonize all of these people so that those who are not paying attention will be reluctant to ever vote for them.
But, we who are paying attention will heed, and follow their leadership on the issues that are destroying this country.
Carter enabled Reagan, as Obama will enable ______?
Palin/Cheney
Ron … or Palin/Petraeus…or Petraeus /Palin. She’s a brilliant politician, but we need a strong guy in there too, if we want a decisive vote from all grown-up Americans of all ages.
The first American President I voted for was Dwight Eisenhower, who was always underestimated by the press during his Presidency. But he and his troops did win the Second World War for us. And he was wise enough to thoroughly and exhaustively document the Holocaust, both with huge amounts of written evidence, and eye-witness evidence borne out by the great numbers of troops he insisted be brought in to the Camps so that they could bear witness afterwards to what they saw. My brother, who was an artilleryman, was one of the troops brought in. This emphasis on mountains of evidence made the Nuremburg Trials possible.
Marianne
P.S. I think Liz Cheney is another ‘comer’ in the political field… tough, dedicated and unafraid. And let’s not underestimate our returning military, who are the same. Good things coming down the pike. I just hope I live long enough to see it.
Marianne, it was Liz Cheney I was thinking of. Petraeus I am not very familiar with, and have to say that I am hesitant to endorse anyone coming straight from a long-term military career into the Presidential or VP spot.
Even Ike had about a four year span after leaving the military until he ran for President, and Lord knows he was an accomplished politician, albeit in a military role.
I think that there has to be some transition period from the military world to the civilian world, especially at the top political level. OTOH, it is only 2009.
Very encouraged to see how many veterans are running for political office. Suspect (certainly hope) that there will be many in office come the end of next year.
Hopefully BHO will not be able to push us past the point of no return before the good things have a chance to happen.