REAGAN, R.I.P.:
Notes & Comments
By Clifford D. May
June 8, 2004
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
I did not have the honor of knowing Ronald Reagan. Indeed, as a young New York Times reporter in the 1980s, I shared attitudes that were common among the journalistic elite. Reagan's unabashed patriotism and optimism seemed unsophisticated. He had strong convictions; we cherished thoughtful ambivalence.
But having lived and studied in the Soviet Union, I knew Reagan was speaking the truth when he described that country as an "Evil Empire." If the USSR wasn't an empire, why did it send troops into Hungary and Czechoslovakia? If the Gulag Archipelago was not evil, what was?
<font size=4>
I was puzzled that so many of my colleagues regarded Reagan's articulation of such obvious realities as breaking a sacred taboo.
When Reagan called on Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, again, I thought he should be praised for standing up for freedom. Instead, he was maligned for not appreciating diplomatic niceties.<font size=3>
And his decision to send troops to Grenada, to oust the Cuban-backed Marxists who taken power there, was derided as -- I don't quite recall, but probably as arrogant and unilateral.
<font size=4>
It's good to see so many media moguls now praising Reagan. But it's worth recalling that they sang a very different tune when he was in office. <font size=3>
Peggy Noonan, who wrote many of Reagan's most memorable speeches, predicted that history will remember Ronald Reagan and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the two greatest presidents of the 20th century. One was a Democrat, one a Republican. One fought Nazism, Fascism and Japanese Militarism, one fought Communism -- different varieties of aggressive totalitarianism. Now it is a new generation's turn to fight aggressive totalitarianism -- this time in the cloak of Jihadism.
One additional note: Reagan's skills as a communicator were instructive to anyone who, like me, was curious about the laws, dynamics and processes that cause certain ideas to prevail over others. George Will wrote that Reagan "understood the axiom that people, especially Americans, with their Founders creed and vast reservoirs of decency, more often need to be reminded than informed."
That may be the most important part of the FDD's work -- to remind Americans of the real but too often blurred distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters, between aggression and self-defense, between compromise and appeasement, between realism and defeatism.
In the 21st century, freedom and the democratic experiment are again endangered. They deserve to be defended wherever they are found; they deserve to be shared with others who are oppressed.
TENET, CIA: Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet announced his resignation last week. A good man, a hard-working man and a patriot, Tenet was the nation's top spy for seven years, under both Clinton and Bush.
He had the misfortune to serve during unusually challenging times and he leaves a CIA that is still not up to the tremendous challenges it faces. That's not his fault -- nor is it the fault of the brave men and women at the CIA. <font size=4>Since the 1970s, Congress and Presidents of both parties have increasingly tied their hands and restricted their weapons. But it is up to the next CIA chief, and those he leads, to move the organization to a new and much improved level.
President Bush would be making a mistake to leave an acting director in charge until after the November elections. As quickly as possible, he should appoint an extraordinary leader to this vital job.<font size=3> My very short list would include Jim Woolsey, Rudy Giuliani and Porter Goss.
<font size=4>
ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO SPIN: According to the New York Times<font size=3> -- May 29th, page 1, lead of the article - (The Struggle for Iraq: Selecting a Leader; Surprising Choice Reflects U.S. Influence by Warren Hoge and Steven R. Weisman) <font size=4>Iraqis are "almost universally" hostile to the US.
Really? It would be nice to know the basis for that "fact."
According to a March poll by ABC News, about half of all Iraqis thought the US was right to invade. And while about half would like to see coalition forces gone, most believe they need to stick around for at least a while. Only 17 percent favor attacks on Americans. And 56% say things are better in Iraq because of the invasion.
Does that sound "hostile" to you?
And it is hardly "universal" hostility when 97% of the country's Kurds, according to a May Gallup poll, report that they view American forces as liberators.
The New York Times is not alone in using its news columns
to propagandize against the war. As the great military
historian John Keegan recently wrote: "The British and
American media retail with evident satisfaction every
scrap of information that undermines any expectation by
readers and viewers of a successful outcome to the Iraqi
involvement." For more on this, click here.<font size=3>
weeklystandard.com
- CDM
defenddemocracy.org |
