Let Bush Be Bush: "Mr. Bush is Mr. Reagan's Heir"

American Enterprise Institute ^ | 12/17/03 | Michael A. Ledeen

[bdeaner]

Let Bush Be Bush

By Michael A. Ledeen

Posted: Wednesday, December 17, 2003

ARTICLES

New York Sun  

Publication Date: December 17, 2003

As the Reagan years pass further back into time, both his enemies and his admirers are straining mightily to write the history the way they want it to have happened. In the process, those eight years are taking on almost mythical characteristics. The 'phobes see an ideologically driven administration almost psychotically obsessed with defeating communism; the 'philes see a simpatico human being who understood America perfectly and used American strengths to bring down the Soviet empire.

It wasn't like that. Actually, in many ways it was very much like today. As President Reagan headed into the fourth year of his first term, there was a fierce battle within the administration, within the Republican Party, and within the conservative movement that the combatants all saw as an epic struggle for the heart and soul of the president himself.

On the one hand, the hawks, headed by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey, and National Security Adviser William Clark, argued that the president should focus his re-election campaign on the guerrilla war in Central America, and the real danger that the Soviet empire could solidify a land base in the Western Hemisphere for the first time.

On the other hand, Mr. Reagan's political advisers, from James Baker to Michael Deaver to Nancy Reagan, and, at least in part, Secretary of State George Shultz, wanted to keep issues of war and peace secondary, and certainly didn't want any new geopolitical initiatives before the election. The economy was improving, there was already a lot on the president's plate, and they didn't want any unpleasant surprises or, worse still, any setbacks. They wanted to run on the uplifting theme of "Springtime in America."

The hawks feared that such a campaign would paralyze foreign policy for a year or more and give the Soviets and their many proxies the chance to challenge us, both on the ground in Central America and in the ongoing debate over the "Euro missiles" in NATO. And so the hawks launched their own slogan: "Let Reagan Be Reagan."

The implication was clear: Left to his own instincts, the president would pursue an aggressive foreign policy regardless of the political calculus. The fear was also clear: If he listened too carefully to the politicos, he might gut our foreign policy and incur terrible costs in his second term. The battle was intense, inconclusive, and unending.

One of the most poignant and instructive moments in the congressional hearings into Iran-Contra came when somebody asked Mr. Shultz why he hadn't killed off an NSC initiative, and he answered, in essence: "I thought I had, but in this government nothing is ever really over. The debates keep coming back over and over again."

That's the way democracies work, to the consternation of those who prefer clear definition and final decisions, and that's exactly the way this administration is working. If you listen to today's hawks, you can well imagine them saying "Let Bush Be Bush." They believe that left to his own instincts, the president would be much more aggressive than Secretary of State Powell has been. They think he would move more quickly against the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, give greater support to democratic movements throughout the Middle East, and keep our enemies on the defensive.

On the other hand, the more moderate presidential advisers and, in all likelihood, the politicos, think they've got a pat hand: The economy is improving, Iraq is coming along, the president's image is improving here and abroad, and we've got plenty on our plate for the moment. So let's run an upbeat campaign on American resilience and glory, get a working majority in both houses, and then we'll see.

The "Let Reagan be Reagan" effort largely failed, "Springtime in America" produced a landslide, the situation in Central America became hotter and hotter, the Soviets were indeed aggressive on the Euro missiles, and the hawks were greatly discouraged.

As we know, things did come around for the hawks. We won the Euro missile debate (thanks to the Italians, then as now, willing to be extremely brave when serious Western interests were on the line, even though, then as now, the Germans were inclined to hide behind shortsighted peace slogans), we eventually prevailed in Central America, and, shortly after Mr. Reagan's second term, the Soviet empire collapsed.

The point is that there was no ideological juggernaut. There was, as there always is, an ongoing struggle for the president's heart and soul. And at a moment comparable to this one, the hawks feared they were losing Mr. Reagan.

The "Let Bush Be Bush" effort is also likely doomed to failure, for electoral politics invariably trumps geopolitics, unless there is a clearly perceived crisis. At least for the moment, the president is going to try to deal with the problems we already have and is not going to expand the terror war. Events could force him to change strategy, but I think that's the only way it will happen before November 2004.

In this, as in many other ways, Mr. Bush is Mr. Reagan's heir. And he is carrying on the tradition of the real Mr. Reagan, not the caricature we are getting from some of Mr. Reagan's most passionate lovers and haters.

Michael A. Ledeen holds the Freedom Chair at AEI.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Agreed. Keep on posting the truth, man.

On the internet: NOBODY has the power to shout you down. Remember that. :)

[ModernDayCato]

I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while to punish myself for posting to this thread. I need to stop wasting my time. Have a nice night.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Now you're just cracking me up. When did I say, imply, or intimate we fiscal conservatives, and we alone? [...] Jeez, can you read?

Jeez, can you? Asked and answered. (Re-)read previous posting. Apply lip balm, as needed.

The Republican party no longer stands for limited government and personal responsibility. That's all I said.

Plainly, it is not "all [you] said"... but: one lie at a time, please. I only have ten fingers with which to correct you, after all.

Again, in Super Slo-Mo: the Republican Party has never ever NEVER stood SOLELY for "limited government," and "limited government" alone. This seems, quite frankly, a concept genuinely and forevermore beyond your capacities to grasp and assimiliate; and I've only been repeating it ad infinitum, honestly, out of a hopelessly benevolent concern for you on my part. I didn't want you should keep yawpng otherwise, and maybe make the mistake of doing so at a fancy dinner party one night, and being pointed and laughed at. That's all.

In the immortal words of Basil Fawlty: "Please, please dies." NOT. LIMITED. GOVERNMENT. SOLELY. Conservatives are measured by more than one yardstick... and: yours, sad to say, isn't even the most vital or essential one.

Is weasely equivocation the entire life's blood of the standard, typical anti-Bush zealot? Asked and answered, eighteen or twenty times over. Ending abortion. Getting more conservative justices appointed. Lower taxes. The Reagan Doctrine. (You wouldn't think so many so-called "conservatives" could be so repeatedly, obdurately dense on these oft-repeated points, would you...?)

I want some of what you're smoking blahblahblah yapyapyap. You take a very long time, really, to (attempt to) say that which requires a few words, only: "No, KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle; I cannot, in plain point of fact, credibly support or advance the notion that any of the core conservative causes and principles you've listed are inherently lesser than that of red-lining the federal ledger."

It really isn't that difficult, attempting to support one's claims, you know. At least, it shouldn't be.

Tell you what...when this administration is over, let's all sit down and see how we did, shall we?

At the end of the administration, the score -- much to your pain and chagrin, clearly -- will still read, whatever else: banned partial birth abortions (you wouldn't know about those; it's something conservatives work against); brought back the Reagan Doctrine (you wouldn't know about that; it's something conservatives believe in); nominated and fought for more conservative jurists (you wouldn't know about that; it's something conservatives work for); and lowered taxes for all working men and women, everywhere (you wouldn't know about those; it's something conservatives have been championing since Day One, is all).

Accept it. Move on with your life. The bitterness and feelings of electoral impotency will only leave you feeling diminished, believe me. I knew a guy who voted for Perot, once.

When you turn out to be wrong I hope you have the honor to apologize for your condescending attitudes. But I won't hold my breath.

I won't be... and: I hope you are.

Holding your breath, I mean.

and he's certainly no conservative.

*...sigh*... Like trying to teach my dog a card trick, this is...

[bdeaner]

Perhaps our interpretation of current events does differ. To me, an occasional conservative policy does not a conservative make.

Excuse me, but when did I ever say that an occasional conservative policy makes a conservative?

You make several erroneous assumptions here:
a) That the author is saying Bush is conservative when, in fact, he is saying that he is an heir to Reagan
b) That Reagan was more conservative than Bush when, in fact, as the author notes, Bush is much more similar to Reagan than the "golden age myths" of Reagan's actual performance in office

If Bush is not a conservative, than neither was Reagan, according to your logic.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while to punish myself for posting to this thread.

I agree with the sentence, as you've described it. Don't try plea-bargaining it; just please -- please -- let it be quick. :)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Grrrrrr. Faulty coding wiped out part of a sentence. Corrected version:

In the immortal words of Basil Fawlty: "Please, please try to understand before one of us dies." NOT. LIMITED. GOVERNMENT. SOLELY. Conservatives are measured by more than one yardstick... and: yours, sad to say, isn't even the most vital or essential one.

[bdeaner]

He's already backed down several times. WTH are you talking about?

Better than putting another O'Connor on the bench.

[bdeaner]

(Joined the Constitution Party on 12/9/03 and it feels soooo goooood.)

Hard to believe it feels so good to flush your vote down the toilet. Hard to believe it feels good to help put a Democrap into the White House.

[Southack]

"You and Southack are right...the majority has prevailed, and those of us who still believe in the core principles of modern conservatism are in the minority."

You are confusing the Libertarian preoccupation for "smaller governments" with "modern conservatism."

You want less spending and a Laissez Fair government. At times, that might even be more conservative than several available competing options, but it isn't what the majority of Americans would call "modern conservatism."

And your failure to comprehend that fact is why you are going to be forever banging your head against walls, wondering why the entire rest of the world doesn't agree with you.

But there is another view out there. In fact, that other view of conservatism is in the *majority*.

Bigger government? If by bigger government you mean borrowing money to defend our nation from the nuclear missile attacks of rogue nations, then Yes.

And what of non-fiscal items? Modern conservatives are pro-life, a stark contrast to the "it's her choice" crowd of the Libertarian Party.

And the Constitution Party? Until President Bush can reshape the composition of the SCOTUS bench, you can kiss accurate Constitutional rulings goodbye. Sit out this next election or vote for a 3rd Party or a Democrat and you've just voted to *extend* this status quo, too.

Around the country the liberals are absolutely *howling* that Bush has dared to taint Roe v Wade by banning Partial Birth Abortion. The Leftists cry that Bush's new Medicare Privatization will doom the elderly to the management of gasp, private, entities. They fret that Bush will soon Privatize Social Security and then break the all-powerful teachers' unions with scholarships/vouchers. On these issues both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties align to *oppose* our moves on both Social Security and school choice vouchers. Heaven forbid that we smash down the unions enough so that we can roll back some of this governmental largess one day.

You see, you people get suckered into radical 3rd Parties because what you see in their extremism and idealism is a "quick fix" for the woes of the world.

But life isn't ideal, and quick fixes are for children. The road to taking our country back from the Leftists will not be traveled all in one quick step; instead, countless baby steps must be taken to reach our preferred destination.

So we'll privatize social security 2% at a time, even though a few fringe Constitution Party radicals will howl that *anything* for which we do related to Social Security is illegal. Ditto for scholarships/vouchers. Same again for what we've down for Medicare reform.

In the meantime, the adults of this nation are busy protecting the world from terrorists and their appeasers, be they French globalists or American isolationists.

We're also passing tax cuts so large that an American family of four earning $40,000 per year now only pays a little less than four Dollars per month in total federal income taxes.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Hard to believe it feels so good to flush your vote down the toilet.

You may want to re-read the posting to which you've responded, friend. T'weren't me who claimed to be a member of That Party For Make-Believe Conservatives...! :)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

But life isn't ideal, and quick fixes are for children. The road to taking our country back from the Leftists will not be traveled all in one quick step; instead, countless baby steps must be taken to reach our preferred destination.

Excerpted and placed in bold, for greater clarity and prominence. :)

[montag813]

I cannot imagine Ronaldus Maximus, prior to the onset of Alzheimer's, signing the CFR or the Medicare bills.

Reagan signed liberal abortion laws as Governor, and a Social Security tax increase as President.

[bdeaner]

Let it be. Bush is the best we can hope for in the current political environment.

Exactly, but mind you, there are people who would like to suck away GOP votes to third parties, which would throw votes away. Bush is what we have, he's in fact more Reagan-esque than many would like to concede (based largely on mythicization of the Reagan Presidency), and he's sure as hell better than Dean or any of the other Rat candidates. With that said, I appreciate the efforts to challenge Bush to improve on his already quite conservative track record. Few would disagree that he can do better. But hyperbole about Bush not being conservative is off the mark.

[bdeaner]

Woah, I never compared W to FDR! That was Veracruz. I was arguing in the other direction -- that W is comparable to Reagan!

[bdeaner]

Yes, I know it wasn't you with that tag-line. I was cc-ing you, in response to your comment to Mr. Constitution Party. By the way, your posts on this board have ROCKED. Excellent stuff.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Yes, I know it wasn't you with that tag-line. I was cc-ing you, in response to your comment to Mr. Constitution Party.

Oops. Open Mouth; Chew Foot, Vigorously. :) Sorry.

By the way, your posts on this board have ROCKED. Excellent stuff.

Thanks! You, too! :)

[Tamzee]

"But life isn't ideal, and quick fixes are for children. The road to taking our country back from the Leftists will not be traveled all in one quick step; instead, countless baby steps must be taken to reach our preferred destination."

Excerpted and placed in bold, for greater clarity and prominence. :)

Southack's brilliant comment deserves to be LARGE in addition to bold... and nominated for Quote of the Day, in my humble opinion :-)

[rdb3]

I also cannot imagine his administration supporting the AWB, especially if the gunnies had put him over the top in 3 traditionally Democratic states.

What do you mean? He did sign The Mulford Act in 1967 as governor of California, did he not?

[Tamzee]

I originally intended to bookmark Southack's resource on Bush's victories for the right in the last three years, but now find myself bookmarking the entire thread.

Both of your commentaries throughout the thread were incredible and some of the most valuable I've seen to date at the forum.

As another put it, you guys ROCKED :-)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

As another put it, you guys ROCKED :-)

Thank you most kindly! And I would gladly have enlarged Southack's exemplary excerpt, as well as re-doing it in a proud, perky bold... but: I don't know what the proper HTML code is for altering the size of a given font, I'm afraid.

[::hangs head, miserable in his complete and utter cyber-shame::] :)