Posted on 12/17/2003 12:28:46 PM PST by bdeaner
|
|||||||||
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. |
Bush banned Partial Birth Abortion and killed the U.S. - CCCP prohibitions on defending America from nuclear missiles. Reagan didn't.
Your assumption is simply flawed.
The actual law authorizes $39.5 Billion, and no more, for each of ten years. Then the law expires.
If you can make your case that the bill is bad based upon the real, actual, approved numbers (rather than fanciful $7 Trillion nonsense), then by all means have at it.
But you can't. If not here, you'll be in other threads and on other forums repeating your $7 Trillion propaganda because that's what you do: agitate. It's your job as a 3rd Party activist to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).
Using actual numbers and engaging in factual debates is out of your job description.
You simply can't do it.
What you are basically saying is that you can't make your argument against the Privatization of Medicare by using the actual authorized funds in the law, as passed. You require *other* sources, such as estimates of spending as seen by bureaucrats...rather than the actual funds authorized by the law itself.
This is idiotic, on its very face. Take the number of PBAs performed per year, and -- even if (worst case scenario possible) it were only to cut that number by ten percent -- that'd still be the number of babies saved, due to GWB's principled steersmanship on this issue.
As opposed to the pompous, whinnying know-nothings of the Constitutional Party, who -- it certainly does bear repeating, doesn't it? -- are NOT doing anything similarly public and principled on this issue, and are NOT putting anything on the line on behalf of the helpless unborn.
Again: that's something only conservatives (like GWB) do, apparently.
That's a good point, but I think you could make a pretty good argument that we currently control the Senate in name only. This could well change in a year with all the Democrat retirements taking place, and I hope that it will.
Ask yourself: Why isn't this bill bad at $39.5 Billion? why do you have to stretch to try to justify using your $7 Trillion nonsense numbers?
The answer, of course, is that Americans are quite pleased with what they are getting for $10 per person per month, and you can't stand that fact.
. . . and stated that we are "not ready for" a comprehensive ban on abortion
Which does nothing whatsoever, of course, to gainsay the absolute truth of the first statement, in bold. You're arguing like a liberal, now. Stop. Please.
-- Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty
-- Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.
Yeahhhhhh! You get two points.
I wouldn't smirk. That's considerably more than you've managed to score, thus far.
-- Signed 2 income tax cuts ---- 1 of which was the largest Dollar value tax cut in world history
-- Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains
Any moron with an elementary knowledge of economics knows that the real tax rate is measured by spending.
Straight out of the Howard Dean stump speech handbook. Somehow, that doesn't really surprise me, overmuch.
GWB cut my taxes. I know this, because I paid less in taxes last yeat than I did the year before; and because -- for the first time ever -- the government actually gave some of it back after collecting it, on top of that.
Ronald Reagan spoke eloquently and often on the absolute moral necessity of taxcuts for the working class in this country. Damned shame you missed it.
From your snotty dismissal of same, I presume the (*snicke*) "Constitution Party" doesn't hold much with that whole bothersome "giving people their hard-earned dollars back" business, ultimately. Color me shocked. Or not.
-- In process of eliminating IRS marriage penalty
You only get .10 points for that. "In the process?" Come on.
... and, AGAIN: as opposed to which fabulous successes, along similar lines, courtesy of the MakeBelieveWeHaveAPrayerInHellOfWinning Party? I'll take .10 ,points over no points whatsofrigginEVER, frankly.
Speak now Kent, voice of the sheeple!
"Sheeple" is one of those fine, can't-win-by-logic phrases one sees most often on the "Democratic Underground" message boards. Careful you don't do anymore to reveal yourself than you have already... "conservative." [::rolls eyes::]
Then you'll have no trouble at all quickly listing all of the conservatives who have achieved *more* sum total conservative actions in office than those list in Post #5.
< /SNICKER >
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.