Reagan

I was so busy the days and weeks after Reagan died that I wasn't able to post about it. Especially not to post anything that I thought could meaningfully add to the tremendous amount eloquent remembrances that rapidly followed his passing, such as from: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Andrew Sullivan, George Shultz, Dinesh D'Souza in Newsmax and The Washington Post, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Clark Judge, Annelise Anderson, Chester Finn, Peter Robinson here and here, Ed Meese, Charles Krauthammer, Ross Mackenzie, George Will, Jack Kemp, Lawrence Kudlow, Bruce Bartlett, Tony Blankley, and more from The Heritage Institute.

For me, I will say that Reagan was clearly the most influential political figure in my life. I am a product of the '80s and I think it would have been a much darker period without Reagan, who has been rightfully praised for his optimism. I have frankly been surprised by the tone of the eulogies. If you had asked me in 1988 how Reagan would be remembered in 2004 I would never have guessed that he would have over a 70% approval rating. I was certain that as communism passed from our short term memory we would forget the value of his contribution--I even believed that many would apologize for communism, as so many had before and during Reagan, and that praise for its egalitarian pretences would be on the rise by now. But it's not the case. Communism is a strange artifact of the past, almost a historical curiosity, so dead and buried that is unfashionable to condemn it, not because it doesn't merit condemnation but because it seems to be an absurdity with no chance of haunting us again. Might as well condemn the bogey-man. (China's not REALLY communist, we feel. North Korea and Cuba are aberrations.) Who talks of the 100 million lives lost to communism, from Stalin's purges to Mao's cultural revolution? Might as well be talking about Nero--it's all history.

That this would be the case in 2004 was unthinkable in 1988, inconceivable in 1980, and beyond any possible comprehension in 1964 when Reagan broke onto the national political scene with his speech at the Republican convention. We forget that Democrats AND Republicans felt Reagan was off his rocker for believing the Soviet Union could be toppled. I will always remember a faculty member of my high-school scoffing upon hearing that Reagan had called the USSR an "evil empire." I remember the protests when Reagan deployed Pershings to Europe. I remember a computer science class I took in college for which 25% of the grade depended on how thoroughly we could debunk the arguments and science in favor of the "Star Wars" missile defense system (which was just deployed in Alaska, despite hostility from the Clinton Administration) that Reagan proposed and detractors hated as being too inflammatory.

Most people have forgotten this--or never knew it. And while I think I was right that people have largely forgotten about the terror of communism, I was wrong to assume that this would have resulted in some sort of deluded nostalgia.

Reagan deserves the praise he received for being the great communicator, and it is heartening to hear this from some of his biggest detractors in the 1980s, even if those people transparently used that praise to simultaneously condemn the abilities of our current President. And who cares if some are damning him with faint praise and refuse to acknowledge the success of his substance but unable to avoid appreciating his style. Reagan never demanded praise for the success of his policies—success was enough—so why should we?

But while some have used Reagan make unflattering comparisons with Bush, I think flattering comparisons are in order. Reagan believed we were pitched in battle with a mortal enemy and wouldn’t accept the conventional wisdom that the war could not be won, and our enemies could only be contained. Bush as a similar vision when it comes to terrorism and Islamic fascism, jihadism, and tyranny. There are the same voices from left and right who believe this is a fight that is hopeless and not ours to wage. There are the same accusations of the President being a reckless cowboy, fixed in his belief systems while being intellectually incurious. What will be said of Bush 20 years from now? One gets the sense that this, not the latest poll, is what he most cares about—and that’s a good thing.

And of course, Reagan taught us that economic growth and the national economy were more important than the federal budget, and if the two should collide to pick the health of the former over the health of the latter. I fear his economic victories weren’t as convincing as his foreign policy ones were, as we still fight some of these battles today, but few expect our economy to abandon the post-Reagan era, with lower taxes, relatively low unemployment, and low inflation, for the stagflation of the pre-Reagan era.

Finally, I think Reagan should be admired as someone whose vision for the world eclipsed his desire for power. One gets the sense that the Clintons and the Bushes are in it for the job first, and the ideas come later. Reagan was in it for the ideas, and seemed to want the job because it was the best way to put the ideas into practice. And that he did.