The Lion at the Gate by Steven Hayward:
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
President Reagan, at the Brandenburg Gate,
West Berlin, June 12, 1987
Most of his senior aides didn't want him to say it. Indeed, they tried repeatedly to talk him out of it. You'll embarrass your host, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. You''ll anger and provoke Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom you've just started making progress on arms control. You'll whip up false hope among East Germans - for surely the Berlin Wall isn't coming down any time soon. Besides, Germans have grown used to the Wall. The ultimate reason: You'll look na�ve and foolish, Mr. President.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Here are some links of interest to readers of The Last Jeffersonian:A Tribute to President Ronald Reagan
Character Above All - Essay by Peggy Noonan
Ronald Reagan - 75 Links
Character Above All - Essay by Peggy Noonan
Ronald Reagan - 75 Links
Rich: A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time: "While Sinclair Lewis wrote that Gantry, his hypocritical evangelical preacher, 'was born to be a senator,' we now have senators who are born to be Gantrys. "
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
The American Thinker
If you like to find thoughtful discourse on the web, try this site: The American Thinker. Here is the site introduction on The American Thinker's home page:
The American Thinker is devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.
There is no limit to the topics appearing on The American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist, and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.
The American Thinker is devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.
There is no limit to the topics appearing on The American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist, and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Success
"To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others, to leave the world a little bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
View from Lebanon
"Politics is a contact sport."
- Publisher of an English language newspaper in Lebanon.
- Publisher of an English language newspaper in Lebanon.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Scale of International Morality
We're all so happy that Bush was right about promoting democracy in the Middle East. He was right to go to war, because look what a lot of good resulted.
On the scale of international morality, only one thing is worse than massacring thousands of your own civilians. That's what Hussein did. Worse than preying on people in your own country is massacring thousands of civilians in another country. That's what Bush did.
He said he did it for good reasons, and so far a lot of people have believed him. The Iraqis themselves are grateful that Bush rid them of Hussein, and only the most militant Iraqis would say that Bush is a tyrant. But we shouldn't forget about the crime he committed. He attacked another country without provocation: a weaker country that did not threaten us. Since Germany did it to Belgium in 1914, in the Great War that marked the advent of modern atrocities, we have regarded such attacks as crimes.
We aren't the first country to commit this crime, and we aren't the first country in a dominant position to do it. We could be the first democracy ever to have done it, though.
Americans don't do things like that. Not for any reason.
On the scale of international morality, only one thing is worse than massacring thousands of your own civilians. That's what Hussein did. Worse than preying on people in your own country is massacring thousands of civilians in another country. That's what Bush did.
He said he did it for good reasons, and so far a lot of people have believed him. The Iraqis themselves are grateful that Bush rid them of Hussein, and only the most militant Iraqis would say that Bush is a tyrant. But we shouldn't forget about the crime he committed. He attacked another country without provocation: a weaker country that did not threaten us. Since Germany did it to Belgium in 1914, in the Great War that marked the advent of modern atrocities, we have regarded such attacks as crimes.
We aren't the first country to commit this crime, and we aren't the first country in a dominant position to do it. We could be the first democracy ever to have done it, though.
Americans don't do things like that. Not for any reason.
Ronald Reagan's Biggest Mistake: Response from Sam Goldman
Like you, I remember the Reagan years and the Ford years before them. Your facts may, indeed, be correct, but whatever went on inside Reagan's mind, I doubt that Jack Kemp was included in the ganglia.
As I see it, he had NO CHOICE but Bush. As you say, Ford was a long shot and reluctant. It never would have worked any more than any president taking a lower leadership role, even in a company. The case of JQ Adams is different as he went to the legislative branch---we may yet see Bill Clinton there, no?
Jack Kemp was on a conservative tear, particularly on abortion. The women's groups were, and are, quite strong and there is little chance that he'd have escaped lacerating attacks; those, then, rub off an Reagan and his charm and good looks go down the drain along with millions of female votes, along with men who viewed, and still do, the abortion issue as important.
Barry Goldwater? Too old.
Any senator? None were outstanding and California, to the rest of the country, still had a taint of Nixon as being kooky, almost criminal. RR needed a mid-west or eastern person.
Bush's qualities on paper are admirable. Like George McGovern, he has a weak-sounding voice, but fighter-pilots aren't weak, nor are oil-men in the patch, nor are Maine sailors.
The fact that W came along is a quirk of history. The fact that Albert Gore eschewed the support of Bill Clinton ranks as the stupidest act in American campaign history. He deserved to have lost, even with my vote in his pocket. I blame Gore for W, not RR and not GF.
Bring back Bill, I say.
All the best,
Sam
As I see it, he had NO CHOICE but Bush. As you say, Ford was a long shot and reluctant. It never would have worked any more than any president taking a lower leadership role, even in a company. The case of JQ Adams is different as he went to the legislative branch---we may yet see Bill Clinton there, no?
Jack Kemp was on a conservative tear, particularly on abortion. The women's groups were, and are, quite strong and there is little chance that he'd have escaped lacerating attacks; those, then, rub off an Reagan and his charm and good looks go down the drain along with millions of female votes, along with men who viewed, and still do, the abortion issue as important.
Barry Goldwater? Too old.
Any senator? None were outstanding and California, to the rest of the country, still had a taint of Nixon as being kooky, almost criminal. RR needed a mid-west or eastern person.
Bush's qualities on paper are admirable. Like George McGovern, he has a weak-sounding voice, but fighter-pilots aren't weak, nor are oil-men in the patch, nor are Maine sailors.
The fact that W came along is a quirk of history. The fact that Albert Gore eschewed the support of Bill Clinton ranks as the stupidest act in American campaign history. He deserved to have lost, even with my vote in his pocket. I blame Gore for W, not RR and not GF.
Bring back Bill, I say.
All the best,
Sam
Ronald Reagan's Biggest Mistake
Most people would say that Iran-Contra was Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake. Certainly from the limited perspective of his own administration, and of Reagan's own goals, it was that. From the longer perspective of American political history, though, Reagan's biggest mistake was his selection of George Bush as his running mate in Detroit at the 1980 Republican National Convention.
We can't lay at Reagan's door all the bad consequences of this decision. No one would expect him to see what would happen a generation later because he put George Bush on the ticket that year. In the summer of 1980, Reagan wasn't even sure he could unseat a sitting president. His main concern was to select someone who could help him win. So let me tell you how this choice turned out wrong, how for want of a vice-presidential nominee, the republic was lost.
The usual story is that Reagan and Ford talked about a Dream Ticket in 1980, a former president and a popular candidate teaming up to make the Republican ticket unbeatable. Then the talks failed when Ford suggested something like a co-presidency. Reagan didn't like the sound of that, so in the middle of the convention he turned to George Bush, his strongest opponent in the primaries. Gerald Ford had overreached, the story went, and Reagan chose a natural alternate when he couldn't agree to Ford's terms.
That version tells part of the story, but it overlooks some interesting nuances. Those nuances explain why Reagan, usually so astute about things political, made a decision that he might not have made if he had spent more time on it. As it turned out, his choice of a running mate was more consequential than he might have guessed at the time.
Anne Edwards recently published a book called The Reagans: Portrait of a Marriage. She takes us to the spring of 1980, when Reagan is wrapping up the delegates he'll need to gain the his party's nomination at the Republican National Convention in August. Reagan first approaches Ford about the vice-presidency in March 1980, five months before the convention. "Will you help the Republican party out and be my running mate?" Reagan asks.
They'd mended their fences from the 1976 battle for the Republican presidential nomination, but Ford politely turned Reagan down. Vice-president isn't a role you take on readily after you've been president. Reagan, however, isn't one to take no for an answer, especially if he sees any possibility at all of success. He asks Ford to reconsider, and asks him again, until Ford agrees to talk about it. These talks become intense during the convention in Detroit, Michigan. Then Ford goes on live television...
The interview with former President Ford is part of CBS's broadcast from the convention hall. Walter Cronkite asks Ford about his role as vice-president. Ford answers in a way that seems to put him on an equal footing with Reagan. That raises doubts for Reagan, so he places a phone call to Ford's room in the hotel. Reagan presses Ford's representative for an answer. No more complications and negotiations - and I need your answer in three minutes! Ford doesn't come through with a positive reply within the time limit, so Reagan calls George Bush. Bush accepts immediately. The next thing you know, they are out on the convention floor together, a happy pair waving to the delegates!
We can see now that Ford really didn't want to accept. You can't fault him for thinking, "I would only do it if..." For Reagan, the negotiations with Ford were too public and too drawn out. He wanted to bring them to a quick end. He had to, because the convention was going to be over in a couple of days, and the delegates weren't going to wait around while he and Ford figured things out!
Problem was, Reagan's negotiations with Ford displaced the normal selection process, a process that takes quite a range of vice-presidential candidates into account. When the talks with Ford didn't produce an agreement, Reagan didn't have an alternate other than Bush ready to go out on the floor with him. He couldn't start the usual sounding out, vetting and selection process at that late hour.
Bush was a safe candidate. He was there in Detroit. Reagan could be confident that he would say yes. He had a lifelong record of service in the Navy, in the Republican party, and in the federal executive branch. The voters knew him. He was from the big state of Texas, and from the Northeastern establishment. So Bush had a lot to recommend him, even though Reagan thought that he was weak.
Reagan's opinion of Bush improved over the next eight years, but at the time he didn't respect his running mate that much. Reagan's assessment arose from their famous encounter at the high school gym in Nashua, New Hampshire, where Reagan stirred the audience when he declaimed, "I paid for this microphone!" Bush had not behaved with courage and grace during that episode, and Reagan observed it. But George Bush had all those other things to recommend him, so Reagan put him on the ticket.
I thought Reagan's selection of Bush was a mistake well before W. ran and won in 2000. Reagan needed a true believer like Jack Kemp on his side. It's not that Kemp or anyone else would have helped Reagan do a better job during his eight years in office. Bush himself served well as vice-president, and we know that the formal powers of the office are pretty limited to begin with. Bush did what Reagan asked him to do.
Bush turned out to be a poor choice because his role as vice-president made him Reagan's natural successor in 1988, and Bush was not a good successor for Reagan. In politics, though, you don't think about succession to an office you haven't even won yet. In 1980, Reagan and his team focused their energies on defeating an incumbent president. Their concentration would have been misplaced if they had been thinking about succession eight years down the line.
So I'm going to leave the rest of the analysis up in the air here. Part two comes next month. If I don't come through in February with some more remarks about Reagan's Republican successors, please catch me on it. You have a right to know!
We can't lay at Reagan's door all the bad consequences of this decision. No one would expect him to see what would happen a generation later because he put George Bush on the ticket that year. In the summer of 1980, Reagan wasn't even sure he could unseat a sitting president. His main concern was to select someone who could help him win. So let me tell you how this choice turned out wrong, how for want of a vice-presidential nominee, the republic was lost.
The usual story is that Reagan and Ford talked about a Dream Ticket in 1980, a former president and a popular candidate teaming up to make the Republican ticket unbeatable. Then the talks failed when Ford suggested something like a co-presidency. Reagan didn't like the sound of that, so in the middle of the convention he turned to George Bush, his strongest opponent in the primaries. Gerald Ford had overreached, the story went, and Reagan chose a natural alternate when he couldn't agree to Ford's terms.
That version tells part of the story, but it overlooks some interesting nuances. Those nuances explain why Reagan, usually so astute about things political, made a decision that he might not have made if he had spent more time on it. As it turned out, his choice of a running mate was more consequential than he might have guessed at the time.
Anne Edwards recently published a book called The Reagans: Portrait of a Marriage. She takes us to the spring of 1980, when Reagan is wrapping up the delegates he'll need to gain the his party's nomination at the Republican National Convention in August. Reagan first approaches Ford about the vice-presidency in March 1980, five months before the convention. "Will you help the Republican party out and be my running mate?" Reagan asks.
They'd mended their fences from the 1976 battle for the Republican presidential nomination, but Ford politely turned Reagan down. Vice-president isn't a role you take on readily after you've been president. Reagan, however, isn't one to take no for an answer, especially if he sees any possibility at all of success. He asks Ford to reconsider, and asks him again, until Ford agrees to talk about it. These talks become intense during the convention in Detroit, Michigan. Then Ford goes on live television...
The interview with former President Ford is part of CBS's broadcast from the convention hall. Walter Cronkite asks Ford about his role as vice-president. Ford answers in a way that seems to put him on an equal footing with Reagan. That raises doubts for Reagan, so he places a phone call to Ford's room in the hotel. Reagan presses Ford's representative for an answer. No more complications and negotiations - and I need your answer in three minutes! Ford doesn't come through with a positive reply within the time limit, so Reagan calls George Bush. Bush accepts immediately. The next thing you know, they are out on the convention floor together, a happy pair waving to the delegates!
We can see now that Ford really didn't want to accept. You can't fault him for thinking, "I would only do it if..." For Reagan, the negotiations with Ford were too public and too drawn out. He wanted to bring them to a quick end. He had to, because the convention was going to be over in a couple of days, and the delegates weren't going to wait around while he and Ford figured things out!
Problem was, Reagan's negotiations with Ford displaced the normal selection process, a process that takes quite a range of vice-presidential candidates into account. When the talks with Ford didn't produce an agreement, Reagan didn't have an alternate other than Bush ready to go out on the floor with him. He couldn't start the usual sounding out, vetting and selection process at that late hour.
Bush was a safe candidate. He was there in Detroit. Reagan could be confident that he would say yes. He had a lifelong record of service in the Navy, in the Republican party, and in the federal executive branch. The voters knew him. He was from the big state of Texas, and from the Northeastern establishment. So Bush had a lot to recommend him, even though Reagan thought that he was weak.
Reagan's opinion of Bush improved over the next eight years, but at the time he didn't respect his running mate that much. Reagan's assessment arose from their famous encounter at the high school gym in Nashua, New Hampshire, where Reagan stirred the audience when he declaimed, "I paid for this microphone!" Bush had not behaved with courage and grace during that episode, and Reagan observed it. But George Bush had all those other things to recommend him, so Reagan put him on the ticket.
I thought Reagan's selection of Bush was a mistake well before W. ran and won in 2000. Reagan needed a true believer like Jack Kemp on his side. It's not that Kemp or anyone else would have helped Reagan do a better job during his eight years in office. Bush himself served well as vice-president, and we know that the formal powers of the office are pretty limited to begin with. Bush did what Reagan asked him to do.
Bush turned out to be a poor choice because his role as vice-president made him Reagan's natural successor in 1988, and Bush was not a good successor for Reagan. In politics, though, you don't think about succession to an office you haven't even won yet. In 1980, Reagan and his team focused their energies on defeating an incumbent president. Their concentration would have been misplaced if they had been thinking about succession eight years down the line.
So I'm going to leave the rest of the analysis up in the air here. Part two comes next month. If I don't come through in February with some more remarks about Reagan's Republican successors, please catch me on it. You have a right to know!
