Updated February 06, 2010
What Would Reagan Do?
By James Pinkerton
- FOXNews.com
On what would have been his 99th birthday, here are the Gipper’s lessons for
restoring American greatness--and the keys to winning the next election.
The Reagan Years: 1981-1989
President Ronald Reagan would have been 99-years-old Saturday. He died five
years ago in June, but he is hardly forgotten as his policies still affect
America today. We look back at some of the biggest moments during his
presidency.
READ THIS BOOK : " GIAI PHONG " by T Terzani. It describes a Vietnamese as
THIEF, A LIAR, A KILLER, A DECEIVER , a sleeper ......
What Would Reagan Do? What would our 40th President do if he became, through
some miracle, our 45th President? Ronald Reagan, born on this day, February 6,
1911--Happy Birthday Mr. President, wherever you are!--passed away in 2004, but
this question is still important to answer--as our thoughts turn to the future,
to the next president after the 44th.
Because we know we don’t want Barack Obama in the Oval Office for more than a
single term.
For conservatives and libertarians--and, after the recent elections,
independents and independent Democrats--there’s not much more to be said about
the incumbent. From the audacity of hope to the reality of deep disappointment,
his decline and fall compressed itself into just a year.
We know that Obama and his liberal-left policies have damaged our economy,
degraded our national finances, and insulted traditional values.
But what really tears it for us, and tears it for the American people, is his
mismanagement of our national and homeland security. Giving in to the Russians
on missile defense was strike one. Opening the door to prosecutions of CIA
agents who helped in the war on terror--while dithering on Afghanistan--was
strike two. Reluctance to confront the reality of domestic terrorism in the
wake of Fort Hood, together with the feckless handling of Gitmo, and the
ACLU-ish treatment of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and the underwear bomber-- was
strike three.
That’s three strikes. Time to retire the batter; no matter how much he enjoys
swanning around the field.
And so the situation today resembles, ever more closely, the situation of the
late 70s. Thirty years ago, Jimmy Carter delivered his confidence-breaking
“malaise” speech during the third year of his presidency; Obama needed less
than a year to convince middle America that he is not ready for the sacred
national proscenium.
Even Reagan’s bitterest critics, by contrast, would agree that the Gipper was
superb at bringing the country together in times of national grief and on
occasions of solemn remembrance. His address on the night of the Challenger
explosion in 1986 was a defining moment for a generation; so, too, was his
speech at the Normandy cliffs on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. Gesturing to
elderly Army veterans, the President declared, “These are the boys of Pointe du
Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped
free a continent”--as an enthralled world watched in misty-eyed admiration.
But Reagan was vastly more than a scene-setter and speechmaker. He was a great
president, one of America’s greatest. During his eight years in office,
inflation and interest rates fell from their double-digit levels, even as the
nation’s economic output grew by a third. He appointed center-right judges who
helped restore order and sanity to our legal system, initiating a process that
reduced crime and ended egregious legal insults to common sense.
He rebuilt our military, a group that had been demoralized after Vietnam. In
the late 70s, the United States had ships that couldn’t sail, planes that
couldn’t fly and soldiers and sailors who were on food stamps. In the 80s,
Reagan changed all that. He built the mightiest military in the world with
improved manpower and the best equipment in the world that faced down the
Soviets from a position of superior strength. The Reagan defense buildup has
been the backbone of today's military, which has defended America and its
allies for the last quarter-century.
Overseas, Reagan’s achievements were even more remarkable. Working through
agents and allies, the president beat the Soviets in Afghanistan, without the
loss of a single American G.I. His leadership set the stage for the fall of the
Berlin Wall, thus imploding the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War.
Did he make mistakes? Sure. But when he did, he took responsibility and fixed
the problem, without wallowing in self-pity. And all the while, he demonstrated
a personal probity that never left anyone wondering if the man in the Oval
Office was keeping faith with the people who had put their faith in him.
So if he were with us today, what would Reagan do? We can answer that question
by recalling the Reagan agenda. Anyone even passingly familiar with American
politics knows the Reagan policies: He wanted to cut tax rates to spur economic
growth. He wanted to control spending and get government off our backs, so that
entrepreneurs could once again grow small payrolls into big payrolls. And so
what would Reagan say about “cap-and-trade” legislation? In private, he’d rail
against the stupidity of such a scheme, but in public, he would just chuckle
and encourage others to laugh such foolishness off the national stage.
Yet a neo-Reaganite economic policy would not shy away from delivering stern
news: We are going to have to tighten our belts and cut spending--even as we
invest in much-needed scientific projects, laying the groundwork for future
growth. So yes, he would say, we are going to feel some pain, but we must stay
the course, because the alternative is infinitely more painful. But our Reagan
would always offer hope. He would remind us that America has always been, and
must continue to be, a shining city on a hill--the last best hope for mankind.
Like Jimmy Carter before him, the current president seems happy presiding over
a strong government and a weak America. A new Gipper, by contrast, would
display profound confidence in the majesty and morality of American
Exceptionalism. No bowing down to anyone.
But at the same time, he would never be reckless; the goal would not be to
fight hot wars, but rather, to win cold wars. If America had to go in, as in
Grenada, our new Reagan would not hesitate. He would give the order. But if
others could do the fighting, as in Angola and Nicaragua back in the 80s, as
well as in Afghanistan--that would be even better. And if our enemies could
fight each other, as they did during the Iran-Iraq war, well, the Gipper would
grasp the Machiavellian utility in such mutual destruction.
Above all, a Reagan of today would see clearly the threat of radical Islam,
realizing that while the jihadist threat might be centered--and sponsored--in
the Middle East, the tentacles of that threat reach across the world, even into
military bases in the Heartland.
Today’s Reagan would think long and hard about Islam, just as the original
Reagan thought long and hard about communism. The original Reagan read
Whittaker Chambers and consulted with Alexander Solzhenitsyn; the new Reagan
would be similarly learning from experts and survivors. And so once he was in
the White House, the new Reagan would gather the best and most clear-eyed
advisers, before determining the best course of action.
George W. Bush thought he could change the culture of Islam through military
force. Obama thinks he can change the culture of Islam through the force of
words, including a lot of “I’m sorry” wording--and a little bit of bowing. Our
Reagan would do better. Mindful of the stubborn realities of human nature, he
would work with key allies to craft a comprehensive strategy for protecting the
West. And he would seek, when and if possible, to advance security and freedom
for the rest of the world.
To do so, he would cheerfully think outside of mental boxes he might have
inherited from narrower-thinking predecessors. Always genial, but never naive,
Reagan would dispense with illusion and credulity, pursuing instead missile
defense and credible arms control. Indeed, in today’s proliferated world, it’s
hard to think of a better idea right now than missile defense. Reagan thought
so, too--and said so, from the Oval Office, back in 1983. If we had made steady
progress on missile defense over the last three decades, America and her allies
would be safe now from rogue regimes in Iran, North Korea, and Lebanon.
Back on the homefront, the new Reagan would look around for another Antonin
Scalia to put on the Supreme Court. He would pursue a conservative social
agenda, but not to untenable extremes. To a good Reaganite, politics is always
based firmly on a moral and ethical foundation, but it is also always the art
of the possible.
Our next Reagan would be committed, of course, to federalism. The ex-governor
would always regard the 50 states as the best possible laboratories of
democracy. And so if Wisconsin’s Tommy Thompson, starting in the late 80s,
could blaze a trail on welfare reform that the rest of the country would
follow, a new Reagan would ask: “Who is the next domestic reformer to arise
outside the puzzle palaces on the Potomac?” And speaking of reform, who would
be the next Bill Bennett? The “Nation At Risk” report, published by the Reagan
administration back in 1983, enshrined the idea of educational standards and
rigor. What’s next?
The once and future Reagan would always combine a showman’s sense of how to
handle the moment with the canny skill of a patient negotiator. As the original
Gipper liked to say, “You can get anything you want done, as long as you don’t
care who gets the credit.”
But what if Congress still said no? Easy. The new Reagan would go over their
heads, taking his case directly to the American people. So if the old Reagan
could do that with TV, over the strong objection of most media of his day, we
can imagine what RR II could do with the Internet as a powerful tool.
Of course, the new Reagan would have to get elected in 2012, just as the old
Reagan won in 1980. But our new Gipper has one advantage: He can learn from the
old Gipper. For example, could any future challenger improve upon these words,
delivered by the one and only Ronald Reagan at the Republican convention on
July 17, 1980? As the Gipper said of the incumbent Democrat back then:
“Our problems are both acute and chronic, yet all we hear from those in
positions of leadership are the same tired proposals for more government
tinkering, more meddling and more control -- all of which led us to this state
in the first place.
“Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, ‘Well done?’ Can
anyone compare the state of our economy when the Carter administration took
office with where we are today and say, ‘Keep up the good work?’ Can anyone
look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, ‘Let's have four more
years of this?”
Whoever delivers that message in 2012--and means it--will be our next
president. Because as much as we revere Ronald Reagan, we will never see him
back here on this earth. He has earned his eternal rest, secure in our national
pantheon.
As for the rest of us today, what we need is the courage of our 40th
president’s convictions, the clarity of his fundamental insights, and the
inspiration that comes from his memory.
James P. Pinkerton is a writer and Fox News contributor. He worked on the 1980
and 1984 Reagan presidential campaigns. He also served, at a very low level, in
the Reagan White House from 1981 to 1983.
WHO IS Cheam Yeap?
OUR MORPHOLOGY ON RACE AND FORENSIC DATA ANALYISIS REVEALS THAT CHEAM YEAP
IS A VIETNAMESE COMMUNIST , HIDING BEHIND THE LABEL "CAMBODIAN" CPP/MP.
Mr. Cheam Yeap (A VIETNAMESE )(pictured), MP from the ruling Cambodian People's
Party (CPP),
LET US STUDY OTHER VIETNAMESE HINDING UNDER THE "CAMBODIAN"LABEL LIKE CHEAM
YEAP.
WHAT RIGHTS DO THESE VIETNAMESE INVADERS HAVE TO RUN CAMBODIA IN VIOLATION OF
THE 10 UN RESOLUTION?
THE VIETNAMESE TRICKS IN CAMBODIA OCCUPIED BY VIETNAM.THIS VIETNAMESE WEARING
THE LABEL "CAMBODIAN"
Khieu Kanharith, the minister of Information, during a press conference held
on 04 January 2009. KHIEU KANHARITH , A VIETNAMESE WEARING THE LABEL"CAMBODIAN"
HOR NAM HONG , A VIETNAMESE ,APPOINTED AS FOREIGN MINISTER OF CAMBODIA TO
NEGOTIATE AND TALK ON BEHALF OF THE KHMER PEOPLE HERE.
IT'S SIMPLE. LOOK AND READ HERE THE FACTS.
FOR CAMBODIA
Strong Resolution on Cambodia Human Rights Abuses
Feb. 27, 1982 : UN Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva adopted a
resolution condemning Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia as a violation of
Cambodian human rights. The vote was 28 in favor, 8 against, and 5 abstentions.
Oct. 21, 1986 The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution A/RES/41/6, by vote
of 116-21 with 13 abstentions, calling for a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces
from Cambodia.
10 UN RESOLUTIONS,(1979-1988) VOTED BY 116 UN MEMBER COUNTRIES ,CALL VIETNAM TO
CEASE HER OCCUPATION OF CAMBODIA & REMOVE ALL HER TROOPS FROM THE COUNTRY, ARE
NOT RESPECTED AS OF TODAY.
Oct. 21, 1986 The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution A/RES/41/6, by vote
of 116-21 with 13 abstentions, calling for a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces
from Cambodia.
President Reagan's address to the 43d Session of the United Nations General
Assembly in New York, New York,September 26, 1988.
"Mr. Secretary-General, there are new hopes for Cambodia, a nation whose
freedom and independence we seek just as avidly as we sought the freedom and
independence of Afghanistan. We urge the rapid removal of all Vietnamese troops
...."
As of today,Cambodia is still occupied by the Vietnamese troops despite the
call from the US president to Vietnam to cease her occupation of Cambodia since
1988.
Cambodia needs Independence from Vietnam and the Vietnamese invaders.
Vietnam must cease her occupation of Cambodia at once.
Bury
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
