Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Reagan speeches

I've been watching some of Ronald Reagan's speeches and reading others today. It started with a link to a YouTube video of his call to Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. Watching that speech at first, I was caught by the way he had with words, his eloquence and slow, simple, profound speech. Then he says, "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate." And the silent crowd erupts in cheers and applause, causing him to pause. Then, the command of righteousness in his voice, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." The cheers explode in a roar again, only moreso, like he is a rock star just coming on stage, his message music to the ears of a people tired from years of divisiveness, agitation and crisis. And I thought, "My god, this truly was a great man."

A lesser point from his farewell address was what brings me to this post though. I'll quote it liberally here:
An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-'60s.

But now, we're about to enter the '90s, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, "We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did." Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson No. 1 about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

This seems to me like a very important message, more true now than ever before. "Those who create the popular culture" obviously have not heeded President Reagan's call, and our television, our movies, and our national sense of pride did not return to a place where it's "in style" to have that well-grounded sense of patriotism. There's a very small group of about four or five leaders in Hollywood who occasionally make movies that instill a sense of pride in our national heritage, and hope for where we're headed. As he said, too many parents don't seem to bother instilling that "unambivalent appreciation for America," and we suffer as a result. See the complacency I mentioned in my last post. And, while as Dad said there are plenty of us still out there who treasure it and are willing to fight for it, I've noticed a downward trend. "Trend" really is the right word because it's like Reagan said, it's not "in style," and realizing that being trendy is important to so much of our nation is a disheartening thing. Is there nothing worth valuing your whole life, are there no absolutes that are important enough to keep in your heart and free from the opinions of others?

Something that Reagan seemed to have, and correct me if I'm wrong (I was barely five years old by the time he was out of office), was a near invulnerability to the stresses of politics. His agenda didn't seem to be party-based, it seemed to be Reagan-based. He appeared to me, from what I've read and seen of him, to hold himself above politics, basing his decisions on a higher set of ideals. Ultimately, it seems he had a better memory of right and wrong, a more cohesive, consistent understanding of why he believed what he did, and a steadfast determination to stick to his gut. He aspired to a higher purpose, that of liberty and freedom from the evils of the world. Just doesn't seem like he muddied himself with petty partisan politics (and I hate alliteration) like is so much the business these days. They don't make 'em like they used to.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Roger,

You said,

He aspired to a higher purpose, that of liberty and freedom from the evils of the world. Just doesn't seem like he muddied himself with petty partisan politics (and I hate alliteration) like is so much the business these days.

Your first sentence is absolutely correct, but the second sentence not so much. President Reagan was better at politics than the opposition and did not allow them to frame the debate. He was a master at using the "bully pulpit" to bypass the gatekeepers of the MSM to convey his ideas to the public directly. I think the thing that makes President Reagan different than most politicians you see today is that he sought high office because he believed in the essential greatness of the American people. He felt his role as President was to enable the individual citizens of our country by keeping us strong and free, not as a platform to consolidate his prestige and personal power or tobecome some sort of SuperNanny.

He was not a multiculturist; he knew that our system was superior to any other in the world, and meant to keep it that way. That's why he challenged the Soviet Union when the liberal establishment was convinced of the superiority of communism.

President Reagan was vilified in his day just as much or more than George Bush is today. They called him warmonger, stupid, senile, simplistic, lazy, and out-of-touch. They claimed he was a puppet of his advisers, just like they claim of President Bush. Even now his detractors deny him the credit he deserves for his accomplishments, but they cannot deny history.

President Reagan's many accomplishments were made without ever having the benefit of controlling both the House and Senate, and the opposition party had a huge advantage, at least in the House. Republicans may have controlled the Senate (I don't remember) but I think it was by a small margin. Petty partisan politics were still the business of the day, but it seemed to me that Republicans were much more willing to roll over for the Democrats. That is why Democrats are always wailing about wanting to restore civility in Washington; civility is defined by them as agreeing to whatever the Democrat agenda is. Unlike President Bush, President Reagan would challenge them directly and use the veto pen if they tried to cross him. He knew his job was to lead, not facilitate!

By the way, I couldn't make your link work.

Dad

December 21, 2007 8:02 AM  
Blogger Roger W. said...

By the way, I'm well aware that Reagan wasn't "beloved by all" or anything. I've run into a good number of people who have convinced themselves that he was the worst president in history for different reasons, usually the Iran-Contra stuff or his general militance regarding Qadaffi and Grenada or any other hosts of reasons. That's part of what I dig about him, he really seems to have gotten under the Liberals' skin, so he must have been doing something very right. But while doing that, and while he participated in those partisan politics it didn't distract him from those higher ideals and purposes one bit. And I absolutely agree with what you said about his role being to enable the individual citizens, and think this is basically what I meant by not getting muddied with the partisan politics like that. It wasn't about power and prestige, it truly seemed to be about enabling the individual American.

December 21, 2007 9:57 AM  
Blogger Roger W. said...

"A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed." This existed in a previous comment, along with a link to another website, which I have now deleted. This is still a clever little sentence that I really enjoy, so I've kept it.

I followed the link myself and read the article it linked to, then decided to get rid of it completely from this thread of comments. I don't know if anybody else here got a chance to look at it, but it told a story that I don't want to be put on government watch lists for linking to, and this is the one time I've felt eerily sure that that's what would happen if the link had stayed. Perhaps I'll tell you about it later (like this weekend, since the only two occasional readers I'm sure still come here are Dad and Ryan).

December 21, 2007 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I consider Ronald Reagan the greatest leader of the 20th century. Surpassing FDR and all others. He was insrumental if not THE force that ended the cold war. His economic policies have boosted this economy and the Clinton era taxation only slowed it. Anyone who denies Mr. Reagan's contribution to the prosperity of this nation is either ill informed or politically poised to do so.

January 18, 2008 8:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home