Reagan & Bush 43

Rambling thoughts alert: This post should really be only a paragraph. It goes kinda long because after writing it, Knuckles doesn't have time to edit it.

Knuckles is hearing a lot of comparisons between Reagan and W. from conservatives. Most of it seems a bit wistful that Reagan isn't around to take care of the terrorists.

So please take your seats and let Knuckles straighten this out.

There are some conservatives who measure Bush's response to 9/11 against what Reagan's might have been. Much of this results in second-guessing Bush and wishing he were more like Reagan. What's important to understand is that the two Presidents responded to their primary enemies in their own distinct way.

What Knuckles younger readers may not know is that during the 1980s, conservatives were frequently frustrated by Reagan. "Let Reagan be Reagan" was the mantra. Movement conservatives who had been energized by his tax cutting and stirring commitment to liberty were often disappointed when the Democrats and their bum-boys in the media ran wild.

Anyone looking to Reagan for a bare-knuckled approach to the asshelmets on the Left were often disappointed. In fact, if you have trouble with W's less-than-full-bore, bugs-in-the-teeth approach to the Jihadists, you'd have a shit fit with Ronald Reagan's amiable style even if his many of his speeches were direct and forceful

Yet in spite of his friendly style, Reagan's Cold War legacy was a complete and total success. Reagan, smiling, faced down the Soviets and coolly pole-axed the Marxist shit-disturbers in Nicaragua and Grenada.

His presidency also had a sobering effect domestically. Conservatives realized that residing in the White House only went so far. Congress needed to be retaken as well as the Senate.

Even the comparison of Reagan's response to Jihadistan versus Bush's has little merit. During the Reagan administration, a US embassy was bombed, 250 Marines killed and hostages taken. Reagan was even sent a video tape (courtesy the Religion of Peace™) that showed the CIA bureau chief in Lebanon being tortured and killed. Reagan did little. Why? Islam wasn't the primary enemy at the time and in fact many were fighting the Soviets. Reagan never specifically targeted Jihadists (Khadafi's 1,000-lb. laser-guided tent-reno notwithstanding) because at the time Islam didn't present itselves as a direct threat to America.

Listen to Reagan's and W's speeches side by side. Reagan's forceful ideas are delivered in a warm and friendly way. You must understand that Reagan's ideas--welfare reform, free trade, tax cuts, strong defense, supporting liberty and defeating communism--were considered revolutionary at the time. No one, not even the sweaty-lipped, white-shoed, comb-over Republicans, spoke of those issues except to say that of course they'd do what the Democrats are doing...only slower. It was Reagan's pure charm that allow some very controversial ideas to get a fair hearing.

Bush, too, understands the threat to America and is the right man for this war. He's tough. He's unrelenting. All his humor is at the expense of his dead-eyed enemies. He isn't and doesn't have to be a charmer. Unlike Reagan, Bush is dealing with leadership from his own party in the Congress and Senate. Bush doesn't have to weigh the consequences of pissing off the terrorists like Reagan often had to do. The remorseless Soviets commanded vast armies as well as thousands of nuclear missiles.

Look, we all have our disagreements with W. Just as we had with Reagan. It's only natural. But take courage in the fact that although Reagan's and W's personalities differ, it's character that wins wars.