-
The Role of the Federal Government
June 12, 2013 | 47 comments
-
The Seriousness of the Charge
May 29, 2013 | 68 comments
-
The Seventeen Year Itch
May 15, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Questions
May 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Stifling Our Children
April 15, 2013 | 39 comments
Political Hay
American Love
President Obama has much to learn about President Reagan.
I have a sister who’s around a decade younger than me. One day, a few years ago, we were discussing the presidency of Ronald Reagan when she made a most interesting comment. “When Reagan was president,” she said, “I always felt safe.” While I didn’t think much of it at the time, I did so later on and most recently with the commemoration of Reagan’s 100th birthday last week.
The Reagan memorials brought inevitable comparisons with other presidents; none more so than the current occupant of the Oval Office. And most of them are almost hysterically funny when you think about it. For example, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for…well I don’t really know why, while Reagan, who, with a little help from his friends, actually won the Cold War, bringing an end to decades of abject fear, was always depicted as a war monger.
But comparisons abounded, including this absurdity from Ron Reagan Jr., who was asked whether Obama — whom he deemed “a centrist guy” — or Sarah Palin was more like his father: “Just on the basis of intelligence, you would have to say Barack Obama. I don’t think my father has anything in common with Sarah Palin whatsoever. I’m a little offended that we even have to talk about Sarah Palin, who has nothing interesting to say.”
Speaking of nothing interesting to say, when one recalls the presidency of James Earl Carter, a faint notion of grandfatherliness comes to mind, although he was 17 years younger than Reagan when inaugurated. Maybe it was this stark contrast between the two men that so clearly brought out one of Reagan’s most important qualities, the one referred to indirectly by my sister; Ronald Reagan exuded an aura of dependability and protectiveness; in other words, he was a manly man.
Now, for anyone under the age of thirty who has no direct memory of the Great Communicator, it’s hard to put this into words. It wasn’t merely his physical appeal; though his jaunty air, his finely tailored wardrobe and his undeniable good looks made him easy on the eyes. His speaking manner was, of course, impeccable; a product of both his Hollywood training and his steady, Midwest twang. No, it was mostly the way he held command of any situation that faced him; confident but not haughty, informed but not pedantic and decisive without arrogance.
Aside from policy, and notwithstanding the erudite opinions of Ron Jr., the biggest difference between Reagan and Obama is this very same manliness, or lack of it. Some presidents have had it and some haven’t. John F. Kennedy, though he was young and virile, didn’t, while the wheelchair-bound FDR reeked of it. For all his bravado and roughish charm, Bill Clinton sorely lacked it, as did the very handsome George “Poppy” Bush. But although reviled by his detractors on account of it, George W. Bush — as well as his Vice President and first Secretary of Defense — had tons of it….just ask our enemies.
All of this is not to say that this lack of old-fashioned manliness makes Obama a bad president — the success or failure of his governance will determine that — it’s just that all comparisons between him and Reagan as personalities are absurd.
Yet we hear that Obama harbors a genuine affection for Reagan and why wouldn’t he? After winning a 49-state re-election landslide, the Gipper’s popularity has only ballooned in recent years, ironically in large part due to the presidential hijinks of Obama himself. A place in American iconography is the aim of nearly every politician, and one desired by the 44th president in a big way. Barack Obama dearly desires the love of his nation and the world. And that’s where the comparisons truly fall short.
For the true measure of a man lies not so much in his desire to be loved, but in his capacity to give love. And Ronald Reagan deeply loved America and her people and wanted the world to share in her love of liberty and freedom. This love manifested itself in his manly opposition to foes both domestic and foreign, resulting in the country’s — and my sister’s — loving reverence toward him. So if he wishes to approach Reagan’s relationship between himself and America, Barack Obama should strive to comprehend this sort of love, if he can.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Lisa Fabrizio
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/16/american-love
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- Sweet Home, Alabama
- There’s Something About Cambridge
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.16.11 @ 6:12AM
Love is usually between individuals even in a group setting.
In Obama's situation he loves big government which is a form of secular humanism.
Obama and his spouse sat in a church for twenty years listening to Reverend Wright condemn America and the white race.
That's his kind of love, which is hate. There's a fine line between the two and it's usually not crossed.
Appleby| 2.16.11 @ 7:00AM
Obama wants to be loved the way Aragorn is loved; that is, he wants to be worshipped.
Mr. Reagan had the same attitude as the Fifties Dads had -- that comfortable air of being in charge and knowing what to do with that responsibility -- that led us to be so comfortable with our Dads. They were honest, hard working, relaxed guys who would always know what to do, and they would always be there.
Obama is Mommys boyfriend, who is here today and gone tomorrow.
Mimi| 2.16.11 @ 8:24AM
After the ...MEAN, NASTY budget the " BOYFRIEND " put out yesterday we can only hope..he is GONE tomorrow !
Alan Brooks| 2.16.11 @ 8:04AM
But if Reagan was so good, why did you follow him up with that reptile from Kennebunkport?
You knew very well what Bush was like.
Mike Hawk| 2.16.11 @ 8:58AM
Uh, Slick Willy was from Arkansas, not Kennebunkport. You knew very well what Clinton was like.
W| 2.16.11 @ 9:44AM
"Reptile?"
The country voted overwhelmingly for Bush 1 over your man Dukakis. Bush is/was a decorated war hero, youngest Navy pilot, volunteered for WW 11, never degraded the office like your man Clinton, and so on. What have you done, or the people yo voted for, such as Dukakis,Clinton, Gore, Kerry that measures up to this?
As usual instead you try to divert attention from the issue. Why?
Alan Brooks| 2.16.11 @ 11:48AM
"The country voted overwhelmingly for Bush 1"
So what if he was a vet? so was Carter! did anyone ever tell you that Jimmuh-boy was in the Navy? Didn't do civilians any good when Jimmuh-boy became president, did it?
W| 2.16.11 @ 12:49PM
Bush served in combat, Carter did not, not that it would have helped since Carter was incompetent. It appears you do not know the difference. Your answer to someone who served in combat is "so what?" We are talking about character, something you obviously do not have or understand.
Yukon Jack| 2.18.11 @ 8:51AM
Unfortunately, that was the last time Americans voted for a genuine war hero.
They rejected Bod Dole in favor of Bill Clinton.
They rejected John McCain in favor of Hussain Obama.
Lesson to be learned for the Republican Party: DON'T EVER NOMINATE AN HONORABLE person to run against a charismatic Democratic flake.
C.K. Amos| 2.16.11 @ 2:19PM
GHWB a "reptile from Kennebunkport"? Guess you never had any classes in biology. Or civility.
MoeBlotz| 2.16.11 @ 7:56AM
Mzzz.Fabrizio left out the source of President Reagan's love for America. President Reagan loved God and new God loved him.
Hal G. P. Colebatch| 2.16.11 @ 8:20AM
Thank you for an excellent article.
Mimi| 2.16.11 @ 8:30AM
Yes, the nation would be well served with a strong, fatherly , loving , President...someone who would make us feel more secure. No more of this insecure "KID" stuff.!!
Curly Smith| 2.16.11 @ 8:40AM
The difference between Reagan and Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama is that Reagan talked about opportunity, big ideas, what you could achieve through hard work while all the rest talked about minutia. Reagan talked about you doing, you solving, you moving forward while the rest talked about government doing, government solving, and government moving forward. Reagan said "you can accomplish great things", the rest said "you can't do squat". Reagan was an antiestablishmentarian, the rest are all pro-establishment. Reagan said "rely on yourself", the rest say "rely on government" and who can feel safe when seconds count and the government is days away?
tjc| 2.16.11 @ 12:02PM
Lisa, you are spot on!!! Reagan was a mans man. It is a shame that his ballet addled son isn't fit to tie the old man's shoes. I would pay real money to see Michael take on his 'little' brother.
BTW: When W was sworn into office, I remember thinking 'Thank God, the adults are back in charge'.
MGabel| 2.16.11 @ 12:07PM
I can relate to the writer's sister's feeling. I remember feeling unsafe and that our country was being humiliated under Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Reagan was elected and that all ended. Like the real teacher coming back for the sustitute, the class (world) suddenly sat up straight and began its respectful posture towards our country.
The current aggressive posturing by China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, et. al., indicates that the world senses U.S. weakness under Obama, as it did under Carter.
Occam's Tool| 2.16.11 @ 12:58PM
Why is it so hard to do something so simple?
A President only needs to keep focused on a few areas: 1) Friends of America are to be rewarded; enemies punished.
2) Keep regulations and taxes low.
3) Minimize the role of government whenever possible.
4) Encourage virtue and achievement by rewarding it, preferrably in the tax code.
That's all there should, or needs, to be. Reagan was the last one who hit it closest to the mark.
Pelligrino| 2.16.11 @ 7:23PM
A very good list, OT, but just one more:
5) Keep an ample supply of jellybeans at the ready in the jar on the Oval Office desk.
The man had class. When he did his Oval Office addresses to the nation on evening live TV broadcasts for things like Poland under Martial Law, facing down the USSR, we listened and we knew that he was strong and confident.
Our enemies knew the same. I can tell you that our Armed Forces in W. Europe then "relaxed" a good bit although the ready-to-war drills did not abate. They (and NATO allies) relaxed because everyone knew that the USSR & Warsaw Pact nations weren't going to do anything while the Gipper was in the White House.
The Pershing II deployments as just one example of where Old Man Reagan was not going to back down over anything or anyone.
It could not have been more timely to have his 100th birthday fall right now. How fortuitous. He makes Obama look like a boy struggling as an apprentice in his first job out of high school.
Those with eyes to see and ears to hear know that Ronald Reagan is what one should emulate when in high office.
Yes, he made us feel safe. But it was the DOING.
And his love for God Almighty. (Quite correct, MoeBlotz) When a person has that right in his or her soul (really has that right), good things emanate.
C.K. Amos| 2.16.11 @ 2:29PM
Obama's hatred of America, liberty and capitalism appears unwavering.
As for his, the Democrats' and drive-by puppet media's fantasy of Obama now being compared to Ronald Reagan?
Wasn't too long ago that comparisons of Obama and Lincoln filled the airwaves and newsprint--until even his supporters found how absurd that comparison was.
Steve A| 2.16.11 @ 3:02PM
The 2 things Obama admired most in Reagan were: #1: His ability to get elected in landslide proportions. #2: His ability to get legislation enacted with an opposition Congress.
Reagan's sincere appeal to the American people was to reach out & say, "come with me, I have a plan & it puts the focus on you. The result will be a better future for the USA, you & your children."
Obama is forced to wink at his base. He must whisper to them & let them know that he does not really mean it when he speaks in praise of capitalism & private industry. He sells it like this: "come with me, I have a plan & the focus is on the government solving the problem for you. The result will be a better future for the USA, you & your children."
The difference is that Reagan appealed to the individual. Obama appeals to the collective. Reagan's plan, when implemented, actually works. Obama's plan, when on display, fails & must be blamed on Bush.
Anthony| 2.16.11 @ 3:44PM
The great Ronald Reagan used his G.E. Theatre forum to promote American exceptionalism.
The loser, Barry Obozo, now uses G.E. as a willing dupe for his crony capitalism and to lead his disinformation campaign, a la NBC/ MSNBC.
Greatness, even among corporations is fleeting.
Stuart Carrol| 2.16.11 @ 4:43PM
Ronald Reagan was my hero. The first paragraph of this article summed up my feelings exactly, I felt safe and that we were all in good hands. I am a Canadian who also shares the fond memories of a great man and President. All of us in the free world owe him a debt of gratitude for his belief in the power of democracy and freedom, for all. Please America, it is only you who can right the ship of state in 2012 and get back on the proper course that will benefit all of us who also hold your Founding Values.
Louis Jenkins| 2.16.11 @ 4:48PM
Yes, when Reagan was president I too felt safe(er). We knew he would do the USA right. Basically, he was a good man and I believe he loved the Lord, and his fellow man. Obama on the other hand... . Maybe that's why Obama admires Reagan. After all, when you're despised like Obama you search for any good thing you can.
Yukon Jack| 2.18.11 @ 8:56AM
Even as a Canadian I felt safer when Ronald Reagan was United States President.
In the summer of 2004 I drove 900 miles to stand by thousands of Americans on the National Mall to pay my respects to the man who was responsible for tearing down that wall which eventually resulted in the collapse of the Evil Empire and the liberation of my old country.
Rick| 2.16.11 @ 6:53PM
Your a rasist!
Pelligrino| 2.16.11 @ 7:41PM
To add to what I placed above, there is just not space here to recount the encounters I have had in these last decades with those from former Eastern European dictatorships who...
Who just knew that -- somehow, someway -- the ugly, evil apparatus of their country's communist infrastructure would crumble in the face of strong leadership from the West (President Ronald Reagan, Lady Margret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II).
Some of the best conversations I have ever had are with those who were citizens behind the Iron Curtain at that time in Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania, and East Germany.
I believe that many of them are still living.
And they live FREE. (We just do not know what that unending sensation is.)
Don't ask me how, but they knew of President Reagan's no backing down with Gorbi, his anger over Poland, his alliances with people like the Pope.
They knew. And they took such courage from that; they did not give up the struggle.
No one had a crystal ball to see what might transpire, but they all convey(ed) to me, somehow they knew their communist worlds were crumbling.
No, President Reagan did not do this alone. Goodness no.
But he set the tone.
THAT'S LEADERSHIP. That's the moral authority that must come from the White House.
So far, that has been the greatest series of events in my lifetime.
And I am very grateful for the freedoms that my friends now all enjoy --- oh and how many have been enjoying them!
Why should the people of Cuba, North Korea, Burma, White Russia (Belarus), Iran, China, and Venezuela still have to wait?
Thank you for the article TAS and Ms. Fabrizio.
Yukon Jack| 2.18.11 @ 8:58AM
Thank you, Pelligrino, you said what I meant to say in a far more eloquent way.
PCP Smoker| 2.16.11 @ 9:19PM
Lovely piece, but please remember, as David Boobs reminds us, that is the crease in the pants that separates the mediocre presidents from the great ones. And in this regard, The Socialist Muslim stands by himself.
Peace.
Am Freemen| 2.16.11 @ 9:53PM
---Reagan was very much a front for the One World Order/Eugenocidal agenda of his time,
and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to confront,
let alone staunch, the massive hemmorage of
capital and business to the awesomely genocidal
Rockefeller enabled, RED Chinese regime.
Though there IS compelling evidence that
Reagan was 'on to' the Bush agenda (i.e.
sellout) ---it must be admitted, the Reagan
era was the very heyday of delusional Wal-Mart
wampum-dom and dumb-down.
-WAKE UP!-
MattZ| 2.18.11 @ 12:33PM
I was wondering what sort of Valentine the American Spectator would give to Reagan.
MZ
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 3:33AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 5:06PM
thank you
very nic