Not Like Ike, Like Reagan!
Perhaps it's not surprising that there are calls for the Republican Party to become more "like Ike" -- especially when it comes to foreign policy. As the authors of the linked piece see it, the last election was a repudiation of neoconservative ideology, and a call for a more "prudent" foreign policy.
Nonsense. As I've pointed out before, the American people are angry about Iraq -- not because we undertook the war -- but because it's not being prosecuted effectively enough.
Eisenhower was a good general and a good man, but his foreign policy was cautious to a fault. Just ask the Hungarians -- and wonder how different history might have been if he had stood up for them, as America was honor bound to do.
On the domestic side, is it any coincidence that Republicans were in the political wilderness for decades after his tenure? That's what comes of being a "me, too - but less" politician . . . who goes along with Democrats but just a little bit less.
Ronald Reagan knew when to negotiate - but he was also willing to fight. He had ideals and principles for something greater than simply achieving agreement and avoiding a problem -- he was willing to disagree if that's what it took to obtain the right result.
We don't need an Eisenhower these days . . . we need a Reagan.
Nonsense. As I've pointed out before, the American people are angry about Iraq -- not because we undertook the war -- but because it's not being prosecuted effectively enough.
Eisenhower was a good general and a good man, but his foreign policy was cautious to a fault. Just ask the Hungarians -- and wonder how different history might have been if he had stood up for them, as America was honor bound to do.
On the domestic side, is it any coincidence that Republicans were in the political wilderness for decades after his tenure? That's what comes of being a "me, too - but less" politician . . . who goes along with Democrats but just a little bit less.
Ronald Reagan knew when to negotiate - but he was also willing to fight. He had ideals and principles for something greater than simply achieving agreement and avoiding a problem -- he was willing to disagree if that's what it took to obtain the right result.
We don't need an Eisenhower these days . . . we need a Reagan.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:00 AM
1 Comments:
I wonder -is there something unique about warriors that makes them poor civilian leaders. Eisenhower is a good example. Powell may have been a superb general, but (in my opinion) he was too hesitant for the job under GW Bush.
US Grant was usually identified as the worst president, until Carter rescued him from that title.
I wonder how much McCain's experience as a POW influenced his outlook on fighting a war?
Perhaps mthese examples make us appreciate the first George W(ashington) even more? Opinions my colleagues?
Post a Comment
<< Home