|
|
townhall.com Printer-friendly version June 8, 2004
There are many ways to judge a President or anyone else. One
old-fashioned way is by results. A more popular way in recent years has been by
how well someone fits the preconceptions of the intelligentsia or the media. By the first test, Ronald Reagan was the most successful President of
the United States in the 20th century. By the second test, he was a complete
failure. Time and time again President Reagan went against what the smug
smarties inside the beltway and on the TV tube said. And time and again he got
results. It started even before Ronald Reagan was elected. When the Republicans
nominated Governor Reagan in 1980, according to the late Washington Post editor
Meg Greenfield, "people I knew in the Carter White House were ecstatic." They
considered Reagan "not nearly smart enough" -- as liberals measured smart. The fact that Ronald Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter by a landslide
did not cause any re-evaluation of his intelligence. It was luck or malaise or
something else, liberals thought. Now the media line was that this cowboy from California would be taught
a lesson when he got to Washington and had to play in the big leagues against
the savvy guys on Capitol Hill. The new President succeeded in putting through Congress big changes
that were called "the Reagan revolution." And he did it without ever having his
party in control of both houses of Congress. But these results caused no
re-evaluation of Ronald Reagan. One of his first acts as President was to end price controls on
petroleum. The New York Times condescendingly dismissed Reagan's reliance on the
free market and repeated widespread predictions of "declining domestic oil
production" and skyrocketing gasoline prices. Within four months the price of gasoline fell by more than 60 cents a
gallon. More luck, apparently. Where the new President would really get his comeuppance, the smart
money said, was in foreign affairs, where a former governor had no experience.
Not only were President Reagan's ideas about foreign policy considered naive and
dangerously reckless, he would be going up against the wily Soviet rulers who
were old hands at this stuff. When Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire,"
there were howls of disapproval in the media. When he proposed meeting a Soviet
nuclear buildup in Eastern Europe with an American nuclear buildup in Western
Europe, there were alarms that he was going to get us into a war. The result? President Reagan's policies not only did not get us into a
war, they put an end to the Cold War that had been going on for decades. Meanwhile, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the media's idea
of a brilliant and sophisticated man, had a whole Communist empire collapse
under him when his policies were put into effect. Eastern Europe broke free and
Gorbachev woke up one morning to find that the Soviet Union that he was head of
no longer existed -- and that he was now a nobody in the new Russian state. But that was just bad luck, apparently. For decades it had been considered the height of political wisdom to
accept as given that the Soviet bloc was here to stay -- and its expansion was
so inevitable that it would be foolhardy to try to stop it. The Soviet bloc had in fact expanded through seven consecutive
administrations of both Republicans and Democrats. The first territory the
Communists ever lost was Grenada, when Ronald Reagan sent in American
troops. But, once again, results carried no weight with the intelligentsia and
the media. Reagan was considered to be completely out of touch when he said that
Communism was "another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages
even now are being written." But how many "smart" people saw the end of the
Soviet Union coming? Ronald Reagan left this country -- and the world -- a far better place
than he found it. And he smiled while he did it. That's greatness -- if you
judge by results.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Contact Thomas Sowell | Read Sowell's biography townhall.com
|