Someone over at Sully’s site writes:
I sometimes wonder what Reagan would have to say about where our country has careened since 9/11. We openly debate torture as a policy, allow unprecedented access to personal information, and tolerate secret prisons devoid of oversight.
Well, let’s look at how he approached the wars in El Salvador and Central America. Liberals criticized him extensively for allowing American Special Forces to train and cooperate with “death squads.” This was considered a great moral failing of America and the seeds of “another Vietnam.” Bush is no Reagan, but Bush’s willingness to be aggressive in the war on terror is not one of the reasons. People forget that Reagan’s “optimism” was a function of his belief in America and American power. It stood in contrast to the dim pessemism of the Democratic Party, which was dejected after Vietnam and willing to accomodate Soviet expansion globally.
No one quite knows what Reagan would have thought about torturing a small number of guys like Khalid Sheik Mohammad and Ramzi bin Alsheib. But his record shows he wasn’t Pollyannaish about the bad guys, nor was he particularly wary of engaging in extra-legal activities behind closed doors–e.g., arms-for-hostages—to accomplish the broader mission. Among other events, he bombed Libya without Congressional authorization in response to terrorism and was also known for his rough treatment of hippie rioters as Governor of California. Reagan likely would not have shied from “waterboarding” or anything else he deemed necessary to win the war against al Qaeda.
Libertarians and moderate conservatives are enamored of an imaginary Ronald Reagan, a sainted figure misconstrued through the distortions of gauzy nostalgia.
Subscribe To This Feed
Back in my Republican days I used to marvel at how quickly the Reagan legacy vanished, replaced by the usual suspects (the Republican Establishment a la the Bush Gang). Of course, it was all wishful thinking to begin with. Whatever Reagan did, he did not change the fundamental orientation of the party. The usual suspects had no trouble taking over the show again and getting us in the mess we now find ourselves in. Poor Ronny, I remember him well – a fellow of infinite jest (with apologies to Shakespeare).
Agreed, but he was not afraid to stand up for executive power and use military force (and extralegal means) when necessary. Bush is bad in spite of these things, not because of them, and guys like Sullivan are simply confused.
Phrases like “the mess we now find ourselves in” and “Bush is bad” lend support to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not stupid. Based on what happened in the 1960s, al Qaeda knew that the media and the entertainment industry would oppose war and have a very strong influence on all people in the U.S.. That is exactly what occurred. While a war is being fought, any criticism or negativity toward the commander-in-chief and the troops provides support for the enemy. Maybe democracy is not a form of government that can win a war. Athens was an early example. The only wars that demcracies won were wars that occurred when democratic principles were ignored or suspended.
“Maybe democracy is not a form of government that can win a war.”
That is easily the most morally bankrupt thing I have read in a long, long time.
If that craven idea ever catches on, we won’t have a democracy to worry about fighting for. Dissent is not the enemy. It is an indivisible part of the principles for which we fight.
A spiritually vanquished people, readily fleeing their democratic moorings, is the very object of terrorism.
We are trying to resist the enemy–resist them. Not become like them.
Does that seem clear to you?
If you put waterboarding in quotes, does that make it not torture?
I am just wondering, so I can make use of such a powerful literary device.
It’s not scare quotes; it’s quote quotes, as in the antecedent thing Sullivan was criticizing. It’s also a peculiar term, not exactly in common usage.
This is not mean to downplay its horror. It’s so horrible hippie protesters even allow it to be done to themselves voluntarily.
Dissent is not the enemy. It is an indivisible part of the principles for which we fight.
Maybe, but there wasn’t too much toleration of dissent during the War of Secession and the two world wars. The attacks on civil liberties carried out by Lincoln and Wilson are well known but such Stalinesque tragi-comedies as FDR’s Mass Sedition Trial of 1944 have been thrown down the memory hole.