It was very moving for this Israeli to visit the US while the American people were mourning the death of their former president Ronald Reagan.
The outpouring of respect and affection was overwhelming.
Again and again, pundits and commentators reiterated his remarkable achievements: reviving a laggard American economy by undertaking bold, often controversial and risky reforms that catapulted America into a spectacular two decades of growth and prosperity; reinvigorating the American spirit by projecting a vision of America as a power with a global moral mission and building the force to back it up; above all, winning the Cold War largely by the strength of his conviction that liberty must triumph over evil, and by his determination not to accept a status quo that so many came to treat as inevitable.
Filed under:
world affairs
What was even more astonishing was the near total change that has occurred in the attitude of the American media toward Ronald Reagan. It was hard to forget the ferocity with which this same media once attacked him. The generally liberal US media depicted him then as the worst kind of dangerous fool, a man who would risk a nuclear conflagration because he was unable to understand (as President George W. Bush is now being accused) the nuances of foreign policy, power balances, the need to accommodate dictatorships for the sake of world peace.
“An amiable dunce” was how Clark Clifford, the doyen of the Beltway establishment, once dismissed him. Now that we know what this dunce achieved, how right he was and how deadly wrong his critics were, their silly criticism calls their own judgment into question.
Consider further how the media and establishment economists treated his belief in supply-side driven growth, in cutting the role of government, and in unleashing the tremendous enterprising energies of the American people by tax cuts and deregulation as outrageous nonsense. Even the man who was to become his vice president, George H.W. Bush, called his program voodoo economics.
But Reagan’s program became a tremendous success with momentous consequences. It provided the wealth that helped mitigate many of America’s social problems, which before him seemed to threaten the integrity of its society. It provided the means for rebuilding America’s military strength. It gave America the capacity to challenge a nuclear parity, which had enabled the Soviet Union to subvert and blackmail the West unhindered.
How history now mocks those who mocked Reagan. What calumny and contempt were not heaped on the head of the man who they said was a danger to world peace, who would waste billions on Hollywood fantasies which they contemptuously dubbed “Star Wars.” Yet this man understood better than all the experts that the USSR was a hollow giant and that by challenging it, fatal Soviet weaknesses would be exposed, and it would either retreat or collapse.
He was right, of course.
THERE WAS something interesting to be learned from the belated confessions of some of those who opposed Reagan’s healthy instincts. His former chief of staff, later secretary of state James Baker, relates how he too joined the very vociferous and powerful chorus of the foreign policy establishment that fought Reagan tooth and nail to have him eliminate from his speech at Brandenburg gate in Berlin the history-making phrase, his call to the Soviet leader, “Break down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev.”
“I was wrong,” Baker admitted with the hindsight of history. What this very tough secretary did not admit or even address was why the foreign policy establishment, certainly the European, but the American too, tends to go easy on the West’s enemies. Why do they bend over backwards not to offend dictators and mass murderers? Why at the same time do they have no qualms about pressuring allies and friends to give way to the demands of these aggressive dictators for the sake of “stability” or a putative “world peace”?
The same ethos that drove the heads of the State Department bananas over a phrase that might offend the Soviet dictator still reigns in the corridors of Foggy Bottom. From there comes the insistence that Yasser Arafat must not be touched, lest it displease America’s Saudi friends – and worse, provoke a conflagration in the Muslim world that might threaten American interests. Just as they feared Reagan’s call would provoke a horrendous response from a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, or the assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin would throw the whole Middle East into paroxysms of rage, so too do they fear touching Arafat.
As for Israelis, they mostly share the attitude of their media that still treats Reagan with hostility. Mentioning Reagan’s achievements to my bright university students, I elicited mostly blank stares or condescending smiles or sneers.
Little wonder. Shortly after Reagan was elected, Irving Kristol, who provided the intellectual inspiration for Reagan’s revolution, visited Israel and met with senior Israeli editors. Hanna Zemer, then editor of Davar, turned to him and said: “Prof. Kristol, I understand that your newly elected president, Ronald Reagan, is not exactly a brilliant intellectual.”
“Indeed,” came his immediate response, “if you put Reagan in one room with your Shimon Peres, you would have no doubt who the intellectual was. But all it goes to prove is that a man who is not a brilliant intellectual but has the right ideas is far superior to a man who may be brilliant but mostly has the wrong ideas.”
Log in or Register
Reconsidering Ronald Reagan
The Jerusalem Post
17 Jun ’04
It was very moving for this Israeli to visit the US while the American people were mourning the death of their former president Ronald Reagan.
The outpouring of respect and affection was overwhelming.
Again and again, pundits and commentators reiterated his remarkable achievements: reviving a laggard American economy by undertaking bold, often controversial and risky reforms that catapulted America into a spectacular two decades of growth and prosperity; reinvigorating the American spirit by projecting a vision of America as a power with a global moral mission and building the force to back it up; above all, winning the Cold War largely by the strength of his conviction that liberty must triumph over evil, and by his determination not to accept a status quo that so many came to treat as inevitable.
Filed under:
world affairs
What was even more astonishing was the near total change that has occurred in the attitude of the American media toward Ronald Reagan. It was hard to forget the ferocity with which this same media once attacked him. The generally liberal US media depicted him then as the worst kind of dangerous fool, a man who would risk a nuclear conflagration because he was unable to understand (as President George W. Bush is now being accused) the nuances of foreign policy, power balances, the need to accommodate dictatorships for the sake of world peace.
“An amiable dunce” was how Clark Clifford, the doyen of the Beltway establishment, once dismissed him. Now that we know what this dunce achieved, how right he was and how deadly wrong his critics were, their silly criticism calls their own judgment into question.
Consider further how the media and establishment economists treated his belief in supply-side driven growth, in cutting the role of government, and in unleashing the tremendous enterprising energies of the American people by tax cuts and deregulation as outrageous nonsense. Even the man who was to become his vice president, George H.W. Bush, called his program voodoo economics.
But Reagan’s program became a tremendous success with momentous consequences. It provided the wealth that helped mitigate many of America’s social problems, which before him seemed to threaten the integrity of its society. It provided the means for rebuilding America’s military strength. It gave America the capacity to challenge a nuclear parity, which had enabled the Soviet Union to subvert and blackmail the West unhindered.
How history now mocks those who mocked Reagan. What calumny and contempt were not heaped on the head of the man who they said was a danger to world peace, who would waste billions on Hollywood fantasies which they contemptuously dubbed “Star Wars.” Yet this man understood better than all the experts that the USSR was a hollow giant and that by challenging it, fatal Soviet weaknesses would be exposed, and it would either retreat or collapse.
He was right, of course.
THERE WAS something interesting to be learned from the belated confessions of some of those who opposed Reagan’s healthy instincts. His former chief of staff, later secretary of state James Baker, relates how he too joined the very vociferous and powerful chorus of the foreign policy establishment that fought Reagan tooth and nail to have him eliminate from his speech at Brandenburg gate in Berlin the history-making phrase, his call to the Soviet leader, “Break down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev.”
“I was wrong,” Baker admitted with the hindsight of history. What this very tough secretary did not admit or even address was why the foreign policy establishment, certainly the European, but the American too, tends to go easy on the West’s enemies. Why do they bend over backwards not to offend dictators and mass murderers? Why at the same time do they have no qualms about pressuring allies and friends to give way to the demands of these aggressive dictators for the sake of “stability” or a putative “world peace”?
The same ethos that drove the heads of the State Department bananas over a phrase that might offend the Soviet dictator still reigns in the corridors of Foggy Bottom. From there comes the insistence that Yasser Arafat must not be touched, lest it displease America’s Saudi friends – and worse, provoke a conflagration in the Muslim world that might threaten American interests. Just as they feared Reagan’s call would provoke a horrendous response from a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, or the assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin would throw the whole Middle East into paroxysms of rage, so too do they fear touching Arafat.
As for Israelis, they mostly share the attitude of their media that still treats Reagan with hostility. Mentioning Reagan’s achievements to my bright university students, I elicited mostly blank stares or condescending smiles or sneers.
Little wonder. Shortly after Reagan was elected, Irving Kristol, who provided the intellectual inspiration for Reagan’s revolution, visited Israel and met with senior Israeli editors. Hanna Zemer, then editor of Davar, turned to him and said: “Prof. Kristol, I understand that your newly elected president, Ronald Reagan, is not exactly a brilliant intellectual.”
“Indeed,” came his immediate response, “if you put Reagan in one room with your Shimon Peres, you would have no doubt who the intellectual was. But all it goes to prove is that a man who is not a brilliant intellectual but has the right ideas is far superior to a man who may be brilliant but mostly has the wrong ideas.”
Amen.
More recent commentary
The New Republic
19 May ’11
Economic Miracle
A Middle East peace strategy that could actually work.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Mar ’11
The government-tycoons-media triangle
Israel needs to slash its state budget by as much as possible if it wants a chance at fighting waste and corruption.
The Jerusalem Post
9 Mar ’11
Welfare and rebellion: The economic factor in the Arab uprisings
Too little attention has been paid to how Egypt’s socialist past and welfare-state present shaped the current rebellion.
The Jerusalem Post
7 Feb ’11
Is all quiet on the economic front?
The Herzliya Conference has become an important international event, but one central issue is absent: Israel’s debilitating economic concentration.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’11
Teaching an elephant to dance
It’s highly unlikely that government can ever learn to make long-term plans and execute them efficiently.
The Jerusalem Post
23 Dec ’10
Hellenization and Enlightenment: Post-Hanukka ruminations
How can one dare compare narrow-minded religion with the all-embracing faith of universality and equality that is socialism?
The Jerusalem Post
1 Dec ’10
Would Milton Friedman have approved?
Many of the social and economic troubles we are experiencing are due to the public’s lack of understanding of the need for economic literacy.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’10
Perverting public discourse
The PM’s courageous decision to tackle economic concentration was misrepresented by several of our media publications—owned of course by tycoons.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Oct ’10
Breaking Israel’s monopolies
Economic concentration hurts the country’s viability and the chances for peace.
The Jerusalem Post
4 Oct ’10
Israel’s progress undermined
A damaging ethos of ‘welfarism’ and distributive politics has come to dominate not only academia but our cultural, military and even our business elites.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Aug ’10
Unable to decide
The reformers must know the importance of the reform’s success both for Israel and for their careers, and what damage they will incur if it fails.
The Jerusalem Post
13 Jul ’10
Elana Kagan, terrorism and the law
Kagan’s admiration for Justice Aharon Barak’s philosophy may have revealed her own predilection for radical judicial activism.
The Jerusalem Post
30 May ’10
Yes, break them up
We must dismantle the oligarch-owned monopolies that impoverish the Israeli consumer and choke our economy.
The Wall Street Journal
18 May ’10
Land of silicon and money
The OECD’s invitation to Israel is a “seal of approval” but the country still needs more reforms.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Feb ’10
The surprise of it all
The world’s astonishment at Israel’s response to the Haiti disaster is insulting. What we saw there was Israel’s true face.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Jan ’10
Hi-tech prospects and pitfalls
Individual initiative and freedom are essential for creativity—in hi-tech as in all other spheres.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Oct ’09
A woman who knew her worth
As far as Rose Friedman was concerned, public kudos did not matter that much. She persisted in being a rose, no matter what.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Sep ’09
Movies in Nablus, dramas in Bethlehem
Lasting peace must grow from the bottom up, from an “economic peace process” that proves what advantages peace has to offer on a daily basis. It cannot come from signing peace agreements with radical and corrupt entities propped up by corrupting Western handouts.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Aug ’09
Israel’s ‘scrambled’ economic system
A courageous recent film has exposes the strong connection between Israeli oligarchs and bureaucrats. Unfortunately however the film’s simplistic pseudo-Marxist treatment is more misleading than revealing.
The Jerusalem Post
24 May ’09
The economy: look to the future
Netanyahu paid heavily to pass a budget in time; his “partners”’ bargaining tactics, bordering on blackmail, reflect poorly on our politics.
The Jerusalem Post
4 May ’09
Reform: prospects and pitfalls
Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent economic plan has great promise but faces obstacles—such as the media and the Histadrut—that may undermine its success.
The Jerusalem Post
11 Apr ’09
Big government? Yes, but there’s a reason
Is Binyamin Netanyahu’s government too big? Yes. So why would Netanyahu create such an unwieldy beast?
The Jerusalem Post
30 Mar ’09
To bail or not to bail
Should the government bail out those of our tycoons who cannot redeem NIS 100 billion worth of bonds?
The Wall Street Journal
12 Mar ’09
Mideast peace can start with economic growth
Billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Palestinians has resulted in war not peace. There’s a better way.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Feb ’09
Warning cries from Herzliya
The government is dysfunctional. The question is why—and how to mend it.
The Jerusalem Post
2 Feb ’09
A lesser economic evil
All government deficit spending is bad. But sometimes deficits are unavoidable. And some deficits are better then others.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Dec ’08
Spinners and cheaters
Why not exploit the crisis to destroy what little freedom Netanyahu’s reforms brought to the economy? Why care if the country will lose its only hope of deliverance from the economic retardation caused by our statist heritage?
The Jerusalem Post
3 Dec ’08
Precipitating the next collapse
Focusing on a putative pension crisis distracts our attention from the real serious crisis that a worldwide recession is bound to create here.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Oct ’08
The panic-mongers’ one-note chorus
The country, the pundits conclude, must return to the good old days of “social democracy.”
The Jerusalem Post
15 Jul ’08
The banks are bamboozling us again
In the name of stability the comptroller has ignored many of the banks’ offenses.
The Jerusalem Post
29 Apr ’08
An Irish-style banana republic
It must be either naiveté or cynicism that allows “Israel 2028” to recommend a reform that will make government a larger and a more efficient instrument for economic growth.
The New York Sun
29 Apr ’08
Israel still doesn’t get economy
Israel’s elites—especially the chattering classes in the press and the academy—are hostile to capitalism because our universities’ social sciences and liberal arts departments are dominated by post-modernist and neo-Marxist professors.
Ideas matter. Hostility to capitalism exacts a great price from the Israeli economy and from its hapless workers.
inFocus
2 Apr ’08
US charity to Israel reconsidered
Jewish institutional efforts must now undergo a period of reform and greater accountability. Some charitable efforts should be privatized. Individuals or groups of donors must take personal responsibility for specific projects, to ensure that funds are dispensed in a responsible and cost effective manner.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Mar ’08
Israel’s no-win strategy
Israeli politicians are preoccupied with political machinations designed to buy support from powerful interest groups by distributing government largesse. This causes not only the factionalization of politics and growing corruption, but consumes time and energy that leadership should use to address life and death issues.
The Jerusalem Post
20 Feb ’08
Dangerous infatuation
Government can no more control powerful economic forces than it can the rise and fall of tides. To effectively fulfill its nightwatchman role—to protect us from internal and external violence and to enforce contracts—government must be kept limited.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’08
What’s ‘public’ about their broadcasting?
Our “public channel,” funded by a compulsive tax, does not need to be pluralistic or even-handed.
Like other public institutions that lack well-defined ownership, Channel 1 has consequently been taken over by bureaucrats and by undemocratic workers’ unions.
The Jerusalem Post
21 Nov ’07
A year without Milton Friedman
This man did more good for humanity than any other.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’07
Getting beyond the teachers’ strike
As long as education remains a government monopoly, it is bound to function like all other government monopolies, where union bosses fill the vacuum that lack of defined ownership creates, and monopoly power allows them to blackmail the public.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Sep ’07
A healthy dose of skepticism
In the wake of the Second Lebanon War, there is hope that the phenomenal performance of the economy will finally make Israelis realize the crucial role it plays in their lives.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Aug ’07
How to grow Israeli hi-tech
At the recent Merage Foundation conference to help Israel’s hi-tech sector grow, calls were heard for more government “direction”. This despite sixty years of massive government intervention and “development efforts” that have led mostly to massive failures and waste.