Anderson on Reagan: When you can’t win with logic, go for name-calling

In light of the smear offensives unleashed at a number of potential Republican presidential candidates (Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich) our beleagured GOP candidates can perhaps take solace in the knowledge that the similar intellectually-vacuous, but emotionally-charged, accusations were made against Reagan in his first race for governor.

As related in an earlier post, Reagan had called on President Johnson to present the facts on Vietnam and ask for a congressional declaration of war, or else get out—but in either case, end the half-#$@ policy he had been pursuing up to that point.  Why, you might ask, would a question of foreign policy have entered into the California gubernatorial debate?  It seems that in large part, Reagan’s statement on Vietnam arose out of frustration with Governor Brown’s failure to effectively address anti-war protestors on California college campuses.  (Now it must be noted that there are those who maintain that anti-war protests in California did not really turn radical until after Reagan took over as governor.  I have previously addressed some of these arguments here.) Reagan argued that if the President would exhibit the courage to ask for a declaration of war, then at least all the protestors and draft-dodgers could be prosecuted as traitors.  This raised the hackles of then-Lieutenant Governor Glenn Anderson. 

American presidents lead this nation into war only to defend the safety of the American people…This is a most appalling idea.  The last fellow who proposed war abroad as a means of suppressing dissent at home was an ex-house painter named Hitler. 

Of course, everyone recognizes in retrospect what Anderson should have known (and I suspect did) at the time:  President Johnson was already committing drafted U.S. soldiers to a military operation overseas in which people were shooting at them and they were shooting back.  To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “I may not be a smart man, but I know what a war is.”  If Lt. Gov. Anderson truly felt that “presidents lead this nation into war only to defend the safety of the American people,” then why wasn’t he raising cain with Johnson over an unnecessary war?  If Anderson agreed with Johnson, however, that the war was necessary to protect American interests, why did he not join with Reagan in calling for an official declaration of that war? 

It was just an earlier version of the same sort of contorted faux-logic we saw decades later, when the same people who cursed Reagan and George H. W. Bush  for Grenada and Kuwait, suddenly discovered the redemptive virtues of military intervention when undertaken by the Clinton regime in Kosovo.  Of course, military assaults on countries that did not directly threaten the United States again became evil when pursued by George W. Bush, but fortunately the cosmos reversed itself and that which was evil from 2000 through late 2008 became a moral imperative just in time for Barack Hussein Obama to become our 44^th president and get involved in an undeclared war in north Africa.

Anyway, you get the point.  I hope our candidates do…and I hope they exhibit the courage not to care what the elite cocktail circuit has to say about them.     

Rearview Mirror: Reagan calls for facts on Viet Nam War.(October 22, 1965)

n. a.(1965, October 22). Reagan calls for facts on Viet Nam War. Lodi News-Sentinel, p. 16.

Perhaps surprisingly, in October of 1965 one of the most controversial issues in the Reagan campaign for California governor was his position on Vietnam.  It had been previously reported that Reagan proposed “an unqualified declaration of war,” though the Gipper denied this.  

It’s not entirely clear to me what the distinction supposedly was between calling for a declaration of war and for an unqualified declaration of war.  Apparently, Reagan quite publicly called upon President Johnson to present all the facts of the conflict to the American people and to the Congress and to ask for a declaration.  

Once we are committed to large scale warfare, if we are to abide by the constitution, I think the president should go before congress and let them decide for war or peace—unless there are factors that are not being told us…Once you ask young men to fight and die for our country, there is a moral obligation to achieve our object and lessen the chance for them to give their lives.

What Matters More: Experience or Electability? Ummm…What about “Courage”?

In his first campaign, Ronald Reagan drew the fire of former San Francisco mayor and eminently “reasonable” Republican George Christopher when Reagan suggested that the U.S. should have declared war on North Vietnam so that, “the act of burning draft cards would be treasonable.”

In Christopher’s defense,  his critique of Reagan may not have been motivated solely by an attempt to shield the radical Left of the 1960s.  Indeed, the mayor’s further remarks may indicate that he saw draft dodging as a problem—but not one to be addressed by a war declaration:

How can we so lightly ask for a declaration of war just to contain a handful of local dissidents?  If we can’t control this small group, how could we hope to engage in a widespread war with its atomic consequences? [emphasis added]

It is difficult (if not impossible) for anyone who did not live through the height of the Cold War to understand just how strongly held was the notion that any confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would inevitably result in the use of nuclear weapons and the attendant destruction of the world.  The nearest approximation in recent years may have been the height of the Global Warming frenzy when people were giving up aerosol spray in order to avoid their flesh bubbling off their skin.  While the latter would take infinitely longer—and was exponentially more irrational—the basic motivation underlying Christopher’s (and others’) concerns was the same as that stoking the fire Global Climate Change:  fear.  

While there is such a thing as “healthy fear” (e.g., not pointing an “empty” gun barrel at someone’s head and pulling the trigger, just in case…) political leaders frequently seem to struggle with identifying the line between healthy fear and outright cowardice.  

Reagan may have been wrong on this issue…but one thing he certainly wasn’t was fearful of expressing an opinion.  He was not too shy to declare that the emperor had no clothes on.  How refreshing it is to hear someone say what they mean and mean what they say.  In large part, this explains the remarkable passion evidenced in the Ron Paul for President movement.  If ever there was a non-telegenic personality it is Dr. Paul.  Nonetheless people from across the fruited plain are willing to expend large amounts of time and money to further his campaign.  Similar dynamics were at work in the ill-fated Cain campaign, and may yet help to re-spark the Bachmann campaign.  Contrast this with the carefully measured and moderate rhetoric of individuals such as Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney.  In light of today’s reports that high-level GOP leaders are fearful of criticizing the man who’s presided over a whole host of “unprecedented” (to use a favorite Obamaism) debacles, it makes one realize how little some in the GOP have learned.  

The same candidate Christopher who warned GOP primary voters in 1965 about “extremists in politics, [who] endanger all positive action by government,” went on to scold the upstart Reagan for lack of deference to his political betters:

I hope our gubernatorial election will not embark on a reckless expedition of second-guessing our national policy.

Not surprisingly, I must differ with the good mayor.  My prayer is that we have a great deal more second-guessing of our national policies.  Perhaps we could even start reading some of those policies prior to voting on them.