Reagan Mantle Too Big for Ron Paul

Libertarian conservatives have been busy artificially bolstering the myth that their presidential candidate of choice, Ron Paul, has a strong grass-roots base and wide appeal. During Fox News’ sophomoric cell phone text message voting during the second GOP presidential candidates’ debate, Ron Paul’s boosters voted early and often, causing the post-debate results to appear skewed toward the opinion that Paul was the winner of the debate, despite his trip to the proverbial woodshed courtesy of Rudy Giuliani for his argument that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Initially I thought that perhaps some of Paul’s poll votes were coming from Democrats hoping to dilute strong performances by Giuliani or Romney by voting for the least likely and most provocative of the candidates. However, comments posted by Paul supporters on conservative Internet sites or in blogs indicate that Paul is viewed by some as the only true conservative in the race and a champion of the constitution. Of course, Paul himself declares that he stands for the constitution, and on the surface that sounds like an honorable position to hold.

When it comes to government spending and government involvement in social matters, Paul’s urgings to limit government only to the duties expressly permitted by the constitution have appeal and resonate well in conservative circles. What conservative doesn’t want to see certain federal governmental departments disbanded and their duties reverted back to local and state authorities? What conservative doesn’t want to see the dreaded income tax disappear? To some conservatives, the economic/social aspects of Paul’s libertarian-leaning principles are a siren song by which they wish to be led, if only someone holding those views could actually secure the GOP nomination. Paul clearly is not a candidate that can win a national election, and for clear-thinking conservatives who can look past their own personal benefits from no income tax and smaller government, the reason for Paul’s lack of appeal is easy to identify.

Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Paul’s supporters may claim he is the true representative of conservatism in the current candidate field, but Paul has an Achilles heel that keeps Reagan conservatives and Regan Democrats alike from ever considering him as anything more than a campaign footnote: He is selective about which portions of the constitution he would adhere to strictly, and “provide for the common defense” is not among them.

In the second GOP candidates’ debate, Paul stated the following:

They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald Reagan] was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting…

…They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.

Reagan directly repudiated Paul’s isolationist foreign policies 23 years ago on the beach at Normandy, France, a site where American intervention in foreign affairs proved most decisive in freeing Europe from Nazi enslavement:

The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc
June 6, 1984, Normandy

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation.

Reagan conservatives and Reagan Democrats need look no further than Reagan’s statement to find sufficient reason to shun Ron Paul’s isolationist ideas. Paul claimed during the second GOP candidates’ debate that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 10 years, as if it were unjustified and indiscriminate bombing of cities. That is patently false. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. had occasionally bombed Iraq’s air defense stations or shot down Iraqi aircraft because Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zone enacted by the cease-fire that halted the first Gulf War. Paul chooses to ignore the fact that the Gulf War was, as Reagan prescribed, a “response to a tyrannical government with an expansionist intent.” Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait solely for expansionist and economic motives. He wanted Kuwait’s oil and Kuwait’s ports, and Kuwait’s accumulated wealth, and so decided to take it by force. World leaders in 1991 had the fortitude to band together and, led by the U.S. military, pushed Saddam back behind his original borders. Had Saddam not violated the terms of the cease-fire by targeting our aircraft, there would have been no need for any further bombing. The defense of the no-fly zone lasted from 1991 until Operation Iraqi Freedom made it a moot point by removing Saddam from the equation because of his failure to abide by any of the UN conditions for the cease-fire enacted in 1991. Thus the current Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely a resumption of hostilities and is a continuation of the Gulf War.

Saddam, like Hitler, was removed, and rebuilding a nation and protecting it from foreign interference by those with designs on fomenting chaos, much like post WWII, is why our troops remain in Iraq. Had Ron Paul been president instead of Truman or Eisenhower, all of Germany would have fallen under Soviet occupation and Japan would have been overrun by Soviet or Chinese forces seeking retribution because Paul would have pulled American troops out of both places and brought them home immediately upon conclusion of the war. There would have been no Marshall Plan, no rebuilding and friendship alliance with Japan. No BMWs; no VWs; no Hondas; no Toyotas. Likewise, in Paul’s isolationist world, there would be no democratic South Korea. There would only be communist Korea, since Paul would not have committed U.S. troops to defend the free people of South Korea.

Ron Paul wants America to approach foreign policy with a pre-WWI mentality, when the mindset centered on the idea that America should not involve itself in any foreign war, and we nearly allowed all of Europe to be defeated by Germany. That war was so destructive that the isolationists redoubled their efforts between 1919 and 1941 to keep America from ever entangling itself in a foreign war. That isolationism resulted in Nazi occupation of continental Europe and Scandinavia, and horrific bombings of England. It also cost 6 million Jews their lives while Americans, who thought then as Ron Paul now does about intervention, stood silently on the sidelines of history, much to their condemnation.

Paul’s supporters should consider another sentence from Reagan’s powerful speech at Normandy. His explanation for why America’s military remained in Europe to confront potential Soviet aggression long after WWII, was simple, profound, and prophetic of our continued presence in Iraq:

Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy.

Regardless of how Iraq’s democracy came into existence, it is there now. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has a democratically elected parliament that represents the wide variety of religious and tribal divisions of its population. It is imperfect, and it is often contentious, but so was America’s in its early years. The question Paul should be forced to address is, “Does America have a duty or role in history to protect and defend democracy in the world?” As an isolationist he will argue that such is not America’s role as it is not defined in the constitution. Reagan understood history far better than Paul, who would like to believe that the world begins and ends at America’s shores and nothing that occurs in foreign lands is worthy of intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. Technically speaking, from an economic/trade point of view, would it have made any difference to isolationists like Paul if Europe had been enslaved by Hitler as long as Hitler let America alone? America could have conducted normal trade in goods with Nazi Europe, including lucrative arms sales. Rescuing Britain, France, and Italy from Nazi control certainly involved an enormously “entangling alliance,” something George Washington warned of and Paul concurs with wholeheartedly. Why then did America free Europe and remain there in defensive posture for decades? The answer, as Reagan stated so perfectly, is that isolationism has never been and never will be an appropriate response to tyranny. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it exists, defeated, and replaced by freedom. Ron Paul would rather put his head in the sand and selfishly keep democracy and liberty all to himself.

Reagan understood something that Paul does not: America does not hold an exclusive right to freedom. America does not possess liberty out of luck or superior intellect. America is free and powerful because it is destined to use that power to spread and preserve freedom throughout the world. Paul’s strict but selective constitutional adherence seems to ignore that the right to liberty is identified in the Declaration of Independence, not as an American, English, or French right, but a right that belongs to all men, presumably even those in the Middle East whom Paul would abandon as apparently unworthy of these Jeffersonian words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is the great issue of our time, and Paul falls woefully short in his willingness to engage in the defense of freedom. His GOP opponents more closely resemble the Reagan tradition. For example, when asked in the third GOP candidates’ debate what was the most important moral issue facing America, Giuliani replied that the greatest moral issue is whether America will share its blessings of freedom and liberty with the rest of the world. Conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by the Ron Paul Internet “phenomenon.” Paul was declared the winner of two GOP candidates’ debates by MSNBC, CNN, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and myriad other left-leaning media sources. A review of Wikipedia’s Ron Paul page certainly could leave an undiscerning reader with the idea that Paul has widespread support and is whipping all comers in the GOP debates. The liberal slant is obvious. Clearly from an ideological perspective liberals do not embrace Ron Paul’s libertarian views, so why is he the darling of the media and many Internet blogs? Quite simply, it is because Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot. If even 3 percent of conservative voters are swayed by Paul, it could spell the difference in a tight race and throw victory to the left, just as Perot’s theatrics did in 1992 and 1996. The left knows this and is in fact counting on it for victory.

Libertarian conservatives should not worship Paul as the constitutional savior they hold him out to be, and Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats should remember that Paul is an isolationist hoarder of liberty, unwilling to preserve it among nations who possess it or share it with oppressed peoples who long for it and implore America to help them obtain it.

Technorati Tags:
Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Conservatism, Libertarian, Isolationism, Interventionism, Iraq War, Democracy, Presidential Candidates

Thompson's "Fireside Chats" Leadership

Pundits, radio hosts, and bloggers are working feverishly to identify every conceivable comparison between undeclared (but clearly fundraising and campaigning) presidential candidate Fred Thompson and the most revered conservative in modern memory, Ronald Reagan. They point out several traits Thompson appears to share with Reagan: a successful acting career; a commanding personal presence; possession of plain, articulate speaking skills; and a deftness with handling the media. While it may be unfair to compare any candidate to the larger-than-life legacy of Reagan, many conservatives go to great lengths to insist that Thompson, perhaps more so than any other candidate (except perhaps the likewise undeclared Newt Gingrich), could carry the Reagan mantle to victory in 2008. Yet perhaps Thompson supporters are missing another important comparison they could and should be making: Thompson bears similarities to Reagan and to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whomever conservatives choose to nominate in 2008 must concern himself with carrying the dual mantles of Reagan and FDR.

Why is the mantle of FDR important for a conservative candidate in 2008? Stated simply, FDR led America through the Great Depression and World War II by talking directly to the people and explaining the challenges facing the nation and what Americans could do to overcome them in terms they could understand. He did not do this by depending on newspaper reporters to be objective and inform the people of his policies and decisions on his behalf. He did not rely on the entrenched media figures of his era to make his case for him or put media spin on current events. FDR instinctively understood that a president leads best by making direct appeals to his countrymen or if not appeals, at least informing them of current events from his perspective rather than passing through any political correctness filters. FDR’s famous Fireside Chats, thirty direct broadcasts to the nation between 1933 and 1944, were a tremendous use of existing media to unite farmers and laborers enduring the Depression, to describe war in Europe and America’s neutrality, and to explain eventual American entry into the war and provide progress reports designed to promote continued sacrifice and commitment to victory.

As an example of the direct and simple appeal to citizens commonly found in the Fireside Chats, on December 9, 1941, FDR gave the following update on the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack (Chat #19):

We are now in this war. We are all in it -- all the way. Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories -- the changing fortunes of war.

So far, the news has been all bad. We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that Commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized.

A politician could not speak more plainly than FDR did on that occasion. Undoubtedly the honesty and simplicity of the message created trust and loyalty among his listeners, who in short order served under his leadership as Commander in Chief. Direct communication resulted in direct and vigorous involvement in the war effort. He minced no words. Things appeared bleak, and that bleakness would only be reversed by all out war and total victory.

Fred Thompson, more than any other conservative candidate to date (except perhaps Newt Gingrich), is utilizing today’s available media to communicate his ideas directly to Americans. People are not gathered together as families around the radio to hear these modern versions of the Fireside Chat, but they can subscribe to Thompson’s “chats”, which come in form of columns or news commentary, via email or read them through links on nearly every Internet news site. He covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from confronting Iran, to Israel’s remarkable patience under fire from Palestinians, to calling for the U.S. to renew the practice of broadcasting pro-democracy programming via radio and Internet directly into nations oppressed by totalitarian governments. FDR chatted with the American people in his broadcasts, and Thompson’s guest columns on National Review Online, Townhall.com, or the Wall Street Journal’s online OpinionJournal give readers the sense that he is speaking informally and directly to them. Like FDR and Reagan, Thompson has a knack for communicating in an endearing and sincere manner that is best experienced without media filters or punditry. Americans joke, only slightly facetiously, that current presidential addresses take 45 minutes but the pundits interpret or translate what the president meant to say for days afterward. Great communicators need no pundit interpreters.

For all his charisma and organizational skills, it is mind boggling that Mitt Romney, arguably the most articulate of the current GOP candidates, did not adopt Thompson’s media strategy. Thompson’s guest columns are brief, usually approximately one page at most. They appear regularly, and are met with great interest and broad readership on the conservative Internet sites. Romney has frequented radio talk shows and news channel studios, and has aggressively advertised in early primary states via television spots. Thompson has also done all of these except the TV spots. Romney’s official web site, however, only offers readers a skeleton glimpse of his policy positions. Writing guest columns for conservative blogs or Internet sites, as Thompson does, would increase his Internet presence and allow Romney to communicate directly with potential voters rather than relying on news channels to report accurately the substance of his ideas. All news organizations seem to have an agenda, and Romney should join Thompson in chatting directly with the American people on a regular basis through guest columns or posting and podcasting for established blogs.

It should be remembered that Reagan employed his own version of FDR’s Fireside Chats while serving as Governor of California. The popular appeal this type of communication generates with voters should not be underestimated. President Bush, though he has tried through televised speeches, has never resonated with the American people, except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when any president could have done so. As a direct result of the President’s lack of direct communication with the American people, he has relied on the MSM to broadcast his remarks, which are then diluted by mostly left leaning pundits or reporters and rendered virtually ineffective. His leadership in wartime has suffered, and the American people still have no idea what sacrifices and costs will be involved in a Global War on Terror except for ambiguous phrases like “it will be a long struggle,” or “we’re fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here.” The Bush administration seems to have forgotten that Americans live in the golden years of the Information Age, a time when citizens demand detailed information and will get it somewhere else if they are not receiving it from the White House. Unfortunately, most of the sources they turn to are liberal and the truth of an issue becomes the ultimate victim. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wartime presidents with poor communication skills and no practiced history of direct communication with Americans. As a result, neither successfully conducted the Vietnam War or convinced citizens that the war could and should be won. Bush faces the same fate, and future presidents must learn from his experience.

If Fred Thompson successfully runs for the presidency, he will already have an established loyal base of readers and a track record of direct communication with citizens. He would further possess the vehicle for making his case to the people in the event of any crisis, be it war, terrorism, natural or economic disasters, or simply a piece of proposed legislation, like immigration reform. Fred Thompson has, through his columns, laid the groundwork for effective future leadership, and his conversational communication compares favorably with former great communicators who have served as president. In the modern era of the 2008 election, an effective Commander in Chief must also be an accomplished “Communicator in Chief,” utilizing all available media to enlist citizens in just causes and rallying them to victory if conflicts arise. Fireside Chats worked for FDR and Reagan, and their modern equivalents, guest columns or blog posts, may prove decisive for whichever candidates use them most effectively.

Click here to view NRO’s archive of Thompson’s guest columns.

Technorati: Fred Thompson Ronald Reagan Mitt Romney Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Candidates Fireside Chats Campaign Strategy

CNN Insane To Jab At Reagan

As a conservative, I often question my sanity for spending time each day scouring the headlines and blog titles from liberal sources such as CNN, MSNBC, the Daily Kos, the Washington Post, etc. I know what I will usually find; melancholy accounts of the Iraq War, new revelations in the so-called scandals of the Bush administration, and unconcealed glee that the Democrats control the House and Senate. Each visit to these sites is a contributing factor to my gradually rising blood pressure, but it is important to monitor what is written and how it is presented to the public. While it is perfectly normal to question one’s own sanity for self-inflicting such political torment, it is not normal for a news channel to question the sanity of a revered former American president. That is, unless that channel happens to be CNN.

Thanks to an alert World Net Daily (WND) reader who, like me, wades through the media quagmire that is CNN.com, CNN was caught in the act of linking Ronald Reagan with “insanity” through a news headline on the CNN.com main web site page. The reader alerted WND and screen shots were captured from CNN.com last night that clearly demonstrate CNN’s original headline and the one editors replaced it with after WND blew the whistle on them.

Headlines on respectable news sites are expected to refer in some way to the topic of an article, but CNN apparently went out of its way to link the terms “Reagan” and “insanity” with the clear knowledge that the AP article had nothing to do with insanity or any mental illness. Where did CNN get the idea to link Reagan with insanity? The AP article, titled “Reagan’s wit, humor comes through In detailed diaries,” included one vignette of Reagan’s struggle with then teenage daughter Patti, who despised the limitations a Secret Service detail placed on her activities. Reagan wrote of Patti’s tantrums and literal screams at him and the agents to get rid of her protective detail, “Insanity is hereditary. You catch it from your kids.”

That humorous (and true, as any parent of a teenager knows) remark by Reagan is the only reference to “insanity” in the AP article, but in referring readers to the story, CNN chose to replace the AP headline with a disingenuous and completely out of context headline of its own: “Reagan diary gives new take on insanity.”

This despicable act by CNN is an object lesson in why conservatives must and do track the news from a wide variety of sources, even liberal outlets that our natural instincts tell us are not worth viewing. While some CNN.com readers were misled by the deplorable headline in the time it was on the site, WND’s rapid reaction in confronting CNN was a victory for truth. Small victories often turn the tide of war. WND deserves credit for confirming the reader’s report and confronting CNN immediately about its misleading Reagan headline. It is no coincidence that all of the GOP candidates for the 2008 nomination are attempting to embrace Reagan’s brand of conservatism and to emulate him as much as possible in their campaigning. CNN cleverly (so it thought) understood that linking Reagan with “insanity” would also link anyone trying to imitate him to “insanity” as well, thus the headline was an affront to all Reagan conservatives.

This headline story had a happy ending, as reported by WND:

In the wake of WND's exposure, CNN.com changed the Reagan headline on its homepage, removing any reference to "insanity." The updated headline read: "Reagan's wit comes through in diaries."

From wit to insanity, and back to wit again. The truth took a major detour under the direction of CNN’s editorial department, but the truth, as it always does, overcame. CNN’s executives have been pulling their hair out wondering how Fox News rose to #1 and remains firmly entrenched in that spot. They also puzzle ‘till their puzzlers are sore over how to regain credibility and viewers. The solution to CNN’s woes is simple and scriptural, which explains why they have missed it for so long: “the truth shall set you free.”

McCain's League Proposal is "Super"

Is it just me, or do some of you also think of the Justice League of America comics whenever you hear or read references to the League of Nations or any other phrase using the word “league?” Even with a graduate degree in history the word “league” conjures more images of Superman and his trusted allied superheroes than Woodrow Wilson. How fitting then, that John McCain’s speech to the Hoover Institution yesterday filled my mind with images of a League of Democracies, with America standing as Superman surrounded by legions of valuable allies each with a unique contribution to offer to the joint effort against tyranny and evil. McCain, of course, was not speaking on the virtues of comic book superheroes to the august members of the Hoover Institution. Yet the comparison between the Justice League and McCain’s proposed League of Democracies seems just as valid and exciting now after absorbing the entire speech and appreciating its greatness.

John McCain’s poll numbers are steadily improving and the gap between current GOP front runner Rudy Giuliani and McCain is shrinking. Over the past two weeks, McCain has been more aggressive in his campaigning and has impressed potential voters. After reading McCain’s address to the Hoover Institution, it is easy to see why his appeal appears to be growing. Whether the Senator writes his own speeches (which is entirely possible given his love of history and writing) or has employed a speechwriter remains to be seen, but in either case, his Hoover speech was pleasantly reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a Hill” tribute to America’s past and future greatness. That speech, Reagan’s last as President, was an eloquent clarion call for Americans to live up to America’s potential and set a standard that will encourage other peoples to embrace freedom and democracy. McCain’s Hoover Institution speech went a step further, challenging the free world to form a League of Democracies to which all nations who value democracy and self-determination can turn for protection and support of common interests.

Initial reports of McCain’s speech gave some the impression that his proposal for a League of Democracies was merely an idealistic 21st century rehash of Woodrow Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations, but when one examines carefully McCain’s reasoning and the global role he foresees for a League of Democracies, the differences between his proposal and Wilson’s become clear. Whereas Wilson’s League of Nations was a fractured collection of nations desperate to avoid any future wars, McCain’s proposal offers substantial advantages to members based on their commitment to democracy and freedom, and subsequently produces incentives for non-members to make changes necessary for inclusion. The entire speech can be found at National Review Online , but the following excerpt paints a striking portrait of the world envisioned by McCain:

If we strike this new bargain and renew our transatlantic solidarity, I believe we must then take the next step and expand the circle of our democratic community. As we speak, American soldiers are serving in Afghanistan alongside British, Canadian, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, Turkish, Polish, and Lithuanian soldiers from the NATO alliance. They are also serving alongside forces from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea —all democratic allies or close partners of the United States. But they are not all part of a common structure. They don't work together systematically or meet regularly to develop diplomatic and economic strategies to meet their common problems. The 21st century world no longer divides neatly into geographic regions. Organizations and partnerships must be as international as the challenges we confront.

The NATO alliance has begun to deal with this gap by promoting global partnerships between current members of the alliance and the other great democracies in Asia and elsewhere. We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. This would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations' of Woodrow Wilson but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.

This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to realize this vision.

While McCain may publicly insist that a League of Democracies would not supplant the UN, it is not difficult to imagine the effect such a League would have on the viability of the already declining UN. Yesterday, John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who is a campaign consultant for Duncan Hunter, published a preview of McCain’s speech and made the astute observation that the League of Democracies would grow in importance and power to the point that all relevant issues would naturally be addressed by it, rather than the UN. Hawkins, no fan of the UN, pointed out to his readers that McCain’s League is a good idea precisely because it would ultimately create an avenue for the U.S. to “get out of the United Nations.”

I agree with Hawkins that McCain’s League would reduce the UN to utter irrelevance, and if that were the only reason to support it, that would still be sufficient for me. However, considering McCain’s speech as a whole, I see something worthy of serious consideration and implementation, particularly as it applies to combating the radical ideologies that breed terrorism. McCain distills the battle we face down to two sides, with no middle ground, invoking James Madison to make his case:

Almost two centuries ago James Madison declared that the great struggle of the Epoch' was between liberty and despotism.' Many thought that this struggle ended with the Cold War, but it didn't. It took on new guises, such as the modern terrorist network, an enemy of progress that has turned our technological advances to its own use, and in rulers trying to rebuild 19th-century autocracies in a 21st century world. Today the talk is of the war on terror, a war in which we must succeed. But the war on terror cannot be the only organizing principle of American foreign policy. International terrorists capable of inflicting mass destruction are a new phenomenon. But what they seek and what they stand for are as old as time. They comprise part of worldwide political, economic, and philosophical struggle between the future and the past, between progress and reaction, and between liberty and despotism. Upon the outcome of that struggle depend our security, our prosperity, and our democratic way of life.

Uniting the world’s democracies into a global entity seeking to preserve and promote democracy invokes another Reagan comparison, a worldwide call to “tear down this wall” that exists in too many nations between oppressive governments and their freedom seeking peoples. Whether or not one supports McCain the candidate, his League of Democracies is worthy of support from conservatives, who despise the UN and repressive systems of government, as well as liberals who embrace international collaboration and promote human rights. I recommend that readers visit NRO and read McCain’s masterful speech in its entirety.

Separation of Cinema and State Needed

Americans worship celebrity. That three word sentence might be common knowledge, but it should also be a warning sign, particularly when it comes to politics and whom we choose to lead us. The ACLU and many other groups have worked tirelessly to erect a formidable wall separating church and state, but perhaps a more useful effort might be to create more separation between cinema and state.

I am concerned about the nearly unanimous clamor for actor Fred Thompson to officially declare his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. The poll numbers indicate Thompson possesses a movie star’s presence, a sound bite worthy tongue, and a country singer’s knack for stirring up patriotic fervor. All these characteristics should make me welcome his inevitable jump into the race, but I am restrained from embracing his entry by celebrity political phobia.

As a conservative who had a modest degree of professional interaction with and observation of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, as well as a host of current and past celebrity figures, there is no question in my mind that Ronald Reagan and George Washington were exceptions rather than rules when it came to celebrity being good for politics. It was just as important that Reagan was a former actor as it was that George Washington was a former general. Had either been actively employed in their chosen professions when running for the presidency, it could have been said of them that it was merely their celebrity status that captivated the attention of voters.

Washington was the most popular American when the framers of the constitution sought an appropriate man to serve as the first president. His popularity as the victorious general of the Revolutionary War was enormous, but what endeared him to most to the general population and especially the Framers was his willingness to relinquish control of the Army and desire to retire quietly to private life after the Revolutionary War concluded. These actions cemented his reputation as a man of unquestionable integrity who sought the good of his nation more than he sought to be popular. This made him the ideal choice for a first president, and he demonstrated more integrity and humility when, after serving as president and commander in chief, he stepped aside, refusing to entertain popular pleadings that the laws be changed to allow him another term.

By the time Reagan ran for president, his movie career was decades in the past, and his own personal charisma and dedication to conservative principles ultimately won the hearts of voters. Reagan was prepared by long life experience to be the right man at the right time in the Cold War drama, and despite his landslide victories remained affable, sincere, and unaffected by adulation. In short, Reagan was not elected BECAUSE he was a former actor, he was chosen DESPITE being a former actor. The political accomplishments that ultimately led to his GOP nomination in 1980 were separate from his cinematic achievements. He truly had two careers, although clearly one certainly prepared him for the public performance aspect of the other.

However, the trend toward merging our celebrity worship culture with the selection of our leaders is becoming more commonplace and, well, popular. Instead of reluctantly turning to celebrities, it is now fashionable to nominate them simply because they are famous. The list is long and continues to grow: Sonny Bono; Clint Eastwood; Fred Grandy; Bill Bradley; Steve Largent; Tom Osborne; Arnold Schwarzenegger; Jesse Ventura; Fred Thompson, and more. While some of these men have proven capable in their elected offices, the parlaying of popularity into politics is, in the long term, a dangerous and damaging societal trend.

The desire to boost Schwarzenegger into the presidency nearly convinced members of the House and Senate to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to allow those born outside of the United States to serve as president, all because in a justified fit of pique, California voters chose to throw then Governor Gray Davis out and Schwarzenegger, adopting the slogan “The Governator” in a sickening display of celebrity, overshadowed more qualified GOP candidates like Tom McClintock who had dedicated years and decades to lowering taxes and other cherished conservative ideals.

The groundswell of support for Fred Thompson’s potential run for president in 2008 is disturbing because it is based on his celebrity more than his political convictions. Who wouldn’t want the tough-talking DA from “Law & Order” warning the Iranians to stop seeking nuclear bombs, or the hard nosed admiral from “The Hunt for Red October” staring down Putin in what appears to be a coming Cold War II? The problem is that Thompson is a former politician and current actor, the reverse of Reagan, and thus his name recognition is truly based solely on his acting career. Thompson dabbled in politics, using his movie star status to secure a Senate seat, but when he tired of the ideological battle, he retreated back to acting. Reagan never tired of the ideological battle, fighting it convincingly and publicly until only disease could silence him.

While Reagan’s former aides, such as Michael Deaver, may see in Thompson some similarities with their former boss, the comparison appears shallow at best. Conservatives should not further fuel the fire of celebrity-driven politics by choosing Thompson just because one former actor turned out to be a great choice. I never thought it possible to agree with anything spoken by “West Wing” star Martin Sheen, but, when approached by DNC officials about running for the Senate in his home state of Ohio, Sheen reportedly stated, “I’m just not qualified. You’re confusing celebrity for credibility.” Thompson is clearly more popular than any of the current GOP candidates, but in selecting our future leaders we must curb the trend to allow media popularity to become a virtue in itself. For practical purposes, liberal celebrities far outnumber conservative stars, thus embracing popularity in candidates is potentially suicidal for conservatives in the long term.

In coming months, Thompson may prove himself a worthy candidate, but the high poll numbers in advance of his candidacy may signal that conservatives value him more for his name and face recognition than substantive qualifications. Most voting in these polls have never watched him debate, or deliver a political speech, or write a piece of legislation, or argue on the Senate floor, but they have seen and heard him on TV and in movies, and that is apparently enough to convince them he will be a convincing president. Opening the floodgates of celebrities turned politicians will have a profoundly negative effect on how we govern ourselves. How many times have genuinely well qualified candidates with impeccable integrity been pushed aside because they lacked big name status and were perceived as unelectable nationally? Conservatives must make sure that Thompson is the right man for the job, not merely the best available celebrity.