Reagan: Still the Great Communicator

Last week I happened to read some excerpts from a speech Ronald Reagan gave in 1964. It's a classic, called "A Time for Choosing" or sometimes "A Rendezvous with Destiny." He made the speech while on the campaign trail for Barry Goldwater (he actually gave it a more than once, in slightly different versions). I was amazed at how many of the things he said still ring true in this election. Here's a few choice quotes:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Small-government conservative vs. big-government liberal, right there. Personally I think the sad part is how few conservatives are still for small government.

Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Seems to me those thoughts still apply to any number of liberal programs, from health care to welfare to the mortgage issues at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Never forget that those who want to expand the reach of the government are ultimately expanding their control over your life. Reagan says in the speech that the government doesn't have to actually take your property to be socialist; it just has to be able to control your property.

He has some thoughts on foreign policy too. Remember, this was at the very beginning of the Vietnam War and the height of the Cold War.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.

If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum.

Substitute Islamic fundamentalism for the Iron Curtain and communism, and you could apply this almost word-for-word today. Did you catch this line: "And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers." Isn't that essentially what a lot of Democrats say about Islam? It's all our fault and if we get our soldiers out of the Middle East they won't be mad at us any more? And that Alexander Hamilton quote is money; it's why we can't leave Iraq without a stable government and military.

In my opinion, these are the important principles that are hopefully still the foundation of the conservative movement today. These are things you should think about in this election, in our own "time for choosing." It's important to think about why we believe in small government, strong defense, and all those other good conservative causes. If you want to read the whole speech you can find it here. (And hats off to Townhall Magazine, which is where I read it in the first place and which regularly reprints "Conservative Classics.")

In Memory

I've been thinking about it all day, and I've finally decided I can't say anything better than this, from Dave Barry, 2 days after 9/11/01. It's still true. I can't excerpt it, it's all too good--just read it.

Freedom Isn't Free, part II

Happy 4th of July! What a great day to celebrate this great country and the freedoms it gives us--freedom to speak, worship, assemble together--freedom to live! I know it sounds weird, but when I was a kid, this was actually my favorite holiday of the whole year. There's just something incredible about our country--not perfect, of course, but beautiful and open and growing and exciting and a beacon of freedom to the world. I know all that's awkward, but it's a feeling I really struggle to put into words.

I wrote last week that, it's a cliche, but freedom isn't free. So today I also remember and honor the sacrifices of all the men and women who have fought to protect this land. In that spirit, here's part of a speech Ronald Reagan gave in 1984, on the 40th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy in World War II (you can read the whole speech and listen to it here). It's about 225 brave U.S. Army Rangers, the "Boys of Pointe du Hoc," who climbed a cliff under enemy gunfire to seize a key gun emplacement and held it for two days before being reinforced. Only 90 were still able to fight by the time the main U.S. force fought their way there. This literally makes me cry every time I read it:

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They thought--or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

Something else helped the men of D-Day: their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer he told them: Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do. Also that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''

These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies....

Strengthened by their courage and heartened by their value [valor] and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

Understanding the Idea of “Separation of Church and State”

CNN host Lou Dobbs last week criticized church leaders for speaking out on the immigration debate. Here are my thoughts, which I sent to Mr. Dobbs:

It seems to me that you – like most in the MSM – have a completely backwards understanding of the whole concept of the separation of church and state. The intent of the so-called “separation of church and state” principle was to stop government from intruding into church affairs, not to stop the church from intruding into government affairs.

The founders were quite familiar with what happens (i.e. The Church of England) when government without boundaries intruded into church affairs. That is why under the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article 2 of Amendment 1) our government does not have the right to establish religion.

However, when the founders opposed a governmental establishment of religion, they did not mean they opposed a governmental establishment from religion. In fact, the founders believed religion was good for society. George Washington said, “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” In 1783, Dr. Benjamin Rush stated, “Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.” In 1785, James Madison said, “Religion is the basis and foundation of government.”

The separation of church and state idea was intended to prevent the government from intruding in the affairs of religious expression; it was not intended to stop religious people from being involved in governmental affairs. The First Amendment insures that all people – even those in government (e.g. the President himself) – freely have the right to practice their religious beliefs in all aspects of their life. This should therefore impact their public policy. Where the constraints of a government official’s duties come in under the Constitution would be to not infringe on other citizen’s right to believe what they want, and their “free exercise” of those beliefs. That is why Christians like Patrick Henry could celebrate the fact that “peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

In conclusion, the idea of a separation between these two social institutions was originally intended to protect religious people from a government establishment of religion while allowing religious people to establish government. Let me be clear: the whole concept of separation of church and state was intended to protect the church from the government, not to protect the government from the church.