Contributors
Carol Platt Liebau - Columnist

Carol Platt Liebau is a senior member of the CaliforniaRepublic.org editorial board. She is an attorney, political analyst and commentator based in San Marino, CA, and has appeared on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC, CNN, Orange County News Channel, Cox Cable and a variety of radio programs throughout the United States. A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, Carol Platt Liebau also served as the first female managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. [go to Liebau index]

The Clinton Defense and the Kerry Offense
The Importance of “Doing Everything We Can” to Keep America Safe
[Carol Platt Liebau] 2/16/04   

As America celebrated the 93rd birthday of Ronald Reagan on February 6, scores of images of the President flooded television screens. But perhaps one of the most enduring, endearing memories of California’s greatest governor and his wife – long after they had become the President and First Lady – dates from August of 1984. CNN’s Charles Bierbauer asked President Reagan what he was doing to encourage the Soviets to negotiate. The President, slightly hard of hearing, paused, and Bierbauer repeated his query. Doubtless annoyed by the tone of implicit criticism and feeling both frustrated by the situation and protective of her husband, Mrs. Reagan muttered, “We’re doing everything we can.”

When President Reagan repeated her words, a firestorm erupted, with talking heads everywhere arguing about whether the episode was emblematic of a controlling First Lady’s power over her doddering husband. Of course, in the fullness of time, history has resolved that controversy. The crumbling of the USSR (even the term now seems archaic), along with Mr. Reagan’s thoughtful and well-written letters and papers, have silenced the liberal critics who insisted that the kindly, articulate, intelligent man before them was some kind of functional moron – or else a rabid right-wing “evil genius”.

But it’s worth remembering today that many of those same liberals – who either totally misunderstood or completely misrepresented President Reagan – are now characterizing President Bush as either a functional moron, or else a rabid right-wing “evil genius”. Why should any of us believe their claims about President Bush, when they had President Reagan so completely, utterly wrong?

And President Bush’s critics are as hypocritical as they are wrong-headed. After spending the eight years of the Clinton Administration arguing, in essence, that a man’s character was defined less by who he is (or what he does) than by what policies he supports, their argument has apparently changed. Now, they are prepared to insist that John Kerry’s admittedly heroic service in Vietnam constitutes a credential that should trump any doubts about his deference to the processes of the U.N. Security Council, and long-time opposition to a strong American defense. Taken together, the liberals’ argument seems to be: Who one is or how he behaves today is less important than what policies he currently espouses (the Clinton Defense); but who he was or what he did forty years ago is even more important than the policies he presently propagates (the Kerry offensive).

Although the Clinton Defense was made in a cynical effort to save the political career of a man who had shown neither discipline nor integrity throughout, the question of moral character vs. current policy is, at least, a viable debate (to the extent, of course, that one’s policies can ever be wholly extricated from one’s character). But the Kerry Offense, where personal history trumps present policy, is not.

A prime example? Take the contrast between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. President Carter, a graduate of the US Naval Academy, served aboard the USS Wyoming, the USS Mississippi, the USS Pomfret, and the submarine USS K-1. But President Reagan never served overseas, as he was classified for limited service only, due to eyesight difficulties (by the end of World War II, his units had produced some 400 training films for the Army Air Force).

Yet when Americans were offered the choice between “sailor” Jimmy Carter’s “ethical” and “humanist” foreign policy (remembering him kissing Leonid Brezhnev mere months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?) and “actor” Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength,” they made their views abundantly clear, electing President Reagan in a landslide. And their confidence was justified, as the hostages held in Iran returned on Inauguration Day, Communist territorial gains throughout the world were rolled back, and eventually, the Iron Curtain that had shrouded millions’ dreams of freedom was thrown back for all time.

Like President Bush, President Reagan was accused of being an unsophisticated, simplistic thinker. Like President Reagan, he is held in contempt by the European elites and the media “intelligentsia.” And like President Reagan, he would rather entrust America’s well-being to her own strength, rather than to the good will of others.

Like all the attacks on President Reagan, in the end, the Kerry Offense will fail. As with the Clinton Defense, it is deeply cynical; the people touting John Kerry’s military record support their candidate not because of his military exploits, but because they actually agree with his multilateral-at-all-costs foreign policy (and anti-war activism), and hope that his military record will insulate both from criticism. And their willingness to exploit Kerry’s heroism on behalf of a cause they never supported betokens a realization that their true views are neither widely held nor respected by Americans in general.

In 2004, like 1980, Americans will make an important choice between two men – one with better military credentials, the other with better military policy. And if history is any guide, they will elect the one who, upon being asked whether he will work to keep Americans safe, is honestly able to reply: “We’re doing everything we can.”

CRO columnist Carol Platt Liebau is a political analyst and commentator based in San Marino, CA.

copyright 2004

§