At Least He's Not Nixon

By David Greenberg
Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01

In 1950, President Harry S. Truman was under fire for "losing" China to communist forces, engaging in deficit spending and seeking to expand unemployment insurance. Harold E. Stassen, a prominent Republican, blasted him as "the worst president ever to occupy the White House."

Four years later, under Dwight D. Eisenhower, job growth had slowed and wages were down. West Virginia Sen. Matthew M. Neely declared Ike "the worst president in United States history."

In 1973, as Richard M. Nixon foundered amid the worsening Watergate scandal, crippling stagflation and increasing social strife, labor leader George Meany asserted, "He will go down in history as one of our worst presidents."

Six years into Ronald Reagan's presidency, the Iran-contra scandal broke and his approval ratings fell into the 40s. Ted Sorensen, who was a speechwriter for John F. Kennedy, suggested that Reagan could well be remembered "as one of our worst presidents."

Considering these moments from history, how likely is it that George W. Bush, as many now assert, is our all-time worst president? Yes, many of us can easily tick off our own lists of Bush policies that we believe have done the United States significant harm. But any declarations that history will consign him to the bottom tier of presidents are premature. As the now-flourishing reputations of Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan attest, the antipathy a president elicits from his contemporaries usually fades over time.

And as Nixon's still-dismal reputation also attests, in the contest for the dubious title of "worst president," Bush faces stiff competition.

Comparisons of presidents across different eras are typically the stuff of parlor games, not serious historical study. But if anyone can be said to deserve the mantle of the worst, it's Nixon. Indeed, looking at his disastrous presidency may help put Bush's failures in perspective.

Like Bush, Nixon fancied himself a "wartime" president in the manner of Franklin D. Roosevelt and therefore entitled to deference in the face of a national emergency -- a view at odds with how most Americans see these controversial, far-off conflicts. And while the oft-cited analogies between the Vietnam and Iraq wars tend to be glib, each conflict has significantly determined its president's reputation. Like Nixon, Bush has heeded Henry Kissinger's advice not to withdraw from a quagmire, preferring to brand critics cowards or traitors. Like Nixon, Bush has also sought to conceal from the public the full scope of the U.S. commitment. Under blanket assertions of "national security" meant to end public debate, he has used Nixonian wiretapping to achieve his ends. These decisions will surely stain his legacy.

But can we conclude that Bush's war policy is worse than Nixon's? However toxic the fallout from Iraq, it's hard to imagine that it could greatly exceed the damage wrought by Vietnam, the wounds from which are still raw 30 years later, as its role in the 2004 presidential election showed. (On the other hand, Nixon can't be blamed for starting his war, whereas Bush initiated his -- albeit with substantial backing from Democrats.) Bush's view of power and his iron-fisted manner of governance also come from the Nixon playbook. Karl Rove, who headed the College Republicans during Watergate, sought to complete Nixon's mission of building a permanent Republican majority. In Nixonian fashion, the Bush-Rove strategy has been to use bullying to stifle opposition: demonizing the news media, discrediting policy experts, disdaining the separation of powers. Bush's theory of a "unitary" executive power is little more than a restatement of a Nixon utterance: "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

But again, if Bush has given Nixon good chase when it comes to undemocratic hardball politics, he hasn't surpassed the master. Nixon's belief in the inherent legality of his own actions led him to authorize burglaries and approve criminal acts -- paying hush money, trying to get the CIA to lie to the FBI -- to thwart the Watergate investigation. And these were only the most well-known and well-documented of the counts against him in the articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974.

While Nixon had his diehard defenders, something close to a national consensus emerged over the idea that his crimes were unprecedented and required his removal from office. Barry Goldwater conservatives and Lowell Weicker Republicans, libertarians and liberals, Main Streeters and Wall Streeters all agreed that Nixon was, if not necessarily the worst president in U.S. history, deserving of the most extreme reprimand ever visited on a commander in chief. Instead of being impeached and removed from office, Nixon resigned.

No such consensus exists for a Bush impeachment. On the contrary, in this fall's election campaign, Democrats pointedly quashed any talk of seeking his ouster if they were to win control of Congress. One can argue that Bush's sanctioning of illegal wiretapping by the National Security Agency constitutes an impeachable offense. His policy of depriving suspected terrorists and POWs of Geneva Convention protections may also strike some people as grounds for removal -- although Congress, by acquiescing in Bush's military detention policy last fall, made the latter argument a tougher sell.

Either way, judgments about the impeachability of Bush for such offenses are far less clear than those rendered in 1974 about Nixon's law-breaking. Many presidents skirt the edges of unconstitutionality. Only Nixon transgressed it so blatantly that impeachment became, to use a Bush-era phrase, a slam dunk.

Bush has two years left in his presidency and we don't know what they'll hold. They may be as dismal as the first six. Future investigations may bear out many people's worst fears about this administration's violations of civil liberties. And it's conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon's stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War. Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history's worst president. For now, though, I'm sticking with Dick.

David Greenberg teaches history and media studies at Rutgers Universit

 Move Over, Hoover

By Douglas Brinkley
Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01

Shortly after Thanksgiving I had dinner in California with Ronald Reagan's best biographer, Lou Cannon. Like many historians these days, we discussed whether George W. Bush is, conceivably, the worst U.S. president ever. Cannon bristled at the idea.

Bush has two more years to leave his mark, he argued. What if there is a news flash that U.S. Special Forces have killed Osama bin Laden or that North Korea has renounced its nuclear program? What if a decade from now Iraq is a democracy and a statue of Bush is erected on Firdaus Square where that famously toppled one of Saddam Hussein once stood?

There is wisdom in Cannon's prudence. Clearly it's dangerous for historians to wield the "worst president" label like a scalp-hungry tomahawk simply because they object to Bush's record. But we live in speedy times and, the truth is, after six years in power and barring a couple of miracles, it's safe to bet that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq.

Some presidents, such as Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy, are political sailors -- they tack with the wind, reaching difficult policy objectives through bipartisan maneuvering and pulse-taking. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, was deemed a "chameleon on plaid," changing colors regularly to control the zeitgeist of the moment. Other presidents are submariners, refusing to zigzag in rough waters, preferring to go from Point A to Point B with directional certitude. Harry S. Truman and Reagan are exemplars of this modus operandi, and they are the two presidents Bush has tried to emulate.

The problem for Bush is that certitude is only a virtue if the policy enacted is proven correct. Most Americans applaud Truman's dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they achieved the desired effect: Japan surrendered. Reagan's anti-communist zeal -- including increased defense budgets and Star Wars -- is only now perceived as positive because the Soviet Union started to unravel on his watch.

Nobody has accused Bush of flinching. After 9/11, he decided to circumvent the United Nations and declare war on Iraq. The principal pretext was that Baghdad supposedly was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. From the get-go, the Iraq war was a matter of choice. Call it Mr. Bush's War. Like a high-stakes poker player pushing in all his chips on one hand, he bet the credibility of the United States on the notion that Sunnis and Shiites wanted democracy, just like the Poles and the Czechs during the Cold War.

Bush wasn't operating in a historical bubble. Other presidents had gambled on wars of choice and won. James K. Polk, for example, begged Gen. Zachary Taylor to start a border war with Mexico along the Rio Grande. An ardent expansionist, he wanted to annex land in what are now Arizona, California and New Mexico. Nearly half of the American population in 1846 screamed foul, including Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay taxes for an unjust war. Yet in short order, Polk achieved his land-grab objective with a string of stunning military successes. Mr. Polk's War was a success, even if the pretext was immoral. On virtually every presidential rating poll, Polk is deemed a "near great" president.

Half a century later, William McKinley also launched a war of choice based on the bogus notion that the USS Maine, anchored in Cuba, had been sabotaged by Spain. The Maine, in truth, was crippled by a boiler explosion. An imperialist, McKinley used the Maine as a pretext to fight Spain in the Caribbean and in the Philippines. A group of anti-imperialists led by Mark Twain and William James, among others, vehemently objected, rightfully accusing McKinley of warmongering. But McKinley had the last word in what his secretary of state, John Hay, deemed "a splendid little war." In just six months, McKinley had achieved his objectives. History chalks up Mr. McKinley's War as a U.S. win, and he also polls favorably as a "near great" president.

Mr. Bush's War, by contrast, has not gone well. When you don't achieve a stealth-like victory in a war of choice, then you're seen as being stuck in a quagmire. Already the United States has fought longer in the Iraq war than in World War II. As the death toll continues to rise, more and more Americans are objecting. The pending Democratic takeover of Congress is only one manifestation of the spiraling disapproval of Bush.

At first, you'd want to compare Bush's Iraq predicament to that of Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War. But LBJ had major domestic accomplishments to boast about when leaving the White House, such as the Civil Rights Act and Medicare/Medicaid. Bush has virtually none. Look at how he dealt with the biggest post-9/11 domestic crisis of his tenure. He didn't rush to help the Gulf region after Hurricane Katrina because the country was overextended in Iraq and had a massive budget deficit. Texas conservatives always say that LBJ's biggest mistake was thinking that he could fund both the Great Society and Vietnam. They believe he had to choose one or the other. They call Johnson fiscally irresponsible. Bush learned this lesson: He chose Iraq over New Orleans.

So Bush's legacy hinges on Iraq, which is an unmitigated disaster. Instead of being forgiven, like Polk and McKinley, for his phony pretext for war (WMD and al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad), he stands to be lambasted by future scholars. What once were his two best sound bites -- "Wanted dead or alive" and "Mission accomplished" -- will be used like billy clubs to shatter his legacy every time it gets a revisionist lift. The left will keep battering him for warmongering while the right will remember its outrage that he didn't send enough battalions to Iraq.

There isn't much that Bush can do now to salvage his reputation. His presidential library will someday be built around two accomplishments: that after 9/11, the U.S. homeland wasn't again attacked by terrorists (knock on wood) and that he won two presidential elections, allowing him to appoint conservatives to key judicial posts. I also believe that he is an honest man and that his administration has been largely void of widespread corruption. This will help him from being portrayed as a true villain.

This last point is crucial. Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes. Oddly, the president whom Bush most reminds me of is Herbert Hoover, whose name is synonymous with failure to respond to the Great Depression. When the stock market collapsed, Hoover, for ideological reasons, did too little. When 9/11 happened, Bush did too much, attacking the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. He has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president.

dbrinkl@tulane.edu

Douglas Brinkley is director of the Roosevelt Center at Tulane University

 Time's On His Side

By Vincent J. Cannato
Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01

After the 2004 election, a number of terribly depressed people at my university told me what a shame it was that President Bush had been reelected. If only people knew history, they lamented, they would never have voted for him.

It must be a comforting thought that this abstract thing called "history" can give us the wisdom to choose the right president, as if history books were Ouija boards and historians were modern-day oracles.

Certainly, some historians see themselves that way. In early 2004, just three years into the Bush administration, an "informal, unscientific survey of historians" by the History News Network found that more than 80 percent believed that the president was already a failure. And a miserable one at that.

Earlier this year, Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz took to the pages of Rolling Stone to ponder whether Bush is the "worst president in history" and concluded that he "appears headed for colossal historical disgrace."

So, case closed? Not yet. I long ago learned to look with suspicion when members of the left-leaning historical profession delve into contemporary politics or profess near unanimity. Today's pronouncements that Bush is the "worst president ever" are too often ideology masquerading as history.

Historical and popular judgments about presidents are always in flux. Dwight D. Eisenhower used to be considered a banal and lazy chief executive who embodied the "conformist" 1950s. Today, his reputation has improved because of more positive appraisals of his Cold War stewardship. Ronald Reagan, whom many historians dismissed as an amiable dunce, has also had his stock rise. On the flip side, Bill Clinton's presidency looks somewhat different after Monica Lewinsky, the bursting of the dot-com bubble and 9/11 than it did in 1997.

Perhaps Bush can take solace in the case of Harry S. Truman, who was reviled at the end of his presidency, with approval numbers hovering around 30 percent. Too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals, Truman was saddled with an unpopular stalemate in the Korean War and accusations of corruption at home. Many saw him as a belligerent rube, too unsophisticated for the White House.

Today, however, many historians have revised their estimate of his presidency upward. There certainly are echoes of Truman in the current carping about Bush.

Most clearly, the Iraq war colors every judgment about Bush these days -- and increasingly, that color is dark. Weakened by the conflict, the administration is now stymied on challenges such as North Korea and Iran. And while focusing most of its energies on terrorism and Iraq, the Bush administration -- for which I worked briefly as a speechwriter in 2001 -- has been less energetic on the domestic front. Attempts at entitlement reform and tax reform have stalled, as has immigration reform. But there have been domestic policy successes: tax cuts, the No Child Left Behind Act, the prescription drug plan and housing policies that have expanded home ownership. All have their critics, but they represent some semblance of a domestic policy.

Any appraisal of Bush's record must consider that he took over in difficult times. By most objective measures, the economy is doing well: Inflation, interest rates and unemployment are low, economic growth is steady, and the stock market is climbing. Complaints about income inequality are legitimate, but the issue has long-term structural roots, and neither party has done much to address it.

What is disheartening is the tendency of many historians to rate presidents based on their support for liberal social policies. Just as frustrating is the inability to acknowledge the deep debates over law enforcement measures, such as the USA Patriot Act, enacted after 9/11. Rather than acknowledge the tough tradeoffs between security and privacy, we are left with the hyperbole that this administration is "trampling on civil liberties." Sometimes wisely and sometimes rashly, Bush has steered the nation through the post-9/11 world. It has been an uneven trip so far, but the country has not suffered another attack in more than five years.

Much of Bush's legacy will rest on the future trajectory of the fight against terrorism, the nation's continued security and the evolving direction of the Middle East. Things may look grim today, but that doesn't ensure a grim future.

No one expects historians to be perfectly objective. But history should at least teach us humility. Time will cool today's political passions. As years pass, more documents will be released, more insights gleaned and the broader picture of this era will be painted. Only then will we begin to see how George W. Bush fares in the pantheon of U.S. presidents.

I don't know how history will judge him. My guess is that, like most presidents, he will bequeath a mixed record. We can debate policies and actions now, but honesty should force us to acknowledge that real judgments will have to wait.

Vincent J. Cannato teaches history at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.

 He's The Worst Ever

By Eric Foner
Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01

Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure," such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the American past.

Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars consider Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.

More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average" or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.

At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866, respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.

Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.

Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.

Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.

One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for the United States.

Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.

Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.

efoner@aol.com

Eric Foner is DeWitt Clinton professor

of history at Columbia University.

 Liberal Coalition Eyes First Hundred Hours
Lobbying and PR Offensive for New Congress Mirrors Conservative Efforts

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; A06

A large group of liberal organizations is planning to wage a national lobbying and public relations campaign to press for passage of the House Democrats' legislative agenda next year, taking a page from longtime corporate practices.

The Change America Now coalition, or CAN, met yesterday at AFL-CIO headquarters to outline the many methods it will use -- including the release of research papers and e-mail and phone bombardment of Congress.

The goal is to persuade on-the-fence lawmakers in more than 80 congressional districts to vote for the "Hundred Hours" agenda, a list of legislation that Democrats hope to approve in the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress. The agenda includes an increase in the minimum wage and an effort to reduce the cost of Medicare prescription drugs.

The campaign will largely target Republican moderates and Republicans who were narrowly elected in November. The group's leaders said they hope to increase the margin of victory for each plank of the platform in the House to boost the measures' prospects in the Senate -- a much harder place for them to succeed. In addition, they said early wins will make it easier for each organization to persuade Congress later to approve other elements of their own legislative wish lists.

"Groups on the progressive side support the priorities that are represented in the Hundred Hours agenda and we want to see them enacted," said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's legislative director.

Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said that approval of the Hundred Hours agenda would also help the public better understand what the incoming Democratic majority stands for. "We are still too undefined," he said, and the Hundred Hours agenda "begins that process" of redefinition.

The 40-member coalition's other major organizers are Americans United, USAction, and labor unions led by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, he said.

Yesterday morning, at a regular, biweekly meeting of liberal organizations called the Tuesday Group, about 100 people packed a conference room to hear the coalition's strategy. Representatives of many groups that were instrumental in electing Democrats to Congress this year were there, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the Center for American Progress and several women's organizations.

The effort they discussed was reminiscent of the elaborate business-backed lobbying campaign 12 years ago that pushed the "Contract With America," which was the then-Republican majority's legislative agenda. Conservative groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Christian Coalition banded together then to lobby the House to pass the GOP's 10-part program.

The meeting was also an echo of a conservatives' gathering that started in 1993 and continues to this day, hosted by Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist's weekly "Wednesday Meeting" routinely attracts 150 people and is a forum for discussing ways to bolster conservative policies.

Hickey said the liberals' Tuesday Group was designed to counter a government "dominated by the special interests." In response, Norquist said: "So says the guy from the trial lawyers, the labor unions and the radical environmentalists. The Democratic Party is a collection of special interests."

With everyone tearing their hair out with election day so close, I thought this Ronald Reagan letter was a nice break.  Enjoy.

                                                Mr. Laurence W.. Beilenson
                                                March 27, 1979

Dear Larry:
    I'm a long time in getting back to you in response to your note but want you to know I've been out on that "mashed potato circuit."  Either I am getting used to the food at the banquets or it has improved in quality.  I acutally find myself looking forward to the meal.
    I agree with you about the major issues and am frightened to death about what I continue to see going on in Washington.  I think I have those three assets you spoke of.  I do believe in God and I certainly have a steadfast wife, and I think I have a sense of humor, although, it's getting harder to laugh at some of the things going on.
    I appreciate your offer of help, and you can depend on it -- I'll call on you.
                                                Best regards,
                                                Ron

Reagan: A Life in Letters:  Annelise Anderson and Martin Anderson

This article provides a fascinating insight in how a Blackberry type device can tell us what type of political "air" we are surrounding by, how our legislators are voting or taking care of our districts, and a variety of other interesting data.  Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/03/AR2006110301472.html

 

In 1990, President Reagan decided he wanted to help Pete Wilson win the California Governorship. I was asked by his office to plan the events and escort the President. Little did we know that 1990 would be President Reagan’s last trip on the campaign trail.  I wanted to share a couple of the experiences here.

My Dad, Stu Spencer, and I visited President Reagan in his Century City office to make plans. I remember two points vividly. The first point, President Reagan was showing me paintings of his ranch. One painting showed the split rail fencing that he had split himself. The President was quite irritated with the painting because they had painted the rails in the wrong order. He made quite a point as how exactly those rails fit together. The second point was when I asked President Reagan how he enjoyed living in California again. The President paused and looked at me as though I had lost my mind. I waited and watched him search for just the right words. And they were the right words. He said: Karen, One does not live in California, California is a way of life.

We went onto the campaign trail. To Garden Grove, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, and Mission Viego. In Rancho Cucamonga we went into a small restaurant where I thought the waiters would faint at the sight of President Reagan. We waited one hour for our food. The food arrived on platters, not plates. During that time, President Reagan and I talked about the importance of voting. He was going to a phone bank from that restaurant. And he was very exciting about making phone calls. President Reagan just did not understand why anyone would not exercise their right to vote. It was their responsibility. It gave them freedom. It gave them opportunity. It was a wonderful discussion.

When we arrived at Mission Viejo, he landed by helicopter next to a middle school. When that helicopter landed, those kids broke loose from that school and mobbed President Reagan. I thought the Secret Service was going to faint this time. However, I never saw so much love from young people towards a man in his late 70s. Those kids just loved President Reagan. They just wanted to touch him. And President Reagan was so touched.

When I left Mission Viejo, I never saw President Reagan again. However, these memories, among so many others, are wonderful. I wanted to share them at this election time.

I read this WSJ article today.  It suggests that the new Democrats, if elected, could promote an agenda of less spending, no taxes, and less government.  It appears that the Democratic party have learned from the Republican party.  They want to win elections.  And the Democrats have started to listen to the American public.  And least some of them have.  Republicans -- stand up and take notice of this WSJ article.  The party could be headed in serious danger.  I already feel like I'm back in 1974 (the Watergate election).  I'm posting a portion of this article:

Can the Class of 2006 Save the Democrats? Pro-business, conservative and military candidates may be key to victory; look for tension with the left A dozen new faces to watch By JACKIE CALMES and GREG HITT November 4, 2006; Page A1 If the polls turn out to be correct and the Democrats rack up big congressional gains Tuesday, they will have to thank a crop of candidates who don't look like a lot of the Democrats already in Washington. But the likely rise of these new Democrats -- moderate-to-conservative, like the Republican-leaning districts they seek to represent -- suggests that congressional Democrats' collective face after January 2007 won't be so liberal. And that could hold the seeds for tension between the newcomers and the old team that would pull the levers of power. Already, Mrs. Pelosi -- who would likely be Speaker if her party wins a House majority -- is privately trying to insist that liberals tamp down expectations of getting out of Iraq now. Democratic allies in the House say she wouldn't do anything to jeopardize the new recruits' electoral future, and by extension Democrats' newfound power. Former Kentucky state Rep. Mike Weaver, a Vietnam veteran who Democrats hope can win a congressional seat Tuesday, is running on a platform of "family, faith, freedom" opposing abortion, gay marriage and gun control. He reckons the new Congress could have as many as 40 moderate-to-conservative Democrats and another 29 anti-abortion conservatives. "If you have 69 people that have a more conservative view of things, you can't ignore them," he says. This centrist tinge is no accident. Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Chicago and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the chairmen of Democrats' House and Senate campaign committees, recruited their players starting just after Mr. Bush's 2004 reelection, when the landscape hardly looked favorable for Democrats. Their goal: win across the country in Republican-leaning districts and states that their party had all but ceded to Republicans in the Bush era. The Pro-Business Candidates and Fiscal Conservatives As Gabrielle Giffords tries to become the first Democrat in more than 20 years to hold the House seat representing Tucson, Ariz., she's playing up her business credentials. The 36-year-old highlights her experience running her family's tire company, and as managing partner of a small property-management firm. In a party more associated with trial lawyers and labor unions, Ms. Giffords is one of more than two dozen Democrats endorsed by the New Democrat Coalition, a group of 40 lawmakers who have tried to steer the party toward more pro-business policies, and toward limiting taxes and spending. Another New Democrat pick is Tim Mahoney, who runs a $1-billion South Florida investment banking and private-equity firm, recruited by Mr. Emanuel for a long-shot bid to oust Republican Rep. Mark Foley. After Mr. Foley's sudden resignation in the House page scandal, Mr. Mahoney's odds suddenly improved. At a recent Loxahatchee appearance, he vowed to fight estate taxes, calling them a burden on family farmers. A Democratic-led Congress -- particularly if joined by Democratic president after 2008 -- would face tremendous pressures to boost taxes, at least on the upper-income brackets, and to boost spending for a wide range of social programs from health care to education. But one of the party's promising prospects, Indiana sheriff Brad Ellsworth, has signed a formal pledge against any tax increases with the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. "A lot of money comes into our government," Mr. Ellsworth said in a recent debate. "What makes Hoosiers so mad is when you see the wasteful spending." The Clean-Up Crew Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats to take over the House. In at least 20 contests, Democratic challengers are either running against Republican incumbents in ethics or legal scrapes, or against Republicans tarnished by others' scandals. These new Democrats could form the nucleus of a reform movement similar to Republicans' own when they captured Congress in the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. --Sarah Lueck contributed to this article. Write to Jackie Calmes at jackie.calmes@wsj.com1 and Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com2

I found this article on James Baker group that has been working on a solution for Iraq.  Since the article requires a subscription, I've attached the entire article here.  It's rather long.

James Baker returns.

Baker's Choice

by Ryan Lizza
Post date: 11.02.06
Issue date: 11.13.06

e has met with every significant figure in the Iraqi government and even with members of anti-occupation militias. He has quietly reached out to representatives from both Syria and Iran. He has begun discussions with Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to lay the groundwork for internationalizing the Iraq crisis. According to The New York Times, he meets regularly with President Bush. It's widely expected that, after the election, he will offer the definitive blueprint for how to move forward on Iraq. Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld? Stephen Hadley? No, the person who is poised to emerge as perhaps the most important figure in the Iraq debate is graying eminence James Baker.

These days, the diplomatic energy spent on Iraq isn't coming from Foggy Bottom or the Pentagon, but from an office building near Dupont Circle, where the 76-year-old Baker and nine other Washington establishmentarians have spent the last eight months working on Iraq policy options to be presented sometime before February. Technically, Baker is merely the co-chairman of the commission, which is officially known as the Iraq Study Group. (The Democratic co-chairman is Lee Hamilton.) But there's a reason almost everyone calls it "the Baker Commission." With little fanfare, Baker has become America's shadow secretary of state, boasting an Iraq portfolio broader than that of anyone actually serving in the administration.

If the war in Iraq sometimes seems like the tragic consequence of the psychodrama starring Bush 41 and Bush 43, Baker's imminent return to center stage will move the plot along nicely. Ever since 1970, when the 40-year-old Baker abandoned his Democratic Party registration and signed on to help manage the (losing) Senate campaign of the elder Bush, Baker's life has been deeply entwined with those of the Bushes--a fact that is already raising suspicions about his commission's looming proposals.

On the left, the conventional wisdom about Baker's return is that the Bush family loyalist will craft his recommendations to provide a face-saving cover for Bush's own modest course corrections in Iraq. On the right, Baker's ascent is eyed warily as an ideological rebuke to the neocons from the realist foreign policy establishment they sought to overthrow. But loyalty and ideology are only part of the Baker DNA. What he really craves is respect. The Bushes set Baker on his path to power, helping him become White House chief of staff, secretary of the Treasury, and secretary of state; but they have, at other times, undercut Baker's vainglorious self-image by dragging him into what he regarded as gutter-level political assignments--most recently, during the 2000 Florida recount, in which he successfully managed Bush's victory.

Those who know Baker insist that his vanity will ultimately triumph. "What's important about the psychology of James Baker is that he wants to be remembered as a statesman, not a political hack," says a former aide who worked closely with Baker for several years. "That's why the Iraq Study Group is perfect for him. ... He does not want the first line written about him in his obituary to be, 'James Baker, the man who delivered the contested election to George W. Bush.'" If the Bush 41-Bush 43 psychodrama got us into Iraq, it may be the Bush-Baker psychodrama that gets us out.

ne mistake observers often make regarding Baker is the assumption that all Bush family loyalists are the same. The archetype is Andy Card, who not only recognized his role as hired help but reveled in it. Baker never fit that mold. He has always had a peer-to-peer relationship with the elder Bush. He once returned some presidential ribbing from Poppy with a "two-syllable, down-home expletive," according to the Times. "The way I've always thought of them is as brothers," says the former Baker aide. "They've known each other for a long time. The way they bonded was over the loss of Baker's first wife"--who died of cancer in 1970--"but they're also like brothers in that they fight like hell. They are close but also capable of not liking each other."

The recurring drama of Baker's government career was his effort to carve out an identity as a respected statesman rather than merely a political fixer. Baker once told The Washington Post that his work rounding up Republican delegates for Gerald Ford in 1976 was "demeaning." He once told the Times that he disliked traveling with Bush senior because he felt like "the goddamn butler."

After serving as Ronald Reagan's chief of staff during his first term and managing the reelection campaign that earned him a second, Baker was rewarded in 1985 with the post of Treasury secretary, where he earned plaudits for helping negotiate the international monetary agreement known as the Plaza Accord, as well as the 1986 tax-reform package. But, in 1988, Bush lassoed the reluctant Baker from his comfortable perch and placed him in charge of running his faltering presidential campaign. James Baker, statesman, reverted to James Baker, hack, running a campaign that became infamous for its slash-and-burn viciousness. "Do you think I enjoyed leaving the office of secretary of Treasury, being fifth in line to the presidency, to come over here to be called a handler?" Baker once snapped to a Boston Globe reporter visiting his dingy campaign headquarters after the move.

After helping Bush win, he was again handsomely compensated, this time with the post of secretary of state, where he spent a consequential four years managing the end of the cold war, the reunification of Germany, and the Gulf war. But, as he traveled the world in 1992 basking in the diplomatic glow that followed success in Iraq, his boss' reelection campaign was fizzling. The inevitable call from Bush came that summer. Baker again resisted, but Bush again wore him down. The secretary of state gritted his teeth and decamped to the White House to try to jumpstart the Bush presidency. His reluctance to descend from the heights of Foggy Bottom, perhaps costing Bush the race, would earn him the scorn of George W. Bush.

If Baker had an inflated view of himself vis-à-vis Bush 41--"Every morning, Jim Baker looks in the mirror and says, 'You're better looking than George Bush. You're smarter. Why aren't you president?'" a Republican consultant told The New Republic in 1992--one can only imagine his view of 43. Actually, a flip through Baker's new memoir, Work Hard, Study ... and Keep Out of Politics!, gives a pretty clear indication. There's George W. Bush on page 10, remembered as an "office boy" at Baker's Texas law firm. Later, while Baker negotiates the 1981 budget deal with a Democratic House member from Texas, there's a drive-by reference to Bush as the guy whom the congressman had beaten to win reelection. Bush pops up again in 1988 as "the ever-playful presidential son." At another point, Baker confides, "I always liked him, but I wouldn't have taken a bet in the late '50s or early '60s that he might ever be a governor, much less a candidate for president."

The younger Bush, for his part, famously froze Baker out of his own presidential campaign. "When George W. started preparing for his possible presidential run, a steady stream of policy advisers, political consultants, and GOP heavyweights began flowing into Austin to test his intentions and offer advice and help," Baker writes. "I was not among them, and that was okay with me." (One might be forgiven for believing the inclusion of this passage suggests that it wasn't so okay, after all.)

And, when Bush finally did call Baker, it wasn't to ask for his views on foreign policy. Rather, Baker was brought in to handle the messy, divisive Florida recount, an assignment he seems to have had mixed feelings about taking. "Florida was not the Middle East and fighting over vote recounts was not a high-level diplomatic mission, but in my view helping to preserve the integrity of a presidential election was plenty important," Baker writes, a tad defensively. "My aura as a statesman would just have to take its chances." In typical Baker fashion, he tried to find a balance between statesman and hack, partly by limiting his presence on television. "I didn't want to go out there every day as some sort of hired-gun pol, despite what some of the Bush-Cheney advisers in Austin might have wanted," he writes, taking an idle slap at the Bush team.

Baker seems almost haunted by his role in Florida. At every turn in his retelling of the Florida recount, he comes back to what seems to him to be the most pressing historical question of those five weeks in 2000: Did he sully himself? "I'm sometimes asked," he writes, "if I think I tarnished my reputation by going into the trenches of the Florida election dispute." Not that he thinks he did, mind you. All he's saying is that sometimes people ask.

aker has taken on a handful of diplomatic missions in the last six years--Iraqi debt relief, some thorny negotiations over democratic reforms in Tbilisi--but nothing that enhances his aura as a statesman nearly as much as his current assignment could. As usual, he is sensitive to the charge that his work is political rather than substantive. "Everybody knows how close I am to the family," he said recently, perhaps sending a warning to the White House. "But if they think that I'm going to somehow pre-cook a deal here or something, they're absolutely wrong." As for Bush, he hardly gushes with praise for Baker. "I like him," the president told a group of conservative writers recently. "Listen, the guy is a skilled guy. He is a very, very confident person, as you know." Not exactly criticism, but not quite a compliment either, given that the attribute that Bush admires in his staff is humility, not confidence.

Among the experts on the advisory groups of the commission, Baker is a Sphinx-like figure. "During Baker's recent media blitz," says one of the Iraq Study Group advisers, speaking of Baker's book tour, "I heard him talk more in his interviews than in any of our meetings. And say more." Baker has shrouded the panel's operations in secrecy. At first, he and Hamilton demanded that all members of the working groups refrain from any public comments about Iraq while working for the commission, an idea that was nixed only when they realized it would cripple public debate about the war for a year. Instead, the experts agreed not to discuss the commission's internal deliberations, a ban that was effective until this fall, when someone leaked to The New York Sun the policy options Baker and his team were considering. The commissioners responded to the leak with what one adviser calls "a blackout. All meetings were canceled. We were absolutely closed off from the commission members."

The expert working groups themselves are civil but balkanized. "What's been frustrating about the experts who have been advising us," says a commission staffer, "is the endless foreign-community pissing matches--with each other and in the press. All these leaks are coming from them. There is so much bitterness, neocons versus realists. It's unbelievable."

But the advisory panels are not really the ones driving the process. Baker and his fellow commissioners are. The most common criticism from the experts is not that Baker is steering the discussions to benefit Bush or trying to discredit the neocons, but that his goal of generating consensus recommendations among the commission's Republicans (Robert Gates, Edwin Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Alan Simpson) and Democrats (Hamilton, Vernon Jordan, Leon Panetta, William Perry, and Chuck Robb) will lead to paralysis. "This isn't a non-partisan group, it's a bipartisan group," says one of the advisers. "They are looking for a broadly politically acceptable way to advance America's interests. They are not looking for the most creative way."

Publicly, Baker has already tipped his hand about what he thinks the proper course is. He has ruled out Democratic Senator Joe Biden's plan for three autonomous regions, arguing that it would exacerbate divisions and move the country closer to all-out civil war; he has also come out against an immediate withdrawal of troops. At the same time, he has repeatedly criticized the "stay the course" option associated with Bush. What's left are probably two options more associated with the center-left foreign policy establishment. The first is a modified version of the withdrawal plan proposed by the Center for American Progress's Lawrence Korb, which the Baker Commission refers to as "Redeploy and Contain." Troops would be moved into neighboring countries, where they would only be used for quick strikes against terrorists in Iraq, and the administration would concentrate on international diplomacy, including talks with Iran and Syria, to solve Iraq's political problems. The other option leaked is "Stability First," a cousin of the plan proposed by Kenneth Pollack at the Brookings Institution. It would focus the lion's share of U.S. troops on stabilizing Baghdad and turning it into a model for the rest of Iraq, a move that would, the thinking goes, start to change perceptions about the occupation and smooth the path toward national reconciliation and an oil-sharing agreement.

According to commission staffers, the few neocons advising the panel argue internally about the global repercussions of losing the war, but they are hobbled because they have no specific plan they are pushing. They are most concerned about Baker's interest in opening dialogue with Syria and Iran and the possibility that the commission will recommend an emergency government--i.e., a strongman--that would spell the end of democracy in Iraq. Baker himself has spoken about a "representative" government, rather than a "democratic" one. But one of the commission's advisers says that Baker "doesn't necessarily want to abandon democracy. [He] was skeptical that forgoing democracy would make our lives any easier or enhance the prospects of stability."

Almost everyone I interviewed agreed that the midterm elections will move the debate left, not right. "What happens in the election is absolutely going to have bearing on what the final recommendations are," says one commission adviser, echoing comments from several others. A big Democratic victory would increase Baker's leverage with Bush regarding how to proceed in Iraq.

Baker has declined previous entreaties to join the Bush administration, but, ironically, in his current role he is shaping up to be more influential than anyone in the Cabinet. Still, some of Baker's admirers think he may eventually require a title upgrade. "If the Baker commission recommends a fairly far-reaching strategy of new regional talks and new diplomacy and links it to other issues in the Middle East, I personally think that Bush is going to need a new person to execute that strategy," says one of the commission's expert advisers. "And I can't think of anyone better than Baker." The shadow secretary, in other words, may soon be out of the shadows.

Ryan Lizza is a senior editor at The New Republic.

RELATED LINKS

Yesterday I posted the following:   That's the headline on the MSNBC website right now.  They are saying that researchers are testing if being conservative or liberal is in the genes.

Go to the story:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15534009/

I am NOT endorsing this concept.  I just find this study interesting.  As a professor, I find many of my students taking the polar opposite political views of their parents.  What I do endorse is educating oneself on all points of political views.

 

Will my phone please stop ringing!! I have already voted. And I know the powers to be know which absentee ballots have arrived.

I’m not naïve about elections. I’ve spent my entire life working on campaigns. Walking precincts, handing out buttons and stickers, making phone calls myself, organizing volunteers, putting on major events, and so on. I’ve even taken President Reagan into a phone bank.

This election year things are gotten out of hand with the Get Out The Vote. My phone rings every half hour. I am now a very rude person. That seems to not offend the person on the other line. They still want either my money or know how I voted. Surveys are the quite fashion of this election year. If I don’t answer the phone, they let it go to voicemail and I listen to annoying background talking.

My ringer is turned off. My clients have been told if they call at home to email first. My family is out of luck. I did my duty, I voted as I have every election since I was 18 years old.

After this “ringer” experience, I now know my volunteer days are over. I also know the GOTV is crucial for the candidates. I wish them the best in their efforts. Just give me some peace and quiet. I want to be a nice person again.

That's the headline on the MSNBC website right now.  They are saying that researchers are testing if being conservative or liberal is in the genes.

Go to the story:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15534009/

 

Aristotle taught his students that “democracies are safer and more permanent ….because they have a middle class which is more numerous and has a greater share in the government.” He continues that when there is no middle class, troubles arise, and the state soon comes to an end. Aristotle assumed that that the best legislators would be from the middle class.

Lately I have been listening and reading to the condition of America’s middle class. I believe I belong to this middle class. However, who are we? Why is Lou Dobbs ranting and raving daily about us? I did not find a satisfactory definition in his book. And are we truly in trouble?

I agree with Aristotle. I believe that as our new legislators in Congress and state legislatures must start listening to us. They must assess the condition of America’s middle class. However, first they must define who we are.

I found this article in today’s Business Week which I believe will spark a discussion.

It's the Local Economy, Stupid

The Dow has soared, joblessness is low. But workers in key states aren't benefiting—and their vote might just lead to a change in Congress

by Moira Herbst

If the mantra, "It's the economy, stupid," still holds true, it should be a great election year for Republican incumbents. There's been plenty of good economic news of late: the Dow has broken the 12,000 barrier, gas prices are down, and with an unemployment rate of 4.6%, there appears to be no shortage of jobs. But support for incumbents in this Republican-controlled Congress is at a historic low, according to the most recent Gallup poll. And as the midterm elections approach, the Democrats look likely to take control of the House, and could also win back the Senate for the first time in over a decade. The picture seems puzzling: If the economy is in such good shape, what's behind the growing urge to change the Congressional guard?

For one thing, the economy isn't the only issue on voters' minds. National surveys reveal that the war in Iraq is the No. 1 voter concern, as casualties mount and an exit strategy remains unclear. Still, the economy is running a close second to the war in terms of voter worries. The problem for Republicans is that during Bush's Presidency, and with Republican control of Congress, many American workers have suffered from rising health-care costs and stagnating wages, without benefiting much from the rising stock market. That's why some voters in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania are looking to unseat incumbent Republican senators, hoping perhaps that the Democrats will help address the economic challenges that have mounted in recent years.

Struggling to Survive

Ramona Barnhill, a 36-year-old single mother of two teenagers in the rural town of Ripley, Ohio, is among the discontented. A two-time George Bush voter, Barnhill was in a comfortable position when he first ran for office, earning $16 an hour at a lumber yard. Now a cook at McDonald's (MCD), she says she's struggling so much financially that she's looking to the midterm election as her chance to cast a vote for a change.

"It's just expensive out there. It's so bad now I can't afford health insurance for my child unless I go through public assistance, and I can't stand doing that," says Barnhill, who takes home about $900 a month working about 40 hours a week. "Normally I vote for who I think the best [individual candidate] is, but this time it's [straight-ticket] Democrat all the way."

Voters in Ohio and five other states will also be voting on minimum-wage amendments that would boost wages above the federal rate which, at $5.15 per hour, is at its lowest level in 50 years, adjusted for inflation. States passing the amendment would raise the rate as much as $1.70 per hour, joining 22 other states that have approved such hikes.

Midwest Job Losses

In this election, the economy is more of a concern where the loss of manufacturing jobs has been felt most acutely. In this context, the James Carville slogan might be rephrased, "It's the local economy, stupid." Because the Midwest has borne the brunt of job losses in the country—with unemployment rates in Ohio and Michigan at 5.3% and 7.1%, respectively—pocketbook issues are at the forefront of voters' minds in these areas. The Pew Research Center's poll of likely voters showed that Western and Midwestern voters expressed the most concern about the economy, and health care is a bigger issue in the Midwest than elsewhere. And nearly three-quarters of Midwesterners (74%) rate economic conditions in the country "only fair or poor," the highest percentage of any region.

Some of those who have found work after a job loss say they're having trouble, since many new jobs being created in the service sector don't pay enough to keep up with rising costs of health insurance and college tuition. "There's no middle class anymore," says Barnhill. "You're either high income or you're just surviving—that's how it is around here. I live pretty simply, and I just want to be able to pay for my kids to go to the hospital if they're sick, or bring a cake over to my friend without worrying about the gas. I don't want to blame my situation on other people, but I'm having a hard time taking care of myself."

Such discontent doesn't make sense to everyone, especially given the rosy macroeconomic picture. "The economy is getting a lot of bad press, and voters seem to be taking for granted how well it's doing," says Edward Yardeni, chief investment strategist for Oak Associates, an investment firm and publisher of daily commentary on economic news. "From a macro standpoint—and maybe I am missing the details of the suffering out there—the economy never looked better. Unemployment is low and inflation has come down nicely. Gas usage is soaring. Where are all these disgruntled people driving to, exactly?"

Uneven Gains from Economy

It is true that earnings of many in the top sliver of the income spectrum have been outpacing inflation—and those the gains have helped prop up average income and consumer spending figures. But the real median hourly wage for American workers has declined by more than 1% since 2003, despite a steady rise in productivity. And for the past five years, the number of Americans lacking health care has been growing. Nearly 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005—up almost 7 million since 2000, according to U.S. Census data.

The twin problems of flat wages and costly benefits have helped foster the sour mood toward incumbents, says Henry Brady, professor of political science and director of the University of California Berkeley's Survey Research Center. "The vast bulk of the population isn't feeling as excited by the economy because they're not getting that much of the good stuff," he says. "They are thinking, 'the Dow at 12,000 is great for a guy who owns an enormous amount of stock, but what's it doing for me?"

"The tax cuts and other policies have helped a small fraction of the population, but you can't win an election with the top 1% of the vote," he adds.

Getting Out the Vote

The AFL-CIO and the breakaway union group, Change to Win, are stressing pocketbook issues as they try to turn out over 13 million union voters next Tuesday to increase support for Democratic candidates. "They say unemployment is low, but what we really have is underemployment," said Anna Burger, chair of Change to Win, which represents six million workers. "People are working more jobs for less money."

Burger cites a poll her group commissioned for Labor Day, which revealed that 81% of nonsupervisory workers agreed with the statement, "No matter what you hear about the economy, working families are falling behind." In the same poll, over half think the next generation will be worse off.

Richard Tarmin, a 63-year-old employee of Handy & Harman Tube Co. (WHX) in East Norton, Pa., is less worried for his grown children than he is for himself and his wife. In mid-November he'll lose his union job when the medical tubing plant closes to move operations south and overseas. Having worked at the company for 43 years, he now makes $18 an hour, plus benefits, and isn't optimistic about his prospects of finding a new job with benefits. "Unfortunately all that's out there are the K-Mart (SHLD), Wal-Mart (WMT), Burger King (BKC), and McDonald's type of jobs. I know I'm never going to get what I am making now, but I need to go somewhere I'll get benefits."

Straight Democrat

Those concerns play directly into how he's thinking about this election. "It's a shame the elderly can't get medical coverage today, and someone's got to solve it," says Tarmin. "I've split my ticket at times in the past, but this time it's straight Democrat."

Given a few extra months on the campaign trail, Republicans might have gained some ground with undecided voters. Economists say burdens may now be easing for many workers, with energy prices abating, real wages growing slightly, and benefit costs expected to decelerate next year. But these boosts may be too little, too late for Republican incumbents.

Herbst is a reporter for BusinessWeek.com in New York.

BusinessWeek.Com November 2, 2006

 

“I am a Vietnam Veteran,”  Mark Smith wrote, “and I want to thank you for the revitalization of the American soldier’s image under your administration….It means a great deal to me Mr. President that my Country does not look with such scorn upon us.” 

 

 

                                                                        Mr. Mark L. Smith

                                                                        Kenosha, Wisconsin

                                                                        November 8, 1982

 

Dear Mr. Smith:

            I’m sorry to be so late in answering your good letter but it takes a while before mail reaches my desk.  Thank you for your generous words and believe me I do have faith in our people.

            I share our joy at the turnaround we’ve made with regard to the military.  There is pride again in the uniform by those who wear it and those who see it.  I have always believed that you who served in Vietnam fought as bravely and as well as any Americans ever have in any war.  And your cause was a just and noble one.  Yours was not a failure, the failure was in a government that asked men to die for a cause the government was afraid to let them win.

            I hope by the time you receive this your employment problem has been solved.  If not yet I know it will be because the economy has turned upward.

            Thanks again for writing.          

 

                                                                        Sincerely,

 

                                                                        Ronald Reagan

 

Reagan, A Life in Letters, edited by Annelise Anderson and Martin Anderson