The Feb. 2 column by Lisa Pampuch has found and redefined the
real former President Ronald Reagan postulating he is like a
non-hawk and a liberal, citing things like
”
a bellicose peacenik
”
; an arms-reduction treaty negotiator; one who withdrew (cut and
run) Marines instead of retaliating with military force in Lebanon;
a pro-amnesty for illegal aliens governor who opposed a border
fence; increased government and increased the deficit.
Column on Reagan filled with ‘atrificial’ ingredients
Dear Editor,
The Feb. 2 column by Lisa Pampuch has found and redefined the real former President Ronald Reagan postulating he is like a non-hawk and a liberal, citing things like “a bellicose peacenik”; an arms-reduction treaty negotiator; one who withdrew (cut and run) Marines instead of retaliating with military force in Lebanon; a pro-amnesty for illegal aliens governor who opposed a border fence; increased government and increased the deficit.
As Paul Harvey used to say, “And now the rest of the story”. The treaties “negotiated” by Reagan with the Soviets were successful because Russia was failing economically and militarily. He had the strong upper hand and realized war was not necessary, but his missile defense system along with his strength and determination, had the Russians truly believing the U.S. might be willing to fight and beat the U.S.S.R.
Withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon was a tactical move against something not entirely understood by everyone. The complexity of the situation left the U.S. little beneficial options with a war there. But because there was a withdrawal, an all out war was not ignited in the region and Israel is there today. Long after the withdrawal, Israel was able to attack the Lebanon based radical Palestinian suicide bombers and the Palestinian radicals paid dearly.
When Reagan signed on for amnesty of 3 million illegal aliens, many opposed it. Nevertheless, the border dynamics have dramatically changed from what it was then. The domination of the brutal Mexican drug cartels and the open boarders policies we currently allow, making it possible for terrorists to enter our country at will, would now surely have been opposed most adamantly by Reagan. He would have led the charge for a “fence” and new immigration policies.
Reagan battled a “spending” Congress. They, like the California legislature, would not relent in their deficit spending at the expense of our national defense and security. Subsequently, Reagan saw to it that our military was built up as a matter of priority anyway – national defense first – no matter what. That posture, while raising our deficit, helped to bring the Soviet socialistic system down. But the “onus” of that deficit was on the liberal social-spending politicians who refused to cut their wasteful spending.
Sadly, Pampuch advanced the notion that Reagan’s legacy is a myth and portrays him as a liberal. Her words: “… the Reagan mythology would be scorned and purveyors of lies …”, would be better used had she applied those terms to her own myth because, while pointing the finger at those she says are “playing fast and loose with the facts yet again”, she has done so herself by leaving out the dynamics, circumstances and proper perspectives which make her assertions of Reagan’s legacy somewhat beyond embellishment and has burnished her own Reagan myth legacy few people care to embrace.
When the real Ronald Reagan stands up, he’ll be found to be a conservative.
So now readers, “You have the rest of the story.”
Jim Langdon, Gilroy
The Golden Quill is awarded occasionally for a well-written letter.
