Happy Veterans Day from a Cold War Veteran

I am a veteran of the U.S. submarine force from the Cold War era.  I never saw combat, thank God.  All Americans should be thankful for that as well, because the kind of combat for which we were prepared was to launch nuclear missiles at our adversary in retaliation for a strike against the United States.  That we never saw combat is a testimony to the effectiveness of our national strategy of deterrence and the credibility that our nuclear forces had the ability to carry out the strategy.  The results of all out nuclear conflict would have been devastating, of course; but it is little understood that even though millions would die in a strike, most people would survive, only to die slowly from starvation and radiation as the national economic infrastructure collapsed.

However, my personal hero, Ronald Reagan, embarked on a mission to convince the Soviets Russians that they would never surpass us militarily and that our technology would ultimately prove superior.  His leadership restored the professionalism of our armed forces and I am utterly convinced that we had the superior technology, training and discipline to prevail.  That we prevailed in the Cold War is the ultimate form of victory.  Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War, would agree:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

So enjoy the freedom and prosperity that our victory in the Cold War achieved on this Veterans Day and thank God that He has provided leaders at critical times in our history like Ronald Reagan.

Presidential Temperament?

Yes.

No.

The big headline on the Drudgereport is that the President walked out of a meeting with Eric Cantor regarding debt limit negotiations. The President is wrapping himself in the flag, claiming that the Republicans are refusing to compromise. Nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans are willing to increase the debt limit by the exact amount of spending cuts that the President and the Democrats are willing to cut spending by. Seems reasonable to me. From Politico:

Obama told Cantor that he would either have to agree to tax increases or give up on his demand that the debt hike be matched dollar-to-dollar to the cuts — that is, $2.5 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years in exchange for a $2.5 trillion hike in the debt ceiling.

Problem is, the GOP’s vowed not to raise the debt ceiling by more than the amount in total cuts and a $1.5 trillion debt-ceiling hike won’t get us past the election next year. That makes The Perpetual Campaigner unhappy, so either the GOP will have to step back from its vow or O will have to agree to deal with the debt ceiling again — just a few months before election day, when the incentives on both sides to hold out will be even greater than they are now.

So despite the President's rhetoric that he will sacrifice his presidency over this, one can only hope, the real issue is that he doesn't want this as a campaign issue in 2012, so he won't go for any deal that doesn't push the next debt ceiling debate beyond November, 2012, with cushion to spare. It has been widely reported that Obama said that "Ronald Reagan wouldn't sit here and take this." How true; in the 1980s, Reagan reached out to Dan Rostenkowski to cut deals on tax code simplification and rate reductions that led to real growth in the economy. He didn't sit back and wait to the eleventh hour to jump into the fray with politically charged rhetoric designed to deflect criticism. William Daley, an old Chicago pol, who probably knew Rosty, should get Obama to refrain from comparing himself to Reagan, its too easy a target.

Obama was elected in no small part because of his supposed bipartisan tone suggested a willingness to independents that he would work in good faith with Republicans on pressing issues in trying times. He has certainly lost whatever good will he may have had by his consistently nasty tone, whether towards the opposition or the "fat cats with corporate jets." As Lexington points out in The Economist:

Why is bashing the rich such an unpopular form of populism in America? The normal answer falls back on culture. Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution notes that Americans are repelled by the notion of inequality in worth or status. That men are created equal is, after all, “self-evident”. They are, however, far less perturbed by unequal wealth, a form of inequality that is the inevitable product of the free-market system in which most still profess an abiding faith.

Obama has shown himself to be a captive to his left wing base on issues where it was most important for him to be open to negotiation. How a man could ignore the base and his campaign promises regarding overseas wars, but never cross them on anything domestic, at first boggles the imagination. But then consider this, Obama never actually does anything which reduces the size of the government, not even something like cutting military spending.

Programming note. Sorry for the dearth of posts lately, continued health problems are slowing me down.

Bay Bridge Poll Closed

The poll on whether to rename the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge for Ronald Reagan is closed. An almost majority, 50%, favored keeping the name the same for the sake of tradition, only 20% favored making the change. I voted "not sure," for the record. Time to look for a freeway to name after Reagan, which seems to be more our tradition.


Regardless, all my readers seem pretty fond of the former President and great American.

Over at sdrostra.com Vince Vasquez is claiming momentum for the change.

Renaming the Coronado Bay Bridge for Reagan

Well, officially, the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. There is an effort underway to rename the bridge after former President Ronald Reagan. Great, I'm thinking, honor a great American. There is also a counter effort underway to prevent the name change. David Klowden is heading the counter effort:

“I started this page because I don't want the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge renamed the ‘Ronald Reagan Memorial Bridge,’ he writes on his Facebook page. “I know there are many San Diegans who agree with me that this effort by a very partisan right wing individual to politicize a non-political local landmark is unnecessary. Please help me protect the name of the bridge ….”
. . .
Klowden does not see this as a liberal-conservative issue. “This city has a tradition of not having traditions” he said. “When it comes to preservation, I’m fairly conservative.”

So what do you think? At first, I was pretty miffed and it seemed like a typical leftist reaction to the greatness of Reagan. But I also thought, in 1987, San Diego voters voted to restore Market Street to its original name after a short spell as Martin Luther King Way. I'm also still miffed about the Murph being renamed after a local firm beginning with the letter Q. Is this issue so different?

Contrariwise, its only a bridge, not a piece of San Diego history, the way Market Street was. And supposedly serious coin, to the tune of $18 million, changed hands to get the name of Jack Murphy Stadium changed.

What do you think? Please vote in my poll.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com. (Where my career might be short lived, judging by the comments on my last article.)

Happy 100th - Ronald Reagan

Although late in the day, I would like to acknowledge what would have been the 100th birthday of that great American, Ronald Wilson Reagan today. For my part, his legacy consists of two important strands. First, he refused to accept the inevitably of communist triumph. People forget that up to that time, communism had greatly expanded the portion of the globe it controlled, and many of our ruling elite felt that its triumph was foreordained. Reagan recognized that communism was very fragile and would come apart eventually if challenged. His push for "star wars" and the manner in which he challenged the Soviet Union contributed to its eventual demise. The world is a vastly better place for it. We should never forget the hundreds of millions who have died due to the scourge of communism.

Second, Reagan understood that a simplified tax code with low rates would encourage economic growth. Further, although he did not roll back the regulatory state, he stabilized its growth. The certainty that business faced also contributed to growth. He did this in spite of a Democrat controlled Congress. He reached out to Dan Rostenkowski, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, to craft a bipartisan revision to the tax code that benefited America.

Thank you Ronald Reagan, we miss you.

I leave you with excerpts from his famous speech in 1964 at the Republican National Convention that nominated another great American, Barry Goldwater.

A Conservative Vision Statement

I blogged earlier on the need for an inclusive agenda for the Republican Party to distinguish ourselves from the socialist rot afoot. Vision statements put such agendas in context. Over at American Thinker, Christopher Chantrill lays out the case for a Conservative Vision Statement. First he quotes Reagan, always a good start in my book:

I will lead America towards that shining city on a hill, because America is "still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom" whose best years are yet to come.

Then he lays out the case that the vision must be economic, political and cultural. The final product is pretty good.

We believe in an America that lives and works together, with limited government, under God.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? In fact, some serious thought has gone into its elements. Please read the whole article. Let me know what you think, or comment on his post as well.