When I tweeted last night about my delighted that Ronald Reagan was being honoured with a statue in London I wasn’t at all surprised to receive some negative feedback. As one person remarked:
“haha u shouldn’t joke like that, it’s a Sunday”
As with any politician, Ronald Regan has his detractors. Particularly on the left of the political spectrum. And yet, for all the shrill cries of opposition today, one can’t ignore that Reagan was a force for unity in his own time. Consider for a moment that he defeated Jimmy Carter with 489 electoral college votes to 29 on the back of a popular vote majority of over 10 million (carrying all but three states). Compare that to Obama’s 2008 election where the electoral college vote split 365 to 173 with only 28 states falling into the victor’s column.
And when it came to his re-election, Reagan’s victory was all the more convincing: he secured 525 electoral college votes to Walter Mondale’s 13, carried 49 states and secured a popular vote majority of almost 17 million! And he did it by winning the support of not just Republicans and independents, but millions of Democrats as well.
Reagan was a unifying force, with an incredible gift for communicating his vision with clarity. He stood against the forces of communism with steadfast resolve, and defeated them without, as Lady Thatcher famously pointed out, without firing a single shot. One can only wonder how the Cold War might have resolved itself if Jimmy Carter had still been in the Oval Office.
Ultimately, Reagan demonstrated that capitalism is the greatest force for the proliferation of freedom the world has ever known. And for that alone he deserves to be honoured.
Comments
Ed Simpson / July 04 2011 11:25am
Shane, you were meant to be explaining why it was right for the UK to be honouring Reagan. All I see is how he unified America. Why, exactly, does that mean we, in this country, should honour him?
Also, how else do you win a Cold War? Surely a Cold War can only be won without firing any shots?
Shane Greer / July 04 2011 11:58am
I'd say winning the Cold War was enough to justify the honour. As for your point about the Cold War, the fact no shots were fired is incredible. There were any number of occasions when it could easily have descended into all out war.
Anon / August 03 2011 7:53am
Below are two quotes from Wikipedia, if they are true then it would seem that the USSR was destroyed from the inside, thus effectively starting the end of the Cold War.
Reagan was just fortunate to be the recipient of the political consequences of Gorbachevs reforms by the simple fact that he was in power when Gorbachev was, so to say he won the Cold War and mention nothing of Gorbachev is very misleading and unfair to Gorbachev as he was risking his career and maybe his life in acting the way he did.
From Wikipedia:
"The Soviet Law on Cooperatives, enacted in May 1988, was perhaps the most radical of the economic reforms during the early part of the Gorbachev era. For the first time since Vladimir Lenin's New Economic Policy, the law permitted private ownership of businesses in the services, manufacturing, and foreign-trade sectors. The law initially imposed high taxes and employment restrictions, but it later revised these to avoid discouraging private-sector activity. Under this provision, cooperative restaurants, shops, and manufacturers became part of the Soviet scene."
"In contrast to his controversial domestic reforms, Gorbachev was largely hailed in the West for his 'New Thinking' in foreign affairs. During his tenure, he sought to improve relations and trade with the West by reducing Cold War tensions. He established close relationships with several Western leaders, such as West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—who famously remarked: "I like Mr. Gorbachev; we can do business together."