Rendezvous with Destiny

I am always surprised at how easy it is to think of the outcome of historical events as somehow foregone conclusions. Of course, the Allies won WWII. Of course, the Civil Rights movement succeeded. Of course, Abraham Lincoln held the Union together. Of course, a handful of colonists successfully threw off British rule. They happened, therefore they were inevitable.

Part of that is that we look back with clearer vision. But another part is that we determine what is significant from the outcome. Those living before the outcome, however, had no such guide.

So of course, it is tempting to say that Ronald Reagan had to beat Jimmy Carter in 1980. Carter was weak, Reagan was, well, Reagan. But to say that would be to let the outcome determine how we view the campaign.

This is where Craig Shirley is helpful. His book Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America, gives a blow-by-blow of Reagan's 1980 campaign for the White House. Shirley, a former Reagan aide and campaign worker, has done extensive research into the details of the Reagan, Carter, Bush, Kennedy, Anderson, Connally, and others' campaigns for President that year. This is his second book on a Reagan campaign, the first being Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All, about Reagan's failed 1976 primary challenge to President Ford.

If detail on the politics and maneuvering of this monumental election is what you are looking for, this is probably the definitive source. Shirley captures both the high-level rhetoric and the daily grind of politicking. In fact, the level of detail is one of the greatest drawback of the book. At 600 pages, it includes so many asides and secondary stories that, at times, the overarching narrative disappears. It would have been a better book had a hundred or so pages been edited out.

Nonetheless, it is the story of what happened. The story of how an campaign that had been a toss-up all summer, and which one week before looked tilted in favor of the incumbent, ended up being a landslide the other direction. It's a story of strategies, victories, errors, and bungles on both sides. Of the confusing muddle of elections. And most of all, how little in history is a foregone conclusion. This is an important volume to add to the library of anyone seriously interested in significant historical campaigns.

In closing, I'll leave you with clips of the NBC and CBS election night coverage. Although all the networks had anticipated it being a long night, the election was called for Reagan at 8:15 p.m. EST, before the polls were even closed in the western states. Reagan went on to win the electoral college by a margin of 489 to 49. Carter only won the states of Minnesota, Georgia, West Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.

Click here for more book reviews.

Hero or Villain

Last year, on one of my business trips, I gave a talk on heroes. Since then, that short lecture has probably generated more conversation than any of my other speeches. Generation Joshua even did a blog series on heroes, loosely based on my talk. One question I still get is: what makes a hero? To answer that question, I’d like to journey back a few years to my time at college. During that time, AIM was big and my screen name was TheB1ackPrince. Several people asked me why I would choose a name like “the Black Prince.” 

First, on the Black Prince:

If you’re not the kind of person who likes to read about medieval British wars, you may not know who the Black Prince was. He was the Prince of Wales during the 14^th century, and was famous for turning the odds in battles and grasping victory from the jaws of defeat. He is also infamous for commissioning the Massacre of Limoges, an incident involving the death of around 3,000 Frenchmen. Given this, why would I use the name of someone so clearly flawed?

As I’ve said many times before, I don’t think that my heroes need to be perfect. In fact, I like it when they have lots of flaws; if they can do great things with their faults, I might be able to do something even with all of mine. At the moment, many heroes come to mind, each with many weaknesses (sins).  King David is undisputedly a biblical hero, one we should look to with admiration and respect. He, however, also fell—and fell far—despite being a man after God’s own heart. Does that disqualify him from being a hero? No! He’s still a hero in my book; he’s still a hero listed in the New Testament.

Then, I look at other heroes: I admire Martin Luther King Jr. and his great work to fight racism in America, and I mourn his personal failings. I esteem President Reagan and his amazing triumphs in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and I lament his failure to have real friends. I read about President Lincoln and the way he almost single-handedly held my country together, and at the same time I learn about his family failures. I revere the upright honor of Robert E. Lee, but I grieve his choice to fight for the South that cost so many lives. I stand amazed at the words and ideas put forward by Thomas Jefferson, while at the same time, I bewail his utter lack of self-restraint to live out his ideals of virtue and freedom in his own life.

Do these varied shortcomings disqualify these men as heroes?  No, not at all.  God used each of these men to do great things that still impact me today, years later. They made choices just like we do. Sometimes they made the right choices and sometimes they were the wrong ones. But I choose to learn from and be inspired by the good things my heroes did. I look at myself, and see many shortcomings. But I hope that, despite my blunders, I can struggle onward and leave a legacy, much as my heroes did.

If you want to point out the errors of my heroes: go right ahead. And if you want to do the same to my errors: that works too. I know I have many flaws, and I make many mistakes. God, however, is a merciful God who will use me despite my shortcomings.

Heroes come in different shapes and sizes. But if they inspire you to fight on and do what’s right, then they have done their job. I guess the next question is: are you going to let your flaws turn you into a villain, or are you going to rise above your faults and inspire others by defeating the villain within you and becoming a hero?

Post by Jeremiah Lorrig

What is a Republican?

The Republican Party wins presidential elections when they successfully unite three groups:

1.    Fiscal conservatives.

2.    Social conservatives.

3.    Foreign policy conservatives.

I am shocked by recent movements within the GOP; some are actively trying to oust one or another of these groups from the winning coalition.

Recent attacks on this coalition started in 2007. Against the backdrop of the war weariness that had begun to set in, Congressman Ron Paul began a systematic effort to drive foreign policy conservatives out of the party. No one running for president, least of all John McCain, wanted more war. But Paul continuously attacked his primary opponents as being “pro-war” and began to divide the party. Paul wrapped his arguments in appeals for peace, philosophical jargon about Just War Theory, and endless name dropping about the separation of powers.

The funny thing is that, at face value, all these arguments are great. We all agree that peace is better than war. Although there are disagreements about details of Just War Theory, most agree with the concepts behind Just War principles. Finally, if there is an advocate for returning to a proper application of Constitutional law, I am their ally. But Paul used these winning arguments to attack a position that is not at odds with any of these principles. He worked relentlessly to tear down anyone advocating a traditional understanding of conservative foreign policy and insinuated that anyone with such views was unqualified to serve as president. This approach would disqualify even Ronald Reagan (and that shows a serious weakness in the position). Paul tried to persuade people that a conservative foreign policy is antagonistic towards peace, justice, and constitutionally. Not only is this not true, Paul’s efforts at spreading his belief also hurt the tripartite coalition that upholds the GOP.

The second attack on the coalition that I have seen recently is aimed against social conservatives. The argument: social issues distract from the “real issues” and Republicans need to come to a truce with the Democrats, holding off on social issues until the “real issues” are dealt with. This position was most openly advocated by Governor Mitch Daniels.

Daniels is neither as talkative nor as persistent as Paul. He hasn’t elaborated on the underpinning thought of his “truce”. This makes it hard to respond to his views in detail, but his willingness to drop the social issues entirely shows that he doesn’t value the unity of the coalition. The idea that the social conservatives should be quiet and go along with the fiscal conservatives without getting anything is an affront to all partnership.

The third attack is a small but growing (especially among Evangelical Youth) group that wants to break up the winning coalition by dropping the economic conservative branch of the Republican Party. They want to take George W. Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism” to a new level. Their argument is still gelling, but it currently looks something like this: “We need to take care of people in our communities and the government is a way to do that.” Some argue that capitalism has failed and paying a little more in taxes isn’t all that bad. The bottomline is that those crazy Tea Party people are just greedy and maybe the Occupy Wall Street people are right after all.

All of these attacks on the coalition are falling into the same trap: each group thinks that they are the only ones who matter in the Republican Party and they insist on absolute purity in their candidates. Let’s look at Reagan again because both Paul and Daniels cite him as an inspiration: He believed in fighting Communism outside our borders and would have failed Ron Paul’s foreign policy test. He was pro-choice as Governor of California but became one of the strongest pro-life voices in America when he ran for president (during a severe economic crisis that was so bad fuel was strictly rationed). So much for Mitch Daniels’s “truce.”

Finally, Reagan was against government programs that tried to help people because the programs simply didn’t work. He promoted the phrase: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'” Yet his economic reforms set a new record for the longest peacetime economic expansion. This cut unemployment in half, helping the poor by allowing them to work - consistent with the principle of teaching a man to fish instead of just giving him a fish. And Americans’ standard of living increased 20% while Reagan was in office, showing that sound economics results in helping people better than any government program ever has. When the whole coalition works in harmony, as they did with Reagan, spectacular things happen.

I don’t agree with every plank in the Republican platform and hope that some things will be changed in the next 5 years. But the fact is, if we want to win, we need to stand together and not act like a bunch of hooligans fighting over a life raft. If we throw each other off the raft no one will be left to paddle us all to shore. But if we work together, we can not only survive but all make it home to a huge dinner that we can all enjoy. 

Post by Jeremiah Lorrig