Reagan’s speech at the Goldwater convention in 1964 was a masterpiece. The great society, the not so civil rights movement, the counter-culture, and the new left all held the cultural stage. Yet, here was this man, speaking plain, simple truths, to a movement that the elite did not take seriously, planting the seeds of sanity in the mess that became the 1960’s.

I have asked myself this question over the last several days: was Reagan a great man ? One thing I do know, he was at the FULCRUM of almost every major event of his time. He did not get into this position by accident. I just watched a TV clip where Reagan said a leader does not need to do great things, or be great, but he needs to get the people of the Nation in position to do great things. He did that, and more. Today, Americans are again pondering his life and words. I think, lookng back, he was a greater man than I thought he was, and I always thought well of him.

But in his speech at the 1992 Republican convention, he said that America is “an empire of ideals.”

One of the unique things about Reagan’s ideology, as a columnist pointed out today, was that while he was a conservative who based himself on traditional sounding ideals, he located the fulfilment of those ideals in the _future_. Thus he could be both a conservative and an optimist.

I don’t know what Mr. Hagan means about Reagan being at the fulcrum of every event of his time. Obviously, as president, Reagan was at the center of things, but does Mr. Hagan mean something more than that?

There are two figures I know of who seemed to be at the center of every important event in their lifetimes: Washington and Churchill.

From age 22, when he commanded the unit that fired the opening shots of the French and Indian War (which of course set the stage for the Revolutionary war), to becoming the commander in chief of the Continental Army when he was its only member and thus the leader and symbol of American unity from June 1775 onward, to pushing for a national government in his circular letter to the states in 1783, then promoting a new Constitution, then chairing the 1787 convention; then being first president. That’s just the barest outline of course.

Churchill through his long career prior to becoming prime minister seemed to occupy every conceivable cabinet position just when that particular job was at the center of the action. (Forgive mistakes of details in the below.) Thus he first became famous in his 20s as a journalist in the Boer war when he was captured by the enemy and escaped and wrote a book about his adventures; then as a young MP he switched from the Conservative to the Liberal party just before the Liberal party won a huge electoral victory in 1906, which assured his career; then he was the Home Secretary under the Liberal government involved in passing the progresive era legislation; he was Secretary for Ireland (or whatever the post was called) when Irish independence was being worked out; he was First Lord of the Admiralty from 1911 to 1915 and thus was heading the British navy for the first year of the Great War, then his political career crashed temporarily because of his support for the disastrous Gallipoli invasion; then he joined the army and served for a while in the trenches in the Western front; then he became Minister of Munitions for the rest of the war; then after the war as Colonial Secretary he drew the borders of the modern Middle East; then in the 1930s he was the leading voice for re-armament against Hitler. Whenever something big was happening, Churchill was at the center of it.

Yet for all that most Americans know about him, it’s as though Churchill popped into existence in 1940 at the age of 65 when he became Prime Minister.

Re: Churchill - and don’t forget his Iron Curtain Speech in the U.S.A. at the start of the Cold War.
Also, Churchill was a great proponent of the Anglo-American special relationship, and his mother was American. Giving a speech to the U.S. Congress, Churchill confidentially assured them that, if his mother had been British and his father American, he would be addressing the U.S. Congress as a member! And really, can you doubt it?

Before Reagan got into politics he was involved with the actors union, and the communist infiltration of that industry in the 40’s. In the 50’s Reagan started to speak out for capitalism and freedom and was noticed by the likes of Ayn Rand. In the 60’s, as Governor of California, Reagan was on the ground as that State faced campus chaos from the radical left. And of course we know the rest of his story. I would not put Reagan in the same league as Churchill, but he seems to be a larger, and more important historical figure to me now that I look back over time.

Or how about this? Churchill warned his country to prepare for the war with Germany before it occurred, led his country during that war when it did occur, and afterwards wrote a six volume history of the war.

I know you have removed post by me in the past but I hope you allow this one to stand. As I have said before I am not an American, nor am I religious, nor am I a Republican by any stretch of the imagination but I thought you might like an opinion of “Ronnie Raygun” from the other side of the pond. I have great respect for President Reagan, I think he was certainly one of the best presidents you have had for many years before or since. He was well respected in my country and even if you didn’t see eye to eye with him on his policies you had to respect him for the way they were presented. You were always left with a firm feeling that those policies were at least well thought out and you could have confidence that all contingencies were in place if things didn’t go to plan. Contrasted with the current president, and I do not mean to turn this into an anti bush thing, the differences are alarming.

Churchill and Washington were great men, but had the advantage(?) of living in time of great turmoil, Reagan would have been in the same class as these gentleman had events during his presidency been as dramatic as the revolution or WWII (I for one am glad that he didn’t have to prove it)

So in closing I’m sure that I speak for the majority of my fellow countrymen when I pass on my sincer sympathy to our American friends during this time of mourning. 93 is a good innings and probably it is a relief for his family given his affliction in the latter stages of his life, but still, Ronald Reagan RIP

One admirable aspect of Churchill’s career has gone unnoted- namely, his efforts, unfortunately failed but magnificient, to destroy the Communist menace at the start by giving as much help as possible to the Whites in the Russian Civil War.