Early1980: Scroll back to a moment twenty-four years ago in Brussels, Belgium. I’m on a university field trip to NATO headquarters. Someone asks whether there is any hope of rolling back communism.

An official laughs. Dumb question.

Summer 1988, just over a year before the fall of the Wall: on a train rolling through Poland on its way to Warsaw. “You’re American?” “English.” Smiles, handshakes, out come the beers, and then the toasting starts. “Thatcher. Reagan. Thatcher. Reagan.” Hours later we all pour out onto the railway platform.

And no, it’s no longer a dumb question.

Thank you, President Reagan.

“As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.”

And then this:

“And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.”

I don't know why I'm writing you this, other than the fact that I can't get a hold of anyone close to me that I can talk about the effect of Reagan's death with. I guess it's the feeling of friendship which evolves when one follows the career of public figures whom he admires. You guys and gals don't know me from Adam, but I feel I know NRO somewhat, so I wanted to share my feelings on this bittersweet day (I say bittersweet because, as sad as this day may be, in the touched-on "Irish wake" manner, there is a great celebration and remembrance of Reagan's life, which can't help but bring a smile to my face while tears are rolling down my cheeks).

Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States of America for the majority of and the most important formative part of my childhood. Born in 1976, I was just old enough to have real memories by the time he came to the Office. He was President from the time I was four until I was twelve, and I can honestly say I don't remember first hand a single speech, a single act, a single specific event that he was involved in. I was too young for specifics. What I do remember was knowing that I was a child in the United States of America, and that Ronald Reagan was my President. I remember from my earliest days knowing great joy and pride that I was a child in the United States of America, and even then I knew that in part he was to be credited. I remember seeing snipets of speeches and events and viewing the man with awe. At the time, the awe was mainly for the Office, not the man. In the fifteen years I've lived since he left office, I've come to replace my awe of President Ronald Reagan with an even greater awe of the man Ronald Reagan.

"It's morning again in America". How beautiful a turn of phrase that is. And it was true. We had wakened from a dark night of scandal, malaise, and distrust to re-elect and re-affirm a man with strength, character, vision, and faith. A man who knew the battles he wanted to fight, and would compromise outside these battles but fight to the end when he knew he was right. A man who conveyed his joy and love and faith in our country to the rest of us, who looked up and understood that we *were* the "shining city on the hill". That we should stand up and rejoice, for we were Americans, and we should thank God that this was true. That we had hard times and hard battles ahead of us, but we should never, ever, lose sight of the simple fact that America is the "last, best hope for mankind" and worth all the praise and love we can shower upon this great nation.

Reagan made us see this. He made us proud again to be Americans. With his quick, wry wit, his personal warmth, his strength of character, and his unshakable faith in the ideals of America he changed our world for the better. I offer my solemn prayer that he now rests in the hands of the Creator, comforted by the knowledge that the country he loved so much offers love to his memory, condolences to his family, and eternal gratitude for his vision and determination.

May he rest in peace.

Brian Mulhall

From a reader:

Jonah,

This will perhaps sound cheesy, but I've always thought of Reagan as America's Gandalf. If you read the Silmarillion--and pay careful attention to passages about Gandalf in LOTR--you learn that Gandalf is a figure sent to bring hope, encouragement, and wisdom to Middle Earth as it faced it's Great Enemy:

“Other evils may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." --Tolkien, LOTR (Bk. V, Ch. 9, p. 190).

"They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." -- Ronald Reagan

I was about 11 years old when Ronald Reagan took office and I will never forget the enthusiasm, the courage, the childlike joy that he conveyed to, and surely instilled in, my heart.

Best wishes to you & your family,
[Name withheld]

From a reader:

I'm a 26-year-old former Marine, and I like to think of myself as a reasonably tough guy, yet I've found myself blubbering, off-and-on, since I first read of President Reagan's death on the Corner. I think it's hitting me especially hard because Reagan was one of my first heroes. I wrote off the news of his troubles yesterday, because it seemed like the same stuff that's been said for the past ten years. Ironically, that made it a bigger shock when the end finally came.

I looked up the text of the "Win one for the Gipper" speech and I've read it a couple of times. Well, cliche as it may be, right now it seems like the team is up against it, and the breaks are beating the boys. Hopefully in November, we can win one more for the Gipper. I'm pretty sure I know where he'll be then, and I know he'll be happy.

BTW, I also prefer the Fox News Irish Wake coverage as well, if you're taking a survey.

Thanks for your time,

So classy. So Tim Noah.

I really don't mind or object to negative appraisals from liberal journalists on the ocassion of Reagan's death. I just think it says a lot that the only thing thing they can muster is this, without anything else. (See link below).

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

A bit of perspective on the Irish wake approach. I still remember from
my late brother-in-law's funeral what the priest said about mourning.
My brother in law had fought a 10 year battle against a brain tumor. In
those 10 years he managed to get an MBA, a college teaching position,
and father a child with my sister (something that many in both families
still consider a miracle). The priest said that the grief was for us,
because Dan's pain was over, and he was in a better place. We grieve
for ourselves, for the separation from a soul we love, but we shouldn't
be afraid to laugh and joke as we remembered Dan and celebrated his
life. The wake is a celebration of the departed soul's life, and a
farewell party. The mourning, that is for our loss.

Without comment:

For Immediate Release

June 5, 2004

Statement from Senator John Kerry on the Death of Ronald Reagan

Boston, MA - Senator John Kerry released the following statement today:

"Ronald Reagan's love of country was infectious. Even when he was breaking Democrats hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate. Despite the disagreements, he lived by that noble ideal that at 5pm we weren't Democrats or Republicans, we were Americans and friends. President Reagan and Tip O'Neill fought hard and honorably on many issues, and sat down together to happily swap jokes and the stories of their lives. The differences were real, but because of the way President Reagan led, he taught us that there is a big difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship.

"He was the voice of America in good times and in grief. When we lost the brave astronauts in the Challenger tragedy, he reminded us that, 'Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.'

"Now, his own journey has ended-a long and storied trip that spanned most of the American century-and shaped one of the greatest victories of freedom. Today in the face of new challenges, his example reminds us that we must move forward with optimism and resolve. He was our oldest president, but he made America young again.

"Our prayers are with his family, and the wife he loved in a way all the world could see. And to the end, she loved him with courage and complete devotion. She helped all of us better understand the cruel disease that took him away before it took his life, and what we must do to prevent and cure it.

"Teresa and I and our family extend our deepest sympathies to Nancy Reagan and the Reagan family. Today, from California to Maine - 'from sea to shining sea' - Americans will bow their heads in prayer and gratitude that President Reagan left such an indelible stamp on the nation he loved."

The Captain announced President Reagan's death about three minutes after I saw the headline on Drudge, then the Corner. It was the shortest time the Captain has ever spent on the 1MC (the intraship speaker system). He just said what a great President he was and a great man. I sincerely hope there will be a memorial service out here in the next couple of days.

I began my military life under Reagan as a cadet at the Air Force Academy. Then I served most of my active duty time under Bill Clinton. How happy I am to be on the inaugural voyage of the USS Ronald Reagan.

From Dutch by Edmund Morris:

“Many years later, I asked Gorbachev the question that tantalized me that morning: what he saw when he looked up into Ronald Reagan’s eyes.

“Sunshine and clear sky. We shook hands like friends. He said something, I don’t know what. But at once I felt him to be a very authentic human being.”

“Authentic? What word is that in Russian?” I asked the interpreter. He was startled to be addressed directly, and shot Gorbachev a nervous look.

“Lichnost. It is a very difficult word to translate because it means ‘personality’ in English. Or ‘figure,’ but in the dignified Italian sense, figura. But in Russian its meaning is much bigger than in these languages: a lichnost man is someone of great strength of character who rings true, all the way through to his body and soul. He is authentic, he has…”

“Kalibr,” said Gorbachev, who had been listening intently. He is so intuitive that he can follow dialogue without vocabulary.

“I know what kalibr is, Mr. President, “ I said. “We have the same word in our language.”

R.I.P.

By the way, from what I heard, NPR's coverage was very tasteful if at times awkward in that the hosts of the special coverage seemed awkward in searching for language to describe his legacy in relatively uncritical terms.

Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.

If, as we are reportedly told, there is such a strong case against passive smoking why do those who trumpet its dangers feel it necessary to tell so many lies? Here’s a spokeswoman for the UK’s Royal College of Nursing:

“…there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.”

Just think about that statement, just for a second, and you know it’s not true. That’s a pity, I always thought you could rely on nurses for straight talk. It seems not.

CNN:

"While federal law prohibits a person from seeking a third presidential term, the Constitution does not specify whether or not a former commander in chief can become vice president."

U.S. Constitution, 12th Amendment:

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I am doing a review of Jagdish Bhagwati's new book [In Defense of Globalization: and looked up his bio. Despite the fact that he and his wife are both Columbia professors and the fact that his daughter graduated with a degree in English from Yale, he notes in his bio that his daughter is now a lieutenant in the U.S. Marines. Based on education and parentage, it's hard to imagine a more unlikely person to join the Marines. Also, given the prevailing winds in academia (especially in New York), it's touching to see this fact listed in his official university bio. Might be worth mentioning [in The Corner].

Question: "...under what circumstances is a foreign national subject to American criminal law when acting in a foreign country?"

Possible answer: "When we catch him?"

Several readers have points along these lines:

Jonah - I would like to point out in Josh Marshall's defense that he never call's the idea racist, and does concede that it is true ("That's true of course. But what's the point exactly?").

His concluding sentence:

"nestled down deep in this argument is some sort of perhaps unconscious
notion that the Dems are just hopelessly sucking wind ..."

is changed by Nick Confessore to:

"the equivalent of saying "the Dems are just hopelessly sucking wind
among real voters and thus have to resort to padding their totals with
blacks.""

which seems a little unfair to me. In fact, it appears that Josh
Marshall's take on the issue ("well duh, of course Democrats are
dependent on Blacks") is totally different than Nick Confessore's take
("it is racist for a conservative to use the word Black"). Perhaps I am
being too generous to liberals, but this looks more like a case of one
idiot liberal saying something stupid than a general liberal problem.

Nick Confessore writes:

A couple of months ago, there was some rightfully ticked-off chatter in the blogosphere regarding the stupid and quasi-racist notion that, quote, if it weren't for the black vote, the Democrats would be nowhere. (The clearest example of this came a couple of years ago from CNN analyst Bill Schneider, who explained on-air that Democrats were so "dependent" on the black vote that without them, the 1992 and 1996 elections would have been nail-biters and George W. Bush would have won an overwhelming electoral victory over Al Gore.) Josh Marshall nicely paraphrased this as the equivalent of saying "the Dems are just hopelessly sucking wind among real voters and thus have to resort to padding their totals with blacks." It's a dumb thought experiment in the sense that, of course if you strip either party of a big voting constituency, they would be less competitive. And it's quasi-racist in the implication that African-Americans somehow don't or shouldn't count.

I just don't get how it is "quasi-racist" to point out or discuss the fact that the Democratic Party is heavily dependent on black votes. Seriously, I just don't get it. Nothing in what Confessore or Marshall writes really backs that up. Are the Washington Post, National Journal, New Republic, New York Times et al all "quasi-racist" because they've run numerous pieces on the role of the black vote in the Democratic Party? Or are only conservatives who point this out "quasi-racists"? (Of course Bill Schneider is hardly a conservative).

How many blacks have I heard say that the Democratic Party has a "plantation mentality" toward blacks, are they all racists too?

The same week that Julian Bond delivers a speeech clearly intended -- as usual -- to scaremonger blacks away from even considering staying home or -- shudder -- voting for the opposition, Confessore tells us it's quasi racist to even note the central role of blacks to the Democratic Parties electoral strategy? I don't recall conservatives ever calling the Tapped crowd religious bigots merely for noting the GOP's reliance on the religious right. Nor do I recall charges of sexism being bandied about when the "gender gap" was a major issue.

Maybe the more logical and less knee-jerk interpretation of the "Dems rely on blacks" analysis has to do with the fact that, as a group, blacks are way to the left of the "vital center" of American politics and so in order to appeal to them, never mind energize them, the Democratic Party needs to adopt positions it might otherwise not? Or maybe it's a way of pointing out that the Democrats have a problem with non-black voters?

The charitable interpretation is that this is nonsense. The uncharitable interpretation is that this is another example of liberals deciding that inconvenient facts should be swept under the rug with charges of racism against those who bring them to light, or that white liberals are somehow empowered to to decide what is or isn't racist. Or both.