"The Second Debate - Where Was Reagan's Optimism and Humor?"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Second Debate – Where was Reagan’s Optimism and Humor?”

October 5, 2023

 

“Debate: A discussion for elucidating truth.”

                                                                                                An American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

                                                                                                Noah Webster, LL.D. (1758-1843)

 

Like most Republicans, I watched Wednesday’s debate hoping for a Reagan-like figure to emerge. The venue was the library of a President who had vision, radiated confidence, optimism, humor, and compassion. Like many, I was disappointed. Haley exhibited confidence and vision but without compassion that endears politicians to voters. DeSantis had the confidence of a governor who has done well but appeared humorless. Scott exuded optimism and compassion, but without vision.  

 

Like today, in 1980 Americans did not believe in themselves. We were in a funk. A President had been assassinated seventeen years earlier; a second resigned ten years later. The Vietnam War, which bled and divided the country for ten years, ignobly ended in 1975; inflation was rampant, with high interest rates and falling real incomes. Culturally, the country was a mess. The optimism of the post-War years was gone. Early in his presidency, Reagan remarked: “What I’d really like to do is go down as the President who made Americans believe in themselves again.” That he did, and the Country, through three presidents, experienced almost twenty years of economic growth and prosperity.

 

We are living through another fallow period. The twenty-year War against Islamic Terrorism ended disastrously in Afghanistan two years ago. China is on the rise. Inflation is destroying incomes. Parents are excluded from decisions regarding their school-age children. Borders are non-existent. We are told we are a racist society, that our country was built on the backs of slaves. We are divided into oppressors and victims; and that it is okay, if one is a victim, to rampage through streets and destroy private property. Conservative speakers are not allowed on campuses. Public figures cannot define a woman, yet transwomen are allowed to compete against biological women in sports. In his farewell address to the nation, on January 11, 1989, President Reagan said, “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” Now, the nuclear family is considered passé by many. 

 

But instead of Reagan, the elephant in the room last Wednesday was Donald Trump. In 2016, Trump recognized that elitists had captured both parties, and that large swaths of the electorate felt ignored, especially working-and-middle class Americans. Ignoring a warning from Senator Schumer, he promised to drain Washington’s swamp, where politicians and bureaucrats live and thrive. As President, he was harassed by untrue allegations and unfair investigations, which impacted his administration. He accomplished a lot, but, thin-skinned and humorless, his misbehavior after his loss in 2020 gave strength to the opposition. The country, divided by the War in Iraq, the response to the credit crisis, and by Barack Obama (a man many hoped would unite us), has been riven further apart by the antics of Mr. Trump.

 

Today, driven by a desire for personal resurrection, Trump is but a sliver of what he had been eight years ago. Yet, if he succeeds in winning the Republican nomination, as now seems possible, he will, in my opinion and barring third party entrants, lead the Party to catastrophic losses next November.

 

But back to what was termed a debate: In contrast to Webster’s definition, no truths were elucidated. Nevertheless, I preferred this to the first, as there was less in-fighting and more attacks on Biden and his policies. But like the first, what we witnessed was not a debate. Dozens of questions – some good but others snide and irrelevant – were asked, each of a particular individual who was given sixty seconds to respond. Rebuttals were allowed thirty seconds. Perfect for soundbites but not for learning. Candidates spoke over one another. The result was entertaining but hardly illuminating. And it ended with a childish, game-show-like question from Dana Perino: “Which one of you, tonight, should be voted off the island?” That question elicited the evening’s best response. Ron DeSantis: “I think that is disrespectful to my fellow contenders.”

 

In 1960, two years before her death, Eleanor Roosevelt published You Learn by Living: Eleven Keys for a More Fulfilling Life. In it she wrote: “Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.”  That is true, but for the person who cherishes freedom, the responsibility to carry one’s own weight is no burden; it is a welcome obligation and opportunity. Most people prefer a person with confidence, vision, and humor, someone who looks forward optimistically. We yearn for a leader who will give us free rein, to let us succeed based on merit. Perhaps in the next debate such a candidate will emerge?