| Wednesday, June 9, 2004 |
16:03 - What a difference a President makes
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22564.htm
|
(top)  |
Via VodkaPundit—this look at how bad our military was in the 70s, and how good it became in the 80s, is definitely worth reading. For its historical perspective from our 21st-century vantage point as much as for anything else.
This isn't the kind of article that will sway anyone who thinks that an army is a fundamentally ugly, dirty thing that we should keep hidden under a tarp lest we appear insufficiently meek and friendly to the rest of the world. But for people who do understand the importance of morale, leadership, standards of conduct, and true greatness and reputation in the barracks and on the battlefield, it's quite a stirring thing. When things are getting better every day, nobody likes a doomsayer.
Which brings me to my confession. Having grown up in the late '60s and early '70s, I carried some of my generation's prejudices along with me into the Army. While I realized that Jimmy Carter had been an inept president (if a good man), I didn't support Ronald Reagan in 1980. I believed that Carter remained the safer of two mediocrities. I bought into the bigotry of those who mocked Reagan as lacking the intelligence to be president.
And it's doubtless true that he didn't possess the highest IQ ever to enter the White House. That goes directly to what Reagan taught me: As we recently saw with another president, the greatest intelligence isn't a substitute for vision, courage and leadership. Above all, a president needs good instincts, guts and sound values. The world's overstocked with brilliant people who never get anything done.
Exactly. Or brilliant people who are diabolically evil.
I've long since given up considering "intelligence" to be the greatest hallmark of a person's character.
|
|
Brian Tiemann
