Ronald Wilson Reagan Modern Day Founding Father

Those of us who came of political age as part of the Reagan Revolution, I think, feel a special bond towards President Ronald Reagan. Like a first love you never forget, the first President you vote for after putting the first political bumper sticker on your first car must have a special place in one's memory.

It was the summer after high school that I served as a page in the Congress and had the chance to see Reagan in person. This week reminded me how many of the events I remember were actually shaped by the courageous leadership of the Gipper.

But something more than first experiences must explain, as Peggy Noonan described, the blow -- not loss -- we felt last weekend. Never before have I felt tears trying to well up while watching the TV aftermath of the death of some famous person. Why the strong emotional affect from watching the coverage of President Reagan?

What's wrong with me, I thought. I haven't even thought about him in years and we knew this was coming for a decade. But the feelings of grief were real and I wondered why.

One thing that hit me was the bittersweet happiness in watching what I can only describe as vindication -- for Reagan and the ideals for which I supported him. For some reason, the overwhelmingly positive coverage of Reagan's political career felt as if everyone was saying, "Reagan was right, and we were all right back then for believing in him." I couldn't stop feeling happy for Reagan -- and proud -- at my American hero being acknowledged as the great and historic leader he was.

And it's not just that he was right about the Soviet Union, and right about tax cuts. It's that he was right and the American America-haters were wrong about . . . America -- and the intentions of the American people.

These days, there's much talk about the divisiveness and polarization of American politics. For example, the modern Left says not only that Bush's policies are bad, higher taxes are better, etc., but that we are "bad." America is bad. Bush lied. The American soldiers are no better than Saddam's guards. The Iraqi people really aren't that much better off for our sacrifice. And it's not a sacrifice to help others anyway. It's about oil. America's no better than any other country.

And I say that's why I liked Reagan. Because he said what many of us believe -- that America is a better place. But it's not because we have more natural resources and more money. It's because the American ideals really are ideal. Freedom. Liberty. Opportunity from free enterprise. And when we act to defend against one tyranny or another, whether it's another superpower or a crackpot in the Middle East, and help others achieve these Natural rights our heart is in the right place.

Call it moral relativism; it's as if anyone's heart isn't in the right place, then the policy of a leader on that side of the argument can't claim our side is "good." With the tyrannical murderous Soviet Union, there was a good versus evil cause -- but it drove the Leftists crazy. We were no better than anyone else. Intentions either didn't matter in supporting the Nicaraguan freedom fighters or ours were no better and the Communists' iron fist rule should just continue.

But Reagon proved, and his legacy appears secure, that liberty and freedom are worth fighting for and the world is better off if the good guys win. And intentions do matter.

In the end, it doesn't have to be true for everyone in America; it only has to be true for me. I know my intentions, and I always believed in Reagan's. I know I don't want our military used to grab oil. (By the way, if they were, shouldn't gas be a little cheaper by now?) But I do approve of the use of force to support liberty and freedom around the world. And if we haven't learned by now that appeasement doesn't work with evil despots than what's the point of studying history at all.

In law school, we learned that certain points of law are "well settled." In world politics, it seems nothing ever is. America has never claimed more land after military victories though we've had many opportunities. Yet, leftists say we went to Iraq to grab oil. Would Reagan have shot down that argument more eloquently than Bush? Of course. But the principles are the same no matter how you describe 'em.

That's the leadership lesson of Reagan. Focus on the big-picture, hire good people, and both the details and results will take care of themselves.

With Bush, our closest thing to a Reagan protégé, one feels he at least aspires to do the right thing based on what's good for America and not good for his poll numbers. If the TV time this week has done one thing, it's probably given him a boost of confidence. Stick to your principles and history will be on your side -- if they were right and if you fought hard for them.

Believe in the ideals of the American founding.

It's ok love America.

That's the Reagan legacy.