I really dislike Politics: Rebuttal Op-Ed Style In their recently released article titled “President Trump, you're no Ronald Reagan,” Josh Rogin intends to portray president trump as copying Ronald Reagan’s political tactics such as promoting American values, understanding security threats that face the United States and promoting defense alongside diplomacy. The point that Rogin is arguing is that Donald Trump is not the modern version of Ronald Reagan. He Bases his entire argument against this quote, “National security adviser H.R. McMaster laid out the argument that Trump is a modern-day Reagan over the weekend at the Reagan National Defense Forum, an annual convening of hundreds of top military officials, diplomats, lawmakers and mostly Republican foreign policy thinkers. He began by declaring that Trump would lead a renaissance in America’s international standing and a resurgence of American national confidence, as Reagan did a generation ago.”
The first reason Rogin argues against is that “Trump is just like Reagan in promoting American values abroad.” This quote displays how trump and Reagan have a similar way of promoting American values abroad. It is said that President Reagan described America as a shining city
…show more content…
McMaster laid out the argument that Trump is a modern-day Reagan over the weekend at the Reagan National Defense Forum, an annual convening of hundreds of top military officials, diplomats, lawmakers and mostly Republican foreign policy thinkers. He began by declaring that Trump would lead a renaissance in America’s international standing and a resurgence of American national confidence, as Reagan did a generation ago.” The point that Rogin is arguing is that Donald Trump is not the modern version of Ronald Reagan and all of his points can be proven wrong with contextual
As we move into the reelection year, the authors accuse Nancy of ensuring that Reagan hasn’t campaigned for eight months, following a “Rose Garden strategy.” But Reagan has no credible opponent for the 1984 nomination, and Walter Mondale, who will be his Democratic opponent in the general election, has not yet been nominated. So there is no need for a strategy, Rose Garden or otherwise. Of course we get the full chapter and verse on Reagan’s poor performance in his first debate with Mondale; at least we also get the report on the second debate. From there the narrative jumps to the Iran-Contra affair. A few high points — like the Berlin Wall speech in 1987 — are indeed included, but without any perspective on Reagan’s strategy, perseverance with the Soviets on arms control, or success in revitalizing the U.S. economy. Nothing is said about Reagan’s four second-term summits with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Except for a few comments that Reagan deplored Communism, this is a policy-free book, and a book
Skowornek writes, “these presidents each set out to retrieve from a far distant, even mythic, past fundamental values that they claim had been lost in the indulgences of the received order, In this way, the order-shattering and order-affirming impulses of the presidency in politics became mutually reinforcing.” (Skowornek, 37, book). These presidents are in the best position not because they are exceptional at their job but because the time they came into office offered them the elasticity and authority to make new orders and be welcomed by the public because he is taking the country out of its troubles and challenges.
The presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both exemplify a desire to reshape world affairs after the ending of the Cold War in 1991 and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union. Although the United States had unrivalled economic and power after the war, neither president sought to adopt the aggressive rhetoric of predecessor Ronald Reagan, as it was feared that this may impair relations with nations that the U.S. wanted to maintain. Both Bush and Clinton considered the fostering of positive relationships around the world hugely important on the basis that it was hoped former Soviet states in Europe and countries in East Asia would adopt a democratic political system and laissez-faire neoliberal economy much like the U.S., thereby ensuring the
And to this day, these values hold up and serve as the basis for all aspects of our country, whether it range from politics to social issues. But on September 11, 2001, these fundamental principles that stand for freedom were put into serious jeopardy by maniacal terrorists who refused to accept the progressive role that America played on a global scale. But as America slowly began to recover from this tragedy, the responsibility to lift the American spirit was left to the hands of the politicians who we ironically know to cause so much chaos and bipartisan gridlock. Nonetheless, world leaders such as Rudy Giuliani eased the pain for the American populous in a manner that called for reform in order to prevent an attack like this from ever occurring on American soil. Ultimately, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rudy Giuliani makes effective use of tone, rhetorical devices, and logical and emotional appeals to soothe the wounds that the
Reagan rose into power after years of turmoil and the American pride was dipping. About a decade before he became president, the war in Viet-Nam was winding down and the troops were returning home to negative demonstrations towards their duty. Then, during the Carter years, America transitioned into a détente policy, which meant that the United States would try to ease the tensions with the Soviet Union by not expanding the military, but not doing anything to acting ease the tension. The idea behind this became known as MAD, mutually assured destruction, (Hannaford) which meant that both the United States and Soviet Union would maintain and even number of nuclear weapons so that if one would fire, the other would be able to fire back equally. Reagan completely disagreed with this philosophy and created a whole new policy when he became president. The foreign policy he established was to create the Reagan Doctrine. According to a speech by Peter Hannaford, the Reagan Doctrine was that America would support democratic movements in any Communist country until that country could enjoy the fruits of freedom (Hannaford). This meant that the United States would help any country who wanted to leave the influence of the Soviet Union and create their own democracy. Also, to counter the Soviet Union and end the Cold War, a race between the United State and Soviet Union to create the best technology and become the world powerhouse, Reagan increased military spending. Ronald Reagan knew that the Soviet Union was unable to keep up the United States in military spending and still having enough funds to fund their own economy to keep it stable. Reagan used this knowledge to convince Congress to increase military budget to build up technology, causing the Soviets decide on what to do. The United States had the funds to continue, but the Soviet Union could not keep up. The breaking point
America is only great because the millions of God-feared people who represent it. But there is challenges that America faced, for example birth control pills permitted to underage girls. Regan completely disagree that businesses allowed underage girls to get birth control pills without parents. Parents should be involve because they are not adult yet. United States should practice on good morals because that is how the country was founded upon. The Founding Fathers permitted the First Amendment, to protect churches from government rule. Even, United States’ currency implicates, “In God We Trust”. Reagan also states the importance of schoolchildren the approval to pray in school. Abortion shouldn’t be permitted in the country, because they are still living beings. A survey was taken to question the percentage of people who had faith, which is 95 percent. But there is evilness among the world which is communism. The Soviet Union who practiced communism, don’t permitted faith in the country. Senator Barack Obama address the “A More Perfect Union” Speech (March 18, 2008) This untimely won his election presidency while he address the past history of America. During, the election Obama got criticized because he was, “too black” or “not black often”. But, states the problem is not the skin color but who is going to bring order in United States. In the past,
...speech to the world where he was quoted as saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” The speech was given at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin (“Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall: President Ronald Reagan”). This speech signified the beginning of the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. President Reagan’s foreign policy tactics are another reason why he was a great president.
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/experts/jimmy_carter.html, Revised 2/22/2011 by Steven H. Hochman, © 2011 The Carter Center. All Rights Reserved, accessed May 23, 2011
The Soviets could clearly see that when Reagan. said he wanted a "margin of safety." He meant that the United States should be. superior to the Russians. Moscow would not let this happen. They wanted equality.5 Reagan also believed in military power and respect for America abroad.
...imes when we are faced with national tragedies we are left at a loss for words. We look upon our leaders to help us through these difficult times, to have all the answers. We listen to what they have to say with vulnerability and uncertainty of what’s to come next for our country. Reagan was aware of all these factors when he gave his famous address. He was aware that in order for any argument to be considered a powerful and successful one it needs to be thought through and take into consideration the outside factors that are affecting it. Reagan’s challenger argument was one that had a clear audience, distinct setting, and finally the argument had a definite and in this case necessary purpose. By Reagan utilizing these three elements and effectively combining them he created a memorable speech that is now widely considered a masterpiece of public communication.
H. R. McMaster was a West Point graduate and attended the University of North Carolina. He was also a Gulf War veteran who commanded an armored cavalry. His desire in writing this book was to examine, through the recently declassified documents, manuscript collections, and the Joint Chief of Staff official histories, where the responsibility for the Vietnam foreign policy disaster lay, but also examine the decisions made that involved the United States in a war they could not win.
D'Souza, Dinesh. "How Reagan Won the Cold War." National Review Nov 24 1997: 36-41. ProQuest. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
While the GOP suffers under the existential reality of its meandering Frankenstein Monster (AKA Donald Trump), conservative America must come to the reality its lives with a metastasized cancer born of its 1970s/1980s "southern strategy."
Schaller, Michael Reckoning with Reagan. America and Its President in the 1980s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992
Lott Jr., John R.. At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over The Edge?. Washington DC: Regnery