Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “American Presidents”

The 1980 ‘Miracle on Ice’ Presaged a Providential American Comeback Led by Ronald Reagan

Today is the fortieth anniversary of the “Miracle on Ice,” when the underdog U.S. men’s hockey team, which no one every thought had a chance, beat the world’s greatest hockey superpower, the Soviet Union, in the semifinal round of the 1980 Winter Olympics.

Two days later (Feb. 24, 1980), the U.S. men’s hockey team beat Finland to win the Olympic Gold medal.

The “Miracle on Ice” was a welcome and surprise victory that helped lift the spirits of the country at a time when America was down, and, many believed, in a state of irreversible decline.

And, in retrospect, it was clearly providential and a harbinger of the future. The win presaged the oft-stated belief by then-Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that America’s best days lie ahead.

In fact, with Reagan’s election as president, America came roaring back and experienced one of the greatest economic booms in its history, while defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Talk of national decline was eclipsed with talk of American greatness, as the country enjoyed a quarter-century of triumph and achievement arguably unlike anything it has ever experienced and likely every will experience again.

All of this may seem obvious with the benefit of historical hindsight; but on Feb. 22, 1980, the notion that America had a future worthy of its past seemed quaint and fanciful.

American Decline. The U.S. economy was mired in a deep recession; the auto industry was on the ropes, with Chrysler and American Motors on the verge of bankruptcy; and OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in the Middle East, had America over a barrel—literally and figuratively.

The Soviet Union, meanwhile, was on the march—in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Nicaragua turned communist in 1979 and El Salvador seemed destined to follow. Communist Cuban guerrillas were on the offensive in Angola, and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.

In 1956, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev boasted, “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” In February 1980, it looked, sadly, like he might be right.

In the preceding decade, the United States had suffered a series of disasters, including: the Vietnam War, Watergate, the resignation of Richard Nixon as president, oil and energy shocks, gas rationing and long lines at the pump, recessions and high inflation, Three Mile Island…

By November 1979, Islamist revolutionaries in Iran had toppled the government there and taken 52 Americans hostage. A rescue attempt in April 1980 was a complete fiasco. America looked like a pitiful, helpless giant, as even then-President Jimmy Carter seemed to acknowledge.

“The erosion of our confidence in the future,” Carter said in his important but much-derided ‘malaise speech,’ “is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.”

The malaise speech was much-derided not because it was wholly wrong in its diagnosis, but rather because Carter appeared to have no clue about how to right the ship of state and reverse America’ precipitous decline.

David versus Goliath. This was the political context in February 1980 when the U.S. men’s hockey team began its miraculous ascent.

The team was comprised of amateurs from the American heartland. Most were from Minnesota and other northern states. Some had played college hockey; but no one would ever put them on a par with their vaunted counterparts from the Soviet Union.

As Tom D’Angelo explains in the Palm Beach Post

The Soviets had won six of the previous seven gold medals in men’s hockey and were the overwhelming favorites. The team was made up of professionals who had been crushing opponents after losing to the U.S. in the 1960 Games, losing just one game in the previous 20 years.

This band of mismatched American collegians led by feisty coach Herb Brooks stood no chance against the Red Army.

“By the time of the big game on Friday, Feb. 22,” notes the Washington Examiner’s Quin Hillyer,

the American people had adopted their gritty team in a way that I’ve never seen before or since. It is not mere ex post facto gloss to say the contest was seen as being about much more than just hockey, more even than Olympic gold.

For the first time since World War I, Americans saw themselves—not just the team, but the nation—as underdogs. The young hockey squad carried the country’s hopes that underdogs still could win, that freedom could defeat regimentation, and that right could triumph. The battle seemed civilizational.

Win, of course, the Americans did. Most readers know the game story—the saves by goalie Jim Craig, the go-ahead goal by captain Mike Eruzione, and announcer Al Michaels’s immortal question, as the last seconds ran off the clock: “Do you believe in miracles?”

“Yes!” he answered… And finally, yes, we did.

This was very important, because by most lights, it would take a miracle to outstrip the Soviets in the far more consequential, geopolitical, nuclear-haunted battle of ideals and will.

The problem was that only one major presidential candidate in 1980 seemed eager to wage that battle.

His name: Ronald Wilson Reagan. The rest, as they say, is history. Reagan would go on to win the presidency, and then to inspire and lead an American economic renaissance. And, in the end, thanks to his concerted efforts, it was the United States that buried the Soviet Union.

But for most ordinary Americans, the first real glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, all was not lost, and that America could once again be great, came in the winter of our discontent in a small town (Lake Placid) in upstate New York.

There a group of unheralded but determined young Americans came together as a team to give it their all and achieve the impossible. And if they could do it, so could we. And we did.

Feature photo credit: Focus on Sports/Getty via InsideHook.

Mitt Romney’s Public Rectitude and Foresight About Russia Are an Ongoing Indictment of Trump

America made a big mistake when it failed to elect Mitt Romney President in 2012.

That thought occurred to me in light of the Senator’s courageous vote to convict President Trump on one count of impeachment (abuse of power), and in light of Russian’s ongoing and successful efforts to undermine U.S. national security interests worldwide, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.

Romney, of course, was the only Republican senator who voted to convict Trump, and his logic for doing so is convincing and unassailable

The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.

The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so.

The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders.

The President’s purpose was personal and political.

Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.

What he did was not “perfect.” No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values.

Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

Romney also had the foresight and wisdom to realize eight years ago, before most elected officials and foreign policy analysts did, that Russia “is without question our number one geopolitical foe.

“Who is it that always stands up for the world’s worst actors?” he explained. “It is always Russia, typically with China alongside.”

Of course, during their debate, Obama ridiculed Romney to great political effect:

When you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said “Russia.” Not Al-Qaeda; you said Russia. And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

“Every debate,” writes David Drucker, “has a defining moment—for instance, Ronald Reagan’s “there you go again” in his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter. In 2012’s debate on foreign policy, Obama’s barb, and Romney’s failure to recover, was it. Romney’s momentum evaporated in an instant.”

Many prominent Democrats, Drucker notes, have since acknowledged that Romney was right. Most notable among them: Madeleine Albright—a top Democrat on foreign policy, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, and an Obama supporter.

“I personally owe an apology to now-Senator Romney, because I think that we underestimated what was going on in Russia,” Albright said during a [Feb. 26, 2019], House Intelligence Committee hearing” as reported by ABC News’ Cheyenne Haslett.

Russian Aggression. Of course, ever since Trump was elected, Democrats have talked incessantly about Russia’s attempt to interfere in our presidential election by sowing disinformation, animosity and confusion.

This, obviously, is a legitimate concern; but much more significant, I think, is Russia’s increasingly bold and brazen attempts to displace the United States as an arbiter of international affairs, while expanding its influence at our expense and the expense of our friends and allies.

The New York Times‘ Eric Schmitt reports:

Russia is intensifying a pressure campaign on U.S. military forces in northeastern Syria following the American withdrawal from much of that area ahead of a Turkish cross-border offensive last fall, American military and diplomatic officials say.

Russian military personnel have increasingly had run-ins with U.S. troops on highways in the region, breaking agreements between the two countries to steer clear of each other. Russian helicopters are flying closer to American troops.

And on Wednesday, a U.S.-led convoy returned fire after it came under attack near a checkpoint manned by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who are backed by Russia.

American officials say these actions by Russian personnel and their Syrian allies are devised to present a constant set of challenges, probes and encroachments to slowly create new facts on the ground and make the U.S. military presence there more tenuous.

About 500 American troops remain deployed in Syria with a mission to protect oil fields and help fight remnants of the Islamic State.

To be sure, Russia is a second-rate power with a weak economy and a weak military. However, it does have nuclear weapons and sophisticated niche capabilities in select areas such as electronic warfare and air defense.

And Russia has played its weak hand extraordinarily well. It also has embarked upon an ambitious military modernization to achieve its geo-strategic objectives, which include expelling the United States from the Middle East and separating America from its European allies. 

Russia does not want a direct military confrontation with the United States, since that would be suicidal for them.

Instead, Russia aims to conduct an ongoing but low-level campaign of harassment of U.S. military forces: to make our presence in Syria untenable and force our withdrawal.

Unfortunately, the Russians are pushing on an open door. Trump, after all, has made clear many times throughout his presidency that he wants out of Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East more generally.

Trump’s weakness quite literally invites Russian aggression.

Obama-Trump Weakness. In fairness, Russia’s reemergence as a military and diplomatic power in the Middle East began under Obama, when he failed to uphold his red line on the use of chemical weapons by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and then welcomed the Russians into the country to help settle the Syrian civil war.

But Trump has continued Obama’s policy of appeasement by abandoning U.S.-controlled-territory there, thus giving the Russians greater leverage and control over Syria.

And it’s not just Syria, but Libya as well, where American weakness and indecision have emboldened the Russians, enhanced their influence, and undermined U.S. national security interests. 

“Russia first rose to prominence in Libya in September 2019,” notes Foreign Policy magazine’s Anas El Gomati,

after it deployed mercenaries to the front lines of Tripoli to back [Libyan warlord Khalifa] Haftar, sparking concern in the United States and Europe that the Kremlin had finally thrown its hat into Libya’s civil war.

Its presence in Libya was strikingly reminiscent of the decisive role it played in Syria, where it backed the regime of President Bashar al-Assad to brutal effect and essentially saved the regime from collapse.

“Putin is clearly angling for access to oil and military bases on the Mediterranean in a resource-rich country at the gateway to Africa and on NATO’s southern flank,” wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as reported by Guy Taylor in the Washington Times.

This is something that a President Romney, with far greater strategic vision and public rectitude than either Trump or Obama, never would have allowed.

Indeed, Romney in 2019 would have realized, just as he did in 2012, that Russia’s gain can only come at our expense; and that abandoning key allies in the Middle East and North Africa is both morally wrong and a recipe for strategic disaster.

He also would have realized, as he does now, that the public trust is sacred and must never be shredded for personal political gain. That, after all, is not putting America First; it is putting America to shame.

Feature photo credit: CNN.