President Reagan’s centennial this year is a good opportunity to remember what sort of a man he was, what he achieved and the era in which he lived. This is particularly true for Central Europeans. His contribution — which was a significant one — to the fact that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe live in freedom today should never be forgotten, but it is also appropriate to use this occasion to discuss the present.
Reagan used to speak and write about what is and what will be, rather than about what used to be, although he did recall the past and draw lessons from it. He often reflected on James Madison and his warning in 1788 that, throughout history, “Freedom has been most often taken from the people not in armed clashes but in the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power.”
These words are relevant for today’s European reality, although they do not like to hear this in Brussels. That is why, when they celebrate Reagan, they only recall his Berlin speech and the fall of the Iron Curtain.
You will not hear from them about democracy, freedom or elections, let alone about the defense of capitalism or the free market. They are not saying the European Union should do less, or that what Reagan used to say about the American federal government holds true for the EU as well: that it is often the problem, not a solution.
They do not criticise the omnipotence of the European Court of Justice. They do not discuss the need to reduce EU legislation, the power of the Commission and the number of its officials.
They compare their number with the number of government employees in the member states, and if they do want to reduce anything, it is the powers of the member states and their governments themselves.
They do not aim at creating a federation: Their ambition is to create a European Union without states, in which nations will be a historical relic. The very word “nation” is not politically correct in today’s European Union, because it relates to a clearly defined demos, with its historically given territory, its past, traditions, distinctiveness and uniqueness; an entity that has its own interests and with which the citizens identify. This is something of which Reagan was always proud and that he always awakened in the Americans.
The year of Reagan’s centennial is a time when politicians in the EU are trying to deal with the consequences of the economic crisis. They all celebrate Reagan, but they are tackling the crisis in a manner against which Reagan warned.
They wrongly assume that the crisis was primarily a market failure, and that any future crises can be prevented by greater government intervention in the economy.
Instead of abolishing useless restrictions and repealing thousands of pages of regulations and directives that stand in the way of the economic growth, they are trying to come up with new ones.
This year is also the year of the war in Libya. Reagan detested Col. Moammar Gadhafi and he considered him “one of the worst terrorists in the world.” Reagan was not among those who shook hands with Gadhafi or had their pictures taken with him in a friendly hug, only to call for his resignation four months later and send fighter jets against his troops.
His dislike for Gadhafi, especially after the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, did not come from some momentous attempt to divert attention from domestic problems, or from an attempt to make himself more visible before an election campaign.
For some politicians in Europe today, the war in Libya is a substitute topic. It does not originate in their contempt and long-term denouncements of Gadhafi. It originates in a feeling they did not have four months previously.
According to his former speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, “The biggest misunderstanding about Reagan’s political life is that he was inevitable. He was not. He had to fight for every inch, he had to make it happen.”
He did not believe in a destiny that will come about no matter what we do. He believed instead in a fate that will befall us if we do nothing. Today’s world is no less complicated than Reagan’s era.
The difference is that there is so little of Reagan in it. There are plenty of shortsighted politicians and too few statesmen who have the backbone, ideals, long-term vision and sense of direction that were Reagan’s finest qualities.
Jir? Brodsk? is deputy director of the Foreign Affairs Department in the Office of the President of the Czech Republic.
