Like most reading this, I was alive in the 1980's, even old enough to have an interest in politics, yet I don't quite recall the almost divine creature that I keep encountering in conservative, and even some liberal, writing. I recall a man by the name of Ronald Reagan, who was an admirable president, but I don't recall the near divinity of the same name I keep encountering in modern commentary. But apparently there was another being of the same name whose every act is the model upon which all of our current politicians should be judged. In fact, so admirable was he that both liberals and conservatives of today apparently supported him in the 1980's. As I recall members of both groups opposing the man named Reagan, obviously this divinity must be someone else.

Of course the divinity, Saint Reagan, is simply the man colored through hindsight. No longer forced to actually deal with the real person, conservatives, and even some liberals, have turned him into a paragon of virtue. Gone are all the human foibles. Gone are all the mistakes. Gone is any inconsistency. All that is left is the speaker's vision of their ideal politician.

Which leads to some odd conversations. For example, rather than arguing the merits of invading Iraq, we will see supporters of Iraq arguing that Reagan was strong on defense, while isolationists argue that Reagan would not have invaded a sovereign nation. One will pull out Granada, the other Lebanon. But what these neo-scholastics forget while they debate how many Reagans could dance on the head of a pin is that it does not matter what Reagan would have done, what matters is what is right. Reagan, admirable as he was, was a human, made mistakes, even admitted as much. He nominated O'Connor and Kennedy, the man could clearly make mistakes. So to argue what he would do is to argue what a fallible human would do. The point of such debate escapes me.

Having said all that, I still wish Reagan had never withdrawn the marines from Lebanon. For several reasons. First, it gives smug isolationists the ability to argue "well Reagan was opposed to intervention". Second, it allows smug Democrats who support surrender in Iraq to argue "well Reagan withdrew from Lebanon".  Of course neither of those arguments really matter, as our foreign policy should not be based upon what Reagan did but what is in our national interest now. However, it does mean that the opposition can raise yet another worthless argument and we need to waste time explaining why we do not care.

However, both of those annoyances are nothing compared to the actual harm done by the withdrawal. I know it will upset some of the members of the Order of Saint Reagan, but by withdrawing from Lebanon, Reagan set the stage for the terrorists of today.

Think about the world before Carter. The US had faced little terrorism, because we responded with force. The Philippine insurgency at the beginning of the century, incursions during the Mexican civil wars, the Mayaguez incident, all had been dealt with decisively by the US. Even if we did not always succeed we had not dithered, we had responded with force. Which tended to send the message that terrorism was useless against he US, and that kept terrorism against us to a minimum.

Carter broke with that trend and established the modern trend of hesitation followed by impotent military action. With his handling of the hostage crisis in Iran, Carter sent the message to the world that the US would allow terrorism to incapacitate it, and that any military response would be half-hearted and useless.

Reagan had a chance to turn that around, to say that was only an aberration of the Carter administration, and that the US was a strong as ever. He gave every sign of strength, and it appeared that the Carter legacy would be nothing but a memory. That is until the bombing of the marine barracks. His first reaction, the moving of the marines offshore to a safe location, was valid, an acceptable solution, and would have done nothing to harm the image of the US. However, the next step, the complete withdrawal of the marines, was not so innocuous. Whether it was militarily justified, whether it was strategically valid, none of that matters. What matter sis that it sent the message that when facing terror bombings the US would back down.

Following Reagan's show of weakness, terrorism began to escalate against the US. Yes, this did eventually lead to Reagan's attack on Lybia in response to yet another terrorist bombing, but by then it was too late, the damage was done. Reagan had shown that terrorism could work, perhaps not consistently, but it could achieve its goals. And his successors, especially Clinton with his "police" approach to terrorism, drove that message home. The terorists learned that the US would not only bow to terrorism, but could be completely crippled by a well timed attack.

Of course, all of this is lost in the modern veneration of Reagan. As I said, the use of Reagan as shorthand for whatever the speaker thinks the political ideal should be has made intelligent debate of Reagan's shortcomings almost impossible. And that is a shame. The man deserves much better than to be turned into an icon, with his record distorted to suit whatever cause is adopting him at the moment. He was likely the best president of the twentieth century, but he was also a human, and fallible as all men are.

Perhaps one day this veneration will pass and we will once again be able to look realistically at the close of the twentieth century. I think when we finally do, and accept Reagan as a human being, we will be able to see what a remarkable man he was.