Why was the 'Gipper' significant

Did Ronald Reagan Restore America’s Reputation Post-Vietnam?

In a mirror image of today, the late 1970s was a period when America’s reputation abroad was tarnished by its interference in foreign countries, and its military was struggling to defeat an army with a fraction of the budget and weaponry. This article will focus on the impact Ronald Reagan had on the USA and the world when he entered 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Reagan was elected to the White House as a replacement for the incumbent Jimmy Carter, the ‘Peanut Farmer’ from Georgia, who ironically labelled the current President George W. Bush a ‘moron’ over his handling of the Iraq War just last week. Reagan personified everything that US voters look for when electing their Commander-in-Chief; he was bold, decisive, charismatic, and full of tough-talking rhetoric.

America’s penchant for a “big president, big personality” was embodied in the election of Ronald Reagan to the White House. His election contrasted sharply with the election of Jimmy Carter four years earlier, which had been greeted with cries of “Jimmy Who?” Carter had been elected president during a time when the US public had lost all trust in the preceding administrations due to the lies surrounding Watergate and Vietnam. In his 1976 campaign manifesto, Carter wrote, “In areas such as Pakistan, Chile, Cambodia, and Vietnam, our government’s foreign policy has not exemplified any commitment to moral principles.” A return to morality was what the American people wanted, yet once the hangover from Vietnam subsided, they felt the need to reclaim their position at the top. Carter, as president, was not the man to fill this role. The Iran Hostage Crisis made Carter appear inept, especially after the failed rescue mission in early 1980. Adding to his troubles was the ease with which the USSR invaded Afghanistan. With domestic unease over the state of the economy, it became clear why America voted for a change. When Reagan entered 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he became the most recognizable president since Dwight Eisenhower. As a former Hollywood actor, Reagan was a well-known candidate during the election run-up.

The 1980 Election

What is interesting about Reagan’s election is that, at this specific point in American foreign policy and history, the American public, overall, was reluctant to continue the post-World War II consensus. Yet they elected a president who, as Richard Melanson once wrote, “was perceived by the plurality of voters as trigger-happy and potentially dangerous.” On the fringe, it would seem to show a willingness to take a chance during a time of acute economic distress. However, one might interpret this election as an indicator that the American people are at their happiest and most secure when they are led through troubled times by a bold leader with the potential to act tough in a crisis. Let us not forget, at the time, America was in the midst of the Cold War against the Soviet Union, and, closer to home, Iranian fundamentalists had been holding American hostages for 444 days.

The Bold Republican

President Reagan’s good luck began on January 20, 1981—his first morning in office. This was the day the Iranian hostages were released. Almost immediately, Reagan was able to claim credit for restoring American pride. With the hostages released and new armaments acquired, the USA seemed free from the humiliation of the 1970s and ready to embrace the new decade. Reagan’s initial tasks in office were not dissimilar to the aims of the Carter administration: restoring the economy, national self-confidence, and, more importantly, America’s standing in the world. Nonetheless, the difference between the two presidents, and one of the main reasons why Reagan has a secure legacy in American history, was the fact that he was able to appeal to the American public using the acumen he acquired as a Hollywood actor and sports broadcaster—two very American pastimes! He relied on a simple, understandable, comprehensive, and unusually consistent political philosophy, often coupled with dazzling rhetoric, to mobilize support for his priorities.

Reagan possessed an uncanny ability to deliver lines sincerely, narrate poignant stories, and publicly show an impressive range of emotions—all firmly linked to an unwavering public philosophy. Together, these qualities helped establish him as a formidable rhetorical president.

In his 1983 State of the Union speech, Ronald Reagan said: “Individual freedom is the touchstone of good government: Government power, especially when it is centralized in Washington, is to be distrusted. Free enterprise is the key to economic and personal liberty, and the role of government is to assure equal opportunity, not to mandate results. In addition, it is the unique responsibility of the federal government to provide a strong national defence.”

Reagan’s initial priorities neatly captured these convictions. In addition to many domestic regulations, he approved funding for an accelerated defence-spending program that enhanced America’s military capabilities and began to restore national pride and international respect. Reagan played up to his “Hollywood” persona in his attempt to banish the ghosts of the 1970s to the history books. His goal was to make America bold again, rediscovering why it had become the world’s leading power. Reagan offered the American public a vision of a “genuine national community” that seemed to weave together morality, heritage, boldness, heroism, and fairness.

Ronald Reagan was able to identify with the increasing American notion that the nation was fundamentally good and decent. In Reagan’s eyes, America was a land filled with people who shared his vision of a genuine moral community and who all shared his values and common purpose. It was his ability to convey this message in an understanding manner that contributed to his personal popularity. Thus, not surprisingly, Reagan believed that this virtuous society, America, had been tasked with bringing peace and freedom to the world. In almost typical American hyperbole, Reagan believed that American foreign policy represented the goodness and generosity of the American people. He also believed that most of the world subscribed to the same norms and values as the United States. In his eyes, the last great evil in the world—the oppressive Soviet Union—could be defeated by the rising tide of democratic revolutions sweeping away the remnants of totalitarianism. Reagan’s powerful words were more than just empty rhetoric; history will show that he was the president who oversaw the fall of the Soviet Empire.

The foreign policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, compared with those of Reagan, define two sharply deviating responses to deep-seated changes in the international environment. US foreign policy in the 1970s responded to the secular decline of American economic and military power and to increasing economic interdependence. The three presidents before Reagan pursued policies of retrenchment and international economic multilateral management, which were part of an implicit overarching strategy to adjust to what they saw as the end of the post-World War II era of American pre-eminence.

In contrast, the Reagan administration initially rejected both the need for adjustment and the methods of adjustment. As noted earlier, Reagan and his cabinet’s security and economic policies were part of an explicit strategy to restore the United States to a position of pre-eminence in international affairs. Reagan aimed to use rhetoric to evoke the optimism of America in the years following World War II.

As mentioned earlier in this article, Reagan was able to appeal to the patriotic values of the American citizen. He capitalized on the weaknesses of the 1970s, a decade of limits for American foreign policy. Reagan was determined to restore America’s pride by presenting the 1980s as a decade of opportunity. The Reagan administration offered an optimistic vision, a strategy for simultaneous economic and military restoration, and economic and security initiatives that sharply departed from the direction established in the 1970s.

Reagan’s Rhetoric

“I watched Rambo last night, and I know now what to do to secure victory.”

Reagan is often discussed with a sense of starry-eyed admiration. The reasons for this are numerous. William Schneider, among others, is a leading advocate for Reagan and his foreign policy. He suggests that the reason the American public judged Reagan’s foreign policy a success was as much about what he did do, as about what he didn’t do. Firstly, it is important to note that what the administration did do was restore the nation’s sense of military security. It is worth recalling that, after the defeat in Vietnam, the nation had a very low opinion of its military. Reagan, a skilled operator, was able to portray “Hollywood” rhetoric through tough talk. His first few years in office saw no large-scale military interventions or threats to global peace.

What Reagan did immensely well was mix hawkish rhetoric with dovish conservative restraint. In the early years of his administration, many opinion polls suggested that a large percentage of the public was frightened by his rhetoric. However, as his term wore on, his actual record in office reassured a nation that had been on edge during the latter half of the 1970s. The president was successful in showing the public that he was not gun-toting, reckless, or overly aggressive. The Republican administration talked tough but pursued a course of action that was moderate and cautious. As a result, Reagan was able to have it both ways: keeping the support of ideological hardliners while winning the confidence of the American people.

The reasons behind the renewed confidence in Reagan’s foreign policy are perhaps the most fascinating when considering why America felt reinvigorated by its national foreign policy in a way it hadn’t since the Vietnam War.

By the time the 1984 election arrived, the Democratic Party began running television ads that implied the president had the potential to start a nuclear war. This threat might have had an impact four years earlier, but Reagan used his first term in office to show voters that this wasn’t how his administration would operate. Once again, Reagan proved himself a masterful politician by demonstrating his ability to balance logical reasoning and caution with the undoubted strength of the military. When considering the impact of the Vietnam syndrome on the spirit of the American public, this next example provides a crucial reason why it’s a myth that America lost its stomach for war. In fact, it can be shown that the American people appreciate a clear military strategy. The Democratic Party attempted to discredit Reagan’s handling of the Lebanon crisis, but Reagan was able to demonstrate to voters that, when he realized the mission wasn’t achieving its goals, he had the courage to withdraw the troops. In the minds of many Americans, this was an exemplary display of the kind of leadership they believed was sorely missing at the end of Vietnam, which had led to all the foreign policy problems in the years following.

During the Vietnam War, pollsters regularly asked Americans whether they preferred a “hawkish” or “dovish” policy in Southeast Asia. The answer they received time and again was that “we should either win or get out.” Reagan used invaluable hindsight when committing American troops to missions abroad. Reagan became adept at cultivating an image of displaying military strength yet favouring the approach of not risking US military personnel. As befitting a man who graced the Hollywood screens, President Reagan managed to talk like Rambo while demonstrating that he understood the limits imposed by political reality.