Panic is setting in among the
Darwinists. Even as diverse forms of Darwinist theory have become the enforced
orthodoxy of naturalistic science, the fragile house of evolution is in big
trouble—and the Darwinists know it.
Evidence of the Darwinists’
panic is seen in an editorial published in the November-December 2003 edition
of The American Biology Teacher. In
this editorial, scientist Marshall Berman goes after proponents of “Intelligent
Design” [ID] who have been poking giant holes in evolutionary theory over the
last several years.
Berman is apoplectic. His
article reveals not only the febrile anxieties of materialistic science, but
also the fact that the secular worldview goes far beyond matters of science—and
evolutionary theory is the foundation of an understanding of everything from
the origin of the universe to matters of morality and politics.
As Berman warns, “consciously
or unconsciously, they [proponents of Intelligent Design] are jeopardizing the
nature of science itself, our education system, and even our form of
government.” Scared yet?
Berman’s article needs to be
read with a soundtrack of militant music in the background, announcing the
onslaught of the cultural crusade. He warns that those who reject evolution and
argue that the universe shows unmistakable signs of having been designed by
intelligence, “do not understand that the cause many of them promote would, if
successful terminate many of the freedoms that they and we currently enjoy.”
Terminate many of the freedoms that we currently enjoy? What in the world is
Berman ranting about?
Over the last several years,
proponents of Intelligent Design have achieved considerable success in
embarrassing the proponents of evolutionary theory, demonstrating the failures
of evolutionary “science,” and persuading school boards to present evidence for
Intelligent Design along with purported evidence for the theory of evolution.
The edifice of Darwinism has
been cracking for decades. In reality, the classical theory promoted by Charles
Darwin—especially dealing with the mechanics of evolution and natural
selection—has been discarded long ago. Contemporary evolutionary theorists are
really “neo-Darwinists” whose various versions of Darwinian thought seek to
move beyond Darwin’s own proposal in order to deal with shifts in the
scientific worldview. Evolutionary theorists have no
common idea of how evolution works, or even how much time has been involved in
evolutionary progress on earth. They argue among themselves over the
fundamental principles of the evolutionary process, and their only shared
conviction is absolute opposition to anything that threatens the hegemony of
evolution in the academy. Berman’s article is the latest evidence of the
intellectual insecurity and Stalinist oppression that marks today’s
evolutionary science. Nevertheless, Berman’s nightmarish warnings are so out of
line with reality that one can only characterize his editorial as evidence of
an irrational anxiety attack.
Consider this sentence: “It
is time for those who cherish our republic and our freedom to take a strong
stand against those who would prefer a theocracy, not in Iran or Afghanistan,
but in the United States.” The opponents of evolutionary theory are theocrats?
What lies behind Berman’s claim that proponents of Intelligent Design want to
create a theocracy?
In documenting his charge,
Berman points to the website of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science
and Culture. According to the Institute, “the theory of intelligent design
holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best
explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural
selection.” Does that sound like a manifesto for theocracy?
Berman goes on to explain
that advocates of intelligent design “claim that scientists have a naturalistic
bias in that ID is scientific and not religious, despite the fact that it does
not provide any description of the designer, nor any mechanistic model by which
the design was effectuated.”
Where does Berman stand on
the most basic question of the origin of the universe? He clearly rejects any
validity of the biblical account of creation. According to Berman, “evidence
conclusively demonstrates that the Genesis account is not a scientifically
valid theory for cosmology, geology, physics, or biology.” All intelligent
persons are convinced of that fact, Berman would have us think. Keep in mind
that Berman’s editorial was directed toward high school biology teachers.
Of course, Berman’s larger
fear is that the theory of Intelligent Design will continue to grow, gain
adherents, and influence public policy.
He strikes at the very core
of Intelligent Design theory: “They do not accept the essence of science, the
foundation that has made it so successful as a special way of learning about
the world: science as the search for natural causes for natural phenomena.”
Intentionally or
unintentionally, Berman has pointed to the most basic issue that divides
naturalistic science from the rest of us. For over a hundred years, the
dominant scientific establishment has been moving toward an enforced orthodoxy
of naturalism, materialism, and secularism. According to this worldview, the
universe is a closed box that can be understood only on its own terms—with
everything inside the box explained only by other matter and processes within
the same box. The box itself is explained as a cosmic accident, and
naturalistic science allows no place for a designer or a design in the entire
cosmos.
Of course, the evolutionists
remain frustrated that the vast majority of Americans simply will not buy this
theory. Even though they are not credentialed scientists, most Americans have a
fairly good grasp of reality. As they observe the world, they are unable to
accept an explanatory theory that says that everything—from human beings to the
starry heavens above—just “happened” and came to exist without any design
whatsoever.
Berman and his evolutionary
colleagues have the temerity to accuse proponents of intelligent design—and the
vast mainstream of Americans—to be ignoring the “evidence.” What they mean, of
course, is that we will not accept their spotty and unsubstantiated trail of
fossils and missing links.
In another editorial
published in 1998, Berman claimed that “there are currently no viable
scientific alternatives to evolution.” Berman and his fellow evolutionists make
this claim by asserting a circular argument. When a scientific alternative to
evolution is presented, they deny that the theory can be scientific simply
because it rejects evolution. Evolutionary theory is now at the core of their
definition of science itself.
In their panicked response to
the cracks appearing in the evolutionary edifice, Berman and similar advocates
of evolutionary theory turn to hyperbole and name calling. Take this sentence
for example: “Creationists’ ‘evidence’ against evolution is no better than
so-called evidence that the earth is flat, demons cause disease, or the stork
brings babies.”
That sentence is a classic
demonstration of their intellectual insecurity and their habitual recourse to
circular logic. It also shows the condescension evolutionary proponents
habitually throw towards those who have the temerity to challenge their
precious theory. As Berman’s statement reveals, scientific advocates of
evolution are now so philosophically committed to their theory, that they will
accept no contradictory evidence whatsoever. All critics of evolution are simply
“flat-earthers” who believe that the stork brings babies.
This much is clear—the whole
structure of evolutionary thought is standing on shifting ground, and the
evolutionists know they are in big trouble. Given time, more and more
intelligent Americans will see the failures of evolutionary theory and the
nihilism that stands at its intellectual base.
Nevertheless, Berman’s
editorial shows that the problem is far deeper than anything addressed by
science. This is a spiritual battle and the arguments over evolution have as
much to do with morality and politics as with fossils and natural phenomena.
Evolutionary
theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional
morality. If
human beings are not made in the image of God, and if the entire cosmos is
nothing more than a freakish accident, morality is nothing but a mirage and
human beings—cosmic accidents that we are—are free to negotiate whatever moral
arrangement seems best to us at any given time. Human
life has no inherent dignity, morality has no objective basis, and we are alone
in the universe to eat drink and be merry before our bones join the fossil
record and we pass from existence.
Marshall Berman and company
see the growing influence of Intelligent Design and the crumbling of
evolutionary orthodoxy as a threat to everything they know and cherish. Writing
to high school biology teachers, Berman makes his point clear. “Recognizing the
threat is only the first step. All scientists, as well as teachers, parents,
and citizens need to get involved in local and state efforts to develop strong,
unequivocal science standards, to insure high-quality textbooks, to improve
science education at all levels, and to engage in politics as the need arises.”
Berman is calling Darwinists
to the barricades, but the more they write and talk, the more ground they lose.
As an intellectual argument, evolutionary theory is in big trouble.
==============================
The modern world is in a
headlong rush to bury the remnants of the Christian conscience. The
post-Christian character of contemporary western culture is most clearly
evident in the rejection of biblical ethics in favor of moral relativism. Most
persons believe that morality is simply up for grabs.
We must honestly face the
fact that this post-Christian morality is deeply rooted in a subtle form of
atheism. Though most Americans habitually claim a belief in God, and even some
form of Christian identity, Americans order their lives as if God does not
exist. Otherwise, we would be required to care what God thinks, obey what God
commands, and submit to His authority—or fear and face the consequences. It
seems that millions of Americans claim to believe in a god they do not fear.
There is precious little fear
of God evident in modern life. Biblical morality is dismissed as antiquarian,
repressive, and intolerant. Of course, the only way to be understood as
contemporary, progressive, and tolerant in this culture is to forfeit any claim
to know what is right or wrong.
Simon Blackburn, professor of
philosophy at the University of Cambridge, celebrates the death of God as the
source of human liberation. The disappearance of God, he says, is by no means a
threat to ethics. “It is a necessary clearing of the ground, on the way to
revealing ethics for what it really is.” What it really is, according to
Blackburn, is a negotiated morality and a human search for meaning. What ethics
is not, he would explain, is a studied consideration of what the Creator
expects of His creatures.
Without God, Blackburn
instructs, we must make our own laws. This argument is the central thesis of
the modern moral revolt. With Friedrich Nietzsche, modern philosophy declared
that God is dead. Since God does not exist, morality is nothing more than a
human construction. Since morality is our own construction, we can deconstruct
and reconstruct a morality more to our liking. We are our own judges, our own
umpires, and our own gods.
This explains the deep roots
of today’s moral rebellion. There is very little moral consensus on the most
important ethical issues of the day. Americans are divided over issues as basic
as the sanctity of human life, the basic structure of sexual morality, and the
integrity of the family. Issues of fierce political debate range from abortion
to homosexuality, euthanasia, embryo research, genetic therapies, and a host of
new moral quandaries. Confusion is the order of the day.
Nothing can be taken for
granted. The moral revolutionaries have made great gains in the political
sphere, in the schools, and in the courts. The media elite is largely committed
to their cause, and the selfish individualism of our culture makes the nation a
fertile ground for moral revolution.
As the late Christopher Lasch
noted, “The contemporary climate is therapeutic, not religious. People today
hunger not for personal salvation . . . but for the feeling, the momentary
illusion, of personal well-being, health, and psychic security.” That is,
people want a feel-good morality that affirms them as basically good, excuses
their immoral acts as “indiscretions,” and confirms their basic assumption that
right and wrong are mere matters of opinion.
This basic shift in the moral
foundation of the society explains why a moral recovery will not be easily or
quickly accomplished. The moral revolution has been underway for decades now,
and most living Americans have been drinking deeply from the poisoned wells of
secular moral reasoning. No God, no fear, no judgment—no problem.
In the midst of this moral
confusion, our Christian task is to recover a biblical moral grounding, to live
like redeemed people, and to help a fragmenting society pick up the pieces.
The first task is
biblical recovery. Too many Christians
live out of the world’s moral wisdom, rather that the wisdom of God as revealed
in the Scriptures. The Bible presents us with a moral framework embedded in the
Gospel, and directs our lives to an obedience that glorifies God and leads to
true human happiness.
Second, we must
live before the watching world like redeemed people, demonstrating the joyful
and liberating freedom of living under God’s rule by grace. Our churches must be seen as communities of believers
growing in grace—living out the moral authenticity of the Christian life.
Third, we must
help a fragmenting and hurting society to pick up the pieces. Love of neighbor compels us to seek the good of
others, even when they will not seek it for themselves. Christians are sinners
saved by grace. By grace, we can help others to find moral sanity on the other
side of confusion and rebellion.
The same-sex marriage issue
presents the Church with a challenge of monumental significance. We must
rebuild and sustain a moral context and an entire worldview in which a defense
of marriage makes sense—a world in which same-sex marriage would be literally
unthinkable.
Our task is the Scriptural
recovery of ethical courage and moral clarity. This is no small task in a world
that doesn’t even know the difference between good and evil. Then again, we
don’t get to choose our own battles.
==============================
In every generation, the
church is commanded to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the
saints.” That is no easy task, and it is complicated by the multiple attacks
upon Christian truth that mark our contemporary age. Assaults upon the
Christian faith are no longer directed only at isolated doctrines. The entire
structure of Christian truth is now under attack by those who would subvert
Christianity’s theological integrity.
Today’s Christian faces the
daunting task of strategizing which Christian doctrines and theological issues
are to be given highest priority in terms of our contemporary context. This
applies both to the public defense of Christianity in face of the secular
challenge and the internal responsibility of dealing with doctrinal
disagreements. Neither is an easy task, but theological seriousness and
maturity demand that we consider doctrinal issues in terms of their relative
importance. God’s truth is to be defended at every point and in every detail,
but responsible Christians must determine which issues deserve first-rank
attention in a time of theological crisis.
A trip to the local hospital
Emergency Room some years ago alerted me to an intellectual tool that is most
helpful in fulfilling our theological responsibility. In recent years,
emergency medical personnel have practiced a discipline known as triage—a process
that allows trained personnel to make a quick evaluation of relative medical
urgency. Given the chaos of an Emergency Room reception area, someone must be
armed with the medical expertise to make an immediate determination of medical
priority. Which patients should be rushed into surgery? Which patients can wait
for a less urgent examination? Medical personnel cannot flinch from asking
these questions, and from taking responsibility to give the patients with the
most critical needs top priority in terms of treatment.
The word triage comes from
the French word trier, which means “to sort.” Thus, the triage officer in the
medical context is the front-line agent for deciding which patients need the
most urgent treatment. Without such a process, the scraped knee would receive
the same urgency of consideration as a gunshot wound to the chest. The same
discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the Emergency Room can also
offer great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present age.
A discipline of theological
triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency
that would correspond to the medical world’s framework for medical priority. With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of
theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological
priorities found in current doctrinal debates.
First-level
theological issues would include those
doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among
these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full
deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority
of Scripture.
In the earliest centuries of
the Christian movement, heretics directed their most dangerous attacks upon the
church’s understanding of who Jesus is, and in what sense He is the very Son of
God. Other crucial debates concerned the question of how the Son is related to
the Father and the Holy Spirit. The earliest creeds and councils of the church
were, in essence, emergency measures taken to protect the central core of
Christian doctrine. At historic turning-points such as the councils at Nicaea,
Constantinople, and Chalcedon, orthodoxy was vindicated and heresy was
condemned—and these councils dealt with doctrines of unquestionable first-order
importance. Christianity stands or falls on the affirmation that Jesus Christ
is fully man and fully God.
The church quickly moved to
affirm that the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ are absolutely
necessary to the Christian faith. Any denial of what has become known as
Nicaean-Chalcedonian Christology is, by definition, condemned as a heresy. The
essential truths of the incarnation include the death, burial, and bodily
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who deny these revealed truths
are, by definition, not Christians.
The same is true with the
doctrine of the Trinity. The early church clarified and codified its
understanding of the one true and living God by affirming the full deity of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—while insisting that the Bible reveals one
God in three persons.
In addition to the
Christological and Trinitarian doctrines, the doctrine of justification by
faith must also be included among these first-order truths. Without this doctrine,
we are left with a denial of the Gospel itself, and salvation is transformed
into some structure of human righteousness. The truthfulness and authority of
the Holy Scriptures must also rank as a first-order doctrine, for without an
affirmation of the Bible as the very Word of God, we are left without any
adequate authority for distinguishing truth from error.
These first-order doctrines
represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and a denial of
these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity
itself.
The set of second-order
doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing
Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement
will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize
themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become
evident.
Second-order
issues would include the meaning and mode
of baptism. Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, fervently disagree over
the most basic understanding of Christian baptism. The practice of infant
baptism is inconceivable to the Baptist mind, while Presbyterians trace infant
baptism to their most basic understanding of the covenant. Standing together on
the first-order doctrines, Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each
other as believing Christians, but recognize that disagreement on issues of
this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or
denomination.
Christians across a vast
denominational range can stand together on the first-order doctrines and
recognize each other as authentic Christians, while understanding that the
existence of second-order disagreements prevents the closeness of fellowship we
would otherwise enjoy. A church either will recognize infant baptism, or it
will not. That choice immediately creates a second-order conflict with those
who take the other position by conviction.
In recent years, the issue of
women serving as pastors has emerged as another second-order issue. Again, a
church or denomination either will ordain women to the pastorate, or it will
not. Second-order issues resist easy settlement by those who would prefer an
either/or approach. Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers
take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding
of the church and its ordering by the Word of God.
Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and
remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most
of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category. Christians who
affirm the bodily, historical, and victorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ
may differ over timetable and sequence without rupturing the fellowship of the
church. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of
issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of
matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of
more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without
compromise when third-order issues are in question.
A structure of theological
triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less
than full seriousness. We are charged to embrace and to teach the comprehensive
truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There
are no insignificant doctrines revealed in the Bible, but there is an essential
foundation of truth that undergirds the entire system of biblical truth.
This structure of theological
triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of
doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into
account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful. The error of theological
liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the
church’s treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit
that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat first-order
doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal
ambiguity is the inevitable result.
Fundamentalism, on the other
hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism
is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus,
third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are
wrongly and harmfully divided.
Living in an age of
widespread doctrinal denial and intense theological confusion, thinking
Christians must rise to the challenge of Christian maturity, even in the midst
of a theological emergency. We must sort the issues with a trained mind and a
humble heart, in order to protect what the Apostle Paul called the “treasure”
that has been entrusted to us. Given the urgency of this challenge, a lesson
from the Emergency Room just might help.
==============================
Today’s state funeral for
President Ronald W. Reagan offers an historic moment of reflection for the
American people. Central to that should be a renewed appreciation for the
founders’ vision of the presidency as a uniting force for leadership in the
nation.
Reflecting on this, several
vital leadership lessons emerge from the legacy of Ronald W. Reagan. Even as
historians and scholars attempt to measure the Reagan legacy and its
contribution to the nation, these lessons serve to remind us of Reagan’s
greatness, and of how he restored confidence and luster to the highest office
of the land.
1. The Power of Ideas. As has often been acknowledged, some individuals seek
elected office in order to be something; others seek the office in order to do
something. Ronald Reagan was a doer, and he was driven by a clear set of ideas
that animated his life, shaped his decisions, and fueled his passion.
Critics continually attempted
to convince the American public that Ronald Reagan was something of an “amiable
dunce,” simply parroting the lines given him by his handlers. Nothing could be
farther from the truth. Ronald Reagan developed the core ideas of his political
philosophy as he made his transition from a Roosevelt Democrat to the great
leader of the Republican Party. His ideas were established in an assumption
that the American people should solve their own problems, that government is
more often the problem than the solution, that subsidizing unproductive
behavior would lead to unproductive results, and that America should
steadfastly defend its interests in the world for the cause of freedom.
The publication of two
volumes presenting Reagan’s letters and radio messages, most written in his own
hand, indicates the fertility of Ronald Reagan’s mind and the firm and
energetic power of his ideas. This reality stands at the core of Ronald Reagan’s
leadership in America and on the world scene—he was driven by ideas
passionately held and boldly defended.
2. The Grounding of Conviction. Ronald Reagan’s ideas were translated into deep
conviction. This was a man who knew himself, was comfortable in his own skin,
and was driven by a deep convictional commitment to the ideas he held and
taught to the nation. This was not a man who had to scramble to determine how
he would answer a reporter’s question or address a new challenge. Ronald Reagan
operated out of a deep reservoir of conviction that served both as a steadying
ballast and a source of energy for his leadership.
In essence, this meant that
Reagan’s commitment to his political philosophy and worldview were not only
matters of the head, but of the heart. This quality of conviction separates
mediocre leaders from great ones, for greatness is impossible apart from
conviction.
3. The Imperative of Communication. By any measure, Ronald Reagan deserved his reputation
as the “Great Communicator.” His gift for the use of language and voice,
combined with a compelling presentation in an animated style, led Reagan to
success in Hollywood and later on the global scale of international affairs.
Leadership finds its essence in influence, and influence requires
communication. In the end, leadership can only take place when ideas and
convictions are transferred from one mind to another.
Reagan was a master at
communication, both in person and on the television screen. His background as
an actor was, no doubt, a great asset in this respect. Nevertheless, it was
Reagan’s ability that explained his success as an actor—not the other way
around.
Leaders must learn that
communication is an irreducible part of the leadership challenge. An individual
of bold ideas and deep conviction who is unable to communicate those realities
to others is no leader, no matter how brilliant. Reagan dominated the
communications media of his day, offering a model to other leaders of what can
happen when a convictional leader rises to the communication challenge. Ronald
Reagan came alive in front of a camera, a microphone, or a crowd. He
communicated confidence, even before he communicated his powerful ideas.
4. The Urgency of Energy. From the beginning, Ronald Reagan was a man in motion.
As President, Reagan communicated this energy by his own physicality, by his
confident stride and his obvious health and vigor. All this was even more
remarkable, given the fact that Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency at
age 69, when many men have already entered a period of retirement.
Reagan’s personal energy was
also demonstrated time and time again as he took reporters to his ranch outside
Santa Barbara and showed them how to split rails, chop wood, and handle horses.
Many of these observers were themselves a generation or two younger than the
President, but Ronald Reagan wore them out with his seemingly boundless energy.
More importantly, Reagan
transferred that energy into his political leadership and statesmanship. He
brought serious ideas to the table and presented them with energy, forcing
Congress to pass his legislation and disciplining an out-of-control
bureaucracy. As biographer Edmond Morris commented, Ronald Reagan was a “force
of nature.”
5. The Charisma of Confidence. In one of the great moments of American political
theater, Archie Bunker of television’s “All in the Family” debated his liberal
sister-in-law, Maude, about the presidential leadership of Franklin D.
Roosevelt. Archie had just zinged Roosevelt as a big-spending liberal when
Maude responded, “That man had charisma!” Archie quickly responded, “I don’t
care if the man was sick.”
Well, charisma is no
sickness, nor is it an inexplicable gift. Whatever charisma is, Ronald Reagan
had it, and had it big. But in Reagan’s case, that charisma was deeply rooted
in his personal confidence.
Ronald Reagan’s unique
charisma explains how he could convey his ideas and passions so freely to other
people. Some persons influenced by the “Reagan touch” later reflected that they
were not sure why they agreed with the President, they just knew that they did.
The President’s confidence was contagious, and it conveyed to the nation a
sense of optimism and purpose in the world.
6. The Role of Symbolism. When Ronald Reagan entered the Oval Office for the
first time, he set a style and standard that endured throughout the eight years
of his administration. President Reagan never entered that historic room
without wearing a coat and tie. He was usually seen in tailored suits, cut to a
traditional pattern and reflecting the gravity of his office. His crisp white
shirts, his French cuffs and links, and his graceful body language reasserted a
symbolic seriousness to the presidency.
That style was extended to
everything from the way a platform was arranged when the President spoke, to
photographs showing the President surrounded by the symbolism of flags,
American eagles, and other patriotic symbols. Ronald Reagan set out to show the
nation once again how a President should look and should present his stature
and office to the world. This was a key secret to Ronald Reagan’s leadership,
statesmanship, and impact on the nation and the world.
7. The Gathering of a Team. From his earliest years as governor of California,
Ronald Reagan pulled together a constellation of outstanding men and women who
would serve with him throughout the remainder of their lives. His
administration in California included officials like Casper Weinberger and
Edwin Meese, both of whom would later serve as Cabinet officers within the
Reagan administration. Beyond this, Reagan continually pulled in some of the
nation’s most gifted and capable leaders, making them key members of his
personal team and blending a unique assortment of gifts, abilities, and
interests into an administration that changed history.
Great leaders inspire
confidence and have a knack for hiring and attracting the right individuals to
fill out a leadership team. Few have understood this so clearly as did Ronald
Reagan, and to such lasting effect. Today’s funeral and related events will be
a reunion of sorts for those who are the veterans of Team Reagan. If they had
the opportunity, we can be certain they would do it all over again.
8. The Importance of Allies. Ronald Reagan understood that, as President, he occupied
the most powerful office in the world. At the same time, he knew that both he
and his nation would require critical allies on the world stage. Nothing
symbolizes Reagan’s ability to cement relations with allies more than his
relationship with Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s “Iron Lady” and Reagan’s great
friend. As Thatcher was later to reflect, “As soon as I met Governor Reagan, I
knew that we were of like mind, and manifestly so did he. We shared a rather
unusual philosophy and we shared something else rather unusual as well: we were
in politics because we wanted to put our philosophy into practice.” Their first
meeting took place when Margaret Thatcher was the leader of Britain’s
opposition party and Ronald Reagan was governor of California. Later, when
Margaret Thatcher was Britain’s Prime Minister and Ronald Reagan was America’s
Chief Executive, they represented a “dynamic duo” on the world scene that was
instrumental in winning the Cold War. Great leaders develop great alliances and
forge personal friendships with great allies.
9. The Horizon of Vision. Ronald Reagan was not only the Great Communicator, he
was a leader of vision—and that vision had content. He was able to paint
pictures with words, and to construct a vision for America and the world that
was gloriously compelling. When he spoke of America’s greatness and the
nation’s role in the world, he inspired Americans to be their best, do their
best, and believe the very best about their nation. He pointed to a bold future
and gave the nation confidence that this vision could be achieved.
10. The Credibility of Character. In the end, character matters more than anything
else. As Peggy Noonan, President Reagan’s speechwriter, was later to comment:
“In a president, character is everything. A president doesn’t have to be
brilliant; Harry Truman wasn’t brilliant and he helped save Western Europe from
Stalin. He doesn’t have to be clever; you can hire clever. White Houses are
always full of quick-witted people with ready advice on how to flip a senator
or implement a strategy. You can hire pragmatic, and you can buy and bring in
policy wonks, but you can’t buy courage and decency, you can’t rent a strong
moral sense. A president must bring those things with him.” President Reagan
did bring those things with him, and they stayed with him. Even when his
opponents criticized his decisions, they could never convince the American
people that Ronald Reagan was committed to anything less than total integrity,
sacrificial leadership, and clarity of purpose.
All of these attributes, but
especially Reagan’s moral character, explain why millions upon millions of
Americans are joined together this day in a spirit of mourning, mixed with
thankfulness. Even in his death, Ronald Reagan teaches the nation the true meaning
of leadership.
==============================