Nikita Demosthenes has an interesting observation on the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush:
In the encyclopedias and history books on the shelves 100 years from now, Bush will be rightly seen as being the one to finally turn the tide of tyranny and intolerance in the Middle East toward democracy and freedom. With more freedom in the Middle East, the terrorist groups will slowly decline as their potential members get real jobs and real careers.
This has always been the answer to Middle East unrest - which the left almost never admits: we don't need to throw money at existing dictatorships, we need to foster democracy.
One hundred years from now the left will be seen to have missed the boat on this issue just like they missed the boat on Ronald Reagan's courageous stand resulting in the demise of Soviet communism.
When it comes to the actual number of people freed from tyranny, the records of President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush are unmatched in world history. President Reagan's stand against Soviet communism led to the freedom of over 700 million people behind the Iron Curtain. President George W. Bush's stand against Middle East tyranny has already resulted in the freedom of over 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Almost a billion people have tasted freedom for the first time due to these two American Administrations. When is the last time your heard an American network anchor - or a European leader - site these numbers? They're breathtaking.
We might add that the 50 million people liberated so far is a number that may well increase in the years ahead as other Middle Eastern tyrannies, Iran, for example, begin to realize that they are on the wrong side of history and begin to move toward granting their people more freedom. Or, perhaps more likely, the people begin seizing freedom for themselves.
It should also be noted that Bush is achieving this marvellous historical accomplishment at tremendous political risk to himself. There were no guarantees that the military operation in Iraq would be a success, and the outcome of that undertaking is still uncertain. Bush didn't do this because it was politically popular or expedient. He did it because he believed it was right, and if doing what was right costs him reelection then he is prepared to suffer that consequence.
This is one of the things about him that I personally find so admirable, and it certainly distinguishes him from the current challenger and any number of other focus group politicians for whom the phrase doing what's right is synonomous with doing what'll get me elected.
