Kengor Writes . . .
Paul Kengor
Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and the executive director of The Institute for Faith and Freedom at Grove City College, in Grove City, Pennsylvania, and he is the editor of The American Spectator. These essays are republished from The Institute for Faith and Freedom, an online publication of Grove City College, and The American Spectator. Paul Kengor is the author of God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life (2004); The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (2007); The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007); and The Communist — Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor (Threshold Editions / Mercury Ink 2012).
Reagan Conservatism Is Alive and Well
Note: This essay was originally published by The American Spectator.
Donald Trump could check the box on almost all of Reagan’s principles.
Donald Trump oozes personality, but he lacks Reagan’s winsome disposition. That winsomeness is a winner. Likewise, so is conservatism. Successful politics requires matching the right person with the right principles.
Conservatism conserves the timeless truths that need to be conserved. Eternal truths don’t suddenly become untrue, even if a depraved people insist otherwise. The key is finding the right conservative politicians, especially at the presidential level, to attractively communicate that conservatism.
The alleged death of Regan conservatism, proclaimed even by many on the right, is not just greatly exaggerated — it’s outright wrong.
It has to be wrong because Reagan conservatism is true conservatism, and conservatism conserves the time-tested principles, values, and traditions that are, well, true. Ronald Reagan himself put it this way:
“Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before. The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind.”
Reagan was speaking almost verbatim from conservatism’s preeminent philosophical spokesman, Russell Kirk (1918–1994), who had quoted G. K. Chesterton on that combined wisdom. Kirk called conservatism not an ideology, but an attitude. Conservatives endeavor to conserve what Kirk and Edmund Burke (1729–1797) described as an “enduring moral order.” Think about that: A moral order that endures. Sure, a country and culture and its corrupt people can leap off a cliff and descend to hell in a handbasket, but an enduring moral order nonetheless remains, rooted in the timeless traditions of biblical and natural law that the conservative conserves.
Reagan conservatism is genuine conservatism. If it isn’t winning today for Republicans, well, that’s not the fault of conservatism; that’s the fault of the conservatives. The problem isn’t the message but the messenger.
Sure, I’m the first to acknowledge that certain such principles, especially those related to eternal teachings on matters like marriage, family, life, and gender, are now rejected by wide swaths of a degenerate culture, but that doesn’t mean the principles are wrong. And sure, a Republican candidate running on conservative positions on marriage, family, life, and gender can today lose on that platform. But still, there is more to conservatism, and Reagan conservatism, than moral — social issues. Ronald Reagan was both a social and economic conservative, and he urged fellow conservatives to embrace both.
In 2014, I published a book titled 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. It has gone through several printings. The Young America’s Foundation has a special edition of the book, which it has given out to students nationwide by the tens of thousands. That book has resonated with conservative youth because it lays out succinctly what Ronald Reagan really believed — a handy thing to know, given that countless conservative candidates since the 1980s have called themselves Reagan conservatives. Here are the eleven principles: Freedom, Faith, Family, Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life, American Exceptionalism, the Founders’ Wisdom and Vision, Lower Taxes, Limited Government, Peace Through Strength, Anti-communism, and Belief in the Individual.
I need not delineate each of those principles here. Most are self-evident to readers of this magazine. Our readers, too, will agree that Ronald Reagan articulated those beliefs with splendid appeal to the nation at large in a way that won him two landslide elections. Reagan, an unflinching and unapologetic conservative, twice won states such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, and even ultra-liberal Massachusetts.
Reagan’s conservatism never lost at the ballot box, nor in the eyes of the American public. Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, won the presidency in November 1988 because Americans felt he was their best chance at something approximating a third Reagan term.
Reagan conservatism never died, even when Bush lost in November 1992 (especially because Bush abandoned Reagan’s tax cuts). Newt Gingrich viably resurrected it in 1994 with his tremendous capture of Congress by conservative Republicans. Pretty much every major conservative running for national office since Reagan left the White House in January 1989 has extolled his core principles.
So, what accounts for the current claims of the death of Reagan conservatism? I think the claims are more of a complaint, an attitude, not one of conservatism but of defeatism. They come from folks on our side who didn’t like the rise of neoconservatism during the George W. Bush years and, more so, today lament Donald Trump’s inability to exceed 50 percent of the vote against the unlikable Hillary Clinton, the pathetic Joe Biden, and the downright awful Kamala Harris. (Even if Trump wins in November 2024, I don’t think it will be with 50 percent — plus of the vote; he never polls above 50 percent.)
Of course, the Trump years have seen a new kind of conservatism, or Republicanism. It is decidedly more populist, nationalist, and even protectionist. Still, if you look at those eleven principles of a Reagan conservative, most have been taken up by Trump. Trump certainly heralds the ideas of freedom, American exceptionalism (it was Reagan who in 1980 coined the now-Trumpian phrase “Make America Great Again”), lower taxes, limited government, peace through strength (particularly against the likes of the communist Chinese), and belief in the individual. Really, if you take a hard look at the eleven principles, there isn’t one that Trump and his supporters reject.
And even if one doubts that Donald Trump is a believer on matters like faith or the sanctity and dignity of human life, as Ronald Reagan was, he at least appealed to and has been supported by those constituencies. More so, to Trump’s credit, he did way more for the pro-life cause than Reagan was able to achieve. That includes appointing three Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — who reversed Roe v. Wade. Of Reagan’s three picks, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor were profound disappointments on the life issue and much more. Indeed, they affirmed Roe via the hideous 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which contained the stupidest statement in the history of high-court jurisprudence, namely Kennedy’s laughable “mystery clause.”
Ronald Reagan batted only one for three on his Supreme Court picks: Antonin Scalia was a fabulous choice. Kennedy and O’Connor were grave betrayals. Trump’s three high-court picks, by contrast, have all been home runs.
But to return to the point: Today’s leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, could check the Reagan box on pretty much all those Reagan principles. At the least, the policies that President Trump pursued align with those Reagan principles.
That being the case, why hasn’t Trump had greater success with this Reagan conservatism if Reagan conservatism isn’t dead and is, indeed, as my article here proclaims, alive and well?
The answer isn’t the principles but the person. Donald Trump can’t get over 50 percent of the popular vote because over 50 percent of the populace loathes the man. They don’t merely dislike him; they hate his guts. Conversely, Ronald Reagan was the most-liked figure of his generation. Over the last one hundred years, only Eisenhower and FDR compare in terms of likability among presidents.
Remember that Reagan’s conservative predecessor for the GOP presidential nomination, Barry Goldwater, was just as principled as Reagan but, like Trump, was not liked. Goldwater was slaughtered by LBJ in 1964. He won only six states and lost the popular vote 61 percent to 39 percent.
How did Reagan fare with conservative principles similar to Goldwater’s? He did profoundly better. In 1980, he crushed Jimmy Carter, an incumbent president, by 51 percent to 41 percent (there was a third-party candidate, John Anderson). Reagan won 44 of 50 states and took the Electoral College 489 to 49. In 1984, Reagan received nearly 60 percent of the votes, won an incredible 49 of 50 states, and took the Electoral College by an astounding 525 to 13. He did a total reversal of Goldwater; same principles but different personalities.
It was said that whereas Barry Goldwater was conservative with a frown, Ronald Reagan was conservative with a smile. That was spot-on accurate. Reagan not only smiled, but joked, laughed, and communicated so well that he will be forever remembered in American politics as the Great Communicator.
Donald Trump oozes personality, but he lacks Reagan’s winsome disposition. That winsomeness is a winner. Likewise, so is conservatism. Successful politics requires matching the right person with the right principles.
Conservatism conserves the timeless truths that need to be conserved. Eternal truths don’t suddenly become untrue, even if a depraved people insist otherwise. The key is finding the right conservative politicians, especially at the presidential level, to attractively communicate that conservatism.
The Washington Post’s Looney Liberal Readership
Note: This essay was originally published by The American Spectator.
Jeff Bezos’ statement almost makes me want to start reading The Washington Post again.
It has been years since I gave a rip about anything in The Washington Post. Like The New York Times, the Post has become so dreadfully biased that reading it is downright agonizing. There is little point in reading it, other than as an exercise in masochism or for the explicit purpose of finding a cornball leftist perspective. Colleagues here at The American Spectator will attest that if I need a quote from the Times or Post, I’ll ask them (as suffering subscribers not blocked by the paywall) to cut and paste the text for me.
Thus, it was largely by happenstance that I read Post owner Jeff Bezos’ statement to readers explaining why the newspaper didn’t endorse Kamala Harris for president. I saw the Bezos statement posted at RealClearPolitics, a rare and genuinely balanced source that daily does a splendid job of posting both liberal and conservative opinions. RCP displays a remarkable nonpartisanship that the dominant mainstream newspapers are clearly incapable of doing, including The Washington Post.
And so, I clicked the Bezos statement at RealClearPolitics, and I was surprised and impressed. If you haven’t read it, I think you’ll agree, unless you’re one of the ideologically deranged readers of The Washington Post (more on that in a minute) under the headline “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media”:
“In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.
“We [newspapers] must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose.”
Spot on, Mr. Bezos. And as I’ll note below, The Washington Post readers raging at Bezos do so from a position of refusing reality and fighting it like petulant preschoolers. Bezos continued:
“It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.”
Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.
Indeed, when a purportedly unbiased newspaper endorses a political candidate, it reveals its bias in favor of that candidate and against the opponent. In turn, readers naturally suspect biased coverage. How does that help the newspaper portray itself as objective? It would be better for newspapers to stay neutral or at least try to appear so.
Bezos’ statement then dealt defensively with various rumormongering by silly progressives accusing him of a conflict of interest. Those progressives had also focused their ire at a chief executive of one of his companies, who is apparently guilty of the unconscionable sin of meeting with Donald Trump or some such blather. It’s laughable that such a transgression would have liberals foaming at the mouth, given how many executives and staff at the Post and other media organizations have obvious conflicts of interest with Kamala and Biden and Hillary and Pelosi and every big-time lib in Washington. In liberal la-la land, they’re all in bed together.
Bezos then returned with this strong closing statement:
“Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and The New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.”
Yes, they do. Of course. No question.
Bezos stated what ought to be obvious:
“Now more than ever the world needs a credible, trusted, independent voice, and where better for that voice to originate than the capital city of the most important country in the world?”
He finished:
“Many of the finest journalists you’ll find anywhere work at The Washington Post, and they work painstakingly every day to get to the truth. They deserve to be believed.”
In all, it’s an excellent statement. Jeff Bezos is exactly right about what newspapers ought to be. His statement almost makes me want to start reading The Washington Post again.
But here’s the most fascinating part of Bezos’ post. At the end of his statement is an astonishing collection of reader comments from the Post faithful. At the time of my writing, there are over 15,000 comments. And really, they are less comments than temper tantrums. Picture a fat, bratty 5-year-old holding her breath and jumping up and down in the kitchen demanding a chocolate donut for breakfast. Actually, I would call the comments childish, but I have eight kids, and none of them talk like these people.
I could fill this [essay] with examples. They’re all against Bezos in the most ridiculous ways. It’s like a parody of liberals. If you received an email from one of these crazies, you’d be even crazier to respond. They’re so poisoned by ideology that they’re beyond the ability to dialogue with anyone who disagrees.
Here are just three examples from the five lead comments in my most recent look:
Mickey Brazil:
“I’m not going to tell you [Bezos] to get out of the road, there’s a truck coming, because you might not believe me. He thinks we’re stupid, just like Trump.”
Southernpoliticalbelle:
“Sounds to me all you have done is listen to OAN and Fox declaring WaPo as untrustworthy. You clearly do not know the American people. Readers are not going to believe you. Sorry but this was a political stunt or you are too uneducated to filter the garbage. Either way you have caused WaPo to be untrustworthy because it is clearly under the whims of your thumb. If your goal was to destroy this paper then you are right on track.”
Susan.micari:
“Mr. Bezos, you are a coward, pandering to those who would destroy our democracy. What do you know about democracy? You are king of your sweat shop empire. Shame on you. Hedging your bets at the expense of the Post’s readers, reporters, and opinion writers. You have decided that these reporters and opinion writers don’t matter, and we will all suffer for it.”
Those are merely three examples. And they’re mild. Grab some popcorn or crack a beer and page through them this evening for kicks. There’s one howler after another.
But more important, they prove precisely Bezos’ point, which I’ll express more candidly than he could: The Washington Post is a left-wing newspaper for left-wingers. The bias is so appalling, so repellent, that non-liberals flee it like the plague. If you’re not a liberal, there’s no reason to read the Post. It cannot be trusted because of its bias.
If Jeff Bezos is truly trying to change that, then good for him. But as he does, the Post’s looney liberals will be kicking and screaming.
Indigenous Peoples’ Day: Cherokee Leader Stand Watie
Note: This essay was originally published in The American Spectator.
Our intrepid progressives have tossed Christopher Columbus and his special day of remembrance to their ash heap of history. They have instead created something they find much more noble. They call it Indigenous Peoples’ Day. This day, they assure us, will allow Americans to honor better men, men who were not white European males who brought to this land disease, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, and whatever other litany they would like to cast at the feet of the villainous Columbus — the dreaded DWEM (Dead White European Male) that he was.
“When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Watie wasted no time in joining the Confederacy.”
Resisting the revolutionaries’ new holiday gets increasingly difficult as they saturate our culture with it, much as they have with an entire Pride Month. Their presidents, including noted historian Joseph Robinette Biden (himself a descendant of DWEMs), has encouraged “the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”
Faithful liberals now officially recognize this day each year on their ideological calendar, and damned well try to ensure that the rest of us do as well. I’m sure they have the kids in their government schools dressing up as Seminoles and Eskimos today. They build teepees in kindergarten rooms and provide rubber tomahawks and cute little squaw dolls to the girls (and gender-confused boys).
Rather than resist the zeitgeist, dear readers, I’ve decided that every second Monday of October henceforth, I shall pause to remember this day at The American Spectator. Your editor shall not fail you. (For the record, in October 2022, I personally proclaimed here at The American Spectator that every second Tuesday of October henceforth be recognized as “Western Civ Day.”” I am saddened to report that my idea has not caught on.)
Thus, for Indigenous Peoples’ Day last year, I wrote my inaugural piece, titled, “Indigenous Slavers: American Indians Who Whipped and Owned Blacks.” I gave attention to the enslavement of black people by the five so-called “Civilized Tribes” — i.e., the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Indians. These tribes owned thousands of black African slaves and were brutal slave masters. They were so dedicated to slave ownership that many sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. To this day, there are African American descendants of these slaves with lawsuits against these indigenous tribes seeking redress. (See my book, The Worst of Indignities: The Catholic Church on Slavery.
These Indian slavers even defied the Emancipation Proclamation, continuing to subjugate black men, women, and children well after the white man had freed slaves. For instance, as noted by one scholar:
“Even Emancipation and the end of the Civil War did not bring immediate relief to the enslaved living in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Although the Choctaw and Chickasaw sided with the Confederacy during the conflict, the United States considered them to be separate political polities; therefore, the abolition of slavery as stated in the Thirteenth Amendment did not apply in Indian Territory.”
In that same spirit, for this year’s Indigenous Peoples’ Day, I’m pausing to recall one Stand Watie (1806-1871). The powerful Cherokee leader likewise not only supported black enslavement but became a fearless Confederate general. He, too, resisted the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, he was the last Confederate general to surrender in the Civil War. He is often referred to as “The Last Confederate General.” Many articles use that exact title.
Watie was born in December 1806 on Cherokee Nation territory (present-day Georgia). He was there raised in a slave-owning family. He quickly rose up the ranks of the Cherokee leadership. He was respected and feared. When fellow Indians looked to preserve the institution of slavery and keep their black folk in shackles, they looked to Watie as a “gifted field commander and a bold guerrilla leader.”
As one historian writes at History.com:
“When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Watie wasted no time in joining the Confederacy, viewing the federal government — not the South — as the Cherokees’ principal enemy. He raised the first Indian regiment of the Confederate Army, the Cherokee Mounted Rifles, and helped secure control of Indian Territory for the rebels early in the conflict.”
Watie was a force to be reckoned with. He and his Indian troops orchestrated savage attacks. They were notorious, prolific scalpers. They struck terror in the enemy.
When Gen. Robert E. Lee and his Confederate troops surrendered, Watie was fit to be tied. He would not surrender his blacks. Again, here’s an account at History.com:
“Watie was so committed to the Southern cause that he refused to acknowledge the Union victory in the waning months of the Civil War, keeping his troops in the field for nearly a month after Lieutenant General E. Kirby Smith surrendered the rest of the Confederacy’s Trans-Mississippi Army on May 26, 1865. A full 75 days after Robert E. Lee met with Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Watie became the last Confederate general to lay down arms, surrendering his battalion of Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, and Osage Indians to Union Lieutenant Colonel Asa C. Matthews at Doaksville on June 23.”
I’ve here quoted History.com as a reliable popular source on Watie, but it’s just one of numerous sources that could be cited. There are government historical websites, educational sites, archival libraries of various battlefields, Native American historical societies, plus articles at sources like History.net and RealClearHistory.com, with detailed accounts of Watie and his life.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry for Watie is fairly brief, but the Cherokee general was not some minor player. Indeed, as one piece at The History Reader puts it, “The War Had to Wait for Watie.” His obstinacy delayed the Civil War’s formal end.
Stand Watie’s role in the Confederacy, stalwart support of slavery, and rebellion against black emancipation is known to those who bother to carefully, objectively study the history of the era. Of course, properly studying that history means being properly taught the history of early America, from its discovery by the great Columbus to the Mayflower to the American Founders to the Civil War. And that, pilgrim, is precisely the problem.
If you teach little Jimmy and Suzy about old Stand Watie, don’t expect their public school peers to be learning the same. Expect the kids in the government schools and lousy universities to offer nothing but a blank stare if Jimmy or Suzy raise a hand to ask the teacher, “Hey, what about Stand Watie? Didn’t he and a bunch of other Indians own slaves and fight for the Confederacy?”
That would surely earn Jimmy or Suzy a quick denunciation as a “racist” or perhaps a “Christian nationalist.”
But fear not, Jimmy or Suzy, at least you’re getting an actual education. You’re getting a much fuller presentation of history, rather than a selective, politically correct, ideologically sanitized account. Such an education will teach you that the indigenous tribes of this land were not some perfect, pristine people living in peaceful harmony until the wretched Christopher Columbus marched in and ruined utopia.
General Stand Watie is a striking example of just that. We at The American Spectator remember him on this Indigenous Peoples’ Day.
Moment of Unity: Reagan United the Country Like No Other
One of the cool things about being a biographer with special expertise on a specific subject — in my case, Ronald Reagan — is that readers come to you with all sorts of neat revelations. I’ve published eight books on Ronald Reagan, which I believe is more than any other author. People who know Ronald Reagan usually know me, and they come to me with stories that have never been reported.
I could write a separate article on those stories. A few have been quite dramatic, such as my late, wonderful friend Herb Meyer disclosing to me the bombshell revelation that he and his boss, CIA Director Bill Casey, and President Ronald Reagan knew that the Soviets were behind the attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1981. What Herb told me in confidence went further than what my dear friend Judge Bill Clark (I was Clark’s biographer) had told me about the shooting. I shared that story at The American Spectator at the time of Herb’s death. Until then, I could not reveal Herb as my source.
The revelations Herb and Bill Clark shared with me ultimately led to my book, A Pope and a President.
Speaking of assassinations, there were the revelations shared with me by Ronald Reagan’s pastor at his Presbyterian church in Washington, D.C. The Rev. Louis Evans called me shortly before he died because he wanted me to know some things about the near assassination of Reagan on March 30, 1981. Among the fascinating things that Evans told me was about his meeting with Nancy Reagan after the shooting of her husband. Nancy confided: “I’m really struggling with a feeling of failed responsibility. I usually stand at Ronnie’s left side. And that’s where he took the bullet.”
If only she had been next to her husband as he walked to that limousine outside the Washington Hilton, positioned between him and John Hinckley’s pistol, Nancy could have taken the bullet for her beloved Ronnie. She was willing to lay down her life for her beloved.
The Rev. Evans told me that after reading my 2004 book, God and Ronald Reagan. I incorporated the touching story into my 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, which is the basis for the Reagan movie starring Dennis Quaid that releases this weekend. (I also told the story in an op-ed piece for Fox News when Nancy died in March 2016. Megyn Kelly was so moved by the story that she invited me on her show to tell it.) I’m pleased to note that Nancy’s statement about taking a bullet for her Ronnie made it into our movie. It is a touching scene.
“That Is My Job” — All of this brings me to another nice story that I learned more about only in the last few weeks, after reporting it almost 20 years ago at the close of The Crusader. It’s a wonderful account of a Cold War survivor of Communism in the Ukraine, and the chance meeting that he and his grandson had with Reagan after their liberation and well after his presidency when the president was in the throes of Alzheimer’s disease. Here was what I knew back then in 2006 and recorded in the epilogue:
In the summer of 1997, Ronald Reagan strolled through Armand Hammer Park near his Bel Air home when he was approached by a tourist named Yakob Ravin and his twelve-year-old grandson, both Jewish Ukrainian émigrés living near Toledo, Ohio. They cheered Reagan as he got near and briefly spoke to the former president, who posed for a picture with the boy, which his grandfather proudly snapped. “Mr. President,” said Ravin, “thank you for everything you did for the Jewish people, for Soviet people, to destroy the Communist empire.” The slightly confused 86-year-old Reagan paused and responded: “Yes, that is my job.”
That was his job — one he had assigned to himself long ago.
And then, after it all, after the task was complete, and after he was permitted, mercifully, a short window of time to comprehend and savor the accomplishment, it all quietly disappeared through the last 10 years of his 93 years of life. And then, finally, Ronald Reagan’s time on this earth terminated on June 5, 2004, as he ended that long, quiet drift into oblivion, and perhaps, again, drifted back to the Rock River.
The Rock River is a central theme of The Crusader and thus also the Reagan movie, with Reagan’s lifeguard years played terrifically by actor David Henrie. Unfortunately, that scene with Yakob Ravin did not make our script. There are only so many great stories that one film can include and stay on theme. Still, it’s a touching scene that chokes up many readers when they visualize it. One reader called me to say he was on vacation with his family at the beach and was embarrassingly sobbing when he read it. It chokes me up as well.
So, I nearly fell off my chair a few weeks ago when my email box suddenly received a photo of that very scene in real life, plus added details over two decades later. Indeed, I can now tell the rest of the story of Yakob Ravin and his grandson, thanks to a reader from Toledo, Ohio named Robert Loeb.
Living the American Dream, Thanks to Reagan — Rob, a certified financial planner who works in Sylvania, Ohio, was likewise touched by that scene. (He actually read about it in my 2017 book, A Pope and a President, where I told the story again.) When he got to the page about Ravin and his encounter with President Reagan, Rob was surprised and excited to learn that Yakob likewise lived in Toledo. He decided to try to track him down and found him in an assisted living facility in a suburb of Toledo. Rob informed me that Yakob was alive and well:
“He will turn 92 this week and is in reasonably good health, although he has faced a plethora of challenges in the past few years, including the death of his wife of nearly 60 years.”
. . . reported Rob. Rob was “thrilled to meet him along with his daughter Marina” on June 18.
Rob explained that it was Marina’s son who was with Yakob that day in 1997 and got his picture with President Reagan. The son, whose name is Rostik, is now a doctor in Florida. He was 12 years old at the time.
“Yakob retold me the story of his chance encounter with Reagan,” said Rob, who pleased the author of the book by telling me: “You had every detail exactly right!” Remarkably, Rob said that Yakob had never seen my book. He wasn’t aware that I had shared his story with the wider world. Rob gave Yakob a copy of the book.
Those details were striking enough, but what really got me was that Rob attached a photo of Ronald Reagan’s encounter with the grandson. I never knew that a photo existed. To our knowledge, the photo might well be the final public photo of the private Ronald Reagan before Nancy closed him off from the public due to his slow deterioration from Alzheimer’s.
Yakob has that photo proudly displayed in his tiny apartment. Little does he know that it is probably the last public picture of The Gipper.
That email from Rob was sent on June 20. He closed: “If you’d like any information about Yakob or his grandson, let me know.” To that, I replied, “Yes, thank you, go!” I gave him several follow-up questions, tasking the good man as a research assistant, a job he took up with enthusiasm.
Rob’s sleuthing generated key added details, including the exact date of the encounter. It was Aug. 23, 1997. He shared this in a follow-up email that I shall quote in full:
“Yes, you nailed the quote and the story perfectly! His daughter read out loud that section of your book, and he said ‘that’s exactly right, that’s what President Reagan said.’ Yakob and his 12-year-old grandson Rostik (Marina went instead to South Carolina) were visiting a friend in California and were just walking in the park when they spotted Reagan. Yakob told me that he felt he had to say something to him. Reagan had two Secret Service guys with him, but they let him approach Reagan. After he thanked Reagan, you eloquently stated his [Reagan’s] humble response in your book. Yakob and Rostik then walked away, but after a few minutes he thought he’d ask for a picture. The Secret Service guys told him they didn’t allow pictures, but Reagan overheard him and Said, ‘sure come on over, I’d love to take a picture.’ And this is the picture!
Rob learned that a few weeks later the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, did a story about their meeting, which was picked up by the AP wire and various newspapers. That was where I first learned about it.
Interestingly, the story almost got much larger exposure. Yakob and his grandson received a phone call from “Good Morning America” asking them to come to New York (all expenses paid). They were scheduled to do the show on Monday, Sept. 1, 1997, but they learned early that morning that their segment was canceled because Princess Diana had just died in a fatal car crash and the entire show would be devoted to that tragedy. They were thanked and told to enjoy New York. GMA never rescheduled the segment.
Rob Further Added of Yakob — He also talked about leaving Ukraine in 1992, and the trepidation they felt. He was 60 years old, starting over in a new country. This was not to be taken lightly. He spoke English, but his daughter (Marina), Marina’s husband at the time, and son Rostik did not speak much English. Marina is a successful nurse today, and Rostik is a doctor in Gainesville, Florida. In Ukraine they were not treated well as Jews, but also his wife’s doctor told her that they should leave Ukraine because of their proximity to Chernobyl. They only lived about 85 miles away in Kiev and the doctor felt there that would be long-term health consequences if they stayed. So somewhat reluctantly, they moved to Toledo where they had some friends. They were only allowed to take $200 (equivalent) each and some other stuff that fit in a duffle bag, which he still has. Luckily, he was an engineer and found work right away. Fast forward to today and they all love our country, and of course President Reagan, and are incredibly grateful that he ended the evil empire. They are incredibly grateful to be here. They still have friends in Ukraine that they worry about.
As for Rostik, Rob proceeded to later meet him in Toledo as well. He goes by “Ross.” When Rostik and his family and grandfather came to America in 1992, he spoke almost no English — in fact, the only words he knew were “I can’t speak English.”
Now, Rostik is living the American dream, just as Ronald Reagan would have hoped when he had sought to peacefully liberate the “Captive Peoples,” as Reagan referred to those languishing behind the Iron Curtain in the Evil Empire.
I thank them for their witness and story. And I thank Rob Loeb for wrapping it up for me in a splendid bow.
We Should All Just Appreciate What Is Good — In all, it is a nice, feel-good story, much like the Reagan movie that premieres nationwide in theaters this weekend. That movie is receiving nice reviews from nice people. I’m told that the New York Times and Washington Post both panned it. I’m not surprised. That’s why I don’t read either paper. I prefer to spare myself the agony.
What these modern liberals don’t understand is that there was once a time in America when everyone liked the president of the United States, including even the liberals who didn’t vote for him. To quote no less than CBS News anchor (and liberal) Walter Cronkite:
“Ronald Reagan is even more popular than [Franklin] Roosevelt, and I never thought I’d see anyone that well-liked . . . . Nobody hates Reagan. It’s amazing!”
That was why Reagan was reelected by winning 49 of 50 states, nearly 60 percent of the vote, and crushing the Electoral College by 525 to 13. There were literally millions of Democrats who voted for him. It was a moment of real unity. Our 2024 Reagan movie shows that rare unity in the 1980s and focuses on the epic achievement of Reagan’s life and presidency: His peaceful effort (his crusade) to undermine Soviet Communism, to win the Cold War. That was a truly grand event that no one could or should complain about.
If modern liberal reviewers of Reagan can’t celebrate that triumph, well, that’s sad. I suggest they put aside their partisanship and try to like what is good. What Ronald Reagan did was good. Individuals as different as Mikhail Gorbachev, Democrat House Speaker Tip O’Neill, and Pope John Paul II all agreed on that. And if liberals would like a modern witness or two, maybe they should talk to some folks like Yakob Ravin and his grandson.
They certainly appreciate Ronald Reagan. And one day in August 1997, they let him know.
*
