Reagan vs Carter

Submitted by Larry Derfner (United States), Apr 30, 2002

Reading Pipes's op-ed, I'm reminded why Reagan was called the Teflon president, while Carter seemed covered in Velcro. The article begins by recalling the single American use of military force against Iran in the 1980s - Carter's failed attempt to rescue the hostages. It then continues with a catalog of unanswered Islamic attacks on American targets in the early- and mid-80s - all during Reagan's tenure. (And in the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan even tried to buy off the Iranians with weapons.) Yet it is Carter who is remembered as a foreign policy wimp, while Reagan is honored for supposedly having restored America's strength and prestige abroad. The reason: Reagan had an image of strength while Carter did not, and Americans always go for the sizzle, not the steak.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".