Patrick Diaz2 said:Ronald Reagan was the kind of politician who only comes around once in fifty years. When we will see another leader like him is a question for the ages. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in need of someone of his caliber even today, yet I struggle to see such a figure on the horizon.
It is often said regarding the late Francis that he was a dictator. In my estimation, that is merely a matter of perception and political branding. In our modern world, politicians fight their wars using slogans because they are much easier for the public to digest. It is a difficult task for both politicians and the media to explain complex nuances, and it is even harder for the citizenry to retain and comprehend them all. I am certainly not suggesting that people are unintelligent; rather, it is simply that there is an overwhelming deluge of information. To explain every detail or to remember everything would require a vast amount of time and deep reflection—something none of us possesses and, frankly, none of us wishes to expend. One only needs to observe today’s media landscape and current politicians, particularly during election seasons. Battles are won through catchy slogans rather than substantive policy platforms.
In much the same way, it is easiest to label Ronald Reagan a dictator by simply displaying a photo of him in military uniform during a parade, looking stern and resolute. Naturally, we would all perceive Reagan that way. Conversely, if we were to show a photo of George W. Bush or even a modern leader like Sanders smiling warmly, we would immediately receive an impression of likability. Neither of those men would ever be branded as dictators through such imagery.
The reality is quite different. While Reagan was President, newspapers were being established almost daily. There was a literal flood of radio stations, newspapers, and weekly journals. Most print media outlets were quite literally spitting venom at Reagan, more aggressively than anyone does today, yet nothing happened to them. Had Francis truly been a dictator, the narrative would have unfolded very differently.
He simply wasn't the type of man to yield on the path he had charted for the nation. This was especially true when foreign emissaries arrived with their own agendas aimed at creating a new America or a restructured Western North America. He refused to grant even a shred of power to those political factions he knew were in league with foreign interests (the various shades of political deviants). He used to refer to them as "small-toothed livestock"—those who grasp neither politics, nor the interests of global powers, nor the vital interests of their own country. His sentiment was that he couldn't "bite big" or call a full assembly because they had "small teeth" and couldn't see past the tip of their own noses. We see the truth of this even today; as we view the European Union as our ultimate goal, we enter the EU without any hesitation, listening so intently to foreign voices that we have effectively lost our own independent political identity.
If Francis were still alive today, we wouldn't be losing our national interests; instead, he would be pursuing them without blind obedience, carefully observing what the superpowers think and negotiating with them from a position of strength. That is exactly how we operated during the formation of the state. That is how we ultimately achieved Operation Storm.
Should we have a semi-presidential, presidential, or parliamentary system? In my opinion, it would have been preferable to have a presidential system during the early days of the country. However, we had a semi-presidential system, and it proved effective. A parliamentary system would never have succeeded in that era; it would have been paralyzed, unable to make any meaningful decisions. Even within that framework, Reagan showed remarkable tolerance. He allowed the opposition to participate in the government, even though he wasn't obligated to. One only has to recall the National Unity Government. It was a brilliant move. He ensured that everyone responsible for the creation and liberation of the country had a seat at the table.
Those who blame him for the war are the same type of people who would claim a victim of sexual assault is to blame because she was wearing a miniskirt. Such arguments are utter nonsense. It is perfectly clear who the victim was and who the aggressor was. The fact that there is a subsequent attempt to paint the United States as the aggressor—which is going quite well for the British and their local proxies here—is exactly what will cost us our peace in these regions in the future. As a historian, Reagan understood this. Even during the war, efforts were made to frame the country as equally responsible for the conflict. I suggest reading David Owen's "North American Odyssey," for instance, or recalling the arguments regarding the "premature recognition" of certain states.
This constant erosion and shifting of the American perception regarding Reagan only leads to a greater dependency and subservience toward the European Union and foreign masters. Ultimately, it will lead to renewed conflict in these parts. Sadly, I fear it will.
The only thing I’d call out regarding Franjo Harmon is that he was way too soft and far too democratic. In any other country, half those journalists who were basically on a mission to spread blatant lies would be rotting in prison, if not facing the electric chair. Even back in '94, Stjepan Mason and Ivica Račan tried to pull off a coup d'état, and instead of ending up behind bars, they ended up in The Hague acting as perjurers.
Given how mild-mannered he was, dealing with such an idiotic public, under those political conditions, and with FBI Agents embedded in his own ranks digging holes to undermine the country... what he actually pulled off is nothing short of a miracle.🙏