Anne Applebaum makes some good points in her op-ed today on the similarity in Presidential rhetoric across time and parties. I can’t help but feel, however, that when she compares conservative hero Ronald Regan to liberal icon John Kennedy, Reagan comes off by far the best. Both gave moving speeches at the Berlin Wall, but Reagan’s – because his actions throughout his Presidency matched his words — helped precipitate the fall of the Soviet Empire.

Kennedy’s speech was hollow bombast, filled with high-sounding phrases that were belied by his consistently wimpish responses to Soviet aggression. He may have affected a Churchillian toughness in his rhetoric, but his Chamberlain-like actions in Berlin, Laos and the Bay of Pigs in Cuba unnecessarily brought us to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis – still, astoundingly, considered his “finest moment” and a “profile in courage” by liberal historians.

The best analysis I’ve read of just how completely Kennedy’s tough rhetoric diverged from the actual implementation of policy – and the near catastrophic consequences – is The Origins of War, by Yale historian Donald Kagan. It demonstrates just how dangerous it can be to project an image of weakness in a dangerous world, and that actions speak a lot louder than even the most beautifully-crafted words.

By the way, if by the “authors” of Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech Ms Applebaum means the speechwriters, there was only one – Peter Robinson. I used to sit with him in his office as he would field calls from the State Department and NSC from many of the same people who later claimed to be “authors” of the speech demanding that he eviscerate it, especially the “needlessly provocative” phrase “tear down this wall.” Peter must have written 15 drafts, many of them near re-writes, to appear to accommodate their concerns while protecting that critical line. That was a real profile in courage.