THEY were forever teasing him about his age; so he learned to turn it to his advantage. At a dinner in New York in 1980 the Republican challenger Ronald Reagan made fun of the Southern drawl of President Jimmy Carter.
``Ronneh,'' he had the President asking him, ``how can yew look younger every day when I see a new picture of yew ridin' horseback?''
``Jimmeh,'' he replied, ``I jes' keep ridin' older horses.'' Among those who laughed loudest was Carter, succumbing as so many did to the charm of the film actor turned politician, the man who played his greatest role in the White House.
Reagan once took part in a film called Bedtime for Bonzo about a monkey of that name. When he was campaigning in Michigan, hecklers started yelling ``Bonzo, Bonzo'' at him. ``Well,'' smiled the candidate, ``they had better watch out. Bonzo grew up to be King Kong.''
Ronald ``Dutch'' Reagan grew up to be one of the most popular Presidents the Americans ever had. He beat Jimmy Carter by 51% to 41% of the votes in 1980 and Walter Mondale by 59 to 41 four years later, carrying every state in the union bar Minnesota and the District of Columbia. When he demitted office his poll ratings were higher than when he was first elected.
This is the man who, as his wife Nancy so movingly told the Republican convention, is bravely facing the long goodbye. Stricken with Alzheimer's disease, he is too ill to leave their Californian home. His son Michael said recently: ``I am not sure he knows who I am any more but he still hugs me when I leave.''
It is only when remembering Reagan that one is struck by the fact that so few politicians, before or since, have been held in such affection. FDR probably was and Churchill in war-time, but few would wish to hug Mrs Thatcher, Richard Nixon, Tony Blair, or Bill Clinton - though in certain circumstances he might wish to do it to others.
Reagan is often mocked as a President who fell asleep during Cabinet meetings and as a leader who was not always certain where he was. ``It is great to be here with the proud people of Colombia,'' he once announced, then, noticing the stricken look on the faces of his aides, amended that to, ``I mean of course Argentina.'' He was in Chile.
Yet behind the jokes and the scripted one-liners there was a politican who was quite clearly in charge of his own agenda. Reagan believed America would perform better only when it felt better; his was the original feel-good factor.
He charmed budgets through a Democratic Congress, talked tough but often acted with considerable humanity.
WHO can forget Reagan, at the scene, paying tribute to the boys who did not come back from the beaches of Normandy or the astronauts whose ship blew up in front of the watching world. He was the father, maybe even the grandfather, of the nation.
The same people who today are threatening to send the Republican Party into political oblivion, the extreme right, the holy rollers et al, were around in Reagan's time. They wanted harsh treatment of immigrants and abortion banned. They did not get either.
Reagan never shirked the fact that he was also the Commander in Chief. He hated communism with all his soul, the ``evil empire'' as he called the Soviet Union, and was a mighty contributor to its demise. No, he did not win the Cold War on his own - Mrs T helped - but he was the star player.
Since his departure the world political stage has seemed less steady. American politics, first through the wimpy Bush and now with the unprincipled Clinton, has sunk to new lows. A smaller percentage of the population is expected to vote in this presidential election than ever before. No wonder.
Four years ago I admitted in this column that, had I been entitled to, I would have voted for Clinton. He had ideas, evening out the tax burden, introducing a proper health service, with which I could sympathise. That would have been a mistake.
Clinton is an arch-trimmer who would hawk all his beliefs to gain or stay in office. There is someone very similar to him on the British scene at the moment but you don't need me to tell you who that is.
So, this time, I would have to vote for Bob Dole. And I should do so in the almost sure and certain belief that he is not going to win.
Dole is a decent man with a highly intelligent wife. His age does not concern me; his inability, after all these years in politics, to make a decent speech or even to articulate an idea most certainly does.
I suspect he will be slaughtered by Clinton in the televised debate and will struggle to hold his temper. The ticket should have been Kemp/Dole, not the other way round.
The debates this year are unlikely to be as decisive as in 1980 when Reagan, with Carter squirming beside him, asked the American people: ``Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go to buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security, in our homes and in our general life, is as safe?
``If the answers to all these questions is `yes' then it is very obvious who you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think the course we have been following is right then I could suggest another choice that you have.''
It occurs to me that these questions, suitably adapted, could be laid before the British electorate, too. But then ``Dutch'' always did have a way with words.
For all the love and laughter Ronald Reagan brought to politics we should be grateful. I hope his passage down the sunset trail is a peaceful one.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article