Three Days in Moscow

by Bret Baier

  There is debate whether the threat is real, or whether Putin was engaged in some old-fashioned electioneering to appease his base. But it can’t be denied that the modern security reality is layered in complexity. The menace doesn’t come only from nuclear weapons. Global terrorism isn’t reliant on sophisticated weaponry. And today we live in an era where a cyber-threat can jeopardize democracy, accessing invisible pathways that we have yet to uncover. We know that a newly aggressive Russia does not threaten us just from the skies but also from within.

  It is also true that the Russians or the Soviets have been attempting to undermine American democracy and commit espionage against the US government for more than eight decades. That’s what a young Ronald Reagan was worried about in those early anti-Communist Hollywood days.

  It is a daunting challenge for any president to juggle all of the hot spots and hazards while still portraying strength on the world stage. Some have questioned the administration’s overall foreign policy strategy and have surmised that any given decision also seems to go through the most important filter of what it means for President Trump personally. Still, there are real signs the president has it in him to rise to the occasion of our era and deliver a forceful message if he chooses to do so. While Presidents Trump and Reagan are very different personalities and very different people, on important occasions Trump has given speeches that sounded—dare I say—Reaganesque.

  Less than six months into his presidency, Trump gave a speech in Warsaw, Poland’s Krasinski Square, a speech that one could hear Reagan delivering—similar in its tone and content. He spoke reverently of Polish courage during the Warsaw uprising in World War II, was blunt about the challenges the global community faced today, and presented an uplifting view of the future for free nations.

  He challenged Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and its support for hostile regimes in Syria and Iran. And in words Reagan might have used, he criticized “the steady creep of government bureaucracy” that robs nations of wealth and hampers their ability to innovate. But mostly he talked about shared values:

  Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value individual freedom and sovereignty. We must work together to confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the South or the East, that threaten over time to undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith, and tradition that make us who we are. If left unchecked, these forces will undermine our courage, sap our spirit, and weaken our will to defend ourselves and our societies.

  But just as our adversaries and enemies of the past learned here in Poland, we know that these forces, too, are doomed to fail if we want them to fail. And we do, indeed, want them to fail. They are doomed not only because our alliance is strong, our countries are resilient, and our power is unmatched. . . . Our adversaries . . . are doomed because we will never forget who we are. And if we don’t forget who [we] are, we just can’t be beaten. Americans will never forget. The nations of Europe will never forget. We are the fastest and the greatest community. . . . The world has never known anything like our community of nations.

  President Trump gave another soaring speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, speaking to leaders from the Arab world about fighting radical jihadists and terrorism—blunt rhetoric in the heart of Islam that one could also hear Reagan delivering.

  In addition to the similar rhetoric in big speeches, Trump and Reagan also have this in common: both men were and are underestimated. Reagan, the Hollywood actor, who was “just delivering lines,” and Trump, the billionaire businessman/reality TV star, who most days has said or tweeted at least one thing that has shocked or appalled establishment Washington—to the delight of his supporters.

  I cover this administration daily, and yes, it has been like drinking from a fire hose. If President Reagan were alive today, after reading oral histories and talking to aides and friends, I’m pretty sure he’d advise President Trump not to let the attacks or negative stories or jokes bother him. There are a host of differences between the two men, but this might be the biggest. Reagan would not let the brutal criticism of the day, the pointed opinion pages, what he saw as the TV networks’ one-sided coverage, the late-night comics’ jokes, the aggressive speeches from the House and Senate floor affect him. Reagan’s press secretary, Marlin Fitzwater, put it this way when we spoke: “Reagan took all that and just shoved it aside. I always remember people would ask me, ‘How does he put up with Sam Donaldson yelling at him and being crude sometimes?’ It never bothered Reagan a bit. Sam would yell at him, and the president would say to me, ‘What’s he saying, Marlin?’ And I’d say, ‘Well, I’m not sure I heard it all, Mr. President, but he thinks our policy is wrong here.’ And the President would invite me into the Oval Office and he’d say, ‘Now here’s what you tell him . . .’ and he would go through this long dissertation on what I should tell Sam Donaldson about this problem. I mean Reagan just always believed if he got ’em, he could convince ’em. And he never resented the press in any way.”

  You may remember, in 1987, Marist Student Council President Bret Baier had a real problem with the yelling Sam Donaldson in that Rose Garden event, but Fitzwater says President Reagan did not.

  Whether Trump will take what I think Reagan’s advice would have been—to get out of his own way—is yet to be seen. President Trump is a counterpuncher, a trait honed in the rough and tumble real estate world of New York City. A different style—perhaps closer to another Reagan quote, “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

  We have no way to know what the future holds for this administration or this president. Two things are clear: (1) Like Reagan, President Trump changed the paradigm. While the jury is still out on the end result of that tectonic shift, the entire game changed in the way Washington worked—or what was important—once President Trump took office. And (2) No matter what happens going forward, in the words of President Reagan, this country, this Republic “is not a fragile flower.” It’s tremendously resilient, not because of its government, but because of its people.

  Over the past four years, researching and then writing about the optimism and pragmatism of President and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and then the optimism and fortitude of President Ronald Reagan that led to the end of the Cold War, I came to appreciate that both leaders had the ability to get big things across the finish line. We know Trump has this capability. He managed to push Congress to get a massive tax bill through, and he signed it into law; he managed to nominate and help shepherd conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to fill a vacant seat on the US Supreme Court. Many of his initiatives are welcomed by conservatives. He has also shown boldness on the world stage; he ordered the US military to step up the attacks on ISIS, and the group was largely obliterated in Iraq and Syria in the first nine months of his presidency.

  But he also faces a world in disarray, demanding skilled leadership. “The twenty-first century will either be a century of disastrous intensification of a deadly crisis, or the century in which mankind becomes morally more pure and spiritually healthier,” Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in The New Russia. “I am convinced that we are called upon to do our part to ensure the triumph of humanity and justice.” This is the challenge that faces Trump and other modern leaders. Perhaps beyond the grave, Ronald Reagan would echo Gorbachev’s sentiment, and his view would be optimistic. He knew that no matter how the political pendulum swings, the resilience of this country shines through.

  In President Reagan’s last message to the American people, announcing he was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, he reserved his final words for an enduring faith in America. “When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be,” he wrote, “I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.”

  Amen.

  Acknowledgments

  Like Three Days in January, Three Days in Moscow would not have happened without the amazing hard work and dedication of my coauthor, Catherine Whitney. Cat
herine’s ability to adapt my ideas and voice in the same back-and-forth process that made Three Days in January work so well makes Three Days in Moscow really shine. She did a tremendous job culling important details from thousands of pages of library documents, biographies, oral histories, and my interviews.

  The team would not have been complete without our intrepid researcher, Sydney Soderberg, digging up gems at the Reagan, Bush, and Eisenhower libraries.

  Professionals at presidential libraries are the gatekeepers of the history and wisdom of our highest office. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library opened its doors to me and allowed me inside their remarkable store of knowledge and insight. In particular, I would like to thank Joanne Drake, chief administrative officer, who was enthusiastic about my book and made sure I had everything I needed; archivist Ray Wilson, who was so generous with his time and input; audio visual archivist Michael Pinckney, who helped select wonderful photos for the book; and chief marketing officer Melissa Giller, for taking me through every aspect of the library and bringing Reagan’s presidency to life for me. I am also grateful to John Heubusch, executive director of the Reagan Foundation for his constant support.

  Thanks, too, to archivists Doug Campbell and Buffie Hollis at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, who helped give substance to President Bush’s role in the end of the Cold War. I also returned to the Eisenhower Library for research into the relationship between our thirty-fourth and fortieth presidents, and am grateful as always to the wonderful professionals there, especially acting director Tim Rives and archivist Mary Burtzloff. Meredith Sleichter, the executive director of the Eisenhower Foundation, was also helpful.

  Many people added their voices to this project, and were generous in sharing their experiences and perceptions. I am especially grateful to those who served under Reagan or reported on his presidency and gave me the benefit of their wisdom: Charles Black, Anthony Dolan, Kenneth Duberstein, Marlin Fitzwater, Josh Gilder, Charles Krauthammer, Gilbert Robinson, George Shultz, and Chris Wallace. Many others offered priceless insights for the book and the Fox documentary. I am also extremely grateful to the Miller Center/UVA for their devotion to recording the oral histories of many staffers, who paint a vivid picture of what it was like to serve under Reagan. The Miller Center does a tremendous service to our nation’s historical memory.

  Special thanks to the team at William Morrow, led by our editor, Peter Hubbard. Peter’s confidence that we could deliver again gave us comfort that we actually could. Peter and his team—Liate Stehlik, Lauren Janiec, Lynn Grady, Nick Amphlett, and Tavia Kowalchuk—came up with a rock-solid plan to give Three Days the boost it needed to launch.

  As always, thanks to my manager, Larry Kramer, and book agent, Claudia Cross with Folio Literary Group, for their encouragement and excellent handling of day-to-day logistics, which made it easier for me to juggle work, family, and another book and book tour.

  Thank you to my employer, Fox News, for allowing me the leeway to spend time on this and for doing a one-hour documentary scheduled to run at book launch.

  And a very special thank-you to my family—my wife, Amy, and my two sons, Paul and Daniel. Time away and late nights made the prospect of another book “daunting,” but they could not have been more supportive of me.

  Through it all, I have been grateful to President Ronald Reagan, who is an uplifting presence to this day—always reminding us of the greatness of our nation and what we can still become. Reagan’s courage, resolve, and tireless pursuit of peace are an enduring gift to the world. His wisdom resonates still. I feel enormously privileged to tell his story.

  Appendix

  Ronald Reagan’s Speech at Moscow State University

  May 31, 1988

  Thank you, Rector Logunov, and I want to thank all of you very much for a very warm welcome. It’s a great pleasure to be here at Moscow State University, and I want to thank you all for turning out. I know you must be very busy this week, studying and taking your final examinations. So, let me just say zhelayu vam uspekha [I wish you success]. Nancy couldn’t make it today because she’s visiting Leningrad, which she tells me is a very beautiful city, but she, too, says hello and wishes you all good luck.

  Let me say it’s also a great pleasure to once again have this opportunity to speak directly to the people of the Soviet Union. Before I left Washington, I received many heartfelt letters and telegrams asking me to carry here a simple message, perhaps, but also some of the most important business of this summit: It is a message of peace and good will and hope for a growing friendship and closeness between our two peoples.

  As you know, I’ve come to Moscow to meet with one of your most distinguished graduates. In this, our fourth summit, General Secretary Gorbachev and I have spent many hours together, and I feel that we’re getting to know each other well. Our discussions, of course, have been focused primarily on many of the important issues of the day, issues I want to touch on with you in a few moments. But first I want to take a little time to talk to you much as I would to any group of university students in the United States. I want to talk not just of the realities of today but of the possibilities of tomorrow.

  Standing here before a mural of your revolution, I want to talk about a very different revolution that is taking place right now, quietly sweeping the globe without bloodshed or conflict. Its effects are peaceful, but they will fundamentally alter our world, shatter old assumptions, and reshape our lives. It’s easy to underestimate because it’s not accompanied by banners or fanfare. It’s been called the technological or information revolution, and as its emblem, one might take the tiny silicon chip, no bigger than a fingerprint. One of these chips has more computing power than a roomful of old-style computers.

  As part of an exchange program, we now have an exhibition touring your country that shows how information technology is transforming our lives—replacing manual labor with robots, forecasting weather for farmers, or mapping the genetic code of DNA for medical researchers. These microcomputers today aid the design of everything from houses to cars to spacecraft; they even design better and faster computers. They can translate English into Russian or enable the blind to read or help Michael Jackson produce on one synthesizer the sounds of a whole orchestra. Linked by a network of satellites and fiber-optic cables, one individual with a desktop computer and a telephone commands resources unavailable to the largest governments just a few years ago.

  Like a chrysalis, we’re emerging from the economy of the Industrial Revolution—an economy confined to and limited by the Earth’s physical resources—into, as one economist titled his book, “The Economy in Mind,” in which there are no bounds on human imagination and the freedom to create is the most precious natural resource. Think of that little computer chip. Its value isn’t in the sand from which it is made but in the microscopic architecture designed into it by ingenious human minds. Or take the example of the satellite relaying this broadcast around the world, which replaces thousands of tons of copper mined from the Earth and molded into wire. In the new economy, human invention increasingly makes physical resources obsolete. We’re breaking through the material conditions of existence to a world where man creates his own destiny. Even as we explore the most advanced reaches of science, we’re returning to the age-old wisdom of our culture, a wisdom contained in the book of Genesis in the Bible: In the beginning was the spirit, and it was from this spirit that the material abundance of creation issued forth.

  But progress is not foreordained. The key is freedom—freedom of thought, freedom of information, freedom of communication. The renowned scientist, scholar, and founding father of this university, Mikhail Lomonosov, knew that. “It is common knowledge,” he said, “that the achievements of science are considerable and rapid, particularly once the yoke of slavery is cast off and replaced by the freedom of philosophy.” You know, one of the first contacts between your country and mine took place between Russian and American explorers. The Americans were members of Cook’s last
voyage on an expedition searching for an Arctic passage; on the island of Unalaska, they came upon the Russians, who took them in, and together with the native inhabitants, held a prayer service on the ice.

  The explorers of the modern era are the entrepreneurs, men with vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to brave the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. They are the prime movers of the technological revolution. In fact, one of the largest personal computer firms in the United States was started by two college students, no older than you, in the garage behind their home. Some people, even in my own country, look at the riot of experiment that is the free market and see only waste. What of all the entrepreneurs that fail? Well, many do, particularly the successful ones; often several times. And if you ask them the secret of their success, they’ll tell you it’s all that they learned in their struggles along the way; yes, it’s what they learned from failing. Like an athlete in competition or a scholar in pursuit of the truth, experience is the greatest teacher.

  And that’s why it’s so hard for government planners, no matter how sophisticated, to ever substitute for millions of individuals working night and day to make their dreams come true. The fact is, bureaucracies are a problem around the world. There’s an old story about a town—it could be anywhere—with a bureaucrat who is known to be a good-for-nothing, but he somehow had always hung on to power. So one day, in a town meeting, an old woman got up and said to him: “There is a folk legend here where I come from that when a baby is born, an angel comes down from heaven and kisses it on one part of its body. If the angel kisses him on his hand, he becomes a handyman. If he kisses him on his forehead, he becomes bright and clever. And I’ve been trying to figure out where the angel kissed you so that you should sit there for so long and do nothing.” [Laughter]