Obama needs to take a look at Reagan’s playbook.

Two nights ago, I was watching a special on Ronald Reagan and couldn’t help but think about President-elect Obama and our impending crisis in Iran.

The show went into a discussion about the Kremlin’s preconceived notions about Reagan. Initially, the Kremlin and KGB thought Reagan was soft and that they could easily push him around.

I’ll pause here for your laughter.

There are a few things you have to remember about this time in history to understand their viewpoint. Reagan was very untested when it came to foreign policy, the U.S had just had five consecutive presidents (Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy) that the Soviets viewed as weak and the American economy was in a fairly feeble condition.

So, here comes this cowboy, this actor, this old man and he’s the one that’s going to push the Soviet Union around? He’s the one that’s going to tell Moscow the way it’s going to be? He’s the one that will bring the “Evil Empire” to its knees.

Viewed from this vantage point, I guess you can see the Soviets point.

However, there was one galvanizing moment when the Soviets knew that Reagan was different and they he wasn’t to be trifled with.

On August 3, 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) declared a strike. They wanted higher pay, better working conditions and a 32-hour workweek. Air traffic in the country virtually ceased as a result of the strike.

In response, President Reagan immediately called a press conference and stated the striking members of PATCO were in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned governmental unions from striking and that they had 48 hours to return to work.

Only 1,500 or so of the nearly 13,000 striking PATCO members took Reagan at this word and returned to work.

On August 5, 1981, President Reagan fired the other 11,345 striking members of PATCO and banned them from working in any governmental agency for three years. Air traffic commenced as the Department of Transportation had been secretly training replacements.

All was well…except for those 11,345 that refused to heed the president’s warning.

This act did more than establish how Reagan would handle an economic and labor crisis. It also showed the Soviets that he meant business and would not be pushed around by anyone, no matter how advantageous their position seamed.

After this event, the Soviets became far more willing to listen to what Reagan said and for the first time, probably ever, became afraid of what might happen if they crossed the U.S.

So I know you’re probably wondering, “What the hell does this have to do with Obama and Iran?”

I would love to hear Obama, in a Lumberg-esque (Office Space) voice, say to GM, Ford and Chrysler “yeah…you know that $25 billion you wanted, yeah…that’s probably, um…not going to happen, but, hey, thanks for touching base with us and I really hope things work out for you guys.”

This wouldn’t be nearly as tough of a stance as Reagan’s was with PATCO, but it wouldn’t have to be. It would, however, send a clear message to Putin and Medvedev in Russia, Chavez in Venezuela, Il in North Korea and, most importantly, Ahmadinejad in Iran that while Obama is a pragmatic and thoughtful leader, he’s not going to be bullied by anyone, no matter how advantageous their position seems.

This may give them pause before they ratchet up the rhetoric or, worse yet, the advancement of, in Iran’s case, a nuclear weapon’s program.

Now, this is not going to happen as Obama is urging Congress to give the automakers $50 billion dollars in financial aid. Yes, you read that correctly, 50! That’s twice what they’re looking for!

Good God man, what is he thinking?!?!?!

Let me put this into a comparable scenario for all of you.

With the Holidays coming up, we’re all, for better or worse, going to see most of our families a great deal over the next month and a half. Undoubtedly, some, if not all, of us have, shall we say, a black sheep or two in the family. And without question, said black sheep will most likely have some money troubles this season.

In this scenario, you are the lucky family member they chose to hit up for some cash. This black sheep, however, has conveniently forgotten that they already borrowed a tidy sum of money from you last Christmas and haven’t paid you back.

So that leaves you with a few options:

a) You can politely decline and say that the current economic times have been tough on you too and that you don’t have anything to spare.
b) You can rudely decline by calling them a “deadbeat” and demand a payment from last year’s loan.
c) You can grudgingly agree to give them “some” money, not nearly as much as they ask and remind them about last year’s loan.
d) You can happily agree to help them out by forgiving last year’s loan and insisting on giving them twice what they asked.

Ok, quick show of hands…

Who chose a? Let’s see those hands.

Alright, a few of you.

How about b? Come on, come on, let’s get those hands up.

A few less than a, but still some support.

Ok, c?

Seems like c is the most popular answer thus far.

Alright how about d?

I don’t see any…nope, not a one.

Oh wait; there is one person that chose d.

Wanna guess who that one person was?

Yep, it’s Obama.

Just imagine this:

Obama, while digesting his ham, sipping on some eggnog and admiring the Christmas tree, just got pulled aside by his Uncle Otto. Uncle Otto claims that he’s had a tough year and that he just needs $3,000 to “get his head above water”.

Before Otto can explain how he got into this mess, Obama stops him and says, “you know Otto, don’t worry about it. I’m going to forget that you haven’t paid back a dime of the $3,000 you borrowed from me last Christmas and give you $6,000 right now. Would you prefer cash or a check?”

That’s, essentially, what just happened folks. The problem with this scenario is that he didn’t give Uncle Otto his own money …it was ours and we’re never gonna get it back. It doesn’t matter that, if by some unforeseen miracle, this money helps Detroit get out of their difficulties and pay it all back, we will never see that money again. The government will find some other way to spend it on something else, some other “crisis” that “we can’t let happen”.

Unfortunately for us, the best-case scenario is that we only lose our $50 billion. As unfair and frustrating of a development as that is, we can afford to lose that.

Equally unfortunate is the worst-case scenario where Iran views Obama as a weak leader and decides to push him around and continues their development of nuclear weapons.

That’s a scenario we cannot afford.

That's all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John