The neoconservative foreign policy analyst and scholar Michael Ledeen died on Saturday. I am sorely grieved by his death, even though we differed on some of his hallmark positions such as his support for the invasion of Iraq. As one can imagine, I am no fan of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy or the other neoconservative organizations with which Michael was associated.

Despite these differences, and despite my known resistance to Michael’s calls for spreading American democracy, later in life I became friends with this formidable figure and his wife, Barbara. I came to appreciate his many accomplishments, such as his extensive knowledge of Italian fascism and his published interviews of the world’s leading Mussolini scholar Renzo De Felice. It was only after completing my own book on fascism that I began reading his learned, dispassionate material on the same subject, including a study of fascist internationalism from which my own study would have benefited.

I found it impressive that Ledeen, who began his career as a serious European historian, retrained himself as an authority on terrorism and became a respected foreign policy strategist who played an important role in the Cold War. He served as a special adviser to President Reagan’s first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, and in that role, Ledeen convinced European leaders to accept American Pershing missiles. His contributions to ending the long confrontation with the Soviet Union on favorable terms for the United States have been noted by many eulogists since his passing.

I met my deceased friend for the first time in 1987 at the American Enterprise Institute, when I was invited to a debate and discussion centered on his global democratic vision of world politics. Based on Michael’s contentious statements about this subject and our known disagreements on the neoconservative regime-change projects in Iraq and elsewhere, I expected to be quarreling with an embattled ideologue. What I found during our exchange was certainly not that. My opponent was polite and rational, and our discussion took a friendly turn that I had not expected.

During a luncheon at Michael’s house hosted by his wife in 2017, I was amazed to discover how much the three of us agreed on current events. At that time, Michael had just finished what I think was his 35^th book, a detailed defense of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, whom James Comey’s FBI managed to destroy professionally and financially for misrepresenting a conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Among other enormities, Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to the charge of lying under oath after the FBI threatened to prosecute Flynn’s son on some hastily devised charge. With his customary zeal for what he properly understood to be a just cause, Michael rallied to Flynn’s defense. He understood the dangers to a free constitutional government represented by a rogue, partisan FBI.

The unsettling news of Michael’s death also made me think about how his wife dealt with the Democratic Party’s opposition to voter identification. While working as a poll watcher in a Maryland suburb of D.C., she quite loudly pointed out to any voter who wished to show proof of his identity that such an action was entirely inappropriate because the Democratic Party didn’t want voters to tell us who they are. Although we all laughed at the story, I thought Barbara’s move was brilliant.   

Since I was entirely unaware of his deteriorating health, I was unpleasantly surprised as well as saddened to learn of Michael’s passing. Our entire editorial board extends its condolences to his loving family. May they be comforted among the mourners of Jerusalem and Zion!