Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
I want to post on a subject already addressed well by Paul Rahe and try to keep this discussion going, as I do believe it's important.
Mark Levin, like some of the rest of us, has not been too happy about the vitriol from the right directed against Sarah Palin and he explained why in this Facebook post. In that post he cited the criticism of certain people, including Karl Rove, David Frum, and Peter Wehner, all of whom worked in some capacity for George W. Bush. Mark made this assertion, “Bush’s record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse. ... If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.”
Pete responded to Mark's challenge in Contentions and offered a side-by-side comparison of the relative conservatism of Reagan and Bush, issue by issue. Peter concludes, "Bush’s record, based on objective conservative yardsticks, stacks up quite well against Reagan’s."
Mark has since responded with this thorough Facebook post. Mark said, "Comparing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is like comparing Margaret Thatcher and John Major."
Many other conservatives have weighed in on the matter, obviously believing it relevant to the larger question of the proper direction the GOP should take today. Jeffrey Lord posted his view on the American Spectator blog. Terry Jeffrey weighed in at CNS News. Dan Riehl comments on it in his Riehl World View blog. And Hugh Hewitt says on his blog, "Two of the most serious thinkers on the right are Mark Levin and Pete Wehner. Both have served inside and outside of the highest levels of government and both are dedicated conservatives. Thus their ongoing exchange should be read closely and passed on to everyone concerned not just with the past of conservatism, but its future."
Peter Wehner is a brilliant, thoughtful and fine man and a good friend, and he has made his case about as well as I believe it can be made. But I think the overwhelming evidence is in my buddy Mark Levin's favor and he has made a compelling case. I doubt that many conservatives have any doubt that Reagan was easily more conservative than Bush, but Peter does a good job defending him.
At any rate, this debate is worth having, as is the debate over the ongoing assault from establishment conservatives on Sarah Palin.
I just thought if you were unaware of this debate --- and didn't see Paul Rahe's excellent post on it, you would be interested in reading about it, and possibly sharing your comments. By now Peter may have counter-responded. If so, I'll try to update with a link.
Update: Here's another interesting piece on the subject by Daniel Mitchell.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
As regards Palin, I'll side with George Will, Heather McDonald and Matt Labash, who are quoted in this story at Politico, where Labash suggests that Palin, with her petulant identity politics and reflexive backlash against anyone who questions her, is becoming the "Al Sharpton of Alaska.".
Perhaps Mark Levin, in lucid moments, is a deep thinker. But his unhinged vitriol against anyone who dares disagree with him is off-putting, to say the least. This is the man, after all, who lashed out against those who questioned the qualifications of Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle in terms that would never have passed muster with Ricochet's Code of Conduct.
As for whether Reagan was more conservative than George W Bush, all I can say is "McCain/Feingold" and "Medicare Part D".
Edited on Mar 18, 2011 at 1:31pmOct '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
Thanks for keeping this going, David. I do not understand the motivations of Bush cronies need to denigrate Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the 20th century, in order to build up the reputation of their boss. These tactics are of Washington insiders and Democratic Party hacks, not movement conservatives trying to convince the American people that their philosophy works the best.
These people are selfish, self-aggrandizing, and delusional ladder-climbers trying to trick the Washington elites that they weren’t so bad, after all. Mark Levin’s thorough response was awe-inspiring and a great history lesson. I fear that reality is something that the Republican establishment in Washington will continue to deny unless we shove it down their throats with TEA.
Oct '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
I think we need to live and let live. Yes, the neocons committed disaster after disaster during the Bush years. But they've had just as much soul-searching time as every other part of the movement, and after a certain point we need to stop rehashing these issues. I say we put this behind us, and concentrate on 2012.
Jan '11
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
This kerfuffle is really driven by the dilemma of Sarah Palin. To be blunt, she is unwilling to make compromises.
One school of thought says that making compromises is a necessary evil, but like them or not, you need to make them. The comparison between Bush and Reagan is really comparing their compromises. Was Lebanon a compromise? How much? Was Sandra O'Connor a compromise? How much?
Rather than get in the middle of a pissing match about people (bad place to be), I'd rather address the question impersonally.
How much compromising should a true conservative permit?
Scott Walker stuck to his guns and seems to have "won," the judge's injunction notwithstanding. Chris Christie sticks to his guns, and is urging others to do the same. Sarah Palin is a stick-to-her-guns icon.
But we all know that in these cases, it's just the first round. Walker's in his first year, Christie is still early in his term. The pros are warning us that no-compromise is politically dangerous.
So far, Christie and Walker are winning.
I say, let's try no compromise ... for a change!
Oct '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
I certainly agree, this criticizing of Reagan is out of line. I happen to admire Reagan's centrist tendencies, but by no means do I view him as unconservative as they do. Trying to justify Bush by attacking Reagan is counterproductive.
Both sides need to stand down, I think.
Oct '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
KC Mulville: This kerfuffle is really driven by the dilemma of Sarah Palin. To be blunt, she is unwilling to make compromises.
One school of thought says that making compromises is a necessary evil, but like them or not, you need to make them. The comparison between Bush and Reagan is really comparing their compromises. Was Lebanon a compromise? How much? Was Sandra O'Connor a compromise? How much?
Rather than get in the middle of a pissing match about people (bad place to be), I'd rather address the question impersonally.
Well, Christie is compromising, he's just skilled enough that they give 2 for every 1 he gives. Walker's reforms were necessary for future generations, but he may crash and burn in the short term for them. Compromising isn't itself bad, so long as the compromise is advantageous to your position.
Jan '11
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
There's only one reason to excuse GWB for letting federal spending and entitlements grow: he was totally committed to winning and rebuilding both Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the former president, he never had a true majority in the senate. The squishy ones in the senate knew they had the leverage to de-fund his foreign policy goals and I believed they used this to get concessions in the form of increases in spending . This is what I tell myself to square the inconsistencies I witnessed between GWB's words and his deeds.
Jun '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
Both Bush and Reagan are history. We need to be discussing the here, now and the future. However, I would guess Levin would win this debate, givin the subjects involved.
Kenneth @#1:
As regards Palin, I'll side with George Will, Heather McDonald and Matt Labash, who are quoted in this story at Politico, where Labash suggests that Palin, with her petulant identity politics and reflexive backlash against anyone who questions her, is becoming the "Al Sharpton of Alaska.".
I have no idea what you or Labash are talking about.
Perhaps Mark Levin, in lucid moments, is a deep thinker. But his unhinged vitriol against anyone who dares disagree with him is off-putting, to say the least. This is the man, after all, who lashed out against those who questioned the qualifications of Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle in terms that would never have passed muster with Ricochet's Code of Conduct.
It would be interesting to see if Ricochet would change it's Code of Conduct for Levin's 7,000,000 subrscribers. Probably not, they are far too honorable. I personally wonder how well each of these women would have faired with Republican party support.
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
What I think some are missing is that this IS ABOUT 2012. It's about the narrative and the ongoing fight between establishment Republicans and movement conservatives. This is a fight the establishment GOP is picking and it is wholly proper and important for Mark to respond. So please don't view this as merely historical or in a vacuum. It's highly relevant today.
Jun '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
Thanks for that explanation, David. I am all with Mark and have no love for establishment Republicans. They have done an excellent job of being foils for the leftists. And I do not understand the vitriol against our consevative women.
Oct '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
Oh. I was confused. If it's an establishment fight, by all means, have at it. I didn't realize those were all establishment figures, but then, I'm not very informed on that sort of thing.
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
And I am not saying that Peter Wehner is an establishment Republican. Pete's a good man and a friend. I am just saying there are serious intramural battles going on inside the conservative movement and its important for Reagan conservatives to fight for their position, which I believe, is the mainstream conservative position. I believe this started because Mark grew weary of the attacks on Palin by some who have a "vested interest" in bringing her down. I am a strong defender of Palin myself, but I also do not intend to cast aspersions on those, like Kenneth, who have concerns. To each his own. The movement's big enough for dissent, but if those of us who consider ourselves Reagan conservatives don't defend our position, our position could be diminished. The David Frums of the world want to hijack the party in my opinion. I see this as the beginning of the blowback.
Sep '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
When the psudo-conservatives want to make a case for themselves, they trot out Reagan, put him on a pedestal and then proceed to take his every mistake as evidence that Republicans can do the same things and call themselves conservatives. Voila!
There never is much context or depth to these comparisons, and they actually reveal a flippant attitude toward conservatism: Reagan is supposed to be a conservative, he did X therefore, doing X is conservative.
Not so fast, my moderate friends - that's not the how conservatives think. Conservatism isn't, "everything Ronald Reagan ever did was great" as you claim it is. There is a little more to it than that. Better go back and do some more oppo research. You see, claiming you, or your friends are conservative using these points as evidence undermines your case. It reveals you really don't know or respect what conservatism actually is..
Oct '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
David Limbaugh:
. I am just saying there are serious intramural battles going on inside the conservative movement ...
The David Frums of the world want to hijack the party in my opinion. I see this as the beginning of the blowback. · Mar 18 at 4:56pm
I agree that there are serious battles inside the conservative movement, as there should be, "iron sharpens iron..." But as to the Frums of the world hijacking the Republican party, I think the Frums of the world are the party and they are trying to prevent it from being "hijacked" by the right.
Edited on Mar 18, 2011 at 5:23pmJan '11
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
Okay, to the here and now, then. Sarah Palin has a huge hurdle to overcome: explaining away her abrupt resignation as Alaska governor. Her story changed a few times. She could, in the future, further spin this, of course. But the only thing that I would want to really hear from her is something like an explanation where she makes the claim that she does not have a lust for power and therefore decided to resign rather than put the state's taxpayers on the hook for all the out-of-control junk lawsuits that her political enemies were drumming up against her. I'd also like to hear her further explain that it's not political power driving her to run for president but rather a deep desire to roll-back the concentration of power that the federal government has amassed in the last century and the beginning of this one.
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
LowcountryJoe
Okay, to the here and now, then. Sarah Palin has a huge hurdle to overcome: explaining away her abrupt resignation as Alaska governor. Her story changed a few times. She could, in the future, further spin this, of course. But the only thing that I would want to really hear from her is something like an explanation where she makes the claim that she does not have a lust for power and therefore decided to resign rather than put the state's taxpayers on the hook for all the out-of-control junk lawsuits that her political enemies were drumming up against her. I'd also like to hear her further explain that it's not political power driving her to run for president but rather a deep desire to roll-back the concentration of power that the federal government has amassed in the last century and the beginning of this one. · Mar 18 at 6:53pm
No question she has hurdles to overcome -- as do all the candidates -- and I'll grant you the resignation is a big one. I actually do believe that she is involved for the right reasons. Can't prove; just instinct.
Jan '11
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
David Limbaugh
LowcountryJoe
Sarah Palin has a huge hurdle to overcome: explaining away her abrupt resignation as Alaska governor...
No question she has hurdles to overcome -- as do all the candidates -- and I'll grant you the resignation is a big one. I actually do believe that she is involved for the right reasons. Can't prove; just instinct. · Mar 18 at 7:13pm
I liked Fred Thompson during the 2008 run but not enough in the GOP felt the same way -- he said (and wrote, in the WSJ) all the right things for me to get on board...talking up federalism a great deal. I really liked the track that Mark Sanford was on until he ran off the rails in his personal life [not an issue for me but for other voters, to be sure].
I'm not familiar with the everyone who's going to be running this time around but so far I'm not very impressed with anyone but Chris Christie because he's the only one who seemingly isn't afraid to say unpopular things. More politicians have got to tell voters that past government promises are going to have to be broken.
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
Reagan had a coherent, conservative vision and a strategy for achieving it. Yes, he made tactical compromises to marshal a broad-based right-of-center coalition, but these concessions were always in service of realizing the larger vision.
Not so, unfortunately, with George W. Bush.
Mar '11
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
So, was the price of a grande latte supposed to keep the Palin supporters out? If so, it didn't work.
I'm here!
Jun '10
Re: Levin vs. Wehner on the Relative Conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
Where is the discussion about the use of the bully pulpit. I love GWB for the war and his leadership to something near closure. I love that he beat McCain at a critical time -- because McCain would have been far worse than Bush for those 8 years.
BUT, I will never forgive Bush for damaging the Republican brand by not fighting for it. Ultimately, he chose some form of Patrician elitism that he maybe got in his mother's milk. He didn't seem to give a damn about the future of the Republican party -- not the Reagan version that I want to see stronger. Reagan and Lincoln were party builders. Bush was not. Karl Rove has the chutzpah to say now (finally when it can do absolutely no good) that Bush's decision to not defend himself and the party was the biggest mistake. This makes me sick.
As for Palin, ask Newt about 300 ethics violations that he had to deal with. Palin is a mover and shaker by instinct. When you are a punching bag you neither move nor shake. She was each day communicating through a fog of lies from the mainstream media.