Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
In the attempts by Elliot Abrams and others to make Newt seem critical of Reagan, one couldn't help but notice not only that the critique seemed to be coming from the right, not the left, but more markedly the absence of context. (Such a pesky notion.) Anyone who lived through that period had to be pretty sure the putative quotations were probably not directed at Reagan but at certain forces within his administration; now we find that indeed Abrams deliberately and selectively took certain remarks totally out of context.
A little history for those even younger than I - and I was still in college and not paying much attention, but these were running themes, starting with Reagan being opposed by the establishment as our nominee (they backed Bush after Baker, Connally, and others):
Conservatives were pushing against parts of the Reagan administration from the beginning, while establishment accomodationists were pushing Reagan to the left.
In the mid-80s, certain figures (e.g. Baker, Darman, Stockman - who had to be "sent to the woodshed", and Schultz) tried to moderate policy (the State Dept.had been trying for a while – most famous perhaps was their push to have Reagan not say: “Tear down this wall.”).
It was clear to conservatives that Reagan needed his friends to balance that effort and pull him back right, in order to better match policy with campaign rhetoric. Newt was vocal, but not alone: Heritage wrote “Mandate for Leadership” not just in ’80 but in ’84.
The conservative rallying cry became “let Reagan be Reagan”. Ben Hart wrote a paper for Heritage called “Rhetoric v. Reality, How the State Dept Betrays the Reagan Vision” Only NRO as I recall largely held its fire, as WFB was personal friends with Reagan. Meanwhile Newt came up with his idea for using CSPAN's cameras on the floor to get out conservative ideas, along with other efforts.
There are many criticisms that are legitimate; this is not one of them.
- Comment (57)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Nov '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Rich Lowry just linked to the full version of the (very long) speech, for what it's worth.
Mar '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Rich Lowry has a post defending Abrams versus Lord on the issue in question.
But, frankly, this is one of the most useless of the internecine battles that has broken out.
Is Newt Gingrich the "rightful heir" of Ronald Reagan? Well, frankly, who cares? There's a strong argument that he was in 1994 and for several years in the 90s. But he hasn't held a public office in over a decade, so might he have "passed the torch"?
And, if Newt isn't the "rightful heir"-who the devil in their right mind is going to argue that Romney is!?
I see no upside to this particular line of bickering. There is no Ronald Reagan in this year's electoral cycle, and both Gingrich and Romney have done their share of flip-flopping.
Aug '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Crow's Nest:
Is Newt Gingrich the "rightful heir" of Ronald Reagan? Well, frankly, who cares?
I care. See, Mitt Romney, who famously distanced himself from Reagan and cannot walk it back, cannot have Newt be seen as a Reagan ally. He must continually lie that Newt was also a foe of Ronald Reagan. That's the only way Mitt can measure up -- by distorting the truth to bring Newt down to his level.
Are we really about to nominate a candidate who fights harder against conservatism than he does against leftism? It seems that way.
Edited on Jan 28 at 6:47amJun '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
A March 21, 1986, Newt excerpt:
What is the Soviet domination of East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania,Bulgaria, if not an empire?
Our less sophisticated friends on the left will say, what is the difference between NATO and the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe? The difference is exactly the difference between slavery and freedom.
When De Gaulle left us to leave France, we pulled out.
When the East Germans rose in 1953, they were crushed.
When the Hungarians rose in 1956, they were crushed.
When the Czechs moved toward freedom in 1968, they were crushed.
When the Poles rose in Solidarity in 1980, the Soviet sent a simple message to Jaruzelski, "Either you crush the effort for freedom or Soviet troops will crush it.
[...]
Similarly, the Ukraine today as we talk has a vote in the United Nations because it is theoretically free. There is a simple test. The United States, the Reagan administration, should ask the Soviet Union to allow us to open an embassy in Kiev, recognizing the Ukrainians. We should recognize the Ukraine as a separate country, or we should insist that the Soviet Union withdraw its phony puppet colony vote from the United Nations.
Mar '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Drew--you're missing my point.
The debate in question is whether or not Ronald Reagan passed the torch, via a statement from Nancy Reagan to Newt Gingrich.
If he did--and I said I thought there was a strong case that the Contract with America was a Reaganesque approach--that was back in 1994.
You have to look at Gingrich's record thereafter--which includes the collapse of that agenda in the late 1990s and the emergence of a 2 term Republican president who ran as a "Compassionate Conservative". Meanwhile, Gingrich hasn't been in office for a decade.
So, rehashing whether or not he was, at one time, the heir to Reagan, is not going to win the 2012 election.
If Newt was/was not the heir--nobody will argue (pro or anti-Romney) that Romney represents the Reagan agenda.
Jul '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
On second thought, let us avoid Reagan torches, tis a silly thing. When Obama put on that coat and didn't get laughed at by the press corps then it ceased to have meaning. Crow's Nest, every time I hear the Reagan name channeled by either of theses folks it gives me pause, Newt because he's been there and then not there contrasted with Romney who never came close.
Edited on Jan 28 at 7:20amNov '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
I enjoyed this sentence from Lowry:
Yes, Rich, the world is neatly divided into "Newt fans" and "others", and there is nothing of rhetorical or historical interest in reading the speech, there's no need to read the whole thing and attempt to put it in context, as best we can, especially those of us who weren't alive or were extremely young then. It's perfectly acceptable to selectively quote from 30 year old speeches without providing links or references to the source material, as Abrams did. I give Lowry credit for linking to Gingrich's speech, but he can keep his sneering to himself.
Mar '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Every time I hear the Reagan name channeled by either of theses folks it gives me pause, Newt because he's been there and then not there contrasted with Romney who never came close.
Rightfully so, and fair enough. If Newt has been, let us say, a prodigal Reaganite, then Romney is the man who renounced him. If you look at both men's records, both have, on various occasions, betrayed the Reagan legacy. But who can more faithfully carry the Reagan flag is not one of the top 10 issues on voters minds in 2012.
One of the reasons I am concerned about a Gingrich nomination is because I fear we'll spend the 2012 election relitigating the 1990s instead of facing the consequences of the disastrous policies of the last four years.
Sep '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
I'm watching the spectacle of Team Romney defrosting Team Dole to co-opt the Reagan legacy and thinking all this does is make us look like Chiquita bananas.
Sep '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
One of the reasons I am concerned about a Gingrich nomination is because I fear we'll spend the 2012 election relitigating the 1990s instead of facing the consequences of the disastrous policies of the last four years.
Perhaps Newt's moonbase alpha was designed for those of who won't be able to take that for another four years.
Mar '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Perhaps Newt's moonbase alpha was designed for those of who won't be able to take that for another four years.
An interesting proposal....
Instead of building a bunker in my basement and stocking it with canned goods (assuming the world doesn't end in a Mayan-predicted catastrophe, of course) we could build a bunker.....on the Moon!
"We're the country that built the interplanetary railway...."
May '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
This whole episode is being mischaracterized by virtually everyone. Abrams pointed out (accurately) that Newt, who has been wrapping himself in the Reagan flag throughout the campaign as though he had been William French Smith, spoke extremely critically of Reagan on both policy and personal leadership grounds. He is trying to channel Reagan the man- for political benefit, not Reagan the policymaker.
Newt defenders are trying to deflect it away from the personal and character point, into a policy issue: "Newt Is Too the Most Authentic Conservative, He Criticized Reagan From The Right!"
No, the issue is character. Newt caroms off of every wall- Left, right, center, right, left. He criticizes everyone- from the left or from the right- based on convenience, not principle, to meet his personal objective of the moment. The same guy who said that Reagan was giving away the store to the Communists said that Bain Capital is a bunch of vulture leeches who destroy peoples' lives. He can't have it both ways.
Is he basically a man of conservative bent? Of course. But he portrays and says anything- principles be d@**ed- if they stand in the way of his current ambition and ego.
Jul '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Which candidate can consistently make this election more about Obama than themselves? Romney is a boring moderate while Newt needs his lithium level checked along with his bonafides. So Newt is more like Reagan, but that is not relevant. Anyone who loved Ron will vote against Obama. End of story.
Jun '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Duane Oyen:
[...]
Newt defenders are trying to deflect it away from the personal and character point, into a policy issue: "Newt Is Too the Most Authentic Conservative, He Criticized Reagan From The Right!"
No, the issue is character. Newt caroms off of every wall- Left, right, center, right, left. He criticizes everyone- from the left or from the right- based on convenience, not principle, to meet his personal objective of the moment. The same guy who said that Reagan was giving away the store to the Communists said that Bain Capital is a bunch of vulture leeches who destroy peoples' lives. He can't have it both ways.
Is he basically a man of conservative bent? Of course. But he portrays and says anything- principles be d@**ed- if they stand in the way of his current ambition and ego. · 2 minutes ago
I'm also disappointed in Newt, for encouraging his PAC to be as nasty and dishonest as Mitt's PAC. That's not getting us anywhere.
Sep '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Newt is also starting to write too much "on the nose" dialogue:
"I'm waiting to fact check him so I can deliver my response."
Uh, don't *announce* you're fact-checking him. Just keep quiet, do it, and then deliver the carpet bombing at the appropriate time.
Sep '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
I'm ready to throw in the towel on the Republican Party. There are so many alarm bells going off in my head over the establishment support for Romney that it's amazing my wife can sleep at night.
Meanwhile, Romneycare will be rolled out to all 50 states. Suck on that, you peons.
Sep '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Don't count on it. I'm so totally creeped out by this Republican bashfest against Newt that I'm not likely to vote at all. I certainly won't be lobbying my family members to vote for Romney. They're all Democrats and are wobbly on Obama. My wife has already said she won't vote for Romney under any circumstances and that was before the carnage began.
Something evil is at work here. The party has sold it's soul, not for Goldwater, but Romney.
Sep '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
This whole Incrediboy versus Mr. Incredible schtick
"Incroyable!!!" is reminding me of why I hated the 90's so much -- the never ending daily drama of Clinton haircuts, Lincoln bedroom, bimbo eruption, scuds in the camel rear ends in Sudan, 16,000 page WhiteWater investigations, James Carville speaking in a hitherto unknown dialect from the paleolithic period called "Creosote".
All that's missing is a massive collapse like the dot com implosion.
Oh, wait.
Sep '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
K T Cat: I'm ready to throw in the towel on the Republican Party. There are so many alarm bells going off in my head over the establishment support for Romney that it's amazing my wife can sleep at night.
Meanwhile, Romneycare will be rolled out to all 50 states. Suck on that, you peons. · 4 minutes ago
Why oh why does every bad news story have to begin with "they've let the cat out of the bag"?
No one puts cats in bags. No one.
Nov '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
No, this is a complete misrepresentation. Go and read the speech; I encourage everyone else to do so as well. Whether or not you agree with the strong criticism Gingrich was delivering to the Reagan administration, it does not suggest that "Reagan was giving away the store to the Communists".