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 :
Aug '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Mothership Greg,
Thanks for linking the Hayward piece. My favorite quote:
"No, we need a Congress that will repeal Obamacare; the President cannot do so all by himself."
Those who hate Romney and/or Newt should keep this in mind. This election is important. It is about getting a more conservative president that Obama, sure, but it is also about maintaining and increasing the size of a conservative legislature.
Hayward also mentions a book that one of my mentoring professors, John Marini, edited which adds a "lessen opposition due to positive association" weight to his arguments for me.
I think I've written this before. If California still matters by June, I'll vote for Mitt -- baring some major changes. But I'll vote happily and passionately for Gingrich against Obama. All of Gingrich's failures toward the left are significantly diluted by his overall conservatism.
Romney has moved right over his career and is at a place I like. Gingrich has fluctuated erratically, but he seems to have a firm conservative Polaris that he keeps returning to.
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Romney's people should not have deployed Bob Dole and Eliot Abrams. Whatever one may think of Gingrich's presidential prospects, one ought to admit that he did wonders in the 1990s, turning a Congressional party that was comfortable in the minority into a party intent on governing as a conservative party. His defects I will readily admit, but not until I have contemplated his virtues. If Gingrich lost the duel over the budget with Bill Clinton, it was due to Bob Dole -- and it was Dole's surrender in that fight that laid the foundation for his own defeat in 1996. In the late 1980s and in the 1990s, Gingrich really did function as Reagan's heir, pushing precisely the same agenda.
Did he go off the rails? Yes, he did. Did he embrace the worst progressive proposals in later years? Yes, he did. Alas.
Nov '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
I just can't get all that worked up about this either way. Maybe it's because I'm in the "even younger" category.
He was harsh enough in that speech that I'm not surprised it might leave an administration official with some bad feelings.
Newt invited criticism by exaggerating his record; given the panic about him in certain circles, some of the criticism was not surprisingly way over the top; it'll go back and forth with more over-the-top rhetoric on both sides. Whatever.
Compared to everything else it's not that relevant now whether he criticized Reagan from left, right, or above. It also doesn't bother me that Romney was an independent or that Perry was a Democrat during the 80s. Or that Reagan used to be a Democrat (actually, that helped).
Frankly, I did find it interesting that the Speaker's favourite words were fundamentally the same more than 20 years ago.
May '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
All very interesting, but I'm more interested in Newt's and Romney's responses to the brave, transformational conservative figure of today: Paul Ryan.
The House Republicans who put their names on the Ryan budget are every bit as heroic as the Reaganites of a generation ago. That budget was more than a bill; it was a declaration: "We are all in; we hang together, or we hang separately."
How did our two frontrunners respond to such bravery?
Romney stood with the Ryanites, submitting a plan for entitlement reform entirely consistent with Ryan's (in fact it was so good that Ryan himself altered his own plan to conform with Romney's, an adjustment that allowed him to coax Dem Sen. Wyden on board -- a development crucial to its prospects of success).
Gingrich responded to the Ryanites heroism by distancing himself -- even undermining the effort ("rightwing social engineering" etc) -- and to date has not proposed a workable reform of Medicare.
So enough with the Reagan stuff already -- be it Newt in the 80's or Mitt in some '94 debate. Today, now, Romney's the brave one, and Newt's overly cautious -- his bombastic rhetoric notwithstanding.
Nov '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
When it came right down to it this was the issue that decided me. I still cannot understand how Gingrich can be viewed as the more conservative choice if we take the debt seriously.
I wouldn't praise Romney as strongly as you do (he was very cautious in his support at the time), but he came down on the right side. He will have to defend Medicare reform in the general election, and will be able to call his plan bipartisan as he does so. Santorum is strong too, though I'm nervous about the political implications of his arguing that we should speed up implementation.
Sep '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
I'm sure those mythical independents hiding in the urban jungle will take comfort that the Republicans in the primary are napalming each other as we try to assure them it will be safe on the Ho Chi Minh trail. Because there's no way Wile E Crist advisors will run an unsubtle campaign that will turn Obama into a sympathetic figure.
May '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Leigh
When it came right down to it this was the issue that decided me. I still cannot understand how Gingrich can be viewed as the more conservative choice if we take the debt seriously.
I wouldn't praise Romney as strongly as you do (he was very cautious in his support at the time), but he came down on the right side. He will have to defend Medicare reform in the general election, and will be able to call his plan bipartisan as he does so. ....
Thanks, Leigh. If anyone's interested, here's a detailed explanation of the Ryan-Wyden proposal and how it conforms with Romney's plan and is at odds with Gingrich's feckless plan.
Romney has twin virtues vis-a-vis entitlement reform: bravery in his proposals; caution in his rhetoric -- precisely the right approach to getting reforms passed into law, but perhaps not ideal to winning Republican primaries.
May '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin defends Newt. I really do like her instincts.
Dec '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Scott Reusser
Romney has twin virtues vis-a-vis entitlement reform: bravery in his proposals; caution in his rhetoric -- precisely the right approach to getting reforms passed into law, but perhaps not ideal to winning Republican primaries. · 2 hours ago
Wall Street Journal editorial page, Sept. 7, 2011
Nov '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Stuart Creque
Scott Reusser
Romney has twin virtues vis-a-vis entitlement reform: bravery in his proposals; caution in his rhetoric -- precisely the right approach to getting reforms passed into law, but perhaps not ideal to winning Republican primaries. · 2 hours ago
Wall Street Journal editorial page, Sept. 7, 2011 · 21 minutes ago
Medicare wasn't included in the 59-point plan. That came later. Here's the Wall Street Journal on November 9:
May '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Stuart Creque
Wall Street Journal editorial page, Sept. 7, 2011 · 7 minutes ago
Note the date. This was before Romney rolled out his Medicare reform, which Ryan has since modeled.
The editorial is right that Romney is cautious in his tax reform proposals, but it misses a point that Romney grasps: that there's already the ability to pass significant and bipartisan right-of-center tax reform (see the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which Ryan himself has praised).
There's therefore no reason to burn precious political capital on detailed tax proposals which can be deceptively demagogued by Obama. Better to be avoid too many specifics in the campaign while saying, "But hey, Mr. President, I'd certainly be willing to consider the ideas in your bipartisan debt commission."
Meanwhile Gingrich demagogues Romney's wealth while proposing to cut Romney's taxes to zero -- the single most convoluted campaign strategy in the history of mankind.
Feb '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
DrewInWisconsin
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.
Exactly. It's amazing to see Newt Gingrich- the guy who led the GOP takeover of congress in 1990s- attacked as a leftist.
Amazing. But Romney had to do that because otherwise the conservative electorate would have likely gone decisively for Gingrich by now. When you're the inventor of Romneycare you certainly don't want people focusing on that. Much better to have them rooting around in the archives trying to figure out if Newt actually did in fact hate Ronald Reagan and freedom.
Despicable.
Dec '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Scott Reusser
Stuart Creque
Wall Street Journal editorial page, Sept. 7, 2011 · 7 minutes ago
Note the date. This was before Romney rolled out his Medicare reform, which Ryan has since modeled.
Yup. He unveiled his economic proposals that he'd ostensibly been working on for a year or more in preparation for this campaign, and when the Wall Street Journal pointed out their underwhelming deficiencies, he scrambled for something else.
Romney clearly channels Groucho Marx: "These are my principles, and if you don't like them, well, I have others."
Nov '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Stuart Creque
Yup. He unveiled his economic proposals that he'd ostensibly been working on for a year or more in preparation for this campaign, and when the Wall Street Journal pointed out their underwhelming deficiencies, he scrambled for something else.
Romney clearly channels Groucho Marx: "These are my principles, and if you don't like them, well, I have others." · 2 hours ago
Not on this one; the campaign always said they would come later, as even the editorial you quote notes:
Which they did, and the WSJ spoke highly of them when they did. Lots of reasons to mistrust Romney, but his policy on this is better. The way it meshes with Ryan-Wyden greatly increases the chances of something actually happening.
It also means that Ryan would be the one pushing it through Congress, which increases the chances of the legislation actually doing what it's supposed to do.
All less likely with President Gingrich, based on his statements and proposals.
Nov '11
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
And some more sensible commentary, re: Gingrich, Abrams, Reagan, from Jerry Pournelle
May '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
So as Leigh explains, Stuart, you're wrong. But let's assume you're right for the sake of argument -- that Romney came to stand with Ryan and his band by pure cynicism. Fine.
His behavior is still better than Gingrich's, no? He turned his back on Ryan and the united House Republicans with his rhetoric in the spring and with his inaction now.
Who cares what Gingrich did or did not say, or did or did not mean, in the 1980's re Reagan. It's now the 2010's, and the man has chosen to undermine -- or at the very least shy away from -- today's great conservative cause.
Duane Oyen is right: anti-Romneyism, and now Newtism too, have become religions.
Dec '10
Re: Omitting "Let Reagan be Reagan"
Scott Reusser: So as Leigh explains, Stuart, you're wrong. But let's assume you're right for the sake of argument -- that Romney came to stand with Ryan and his band by pure cynicism. Fine.
His behavior is still better than Gingrich's, no? He turned his back on Ryan and the united House Republicans with his rhetoric in the spring and with his inaction now.
No, his behavior is not better than Gingrich's. If Romney came to stand with Ryan by pure cynicism, where will he go as President on the basis of pure cynicism?
Gee, why didn't he simply adopt Paul Ryan's plan? As a matter of fact, why didn't he come out with his own plan months earlier (having been prepping for 2012 since 2008)?
I don't see how Romney is a paragon of principle and a steadfast rock to any greater extent than Gingrich. Supporters on both sides elevate their guy to a model of perfection. Maybe I like Gingrich better because he actually said the words, "I made a mistake."