Reagan? Get Over Him
Over the last few of days, two nearly identical pieces of advice to the GOP have appeared. From "How to Save the Republican Party," by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner, in the February issue of Commentary:
And it is no wonder that Republican policies can seem stale; they are very nearly identical to those offered up by the party more than 30 years ago. For Republicans to design an agenda that applies to the conditions of 1980 is as if Ronald Reagan designed his agenda for conditions that existed in the Truman years.
From "Reaganism After Reagan," Ramesh Ponnuru's column in today's New York Times:
Today's Republicans are very good at tending the fire of Ronald Reagan’s memory but not nearly as good at learning from his successes. They slavishly adhere to the economic program that Reagan developed to meet the challenges of the late 1970s and early 1980s, ignoring the fact that he largely overcame those challenges, and now we have new ones. It’s because Republicans have not moved on from that time that Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, in their responses to the State of the Union address last week, offered so few new ideas.
Well?
- Comment (123)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (33)
Comments:
May '11
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
I think the most unlikely people to save the Republican Party are republicans. After Reagan, the Bush family has thoroughly supplanted his ideas with moderate socialism.
May '10
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
What Reagan offered, and the main reason he's still so admired, is clarity and largeness of vision, combined with personal goodness: courage, smarts, warmth, humor, love of country, simplicity of heart, reverence for life...
He saw the big picture, and he helped the rest of the world see it too.
Those who want the Republicans to be all about innovative policy ideas have been in Washington too long.
Sep '11
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
Does Ramesh have any new ideas? Or is he just chastising other Republicans for not having them?
Oct '10
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
Reagan kept true to his conservative principles (or admitted his mistake when he didn't), but he used those principles to light the way out of the problems taking place at the time.Today's conservatives need to keep Reagan's principles and use them to solve current problems. The exact solutions may not be the same, but they should be guided by the same things.Many of these "forget Reagan" people seem to want to throw out the entirety rather than using what's good and adopting the rest.
May '10
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
Do you really think that that was the message of those pieces, Peter? I thought that Gerson was actually saying that Reagan, he of formidable political instincts, would have tuned his message today to address the problems we face. Tax cuts and beating the Soviets aren't the current challenges. Wouldn't Ronaldus Magus, today, have emphasized affordable energy and free market choice rather than focusing on the debt?
I disagree with Ramesh in his obsession with the payroll tax- anyone who has any flat tax instincts at all has to approve of the payroll tax so that everyone has some skin in the game. But his ideas on energy and previously stated (2006) thoughts on SS reform are pretty decent.
I pretty violently disagree, however, with Skyler's assertion that Jeb and GW are "socialists". That's the kind of thinking that makes me despair about us every effectively fighting the real enemy. Obama will do what he pleases while people on our side write off Rubio because he won't demand that we bus 10 million people back to Tijuana in leg irons.
Jul '12
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
What is so sorely needed is leaving behind the essential quality of Bush 41 and Bush 43: the inability to characterize the enemy. The failure to stand up and speak clearly of what one stands for has been missing since the end of RR's term in 1989. The 2008 Housing & Financial debacle needed a GOP characterization as to who was responsible for it. The Community Reinvestment Act of the 1970s and its super charging by Clinton in the 1990s and how those steps together with the colonization of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac with Democratic Party empire builders arrayed around the fraudulent complaint of "red-lining" and 1990s Acorn Obama efforts toward creating "community organized" hate and outrage, all led to the subprime financial crisis. BUSH 41 whittled way a close to 90% approval rating by being unable/unwilling to characterize philosophical principles & then his son BUSH 43 essentially was unwilling or unable to contradict all the vicious lies that were told about (1) him and the Iraq war and (2) the financial success and failures of his administration. 43 let his administration be colonized by Citigroup at just the wrong time!
Edited on February 19, 2013 at 3:57amMay '10
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
Why does everyone have a fetish for "new"?
Are there not eternal ideals like liberty?
Most of all our problems can be traced to politicians abandoning our founding principles for the "exciting and new."
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
Has math changed?
Nov '10
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
Perhaps this axiom from C.S. Lewis applies to economics as well. "Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that.... The real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see; like bringing a horse back and back to the fence it has refused to jump or bringing a child back and back to the bit in its lesson that it wants to shirk."~ Mere Christianity
Jul '12
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
The Pete Wehner and the Michael Gerson crowd always have the same mantra: their "sage analysis" led to the choice of their man McCain in 2008 and their man Romney in 2012. When do they have the decency to realize and admit that their advice is not so good?
They always try to prevent a Reagan like boldness that characterizes our opponents in a way that could be effective. This trait--the unwillingness to characterize-- is so evident in the GOP at least of the past 25 years, that I would like to see THAT analyzed and explained. It cannot be simply personal inability to speak. The trait is just too widespread. I like Rush's ascription of this to the Beltway Consultant Class. But it seems to be even more deep-seated than that. How could any pundit see the failure of the Romney campaign to get out the conservative base to be an example of repeating tired policies. These pundits are not even able to see what went wrong with Romney. Obama worked his base to hell and the press and all the rest constantly edged Romney away from clearly speaking to his base. That is pretty clear.
Edited on February 19, 2013 at 4:00amMay '10
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
I think he would have focussed on the leftist assault from within on the American way of life.
Jan '11
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
The American paradox has always been a traditional culture propelled by a dynamic economic system, or in everyday terms freedom with responsibility.
Republicans have failed to adapt those principles to globalism. Still living in the shadow of the New Deal and the Cold War, we have seen our answers become less and less relevant to the young and to those who are engaged in leading-edge industries and technologies.
(The Democrats have the same problem, but they have a much better sales-and-advertising force with which to peddle their snake-oil than Republicans have to prescribe our cures.)
Our avatars are long gone, ghosts to be summoned. Our spokesmen are old and graying. But under the surface, change is coming.
The next Rush Limbaugh will emerge from internet radio and the club scene. He'll be funny, offensive and have jet-black hair. He may be a she.
He will seldom talk about politics. She will criticize contemporary culture non-stop and take no prisoners.
He may have an accent. She will tell her audience she is trying to lose it.
Sep '12
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
Reagan worship isn't going to win any votes. We shouldn't look for him to take the field.
The people that bring up Reagan every which way remind me of Virginia Tech fans after Michael Vick left for the pros. "If Vick were here, he'd have made that pass. Vick was so great," said various fans frequently through the year. I would think to myself, "Vick's not here. He's not coming back. It's time to move on." All the Vick pining got kind of annoying and borderline pathetic.
Let's not be like that. New world, new challenges, new leaders.
May '12
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
I agree, we should get over President Reagan. The challenges we have today domestically are much greater than his era. I agree somewhat with Duane, The Bush's were not socialist, but they were unabashed big government statists and I expect we would see a similar progressive agenda from Jeb.
Sep '12
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
Can I have it both ways? My critique of the Republican party for many years has been that they missed the point of Reagan. He had strong convictions and pursued them with laser-like focus. But he wasn't trying to be the next so-and-so. He was always focused on what's best for America and on how to increase her liberty. We can, and should, keep his ideas of smaller government and low tax rates, but shouldn't keep harping on "What Would Reagan Do".
Oct '10
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
There's a noticeable lack of detail and examples, which makes me think these pieces are more rants than arguments, but then again I didn't read the full articles. Nevertheless, I find them interesting given that the conventional wisdom about the State of the Union was that Obama's speech was tired, old, and stale, a speech that seemed like it was written in the 1980s. And this is believed by Democrats even.
Supposedly Republicans behave as if the 1960s never happened but it's Obama who talks as if the 1980s and 1990s never happened.
May '10
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
No, but the math has changed.
For instance, rate-wise the federal tax code is still on balance more Reagan-esque than Carter-esque, so a Reagan-esque proposal of sweeping income tax cuts isn't necessarily the most effective policy anymore. It certainly isn't as appealing as it once was for most voters -- again, thanks to Reagan's successes. Yet it's still the heart of the Republican message.
Jul '12
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
CoveredUp: Reagan worship isn't going to win any votes. We shouldn't look for him to take the field.
The people that bring up Reagan every which way remind me of Virginia Tech fans after Michael Vick left for the pros. "If Vick were here, he'd have made that pass. Vick was so great," said various fans frequently through the year. I would think to myself, "Vick's not here. He's not coming back. It's time to move on." All the Vick pining got kind of annoying and borderline pathetic.
Let's not be like that. New world, new challenges, new leaders. · 4 minutes ago
The error in the quoted post is the same in the articles of Wehner and Gerson: It is not that we look for RR to "take the field" [Obama-like "straw man"] .
Jul '12
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
It is the quality of Reagan that he characterized what the enemy was doing and mobilized Americans against the assault upon their values. Now, this should be applied to (A.) government obstruction of small business and shale oil energy exploration and development; (B.) How Spending Borrowed Money especially at a time of Deficit Crisis, makes no sense and will only lead to ruin. Using Reagan-like Characterization of the Enemy in simple plain language, is the appeal to Reagan. It is false to think that it is some policy dispute with outdated programs. Which principles do Gerson & Wehner want to throw overboard? They create their images of a tired appeal to Reagan to obscure their real agenda. I must suspect that part of their cause is that Republicans continue to fail to characterize their enemies. [Don't like the word "enemy"? Do you not think that Obama, Leahy, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Axelrod et alia do not think of you as their enemy?]
Edited on February 19, 2013 at 4:22amFeb '12
Re: Reagan? Get Over Him
New is not better because it is new. There are probably few good new principles in government. Regan's principles are mostly right, we just need to adapt them to our times in new policies, and stop attempting to raise Zombie Reagan to lead the Republican party.
Conservative policies seem to have died with Reagan, but the principles are immortal.
Edited on February 19, 2013 at 4:15am