Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Do You Like Ike?
With the unexpected direction this election cycle has taken, I’ve found myself repeatedly asking “What kind of president do the American public/Republican primary voters/Tea Partiers/Trump supporters really want?” Whenever we compare contemporary presidential candidates to historical figures, we tend to refer back to a short list of 20th century figures: Wilson, FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton. But one name is conspicuously absent, a name associated with both the period of fastest growth and the most popular presidency of the 20th century: Dwight Eisenhower.
From the perspective of today’s politics, it’s hard to see how someone like Ike could even exist: A fairly non-partisan leader who was genuinely pragmatic; A supporter of the New Deal and public works projects who, nonetheless, didn’t want to cram the government down every throat; A staunch Cold Warrior who still warned against military excesses; And, of course, a man willing to use his executive power to deploy the US military into an matter of social politics. Indeed, the period of his presidency is constantly cited by members of all ideologies as the benchmark of American success and the American Dream. But if Eisenhower was such a success, why do we rarely ever mention him anymore, while we invoke Reagan’s name more frequently than the Lord’s at church?
I think part of the blame falls on Reagan himself. From an intellectual perspective, Reagan aligned himself closely and conspicuously with William F. Buckley and National Review, which — I have been told — was created during the 1950s partly as a counter-reaction to Ike’s affinity for big government. But here’s the essay question: Was Reagan more like Goldwater or more like Eisenhower?
My strong sense is that Reagan talked like Goldwater but acted much more like Eisenhower in many respects (at least, on issues where the two latter figures differed). And I think this paradox has carried forth into modern-day conservatism. For example, the Tea Party’s stated goals were largely of a libertarianish, Goldwater nature, but many self-described Tea Partiers are now supporting Trump, who is most certaintly not cut from Goldwater’s cloth.
So, while the talking classes on the Right have enjoyed slandering Eisenhower for decades, I wonder whether the common man has remained closer to Eisenhower in their personal political preferences.
Is it possible that a large fraction of the Republican base has been rallying behind Goldwater-style slogans for years, but has actually been pining for an Eisenhower-type figure? That might explain why so many on the Right, and in the working class, feel so disenchanted by the intellectual wing of conservatism, and are rallying behind Trump. And might an Eisenhower-like figure be precisely the type of president the disaffected working class has been pining for: Not a dictator-like strongman, not a let’s-double-the-size-of-government liberal, not a libertarian-style conservative, not a fire-breathing xenophobe, but a moderate, centrist, semi-strong man who puts country and results first?
Follow-up question: Would that type of president even be possible today, or at any time in American history except after WWII?
Published in Politics
This was actually the discussion I was trying to spark but failed to.
We’re currently clearly seeing that there are major rifts in the ideologies of voters on the right – it’s not merely a difference in style or tactics (although those differences also exist).
My hypothesis is that the success of Reagan led to the Goldwater-style ideals of “government is the problem” to become the cool thing to say, just like supporting socialism is now the cool thing to do on the left.
But I’ve become highly skeptical that many of the people who rallied behind “small government, local government” war cries over the last decade actually believed in those values.
To build on that last comment, this post was inspired by an observation:
If you ask anyone to the right of David Brooks who their ideal president/presidential candidate would be, the immediate answer is always Reagan.
Yet when you then ask those same people what people’s take-home message is of Reagan’s presidency, you get a huge range of answers, many of which are contradictory (or at least very different). To his credit, Reagan managed to convince a huge and disparate group of people that he was one of them, but that papered over serious differences among the right.
So I wondered what type of figure might help discriminate between the different types of voters on the right, and Ike seemed like the most suitable – he was indeed clearly on one side of the right-wing spectrum, he’s nonetheless not a president to be ashamed of, and many people still remember him.
And my working hypothesis is that many Trump supporters would also be more than delighted to have another Eisenhower in office.
I agree, but I think he’d need to speak like Patton to satisfy them.
If you split on ideology or empathy, those are not valid constructs.
Split the working through middle class by “makers” and “takers” with public employees on the taker side the ‘maker’s will go for the pragmatist.
People with jobs and families and bills to pay are the most pragmatic.
People with time on their ands or money in the bank can indulge in ideology.
The trouble with pragmatism is that it doesn’t work.
Excellent thread, Mendel.
It’s fascinating how much these things shift over time. You will hear various people being derided as RINOS, and there’s a sizable body of work that has been written here and all over the media about how Trump is Definitiely Not At All Conservative.
But Goldwater — “Mr Conservative “– is a great example of just how far and how quickly things shift. He was, in his public statements, a stalwart supporter of free enterprise and independence. But the business he inherited from his father, and which helped finance his political career, would have blown away like a tumbleweed if FDR hadn’t watered it with federal purchases through the depression. He and his wife were on the board of governors of Phoenix’s chapter of Plannned Parenthood. In the early Nineties he talked about how he never would have gotten anywhere in the Republican party then because the Religious Right had become so dominant in the meantime. And he was pretty sure Reagan wouldn’t have, either.
The George W Bush campaign and presidency are also instructive contrasts. Before Sept 11th, nation building was a dirty word on the R side and you would have heard all about how they weren’t going to do all this fuzzy cuddly nonsense with the military like that darned Clinton did. Then that went “poof”.
Is there any set of fixed principles that runs through Conservatism? Not really. Move ten years either direction and your heroes are pariahs.
We may well come to see Donald Trump as the center of gravity of the Right in the next decade. And very little of these squabbles we’re having will be remembered.
Could Ike get elected today? Depends. Politics is mostly a succession of fads, crazed and panics, and it’s just a matter of being on the right side of that.
There’s more sense to politics than you allow. & you might remember, Reagan is still the demigod of the GOP & conservative movement. That’s a bit more than ten years. Maybe it will change; certainly, the electorate is not what it was in 1980; the circumstances, including the political circumstances, are not what they were. But probably the safest course for the GOP is neo-Reaganism. Same political attitude with a view to a new situation, including the differences now making themselves felt in the ugliest, most worrying way.
The main reason Reagan is a demigod is that he was the last conservative to convincingly win, and the be popular while in office. If he had been followed by a string of conservatives who could say the same, his stature would wain.
That’s sort of like saying, if there had been a few other Lincolns, it wouldn’t be a big deal.
Sure, but that’s not the world we live in-
My point is this: he is the only popular, mostly conservative Republican in the White House since Silent Cal. Hoover was a Progressive and left office in disgrace. Ike was not terribly conservative, or even Republican; he was a general. Nixon – the less said the better. Bush Sr. broke his signature promise, and Jr., fair or not, was probably even less popular than Nixon. Other than Reagan, Republicans have had a pretty lousy run for about 90 years. So of course they remember the one truly bright spot.
I see your point now.
But this would only hold for really conservative types who might think of Ike as an error or worse. You don’t have to go to the Birchers to find contempt for Ike…
Most of the GOP electorate, however, is not that hot for conservatism. Ike was the most popular guy of his time, but has remarkably little to offer to posterity–so little is remembered–because the society changed so much in the sixties. I think that’s an important reason for the problem the people who make up the GOP electorate have with presidents.
I also suspect that had Bush the Elder won his re-election, he’d receive far more respect–he’s very close to what the GOP electorate wants.
But even so, there is a real problem with the fact that GOP presidents do not seem to speak to the nation in a lasting way. Coolidge should be included here–only some conservatives remember him & to a large extent because of their ideology. He’s ‘revised & edited’, or at least ‘rediscovered.’
So I think more of the problem on this side, not on the side of achievements or ideology. Americans do not learn history & the Americans who do know their history are not really interested in telling the others. Not that they insist on keeping it a secret. It just doesn’t really matter to them; I suppose popular culture is like that, too, but there they’re also ignorant…
I’ll disagree with just this part. A number of different movies have done quite well in recent years, precisely because they depicted American history in a positive way. Put it in front of them in popular culture, and they tend to eat it up.
I may have overstated my case. I agree with you. If I had any influence over Americans, what I would do is teach American history. Movies are the best way, it seems to me.
Of course, I think some reading of poetry & novels should be taught to kids, too–history is not such a good thing to keep reading–after all, there’s a reason the movies, which are closer to novels than to histories, are where the effort succeeds most noticeably…
Maybe by a strange turn of events I’ll do it. Likelier, someone else will. But if, as is likeliest, no one will, Americans will not be forlorn… They do not say or suggest that the miss it terribly-
Titus – good points, I mostly agree (at least with the ones I understood)-&
Thanks for the kind words. I’m not sure I make my best points understandable, but if any good ones are, at least I hope folks will read.
I should add something–I think the relaxed style Reagan brought to America, the GOP, & conservatism is vintage Ike. It makes sense psychologically–Americans believe mostly that the presidency is a tough job & that the people who make it into the office have their hands full. A guy who looks like he’s graceful under pressure will earn some confidence, though of course, not blind allegiance. I believe future GOP politicians will need that as well, just like the common touch that is a sign of knowing that all sorts of people live in the country, not only conservative partisans or some upper-class types…
One of the points I tried (and failed) to make in this post is that we, as a group, are failing to appreciate what an enigma Reagan really was.
Sure, he was the last conservative to win decisively. But if this election cycle is making anything clear, it’s that there’s no consensus whatsoever among “conservatives” about what “conservative” means. Some see Reagan as the epitome of laissez-faire economics in America, while others see him as a champion of the working class, supporting the New Deal and willing to intervene in the market to keep jobs in America.
Hence my comment above that everyone wants another Reagan but no one can agree who Reagan was. And in my opinion, when Trump supporters describe the qualities of Reagan they admire, it sounds to me like they’re describing Ike at least as much as the Gipper.
I also think this is a big reason why we haven’t seen another Reaganesque figure since 1989.
It’s certainly not for a lack of trying – almost every Republican candidate tries to style themselves as the second coming of Reagan. But it turns out that’s much, much harder to do than it appears at first blush.
Why? In my opinion, because Reagan’s politics were much more complex than we appreciate. He managed to cobble together a hodge-podge of policies ranging from conservative to very liberal, and use his incredible gift for rhetoric to convince every listener he was talking directly to them.
That skill is a gift from God that can’t be replicated on demand.
Sure. Ike & Reagan stick in conservatives’ craws because they were not intent on destroying the New Deal. But neither is the GOP electorate.
I don’t know… maybe I should have read the post.
And Reagan’s biggest sleight-of-hand was convincing everyone he was anti-government, while at the same time protecting the largest expansion of government in US history (the New Deal).
And I see this contradiction reflected in many Tea Party members supporting Trump.
So far as I get him, he seems to have realized that there was no way for him to effect a massive governmental-constitutional revolution & that trying one would not be good for the country. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
It is very difficult to understand the dangers the welfare state poses to constitution, government, freedom, & conservatism while understanding that those dangers can only be addressed by unusual, long steps. People seem to either see collapse coming or not to worry that any big change is needed.
OK, I’m back. To answer your question, I think what they are looking for is for government to work. Most people don’t want to pay attention to government all the time. They want to look around every four years (or maybe two), make a quick assessment of how things are going, and vote for whoever matches that assessment. They aren’t terribly interested in having the government solve problems, but if the government claims control over some domain like retirement or health care, they damn well expect it to work.
So, to win elections, they need to convince people they can do that, using a message that can be understood by people who don’t spend all their time following politics. I think a good message would be to simplify the government through a re-org. For example, there’s something like 110 welfare programs. Why not one department of welfare? It’s easier for the people collecting to deal with one program rather than 110, and everyone else can actually see how much we’re spending on it, instead of strewing it throughout the entire federal budget.
And then the simpler the government becomes, the easier it becomes to see which parts people can live without, and maybe we actually get some of that smaller government for a change.
So for an Ike-like candidate, I think he could actually do well nowadays, given the ability to make an argument about both getting things done and understanding lean, efficient organization.
The question that spawned this thread for me was: how can so many people who previously claimed to be for Reaganesque small, local government rally around Trump?
The most poignant example I can think of is Trump’s response to eminent domain. Unlike so many other issues, Trump gave a clear response in a debate on this point: he thinks eminent domain, include confiscation of land for public and private purposes, is great.
If you believe that the worst sentence in the English language is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”, Trump’s opinion must give you at least great pause. But it didn’t seem to fade his supporters in the least.
How to explain this seeming contradiction? My working theory is that there are a lot of people who claim to want a small-government ideologue, but in actuality would prefer an Ike-like pragmatist.
For one, I don’t think most people think about eminent domain much or think it a terrible injustice.
For another, nobody has any idea what really small government looks like. Conservatives are supremely incompetent at giving each other, much less America, descriptions of what that would look like, much less how to get there.
As for the Trump supporters–it’s nostalgia. People who support him aren’t happy with the way things are & they’ve come around to the opinion that the future ain’t getting better, certainly not for them, & that the people who most have to do with running the country are not taking the job seriously.
Mr. Trump seems to know much better than conservatives how to deal with this situation & what the situation is. America is more or less what it is now; dealing with this is more immediate than talking about what it was a long time ago or what it was supposed to be an even longer time back.
There is no desire for great transformation, because there is no great confidence in public institutions. Nobody who talks to the people is even trying to get people to believe all those millions of jobs promised in electoral campaigns really mean anything… If anyone were trying, they’d be talking about it also when it’s not a presidential debate…
All of this seems basic. People are not interested in completely abandoning their experience for the sake of some supposed other America…