An Unorthodox Tribute to Ronald Reagan


Were he alive today, Ronald Reagan would have turned 102 years old. He lives in the hearts of his fans (like me), of course, which is why his birthday is always a special day, even though, since 2004, he hasn’t been around to celebrate it.

Reagan’s hold on the modern Republican party and the American right in general is powerful and legendary, and it is a direct consequence of his tremendous political and historical legacy that libertarians and conservatives on the right or the center-right look to potential political leaders and invariably ask themselves “is that the next Ronald Reagan?” I realize that this practice persists because Ronald Reagan was a great man and a great president, but it is high time for the practice to come to an end.

Ronald Reagan’s place in history is secure. Thanks to his leadership, malaise gave way to optimism, stagnation and recession gave way to a long and robust economic recovery that we would give our eye-teeth for right about now. Oh, and thanks in very large part to Ronald Reagan, the Warsaw Pact disintegrated, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union—and Marxism-Leninism in general—was consigned to the ash-heap of history. Just as Reagan predicted it would be. Only churls would deny that Reagan was a consequential and transformative president, and while I admit that there are a lot of churls in the world, I highly doubt that they are going to be able to do much to revise what the history books have to say about the Reagan presidency. Churls don’t make for good historians, and they certainly don’t make for compelling story-tellers.

But there is another part of the Reagan legacy that ought to be celebrated by us: Ronald Reagan was entirely comfortable in his own skin. He knew who he was, he liked who he was, he liked his life, he had a healthy appreciation for his gifts and talents and he was bound and determined to make an original mark on American history. Herman Melville said that “[i]t is better to fail in originality, than to succeed in imitation.” Judy Garland instructed “[a]lways be a first rate version of yourself and not a second rate version of someone else.” Reagan instinctively understood the truth contained in Melville’s and Garland’s advice, and he practiced what they preached as naturally as most people breathe. He never put on airs, he never tried to be something or someone he was not, and he knew that to attempt to do so would be to court disaster.

This is not to say that Reagan did not have heroes who inspired him. At one time in his youth, he was a New Deal Democrat who idolized Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Even after he became a conservative Republican, he still looked up to Roosevelt. But Reagan never tried to be a carbon copy of Roosevelt. He knew that he and Roosevelt were two different people, who faced different challenges during their presidencies, and he knew that the American people elected him to be their 40th president so that they could benefit from Reaganesque political gifts, not Rooseveltian ones. To fulfill his mandate to the American people, Ronald Reagan had to be himself, because that was what the American people expected him to be. That’s what they voted for him to be. By doing what came naturally to him—being himself—Reagan did right by the voters.

With all of that in mind, can we please stop asking whether some aspiring leader on the right is “the next Ronald Reagan”? There is no “next Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was sui generis. They broke the mold when they made him, and our current age may well require different skill sets to meet different challenges.

None of this is to say that Reagan cannot continue to be respected and admired. None of this is to say that Reagan cannot continue to be a source of inspiration for today’s aspiring leaders—just as FDR was a source of inspiration for Reagan. But gentle readers, I trust you have noticed that few—if any—are asking aspiring political leaders on the right whether they are “the next George Washington,” “the next Thomas Jefferson,” or “the next Abraham Lincoln.” And yet, despite the lack of these questions, Washington’s, Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s places in history as transformative and consequential leaders—great leaders—is secure. Given the scope of Reagan’s achievements and accomplishments, why should anyone think otherwise when it comes to his legacy?

I couldn’t possibly imagine myself running for office. But if I did, and if someone asked me whether I was “the next Ronald Reagan,” I would respond with “no, but I am the first Pejman Yousefzadeh, and I intend to be a first rate Pejman Yousefzadeh. And I would rather fail at being Pejman Yousefzadeh than succeed at being Ronald Reagan 2.0, because you can only be a first rate version of yourself. You can never be a first rate version of someone else.”

And paradoxically, you know who might just approve of that answer? A guy who was entirely comfortable in his own skin: Ronald Reagan.

Members have made 5 comments.

  1. Member

    One of the famous quotes of Rabbi Zusha of Anipoli:

    “When I appear before the heavenly court they will not ask, ‘Why weren’t you Moses’. They will ask, ‘Why weren’t you Zusha’.”

    • #1
    • February 7, 2013 at 1:49 am
    • LikeLike
  2. Thatcher

    Hear! Hear!

    The Republican party in general and conservatives in particular do entirely too much naval gazing of Reagan, which holds the party and the movement back somewhat.

    There will never be another Reagan, but that does not mean there will never be another great GOP president (although getting him or her elected in our current culture remains daunting, to say the least!)

    • #2
    • February 7, 2013 at 7:08 am
    • LikeLike
  3. Inactive
    Pejman Yousefzadeh Post author

    Well said.

    Israel P.: One of the famous quotes of Rabbi Zusha of Anipoli:

    “When I appear before the heavenly court they will not ask, ‘Why weren’t you Moses’. They will ask, ‘Why weren’t you Zusha’.”

    Edited 7 hours ago7 hours ago
    • #3
    • February 7, 2013 at 9:29 am
    • LikeLike
  4. Member

    That’s a fair point.

    I have said before that even Reagan, conservatism’s best president in living memory, did not stop the expansion of government. So an ideal president today would have to be even better than Reagan. It’s possible.

    But perhaps we just need a different kind of leader, rather than a better leader. Perhaps someone with a different set of admirable qualities can accomplish what Reagan could not.

    “But Reagan had the Cold War to focus on!” some would say. Well, our next president won’t be able to focus entirely on the economy, the debt or on domestic issues in general either. Events have a way of interfering.

    • #4
    • February 7, 2013 at 10:44 am
    • LikeLike
  5. Inactive
    Pejman Yousefzadeh:

    With all of that in mind, can we please stop asking whether some aspiring leader on the right is “the next Ronald Reagan”?

    Perhaps, but isn’t it also a bit of shorthand that says something about the aspiring leader? Take Senator Rubio, for instance; some have called him Reaganesque and asked that very question. Perhaps it’s not necessarily unfair to Rubio, but rather a compliment and a shorthand that says he embodies certain qualities; eloquence, humor, articulation, an ability to call on first principles when making the argument for conservative governance and free markets, and sharp political acumen. 

    Also, it may be more appropriate to compare an aspiring leader to Reagan than it would be to compare him/her to Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln for two reasons. Reagan does still reside in living memory, and his program of deregulation, low taxation, tax and entitlement reform, and a strong dollar, would fit nicely with spending cuts for a comprehensive economic program today. As well, we could do with an optimistic President who is willing to eloquently defend American values abroad. 

    I guess I’m saying maybe the comparison is unfair, but there are good reasons for it. 

    • #5
    • February 7, 2013 at 11:16 am
    • LikeLike