May 25, 2007
What Does "Reagan Republican" Mean In '07?
Ronald Reagan Remains The Emblem Of Conservatism
-
(HarperCollins)
"You say that you're a full-scale Ronald Reagan Republican, and yet, as you mentioned, you opposed the troop surge and you support comprehensive immigration reform. Are those the stands that Ronald Reagan would take?" Thus did Fox News debate moderator Chris Wallace put Senator Sam Brownback on the spot last Tuesday night in South Carolina. Brownback quickly dodged the Iraq question before noting that Reagan himself endorsed a de facto "amnesty" for illegal immigrants in 1986.
As Fareed Zakaria points out, the Gipper had earlier commented, in a 1977 radio broadcast, on the dearth of apple pickers in New England. "It makes one wonder about the illegal-alien fuss," Reagan said. "Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal-alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do?" Of one thing he expressed certainty: "No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters."
So one could plausibly argue that Reagan would have favored the Senate immigration deal announced last week. Or one could argue that the context has changed since 1986, and that he would have eschewed a second "amnesty" bill.
This gets to a broader irony: Though "Reaganism" has taken on an outsized role in the GOP presidential campaign, it's tricky to define just what the phrase "Reagan Republican" actually means in 2007. Reagan won election at a time when the most pressing foreign policy dilemmas included U.S. hostages in Iran, Soviet adventurism, and creeping Communist expansion in Central America. With the partial exception of Iran — partial because the mullahs are still in power and still holding American captives — those concerns are now obsolete. So are the problems of double-digit inflation and gas lines.
On the most important issue of the day, the war in Iraq, we can only guess at what the 40th president would have thought.
But the nifty thing about Reagan's legacy is that every segment of the GOP coalition can claim a piece of it. Libertarians can cite his small-government rhetoric. Supply-siders can emphasize his tax cuts. Defense hawks can highlight his arms buildup, his willingness to use military force (in Grenada and Libya), and his "evil empire" talk. Social conservatives can point to his 1983 pro-life tract, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation," and his promulgation of the so-called Mexico City Policy (which bans U.S. funding of foreign NGOs that promote or perform abortions). Moderate Republicans can stress his sunny disposition and big-tent philosophy. All these groups can celebrate his anti-Communism.
As the first two GOP presidential debates have shown, Reagan remains emblematic of American conservatism. By one count, the candidates invoked his name 19 times during their debate at the Reagan Library. Conscious of their vulnerability on the right, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have all made bids for the Reagan mantle. Their fallback question seems to be: "What would Reagan do?"
Of course, Reagan's White House record was far more varied than many conservatives now care to admit. An artificial "Reagan reverence" may make for good primary politics, but it also threatens to constrict Republicans. As David Brooks writes, "Conservatives have allowed a simplistic view of Ronald Reagan to define the sacred parameters of thought. Reagan himself was flexible, unorthodox, and creative. But conservatives have created a mythical, rigid Reagan, and any deviation from that is considered unholy."
By Duncan Currie © Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
 | "Arguably the most influential opinion journal at the White House" - The New York Times For more information and to subscribe, click here. |
CBSNews.com On Digg
Add a Comment See all 26 Comments
- "We will never sell guns for hostages", famous lie of R. Reagan, goes with the terms from his adminstration such as "Plauseable denyability" "Graham Standing"
- Reply to this comment
- These Republican candidates are kind of interesting, to put it that way. Each one of them wants to ride on how much they resemble President Reagan. Those days have been over for quite a long time. We do not need another Reagan of yesterday to solve our problems of today. We need a clean, decent, intelligent, creative candidate in the Republican Party. McCain does not look living up to those requisites. Nor Giuliani. So, go on looking!!!
- Reply to this comment
- " then you would have been in a distinct minority."
- I'd rather be right than popular. - Reply to this comment
- Why have people forgotten that Reagan presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in US history (until George W. took over the tirle)? If the Republican candidates are running on Reagan's way to run a government we're in trouble.
Newsday had a great article towards the end of the Reagan administration about the 200 or so high-level officials who were either in jail or resigned for unethical behavior and feeding at the public tough.
abstract:
In Comtempt Of the Public, Reagan's team is eclipsing its predecessors when it comes to unethical conduct, corruption. A Baedeker of Scandal
Newsday - Long Island, N.Y.
Author: By Mark Green and Peter H. Stone. Mark Green,
Date: Jun 28, 1987
THE REAGAN administration is proving - both in volume and variety - to be the most unlawful and unethical in memory. It has given us, among others, the Iran-contra and Wedtech scandals. Six "independent counsels" are investigating current and former administration officials for possible criminal conduct. Some 200 Reagan administration officials have been charged with unethical or corrupt conduct, according to a compilation recently released by Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.).
... Reagan has acted with no such national exigency present, and in secret, hiding the truth from his own cabinet, Congress and the country.
What has been Ronald Reagan's response to the widening scandals haunting his administration? He remains as oblivious to reality and history as ever. ... - Reply to this comment
- Why have people forgotten that Reagan presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in US history (until George W. took over the tirle)? If the Republican candidates are running on Reagan's way to run a government we're in trouble.
Newsday had a great article towards the end of the Reagan administration about the 200 or so high-level officials who were either in jail or resigned for unethical behavior and feeding at the public tough.
abstract:
In Comtempt Of the Public, Reagan's team is eclipsing its predecessors when it comes to unethical conduct, corruption. A Baedeker of Scandal
Newsday - Long Island, N.Y.
Author: By Mark Green and Peter H. Stone. Mark Green,
Date: Jun 28, 1987
THE REAGAN administration is proving - both in volume and variety - to be the most unlawful and unethical in memory. It has given us, among others, the Iran-contra and Wedtech scandals. Six "independent counsels" are investigating current and former administration officials for possible criminal conduct. Some 200 Reagan administration officials have been charged with unethical or corrupt conduct, according to a compilation recently released by Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.).
... Reagan has acted with no such national exigency present, and in secret, hiding the truth from his own cabinet, Congress and the country.
What has been Ronald Reagan's response to the widening scandals haunting his administration? He remains as oblivious to reality and history as ever. ... - Reply to this comment
- Why do the GOP presidential contenders invoke Ronald Reagan? Seems to me that at one time, GW invoked Reagan, claiming to be Reagan's heir, at least politically. So, the current crop of presidential contenders are after all, walking in their soon to be predecessor's foot steps as much as they seek to publicly shy away from Bush. That would certainly tell anyone just how much the GOP are suffering from short term memory loss.
In 2004, Senator Kerry was attacked repeatedly for flip-flops. In 2007, the same GOP crowd EMBRACES a guy who flipped and flopped. As the opinion piece above revealed. But, "waffle" attached itself readily to Bill Clinton who may not have "waffled" as much as Reagan. Reading a history book about Reagan and Gorbachev, anyone who really paid attention would have found Reagan to be the consummate liberal instead of "conservative." An anti-Communist liberal, but still a liberal.
As for his "anti-abortion" stance, where does it say constitutionally that religion can gain state recognition? It does not. Or that politicians must meet certain religious tests (like abortion) to be elected. It does not. Where Reagan defied the Constitution on both counts, that made him the consummate liberal. Only liberals, you see, would turn religious interests into special interests who can be taken care of by government. By the way, wasn't the conservative stance supposed to be a limited constitutionally constrained government? Reagan never went the conservative route. - Reply to this comment
- The work "our own people" won't do. Why?
A family of 6 illegals can pick lettuce all day at $4/hr and live on the accumulated income. That's $24/hr; quite a wholesome chunk o' change.
Most Americans I know of have a job (or two), may or may not be married, are also going to school to get a degree for a job that's bound to be offshored in the end anyway, and have other factors the illegal immigrants simply don't have to worry about. Why isn't all that added into the claim Americans won't pick lettuce all day at $4/hr? - Reply to this comment
- Lest you forget, Reagan was freely elected by a majority of Americans so if all these nasty things that are being said are true, then you would have been in a distinct minority.
I am old enough to remember the energy that America felt during the election of Reagan. The sense that we wouldn't be pushed around anymore. The strength to honestly compare our CAPITALISTIC society vs. the COMMUNISTIC/SOCIALISTIC societies of the world and say that we have the better system, not the perfect system.
Reagan made it okay for us to be proud of what he had accomplished and dream of more. Until him, we were languishing in the post-Vietnam mentality. After him, there was no doubt about the fate of the Soviet Union.
It could be said that if Ronald Reagan had not come along when he did, someone else would have, but it is also likely that we could had slid further away from our potential - Reply to this comment
- Reagan Republishit ? This is a term WHO wants to claim ?
The denizens of the board rooms and the country clubs...the gun nuts and the **** haters...these types of scumwads are about the only ones that wouldn't punch you in the face if you called them this.
The rest of America that isn't home skooled and hateful, spiteful, evangelical, holier-than-thou...we NORMAL Americans want nothing to do with the name of this sad reminder of the man that gave the nation away to Jerry Falwell and the 'chistian right.'
They both rot in Hell. - Reply to this comment
- What Does "Reagan Republican" Mean In '07?
- It's a Republican who can't remember anything. - Reply to this comment
Gen. Ray Odierno, head of multinational forces in Iraq, on progress there and plans for Afghanistan.
