Barack Obama: Gipper 2.0

The New Republic: Obama In 2008 Makes Sense In The Same Way Reagan Was Right For 1980

(The New Republic)  This column was written by E.J. Dionne, Jr..

---

Barack Obama's critics bear a remarkable resemblance to the liberals who labored mightily to dismiss Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Reagan's foes wrote him off as a right-wing former actor who amiably spouted conservative bromides and must have been engaged in some sort of Hollywood flimflam.

Like Reagan's enemies, Obama's opponents concede that this Democrat gives a great speech. Indeed, both Obama and Reagan came to wide attention because of a single oration that offered hope in the midst of a losing campaign--Obama's 2004 keynote to the Democratic National Convention and Reagan's 1964 "A Time for Choosing" address delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater. But surely speeches aren't enough, are they?

Yes, Obama gets his crowds swooning. So did Reagan. It's laughable to hear conservatives talk darkly about a "cult of personality" around Obama. The Reaganites, after all, have lobbied to name every airport, school, library, road, bridge, government building and lamppost after the Gipper. When it comes to personality cults, the right wing knows what it's talking about.

But don't worry, say Obama's adversaries, he'll collapse because voters won't trust him to handle foreign policy. He's too inexperienced and has these perilously idealistic ideas. Yes, and President Jimmy Carter's campaign in 1980 was absolutely convinced it could persuade the country that Reagan was a dangerous warmonger who could not be trusted to keep America safe.

In any event, claim the anti-Obama legions, voters will eventually be persuaded that he is nothing but a big, bad liberal. He may make sweet bipartisan sounds, but the old attacks on left-wing ideology will work this time, as they always have.

The liberals who were so dismissive of Reagan similarly insisted that he represented the same "right-wing extremism" that voters had rejected in 1964 when they sent Goldwater to his landslide defeat.

Yet Reagan didn't play to type. He reached out warmly to Democrats, notably in his 1980 convention speech that was his single most effective political sally.

"Everywhere we have met thousands of Democrats, independents, and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom," Reagan declared. "They are concerned, yes, but they are not frightened. They are disturbed, but not dismayed. They are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote--during the darkest days of the American Revolution--'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.'"

You can almost hear the Republican crowd shouting, "Yes We Can!" Reagan offered, well, change we could believe in.

Still, Democrats kept telling themselves, right to November, that voters wouldn't fall for any of this. Charisma, eloquence, idealism and hope were no match for experience, realism, prudence and predictability.

The Reagan metaphor explains why Hillary Clinton was in trouble from the moment she failed to knock Obama out of the race in Iowa. During the last two months, Democrats in large numbers have reached the same conclusion that so many Republicans did in 1980: Now is the time to go for broke, to challenge not only the ruling party but also the governing ideas of the previous political era and the political coalition that allowed them to dominate public life.

"This is our time," Obama says in a short sentence full of meaning. The conservative age is as dead now as the liberal age was in 1980. Jimmy Carter, in many ways not a liberal at all, became the whipping boy for the end of liberalism. George W. Bush, no pure conservative, has come to symbolize the collapse of conservatism. "It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history," Obama says--exactly the sentiment of the Ronald Reagan who invoked Tom Paine.

The frustration of the Clinton campaign is understandable. Like George H.W. Bush, whom Reagan defeated for the presidential nomination in 1980, Hillary Clinton has worked very hard, knows government from the inside out, and would clearly provide the country with a safe set of hands. The Clintonites argue, fairly, that there is no way to know if Obama can live up to The Promise of Obama.

But the same was true of Ronald Reagan. In that 1980 speech, Reagan quoted a certain Democratic president who "told the generation of the Great Depression that it had a 'rendezvous with destiny.' I believe that this generation of Americans today has a rendezvous with destiny."

Obama is being propelled by the same sense of historical opportunity, and that is why it will be hard to derail him.

[crispd1]

Why, oh why would anyone vote for Obama. Here we have a man who could be answering the phone at 3 am for your safety and mine but does not believe Al Quaida were or are real in Iraq, "HIS OWN COMMENTS THIS WEEKEND"
Be fair, how on earth can we allow this man to be our president, and to clarify something I am a Republican.

[it_oldtimer]

It''s truly hard to imagine ANYBODY more "inexperienced at foreign policy" or more full of "perilously idealistic ideas" than GW Bush has shown himself to be, over the past 7 years.

Everything Bush has done has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster - and we''re supposed to believe that the Republican Party is fit to make any sort sound decisions in this regard, after putting Bush forward as the cure for all that ails this country?

I think not! I don''t trust Republican judgment at all any more, and obviously most Americans feel exactly the same way.

[ubrew12]

Does this mean Obama will triple the national debt?

We''ve paid $1 trillion just paying the INTEREST on the debt Reagan left us since he left office. For the fiscally stupid (or just Republicans), that means the PRINCIPAL on Reagans debt is STILL THERE, earning MORE interest!!!

And, by the way, he RAN by claiming to be a fiscal conservative, pointing horridly at Carters ''massive'' debt.

Reagan is no Obama. I''ll tell you what I think of the Reagan administration once we''re done PAYING for it. Ironically, if elected, that unhappy task will probably fall to Obama.

[quatrops]

Wow! Just what we need to encourage thoughtful dialogue and an exchange of ideas in the comments section: another SMUTMOUTH like FLANGESQUEAL.

I disagreed with Reagan on almost every issue, but those many of us who found him and his policies damaging to our country really don''t need support from commenters like this who, in addition to being factually incorrect while spewing his hatred, demeans all of us who attempt to share our thoughts and observations in these posts.

And the sad part is that he probably is feeling quite proud of himself about how "cleverly" he avoided the censor''s pen in delivering his four-letter trash.

Go back to your cesspool, FlangeSqueal. Or is it a pen with a trough? The only other animals I know of that "squeal" like you do are of the porcine variety. You can keep company there with the Clintonistas who like to spell out Obama''s middle name at every opportunity in hopes of suggesting that his religion is different than the one he professes.

[ioweign]

Comparing Ronald Reagan to Obama is a joke. I may not have been a major Reagan fan, but at least he possessed a style and poise that are sorely lacking in Obama. If anything, the article should read "Obama is right for 2008 the way Jimmy Carter was right for 1980."

Posted by dem4change at 07:18 PM : Feb 29, 2008


Ronny made a lot of B movies too...

[cbs_oliver]

Posted by FlangeSqueal at 07:48 PM : Feb 29, 2008

It is however wrong to wish others dead - and to wish others damned - no matter how vile they are and however much you might imagine that a reasonable outcome.

Your mileage may vary.

[ioweign]

We knew Ronald Reagen. Barrack Hussein Obama is no Ronald Regean.

Posted by mbcsmith at 03:37 PM : Feb 29, 2008


Thank God....

[cbs_oliver]

Posted by FlangeSqueal at 07:48 PM : Feb 29, 2008

You''re hate for Ronnie is the pure distilled essence!

Good screen name too.

[dem4change]

Comparing Ronald Reagan to Obama is a joke. I may not have been a major Reagan fan, but at least he possessed a style and poise that are sorely lacking in Obama. If anything, the article should read "Obama is right for 2008 the way Jimmy Carter was right for 1980."

[cbs_oliver]

This article is downright insulting to Democrats.

Posted by sesanders1 at 05:39 PM : Feb 29, 2008

The writer is just trying to leverage the Ron Reagan fantasy to say something good about Obama.

In fact the mythical Ronald Reagon America never was real and the story has become less and less real with the passage of time.

It really isn''t beneficial.

Obama really is a great man.

He sure is no Ronnie Reagan - thank God.

[cbs_oliver]

I knew Reagan as a name-calling black-listing union-busting hate-mongering cold-warrier and kookoo who I had once followed on grass roots campaign tours he gave with other Hollywood Republicans in support of Goldwater.

But he did reflect the neo fascist leanings of the country pretty well.

By the time Reagan ran for President I thought he was one scary person. I couldn''t believe we would allow a nut like him to have his finger on the button.

By the way, some of us used to speculate about the likely collapse of the soviet system long before he ever ran for President.

Now I like Obama. I think he''s the real deal and there''s lots in his record to support that conclusion. I''ll feel alot more secure about the future of my children and my grandchildren with somebody like Obama running the show.

(I wanted to clarify my earlier post which didn''t come out the way I meant it to.)

This article is downright insulting to Democrats.

[denn034]

"We knew Ronald Reagen. Barrack Hussein Obama is no Ronald Regean."
Posted by mbcsmith

If Bentson can make a comment like that about JFK to Dan Quayle, then, you can make a comment like that about Reagan to Obama and Dionne. Go mbcsmith!

[denn034]

I voted for Ronald Reagan the second time around. I''m not voting for Obama so, comparison ends. Comparing Obama to Reagan is like apples and oranges, they don''t go together. Quit disrespecting and demeaning Reagan, Dionne!

[hungry1968]

We knew Ronald Reagen. Barrack Hussein Obama is no Ronald Regean.

Posted by mbcsmith at 03:37 PM : Feb 29, 2008





For the first time ever, you''re correct.

And we can ALL thank god that Obama IS NOT Ron Reagan. Our economy is F''d enough, we don''t need another 8 years of Reaganomics to make sure we''re financially killed.

[hungry1968]

Does this mean that if Obama makes it to the oval office, he''s going to arm three of our most mortal enemies too?

[cbs_oliver]

"We knew Ronald Reagen."

Posted by mbcsmith at 03:37 PM : Feb 29, 2008

I knew him as a name-calling black-listing union-busting hate-mongering cold-warrier and kookoo who I had once followed on grass roots campaign tours he gave with other Hollywood Republicans in support of Goldwater.

But he did represent the country pretty well.

I like Obama. I think he''s the real deal and there''s lots in his record to support that conclusion - just like there was with Ronald Reagan for those who cared to look.

[miles1967-2009]

You must not have known him too well, you spelled his name incorrectly twice!

And thank God you agree that Obama is no Reagan...we could not afford Reagan''s "trickle-down" economics at a time like this in the U.S.

[Razzl]

What''s sad to consider in these comparisons is what we lost when Jack and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated; each time they were replaced by men like Johnson and Humphrey who simply weren''t the people''s choice. The road that twisted from Bobby Kennedy''s assassination to the Chicago convention riots to Nixon''s election could have been a very different progression altogether. If there is any silver lining at all to Bush''s presidency it has been that the public imagination has cast off any attachment to old loyalties and is willing to remake the country as something new, an impulse to be encouraged every generation or so...

[mbcsmith]

We knew Ronald Reagen. Barrack Hussein Obama is no Ronald Regean.