Sad to say, but Erick’s right here:
“I think the intentions are good, but I seem to remember Reagan being dead,” stated Erick Erickson, editor of RedState.org. “Basically, what it says is ‘We’re completely unoriginal and uninspired, so let’s go back to the old playbook.’”
Erickson stressed the principles behind the group are sound: “I think their heart is in the right place … but they need to re-brand.”
This goes all the way back to the critique of the leaderless Reagan21 coalition. I expressed my disappointment in their lack of new media savvy — ironic since their members tend to be the most plugged-in on the Hill. But Erick raises a broader point: how much should 21st century conservatives really be harkening back to Reagan?
I’ve had this same concern for a while. Look — I unequivocally believe that Reagan was our best President since Lincoln. I spent my best time in college studying the Reagan Revolution. But the fact that we’re turning our Presidential debates into a Reagan drinking game diminishes both Reagan and those who would hope to succeed him as conservatives in the White House.
Were Reagan here, as the eternal optimist that he was, I suspect that he’d be telling us to look forward not back. Reagan was now nearly a generation ago. Many of the principles are the same, but the issues are different now. Communism was defeated (thanks to Reagan). The regulatory state gave way to the free market (thanks to Reagan).
Because of Reagan’s incredible success, and the good run we had after the 1994 Revolution, conservatives are now largely spent of new ideas. That’s because we’ve implemented most of them. Incessant Reagan nostalgia tends to feed the notion that we have nothing new to offer the country; that when in doubt, we go back to the well of twenty years ago, to when it all began, rather than devise creative solutions for the future.
None of the people running for President are Reagan. Let’s just accept that and move on. If conservatism requires the second coming of Ronald Reagan to make progress, then we are in deep trouble. Yes — having Reagan with his iron will and magical stage presence would be a huge help. But the ideas should be strong enough to survive from one leader to the next. Someone like Reagan only comes along once every fifty years or so.
Reagan won power in 1980 because liberalism was spent — that it had been reduced to the mindless FDR-worship that could brook no changes to the New Deal legacy. In the Democratic mind, FDR-worship was displaced only by JFK-worship, with a legacy that is still with us to this day in the U.S. Senate. But what liberals forgot was that these leaders were a lot more flexible in office than their followers wound up being, with JFK’s marginal tax cuts being just one example.
Are conservatives going overboard with Reagan nostalgia? I’ve engaged in much of it myself, and having had the chance to see his casket depart from Andrews will rank among the greatest honors of my life. But at some point, we need to look forward and start answering the question, “But what have you done for me lately?” I can understand the 10- and 20-year anniversaries of important milestones in the Reagan era. It’s the 25- and 30-year ones — the ones that look back a generation or more — that start suggesting we’re a little worn out.
On the historical battleground, yes, Reagan’s legacy must be defended and we must not rest until he is universally recognized as one of the Greats: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. But our contemporary leaders should be focused on making their own history not reliving someone else’s. Maybe they’ll prove us wrong and actually “be Reagan.”
(H/T: Bluey.)