Monday, November 19, 2007
|
|
Cut the Reagan Talk
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
12:32 AM
|
|
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.)
|
|
were slaughtered in the ME. Your favorite hero didn't lift a god*amned finger. He cut and ran, deciding not to defend the US Marines and the United States of America.
If this clown who let these brave compatriots of mine die without caring one tiny bit, then you are all fools, and your party is doomed.
-peace |
|
|
That depends on what you consider "success". |
|
Greetings and salutations on this Thanksgiving day sheeple. For once I agree--it's time for the Republicans to stop getting all weepy and nostalgic for Ronnie Rambo. He's dead and he can't help anymore. You conservative sheeple had your 8 years of glory with Ronnie Rambo in the Oval Office and you've been on a steady downward spiral ever since. Ronnie Rambo was pure Hollyweird through and through--he was glib, good looking, used camera angles to maximum effect and could memorize a script. Heck, Bonzo was a better actor!!!!!
At least Al Gore has something Ronnie Rambo never got--an Oscar!!!! |
|
|
His success is what's important. We need to choose someone who will be successful. It will be difficult with a Dem controlled congress, but I think that Giuliani or Romney have the potential to do that. I believe those two could bring more success than Reagan. |
|
Your post is proof that you have no idea what a real Conservative is.
This much I can assure you...RP ain't no Conservative! RP gaining ground with kids is not such a hot idea. I want wisdom, not what's the fad of the day leading this nation. |
|
modern mentality of "conservatism". You have to constantly whine and cry about government spending, taxes, out sourcing, illegal immigration, guncontrol etc, but if a candidate that actually comes along who will do something about it, you call that candidate a fringe candidate. At least that's how it seems to me. Ron Paul is the only real conservative in the race, but since he doesn't buy in to the foolish neo con bomb everybody mentality, that has proven to be a losing plan, he is trashed by the media. Oh well, he is still gaining ground every day. More important than that though, his ideas are being endorsed by the young kids. There is hope .
|
|
Reagan's ideology has largely been achieved?
I say it's largely being ignored, and that's why people keep bringing him up.
We have a larger population and economy than in 1989, but a smaller military, and we "can't" expand it to meet probable contingencies?
We have nearly 20% of our GDP going into the federal budget, and we "can't" reduce it?
Our judges tore the guts out of the First and Fifth amendments, and we "can't" engage the country on legal theory?
We "can't" demand more integrity from Washington?
We "can't" present an independent foriegn policy?
We "can't" move on energy production? |
|
"Also, didn't Lincoln violate more civil liberties and constitutional principles (Along with the rest of the original GOP) than a "Bush lied people died" Bush hating libretard would attribute to our current administration?"
Uh, yeah.
And as for Reagan, his legacy was "mixed", to put it politely. But he was more the authentic conservative than anyone we've seen since.
Except for Ron Paul. But we can't have him now, can we? |
|
If only there would have been someone to reprimand FDR.
"Por que no se renuncia"
Talk about reaching into the past to be progressive.
FDR was ahead of his time, at least as far as advancing dictatorial socialist policy.
Man, if FDR is considered one of the greats, maybe we should start carving Chavez's head into a mountain in South Dakota.
By the way, didn't Reagan give us Sandra Day O'Connor and amnesty part 1?
Also, didn't Lincoln violate more civil liberties and constitutional principles (Along with the rest of the original GOP) than a "Bush lied people died" Bush hating libretard would attribute to our current administration? |
|
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the law. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's not ignore them any more.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
We don't need Ronald Reagan.
We need Ronald Paul, and I absolutely know Ronald Reagan would be the first to tell you so.
|
|
Reading this thread is like looking for the preverbial needle in a haystack. Where the heck have all the conservatives gone???
I have read endorsements in this thread that relates to RINO's and CINO's, yet hardly a word about real conservatives. On top of that there are people that don't want another Reagan for President. Given the fact that we cannot raise the dead, the best we can do is to elect someone that can, and will, continue the Reagan Revolution. There is only one Republican candidate running that fits the bill. His name is Fred Thompson.
Time to man-up people and support a real Conservative! |
|
"What the heck is USmerica? Is that Ron Paul-speak?"
USmerica
USmerican /s
USmerican's /s'
No. I coined the word a decade ago to differentiate between Americans who pay taxes to Washington and those who pay in Buenos Aires, Brasilia, Quito, Ottawa, etc.
I married an American from Canada. I know hundreds from Mexico, dozens from Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, and Uruguay. As a class, they more or less resent that we Norde Americanos have hijacked the generic term "American". After all, "America" runs from Point Barrow to the Tierra Fuego, from Kodiak Island to Rio de Janero. Even my Jacquie, for whom we are "south Americans", and her Canuck family in Canadia (as our children jestingly pronounce it) identify as Americans in contrast to her brother-in-law, who's German/European.
And, "USmerican" implicitly distinguishes between US-mericans and "THEMother-mericans". ('Course, this last is all tongue-in-cheek, but my friends get it and smile, or at least snigger a bit.)
Government has no more business running schools
in the XXI than it had running churches in the
XIX, and for the same reasons. We excommunicated
it then, we must expel it today.
Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org |
|
|
I would like to add to my previous comment that Reagan was great in his communication skills for the conservative cause and tax cuts; that is it; nearly everything else was a disaster. My list of Great Presidents would be Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. In comparison to FDR, Herbert Hoover was a wonderful president for his hands-off policy of letting the market heal itself. At the same time, Hoover upsets me because he caved in to public pressure and interfered in the marketplace. He still disagreed with the public at this point, but he did what they wanted even though he knew that it wouldn't be in their best interest. From the Left he is criticized for being to hands-off and not caring about the people, and from the Right he is criticized for interfering too much. If he would have stayed true to his principles, he would have the sympathies of the Right. He almost has my sympathies, but there is reluctance there. |
|
Ruffini said that Reagan should be listed among "one of the Greats: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan." Ruffini lists FDR as one of the great presidents. I am disgusted to hear that someone who writes about the greatness of Reagan's conservatism and leadership can consider FDR as one of the great presidents. FDR was not great that great of a president because of the mess that he created.
Social Security is the largest pyramid scheme ever developed. The survival of the program requires that the population is ever growing at a constant or increasing rate. As we see with our declining birthrate and greying population, the pyramid is losing its base.
Some may say that Franklin Roosevelt brought us out of the Great Depression. This is a great lie advocated in nearly every U.S. History textbook across the country (and we know that liberal write the majority of textbooks); Roosevelt was merely president as we climbed out of the Depression; the industrial demand of World War II brought jobs and took us out of the Depression.
The greatest evil of FDR was the increase of the size of government. He increased taxes and spent superfluously. He became an extortionist, heavily taxing the rich like they were an endless resource regardless of the rate of taxation and giving the poor their cut in the deal for voting for him.
All in all, I'm disappointed in the author for presenting FDR as a great president, who in my book is high in my list of the Ten Worst Presidents.
When I think of FDR, I ask, "Cui bono?" The answer is: not everybody. |
|
Is that Ron Paul-speak?
I agree with you that free trade is desirable, and Hawley-Smoot was bad bidness, for the US and the rest of the world.
But the roots of Nazism in Germany, and its ultimate rise to power in January 1933 began long before Hawley-Smoot ... the Versailles Treaty in 1919, and the rampant hyperinflation and social breakdown began in Germany years before 1930. The fascist movement got its start early in the 1920s ... Mussolini rose to power in Italy in 1922, and the militarists in Japan began their long slow climb to dominance with the Meiji Restoration in 1870, completing their takeover after the Russo-Japanese War.
Whatever effect Hoover had on conditions in Germany paled by comparison to the social and economic bankruptcy of the nation as it roiled with resentment over the outcome of the war, the payment of war reparations and resulting hyperinflation of the currency, and the failures of the Weimar Republic to deal with the worldwide Great Depression.
|
|
"you actually believe that World War II would not have happened if FDR had not championed the New Deal?"
What I said was:
"WWII **may** not have happened had USmerica held fast to her freedoms ..."
Hitler, a fan of the USmerican socialists, Francis and Edward Bellamy, came to power because Germany was flat broke. You might remember that I pointed to Hoover, who was a big-state proponent, as the initiator of the problem. He signed Smoot-Hawley that kept the world (including Germany) from exporting to USmerica. Retaliatory tariffs other countries levied kept us from exporting to them. This is a huge part of what created a world-wide, twenty-year-long depression/war out of a moderate economic correction.
Had we traded freely with the world in the 1930s, there would have been little "need" for German National Socialism, Italian Fascism or Japanese Militarism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo may not have arisen to power without the economic crises in their countries which, in turn, may not have existed, to the degree they did, had international trade not been constrained.
There is no way to prove or disprove my case. I offer it as a hypothesis with a warning: peoples who trade freely have little need to invade each other, but when trade is curtailed by governments (the only ones with the power to do so), war becomes a major possibility.
However, remember Göbbels: people can be stirred up to war when the state creates a big enough boogie man. I believe that the NAZIs' boogie man was their economy, weakened and crippled by WW I reparations and a lack of markets and resources. Germany was starving in 1930, and one of the reasons was Hoover. There was no change in 1933 when FDR became the roadblock.
Children are too important to allow bureaucrats
to raise them. Get your children out of the
state's youth concentration camps.
Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org |
|
|
It is not Reagan. It is his economic policies, which the Democrats are dismantling piece by piece. We must preserve the economic policies of lower taxes, fiscal restraint, and de-regulation. If our economy is to grow and we are to be a powerful and prosperous nation we must keep up the Reagan Legacy. |
|
is a President who would be willing to restore the authority of this nation to the owners, that little pesky group called "we the people"!
The runaway power shift to the elites of both parties is what is dragging the nation down. We need someone who will lead to solve problems by educating the citizens as to their responsibilities and then prodding them to rise up and take charge. Even that will be difficult as the American people have become lazy, willing to leave governing to the elites, which is exactly how they like it.
The road to change is not through the two major parties, but through an independent President who can stand up to the elites and represent the American people before any party loyalties! I urge any who want to see how we could actually do that to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. Check it out, why not? The elites have already stolen our inheritance, why not reclaim it before they accumulate even more power? Thanks, Joe
|
|
Yes, of course there was pressure to go "red" in the 1930s. Just as there was contravening pressure to go fascist as well. It is hard to appreciate today, but America in the 1930s, right up until Pearl Harbor, harbored millions of communists and nazi sympathasizers.
FDR was caught in the middle, trying to ensure that America as enshrined in the Constitution could survive in a time of horrendous worldwide suffering and upheaval, when most of the rest of the world was embroiled in bloody political revolution and the threat of yet another world war.
That FDR was so successful in keeping America "between the lines", and not veering off the highway of freedom, is a testament to his greatness as a President.
That is why Ronald Reagan admired FDR so.
Social Security has its warts and all, but on the other hand, would most people in America want to live without any social safety net? Not for a minute ... take a vote today, and let's see how many people vote to terminate Social Security. Care to take any bets on that one?
Even Ronald Reagan at his boldest small government self would not have dreamed of taking America back to the laissez faire of 1932 America. He just wanted to curb the more recent excesses of LBJ's "Great Society", which went way beyond any of FDR's programs or aims. |
|
Dude the name works for you.
Me a LIB, now that's a good one. Let me guess, your a Ron Paul guy! |
|
yes there was pressure in the US/ FDR to be like Stalin when it came to goverment control. One reason the NYT gave such a wonderful write in their paper on how grreat RUSSIA was. Even though they all knew of the starving that was going on.
I didn't say FDR want to murder Americans.
And no I don't hate FDR, but not all of his ideas were that great. SS has not gone all that good. |
|
too.
Japan did not, as you assert, simply "want to become an economic giant in Asia. We said - nope. One dispute led to another until such time as we severely curtailed shipments of raw materials and oil - in effect strangling the Japanese economy."
Uhhh, you're forgetting a few things ... like, Japan invaded Korea in 1910 (a few years before FDR, right?), and enslaved its population, turning its women into unpaid whores for Imperial Japanese Army troops.
Then Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, eventually expanding its invasion to most of China. As Japan's Kwantung Army expanded its control of China, it killed literally millions of innocent civilians - either by outright murder and rapine (as in the "Rape of Nanking") or simply by enslavement and starvation of tens of millions of Chinese civilians.
When Japan attacked America at Pearl Harbor, if it was just to set us straight, then why did Japan also invade the rest of East Asia and the entire western and Central Pacific? Just to teach America a lesson? Yeah, right!
You should have auditioned for Tokyo Rose's job during the war. It sounds like you have the propaganda spiel down pat.
Maybe you oughta go see A-Jad and see if he needs an Iranian version of Baghdad Bob? Call yourself "Teheran Tom".
No matter what, according to too many people, America is in the wrong, and America is always the bad guy who makes life oh so tough for all the world's poor little ole dictators. Cry us a river!
So tell me, does "FDR hatred" do to guys like you what "Bush hatred" does to guys like Harry Reid and John Murtha?
|
|
facts. It's pretty easy to do on the internet these days.
You say the economy was only "in recession during the Hoover years."
Uhhh, here's the facts:
By the end of 1932, when Hoover was booted from office ...
- unemployment was 23.6%
- the Dow Jones stocks had lost 80% of their value since the crash
- 40% of the nation's banks in 1929 had failed, with depositors losing everything
- capital investment in the nation's economy had plummeted by 2/3 since 1929
- farm prices had decreased by 53% since 1929
- Congress & President Hoover increased the top income tax rate from 25% to 63%
- foreign trade decreased by 2/3 since 1929
If that's what you call a "recession", then how would you define a "depression"?
During FDR's Presidency, by 1939 he had achieved positive GNP growth in 5 out of 6 full calendar years, reduced unemployment to just over 17%, and restored the nation's confidence in its banking system and capital markets.
Granted, he could have performed better, and the New Deal was a bad deal in many respects. But you have to give FDR credit where it is due, and get your facts straight. |
|
|
He is not conservative. He has said repeatedly in the past that he is a liberal, his record is liberal, he ran for mayor on the Liberal Party ticket. Know that you are voting for a liberal. |
|
Erik/Patrick said:
"“Basically, what it says is ‘We’re completely unoriginal and uninspired, so let’s go back to the old playbook.’”"
I tend to think that what it says is: "Look around you - we've lost our way and need to get back on the right track."
"Change" isn't always "Progress" - sometimes you find that the best answer is to go back to what works.
- MuscleDaddy |
|
One of the greatest economic expansions in this country began in the 1880s and carried over into the 1900s. The government raised revenue through tariffs - not income taxes. In 1913 the government instituted a "progressive" income system which was clearly proscribed by the Constitution - later amended. The top rate was 3%. That rate spiraled upward to help pay for WWI debt. Calvin Coolidge cut rates and the economy experienced another boom. The economy, true to form though, experienced a downturn (It still goes through the same cycles today). The economy was in recession during the Hoover years. FDR promptly raised taxes upon election. Any economist, even a liberal economist, will tell you raising taxes during a recession will lead, ultimately, to a DEPRESSION. To blame Smoot-Hawley as the reason for the depression is specious as it accounted for about ONE percent of revenue.
The Japanese have no natural resources. In the early 1900s they were heavily dependent upon the US for these as well as oil. The Japanese wanted to become an economic giant in Asia. We said - nope. One dispute led to another until such time as we severely curtailed shipments of raw materials and oil - in effect strangling the Japanese economy. They went to war with not only the Russians but the US as well for their right to economic self-determination.
|
|
has absolutely nothing to do with black helicopters, or your commentary either.
Indeed, Mud's comments are perfectly appropriate to defining the greatness of Reagan, and in his optimistic faith in America and American ideals and American accomplishments.
That's quite the opposite of the tinfoil hatted black helicopter, FDR=Stalin insanity others have posted here today.
|
|
sensible, but to equate FDR's Administration with Stalin's communist dictatorship, in which Stalin murdered or starved to death about 30 million of his countrymen, and then imprisoned tens of millions more in his gulags, is breathtaking in its overreach.
I'm with any conservative anywhere who thinks the New Deal was a bad deal, but FDR was faced with a growing catastrophe in 1933, and he rightly feared the country might indeed be receptive to the siren call of the reds and the fascists who dominated most of the rest of the world in those days. To equate FDR with Stalin, or Hitler, or the militaristic fanatics in Japan is far crazier even than the 9/11 Truthers who say that GWB ordered the destruction of the Twin Towers so that Halliburton could add a couple of bucks to its share price.
You really aren't coming from there, are you, Dustoff?
|
|
|
When Moses came down from the mountain "Thou shalt not kill" was one of ten commandments he brought with him. Four thousand years later murder is still a sin and still against the law. Reagan never forgot who he was and did not change his values for political expediency as is "fashionable" with todays current crop of politicians. He stood FOR things more so than against. He made Americans feel good about themselves. People respond to his positive leadership. He removed government from people's lives to the greatest extent possible and unleashed the American spirit. If you want to know who makes America work...look in the mirror and rediscover what Reagan knew...YOU make it work. NOT some clown in DC. He placed his faith in the PEOPLE not government. Any politician who "knows what is best for you" and is going to "take care of you" is buying your soul with your money (i.e. taxes). So do not look for "another Reagan" to sort things out for you; he showed you how to do it yourself. Get government out of your life and stand on your own two feet. Refuse to elect a politician who does not believe in YOU. |
|
Sigh ... the various forms of extremism that seem to thrive on townhall.com blogs never ceases to amaze!
So L.S. - you actually believe that World War II would not have happened if FDR had not championed the New Deal?
That's about as tinfoil hatted as the worst of the crap that Ron Paul's neo-nazi supporters and 9/11 Truthers have ever concocted.
So I suppose that Hitler's nazi takeover of Germany, which had the express purpose of creating the "Third Reich" (i.e., the successor to the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire ... in other words, his plan to subjugate the entire western world), that began two months before Roosevelt's innauguration, was somehow a reaction against the New Deal?
And I suppose that the Bolshevik Revolution, and the collectivization in Stalin's USSR, and his non-aggression pact with Hitler were all reactions to FDR's New Deal?
And I suppose also that you believe that the militarists who took over Japan in the early 1900s, in the wake of the Meiji Restoration and the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, and who demanded full control of all of the natural resources in East Asia and the western Pacific as their natural right as a superior culture, only invaded Manchuria in 1931 as a reaction to FDR's New Deal - two years later? Which made them attack Pearl Harbor ten years later?
Please folks, get out the tinfoil hats ... it's time for another round of "Extremists R Us"!
Look out for those black helicopters! They're coming for ya!
Sheesh!
|
|
|
Many in his adm thought that going the same direction was that Stalin was running his country would be a great idea. Heck even NYT did their very best to push for the Stalin way. |
|
"FDR (who only copied Hoover's approach to much of the correction) further intensified the problem."
This should read:
"FDR (who only copied and EXPANDED Hoover's approach to much of the correction) further intensified the problem."
Sorry for any inconvenience.
Schools do not exist to educate. They
exist to indoctrinate. Save yours from
the state's youth concentration camps.
Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org |
|
|
Ok, MR. I know it all. Tell us please, who would make a great Prez! |
|
"one would have to be obsessed with ideological purity not to recognize that FDR also inspired tens of millions of Americans to endure the Great Depression without turning to some vastly worse ideological solution, such as communism or nazism, as much of the contemporary world was doing in the dark days of the 1930s."
Yes, FDR did convince USmericans of my father's generation to endure the depression Hoover and he extended from an 18-month correction into a 2-decade catastrophe -- much in the same way that Stalin convinced Russians or Mao the Chinese to endure the privations of Communism, and for the same reason: too much governmental interference.
A mere glance at history would show that WWII may not have happened had USmerica held fast to her freedoms, rather than adopting communism lite. In addition to destroying USmerica's underpinnings, Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which "exported" the recession to the rest of the world, and deepened its effects here, as well. Many of Hoover's other actions also contributed to the disaster.
FDR (who only copied Hoover's approach to much of the correction) further intensified the problem.
If government could just keep its filthy hands off the economy, we'd all be much better off. But governors (winning politicians in general) find their fun in controlling other people's lives, and feel duty bound to stick their unwanted and unneeded paws into everyone else's business.
Freedom always beats government, except governments have more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than citizens, so it always wins.
I will believe that bureaucrats should determine
what, when, where, and from whom a child learns
when they can tell me his name and his favorite
book.
Le
==
Please visit http://www.schoolandstate.org |
|
I wholeheartedly agree, it's time to move on.
The 80s are over, there is no Soviet Union, it's time to move on. Reagan was a great man for his time, but we need a new style and vision for today.
We should have moved on a long time ago. |
|
|
FDR transcended ideology, which is why Ronald Reagan praise FDR effusively when RR was both a candidate and a President. I believe that ultimately, Ronald Reagan likewise eventually will be perceived to have transcended ideology in his supreme belief in the inherent good represented by America and American ideals. |
|
I understand your ideological revulsion at FDR's "New Deal" expansion of the Federal Government. But one would have to be obsessed with ideological purity not to recognize that FDR also inspired tens of millions of Americans to endure the Great Depression without turning to some vastly worse ideological solution, such as communism or nazism, as much of the contemporary world was doing in the dark days of the 1930s.
Many have argued, and successfully so, I would agree, that much of FDR's actual governing program actually worsened and extended the depression, and that FDR's economic legacy was mostly saved by the advent of World War II.
Yet, if America had followed the economic prescriptions of Hoover, America might very well have descended into much worse social and political upheaval. And if America had followed the lead of the isolationist Republican Party in the late 1930s through 1941, Hitler and Stalin and the militarists in Japan most likely would have divided up most of the world for themselves, leaving America completely at their mercy - and of course, they had no mercy.
For all of FDR's numerous errors and ideological fallacies, the alternatives to FDR could easily have seen the complete and utter downfall of America. And, whether you agree with that or not, FDR was undeniably an icon to the American people from 1932 to 1945, and for at least another generation beyond.
The other thing I would add about FDR is that if he were alive today, I believe he'd be a Republican, or at least an independent along the lines of Senator Lieberman. FDR could not be more opposed to the current pacifist/"American is always wrong" tropes of the current Dem party. |
|
I agree with most of the post except for the addition of FDR to the list of great Presidents. I would put Cleveland and Coolidge on the list and grind FDR's banner into the dirt. I guess you can tell where I stand on reducing the size of gov't.
Reagan rhetorically supported reducing the size of the federal gov't, but could not pull it off. I do not presume to know what was possible and what kind of compromises must be made to get anything done, especially with a majority Dem Congress. But the 1983 Social Security tax hike has always rankled me, as it was just a sneaky way of raising the national debt limit and, to quote Coolidge speaking of unnecessary taxation in general, the 1983 SS tax hike was "nothing more than legalized larceny". |
|
You wrote, "None of the people running for President are Reagan."
My edit would have read, "Not one of the people running for President is Reagan." |
|
In total aggreement, we need to give up on the Reagan worship. We should have known that this would happen, but after all of the Reagan talk people have started to actually look at his record, which isn't always a good thing:
- he supported Sadaam while he dumped chems on Kurds
- he supported the Taliban in Afghanistan
- he cut and run out of Beirut
- he sold arms to the Iranians
- supported the Contras and other groups in S. America that brutally killed priests/nuns/students there
- his deregulation of the banking industry was a disaster
- the War on Drugs was and is a disaster
- and he surrendered the GOP over to the evangelicals and southern racists, who now unfortunately run the party and are determined to ruin it (this was the true "deal with the devil" and the worst decision he made IMO.)
He did some great things, namely ending the cold war through tough love detente. But if we look too closely at this we might find out that the hardliners within the GOP actually hated him for this at the time. |
|
One of things going on in Iraq is the growth (creation?) of a civil society from the ground up. The central government is relatively weak and ineffective, but the people at the local and tribal levels are doing what they need to do to create actual, working local governments.
Maybe the same thing is underway among conservatives this time around - we are concentrating on our own lives, our own local problems, and letting the big, top-level leadership wander around a bit. The presidential candidates end up reflecting what is going on at the state and local levels rather than leading the action.
From a conservative standpoint, this is not a bad thing, for it demonstrates power - at least on our side of the political divide - moving out of DC and back to the state and local levels.
We may be on the verge of starting to unwind the powerful, intrusive federal government, which wouldn't bother me a lot.
A congress that is well on its way back to echoing Mark Twain's description of it as the only American native criminal class is a step in that direction. And the judges are next up to bat.
All in all, we may not need conservative leaders, for we are the leaders. We get it. And the other side - the statists - are running out of places to hide.
Overly optimistic? Maybe. Poorly said? Probably. But there is something going on out there and the lack of a conservative leader at the national level is not necessarily a bad thing. Cheers - |
|
"...the notion that we have nothing new to offer the country."
I was going to say, 'adherence to principles', but Dave beat me to it. Certainly this would clearly separate Republicans from Dhimocrats. |
|
here too, for the most part.
Human beings always tend to lionize the "good old days" and those who were associated with it. Reagan was a great President in many ways, as GWB has been also. Ditto with Harry Truman, and FDR. Except for FDR, each of these men was not particularly popular by the last two years of their last term in office ... it was only with the passage of years, or decades, before the tone of conversation shifted from tolerance to applause and finally to reverence. It will be the same with GWB.
Another point of reference: when World War II ended in Europe in 1945, the Brits unceremoniously threw Winston Churchill out of office ... it was decades later when the man who saved Britain's bacon died and was eulogized as the "Man of the Century".
Today's challenges are extremely different from what we faced with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. We need different leaders, thinking in different ways, to respond to today's challenges. We need many of the same personal qualities of leadership that Reagan had (and as FDR, Truman, and GWB have had), but his solutions in his day would not work today.
The less ideological we are, and the more focused we are on electing quality leaders of great character, the better off we will be when the you-know-what hits the fan, as it surely will. |
|
What does this post have to do with the obvious anti-Mormon bigotry that exists in America today?
Oh yeah, to learn more, buy Hugh's book, a Mormon in the White House. He's not endorsing Mitt Romney, but there simply isn't a better candidate.
Go BYU! |
|
|
|
Patrick
If principle leads us to imitate Reagan, so be it. The emphasis should be on the principle, what it is and how to implement it, not on whether or not it resebles anything Reagan did or said.
If so, well and good. Reagan's name is powerful, or at least it was before they started overusing it.
But action needs to be based on CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE.
Our present load of porkers appears to have forgotten most of their principles, if they ever had them. |
|
My guess is that those wishing for smaller, less obtrusive government have seen about all they can get, then, from the Republican Party. Talked a good game with Reagan, but the party was unwilling to back that and we now have Big Government from the Left and Right.
Of the eleven government organizations that have been abolished or otherwise removed without shifting their work to someone else, 9 were done before 1949, and one each in 1996 (Board of Tea Appeals) and one in 1999 (new production by USIA). Such grand work, that... and Dept of Energy or Education and others cited as most likely to be ended by Reagan? Were they starved, disestablished, abolished? Of course not! Instead of going after large tentacles of the federal government, just a minor sucker or two were removed. That beast continues to grow with the help of both parties, now.
President Reagan ran on much more than reinvigorating the military after Carter and confronting the USSR. It was a call for a basic re-alignment of government to get it out of the lives of ordinary Americans and not regulate over everything. Instead we have gotten just the opposite with far more regulations *today* than 1980.
While the R party gets all misty-eyed, some of us out here are trying to put the continued non-confrontation of terrorism, death of US diplomats, soldiers and government workers in Beirut into perspective. And the non-chasing down of large banking scandals and the abuse of the Dept of Agriculture's CCC program to funnel money to BNL, BCCI and Saddam Hussein, amongst many. While each of those would fall, their remnants have left the world a worse place with the threats more distributed, less tractable to National military and civilian means and a world where cheap trade now serves a global arms and narcotics market that threatens civil governments everywhere.
I really don't want a repeat of that. |
|
can we make Wellstone bumper stickers illegal? |
|
|
Patrick, I couldn't agree more. I love Ronald Reagan and met the man in Century City at his office in 1989. I cringe when the current crop of Republican candidates try to be like Reagan. The American people want the next Reagan, not the memory of the great one. |
|
|
|
I agree with HNAV and thrustandparry. The Joshua analogy is brilliant.
Much of my wistful nostalgia is for Reagan's masterful leadership and communication skills. He would go over the talking heads of the mainstream media and speak directly -- and persuasively -- to the electorate.
The current president is deficient in those areas and that has profoundly hampered our war on terror, specifically in his inability or unwillingness to sustain the public support so essential to the success of our mission.
That is why, I believe, Giuliani appeals to conservative Reaganites despite our misgivings about his moral values and his potential to be the Republican version of Bill Clinton. In contrast to his GOP competitors and Democrat opponents, Giuliani is a forceful communicator and proven leader. To a lesser extent, so is McCain. Neither would have been my top choices in 2006 or 2004 -- and I'm still not sure I can hold my nose and vote for one of them. |
|
I have written before, specifically in the context of Fred Thompson, that we don't need to have another Ronald Reagan. Why? Because we have the fruit of Ronald Reagan - talk show hosts like Rush, Sean, Hugh, Prager, Medved, etal; the Internet blogs and Internet reporting; Fox News (finally a counterweight to MSM).
Any of the Republican candidates, should they win, will breath an air more pure than Ronald Reagan, and George Bush 43, have ever breathed. For they will, regardless of their will, have been carried up to a more rarified summit on the efforts of the above parties. What Goldwater handed to Reagan, Bush 43 picked up, while being carried along by you, me, and the people named above. The real fruit of the talk shows and Internet are inevitable but not yet. I believe we will see them in our lifetimes.
Joshua was no Moses, nor was he expected to be. But he led the Jews into the promised land as an effective and great leader. We are looking for a Joshua type, or even a Caleb in this current crop of candidates. [It is my hope God would give us a Cromwell soon but that is a topic for another post.] |
|
Interesting Post Mr. Ruffini.
Many cynics try to live through today, with a longing for the past, even though they were as critical of that history when it unfolded.
It is simply unfair to compare the living to a great hero like Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was a charismatic handsome Celebrity from Hollywood's Golden Era, who grew into an incredible Leader understanding the Greatness of the USA's Historic Freedoms.
Some like to compare GW Bush with this deceased Hero, which can be entirely unfair to the living.
The comparison itself is a huge compliment.
And GW's Leadership in the GWOT is worthy of acclaim.
However, the romanticism can be unrealistic.
In fact, some of today's skeptics rejected Reagan in his second term, just as they have abandoned the admirable aspects of the Bush Presidency.
Nothing will satisfy the cynics, and they have a truly unrealistic vision of human nature.
GW was truly admirable, advocating for private ownership attempting to reform Social Security, something Ronald Reagan previously enabled with Democrats.
Some Conservatives at the time missed this huge opportunity, and actually focused on the smaller problems of pork.
Ronald Reagan inspired, but he was a natural.
How could anyone compare to this incredible historic figure?
GW is a strong Leader with admirable Conservative qualities, just as many of those serving in the GOP.
The Republicans today get a bad rap, which is unfair, as Ronald Reagan would be proud of many efforts his Party has championed.
There is little doubt, Ronald Reagan would oppose the unethical Democrat Party of today. |
|
|
|