“The Press has run roughshod over every republican President since I was of voting age.”
Reagan though was a master at communications and talking directly to the people over the press. His White House was effective in determining the message for the day and getting Republicans to stay on message. Plus he had a great sense of humor and was effective in using it to point out the lunacy of many liberal positions. He had core beliefs and was confident in sticking with them as well as promoting them. Plus he loved the nation and its people and most of the people understood the interests of the US were its first priority.
I’ve come to the conclusion that both Bush’s were global elitists and pragmatic politicians first. Despite their claims to be conservatives, they were politicians first. They were preoccupied with the administration of government instead of passionate leadership of a cause. Compromise and capitulation were the result. While George W. connected with the American people immediately after 9/11 he blew the good will he developed by failing to sustain his relationship with the people and allowing his opposition and the media to define events. Bush failed to fight back against his detractors which is a huge failure of leadership which ultimately allowed his opposition to successfully to portray him as a loser and a failure.
Notice that while the mainstream press carries Obama’s water he doesn’t always use them to carry his message. He effectively uses social media, second parties (i.e. celebrities and activists with access to the media such as Sharpton), non-profit cause groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club, personal appearances, the federal bureaucracy, and orchestrated “news” to communicate his message and demagogue Republicans. The White House understands how to manage the message effectively (i.e. propaganda). The Republican presidents since Reagan have not understood how to manage the message.
Ultimately I believe Republican Presidents (Reagan the exception) have failed to communicate effectively with the nation because they lacked steadfast believe in the American people. Nixon, Ford, and the two Bush Presidents wanted to govern, not to reduce the burden of government on the people. They lacked a vision for American and therefore were preoccupied with managing issues and the daily administrative aspects of the politics of government.
Both Reagan and Obama were/are on missions. Reagan wanted to downsize the federal government and move most governing to the states and localities. He also believed in free markets and the potential of self reliant individual human beings operating in a free market without the heavy hand of government. Obama is the anti Reagan desiring a strong central government and a redistributionist socialist economy. To Obama “group” are more important than individuals. In fact instead of the empowering individuals through limited government, Obama seeks to empower groups by bestowing on them government privileges and money.
Both Obama and Reagan had clear visions for American and understood the need to effectively communicate with the people in order to use government to advance their visions. Neither compromised their core principles and as a result accomplished much more in advancing their agendas than they would have in compromising. The other Republican Presidents failed because they lacked vision. Without a vision there is no leadership. Without leadership and vision it is easy for the press and the opposition to define you.
Had either McCain or Romney been elected President, they would have failed. While both claimed to be conservatives, neither were passionate about conservative values or anything else. They would have failed the test of leadership and chewed up by the press and the political opposition. Pragmatic politicians almost always fail when placed in leadership positions. True committed visionaries usually succeed because they don’t compromise.
You make a good point regarding Reagan, but we missed the boat even with Reagan. We failed to maintain that core communication and vision of purpose after he left office. Our country can’t sit around and wait for another Reagan, the mantel of freedom has fallen on us and we have to choose what we will do and we have to figure out a way to get the message out with credibility.
I submit that for all the reasons you stated Reagan did succeed, but he still failed to turn back the liberal progressive tide. The wave of progressivism still rolled in like a tsunami after Reagan left office. Reagan left the country and the world overall a better place and little can be said about the impact of his missteps and yet, big media destroyed what should have been an ongoing vision and legacy for generations of Americans to come.
Reagan is gone now and we need to stop looking for him. We carry with us a vision and it is now up to us to put a physical purpose to the vision. And I submit that is comes in the form of taking back the Freemans Freedom of the Press to educate the public.
Rush Limbaugh disdainfully refers to ‘low information voters.’ He started using the phrase OK, but now he says it with near slander in his tone. His use offends me as this is exactly the voter to which we need to restore the American dream too. You can’t do that if you don’t hold respect for them as a freeman.