Posted on 02/06/2011 4:22:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Today would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. A lot of folks are taking the opportunity to talk about our 40th president, his life, and his legacy. And one of those reminiscences got me thinking.
Last week, I heard Michael Reagan being interviewed by Jim Bohannon. And one thing Michael said that really struck me was about how many people are quoting Reagan, citing Reagan as their role model, and endless variations of "WWRRD?"
That, according to Michael, is very un-Reagan. Ronald Reagan didn't talk about the legacy of Goldwater or other prior conservatives. Reagan didn't litmus-test his ideas against some idealized figure from the past. And Reagan didn't idolize any one source for quotes of wisdom.
That struck me as profoundly true. Ronald Reagan wasn't The Second Coming of anyone, he was The First Coming of Reagan. And we shouldn't look for a new Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was the right man in the right place at the right time -- much like how George W. Bush was immediately after 9/11. He was uniquely qualified to deal with the economic mess Carter had left, and to face the Soviets at the height of their power.
But even more to the point, Reagan was a man of his times. He was old enough to remember the world before the Soviet Union was a superpower, and had the vision to see a world without the threat of a nuclear apocalypse -- by defeating them without an open war. He also saw what was throttling the American economy and spirit, and took that on.
However, these aren't those times. The world is vastly different today than it was in 1980. The biggest threat -- militant Islam -- is one that Reagan only saw as a diversion from the real threat of his day, and one that sometimes could be useful or harmful. It was useful in Afghanistan, where the Soviets had invaded, and was bleeding itself white in what has often been described as their Viet Nam. But it was dangerous in Iran and Lebanon, where it directly threatened American interests and lives. And "terrorists" were mainly known as hijackers and occasional bombers, who mainly limited themselves to military targets. Reagan didn't trouble himself too much with them -- he had far, far greater threats to deal with, and he did.
Today, we are seeing people fighting over Reagan's "legacy." I just heard a guy on NPR talking about how Reagan wasn't really that good a conservative, that he was far more moderate and reasonable and realistic than we've led ourselves to think. Hell, under Reagan, taxes actually went up and government expanded -- he was practically a liberal! We all should love him! And Time Magazine put together a picture of Reagan seeming to endorse Obama.
Meanwhile, Republicans with presidential ambitions are either directly citing their admiration for and embracing of Reagan's "legacy," either directly or through proxies.
Personally, I only see one potential candidate that really reminds me of Reagan in any significant way. That's the candidate who's talked about as seriously below average in intellect, who utterly polarizes most people into passionate support or hatred, who speaks in a relaxed, folksy, easy-to-understand language, who has a religious faith that their detractors love to mock and challenge, and even served as governor of a very large state. But that's hardly enough to crown Sarah Palin as The Next Reagan.
What Reagan was -- and what we need -- is another American original. Reagan used quotes and historical examples, but he also used many of his own words and ideas and anecdotes. He didn't draw too deeply from any single source, but spread his roots wide -- and synthesized them into his own unique identity.
And "the next Reagan" will need to do the same. Yes, they should draw from Reagan, but not him exclusively. Hell, not even him primarily. And "the next Reagan" should -- politely, but firmly -- reject that title. Presidents who try to tie themselves to a predecessor's legacy -- George H. W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson come to mind -- tend to fail rather spectacularly. Those who resist that temptation and carve out their own identity and put their own stamp on history -- Kennedy and Truman come to mind -- tend to end up listed among the greats.
Will we have "the next Reagan" running next year? I dunno. I see several jockeying for that role, but it's pretty much a given that those who seek it out are doomed to fail at it.
Reagan? I adore him, but what I’m looking for now is a new St John Sobieski.
The author has a savagely good point here, ie, that Reagan did not “channel” some prior leader. No, Reagan was just himself.
Today’s Republican candidates all seek to try to ape Reagan, be seen as his successor, heir, etc. Today, we have completely different circumstances from the 70’s and 80’s, most notably that we are now truly broke.
...or a Charles Martel (Charlemagne’s grandfather).
Reagan was a great start but he isn’t the penultimate in what we want-— a true conservative. Just as a ‘55 Chevy is not the penultimate automobile vechicle, or a Boeing 707 the ultimate aircraft, Reagan just represents an ideological evolution in the (pardon the pun) RIGHT direction.
Him too. Yes. Please, God.
you need to look up the definition of penultimate
Just so you know..."penultimate" means next to last.
Restoring the Founders' complex formula for preserving liberty is not that simple, and the enemies of freedom are too many and too ingrained in the culture to be overcome by such simplistic slogans.
President Reagan's understanding of liberty and its essential ingredients was authentic and acquired first hand, by rigorous study of the Founders' own writings and speeches. As a result, he was able to come up with his own descriptive words and phrases--which his 'wannabees' today are quick to quote.
His belief system was formed on a solid foundation, long in the making, and requiring great thought and contemplation, as any who are participating in the Freeper Book Club study of THE FEDERALIST and other writings can attest.
It is now time for another leader to immerge whose authenticity as a scholar of the philosophy and principles underlying our Declaration of Independence and Constitution is as apparent as was Reagan's.
Because we have had two years of such blatant exposure to counterfeit and opposing ideas that threaten liberty, American citizens will be drawn to such a person like moths to a flame, but it must not be personality driven, but ideas and principles driven
That Reagan possessed both personality and intellectual depth and understanding of the founding principles made him unique and special. If Providence sends along another such potential leader, American voters need to be so enlightened themselves that they can recognize the real from the imitation.
The future of liberty for several future generations may depend on it.
thanks! ultimate would be the correct word. I stand corrected. Do you correct typos too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.