Posted on 06/17/2004 6:51:58 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Even with the death of Ronald Reagan, the country's mainstream media and by extension the liberal establishment, cannot help themselves. Ronald Reagan had been deceased only a short time, but the muted and insincere praise voiced by Reagan's many detractors and enemies is quickly coming to an end.
The first few nights after Reagan's death, the chattering class was awash in muted yet high-minded praise for America's 40th President. Listen to Ted Kennedy, the old liberal lion and adversary of Ronald Reagan: ''We often disagreed on issues of the day, but I had immense respect and admiration for his leadership and his extraordinary ability to inspire the nation to live up to its high ideals.''
Presidential contender John Kerry’s statement on Reagan’s death was equally as gratuitous and stately: ''Americans will bow their heads in prayer and gratitude that President Reagan left such an indelible stamp on the nation he loved.''
But as it became clear that Reagan was nearly as big in death as he was in life, the silver-lined words of liberal praise started to tarnish. The debate over Reagan's greatness will rage for decades to come for some among the political class. For the majority of the American people, the debate has already been settled.
It remains to be seen if flame-throwers like Ted Kennedy will contain the liberal impulse to speak their darkest thoughts, and thereby prove that Reagan's death was just a short respite from their continued hate against the presidency of George W. Bush. In an election year, it may be too much to ask that what the opposition party has shown Ronald Reagan in death should be shown to the sitting president in life: respect for the office and the man who occupies it. Regarding Bush, no one said you have to love him.
Make no mistake; the liberals of 1980 despised Reagan as much as the liberals of 2004 hate Bush. Far from loving Reagan, Democrats now seek to minimize him as far as his legacy is concerned. But do not be surprised if during the coming presidential debates in October between Bush and Kerry, you hear a classic rejoinder along the lines of ''and let me tell you something, Mr. President (wait for the perfect pause…), you are no Ronald Reagan.''
In relative haste after Reagan’s death, liberals inserted politics into a time of national mourning, a period where politics should have been put aside, if only until the end of the funeral. Once it became clear that similarities between Bush and Reagan were as natural as blue is to sky, the talking heads sensed a major problem on their hands.
You can hear it voiced in a piece by MSNBC contributor Howard Fineman, or senior Democratic Party strategist Philip James writing for Guardian Unlimited in the United Kingdom. One-time California gubernatorial candidate Arianna Huffington of Salon.com writes of Bush being ''no Reagan,'' and you see similar comments on the op-ed pages of the New York Times. Perhaps the best place to see the consternation of the liberal establishment and the Bush-Is-No-Reagan catch phrase is on the ''John Kerry for President'' web site. If you read the blogs and messages found there, you can detect a sense of fear in the air.
While it is easy to say that Bush is no Reagan, it is far harder thing to ignore the comparison that has, incredibly, caused the modern day liberal establishment to actually use the name of Ronald Reagan as a bludgeon against the re-election of George W. Bush.
Like Reagan, Bush is looked upon as being out of touch with the average American. Like Reagan, Bush is as hated in Europe as Reagan ever was. Like Reagan, Bush is considered a militaristic ''cowboy.'' Like Reagan, Bush is considered an ''amiable dunce'' or ''moron.''
The above is what some would call personality traits. I call it slander. But what of comparisons between the two men in policy and vision?
Like Reagan, Bush came into office when the nation was under an economic dark cloud, though Reagan’s task was much deeper in its totality of economic revitalization. Like Reagan, Bush prescribed marginal rate tax cuts to right the economic ship. Like Reagan, Bush set out to rebuild a military that suffered under the stewardship of Democratic predecessors. Like Reagan, Bush is committed to fighting the ''evil empire'' of the 21st Century, terrorism.
Still more:
Like Reagan, Bush has policy initiatives that can be labeled as sweeping. Like Reagan, Bush can deliver the big speech when the moment calls for it the most. Like Reagan, Bush believes that freedom is endowed from God, and not given by man. And like Reagan, Bush believes in the good and irresolute will of the American people.
Indeed, when looking at President Bush under the lens of the Reagan presidency, it is right to say that ''Bush is no Reagan.'' But to be fair, Reagan was no Bush. Both men had qualities that the other lacked, and styles of governing that reflected a different era of life that both men grew up in. Both bought life’s experiences, their own, into the presidency. For Reagan politically, FDR was a major influence. For Bush, it was Reagan. All that means is that both mean knew greatness when they saw it.
There are many differences between Bush and Reagan. Bush does not have the smoothness and ultra-quick wit of Ronald Reagan, nor is he comfortable with the English language at times. He has trouble promoting his political successes to the electorate, and at times communicating with members of his own party. Still, these are mostly points of style, something a person may grow into with time and experience. According to MSNBC’s Howard Fineman, ''George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, and no Franklin Roosevelt, and no Winston Churchill.'' True. He is not. But whether Mr. Fineman realizes it or not, Bush seems to be in good company.
If someone would have told me six months ago that the liberals in an election year would be using the name of Ronald Reagan in a way to try to defeat Bush in November, I would have told you that they have a better chance of getting John McCain to be John Kerry’s vice-president. This, too, shall pass.
About the author: Vincent Fiore is a freelance writer and activist who resides in New York City.
Reagan and Bush - and Lincoln - have many, many similarities in heart and soul, courage and fidelity.
All three have been vessels, submisssive to the Lord, through which the Lord has spoken.
Reagan inspired the nation and got things done. Bush just doesn't do that nearly as well or as often.
Sure Reagan got a Dim Congress to go along with his tax cuts and Bush had a GOP Congress. Of course Reagan had much more of a mandate than Bush who won by a razor thin margin. Bush on the other hand rallied the country to the war on terror much more than Reagan was able to rally the country against communism. Of course the US was directly attacked by Islamofascists which aided Bush in rallying the country and the country was not attacked by communism during the Reagan years. If you were not around, I promise you that the US is much much much much more unified against Islamofascists than it was in the cold war any time after 1970.
Reagan was a master and was also sharper than Bush policy wise.
I see no basis for this statement? Both were as the article says accused during their times as being dunces as all GOP presidents and presidential candidates have been since Tom Dewey. Bush and Reagan seem each to be[have been] firmly committed to a certain set of similar views, national defense, defeating our enemy, private choices over government, ect. But each presided over record deficits partly cause by economic slowdowns, defense spending and Congress which shows they had to be and were flexible. Each firmly supported life.
Bush can give a good speech, but is not inspiring. Reagan is just unmatched in history for communicating American values.
Reagan was a polished actor. Bush is not. Reagan was inspiring at the memorial to the Challenger astronauts, but no more inspiring than Bush bravely throwing out the first pitch of the 2001 World Series in Yankee Stadium right after 9-11. Reagan was also highly criticize for his speaking and leadership in the 1980s ala Bush today. I promise you that "... tear down this wall..." was not a speech that was well received in the press at the time it was given. The opposite was true, the press was aghast.
Is/was Mondale a gigolo?
What's the real story of Eleanor and Bill? Was there something with Alexandra/Vanessa and Bill?
Kerry is a tall, horse-faced, French Dukakis.
Why don't you wait till the end of GW's eight years before judging?
Good one!
Of course, in the early 1980s, when the Democrats said someone "is no Reagan," they meant is as a compliment. How quickly they turn....
What you say is true. But what was really impressive were the number of young people. There may be hope yet.
Make that Mondull.
Believe me, they "get it".......
Thanks for providing this encounter with young folks. I saw many in the crowds and snesed that there must be something drawing them there.
Amen....Amen. He has had so many trials and tribulations that I call Bush... President Job....as in the Bible....Job.
I must amend my post to include Harry Truman having a helluva first few months in office. Can you imagine following FDR, a beloved president, being told about the Manhattan Project, seeing us through to V-E day, the decision to drop the bomb and end the war in the Pacific, all within about 4 months? Staggering.
Truman left office in Jan. 1952 with about a 20% approval rating. History has acknowledged the great accomplishments of HST. I concur.
It doesn't take eight years to judge. Reagan will be quoted and studied for hundreds of years. Reagan would have destroyed Gore. Reagan would be destroying Kerry. Reagan certainly endured the same criticism from the leftists, but handled himself better and nothing stuck. Policy-wise, except for a couple things, Bush has been outstanding. But to compare debating skills and speech giving skills, Reagan is really in a class byhimslf.
Well of course! Geez, Reagan had an entire CAREER developing the necessary acting skills to be superb, before even entering politics.
It was more than just that. Reagan had spent years studying issues, writing about issues, and giving speeches about issues on top of his acting career. Reagan was able to discuss any issue and always knew the right thing to say. Reagan had the confidence, the timing, the style, and the knowledge. Bush is a likable guy with lots of charisma and a solid set of values. Bush is not nearly as polished or as informed as Reagan was. Reagan's lifetime of preparation matched with his incredible character and prophetic vision may never be surpassed. Reagan was the perfect storm, he just had it all. Bush has similar values as Reagan, which is why I really like Bush.
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.