Right on Gipper....we'll take you back ANYTIME....
Nothing has changed there, it is still correct.
Disgusting but inevitable ideological slide by Brooks after buying into "compassionate conservatism.' Sorry. I'll take liberty over big government any day.
We always need someone who is authentic, like Mr. Reagan was, and Mr. Bush is. We also always need the leader who can cope with the tough challenges of the time. Going backward is not a particularly helpful idea.
What we need is someone who knows who he is, who understands what we are up against, who is tough, smart with a human touch, a straight arrow who is honest as the day is long, (hopefully with one wife) and who understands why America is worth fighting for.
And don't forget these:
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"War is Peace"
Partially agree.
Reagan's legacy of minimalist government (more of an aspiration than a policy under his administration) is still a model for the future.
However, the author is correct that voters today are less concerned about government power than they were 25 years ago.
This doesn't mean conservative policies are less neccesary than they were, but it does mean they are less popular. The electorate is going through one of its pendulum swings, partly due to the absence of an articulate leader on the conservative side.
I think he's probably wrong about this. Goldwater and Reagan are good models, though not perhaps the models of the moment. But Goldwater tends to be associated too much with sectional hostilities, and the GOP definitely has to get beyond that and become or remain a national party.
What we need is a Reagan adapted to the issues of today. However, Reagan's belief in America, democracy, and the future was timeless.
Right on Gipper....we'll take you back ANYTIME....
No more Reagans or Goldwaters! Republicans need their own Dick Durbin!
Having become the Left's most dependable "useful idiot", I predict he will become a MSM celebrity.
Wow, this is so true! And hey, why stop there...you know Lincoln had a great idea abolishing slavery and all, and he was a good role model for his day, but that idea just doesn't suit me anymore...you know, I think I might like to own a slave or two!
Why, if jihadis come around, I could send them out to fight on my behalf....
And if it gets too hot from global warming, I could order them to fan me....
And with globalism appraoching on my current economic situation, I could use the extra help....
This is a brilliant idea! /s off
"But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed."
Nonsense, they are as prevalent as ever. In fact, in some ways they are more so. With the advent of "Big Government Conservatism", we have both side of the political divide seeking to expand the role of the federal leviathan.
Oh yeah? Tell that to a moonbat! That is if you can get them to stop screaming about theocracy and dictatorships...
peh....
"David Brooks" = RINO!!!
bump for later
Yippy, the great defenders of the status quo speak again. I'm really impressed. The "if it's screwed-up, apply more of the same" method of government has been working real great so far.
"The Republican Party, which still talks as if government were the biggest threat to choice..."
The GOP has not taken this approach since they backed off from the government shutdown when Clinton was President. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Brook' "new" approach has captured the top levels of the GOP since then. It's current aimless wandering is a result of this shift.
"But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people’s future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation. "
"Islamic Extremism"
The federal government has always had the blessing from conservatives to protect us against national security threats. This is a straw man.
"failed states"
What is he talking about? Failed foreign states? failed states within our Republic?
"global competition"
This is a serious threat? I beg to differ. The benefits outway the "costs". The only way this is a threat is if you were being payed exorbitent amounts of money/benefits for a job that requires marginal/low skill.
"global warming"
Don't even get me started about this.
"nuclear proliferation"
A legitimate task for the federal government to tackle. Why would any conservative oppose the use of federal power to curtail proliferation? A deeper question: would nuclear proliferation have perplexed Reagan or Goldwater as to how they would respond? It most certainly would not.
"A skills-based economy"
While there are a great number of different skills needed in our economy, there are still a great number of core skills that will always be needed. A knowledge of money management and personal finance along with a solid understanding of American Government is critical to participate in a free-market republic such as our own. Unfortunately, the federal government has taken up this responsibility (Federal Dept. of Education, NCLB, etc.) This is unconstitutional, and unnecessary. But again I would ask how is a skills-based economy a serious threat? Lastly, Reagan reponded to federal control of education as any principled conservative would...he opposed it.
"economic and social segmentation"
Perhaps I'm a little slow, but what does the author mean by these, and in what sense are they a serious problem?
Yeah, but isn't it funny how liberals, socialists Communists never need to change? It been the same forever it seems.
Well that was either written by FairOpinion or areafiftyone. I had no idea we had Arnold/Rudy Freepers from Arkansas.