The Faux Reaganites and Sarah Palin

Whenever Sarah Palin's name is mentioned in the same sentence as Ronald Reagan's, there is a screech of indignation, which generally comes from people who only glommed themselves onto Reagan AFTER he became President. These people used Reagan to advance their own careers, but now set themselves up as experts on all things Reagan and arbiters of who can, and who cannot, be fairly compared to the Gipper. [For example, you never hear such criticisms voiced by those who actually campaigned for Reagan in 1976 like Mark Levin or the "St. Paul of the Conservative Movement", Rush Limbaugh who came after Reagan, but whose fidelity to Reaganism is beyond cavil]

I am referring, of course, to the kerfuffle over "Sarah Palin's Alaska" and the scorn it has received as a "reality show" that is not Presidential, from the likes of Karl Rove, a Bushie who never supported Reagan and, to the extent he did anything, probably worked against him in 1980. Karl Rove is a charter member of the Bush dynasty, which presided over the deconstruction of the great Reagan coalition from 1988 until 2008. As Palin and the Tea Party burst onto the scene to revive and reinvigorate both conservatism and the GOP, the Bush surrogates like Rove and Michael Gerson and others have been quick to slam them both as "lacking gravitas" or "unsophisticated".

In response to the Rovian smear, Palin observed quite correctly that the same species of canard had been aimed at Ronald Reagan, who was derided as an actor who appeared in such movies as Bedtime for Bonzo, co-starring a chimp. In the 1980 campaign, this was a favorite attack against Reagan, employed by (guess who?) George Bush, who used it as a principal piece of evidence to prove that Reagan lacked the "gravitas" (another word borrowed by the serpentine Rove) to be President.

Enter Peggy Noonan, late of the Obama campaign and the lower East Side of Manhattan, to remind us all (as if we needed to be reminded) that Reagan was much more than an actor. He was a "great man", according to Noonan, and Palin is a "nincompoop". Reagan, you see, had been the president of the Screen Actors Guild and served TWO FULL TERMS as governor of California. He had built the conservative movement and had nearly defeated an incumbent President. What Noonan doesn't say is that she was nowhere to be found until well after Reagan became President. She drafted speeches for the Gipper who, I daresay, didn't really need her services. She takes abundant credit for the Challenger speech and for Pointe du Hoc, but a wordsmith like Reagan undoubtedly only needed her for very rough drafts. His columns and radio addresses were outstanding long before Noonan ever darkened his door.

But back to Reagan. What was it that commended Reagan to those of us who supported him for so long, even going back to 1968, when he made his first run for President (and came closer than many people realize to winning the 1968 nomination)? Well, it wasn't principally his time as SAG President, although many of us admired how he stood up to Communists there. This was not a difficult or unusual position to take in the 1950s. What about his two terms as Governor of California? Again, these were never really examined in any detail in his Presidential campaigns and were never really his chief selling point. (Indeed, the state budget doubled under Reagan and he signed a steeply progressive tax increase, as well as a liberal abortion law, which he bitterly regretted; His tenure as governor was basically overlooked by most conservatives and, to the extent it diverged from orthodoxy, it was blamed on his predecessor, Pat Brown, or written off to the giant idiosyncrasy that is California).

http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Ronald-Reagan-Governor-of-california.html

But Noonan isn't completely wrong. In 1976, Reagan did challenge the Establishment by challenging a sitting President of his own party. And he did build the modern conservative movement.

And Palin? She challenged the same Establishment in 2010. And she is RE-building the conservative movement, the original House of Reagan, so demoralized and decimated by Bush, Rove and company who now have the temerity to give her and us their advice.

Well, then, if not his experience, what were the features that commended Reagan to conservatives as a more or less ideal candidate for President? I believe there are three salient features which Reagan possessed, and which he coincidentally shares with Sarah Palin, that made him such a formidable candidate and such a great President.

First, Reagan had charisma, which is defined as a trait found in individuals whose personalities are characterized by a powerful charm and magnetism (attractiveness). Palin has charisma as well. It is difficult to define but it is a solid gold attribute in a politician and relatively rare among the breed. In my own lifetime, I have seen it in JFK and Reagan but it has been conspicuously absent in most politicians even those who, like Nixon and the Bushes, have attained high office. Reagan and JFK could light up a room, in effect fill it, just by entering. Palin has exactly the same effect.

Second, Reagan had a unique ability to articulate conservative principles in a way that ordinary Americans understood and to inspire and energize voters. Reagan's speech in 1964 in support of Goldwater was more significant to his future success as a candidate for President, and as President, than anything he did in his eight years as Governor. His contributions to the lexicon ("evil empire" and "we win; they lose") are the stuff of legends. Palin shares this ability with the Gipper, and her ability to drive the debate by brilliantly articulating what is at stake, be it the death panels in ObamaCare or the threat to our currency posed by printing money willy nilly, the so-called "quantitative easing"or QE 2.

What about the third, perhaps the most important, of the three traits, courage? Let's take a little walk down memory lane.

Courage is perhaps the rarest of character traits for politicians. But it is the single attribute which binds Reagan and Palin most closely. And the two major elections which immediately preceded their White House runs (assuming I am correct that she runs in 2012) are proof positive that when it comes to political courage, Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin are in a class by themselves.

In 1976, Ronald Reagan challenged the Establishment. Although he failed to secure the nomination for President in 1976, he laid the groundwork for his successful run in 1980. For his trouble, Reagan was blamed for Ford's loss to Jimmy Carter, and he earned the enmity of the Establishment which tried mightily to defeat him in 1980 and only grudgingly tolerated him while he was President.

In 2010, Sarah Palin challenged the Establishment, endorsing numerous Tea Party candidates, many of whom were successful, but some of whom were not. Like Reagan, she struck a blow at the DC establishment, but she did not vanquish it totally. It will try to exact a measure of revenge by blaming Palin for losses in the Senate while failing to credit her for the numerous successes not just in the Senate but in the House and in the Governorships (where she was 7 for 8). As Reagan laid the groundwork for his Presidential run in the unsuccessful 1976 bid, she has laid the groundwork for a 2012 run with a much more successful, although not complete, smashing of the Establishment in the 2010 midterms.

Both Reagan and Palin knew they would be savaged for their actions in 1976 and 2010, respectively. Yet both had the courage to do it because they knew it was both the right thing to do, and because they took the long view. Without 1976, there would have been no 1980 landslide. And without the great victories in the 2010 midterms, and their success in moving not just the country but the Republican caucus to the right, there could be no successful Palin run for the Presidency in 2012.

The keys to Reagan's near miss against Ford in 1976 as well as to his landslide victories and to his great legislative and international successes were his charisma, communications skills and, most especially, his courage. His successes had far less to do with his tenure as Governor. I suspect he sensed this early on, since he tried to wrest the presidential nomination away from Richard Nixon in the spring of 1968 and at the Convention in Miami Beach after barely a year as Governor. Even after only 18 months as governor, I imagine Reagan realized that eight years of bickering with Jess Unruh and the California Assembly had its limits as far as experience was concerned. Ronald Reagan was at best a fairly good governor of California (which is, perhaps the best one can expect of any governor of California) but he was a spectacularly successful President of the United States.

Palin's own tenure as governor is far briefer than Reagan's, but it was marked by many accomplishments that eluded the Gipper during his much longer tenure in Sacramento, including a reduction in state spending, slashing earmarks, reforming energy policy and forcing the big oil companies to drill on state leased land and rebating the royalties to the Alaska taxpayers. After the 2008 election, she tried to return to her duties as governor, but Obama's henchmen were waiting in Alaska to execute a preemptive strike on her 2012 presidential ambitions with a flurry of bogus ethics complaints. Instead, she preemptively struck THEM, resigning as Governor and going national, wreaking havoc on Obama's agenda and dealing both the Democrats and their GOP Establishment confreres a body blow in the 2010 midterms. File Obama's Alaska "bogus ethics complaint" strategy under the header: "Hoisted by your own petard."

As successful as Palin was as Governor, her tenure in Juneau is not the principal reason she is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination for President, any more than Reagan's tenure in Sacramento was the principal reason he garnered support. Like Reagan, she has the ability to lead and to inspire, to add to the GOP coalition so decimated by the Roves and the Bushes for the last 20 years. Like Reagan, she is the bete noir of the Establishment, which will employ all means fair and unfair, to take her out. And like Reagan, she has the courage to take on the Establishment, regardless of the costs, and to beat them.

Oh, one more thing. Lyn Nofziger once said of Reagan, "He was the most competitive [person] I ever saw." (although Nofziger used another, more colorful word in place of "person", undoubtedly for emphasis). When Palin remarked last week that, if she runs, she will be "in it to win it", I thought of Nofziger's remark. Yet one more similarity between the Gipper and Sarah Barracuda.

And did you wait to vote for Reagan until after "The man turned a country around that had suffered under LBJ, Nixon and Carter, broke the Soviets and contributed to the liberty of several hundred million people"?

Or did you decide there might be something in that actor that was worth supporting before he became known as a great man?

It's of little use to look only at the lives of great people after they become great, unless you are trying to use that information to figure who will be the next great person.

Excellent BC!

Notice how any references or comparisons to Reagan where Sarah is concerned brings out the nutjobs on FreeRepublic?

Seems like exposing a Vampire to the light.

Inevitably, since they have no ammunition to fight back with, they turn to slanders and slurs such as calling everyone who supports her cultists.

Same behavior we see in the Left-wing press and from the Marxists/Socialists et. all.

The slanderous behavior towards Sarah Palin is just politics. They know she is going to be very tough to beat, so they have to use a pusillanimous and spurious attack. They can't attack her face to face, because she takes charge simply by walking into the arena. That is what a natural leader does. The elite poster children traditionally offered by Repos and Rats take a lot of heavy selling and sleazy attack plans.

After the 2008 election, she tried to return to her duties as governor, but Obama's henchmen were waiting in Alaska to execute a preemptive strike on her 2012 presidential ambitions with a flurry of bogus ethics complaints. Instead, she preemptively struck THEM, resigning as Governor and going national, wreaking havoc on Obama's agenda and dealing both the Democrats and their GOP Establishment confreres a body blow in the 2010 midterms.

I don't blame her one bit for resigning as governor.

Reagan was Reagan before he ran for President... before he ran for Governor... before he was a movie star... I met him... and worked on his state campaign here twice. We knew he was a great leader before all of this happened... and some of us see that quality in a certain person today. It really burns some people up that we do.

LLS

“Kristi Noem”

I am surprised you like her so much, since she is a Mittbot.

Have you forsaken Hunter in favor of Mittens?

“I met him... and worked on his state campaign here twice. We knew he was a great leader before all of this happened... and some of us see that quality in a certain person today.”

******************************************

LLS,
You prove my point. the real Reaganites such as yourself, JimRob and Mark Levin (to name a few) love Sarah Palin and see her qualities as similar to Reagan, including her sterling character. For us, Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan are not “either, or” but rather “both, and” as Obama and Carter are two sides of the same false coin, Palin and Reagan are two sides of the same priceless coin, which is the legal tender for our republic to buy back its freedom.

The faux Reaganites were really only for him after he won and they jealously guard his legacy, which they have tried to coopt. It is their jealousy that betrays their fundamental misunderstanding of Reagan the man. There was not a jealous bone in his body. If he were alive today, he would be cheering Sarah on. I would bet anything on it.

What was it that commended Reagan to those of us who supported him for so long, even going back to 1968, when he made his first run for President (and came closer than many people realize to winning the 1968 nomination)? Well, it wasn't principally his time as SAG President, although many of us admired how he stood up to Communists there. This was not a difficult or unusual position to take in the 1950s. What about his two terms as Governor of California? Again, these were never really examined in any detail in his Presidential campaigns and were never really his chief selling point. (Indeed, the state budget doubled under Reagan and he signed a steeply progressive tax increase, as well as a liberal abortion law, which he bitterly regretted; His tenure as governor was basically overlooked by most conservatives and, to the extent it diverged from orthodoxy, it was blamed on his predecessor, Pat Brown, or written off to the giant idiosyncrasy that is California).

Wow -- way to tear down and marginalize Reagan.

“They hated and tormented GWB, because he was a Repo. But they were not scared of GWB. They just tormented him.”

This isn’t true. They saw the huge wins he made in Texas as governor especially with the hispanic vote. I remember there was a criminal who was put to death (sentence occurred way before Bush appeared on the scene) and this stupid guy’s death sentence was national news. The lead story everyday was that GWB was putting someone to death. People in China would ask me about it! hahaha

Democrats tried very hard to get McCain to beat GWB because they knew McCain was much easier to beat than GWB.

While GWB’s presidency would end up disappointing, I do remember the intense energy the guy had during the campaign and in general. No regret at all that he won and Al Gore and Kerry did not. And I’m certainly glad that GWB won the primary and not McCain in 2000.

A natural leader and good politician won't get suckered into attacks that waste resources with no or very little potential for gain. McCain is an accident, a Dole put forward in the election flim-flam that sets up straw dummies as targets for the preselected President. There is no use to waste resources on him. There are much more serious targets that need to be attacked. Like the shadowy groups that fund the selection of our traditional leaders.

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.