Posted on 02/11/2007 10:46:19 AM PST by PhiKapMom
Edited on 02/11/2007 12:14:43 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
In this winter of their discontents, nostalgia for Ronald Reagan has become for many conservatives a substitute for thinking. This mental paralysis -- gratitude decaying into idolatry -- is sterile: Neither the man nor his moment will recur. Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism cannot define conservatism.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Eight years of Nixonian Republicanism has wrought only our own destruction.
That said, Will is wrong this time. Reagan conservatism is a viable political philosophy.
I only wish more Republicans would stay the course he set.
no one ever said any of those men were Reagan. and even though I support any of them against Hillary (or any Dem) - I would certainly advise all three of them to sit in a room and listen to a few hours of Reagan speeches.
we have to start putting liberalism on the defensive, and we've done a woeful job of that with a political apparatus that refuses to go on offense, and ineffectual communications. Reagan understood that his #1 job, everyday, was to craft and communicate a message to people that they could understand and would be persuaded by.
I expect him to be trashed any moment now! :)
I agree. I thought the whole piece was moronic, and I know that Will jumped the shark years ago.
The liberals and so called moderates want to belittle Reagan, and his legacy, so that Republicans will lose their inspiration to forward men like Duncan Hunter for the presidency.
Before such disempowering PATHOS, conservatives are supposed to shrug and vote for a trashy moderate Republican candidate instead of a Democrat?
Nope. This is not the conservative consensus as described iun this article. Conservatives are merely wondering why the Republican party persists in the tyranny of 7 senators who helped form the gang of 14 ,and under the guise of bipartisanship traduced the legislative agenda that Republicans were elected to put in place. The House of Representatives never wavered, but the Senate caved.
Now Republican intellectuals iterate underwhelmingly that those Senatorial hijinks were a good thing? It was their foolish, paternalistic, aristocratic tyranny, which rejected the fruits of democracy. And conservatives are them meandering and confused? I think not. We laugh at the Republican leadership that wants we conservatives to follow a bunch of belicose, jingoistic RINOs. We knnow the kind of leadership we need and want, and so far, the presidential nominee candidates are laughable, except for Hunter and Gingrich.
So I am afraid that Diggins and Will are all wet on their position about Reaganites. We are simply biding our time, and watching the sick peregrinations of little men who wish only to play with the electorate instead of representing it.We will send them on their way soon enough.
that's the kind of body the senate is (absent 60 votes).
I was against the gang of 14 too - but with 20/20 hindsight now, I was wrong, it worked out well. it prevented Roberts and most especially Alito, from being fillibustered.
I didn't take it that way -- for some reason when I hit View Source all these odd characters turned up in the last two paragraphs -- went back and checked my notepad where I copied it.
"some of the points he makes about the Reagan agministration are downright stupid, for example the idea that people can feel okay about hating the government while getting more from it. Now that's preposterous!
exactly!
He does very much come at history and politics from a "fallen world" "tragic choices" perspective that's very different from Reagan's. Arguably, that chastened and disillusioned point of view can't muster the enthusiasm to get things done in the real world, though it does hold us back from overconfidence.
Anyway, it's good that Diggins recognizes Reagan's greatness, and it's an indication of what later historians will think. I'm not so sure Reagan's mother was a Unitarian or unitarian, though. "Disciples of Christ" is what the encylopedia says.
Reagan: "Although George Will has written some good conservative columns, it's time to move on."
In their book, THE RIGHT NATION, authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, stated that conservatism in the 1950s tended to fall victim to "one of three intellectual aberrations: paranoia, eccentricity, and nostalgia." From reading a lot of the comments on FR from the "true conservatives," the movement is sinking back into the state it was before Reagan, back in the 50s -- we see plenty of examples of eccentricity, nostalgia, and a heaping helping of paranoia on these threads.
The authors also pointed out that as "National Review" rose as the journalistic spokesman for conservatism, NR "didn't just attack the Left; it mauled 'the irresponsible right.'" It seems that conservatism has slipped about 50 years, back to a time when a significant portion of American conservatism could be characterized as nostalgic, eccentric, paranoid, and irresponsible.
I'm sure it gives his enormous ego a boost to find that another academic supports his views, even while many of this crop of Republican candidates claim Reagan as their role model.
Here is the problem and one that disgusts me -- Republicans have not done a good job of grooming any conservative to take over at the national level. I mean Conservative! Too many people on here are all talking about social issues but there is a lot more because as a Conservative I believe in State's Rights and many issues belong in States not at the Federal level. Too much interference on Education for one thing from the Feds. I believe in smaller government and less taxes -- instead we are growing government -- they did get the less taxes part right.
Show me where we have a Conservative at the National level who can speak to all the issues including States Rights that would attract votes across the spectrum. What we have are panderers with few exceptions in the House and Senate who cannot spend our tax dollars fast enough. Senators Inhofe and Coburn from my State of Oklahoma are two that stand up and are counted on slashing needless Government programs. Not impressed with a Congressman who now submits a pro-life bill that is DOA and he knows it. I hate pandering with every bone of my body.
Conservatism isn't dead but leadership is totally lacking at the national level!
Yep. Starting in our own backyard.
The one vital thing that Reagan brought to conservatism was optimism and a vision for the present and the future, not simply a longing look into the "good old days." It was this optimistic, visionary conservatism which won in 1980, and which carried the congress in 1994. A conservatism that lacks optimism and vision is doomed to defeat. I hope that real conservatives always retain optimism about this country and its place in the world. A lot of folks on this forum who claim to revere Reagan's legacy are anything but optimist and visionary.
Why would you drop the baseline standard, unless you want to change the metrics?
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.