Posted on 12/02/2007 9:28:01 AM PST by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON — They want to put his face on Mount Rushmore, but Republicans today are demanding such ideological purity that they might not even nominate Ronald Reagan for president if he were to run now.
Abortion? He was for abortion rights before he was against them.
Taxes? He raised them as governor, and raised them several times as president after his big 1981 tax cuts.
Immigration? He signed the law that Republicans now call amnesty for illegals.
Foreign policy? He negotiated with the head of the "Evil Empire."
In fact, they'd find him wrong on almost every hot-button issue of the 2008 campaign.
Most of those stands are overlooked in the Republicans' idealized rear-view idolization of Reagan as an unwavering conservative icon. But they serve as a reminder that even the revered Reagan was a pragmatic politician whose stands often changed and might not fit in today's politics.
The real Reagan story is forgotten as Republicans this year attack one another for past offenses even if they've moved toward conservative orthodoxy since. They criticize Mitt Romney for once supporting abortion rights, though he now opposes them. They tear into Mike Huckabee for raising some taxes as governor, ignoring his vow not to raise them as president. They rip Rudy Giuliani for once welcoming illegal immigrants to New York, though he takes a hard line now.
Through it all, they ignore the real Reagan.
"Their memories of Reagan are very selective," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota. "In some ways, they're creating a standard that is not real, that did not happen, and holding each other to that standard. I don't think Reagan himself would do well in this environment."
Take abortion.
Romney is routinely criticized as a flip-flopper for changing from a supporter of abortion rights to an opponent while governor of Massachusetts. But regardless of whether his switch was born of principle or political expedience, he did change to the position that most Republican profess to want.
His defense is simple. He changed his mind, he says, "just like Ronald Reagan did."
He's right, to a degree.
As the governor of California, Reagan signed a 1967 law that allowed abortions in the state six years before the Supreme Court legalized them nationwide.
Author and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon noted that Reagan made that decision in a vastly different time, before the issue had become such an emotional flash point.
"Reagan had never considered the issue," Cannon said.
The party was more libertarian in philosophy then, and a top Republican in the state Senate predicted that the bill would put the issue behind them, so Reagan signed it. He changed his mind later, and told Cannon he wouldn't have signed the bill a year later.
"Hell, all these people change positions," Cannon said, "and legitimately so."
Or consider taxes.
Huckabee's rivals and the anti-tax group Club for Growth are attacking him for raising taxes while he was the governor of Arkansas. Yet he's promised not to raise taxes as president, and cites Reagan as proof that a politician can change.
"If Reagan were running today," Huckabee said this week, "the Club for Growth would be running ads against him because he raised taxes by a billion when he was governor of California."
Indeed, Reagan did sign a billion-dollar tax increase while he was governor in 1967. As president, he also signed several tax increases that offset some of his historic 1981 cut in federal income taxes.
Consider illegal immigration.
Giuliani and Romney snipe at each other over their records on this issue, accusing each other of offering "sanctuary" to illegal immigrants in New York City and Massachusetts.
Yet Reagan effectively turned the United States into a sanctuary when he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave amnesty to illegals who were already here.
There were other times as well when Reagan took positions that would draw attacks in today's Republican presidential campaign.
Never withdraw troops? He pulled them out of Lebanon in 1984 after a suicide bomber killed 241 U.S. Marines.
Talk to our enemies? He personally negotiated and signed deals with a Soviet regime that he himself called the Evil Empire.
Curiously, he was able to thrive in his time in part because he hadn't yet unified the modern Republican Party in his conservative image.
He named Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, for example, and she later became the swing vote in upholding the right to abortion. He probably couldn't get away with that appointment today, just as President George W. Bush was forced to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers because he couldn't assure conservatives that she'd oppose abortion from the bench.
For now, much of the sniping over today's candidates' records reflects a close, wide-open race in which all of those running are desperate to prove their conservative credentials and to discredit their rivals.
Ultimately, said Grover Norquist, a conservative strategist and Reagan devotee, the Republicans should learn to look forward rather than back, and welcome those who move to the right.
"I am not a critic of those who say they once did a bad thing and are not going to do that anymore," Norquist said in an interview. "A successful political movement accepts converts. The Catholic Church doesn't say, 'If you weren't with us 10 years ago, you can't be with us now.' I am very much in favor of accepting converts."
My reply #93 refutes that statement. There’s plenty more but you can use Google as easily as I can.
***************
Reagan signed off on Canada/US trade. Not NAFTA.
Against Clinton or Obama, any real conservative will be a Winner. The only way for us to LOSE the general election is to alienate our Base by fronting a liberal RINO.
"Brady Bill" Bob Dole gave us Clinton. We need to keep this from happening again...
A campaign season is upon the United States, once again. Why not attack Former President Ronald Reagan and wrestle control of the Republican Party away from Conservatives, is the call I hear. All human understanding is flawed. All humans, say or type things (sometimes) that one wishes would not have been said or typed. Former President Reagan did request that Conservatives not attack fellow Conservatives. President Reagan was correct on this point, as was Former President Reagan right, on a whole host of other points, but he too was human. Something sorely lacking today from politicians is their ability to say they were wrong and then actually make themselves believable to the Public. Former President Reagan did not have this flaw.
To believe Former President Reagan is less because he too compromised is beyond what Former President Reagan actually stood for. I believe from my study of this Man, he truly desired what was best for our nation. Former President Reagan conveyed that message. People understood. He had a sense of humor. People believed He could be trusted. Thus, He was trusted and when he told the truth to the Public, the Public knew his words meant something. Another position by the Man, which is sorely lacking with politicians of today.
I know all I typed is simply an opinion, but I truly loved this President. He returned to Americans a sense of worth, at a time when Americans had been trampled by rampant inflation, disrespect of our Nation's Military, a failed rescue attempt for our hostages in Iran, a failure to end the Cold War, one failure after another failure for this Nation. Former President Reagan turned all of those things around to be a positive, and offered the American People that shinning city on the hill. Americans responded and willingly gave Him a second term by giving Him (Former President Reagan) fourty-nine states in His re-election bid.
Yes, Americans felt good about themselves again. Our Military grew strong, inflation subsided, and though mistake were made, He (President Reagan) would tell the American People, I made a mistake. What more can be asked of a leader than to admit, I made a mistake, I will tell each American, I made a mistake. He was sincere. Not like some politicians today. When He spoke, the People were able to believe Him.
I have rambled a bit too long....I only wanted to make the point, if He (Former President Reagan) were alive today. He would be probably ranting against the liberals and those in the Republican Party, in the way He did rant, by saying...."There you go again", which actually wasn't a rant at all, but all understood.
I actually believe the truth is, He speaks to all Americans today as He did then. The Great Communicator would be overwhelmingly elected and then would lead American with greater wisdom, than was available to Him then. He would work to secure America's Future, as He did when He was President. I gained much from His Presidency, but I didn't gain enough. I fail, I do not impart wisdom, He (Former President Reagan) may would slap me across the head and say listen here, "No Man deserves this kind of praise." but as I picked myself up off he floor...before He knocked me down again, I would say, "You do, Sir!"
Besides, why would you support Free Trade with Canada and not with Mexico? Either be a consistent protectionist or not...
But of course, the chuckaboot Johnny-come-lately types like to reimagine Reagan as a Nationalist, something he was far from being. If they want to look at someone who enjoyed bailing out "Amurcan industry", they should look at his predecessor, Jimmuh Carter, who bailed out Lee Iacocca with the guarantee of the US taxpayer.
The country may or may not be more liberal. What I see is that there is no one representing the people anymore. The dems used to say they were for the “little” people, but even the rank and file dems can see the establishment doesn’t care about them until election time.
They want a champion. That is why I love Duncan Hunter, I can go to them and show them someone who cares about them and understands how to get to the real cause of our troubles. Some of these dems are very interested in what he has to say. But they know by poll results, that even the republicans have no desire for him to win.
I guess I would have to agree with the article except that I agree for different reasons. The GOP has turned its back on people who appeal across the board with conservative ideas. They instead prefer candidates who pander and propose worthless liberal ideas. You can’t out liberal the dems. You can’t out pander them either. The only way we will be able to win is to return to the effective conservative ideas that Reagan stood for. No RINO wants to do that. They did not like Reagan then, they are showing no desire to put up with conservative ideas now.
Reagan probably could not get nominated now because the media would do everything they could to make sure no one knew who he was and the RINOs would all be yelling that he was too low in the polls to appeal on a national basis. They would tell his supporters to just dump him and climb on the RINO bandwagon to vote for a “weiner” I mean a supposed “winner.”
I’m a conservative. I don’t vote lib whether they have an (r), a (d), an (l) or a (g) next to their name.
You still have failed to refute the fact that Reagan was a strong supporter of trade with Mexico, and pushed for it anytime he met with Mexican officials. Had members of De La Madrid’s administration not had cold feet about such a deal, then we probably would have had an agreement by 1988 instead of 1992.
*****************
The Mexican government probably had cold feet because Reagan wanted to have a fair deal with the corrupt Mexican government. Do you know the details?
Besides, why would you support Free Trade with Canada and not with Mexico?
******************
There is no massive wage disparity between Canada and Mexico.
If by "signed off" you mean Reagan was against it you are dead wrong. Every living former president was for it. It's not going to change your opinion but there are plenty of articles at Google that say exactly that. plus the fact that I remember it.
The only person of any prominence who was against it was Ross Perot and that effectively handed Bush Sr. his ass on a platter.
Clinton actually bucked the labor unions in this matter.
Reagan signed what he thought was going to be a very small exception in the abortion laws in order to save the lives and physical health of a mothers in dangerous pregnancies.
The law was exploited to the point that allowed abortion on demand.
He could hardly be considered an abortion rights supporter as the author, and you, claim.
Perhaps the report, I read was wrong....unless this Nation's manufacturing base is staying here at home, and not moving abroad. Could it be the report was disinformation? Or could it be our clothing now comes from somewhere else, our toys now come from somewhere else, our basic right to consume yet not manufacture has been and is slowing eroding away?
I prefer American technology, remain, primarily here in America. Some would call me a protectionist. Well, yes to a great degree, I am a protectionist. I enjoy seeing Americans producing goods. Those goods when produced by Americans were and are the best goods of the lot. Mistakes do happen, and I suppose American Manufacturing left not because of cheap labor, but because the quality slipped? I really do not know, and Former President Reagan isn't here to ask.
Sometimes being in the dark is good, one can take a rest. Taking a rest now, be it dark or daylight, may be something our Nation should reconsider. To each their own. But for me, I see no gain for America without America produces the goods necessary for a possible time when a time of need for those goods may not be available.
I type this not to offend, but to request an opinion.
I don’t consider myself to be a protectionist either but anyone who didn’t see the flight of American jobs coming as a result of NAFTA is blind. Mexico is now on the receiving end of jobs lost to even cheaper labor in China.
A lot of this was probably inevitable with or without NAFTA but NAFTA certainly didn’t help.
I can’t help but reflect that when this was primarily at the expense of manufacturing jobs and blue collar laborers, it was just fine among some, after all it meant lower prices for products manufactured in low wage countries. but when high tech jobs started to drift eastward they were screaming bloody murder. Yes, in the interest of disclosure, I am a retired blue collar worker. I buy American every time I can.
Recently I needed to buy an appliance dolly. Menards had one at $89, made in China. I looked around and found one at Farm & Fleet made in the U.S.A. at $109. I bought the American made one.
I absolutely could not bring myself to vote for Ross Perot. I and a bunch of other people saw what was coming with his candidacy. That and Bush Sr. reneging on his “no new taxes” handed the election to 8 years of the horrors of the Clintons. Now, we have the most evil half of the Clintons wanting 8 more years.
I am not a bureaucrat, though I used to be one. I have been many things in my life, but primarily I have have an overwhelming concern for my Nation. I suppose I shouldn't but that is the way my parents raised me, and that is the way I raised my children, to have concern for your nation. Question not simply some things but rather all things.
Again, I Thank You for your Response. I wish you all the best. I wish our Nation, all the best. The best is always elusive, but sometimes even the best comes from questioning why. May God Bless you and yours.
Bald-faced revisionist history.
In 1980, Reagan was seen as a conservative...even an ultra-conservative. He was despised by academia, even then. His radio commentaries were still fresh in the minds of many people, and in them, Reagan consistently promoted his conservative ideals.
In 1976, he had challenged Gerald Ford for the nomination, and nearly won it. He was clearly positioned as a conservative.
Moderates of the day were more apt to support John Anderson, who had previously been a Republican congressman.
You may think you can pull the wool over everyone's eyes, but some of us are old enough to remember these things.
Like it or not, it's pretty honest statement. Are we really our own worst enemy, unable to reach consensus on solving real problems because of 'purity' problems. I have to agree with the O'Connor/Miers comparison, though; I think Rogers and Alieto are far better choices than she could have been, and I'm glad the ideological pressure made that change happen.
Reagan was never the conservative by todays standards and would be called a RINO by you folks today, if you had not elevated him to the father of conservatism.
He was a great Republican, he was the Republican mentor but your brand of conservatism was not shared by him, as his many critics screamed for eight long years.
There were times that I thought the party had gone mad. I did not realize that they were only beginning to go mad.
The bottom of the cliff is not far off for you......I'll be sitting in the bleachers watching and pointing the finger where it belongs. Look and I will be there, but you will have to look up.
But I thought Reagan was the best President in your lifetime...
Good one! LOL!
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.