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."
Reagan, while not a fundamentalist on social issues, was nevertheless a social conservative (he was against abortion, for the death penalty, against gun control, etc.).
His record as president is mixed, but to claim that he was not as a conservative, or that he was a moderate, is absurd.
All of the candidates we have today, save one, are probably acceptable to enough conservatives to be elected. Can you guess which one isn't?
“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.”
Look so far forward that they become agents of influence for
Islamics, Grover?
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/451
Correct. And in addition to being a conservative, Reagan was somewhat of a populist. He could connect with the average Joe, which allowed the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon to occur.
BTW, I’m curious. Just what kind of “folk” (”you folks”) am I?
The second line, “Abortion? He was for abortion rights before he was against them” proves this guy is an idiot. Reagan signed a bill, but he was NOT for abortion rights...and he thought ‘health of the mother’ meant something different than what the courts decided.
Reagan was upbeat and which of the present candidates can say they are?
As far as your post here, sorry, but no cigar. Reagan Conservatism is pretty much the same as it has always been. We have moved it forward in word and deed and keepers of the ideal such as Rush Limbaugh and others have helped publicly keep it alive.
Seeing as you support Mitt and there is a drive to try and wrap him in Reagan’s mantle I can understand your attempt to revise things.
I do thank you for the laugh in return though.
I don’t think even Reagan would have won by such a margin if he had been running against anyone but Jimmy- I remember the Carter years- I liked Reagan, but the truth is I would have voted for anyone but Carter.
Actually, Reagan won 49 states in '84. ...against Mondale.
I totally agree- Reagan had two big things in his favor- he had tremendous leadership ability, and was able to really talk to the American people and explain what he was doing and why. I also trusted Reagan, even when I did not agree with him on an issue- I firmly believed he always acted in the best interests of this country. I have not felt that way about any politician since.
Reagan thought the answer to the illegal issue was to improve Mexico’s economy, so they would not have a reason to come here illegally. In theory that is a great idea- in practice it cannot work because Mexico is unbelievably corrupt and the elite in Mexico will never allow anything that might bring prosperity to what they believe is their “underclass.”
Oh my you are right- I had forgotten about Mondale- well that’s really all I remember about him now- he was forgettable.
What was Reagan’s win over Jimmy? I seem to remember an early celebration on election night, but not actual numbers.
I still believe the day of reckoning will come when a combination of inflation (of basic commodities), the lack of security, and a rising entrepreneurial/business class will cause reform, NOT revolution (the last one in Mexico being quite bloody). You see most reform at the political level, less so at the economic level, with laws foreign ownership and encouraging duopolies in the name of "economic and national stability."
The rapid decrease in the birth rate in Mexico that has been talked about by many commentators down there will not have much of a local effect, due to increased automation of industry, to say nothing of agriculture. The only effect it will have is a decline in the number of Mexican migrants to the north. As it stands, the only Mexicans who are making the trek come from a few states in the southern part of the country.
Tell me again why we can trust Fred Thompson's "road to Des Moines" conversions but not Rudy, Mitt, and Mike's new positions?
Fred Thompson was a loyal McCain fan and all for "asipirations of citizenship" for illegal as recently as a few monthes ago.
Nobody’s perfect.
e.g.
Thompson signed up and hleped pass CFR, the anti-1st-amendment Campaign Finance Reform bill.
Nor is Thompson for FMA or human life amendment or other key items.
But Thompson is *overall* solid conservative. How so? Because on 80% of the real issues that come up, he falls on the conservative side.
The article’s point is pertinent to recalibrate some of the criticism. For example, Romney ha a pretty good record ad Governor, but fails some of the ‘litmus tests’ thrown at him; well, Reagan wouldn’t do so well either if judged by the same standard. Romney is running on a conservative platform. Yet he’s not cut the slack previous presidential candidates have in terms of prevous record and what he’s running on. Of all the candidates in the field, Romney has the leadership capabilities and unifying principles to be another Reagan. Some dont see the forest for the trees.
Reagan’s basic 1980 message though was a small Govt conservative message and someone like Huckabee completely fails in that. Hunter and Thompson succeed, and IMHO Romney overall does well there too.
I think Reagan won 44 or 45 states against Jimmah. Both ‘80 and ‘84 were landslides, of course. ...the likes of which we’re unlikely to see again. ....at least for a while.
It’s a sad day when we start taking advice from McClatchy...
I get the feeling that someone couldn’t wait to write this one up...
Not you “GB58”...The source...
Reagan was a lot of things...But outside the male figures in my family...Reagan was the first president I voted for, and it wasn’t because someone told me to do so...
Ain’t no one perfect! But he was scores better than the alternative!
“Immigration? He signed the law that Republicans now call amnesty for illegals.”
“The author also distorts and spins on this as well. “
Not Really.
The 1986 bill was amnesty and was called such back then.
And some predicted its bad effects and knew it was wrong.
“Reagan’s immigration law had tough enforcement measures that were never enforced. “
Well, Kennedy inserted that into the bill.
“Also, Reagan did not have a previous failed Amnesty bill to guage against.”
Wrong. There was a policy goign back to Carter that started the breakdown in immigration law enforcement.
Someday I will write a History book, called “blame Carter”,
where I explain how all the ills of our current world started with Jimmy Carter. Terrorism, energy mess, fiscal messups, cultural illiteracy, immigration mess ... Carter had a hand in all of ‘em.
At last. Someone hits it over the fence. We had a very young family then. Days I can never forget. Interest rates at 18%. No money, just taxes, incredible high prices, worrying about feeding your kids, and the people of this country were outraged. They went to the polls to vote for anyone but Carter. It had nothing to do with conservatism really.
Thank goodness Reagan turned out to be the answer to an economic nightmare. Then they came out in droves to re-elect him because he did so much for the country. No one can compare then with now.
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.