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."
ideological purity? from who? rudy? romney?
With Hunter and Thompson we have solid real conservatives. No need to settle with less... in other words RINOs.
What will the 100%’ers say about this piece
I would vote for Thompson in the general election but only if Hunter is on the ticket.
I'd be happy at 80%. Mitt/Rudy do not come close.
This guy has zero for understanding of Reagan’s record or his history. Who the hell is this idiot?
This guy’s leaving out some big parts of the compromises Reagan had to make to get some legislation passed. For example, the Reagan tax increases were part of agreements with a democRAT congress to lower spending, which the rats never did. The immigration amnesty was part of an agreement to add enforcement to the borders, which the rats never did, etc.
> “A successful political movement accepts converts. “ - Grover Norquist
Yeah, Grover, but the key thing is: is the conversion real or has it been trotted out recently to win a primary?
As an example, Reagan’s journey to pro-life was in no way like Mitt’s all too slick “conversion”. Read this:
http://www.redstatenetwork.com/blogs/mark_kilmer/2007/aug/12/the_awful_thing_romney_said_today_about_ronald_reagan
What moron wrote this piece of crap?
Thats right. President Reagan isnt running for President again in 08. He was a great President and he urged us to move forward with conservative ideals that make America great. Im not going to get drawn into an argument about "would Reagn be elected today". He isnt running today, just like you said... Im voting for Thompson or Hunter in the Primaries.
I say today’s repubbies are more to the center as time goes by. Us conservatives are a dying breed.
I also say today’s dims are so far off the left, that the dem’s of the 60’s look more like repubbies today.
Sad.
“What moron wrote this piece of crap?”
Another RINO desperately trying to get real conservatives to hold their nose, set aside their standards, and vote for whoever is put in front of them.
and it may very well cost them the general election.
Had he not appealed to Democrats, (Reagan Democrats), he would not have been elected. It was crossover voting that elected Reagan, and also helped propel him to two terms.
Rhetoric aside, Reagan had a lot of moderate support as he was a moderate. He was closer to Rudy then he was Fred.
Today's Conservatives use old Reagan quotes to create a personality that never really existed. It's unfortunate for the truth, that each and every time we try to point this fact out we get blasted by people who have created a false perception and now believe it.
Reagan's popularity should be a clue as to his politics, but this is ignored by those who are hurting the party, leading the right wing off a cliff and guaranteeing the Democrat party a win by our default and not true democrat support.
ping
Bingo. Two tough Conservatives that believe in national security and gutting the government.
1980 and 1984 is not 2008. The conservatives want a pro-life candidate. We will not settle for less. Duncan Hunter all the way!!!! Rudy will definitely NOT get my vote and I will NOT feel guilty for it.
GOOOOO RUDY!!!!!!!!!
(sarcasm)
Since our talents only extend to self-flagellation at this point in our political history.
Down the road a bit, we will learn how to defeat the UnAmerican Democrat Party and their media, for the WH and Congress, but for now, destroying "traitors" in the Republican coalition is our political porn, its addicting.
“What will the 100%’ers say about this piece”
How about “No Rudy, No Problem?”
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.