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."
Yes, he won against Carter in 1980. He wiped out Mondale because the people could still remember Jimmah.
Obviously. Never claimed otherwise. I was referring to the 49 state win, which was against Mondale. And Reagan wiped out Mondale not just because people remembered the incompetent Jimmah, but because he was doing a helluva job as President (with the exception of the debacle of pulling the Marines out of Lebanon).
Look to 1976 Steve, that was the defining contest. Guys like Hunter did support Reagan, the rest supported? If they supported Reagan over Ford Fred/Mitt/Rudy are kind of quiet about it.
Who is Steve?
Never mind, I figured it out.
I have always thought that Reaganism left us short of expectations. O’Connor and Kennedy prove it more than anything else.
Only two senators in 1976 backed Reagan in the primary: Laxalt and Helms. I don’t think Reagan had even a dozen U.S. House members for him either. The establishment was solidly for Ford, including then sophomore Rep. Trent Lott.
He is that is not the point of the article.
Too bad we don’t have a Reagan running this time.
How is that again?
Furthermoore, from your own post:
1980 and 1984 is not 2008.
I think that was when the best President in your lifetime started his terms...
Think the name was Reagan...
Not bad if you ask me...
Reagan signed off on Canada/US trade. Not NAFTA.
***************************
“If by “signed off” you mean Reagan was against it you are dead wrong. Every living former president was for it.”
***************************
Reagan signed off on Canada/US trade, not NAFTA. Every living former president was not a traitor.
Reagan was pro trade with Mexico as well, whether you believe it or not has no relevance to anyone but you. I have showed you with link that he was pro NAFTA and you counter with “no he wasn’t” which proves diddley. When you can come back with something to back your assertions, maybe we can discuss it.
I am off to bed now, all out of time to talk with someone who uses liberal logic.
Reagan was pro trade with Mexico as well
**********************
I can claim anything I want, you can claim anything you like, but until you proof that Reagan signed off on NAFTA, you got nothing.
* Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports;
* Tightened considerably the quotas on imported sugar;
* Negotiated to increase the restrictiveness of the Multifiber Arrangement governing trade in textiles and apparel;
* Required 18 countries, including Brazil, Spain, South
* Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Finland, Australia, and the European Community, to accept “voluntary restraint agreements” that reduce their steel imports to the United States;
* Imposed a 45% duty on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson, which admitted that superior
* Japanese management was the cause of its problems;
* Raised tariffs on Canadian lumber and cedar shingles;
* Forced the Japanese into an agreement to control the price of computer memory chips;
* Removed third-world countries on several occasions from the duty-free import program for developing nations;
* Pressed Japan to force its automakers to buy more American-made parts;
* Demanded that Taiwan, West Germany, Japan, and Switzerland restrain their exports of machine tools;
* Accused the Japanese of dumping roller bearings on grounds that the price did not rise to cover a fall in the value of the yen;
* Accused the Japanese of dumping forklift trucks and color picture tubes;
* Extended quotas on imported clothes pins;
* Failed to ask Congress to end the ban on the export of Alaskan oil and timber cut from federal lands;
* Redefined dumping so domestic firms can more easily charge foreign competitors with unfair trade practices;
* Beefed-up the Export-Import Bank, an institution dedicated to distorting the American economy at the expense of the American people in order to artificially promote exports of eight large corporations.
Another article that attempts to smear the real Reagan record by questioning his conservative credentials, in order to make a bunch of presidential wannabes look more acceptable. The use of cheap one-liners to define the Reagan policy on several key issues, doesn’t hold up under serious scrutiny. And rolling out 20/20 hindsight only leads to historic revisionism in the end.
No one is demanding ideological purity. Most FReepers just want a true conservative to be the GOP nominee for 2008. We don’t want a liberal, a centrist, a moderate, a RINO or a Rockefeller Republican to be the party standard bearer. So far, out of all the GOP candidates, only Fred Thompson best meets the criteria for most conservatives around this forum. And rightly so.
We see the same types of arguments for each of the latest, greatest RINO. Where’s the Barf Alert?
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
This article is right on. How times have changed..
As has been made clear by more than a few who know what Reagan was about and have not be comprised by an innate attraction to shiny objects.
Where is the rising business class in Mexico? I haven't seen any evidence of that happening. A rising business class usually comes from the middle class of society- the elites in Mexico make sure there is no middle class. What I see in Mexico as far as classes is the elite wealthy, the poor and the really poor. I don't see a middle class in Mexico, the business people I see are from the elite class, and the criminal business class of course but they can't even operate without support and knowledge of the elite. I don't truly see a way up for Mexico without a revolution, it would be nice, but the strangle hold the elite wealthy Mexicans hold on the country- politically and economically is very powerful and the elite will not give up their status and way of life peacefully in my opinion.
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.