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."
Hmmmm ..?? Maybe “Republicans” wouldn’t .. BUT CONSERVATIVES WOULD.
I wish people would realize that being a repub does not make you a CONSERVATIVE.
As a “conservative” I’m unfortunately required to vote Republican .. because voting for any democrat is suicide.
Actually, though, he was more of a libertarian than Mayor Giuliani, and he was much more strongly in favor of personal rights than many FReepers would like.
On immigration, he made a mistake, but I doubt he'd have done it again. These candidates have seen the effects of Reagan's action and we must judge on whether they want to repeat the mistakes.
Apparently so...........
> I remember well the outright disdain that many conservatives had for Reagan.
Yes? Who? I remember the election of 1980 well: it was my first election ever, and I paid attention to everything. I remember that the idiots on our college campus were calling Reagan a Fascist and a Nazi and would often disrupt our student GOP “get out the vote” tables. I didn’t get a chance to work on the campaign as much as I wanted since I was a freshman and overloaded with work, but I don’t recall any conservatives who had the kind of serious misgivings we have today with Rooty, for example.
I'll cede you that point. It is true.
As a general rule, I don't read the article if the first or second sentence is a blatant lie.
Needless to say, I did not finish the article.
Reagan did have to compromise on somethings but it is without a doubt that he was ardently pro-life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHY4482EP9Q
He did not just profess a quiet shift to support Pro-Life causes he became a premier spokeperson for the effort.
Reagan also successfully slashed the capital gains tax to 20%.
Reagan may have entered into diplomatic relations with the Evil Empire but he did not purse his lips in his condemnation of it. He was not looking to lead the world to war he was starring the enemy in the face steadfast and sending a clear message that he would not capitulate to their propaganda.
The difference between Reagan and the current crop of wantabees is they don’t seem to have a consistent or inspiring message. They seem cowed as if they are holding a baby with a stinking diaper when talking about abortion. They don’t seem to be able to imagine the horror of killing the unborn that should be present in any human being with any sense of humanity within them. They dance gingerly around the sex activists afraid of being called bigots and give lip service to those who would send our economy into oblivion in search of a solution to global warming to please a mythological consensus of misanthropic doogooders and bureaucrat scientists looking for government grants.
Reagan may have compromised on some issues but the one place he never did was in his heart. He knew what he believed in and he believe in the rightness of America and its continued strength in the world.
I hope personally that Fred Thompson will rise in strength of voice because though he be not Reagan he is of the same stripe. He knows how to talk from the heart and to the place in the chest of the common man which calls them to be uncommon men. That is what a leader does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8_G-mlKxTY
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
Reagan took stands that no one else would take. Most Republicans were happy to coexist with the Soviets and make big money in the defense industry. Reagan had the guts to use our military to advance American interests while the media was still obsessing over Vietnam. And biggest of all, Reagan took a severely wounded America after Carter nearly destroyed it, and made it great again.
It's people like the author who don't remember the real Reagan.
28 years is a long time ago, and putting President Reagan's positions and accomplishments in the context of today's political situation is a form of science fiction that is hard to accomplish. It's the entire person, not the individual pieces.
What? He crushed Carter
It was a situation much like we have now, where you get nanny-staters claiming to be "conservative" and not supporting individual freedoms like Reagan pushed.
>>but for now, destroying “traitors” in the Republican coalition is our political porn, its addicting.
>Apparently so...........
Sigh. Is it wrong to try to get the strongest conservative force in the primaries? Haven’t you been noticing the slide of the GOP into the stinky morass of fiscal degeneracy, toothless capitulation to radical leftists and their agenda, smashing holes in our borders and sovereignty etc. — EVEN when the GOP was in the majority and we had the presidency as well? Did you notice this at all?
Trying to reverse that trend is akin to being a porn addict in your eyes? Honestly, that is really insulting.
But what does "pro-life candidate" have to mean? What do you expect a president to do?
B.S.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
No NAFTA, no WTO, trade deficit less then 50 billion. Sure I would have voted for him.
Amen. Even Hunter and Thompson aren’t “ideologically pure”, but they are far and above the best candidates in the current GOP field...
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.