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."
“Im not going to get drawn into an argument about “would Reagn be elected today”.”
I was quite young when he was elected, and thus even my memories are of little value on the topic. I certainly do remember Carter interrupting Dukes of Hazzard to yak about another important problem from time to time, must have been friday night or something.
I do wonder how those with adult memories of the 1980 and 1984 election think Reagan in 1980 and Mondale in 1984 would be viewed today by their respective parties.
We are not proverbial victims of the evil Republican rinos, we have elections every 2,4 and 6 years, plenty of chances to change our reps. And plenty of good Conservatives in our Primary.
In our States as well, where illegals have been protected for 3 decades, by the constant election of pro-illegal pols. The feds will respond when the States finally begin to throw huge fits, a good thing imo.
For it is our States that Conservatives must work the grassroots, it will be our eventual power. Citizens must be weaned off of 40 years of Democrat majorities in Congress, that gave them SS, Medicare, Medicaid.
Once that citizenry is addicted to government, once the Dims have their hacks in all bureaucracies, once they have all the chairmanships, once they have all the judges, unions, educators, they will never let go, as we did. They know incriminalistm works, and they know how to win.
Do you think that the Democrat Party had perfect liberals running and serving for the past 50 years?
They kept on winning until they had even the entire MSM, academia and Hollywood working for them, an amazing coalition.
We can to, if we prioritize, keep out heads, don’t throw out and destroy men and women who disagree on issues, or are not perfect, or pure, create our own media establishment, work in the States to elect Conservatives, teach the populace about Conservatism, create grass roots advocacy groups and activists. (which we are very weak right now).
Since 9/11 happened only 9 mon into the Presidency, for me, it is impossible to tell how many in the R Congress and the Pres would have governed, a war in two theaters, and an UnAmerican Democrat Party sabotaging every move and aiding and abetting our enemies in wartime.
I was a skeptic of GWB in 2000 because of #1 his age, (I prefer older men for Pres, lol), #2 Compassionate Conservatism. Who knows how spending would have turned out if not for 9/11 and two wars. Many in the R Congress went along with the Pres for many reasons, mainly to keep him undamaged as CIC, and to keep the public from revolt, placating them with money, imo.
Anyway, it appears that Conservatives despise the GOP, political parties, Republican radio, mags, and have not funded the RNC for years, so obviously the majority of Conservatives don’t want a coalition, and want to stay pure.
I understand completely, to each his own, but as a Conservative myself, I will stay with the GOP, to try and get the majority back for chairmanships and judges. Not perfect but good.
And there is good in all of our Candidates, imo, I prefer a ruthless SOB, who can knock heads, a wartime President, and one who WANTS to destroy the UnAmerican Democrat Party and their media. We shall see which one fits that criterion throughout the primary season, some I'm happy with some not.
I considered a democrat once, since I was unhappy with my representative, Ray LaHood. The dem was pro life and vocal about it but he had too many negatives, one being that he was a Workers comp. lawyer and was backed by the U.A.W. local.
Another reason I didn't vote for him, I didn't want to spoil my perfect record of never voting for any dim.
However, the most laughable embrace of Reagan comes from the Buchananites. Reagan was a HUGE free trader (and pushed for NAFTA before it even had a name) and even used his influence on occassion to legalize illegals even before the amnesty.
However, the most laughable embrace of Reagan comes from the Buchananites. Reagan was a HUGE free trader (and pushed for NAFTA before it even had a name) and even used his influence on occassion to legalize illegals even before the amnesty.
*********************
Reagan pushed for Canada/US Free trade, not NAFTA.
This country was alot more liberal on economic issues 30 years ago, but is was also alot less liberal on social issues. “Social issues conservatism” can slow down the tide, but rarely stops it from coming to shore. Our culture has changed, but it is our ignorance of constitutionalism that pisses me off more than the damage done to “our” culture by hippies/gays/illegals/feminists/the ghetto thugocracy, etc.
I’m a big Reagan fan. He’s gone.
We don’t need a “new” Reagan. We need somebody who will close the Department of Education, stop the abusive lawsuits, cite the differences between the founding fathers and today’s neo-socialists (the democrats), veto more bills, make 200 recess appointments, reign in the IRS and simplify the tax system.
Reagan was very much in support of closer economic ties with Mexico. Read any speech he made on his visits there or take a look at the trade initiatives that were pushed under his administration at the time. The administration even mentioned this explicitly when it was originally negotiating the '88 US-Canada agreement.
Another RINO who thinks we should nominate either Rooty or Romney because they are "electable" (nevermind the fact that "electable" RINOs who know how to be "bipartisan" and work with the 'Rats like Ford and Dole always lose).
With Reagan’s record as Gov. of Cal. he would have never been elected President by the people on their high horse here at FR.
interesting article
This has nothing to do with wanting a “pure” candidate.
If Rudy wasn’t a Globalist, I would have jumped into his camp long ago. Dittos McCain. Dittos Romney.
Its not “Pure” its the disgusting foreign cheap labor influence on the Republican leadership. The higher you go, the more globalist they are. Republican congressmen, who are elected every 2 years, are 180 degrees opposite of Bush and a small number of Senators.
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP! That means high ranking senators, and maybe governors. Ironically it is the high ranking Republicans who are running for president, which is why you see allot of Republicans running to Congressmen. We are just running down the chain of command.
Do you see Republicans complaining about their Congressmen? Were happy with our Congressmen.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/EM371.cfm
Long-Standing Support for Free Trade with Mexico. Ronald Reagan first proposed a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in his 1980 presidential campaign. Since that time, The Heritage Foundation is proud of the role it has played in articulating President Reagan’s vision of free trade in Latin America and around the world. Since the mid-1980s, Heritage analysts have been stressing that a free trade agreement with Mexico not only will stimulate economic growth in the U.S., but will make Mexico a more stable and prosperous country. Heritage has published over three dozen studies stressing the benefits of free trade in North America.
“Ronald Reagan first proposed ...”
******************
Allot of people propose allot of things.
I don't remember it that way. There was some disillusionment with Reagan in his second term. Some prominent neoconservatives thought he was too soft with Gorbachev. And there was always Howard Phillips and his third party of the day.
But I remember pretty solid support for Reagan among conservatives both in 1980 and 1984. He was the conservative candidate in those years.
In those years when there were still many more Democrats than Republicans, Reagan did have to win over disaffected Democrats, but that wasn't because conservatives wouldn't vote for him.
It was crossover voting that elected Reagan, and also helped propel him to two terms.
I think you're on solider ground there. Reagan had more of a "big tent" conception of the Republican party than many do today.
He stood firm for what he believed, but he wasn't going to disdain support from anybody -- including moderate to liberal RINOs or conservative to moderate Democrats.
Still, I don't think you can say that he ran as a moderate or didn't have solid conservative support.
You've only got to look at what Carter or Mondale (or Ford) said about Reagan to realize that he was running on the right. His appeal wasn't to conservatives alone, but he wasn't primarily seen as a moderate by any means.
The author may be writing a hit piece on the Republicans, but he does have a point.
It's the old "FDR or Truman or JFK wouldn't have a chance at the Democrat nomination this year" argument but used against today's Republican Party, and it's no more or less valid on its face than that argument has been.
“Reagan pushed for free trade with Mexico...”
___________________________
Allot of people push for allot of things.
The Reps party has closed THEIR gate on path to conservativitism. The article is right - Reps would not elect RR today. I would vote for him again as many times as I could - since I was excommunicated from the party by Mel Martinez and Junior I have no obligation to them any more. Their actions indicate they have no loyalty to me and others who think like I do. Screw-em.
My reply #93 refutes that statement. There's plenty more but you can use Google as easily as I can.
I’m waiting for the (foreign cheap labor) neoDemocrats to dig up a Reagan bone and craft a religious relic out of it. Its just a matter of time.
Its one way for a heretic to get a following. Probably the most cost effective.
You are joking right? They are both open borders. Where does that fit in the Conservative agenda?
Oh and when you find yourself on the same side as fata$$ Ted Kennedy on ANY issue you need to gather your clothes and run like hell.
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.