An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Ronald Reagan, The Once Shining City On the Hill & Other Notes From the GOP Asylum

01abonzo.jpg

Ronald Reagan has been the luckiest president of my lifetime, which is one reason that I find myself chuckling when his name is invoked — as it frequently is these days — by the Republican presidential wannabes and by that Obama fella on one or two occasions, as well.

What do I mean by luckiest?

Because Reagan was pretty much an empty vessel into which every Republican mover and shaker of consequence of his time poured their own political views and agendas. He was a universal wrench of a man whose primary qualifications were a mediocre movie career and so-so turn as governor of California. He had no interest in details and was befuddled by complex concepts, but was extraordinarily adept at exciting the Republican political base and making Americans feel really good about themselves even as he rewarded the rich and undercut the middle class.

Aside from that nasty assassination attempt, some recession messiness during his first term and being caught out in the Iran-Contra affair, things usually broke Reagan’s way whether he was napping or not, most notably when the Berlin Wall came down and Soviet Union swooned on his watch. Today he is an oft-cited conservative icon despite the reality that he had little substance beyond his political skills.

I am fond of saying that you make your own luck, and George Bush certainly has done so.

Like Reagan, Bush has been pretty much an empty vessel into which today’s Republican movers and shakers (read neocons and right-wing Christianists) have poured their own political views and agendas. Like Reagan, he was more resume than man when he became president. And like Reagan, seems to use a notably small part of his brain but once upon a time could excite that political base.

After the 9/11 attacks, Bush did a passable job at making Americans feel really good about themselves at a really lousy juncture in their history and then, because he believed the sycophants around him when they called him The Latest and The Greatest, recklessly squandered the greatest presidential mandate since Pearl Harbor on the Iraq war and other misadventures. So enormous has the collapse of the Bush presidency been that it has to be ranked right behind the 9/11 attacks as the biggest story of the young millennium.

The Republican Party is trebly hobbled this election season:

With Vice President Cheney a hiccup away from what Redd Foxx called The Big One on “Sanford and Son,” the party has no heir apparent. Bush has almost single-handedly ended the Republicans’ grip on power. And because he is so toxic, the presidential candidates have to look hard over their shoulders to when that city on the hill last shined so brightly for the Grand Old Party.

That would be Ronald Reagan.

FRED THOMPSON’S PHANTOM CANDIDACY

Has there been a stranger White House run in recent memory than that of the dear departed Fred Thompson?

It was obvious from the moment that the former Hollyweird actor sleepwalked onto the national stage that his heart was not in a White House run although a lot of people, including otherwise sentient bloggers, went bonkers over Thompson and considered him the closest thing to a reincarnation of . . . well, Reagan.

Many pundits are blaming Thompson’s flameout for disorganization and/or his somnambulant style and I think these factors did indeed play a role. Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés puts this in context in an earlier post in noting that no amount of money can buy fire in the belly, a quality notably absence in Thompson. Then there is the fact that Thompson’s mother is seriously ill, which is unfortunate but a piss-poor excuse for bailing because it raises the specter of how he would have performed as president every time someone in his family got the sniffles.

But my favorite reason — because it is so precious — is that Thompson foundered because that old Reagan coalition has been destroyed by the Decider and Reaganistas have been rendered impotent.

Uncharitable translation: This crowd, with Viagra or without, simply was incapable to thinking outside the box in a campaign season where none of the other GOP candidates are either.

Pretty sad, eh?

‘WILL YOU SHOOT YOUR BROTHER?’

Here’s a word that you would never apply to Reagan or Thompson: Vengeful.

But that suits Rudy Giuliani to a T and is one of the reasons why he is hands down the scariest candidate out there.

The New York Times, which to its credit has done an excellent job of sussing out the skeletons in his closest, reports that:

“Mr. Giuliani was a pugilist in a city of political brawlers. But far more than his predecessors, historians and politicians say, his toughness edged toward ruthlessnessand became a defining aspect of his mayoralty. One result: New York City spent at least $7 million in settling civil rights lawsuits and paying retaliatory damages during the Giuliani years.”

Among the people who did not kiss Giuliani’s ring was a cabbie who complained on the mayor’s call-in radio show about a red-light sting run by the police. When that got no results, he blabbed to The Daily News, which ran a front-page story that resulted in the cabbie’s revenge arrest on a 13-year-old traffic warrant and a nasty blast from the mayor.

The cabbie suffered a nervous breakdown and later received a $290,000 legal settlement from the city.

Marilyn Gelber, who served as environmental commission under Giuliani, told The Times:

“There were constant loyalty tests: ‘Will you shoot your brother?’ People were marked for destruction for disloyal jokes.”

  • cosmoetica
    Good piece on Reagan, Shaun. Of course, most people use silly rationales. Pete Abel http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo... thinks Reagan was good because Pete felt good in the 80s.

    That has to be the silliest reason yet I've ever seen for a pro-con view of a Prez.
  • shaun
    Cosmo:

    Thank you for the kind words, but I wouldn't discount the feel-good aspect of any politician. That's important. I myself felt good in the 90s until the tech bubble burst and with it my stock portfolio.
  • Pete Abel
    Cosmo -- please reference some of my add-on comments in response to your queries on my last post, here.

    Shaun -- you are a gentleman, as always.
  • cosmoetica
    Pete, let me quoate what I typed in your last post:

    Here is a good reason why America is off track. Pete has no real reason for his beliefs save he felt good. In other posts, Michael Stickings is literally begging for the two party stsus quo to remain, as if that's a good thing: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/third-part..., and in yet another post http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/17247/obama-... Jill MZ says she trusted Al Gore- the ecologist who was VP under a Prez w a worse ecological record than Reagan, and does not feel good about Edwards- the most substantive and passionate candidate for Prez.
    Herein a microcosm of what is absolutely wrong with the electorate today. One person who is blissfully apathetic, another who wallows in the muck of today and refuses change, and a third with no clue as to why she feels a thing.
    It ain't the pols, folk, it's you!'

    I realize that humans are selfish, but I'm hardly a bleeding heart, yet when I see others suffer needlessly- millions under Reagan in the 80s, when I see folk like Stickings begging to keep the status quo, or Jill, like Pete, just floating by w/o any real thought for consequences, it is dumbfounding.

    Any good feelings or bad feelings I had or have have little to do w W now, not his predecessors, but one can look at events- such as Gitmo and blame Bush w/o being partisan, one can call Clinton a do nothing for 8 years, w/o being partisan.

    But, Michael's is the worst rationale of all, and everything that's wrong w the Am electorate. Apathy, ala Pete & Jill, is one thing, but determined stolidity and cowardice, that's a disgrace.
  • Pete Abel
    Cosmo -- FYI: I responded to you in the other post, since I first saw your comments there.
  • Rudi
    This Lefty does give Reagan a reluctant nod. While I disagreed with most of his policies, his implied leadership put him above the other recent Repugs. There was a reason why he's called the Teflon President. But to compare Reagan to Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt is a stretch. Reagan was OK(recultantly) , but not great.
  • Pete, and I responded to your response there. The Reagan myth is, well, a myth. He raised federal spending, increased national debt radically and sold weapons to our enemy. Why would any "moderate" still revere him? Oh yeah, he lowered taxes by borrowing it from our kids, showing just what a family-values kinda guy he was.
  • superdestroyer
    Since the Republicans are not going to be relevant much longer (and possible as soon as 2009), the real question is what kind of leadership can any of the Democrats have in the future. The identify politics that the Democratic establishment (read elite coastal white) has used to keep all non-white voters voting for Democrats is now spilling over into the Democratic primary.

    Image what the coming one party state is going to be like where blacks, Hispanics, suburban whites, and urban elites are ripping each other apart to get the most government benefits? Beating up on a dead president is not going to solve the problems that face the U.S. But of course, while Democrats talk about Reagan, the schools get worse, the border remains open, and the middle class feels like they are being screwed.

    Does anyone really believe that the Republicans are ever going to win a presidential election again? Or will the U.S. become much like the municipal elections in places like Philadelphia where the Democratic primary is the real election?
  • cosmoetica
    SD: if Hill gets the nod, and Bill does not shut up, a rep will win in 2008, despite your Ribe Goldbergian racial theories.
  • cosmoetica
    Rube not Ribe.
  • sd, as you know, this discussion resulted from Obama throwing a dumb nod to Reagan to court "Reagan Democrats" followed by P Krugman posting commentary on the continuing rewriting of Reagan-era history. But some here continue to push the GOP talking points about free-spending Democrats, despite the FACT that Reagan and both Bushes have outspent all Dems (adjusted for GDP) since WWII. Worse, they have done so on the backs of working people, the middle class and future generations. I was raised Republican, but the party now stands for NOTHING that I once respected them for, small govt, states rights, personal freedom, fiscal responsibility, respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, compassion or true conservatism.

    I doubt the GOP is through, though they will almost certainly lose the next election big, as they so richly deserve. If they can return to their roots, they will be back and will deserve to be.
  • hmmmmm. None have contested my charge that Reagan was a confessed traitor. That, then, remains unchallenged fact. This is who we want to hold up to our kids as one of our heroes??
  • Mike_P
    Thanks for restating the truth about Reagan, Shaun. It needs to be repeated, over and over again unfortunately, since from the day he left office the Republican establishment has constantly attempted to paint him as some kind of conservative savior. The truth is he was not a particularly popular president among "average Americans," but not hated, either. He ushered in the most painful economic recession of my lifetime in his first term, and slept through most of his second term. But he read the prepared script well, and played the role of president reasonably convincingly, for a b-movie actor.

    Come to think of it, Thompson is a lot like him! And further proof that even that shining city on the hill has its share of dim bulbs.
  • superdestroyer
    MIke,

    You should look up what the misery index was back in 1980. Carter was an economic disaster but I guess Shaun could claim that Carter was unlucky when he appointed incompetents to the Federal Reserve.

    Reagan at least had enough since to appoint competent people to run the Fed. And you may remember that Clinton kept the Republican appointees running the fed.
  • cosmoetica
    SD: Who's arguing Carter was good?

    But, the economic bad times he presided over were a) a carryover from the Nixon years' Arab oil crisis. Carter simply had no idea how to fix that, and b) it hit everyone.

    Under Reagan, the vast majority of people were losing even before the 87 crash, and that crash barely affected the rich, while the rest of us had to wait till Clinton to even get back to even.

    As for Greenspan- competent, but hardly Right Wing- he was the Ultimate Keynsian, and proof that Reagan's idea of gov't was bankrupt.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC