If the Reagan Era is Dead, Who Killed it? (Guest Voice)
With polls showing a likely — but not certain — Republican rout, some have wondered if the Reagan era is over. In this Guest Voice, Ronald Reagan’s son conservative talk show host Michael Reagan argues that, if the Reagan era is indeed over, it will have been the Republican Party that killed it. Guest Voice posts offer various viewpoints and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
If the Reagan Era is Dead, Who Killed it?
by Michael Reagan
If you believe Newsweek magazine — something that usually requires a serious suspension of disbelief — the Reagan Era is dead. Politico also chimed in, proclaiming the death of the Reagan revolution.
Newsweek doesn’t go on to tell you who killed the Reagan Era, so I will.
It was the Republican Party that demolished the shining city on the hill my father built. It was the Republican Party that was 100 percent responsible for the end of the Reagan Revolution.
They forgot who he was; and having forgotten who he was, they stopped following in his footsteps that should have led to smaller, less-intrusive government, and restrained government spending. They are the ones who began to undermine the sturdy foundation my father built.
By the way, the same thing happened to Maggie Thatcher in Britain. Her own party was responsible for undermining all the great advances she made towards dismantling the socialist welfare state that had made England an economic basket-case. It happened because once she was out of power her party weakened.
Maggie was strong and Ronald Reagan was strong, but when they no longer were in power and at their prime, their followers turned into weak-kneed office seekers.
Being weak they were easily led astray and went in other directions, and fell prey to the lure of big government, big spending and big deficit politics.
The end of the Reagan Era was brought to us by the Republican Party, which had thrived under his leadership and is now in danger of becoming a minor player in the nation’s politics and a spectator at the birth of a socialist America doomed to follow the path to ruin of every failed state has embraced the Marxist creed.
Can the Reagan Era be resurrected?
It can, but only by the party that was responsible for its death. Republicans killed it and it’s up to Republicans to revive it. And if America is to survive the coming debacle looming ahead under an ultra-left-wing Obama government drenched in the welfare-state philosophies of Karl Marx, only a reborn Republican Party will be capable of bringing America back from the brink of destruction.
Unless John McCain understands what is at stake here, Nov. 5 is going to resemble the smoking rubble of Dresden in the wake of the Allied firebombing of that city. The Republican Party is going to be in shambles.
It’s going to be in shambles because the Republican Party abandoned the trail leading to that shining city on the hill to become itself a quasi-left-wing organization which looks at the Democrats’ welfare programs and says “me too.”
They destroyed the party from within. They are the ones to blame. Not the left-wing media , not left-wing academia, not the Democratic Party but the GOP — the Grand Old Party — no longer grand, just old and scared silly.
Ronald Reagan had the same media that we have today. He had the same left-wing academia that we have today and the same Democratic Party that we have today. But when the media and the Democrats attacked him he found it invigorating, and found strength and fortitude in being under fire, and he fought back like a tiger.
Today, when Republicans are attacked, they tremble and run for cover. And they give in and begin to mumble “me too.”
I’ve heard people say that Ronald Reagan would have supported the bailout. My answer to that is: “Balderdash!” Ronald Reagan would never have supported a bailout, because under his leadership there never would have been a need for a bailout. He never would have allowed the double-dealing and sheer criminality that brought about our current crisis.
In a Ronald Reagan administration the Chris Dodds and Barney Franks — who bled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dry — wouldn’t be running Congressional committees, they’d be fending off Federal prosecutors.
Let’s not have any more talk about the end of the Reagan Era and the Reagan Revolution. It’s time to re-fire the jets and move forward.
Let’s win another one for the Gipper.
Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. ©2008 Mike Reagan.. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “If the Reagan Era is Dead, Who Killed it? (Guest Voice)”
Maybe Michael Reagan should be reminded that President Reagan run up huge deficits and passed an immigration amnesty bill that, in the long run, will kill the prospects for any conservative political party in the U.S.
The problems with conservatives being in office is that they are unwilling to cut programs that are headed by their political cronies and friends.
The Reagan revolution was a product of that period in time. The country needs only look at the past to understand it and draw lessons from it, not to replicate it. Reagan's appeal was built as much on his inspiration to a dispirited America as it was his words that hid his administrations deeds: “We don't negotiate with terrorist,” yeah right. If current economic, social and political conditions have not awoken us to the need to evolve and not revolve then this country will continue to make the same mistakes in a vain attempt to chase the promise of times past instead of finding the answers to today's and tomorrow's problems.
GBU,
If Senator Obama is wanting to move forward, then why are most of his proposal look like New Deal proposals or a repeat of Johnson's Great Society. If moving forward is the ideal, then neither presidential candidate is for you.
The death of Reaganism is more like the assassination of Julius Caesar instead of that of Lincoln. There is no lone gunman. Ronald Reagan started the process by wounding his legacy with massive deficit growth.The revelations about Iran-Contra didn't do his legacy any favors with anyone outside the core of true believers. George H.W. Bush made a minor cut when he increased taxes and the sky didn't fall and all the Lafferite predictions didn't come about. Clinton made his stab by moving the Democrats back toward the center. The rabid, unreasoning hatred of Clinton by the loons of the far right that managed to escape the fringe where they belonged hurt. The GOP has drifted further to the right than Reagan ever was. Michael Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and Malkin continuing to spew their bile for year after year may fire up the base but eventually came to fire up the other side more as their continued service as the “faces” of modern conservatism helped drive moderates away. Calling the opposition socialists and Marxists as Michael Reagn does in this article in a time such as this does not do wonders for the image of those who claim to be carrying the mantle of Ronald Reagan.
Whatever the reality, a movement or philosophy that survives its creators will come to be judged by the actions of those who say they are its standard bearers even if they have distorted the original beyond recognition. So the Soviet Union and China have irredeemably damaged whatever reputation Marxism might have had if someone had not hijacked concepts meant to point a way (And I am not saying that it is the correct way.) for a mature industrial society as Marx saw the Industrial Revolution to take over nations that were overwhelmingly agrarian. Marx thought that people would actually want to create a society like he envisioned but it of course inevitably led to tyranny of the worst kind. Now we have those who say that they are the heirs of Reagan insisting that tax cuts can fix anything, that the free market makes no errors and should have virtually no regulation, that a particularly extreme “conservative” version of Christianity should guide our laws and that anyone who disagrees must be an anti-American Marxist/socialist. Seppuku, anyone?
Well said, Jim.
What the author fails to realize is that these Democrats are not, in fact, the same old Democrats his father dealt with. We're looking at a new Democratic party, and the GOP hasn't adapted its game to keep up with the new century. A GOP that's still playing like it's 1979 will be doomed to exile in the 21st century. I believe there is a future for small-government conservatism, but it must first embrace environmentalism, and soundly reject the small-minded, racially- and religiously-tinged identity politics that have dominated McCain and Palin's campaign.
A party that pushes away anyone who isn't a small-town white Christian is going to have to re-think its strategy in a country that is increasingly ecumenical and non-white.
I was not giving a ringing endorsement for Obama, but I will reply to the New Deal and Great Society similarities. Again the essence is lessons learned from past financial collapse and economic inequality. The need is to regulate the existing financial markets, not those of the 1920s. If the need for regulation seems redundant then so does the rampant speculation and leverage encouraged by the government and their lobbyists. The resemblance to past Democratic policies is just that, a resemblance, but upon further consideration Obama's proposed policies are better examples of lessons learned by the failures of those who learn little and know less than they think. McCain's proposals are examples of lesson not learned and and a lack of understanding or empathy. Do not be mesmerized by appearance, but be concerned with specifics. Moving forward is what Obama's history indicates. Obama sought consensus among liberals and conservatives in law school and at the U of Chicago. He does not pander to liberals or conservatives. That sounds novel to me. I have been unhappy with our candidates for president for some time, but this is because our current political discourse is not based on resolving issues, but ideological attacks. This hurts us all because candidates do not spar over policy and can come to the table with meaningless policies that are more about the “base” and less about less about what will actually be done.
GBU,
A politician who got his start by screaming racist at anyone who did not do what he wants is not a consensus builder. Obama's history in Chicago is one who play the power politics of clout just like any other old type New Dealer.
And if you look at Obama proposals for education, crime, and social pathologies, he does demonstrate his sanity because those problems cannot be solved easily so he avoids them.
Reagan was appealing because at the time we were in a period of economic stagnation and double digit inflation. He hearkened back to a simpler time and a lot of people could identify with that. Reagan solidified the conservative movement by alligning with the religious right, business interests and the military. The coalition held up for a while, but now, after 20 years it has totally desintegrated.
Reagan was successful in large part, because he exhibited common sense, and could be flexible when needed . He was smart enough to know how hard to push the Soviets as their empire collapsed, and knew that we would not win in in Lebanon. People found his grandfatherly demeanor reassuring.
The ideology he espoused has not worked in modern day because present day conservatives betrayed their principles in some areas and were too rigid in others.
Having said that, he also gave us trickle down Reaganomics which has hurt the poor and middle class, and destroyed the unions, hurting blue collar workers. It was always a give-away for the wealthy class in this country- as his economic advisor finally admitted. Reagan was also known as the 'teflon president” and was unhurt by the Iran-Contra scandal-even after Americans found out he had lied to them repeatedly about it.
I've often wondered how the GOP would have treated a Carter or Clinton if they had gotten involved in something like that — or if either had been involved in outing a CIA agent whose entire operation was jeopardized. Would they have been remembered as true blue patriots and emulated by every other Democrat to follow? I doubt it seriously.
If we remain misinformed about the past of our politicians there is on way reason can overcome ideology. Power plays are the hallmark of any successful politician, especially in Chi-town and as for the implication of Obama screaming racist sounds like the accusations of the misinformed and the conspiracy fringe. The real history can be ignored or acknowledged even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary: He's an Arab, right? As for his proposals, Americans look for politicians to put forth a political platform that addresses the issues. But as soldiers in the field will say, circumstances on the ground usually change the best made plans of REMFs. If one is to believe that Obama is avoiding the issues it is because one wishes to believe such or can not understand the answers given by the candidate. Innuendo and false accusations on the internet get us no where and are similar to road rage: feelings of loathing expressed in an isolated space that can cause damage to others in a common place. But to continue this line of debate obfuscates the thesis of my original argument, which is what is exactly wrong with our national political discourse: reality trumped by false rhetoric either to make one feel safe or in peril. You can attack Obama, but that misses the point and that is the problem.
Another reason Reagan's solutions would not work today is that Reagan did not have to deal with our current problems of globalization, global warming, end of the nation-state and beginning of the failed state as a haven for terrorism, economic collapse due to deregulation crumbling infrastructure etc etc
His allignment with the Falwells and Robertsons invited the government into our private lives and he is to blame for some of our loss of personal privacy. Ironically the opponent of big government actually contributed to it, as this interest group began demanding more government goodies and the legislation of morality.
Sorry Michael – your father has always been over-rated.
He was a terrible governor of California, and he and is friends saddled the state with Proposition 13, a meat axe approach to a taxation problem that required a scalpel. He single handedly destroyed the most prestigious public university – the University of California – because he couldn't deal rationally with the Free Speech Movement.
He gave us the infamous Reaganomics, where balancing a budget didn't count. He demonized “liberals” as virtual Communists in a fashion reminiscent of Joe McCarthy. He gave us Iran-Contra which was one more reason that this country has little moral currency in the world.
Reagan and the Right were a terrible aberation from traditional Republican restraint from meddling in personal affairs and fiscal conservatism. Their party is thankfully over.