« Andy McCarthy Smacks Down Eric Holder | Main | Democracy v Authority in Nation Building »

May 4, 2009

The GOP and Ronald Reagan

I suspect this post will be popular among my liberal commenters, and controversial among my conservative ones. With that in mind I forge bravely ahead.

On Sunday this article appeared in The Washington Times

Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.

The former president's brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama's message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.

"So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it's great, but it doesn't draw people toward your cause," Mr. Bush said.

The Florida governor joined former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor on Saturday at a small pizza parlor in Arlington for the inaugural event of the National Council for a New America (NCNA).

Bingo

Today I caught snippets of Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh attacking Jeb Bush and their line of thinking. Ingraham had Senator Jim DeMint on her show and went after him pretty hard.

I think that Jeb Bush and his fellow Republicans are dead right.

Among others attending the meeting were The NCNA - with a "national panel of experts" made up of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Except for McCain, they'll all good conservatives.

Cantor stressed that they are not trying "to recast the party" or branding, but "this is about trying to foster some discussion." Romney said that "there will be no wholesale changes to the core tenets of the party."

This is all very good, I think.

Let's Back Off the Reagan

The problem is that Ronald Reagan has become the third rail for the GOP. Touch him and you immediately come under attack from the guardians of conservatism.

And to my liberal readers let's be clear; I love Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh. I wasn't listening to them today by accident. Yes, we on the right do have the ability to disagree with them and the other conservative talk-show hosts on occasion.

Ronald Reagan was one of the two greatest presidents of the 20th century, the other being Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is rightly an inspiration to conservatives. I was 20 when he took office, and the transition from Carter to him was my formative political experience. It was an age of true heroes; Reagan in American, Thatcher in Britain, Kohl in Germany, and John Paul II in the Vatican. Among them they changed the world in a way that no one had since Churchill.

But Reagan means next to nothing to anyone under 40. They see him as an old dead white guy. I was 20 when he took office, and I have friends who are 40 today and they were still in high school or younger, at the time and is the wont for most young people, paid little attention to politics.

Unfortunately, it's Reagan this and Reagan that from too many conservatives. It was positively embarrassing to watch the Republican candidates for president trying to out-Reagan each other in the GOP debates during 2008 primary races.

If the Democrats treated any of their past presidents like we do Reagan, we'd mock them until the cows came home.

So my message to my conservative brethren is that we need to back off the constant references to Reagan. We need new blood in our party and need to look forward. We've got some very good up-and-comers but that's a subject for another post.

Not a Question of "Too Conservative"

The charge is made that the GOP is "too far to the right." We saw this most recently with Senator Specter's defection.

This is wrong, but it mostly misses the point. The Democrats, for example, are farther to the left than they've ever been and it certainly hasn't hurt them any.

Further, the charge that the GOP is too far to the right is just wrong. President Bush moved far to the left during his presidency, and many Republicans in the Senate went with him. He jacked up spending on all manner of social programs, most notably eduction with "No Child Left Behind," a bill mostly (or at least partially) written by Ted Kennedy.

So if anything the Republican Party of the Bush years was a lot farther to the center than it was in the 1980s. I know because I was around then.

Rather, the problem with the GOP is lack of authenticity, and nostalgia for the past. In this sense Cantor was wrong when the article quotes him a saying that it was not about branding. I think that branding is definitely part of our problem. We are seen as too nostalgic for the Reagain years.

By authenticity I mean "living up to your professed beliefs." The GOP talked the fiscal conservative game, but governed like big spenders during Bush's term. Some of this was straight pork, and some of it was an increase in the welfare state, but it doesn't really matter. The people saw that the Republicans didn't live up to their own standards, and the damage was done.

Jeb Bush is right; one of the reasons the Democrats won in 2008 is because theirs was a forward looking message, not a backward looking one. On

It's not that I think that John McCain's political philosophy is the future of the GOP, because it isn't.

Shortly after the last election I attended a conference Leadership Institute at Patrick Henry in which they shared some survey data with us. One of the more interesting results was that 20% of self-identified conservatives voted for Barack Obama. On the other hand, only 10% of self-identified liberals voted for John McCain. Between this and some other results it was clear that conservatism was not the problem; authenticity was. The public wants politicians who practice what they preach.

So it's not that the GOP needs to become more moderate, or boot the social conservatives. What they - we - need to do is live up to our ideals, and not insist on ideological purity among all of our candidates.

From History to the Future

We've got some rethinking and reorganizing to do, but I'm not too worried. It may take awhile, but we'll be back. The idea that the GOP or conservatism is dead is silly.

I've been around awhile, and so have seen a lot of twists and turns in the political landscape. In the mid-70s, in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate the Democrats nearly destroyed the Republicans. Reagan changed all that in 1980. After 12 years of mostly GOP rule, the public was ready for a change and voted the Democrats back into power. But a mere two years after that, the GOP captured Congress. The GOP staged a sort-of resurgance in 2000, but steadly lost ground after 2004 to our present debacle.

From the 19th century to the mid-20th, one party or another held power for long periods of time. After the Civil War the GOP railed against the Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion!" and waved the bloody shirt, and except for a few periods mostly ruled the nation. The Great Depression ushered in Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his New Deal coalition brought Democrat assendancy that lasted until 1980.

So in our modern age no one party has been able to hold absolute power for very long. This is probably a good thing, and being a conservative certainly gives me hope. I don't blame my liberal friends for celebrating since they're up, as i'd do the same. I'd also advise them not to become too despondent when we take back the presidency and congress, because I've been there too.

Posted by Tom at May 4, 2009 10:00 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1345

Comments

That's right, Republicans do need to look to the future and have a forward-looking agenda. That doesn't mean ditching Reagan and any remnant of conservative principles is the same thing as forward-looking.

A big reason Obama won was because he was perceived as looking forward. I mean, "hope" and "change" imply that something good is ahead for us.

But that's also what worked for Reagan. While I am too young to remember his presidency, I understand that Reagan was a forward-looker as evidenced by his shining city on a hill speech and that America's best days were ahead of her. This doesn't mean the Republicans need to purge Reagan but use him as a model to go forward and not simply repeating his name ad nauseum.

Posted by: Carl Wicklander at May 4, 2009 11:28 PM

Americans are not tired of conservative ideology (less taxes, smaller government, less regulation, cut spending, etc.) but republicans have never achieved that! If they had we would be in great shape and Republicans could have ruled longer than FDR.
Americans don't trust Republicans anymore, They feel they have been totally lied to, and if these investigations go on longer, Americans will have more to distrust them for.
No doubt Republicans will be back, it's just a matter of Americans forgiving, or forgetting what has happened.
Americans were so mad at Republicans that a dog could have won the Presidency. As luck would have it a charismatic candidate came along. Like him, or not, Obama is a good politician, but only a politician, with all the negatives that go along with being a politician, but a good one.
When Republicans do come back they will have to figure out how to approach their social issues. The younger the electorate, the less they will accept an exclusive social philosophy.
I never disliked Reagan. I never saw the great communicator. When he started to speak - Well.....I - zzzzzzzzzzz. He was a good politician, but again just a politician. Republicans chastise Democrats for thinking Obama is a political messiah (there is no such thing as a political messiah) and I chastise Republicans for thinking Reagan was a political messiah. MT. Rushmore - please!
If Republicans cannot offer more than they have for the last 20 years, they will as obscure as the Green, Communist, or Socialist parties.

Posted by: Time at May 5, 2009 1:21 AM

I remember the Reagan years very well and I was not a fan of supply side economics even back then but I do have to acknowledge that Reagan gave this country leadership and he was comfortable with his beliefs and that made Americans comfortable with him.

Everything I just said holds true for Barack Obama also...and that is the most fascinating thing is how similar the two are.

I know that alot of my conservative brethren do not accept this but George Bush represents the death of Reagan. Any Republican who could capture the mantel of Reagan, and GWB did, could electrify the base and go on to win elections. Now, that will no longer work and that is why the Republicans find themselves in the corner that they are in.

Trying to reach out and grasp Reagan again is not going to work, thanks to GWB, and conservatives are looking in the wrong places for their future leadership when they look to Louisana, Alaska, or Mississippi. Like Reagan, their next leader will come from a typically liberal state.

Posted by: Tao at May 5, 2009 7:19 AM

One of Reagan's strongest characteristics was his ability to capture and keep the votes of the center and the Reagan Democrats, while maintaining the conservative base. Like Bush, Reagan presided over a massive increase in deficit spending, but never faced as much ire as either of the Bushes for straying into the red.

The challenge for the Republicans is to attract the center without alienating their conservative base. The permanent majority Karl Rove hoped to archive simply is not demographically possible, without returning to the Big Tent Reagan managed to raise. Limbaugh and Ingram listeners tend to not be young people. They are mostly old, and many more young people watch John Stewart. Registered Republicans are diminishing. Demographically, the Republicans have an uphill fight, but I am impressed with the likes of Jindall and the new crowd. We will see.

Posted by: jason at May 5, 2009 7:34 AM

I agree with Governor Bush and you Tom. To add to that as a political hacker, remember the joke that was made out of Bob Dole when he said he wanted to be a bridge to the past? For candidates to continually look back to Reagan, or Kennedy, FDR, Lincoln, gives a perception that said candidate has no ideas of his own.

I've worked many elections on a local level. Coattails are short. Dead people don't have any.

Posted by: KG101 at May 5, 2009 5:33 PM

I agree with you Tom - sometimes yelling out REAGAN only serves to mask a lack of ideas for the future.

As "one of your more liberal commentators", I feel duty-bound to point out that Reagan was not really a fiscal conservative. Just as much as George W Bush, he ran up a large fiscal deficit in order to attain for his administration's goals. Both Reagan and GWB ramped up military spending, while failing to balance the budget to pay for that spending. Now you can say that Reagan ran a budget deficit to defeat the Evil Empire - and that may make him a Cold Warrior hero. But it doesn't make him a fiscal conservative.

I will go further, and say that the reason why the GOP is failing to speak to the centre-ground of American politics, is The Economy.

The Republicans mainly lost the election on the economy. And the economy is still the main thing that Americans are worrying about - more than pirates or terrorists or Iraq or Iran or torture or immigration or abortion rights or all the things that fire up the GOP base.

Republicans don't really have an answer to the economy. Fox News is conspicuous by its absence of coverage on unemployment, or falling house prices, or the failed banking system. The same goes for Rush Limbaugh, or Michelle Malkin, et cetera. It's almost like they don't want to think about it. They're very vocal in criticising the ballooning budget deficit, and the bailouts, and in organising anti-tax tea parties. But that's a bit like criticising the medicine without speaking to the illness the medicine is trying to cure. The result is that the GOP starts to sound like the party of NO, not the party of ideas.

Your blog doesn't mention the economy much either, Tom, though I appreciate it's not something you claim much expertise in. But it's what Americans are concerned about. Keeping their job. Negative equity. Having a pension. If the GOP wants to reconnect, it needs to start speaking to these concerns.

Posted by: Mylne Karimov at May 6, 2009 2:40 PM

Excellent comments all!

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at May 6, 2009 9:41 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)