REAGAN REVISIONISM.
Josh Patashnik asks:
The final question at the GOP debate tonight asked the candidates whether they believe Ronald Reagan would have endorsed them. Within the span of four minutes, they told the audience that Ronald Reagan wouldn't have supported a candidate who changed his position on key Republican issues, wouldn't have supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, would have reduced the size of government, and would have reverted to the gold standard. The jury's out on whether these men are qualified to be president, but they sure aren't qualified to teach eleventh grade American history.And yet, it will pass unnoticed. One of the more impressive bits of historical revisionism has been the successful effort to rewrite Reagan as an unshakeable ideologue rather than a charismatic pragmatist. In order to live up to Reagan's ideal, contemporary Republicans have to be far more conservative than Reagan ever was, or ever thought of being. This is a guy who raised taxes six years in a row, sat down with the Soviet Union with no preconditions, passed a massive amnesty bill, wildly increased the size of the federal government, exploded the deficit, saved Social Security by instituting a large payroll tax, retreated from Beirut after a bombing, and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit. Not to say he didn't have his conservative dogma humming along quietly in the background, but the last seven years of his administration saw him somewhat chastened, and far more deal-oriented.
I was trying to think who the Reagan analogue is for liberals, and couldn't come up with much. FDR, of course, but no one compares themselves to him -- he's passed too far into myth. Some try and grab hold of Kennedy's aura, but that's associating with a sort of cool charisma, not checking how you'd treat to Soviet missiles in Cuba. Maybe Lyndon Johnson would get the honor, had he not trashed his legacy in Vietnam. But he trashed his legacy in Vietnam. So liberals have no real ghost of purity past. The Democratic candidates need more questions, I think, on why Paul Wellstone would have endorsed them.
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (28)
Surely Ronald Reagan would not have endorsed Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: El Cid | January 31, 2008 10:54 AM
And, of course, Wellstone voted for DOMA.
Posted by: Rieux | January 31, 2008 10:57 AM
The best was when Huckabee endorsed Reagan.
Posted by: jj | January 31, 2008 11:08 AM
Digg this story here
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | January 31, 2008 11:09 AM
Well, yeah, if you're going to concentrate on the last seven years.
Posted by: Jason C. | January 31, 2008 11:19 AM
"The Democratic candidates need more questions, I think, on why Paul Wellstone would have endorsed them."
I agree. But here's how the average voter responds when he or she hears that question:
Who's Paul Wellstone?
Posted by: Trevor J | January 31, 2008 11:20 AM
Sigh. Edwards was always proud of the fact that he won the AFL-CIO's "Paul Wellstone Award."
I wonder what Wellstone would have to say to us now...
Posted by: SDM | January 31, 2008 11:39 AM
Let's not forget that Reagan flip flopped in character from being the liberal head of the Screen Actor's Guild to being a right wing speechifier who bored his first wife with his rhetoric.
Posted by: calguy | January 31, 2008 12:10 PM
Well I disagree on the FDR point. In my view the main reason he has been diminished is that the economic right sold a narrative on the centerpiece of the New Deal, i.e. Social Security.
People under the age of say 45 are convinced that Social Security was a great deal for their grandparents, a good deal for their parents but simply will not be there at all for them. Social Security has been largely transformed from the Third Rail of American politics to the poster child for Big Government is the Problem.
This narrative has been so internalized that it is impossible to shake by education, people simply glaze over. It can however be shattered by demonstration. The crisis model gets more fragile each year that passes and this is true even with some years of disappointing growth and a near term recession looming. By my examination of the numbers sometime within the next Presidential term leadership will be forced to admit that FDR has been fully vindicated and that Social Security as currently configured is fully solvent going forward. Until then supporters of Social Security just need to play defense.
But when it happens some older progressives are going to unleash out Inner FDR. The New Deal is poised for a comeback.
Posted by: Bruce Webb | January 31, 2008 12:30 PM
Um, Ezra? That "subscribe" ad down at the bottom of the page? With the big close-up photo of some now-canonized liberal icon? 'Member him?
Posted by: The Confidence Man | January 31, 2008 12:54 PM
That "subscribe" ad down at the bottom of the page? With the big close-up photo of some now-canonized liberal icon? 'Member him?
Al Gore is our Reagan? Ugh.
It's not a terrible analogy, though, given that the Al Gore of our minds is far more principled and progressive than was the Al Gore of the Clinton administration or the Al Gore of the 2000 campaign.
Interesting to note also: people who resent John Edwards for having governed as a moderate before he moved left after leaving office don't seem to have the same problem with Al Gore, for some reason. A lot of the same people who couldn't get over Edwards's moderate past giggle like schoolgirls when Al Gore's name is mentioned.
Posted by: Jason C. | January 31, 2008 1:21 PM
Someday, the question will be: "Would Barack Obama endorse you?"
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008 1:34 PM
or would The New York Post?
Posted by: jj | January 31, 2008 1:40 PM
So, Ezra, what you're really saying is that Republicans are more doctrinaire and dogmatic than Democrats?
Isn't that a good thing?
Posted by: Andrew | January 31, 2008 2:10 PM
Good point, Andrew. The pressure to resemble the Reagan-who-never-was tends to make Republicans less electable, not more. Reagan never cleaved to the ideals that are attributed to him because cleaving to those ideals inhibits effective governance and hinders the construction of a ruling coalition.
Posted by: Nate W. | January 31, 2008 5:07 PM
You left out my favorite, when Reagan slapped a tariff on Japanese motorcycles to protect Harley-Davidson workers and investors. Protectionism over free market capitalism, anyone?
Posted by: Jim 7 | January 31, 2008 7:09 PM
FDR, of course, but no one compares themselves to him -- he's passed too far into myth.
I agree with that solely off my personal experience. I'm 28 now and up until about 6 years ago, the only FDR I really knew was Franklin Delano Romanowski.
Then I read Jonathan Alter's "The Defining Moment." What you get out of that book isn't necessarily so much about how FDR was right on policy but how he was willing to try new things, to ask just about everyone for their opinion, and used a unique blend of political awareness, skill and outward personality to pull it off. I don't see any of the candidates matching up to that in a strict sense.
Posted by: Adrock | February 1, 2008 9:12 AM
Vous avez laissé mon favori, lorsque Reagan giflé un tarif sur les motos japonaises pour protéger les Harley-Davidson des travailleurs et des investisseurs. Le protectionnisme sur le libre-marché le capitalisme, tout le monde?
Posted by: شات | June 19, 2008 8:20 AM
asdsafdsfdsgfdgfdg
asdsafdsfdsgfdgfdg
asdsafdsfdsgfdgfdg
Posted by: غلا | June 16, 2009 2:05 PM
adsadsfd
Posted by: منتديات | June 16, 2009 2:06 PM
asaddfdf
fdsfdsf
asaddfdf
fdsfdsf
asaddfdf
fdsfdsf
asaddfdf
fdsfdsf
Posted by: توبيكات | June 16, 2009 2:08 PM
asaddfdf
fdsfdsf
asaddfdf
fdsfdsf
Posted by: توبيكات رومنسيه | June 16, 2009 2:09 PM
asaddfdf
fdsfdsf
Posted by: الخليج | June 16, 2009 2:11 PM
kjhkjhklhjkl jkkj
دردشة
Posted by: دردشة | July 8, 2009 1:42 AM
hjgjhgjh illkjlk
دردشة العراق
Posted by: منتديات | July 8, 2009 1:46 AM
oioiuoiio oiuio
شات كويتي
Posted by: دردشة كتابية | July 8, 2009 1:50 AM
thankss good jaeb
Posted by: تحميل الصور | August 20, 2009 11:27 PM
gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood
Posted by: تحميل 10 ملفات | August 20, 2009 11:31 PM