November 27, 2009

What I Want For Christmas: A Moratorium on Ronald Reagan References

Thanksgiving is over, and now it is but a few short weeks before Christmas once again arrives. I want a very simple gift from all of our candidates for Congress and the presidency: big, fat moratorium on Ronald Reagan hagiography.

It’s time to cap off this ubiquitous “As Ronald Reagan put it, ‘a shining city on a hill’” stuff. It’s time to end the bromides of “as Reagan showed us, cutting taxes gets us out of a recession,” and “we have to get back to our Reaganite principles,” and “I really miss Reagan right now.” Sarah Palin has been particularly egregious on this count, as of late; anyone who has read Going Rogue or watched any of her recent interviews can testify to this. It’s annoying, and worse than that, it’s not helpful.

Jeb Bush put it well when he said that we need to move beyond Reagan. It’s not that Ronald Reagan wasn’t an exemplary president, and it’s not that he doesn’t provide us with a lot of timeless wisdom about how to win. It’s rather that we’re not living in the 1980’s, that we don’t face the problems of the 1980’s, and moreover, that the Reagan we all are discussing is really not the Reagan that existed. If we’re going to talk about him, we ought also talk about the man who authorized the selling of arms to the ayatollahs, ran up deficits, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and withdrew from Lebanon prematurely. On the wrong day, he may not have passed the purity test.

As a young person, the legacy of Reagan speaks to me only in an abstract way. I wasn’t even born yet when Ronald Reagan was president. I’m nineteen years old. I only even remember the second half of the George W. Bush presidency with any experiential clarity — and that’s as someone who was a political junkie by age fifteen. Most people don’t even start paying attention to politics until their twenties. A person who was came of age in the Reagan presidency is now inching upon age forty. It’s a testament to how leaderless we’ve been that we have to pull up the name of a man who’s been out of office for two decades to serve as a figurehead.

If we want to honor Reagan’s legacy, let’s replicate what made him so successful by standing up to the problems of our own day with our own leaders and our own solutions. If we move beyond Reagan, then we’ll have truly honored him.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

by @ 9:47 am. Filed under Ronald Reagan
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42008.com/2009/11/27/what-i-want-for-christmas-a-moratorium-on-ronald-reagan-references/trackback/

30 Responses to “What I Want For Christmas: A Moratorium on Ronald Reagan References”

  1. MarkG Says:

    Ronald Reagan once requested the very same thing.

    Happy Black Friday!

  2. asparagus Says:

    So you’re not trying to return to Reagan/Bush?

  3. Alex Knepper Says:

    2 – Nope!

  4. Competent Conservative Says:

    Alex,

    I agree with you. Reagan was a great President, although he made his mistakes. I hope we are not so much bent on finding a purist as we are on finding someone who can get a job done.

    Reagan was teachable and humble enough to learn from his mistakes….so then when he became President, it was easier for him to move to the right instead of the left, which we see happening when someone lacks any sense of a moral direction.

  5. SJ Reidhead Says:

    Amen!

    SJR
    The Pink Flamingo

  6. Jonathan Says:

    I agree Alex. Plus, all this going back to Reagan stuff just reinforces the stereotype that Republicans focus only on the past and have no plans for the future.

  7. JA Pruce Says:

    I understand the overall sentiment here to some extent, but I disagree with the underlining premise. This would be like telling Christians to just stop talking about that “Jesus” guy. President Ronaldus Maximus represents a “new adam” type figure in the history of the GOP. The question should be rather, who can become this “new adam” (or in the case of Governor Palin the “new eve”).

  8. JA Pruce Says:

    The GOP must be rooted in tradition and sound political philosophical orthodoxy and values – Reagan represented this and is a vast resource of political vision.

  9. Cali Mark Says:

    Great article, Alex. One more to add to your list: Ronald Reagan appointed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is pro choice.

  10. DanL Says:

    Pruce you exemplify the problem with this statement “This would be like telling Christians to just stop talking about that “Jesus” guy.” That is so repugnant. We don’t worship Reagan, and we never should.

    Alex has it completely right. Everyone knock it off with all the fruitless Reagan comparisons.

  11. DanL Says:

    Wasn’t Reagan the first President to give us a Czar in the administration? Thank you Ronaldus Imperfectus.

  12. Jonathan Says:

    #9:

    O’Connor wasn’t really a bad justice on issues other than abortion. Her dissent in South Dakota v. Dole was a good defense of federalism and she did cast the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore.

  13. Doug Forrester Says:

    The 18-29 generation is probably more familiar and favorable to Clinton than Reagan. Most of them weren’t even alive during Reagan’s Presidency.

    However when we’re reaching out to groups besides youth, we ought not to ignore that Reagan is still a strong symbol of leadership.

  14. Bob Hovic Says:

    I see nothing wrong with occasionally quoting a Reagan speech or phrase.

    I would, however, support the death penalty for anyone comparing a candidate to Reagan.

    Well, okay — if you insist on being squeamish, I’ll compromise on a two-week suspension from posting.

  15. bob Says:

    Why do the Dems keep going back to FDR and the New Deal?

    Because it represents their glory days. It doesn’t mean that they use their nostalgic feelings to blind thme to reality of the present day.

    The Reagan years were GOP glory years. When Sarah Palin wraps herself in Reagan it is not our of convenience but conviction. In an interview with Hannity she claims that she thinks about Reagan every day. He is her political hero. I suspect that she has read most books written on Reagan. So while gaining prominence in the lower 48 is she then supposed to disavow and reject Reagan to conform to some modern standard of political correctness or so not to offend modern political sensibilities?

    Palin is a Reagan conservative. As far as she is concerned, if you don’t like, it’s too damn bad. She will not be hypocrite. She said it: “Politically if I die, I die.”

    And as a Palinista, if Palin is rejected by the American people because she is a Reagan conservative, so be it. And there are hundreds of thousands of Palinistas who feel the same way I do.

  16. Alex Knepper Says:

    JA Pruce sez: Asking Republicans to stop talking about Reagan is like asking Christians to stop talking about Jesus.

    Does anyone now doubt that he’s a troll?!

  17. JA Pruce Says:

    #16 It was a poor analogy and flawed metaphor – more analogous to Microsoft and Bill Gates or Chrystler and Lee Iacoca.

  18. SteveT Says:

    Alex,

    You forgot to mention that he raised taxes on Social Security in 1983, signed an abortion law that expanded access to abortion as governor, and started cutbacks in our Nuclear arsenal against the Russians (Working w/ Gorbachev).

    An absolute purist he was not. He was however, an exceptinally gifted individual who was a popular and successful president. You are right that people should stop portraying him as something he was not. However, that seems to happen when you reach a sort of icon status.

  19. MetroIndependent Says:

    What so many die-hard conservatives have still not learned is what made Reagan successful is that he was INCLUSIVE.

    He wanted the Shining City on a Hill for Everyone. When he was told Hispanics wouldn’t vote for him, he wouldn’t listen to that advice and instead courted Hispanics.

    Today’s die-hard conservatives champion Reagan while simultaneously lambasting every group the can think of.

    Negative politics don’t win (despite all my negative comments on this site). Only positive politics win.

    I don’t think it hurts to continue talking about Reagan until today’s conservatives finally get what made him succeed.

    And by the way, you don’t have to water down your views to be inclusive. You simply have to refrain from attacking and be respectful when you present your views in courting a group.

  20. Sarabee in '12 Says:

    19, “Only positive politics win.”

    Amen. :)

  21. Sarabee in '12 Says:

    Although we recognize that these are challenging times, and that millions of Americans are suffering from unemployment, let us gather together on this special day, enjoy our families and friends and say a special prayer for our country and its people. May we remain the land of freedom.

    -Huck yesterday

  22. Cali Mark Says:

    #12: I like Justice O’Connor. I am a Moderate Republican and I think the litmus tests we have today, are dividing the party and are counterproductive. It’s good to see this post and have this site on my bookmarks to hear different opinions within our party. The less emotions/histrionics we use, the better it is for ourselves and for the party.

  23. Right Says:

    This post failed early in the headline.

  24. still hurting in AZ Says:

    Actually, I think Pruce got it 100% right as he got it 100% wrong.

    Just as millions have invoked the name of Jesus to justify all kinds of contradictory things, all assuring us that they are His rightful successor and spokesman, millions have invoked the name of Reagan to justify some pure nonsense, and figuratively wrapping themselves in his mantle to gain followers.

    If Reagan were still alive, the mere presence of these pretenders would require him to lift his old bones and run again. And we have every right to reject him as not being the person America needs today.

  25. FredsFighter Says:

    I still remember the “Would Ronald Reagan vote for you?” question in the debate; wow.

    And who was it that had a pen from Ronald Regan? Man, those were some good, albeit painful, times

  26. Sean M Says:

    On foreign policy Reagan was a realist and knew we had no business being in Lebanon. It’s sad that it took the death of U.S. Marines for a President to figure that out. He also took on the Soviet without firing a single shot. I’m sure he was a bit of a disappointment to neocons.

  27. richtheright Says:

    Well, I’m tired of people writing that they are sick and tired of hearing about Ronald Reagan!! He did win in a landslide. He did win the cold war. Maybe, Alex, you said should read up on ole Ronnie boy and read about his accomplishments and what he was as a President. Being a middle of the road moderate type isn’t going to get ya anywhere!!

  28. Alex Knepper Says:

    27 – I think you misunderstand, or don’t come around Race too often. First of all, I’m not a moderate. Second, I love Ronald Reagan, as well Barry Goldwater and Calvin Coolidge. But the youngest person alive who voted for Ronald Reagan is 43 years old. I’m 19.

  29. narciso Says:

    So should we go back to Nixon, who some have have also analogized her
    too, cloth coat, supposed resentment. I know Reagan wasn’t perfect, one could argue that he was too busy with the cold war, to really gauge the impact of Islamic
    fundamentalism, in Lebanon as well
    as the Hindu Kush. But it is a better building block than this ahistorical framework that you seem
    insistent on forming

  30. Personalized gifts Says:

    Just bookmarked your blog. Always interested in reading about this particular subject. Keep up the good work, Georgia Boyden ~ tinypocketpeople

The Candidates





























Featured Archives


Race 4 2008 Interviews

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Facebook


Join Race 4 2008 on Facebook

Site Syndication

Twitter

Main

Meta Data

Design and Hosting By