“I hope you are all Republicans”-to the doctors in the emergency room treating Reagan after the assassination attempt
I was listening to talk radio the other day, as I often do, and Laura Ingraham was doing her new segment “what would Reagan do?” Akin to the “what would Jesus do?” campaign from a few years back, Ingraham’s segment amounts to trying to divine the Right path according to the Conservative Holy Scripture. Most conservative talk radio hosts are disappointed with their options this election season, so many are turning back to the golden days of the Gipper. Sean Hannity has taken to calling himself a follower of “Reagan principles”, not “conservative” or “Republican”, but “Reagan.”
This Reagan worship is nothing new, but it seems to have resurfaced with a vengeance on the airwaves in recent months. As my formative years were during the 80’s, Reagan’s figure looms large in my consciousness as well. Depending on your political persuasion, Reagan was either the greatest Republican since Lincoln or an uncaring man oblivious to the problems of most Americans.
My purpose is not to conduct an in depth analysis of his administration and policies. I am more interested in this Reagan cult of personality that has emerged in the right of center territory. Just from my own recollection growing up in the 80’s, we have not had a president since Reagan who inspired such American confidence and bravado (or arrogance?) Emerging from the rough and tumble 1970's with Watergage and Vietnam still fresh on peoples' minds, Americans were having a crisis of confidence. After the malaise days of Jimmy Carter, Reagan reminded us that being American was a point of pride.
He seemed to exude confidence and action. He essentially “fired” over 11,000 air traffic controllers who refused to end their strike. Who would have the balls to do that nowadays? In the face of the most famous terrorist of that decade, Muammar Gaddafi (or Quadafi, or Kadafi, or…), Reagan bombed the crap out of Libya and Gaddafi basically hid under a rock for the next couple of decades. (On the other hand, after the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut, we didn’t really do much but get the hell out).
ABOVE: Reagan prepares to kick the shit out of Libya
In moving beyond the myth, Reagan’s terms were mixed bags. Reaganomics lowered taxes and unemployment and revitalized many sectors of our economy. It also brought on staggering deficits. Failures like the slow response to AIDS, the War on Drugs, immigration amnesty, and Iran-Contra were notable…but then so were triumphs like helping to topple the Soviet Empire; with a deft and flexible foreign policy that ranged from threatening the “Evil Empire” to forcing them into bankruptcy when they couldn't keep up with SDI and increasing defense spending in general; then shifting gears to cooperation with Gorbachev and encouraging reform and promoting understanding with the Russian people. Our current president should take note, sometimes a shifting and seemingly "inconsistent" policy towards an enemy can be very effective. It is called flexibility, and Reagan was a master. He adapted to the changing situation in the Soviet bloc.
Beyond the facts is the persona. The Great Communicator, indeed. In the end, I think that was his greatest gift. People can legitimately argue back and forth whether Reagan's policies were good or bad, but they cannot deny his personal connection that he had with the American people. The confidence and optimism that he brought back to the country (stemming the tide of self-loathing in which many Liberals thrive) may be his greatest legacy. Policies aside, it is that aspect of his adminstration that sticks with me at a gut level. Unfortunately, W.'s careless bungling has chipped away at that righteous swagger that Reagan so carefully cultivated for us.
There was a reason why the Reagan Democrats were a sizeable group of his constituency. These were people who had little in common with his political philosophy, but…they just liked the guy. They felt he was a leader beyond the constraints of political party. Barrack Obama has this potential in him. I can see pockets of Obama Republicans here and there. That may be why the Right is willing to make a deal with the devil (Billary) in order to defeat Obama. People on the Right know what it is like to have a once in a lifetime leader on your side of the aisle.
4 comments:
I ask this honestly: If (some) Republicans can see the charisma of Obama, which would presumably benefit all Americans on some issues, why try to sabotage his candidacy? Don't they understand that even a (self-)battered Hillary might be able to beat McCain in 2008? In other words, if you like Obama on some level, and if McCain is good but clearly not a Reagan-level candidate, then why actively take the chance that Hillary might end up in the White House? As someone who supports Obama but more than anything wants to make sure Hillary's not elected, this doesn't make any sense to me. Just curious...
I think it depends who you are asking. There are several schools of thought I have come across...
1. Yes, Billary might beat McCain, but they still feel McCain has a better chance of beating Billary over Obama. Current polls aside. The hatred of Billary is so visceral for so many, many Republicans feel they can feed off of that enough in a general election to beat her in the end. So for some, it is a big gamble, but one they are willing to take.
2. Also, Obama is more liberal than Billary. If you put their personalities aside and just look at policies, statements and records, Billary is moderate left and Obama is further left. Therefore it is natural that given the choice of two "evils", they would go with the more moderate, more known commodity. This comes with much nose-holding as they support Billary in order to avoid the more Left of the two.
3. As for the talk radio movement, they have switched back and forth to trying to give the 2nd place Dem support in order to keep it close. I remember they were encouraging support for Obama early on when Billary was the frontrunner. They switched recently for the same reason. They are figuring that the longer this race is tight and undecided, the more money each Dem will spend against the other vs. against McCain, the more contentious the Dem race will get and the more they will bloody each other up. The hope is that whoever does emerge the candidate will emerge bloody and wounded.
I think those are the three schools of thought as to why talk radio and many other Rightwing types are actually supporting their mortal enemy, Billary.
Dangerous games, because they could end up with Billary in the white house. Never count out a Clinton. They should be disposed of when they are down, otherwise they will rise again...
I agree with your last sentence. And the rest of the analysis is interesting -- you're my link to right-wing talk radio.
Also, on an unrelated note: I want a new poll.
I agree with Dez. I am completely will to give credit to his charisma. But charisma gave us Clinton, Chavez, Mussolini, and yes, Kennedy (who I argue is one of the worst presidents we have had but we over look that because of the charisma and the assasination). I am not saying obama would be a dictator, but he has NO record. Yes he can bring about Change. Hitler brought about change.
Her is the other reasone to vote for Hillary. Even if she does win the general election, she would lose congress in 2010 and we would be back to 1994 with a congress that actually helped keep the balance of power.
Also, jmw, you said something that is often repeated but never qualified: "If (some) Republicans can see the charisma of Obama, which would presumably benefit all Americans on some issues, why try to sabotage his candidacy." I don't understand that statement. How do we know he can benefit us on ANY issue?
Look, I like Obama personally. He is very bright and someone I would like to hang out with. But I worry every nutjob liberal group would look to him as some savior and he does not have the background to understand the big picture. I have said this to Dezmond many times: Stop trying to elect a king. Elect the best administrator. I am not 100% confident that McCain is that guy either, but he has more credibility on the Hill than Obama, just based on experience.
Post a Comment