Blogs and Stories
What Reagan Could Tell the Right
Bachrach / Getty Images
In slamming health-care reform, GOP leaders proudly claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Yet they’re ignoring how Reagan deftly distanced himself from the far right.
On the steps of Capitol Hill, at last week’s Republican-sponsored anti-health-care reform rally, actor Jon Voight told thousands of activists that President Obama’s agenda threatened to destroy democracy. Obama “has had 20 years of subconscious programming by Reverend Wright to damn America," Voight thundered. The president, he claimed, “has his own obsession with trying to ram this health bill through to create a socialist America.” House Minority Leader John Boehner echoed that Obama’s plan is the “greatest threat to freedom” in his lifetime, while rally organizer Rep. Michele Bachmann declared: “It was Thomas Jefferson who said a revolution every now and then is a good thing.”
On the broad issue of how to handle extremism in his ranks, Reagan was defter than his current conservative counterparts. For the most part, he used the fringe for his own purposes and kept himself from being used.
One sign bore a picture of Dachau’s concentration camp’s victims and likened the president’s “National Socialist Health Care” plan to the Holocaust. Another sign charged that Obama “takes his orders from the Rothchilds”—a baldly anti-Semitic theory about Jewish global dominance. “Ken-ya Trust Obama?” still another demonstrator wondered. Boehner deflected questions about the protests by simply saying that he failed to see any evidence of intolerance when he was on stage. Minority Whip Eric Cantor merely dismissed displays of bigotry as “not…very helpful” to the conservative agenda.
These Republicans routinely proclaim themselves to be acting in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. Yet they have ignored one of Reagan’s most complicated and intriguing political legacies—how he handled the extreme right.
While the hard-liners of 2009 venerate Reagan as their patron saint, the reality is that Reagan caromed between two opposite positions throughout his political career. At times, he embraced extremist politics, while in other moments he adopted a brand of pragmatism and moderation, expunging fringe elements from his party’s ranks with cold skill and workmanlike efficiency.
Reagan’s heaviest flirtation with the extreme right was in the early 1960s, prior to his decision to run for governor during the rise of the Goldwater movement. Reagan relied on shrill language, associated with dubious causes and public figures, and glided effortlessly through the far-right world of California 's flourishing conservative movement.
For example, he claimed that the Cold War would “determine whether the world can exist half-slave and half-free.” He even linked John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier to “Big Brother” and “Karl Marx” in a letter he had written to Richard Nixon.
“There is nothing new in the idea of [big] government,” Reagan said. “Hitler called his [program] ‘State Socialism,’ and way before him it was [called] ‘benevolent monarchy.’”
Reagan’s broadsides didn’t end there. He shared a stage with Christian Anti-Communist Crusade leader Frederick Schwarz, delivered a keynote at a fundraiser for a leader of the John Birch Society and member of Congress (Birch founder Robert Welch had labeled Ike a “dedicated…agent of the Communist conspiracy”), and attempted to discredit Medicare and other health-care reforms as steps on the road to socialist destruction. On a record album circulated to doctor’s wives, Reagan warned that “one of the traditional methods of imposing… socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.”
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
How Reagan Made Teddy
Matthew Dallek, a Shapiro Fellow at George Washington University ’s School of Media and Public Affairs, is the author of The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan’s First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.
Congress' Insult to Randy Pausch's Legacy
Matthew Dallek, a Shapiro Fellow at George Washington University ’s School of Media and Public Affairs, is the author of The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan’s First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.
he would probably say something like "arms deal? violation of international laws? guns for the who? what guns for the rebels? Leeden? Kashoggi who? ollie who? TOW missles? lying under oath? guilty of at least 30 felonies?
i dont remember.
Yet another sychophant author writing a smear piece on TEA-PARTY PATROITS. All you libs. can say that opposing Socialized med. is far right but that just shows what left wing nut jobs you all are.
Reagan saved us from the Carter failure and all the slanted articles in the world won't erase his successes.You do remember what it was like when Reagan took office don't you?Or is that not included in your Democratic talking points?
You can't be proud of anything Czar Obama has done yet so you feel it neccessary to tear down an actual great man. He caused the end of the cold war and you communists just can't let go of your grudge.
You make fun of the 'shining city on the hill' thing,which is corny ,I admit,but then you march lockstep with Obama's 'Hope and change 'garbage.
Reagan was the last great president,the Obama presidency will just reinforce that.
when someone disagrees with you people, it's treason, when someone points out what might actually be treason carried out in your ranks, it's a smear piece.
It's all part of a left-wing effort to discredit tea -party patriots by labeling us as extremists ,and at the same time do a little Liberal Reagan revisionism.If you had something on Reagan you should have pursued it.
It's time the Tea Baggers learn a bit of history. While calling the President a Czar or wincing about the term czar for members of administration - the first president to use the term "czar" was the uber - liberal, Richard M. Nixon!
AND - what really bugs me - they asked one of the TBs at a rally what the term refers to and she didn't know, just said that it sounds foreign, Russian, and therefore, must be bad and have something to do with socialism and communism.
Why don't you TBs read a bit of history - the Czar of Russia, Nicholas, and his entire family, was executed by the Commies/socialist/trotskys. The Czar was the Russian term for Caesar - the same as a King and ruled as a royal family and had to be overthrown by the commies just as they did to the Emperor of China.
Why would any reasonably educated person refer to the President as Czar if they thought it a degrading term that refers to socialist ruler - it is indeed, just the OPPOSITE! Read some history books!
For one thing, F.D.R. was the first admin. to commonly refer to special advisors as "czars",he had twelve.Pres. Obama has "appointed 42 czars.They are unvetted by congress and they wield immense power.Some are actual communists.That should bother you,and don't give me the "Bush had 'em too" crap because both are wrong to bypass the people.It's a reference to the current situation more than Russia.Though czar meaning an all powerful leader isn't that much of a stretch when it comes to Obama.
And seriously,replying to one word out of my comment,and being wrong on top of it,is pretty weak.But ...,just to make you happy I won't refer to him as Czar Obama.
CHAIRMAN OBAMA has a nice ring to it,don't ya think?
Gameon: The only reason Obama has the "supposed" power that conservatives claim he has is because since Nixon, conservative presidents have pushed hard to give the Executive branch more power than was originally planned. The Czars have little to no power, since they can only advise the president and speak at news conferences, but have no budgets, thus nobody actually listens to their recommendations. Obama hasn't actually done anything yet. most of the spending is a legacy of policies put in place in the fall of 2008, including a promise by Bush to insure $24 trillion in assets (some being toxic, bad, or perfectly safe) at no cost to the companies who either made or owned them.
Actually, Clinton did more to promote conservative ideals by selling off government owned entities (i.e. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and reducing government spending on welfare and other entitlement programs, got DOMA signed, and placed restrictions on NAFTA that protected American jobs (in theory). Something not even the beloved Reagan could do.
The Tea Partiers discredit themselves by running around with semi-racist signs and merely decrying Obama than actually presenting an alternative. How do you reign in a deficit that was out of control starting in the 80's? How do you protect the American economy when a large portion of our money goes overseas to buy oil and other commodities?
And why is there support for Palin if the conservatives are purists? Isn't taxing business and handing out $2,500 checks from that fund to each citizen the most egregious form of socialism there is? And Palin did that, but is a hero to conservatives?
The quest for executive branch power didn't start with Nixon.
Czars being the lead advisor to the pres. for an entire industry seems like a lot of power to me.
The Clinton promoting conservative ideals part made me laugh,thanks.
Palin's not my hero,but I do find it funny how scared the left is of her. As far as the $2,500 ,if the people own the state then they should benefit from its mineral wealth.
A few idiots with racist signs at Tea-Party rallies,alot of whom are democratic plants by the way,should not discredit the whole organization,especially since the tea-Party has nothing to do with racism.It's about excessive government spending.Obama's deficit is three times what Bush's were at his worst.We have every reason to fight the future bankruptcy of our country.We can't continue to say the other guy did it so why can't we.We have many alternatives to socialized medicine,but of course none are as attractive as the Obama "just print the money" plan.But allowing politicians to leverage are kids futures is selfish.
Reagan came across as a pleasant person, but the only things I remember about his tenure in the WH, were his firing of the air traffic controllers and the closing of nursing homes which put many mentally ill people on the street. And the idea that he caused the downfall of thr Soviet Union has been debunked. He may be a saint to the right, but he was just an ordinary president to the left.
I agree with you the mentally ill should have care,I don't understand what Reagan was thinking.But the airtraffic controllers played their hand wrong and paid the price,every now and again you need to check the power of Unions,just like you need to regulate big business.I'm not anti-union,without a doubt they have their place,but they often do not think of the country or their company when making decisions and base their strategy milking as much money as they can from the situation.Sometimes it works,sometimes you get a Reagan.Choose your battles carefully.
i thank my lucky stars daily that the modern conservative movement is built on the teachings of a POS like ronnie 'i cant remember' reagan rather than somebody of intellect or substance.
i also thank my lucky stars that wifecheater maccrashfiveplanes mccain did not make it to the white house. we would have invaded 3 more countries by now.
I can only assume that you're completely ignorant of the release of thousands of pages of material written by Reagan that show a man who spent literally decades giving serious thought to public affairs.
Today's right would hang Saint Ronnie in effigy.
Amnesty for illegals. Hell Naw.
First, there is no reason to praise a president who gave legitimacy to the "shinny city on the hill" fairytale. Anybody who admires Reagan's presidency deserves the W presidency.
Second, the triangulation Reagan used to control the fringe is hardly possible today. Thanks to modern technology you can't "erase" your past or silence people as easily as 30 years ago.
Saint Ronnie was the reason I started looking for a different party to vote for! I haven't voted Republican since him. He did more to destroy this country than both Bush's did. Because his original policies are still being used by the party today. He is the one who invited this rabid bunch of religious zealots into the party. He espoused their anti-abortion platform, religious agenda, anti worker policies, union busting, 'trickle down' economizing, smoke and mirrors economics, deficit soaring, big government, government intrusion into private lives policies and I started looking for someone else to vote for. As far as I am concerned he started the slide into fascism for the Republican's. I am not certain why most Republican's love him so much. He screwed them economically until they couldn't be screwed anymore. I guess they don't mind that kind of guy??????
Reagan won historic electoral victories (49 of 50 states) and you claim he "destroy(ed)" our country and "started the slide into fascism for Republicans"?
Nobody takes such stupid comments seriously.
Ronald Reagan was a pile of worthless garbage. He is rotting in hell as we speak.
RR was a dumb scumbag who promised to balance the budget and ended up quadrupling (that's 4X for you smugpublicancan'ts) the national debt. Meet the "father of deficit spending" Ronald Reagan. BTW Gorbachev ended the cold war.
Raygun has become a Republican icon, because they have so few they can claim. Of course Raygun's failures were numerous and monumental. From Iran-Contra, which was a huge violation of the nation's laws, to exploding the national debt, to starting the slippery slide down the slope of "deregulation" and non enforcement of anti-trust laws to economic instability, Raygun was the genesis of recessions, his own and ours today.
The only redeeming factor for Raygun was that he was smart enough to realize that Gorbachev was finally a Soviet Premier he could deal with.
The end of the Cold War was far more due to Gorbachev's refusal to do what his predecessors had done, which was to crush rebellions in satellite countries like Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but Raygun played a small part, by developing a relationship with Gorby and encouraging his actions.
Iran-Contra, rather than "a huge violation of the nation's laws," was the product of a dispute between the executive and legislative branches over who has control over foreign policy; administration officials were convinced that the constraints of the Boland Amendment did not apply in this particular instance. I suspect, given Supreme Court precedents, they were probably mistaken, but it hardly rises to the level of malfeasance some would attribute to it.
Deregulation actually started under Ford and Carter, by the way. In college in the late 1980's I knew professors who had worked on deregulation in the Carter administration.
The national debt increased by about 1.3 trillion under the 8 years of Reagan; in other words, less than what Obama has racked up in one year.
So... Reagan is responsible for the miserable economy he inherited and our current economic woes. Apparently Ronnie is some sort of magical time travelling fiscal policy imp, able to travel in time and affect policies both before he was president and after he died.
And as for your Cold War revisionism, it is to laugh. The reason Gorbachev couldn't act like his predecessors was because of the pressure Reagan put on the Soviets, exploiting the cracks that were developing in the system. Gorbachev deserves some credit for realizing what a mess communism was in (so many learned types in the West didn't), but Reagan knew it before anyone had heard of Gorbachev.
Geezus are you in denial...Reagan quadrupled the national debt, for Obama to do the same he would have to increase the debt from 10 to 40 trillion. Of course that would be OK with you because your hero did it also. Wake up you fool and get a clue.
inflation inflation inflation
and a good chunk of what is considered obama's debt is actually Bush's debt from the bail out.
We are cleaning up Reagan's messes... and not very well.
We arm Afghan rebels then when Russia leaves, so do we... leaving a vacuum that was filled by the Taliban using our training and weapons (and then the Taliban goes and gives Al Qaeda a safe haven from which to operate from). So we wait until the next generation of soldier (and 3,000 civilians) comes to die for our mistake.
We arm Iraq in it's fight against Iran... only to have Hussein use his CIA training and initial backing to obtain supreme power over his people and go on to try to punish Kuwait for slant drilling. So we go to Iraq to try to clean it up, stop before actually cleaning it up (remember Cheeeeney saying he didn't think we should go into Baghdad?), and leave it for the next generation of soldiers to die for.
Reagan almost triples the national debt... starting a tumbling that was almost stopped by Clinton.
Reagan is a national disgrace. His inadequacies as a real leader led to the current form of conservatism. The worshiping of the B-actor and his minuscule intellect has led to where we are as a nation.
Thank you, Mr. Reagan.
Brilliant politician, terrible statesman. He set the stage for George W. Bush and it's sad to see how many people are duped into believing his sainthood. Complete disregard for American and International Law should not be rewarded with anything but contempt.
Jon Voignt's talkin' at me, but I can't hear a word he's sayin' only the dipsy-doodles of my Reagan...
Ronald Reagan had a charming personality. Hence, you could not help but like the guy. That said, he was not a great President. There are many people from the era of his presidency who wish we had the bank saving rates that we had then, forgetting, that inflation was high & Reaganomics hurt the economy.
Reagan, based upon one line he spoke, continues to receive plaudits from Republicans regarding the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The wall fell approx. 2 years after the line he spoke & the person who should receive plaudits for the fall of the wall, Gorbachev, fails to receive the plaudits he is due.
Republicans suffer convenient amnesia when it comes to the Iran-Contra affair. They also suffer convenient amnesia when it comes to the memory lapses Reagan endured during his second term.
As for the actor Jon Voigt, I don't place much emphasis on the words of any actor. Especially an actor who raised a couple of screwed up kids. Kids, who of their own initiative, have worked to turn their lives around. As an American he has the right to speak his mind & as an American, I have the right to tell him to shut up & stick to what he does best, acting. Too bad someone didn't have the nerve to tell Reagan that.
Reagan had no way of knowing at that particular time what anyone else was going to say. The internet had not even been invented. At least, not to the advent of up to the minute commentary.
You people on the left are a joke. When your lives come tumbling down becqause you can't see what is happening to our country, you will be wondering why you even bothered to comment on these blogs. Your ignorance is unfathomable. How can you not see what is so obvious to your detriment? Your LEADERS are about to chain you to oblivious servitude and yet you continue to leap to your demise. I hope that you will understand what is coming your way and you will be able to comprehend the circumstances that will ultimately prevail. If you believe, God save us!
I take it you were living abroad during the reign of Bush/Cheney. They are the two imbeciles who brought our country to the brink of another great depression. They are the ones who brought this nation into a war of choice in Iraq. They are the ones who spent our grandchildren's future. Let's not forget, they are the ones who allowed Bin-Laden to slip through their hands. They forgot Bin-Laden & made Afghanistan the mess it is today. Don't wait for historians to write about this dark chapter in our history, read up on it yourself.
Jojo12, that would require right-wingers to read. LOL
Note to comrades: Hunt down Ameriapp and send him to FEMA reeducation camp. He has uncovered our nefarious plot! Word of this must not get out to American people!
It is way past time for churches to LOSE their tax-exempt status.
When the Catholic Bishops think they can run this country it is time to tell them - NOT!
I thoought it was a given that if churches get involved in political issues that they automatically lose there tax exempt status. I am appalled that the Catholic Church can openly speak from the pulpit about the abortion issue, and not be criticized. Religious views are one thing, but they do not belong in politics. The fundamentalist churches are also guilty of this behavior.
"Disillusioned" is the word that best describes how many Americans feel after eight years of George Bush and the election of Barack Obama a year ago. Republicans had a majority in congress and the presidency, yet achieved little for Middle America. They betrayed voters by inflating the deficit and growing government, sending men and women into nation-building wars whose purposes are still unknown, and created a culture of moral and ethical corruption in Washington D.C. It was under lax and pathetic regulatory oversight that a Republican president and Republican congress allowed corporations to betray shareholders with questionable and highly leveraged credit default swaps, only to be followed by a $700 billion taxpayer bailout created by the Bush administration-so much for limited government. Republicans are a party without a message and without a messenger.
Last week's election results in Virginia and New Jersey, where Republican candidates for governor triumphed over their Democrat opponents, say more about the public's rejection of Obama's big government solutions and less about Republicans articulating a message to help Middle America. If Republicans think the public is embracing the party again, they are simply whistling past the graveyard, drunk on their own greed, and completely out of touch with the needs of Middle America.
Not that Democrats are offering any worthwhile solutions to address the most pressing needs of Middle America-job creation-but at least Democrats are intellectually honest about their desire for big government, universal healthcare, taxpayer-funded abortions, labor union power, and a litigious society for plaintiff lawyers to fleece the public. There is something, dare I say "refreshing and frank" about knowing where Democrats are on issues that impact Middle America, whereas Republicans pretend to be something they are not.
It is time for the Republican party to stop blindly whoring for the business community and begin addressing the issues that impact Middle America-job creation, affordable healthcare for all, and quality public education for our children. Republicans are a one-trick-pony, where "tax cuts" are their solution for all of Middle America's problems. It's because the party cannot articulate rational policy solutions to the real problems we face.
Take healthcare for instance; the Republican solution has been health savings accounts (HSAs). Are you kidding me? We can't get people to save money in IRAs, never mind HSAs. That's the best Republicans have got? Why don't Republicans push to allow consumers to shop for healthcare across state lines, require everyone to have healthcare, and deny insurers from rejecting consumers with pre-existing conditions?
If Democrats have any hope of maintaining power, they too need to put viable solutions on the table for Middle America, where people care a hell of a lot more about jobs and the economy than government-run healthcare, union card check, the protection of gays from hate crimes, and cap and trade. Both parties have failed miserably to address the needs of Middle America, which I suppose is why I feel so disillusioned with both parties.
A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/
I'm sure Reagan would tell the Europeans to stop putting up with gambling monopolies, which are costing consumers up to 50% in the winnings they take when they are successful in betting. The campaign at www.right2bet.net opposes monopolies and is seeking an open gambling market, but the petition needs support to change the EU policy.
Yes, gambling fairness is the crisis of our times!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.