Politics
More PoliticsThe Republicans' Reagan Amnesia
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Library of Congress / Newscom
The resurgent GOP wants a Gipper purity test. Does the party faithful know he raised taxes, grew the federal government, and granted amnesty to illegal immigrants?
Republicans love hallowing Ronald Reagan’s name. Too bad they know so little about the guy.
Last week in Hawaii, the Republican National Committee almost passed a resolution named after the Gipper. “Whereas President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies,” it declared, only candidates who complied with eight of 10 “Reaganite” principles would be eligible for party funds.
The GOP isn’t as close to a political rebirth as its boosters believe.
And what were those principles, exactly? No. 1—according to the resolution—was “smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes.” Let’s take those from the top. Smaller government: Federal employment grew by 61,000 during Reagan’s presidency—in part because Reagan created a whole new cabinet department, the department of veterans affairs. (Under Bill Clinton, by contrast, federal employment dropped by 373,000). Smaller deficits and debt: Both nearly tripled on Reagan’s watch. Lower taxes: Although Reagan muscled through a major tax cut in 1981, he followed up by raising taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1986. In 1983, in fact, he not only raised payroll taxes; he raised them to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Let’s put this in language today’s tea-baggers can understand: Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care.
• Meghan McCain: I Took the GOP Purity Test—And Passed
Then there’s plank number five: Reaganite candidates must “oppos[e] amnesty for illegal immigrants.” Really? Because if you look up the word “amnesty” in Black’s Law Dictionary, you’ll find a reference to the 1986 bill that Reagan signed, which ended up granting amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants.
Then there’s foreign policy. Plank number six demands that candidates back the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what did Reagan do in his biggest confrontation with jihadist terror? When Hezbollah murdered 241 U.S. servicemen in Beirut in 1983, the Gipper didn’t surge; he withdrew the remaining American troops, and fast. Plank number 7 calls for “effective [read military] action to eliminate” Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs. But Reagan condemned Israel’s 1981 preventive strike against an Iraqi nuclear reactor. And plank number nine requires steadfast opposition to abortion. Yet two of Reagan’s three Supreme Court nominees voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. Turns out this Reagan guy wasn’t really that Reaganite after all.
Why does this Republican amnesia about Reagan matter? Because it shows that the GOP isn’t as close to a political rebirth as its boosters believe. Reagan succeeded because he married a reputation for principle with an instinct for pragmatism. When Republicans lost big in the 1982 midterm elections because Democrats accused them of wanting to privatize Social Security, Reagan abandoned the idea and instead made a deal with Democrats that raised taxes and saved the program. In 1984, when his advisers told him that Americans considered him too warlike, he responded with a series of breathtakingly dovish speeches about his desire to eliminate nuclear weapons that helped ensure his landslide re-election. In 1981, he nominated the socially moderate Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, even though Jerry Falwell and other evangelical leaders cried betrayal.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
The GOP's New Tax Cut Hypocrisy
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Fix Affirmative Action Now
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
The Jesus Litmus Test
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
filipb
The tea party just went quiet...
FarLeftFist
Worst. President. Ever.
Grimmace
I thought that was George Bush. Can't you libs get your "facts" straight?
JohnConnughton
Who, Reagan? Not by a mile.
I wasn't a fan. When he bailed out the savings and loan, I knew he was picking something like $4,800 from the pockets of each and every living American including my children, and handing it to a couple thousand of his buddies. (Oh, for the good old days when such larceny was petty!)
And sometimes I was a fan, as when he said in Berlin, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'
And always I had to admire him for clear and simple communication.
Fang1944
It's between Reagan and Bush 2 for worst President ever.
bluesraves
close
johnnynyc
Since next year would have been the Gipper's 100th bday get ready for a massive blast of bs from the minority party.
Personally, I think we should start using a $3 bill with his face on it!!!
tumbleweed
It's a toss up which was the worst Reagan or Bush II. Reagan sold the party to a bunch of far right religious nuts and far right wacko's for a few extra votes. That began to take over and destroy the Republican Party from within and eventually throughout until you see what is left today. That's when a lot of us just left them during the Reagan era. We didn't like the direction they were headed in then and still don't. We are still living with his failed policies 30 years later. Because the Republican's still have his 'trickle down', 'borrow and spend' 'voodoo economic' policies that have almost destroyed this country. Republican's want to keep the party pure for conservative ideas. But, the party today does not have the conservative flavor it used to have it is pure fascist.
dana64
NO this is far fetched.
Reagan was brought in to do the TEAR DOWN THIS WALL..............which was good.
BUT his LINE about the GOVERMENT IS the PROBLEM was HORRIBLE........and we are still paying for it.
johnwr3
Ronald Regan is the best President we've had in well a very long time. Regan cut taxes in his first term which brought us out of recession and was re-elcted in a real landslide not the few point one Obama was elected with. Regan brought the threat of the USSR to it's knees, lifting fear from the lives of many. Regan stood with his friends like Poland against tyrants. Regan lifted the American sense of pride and patriotism that still stands today. Regan had balls and the backbone to back up his words, "Tare down this wall" and it came down. Obama could use a little of Regan's spirit. Iran wouldn't be the unruly teenager it is if Regan was around. So nice try, Obama is half the president Regan was and in many ways still is.
sandwiches
paul volcker brought us out of recession, then reagan fired him because he wasn't enthusiastic about deregulating finance.
how did deregulation work out?
ittybittykitty
Since you admire him so much, maybe you should learn how to spell his name?
ljblinddog
Reagan thought the Soviets were prepared to invade Poland, wrong. The drop in oil prices, what is today's Talban and El Quaeda brought down the Soviets. Reagan did have a good relationship with gorbachev and that was helpful after the events I mentioned. Reagan played on America's pride - the ultimate result of his presidency is the economy and climate we are experienceing today. I think you should go reread histroy. Was he a pretty nice guy, yes he was. But he was an actor who read lines. Even his onw policies on health hurt him and his family has had a change of heart.
johnwr3
The banking crisis is the direct result of the dismantling of Glass-Steagall. REAGAN was long gone by then. If you check the current budget that Volcker did have a hand in you'll find their "math" and rosy assumptions should create a few more PINK slips. And yes, I misspelled his name. I'm on the west coast and I wasn't all awake yet.
johnwr3
I lived the history, I lived in Europe during the Reagan years and I saw up front how American power can do good in this world. The Soviets were brought down by economics for sure but it was the arms race that broke their bank. Poland stood up to the Soviet Union knowing we had their back. Reagan's did a lot more than read lines. He didn't need a teleprompter to rally the world against communism. Reagan changed the world, he brought back a depressed nation after Carter and Watergate and reminded all of us that we are one. Oh, he was bipartisan too!!! We need a leader like Reagan today. Obama has exceeded his level of incompetence.
ljblinddog
We actually told Poland to cool it because we thought that the Soviets would retaliate. As it turned out after Afghanistan, the Soviet Generals did not have the stomach (not a bad thing for killing their own sovereigns anymore). That information came out years later. Reagan had an opportunity to get us off of oil. The plan was in place from the Carter administration and their recomendations are good to this day. Every president after Reagan has not done much better. The thing that confounds people is how little he really understood what was going on. He didn't understand balance sheets. He didn't understand how cutting funding for mental hospitals led to homelessness when he was governor. He would announce on Christmas eve a gift to America, the balanced budget ammendment and then in the same breathe announce star wars. It was very frustrating. It is my opinion that people today are still using him as some sort of shield against their own "Civic Illiteracy," a Reagan term. People worship him like little children. They exploit him, his name and likeness. We have stature of him in our park, that no one else wanted...now it just sits there like a homeless person in the rain. I don't find that respectful.
carbonman1950
Just to be clear on the actual facts -
1) Ronald Reagan nearly tripled the national debt (up 189%) and
2) Raised aggregate payroll taxes (doubled Social Security taxes (which saved Social Security)).
WINHIG
At least learn to spell the name of your hero REAGAN ! This is the man who said ketchup is a vegetable , so cut the head-start food allowance. This is also the man who fefused to say the word AIDS during its very worst of times, oh yeah he wash great alright !!!!!!!!!!
sippewissett
Apparently you have yet to read Beinart's article, which absolves you of the need for facts. As for "tare (sic) down the wall," it was great rhetoric, but does not absolve Reagan of other nasty truths like the Iran-Contra scandal that isn't in your summary of the 20th c. GOP saint.
unclelew
Jeez, when you're going to blow a guy the least you can do is spell his name right: It's Reagan.
A whole bunch of things brought the USSR down, Reagan just being part of it.
Reagan did absolutely nothing about Iran, other than give it weapons.
When terrorists blew up Marine barracks in Beirut, Reagan ran away.
And let's not forget this is the guy who followed the advice of an astrologer, for gawd's sake.
Bengalidan
First, the USSR imploded; its economy collapsing. Reagan didn't do that. Second, Regan was his chief of staff; Reagan was our president. Third, he raised taxes. It's just that simple. Fourth, the deficit we have now is on Reagan's shoulders as he was the one who convinced Congress and America that we didn't actually have to pay for anything we wanted. Fifth, it's "tear", not "tare". And finally, the conservative the right wing has romanticized, when governor of California, was the first governor in the USA to sign a law legalizing abortion.
edgar1
Actually I wish the current President would of had the honor of puting a shine on Ronald Reagans shoes!
libfixer
Not hardly. We're just scratching our heads in wonderment. Funny how when libs are cornered and called out for the failures they are, they become unhinged. Sort of like mad dogs in the throes of rabies. I hope we escape this without getting slobbered on by you guys.
aldouswarp
You are right, we liberals have been failures on many occassions. Our biggest problem is that it is much more difficult to win when you aren't making up lies to justify the policies and lies to break down your opposition. Liberals have the basic facts on our side. My only question is, how you Republicans can sleep at night with all the evil you spout. But I guess if you're in league with Satan, you have no conscience.
sophia5
( " Let's put this in language today's tea-baggers can understand:
Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care. " )
" language today's tea-baggers can understand "
Oh ! Thank You, Thank You, Mr. Beinart for the translation,
and for being the typical condescending Liberal.
Is that the Liberal Formula ?
Label anyone with an opposing political point of view
as a racist, a hate monger, or in this case, stupid ?
Thanks for bestowing your erudite observations upon
the intellectually " challenged " conservative masses
cowering in
the fetal position in the shadow
of your intellectually superior . . . Giant BLUE Tea Bags.
janet1003mn
Knee jerk much? How 'bout if you're so "smart" you look up Mr. Beinart on, oh, say, Wikipedia, so you can learn what the man's actual political persuasion is? Honey, if you think he's talking down to you, evidently he's right to be doing so, because this rant makes you sound like a damn fool.
sippewissett
"Label anyone with an opposing political point of view
as a racist, a hate monger, or in this case, stupid ?"
====
Not "everyone", just the tea party-goers who are riddled with factions that are less than attractive, like the KKK openly recruiting at the upcoming conference, the birthers and the credulous who don't realize that their so-called "populist" movement is backed by big money like the Koch Foundation and Murdoch's $$$ to keep Faux Nooz stuffed with melodrama for ratings and personal gain.
gameon
Just for your information,not one person I know in the Tea -Party supports the K.K.K.,not one .
sippewissett
That won't last. They'll come out swinging against commy liberals soon. Don't desecrate the mis-remembered reputation of the GOP saint.
xlntcat
I have been astounded at the GOPs revisionist Reagan history. The 1980s weren't good years to be a middle class American. By 1982, unemployment had soared to 10.8% and was still at 7% three years later. Homelessness abound. During the S & L crisis orchestrated by McCain, Keating and McCain's ex-con father in law, people lost their savings. Before Reagan left office we were headed by into recession. Voodoo economics failed.
However, teabaggers are immune to facts.
Gkenyon
And that's exactly the point. Of course the teabaggers don't know that Reagan raised taxes...and it won't matter to them either. Their whole "movement" exists in a fact-free zone. The birth of their astroturf parties began on tax day -- and most of them were there to protest Obama raising taxes. The fact that Obama had just CUT taxes for 95% of the country didn't matter. Their perception was that he was going to raise them. Watching the crowds on tv that day, I found it very hard to believe that every one of them was pulling in over $250,000 a year -- yet instead of thanking Obama for passing the largest middle class tax cut in recent history, they were protesting him for something he didn't even do. Truly ridiculous.
The teaparty represents the lowest common denominator in American politics. The low-information, easily-misled, sore losers who simply can't accept that there's a black liberal in the White House. They strike a pro-mainstreet, anti-elitist pose while protesting to save the billion-dollar profits of the same insurance companies that have been sucking the middle class dry for so long. They say they want their country back, but sat on their hands for 8 years while GWB dismantled the Constitution and sold America's future to the highest bidder.
They are truly a group of excitable children, naive and easy to control with bright lights and loud sounds. They are the greatest argument I've ever seen for mandatory IQ tests before a citizen can vote in a national election.
FarLeftFist
Very well said.
Aranxa
And they can't spell. Their signs are hilarious.
JohnConnughton
Again, very well said.
ccdiane
I'll parrot the others: Very well said.
Grimmace
"They are the greatest argument I've ever seen for mandatory IQ tests before a citizen can vote in a national election."
Mandatory IQ tests for voting would be the greatest boon to the Republican Party since Jimmy Carter. Do you think the voters that ACORN and other leftist groups bribe onto buses headed for the polling station are going to pass an IQ test? Does the dependency that the Democratic Party caters to generally possess high levels of education and intellect? Why do liberals demand that felons have the right to vote? Why do Democrats always seek to make voting easier (motor voter, etc.) such that those generally not interested in politics and policy would be more inclined to get off their ass and vote?
Face it, the voters that would fail an IQ test largely are voters for the Democratic Party. That's not to say that there aren't smart Democrats, just that most of the not so smart and undereducated are Democrats. They like the "freebies" and handouts that Democrats procure for them.
Ronin58
Gkenyon,
Very astute and well stated ,if a tad strident. However, I can appreciate the need for a harsh tone when confronting such wanton inanity as the Tea Party
movement.
I would drill down on one small point : " ... can't accept that there's a black liberal in the White House". The President is starting to alienate the far left element ,which should come as a blessed relief to the TP'ists . However, I think what really has the " Conservatives" by the throat is that the President is a "moderate /Clintonian" Democrat ... the" angry white geezers" can only see the black part ...like suddenly having his/her caddy or valet attendant more powerful than they are ,and Thank God ! infinitely more intelligent than they or their friends. The term "Liberal" has become as fustian and meaningless as " big government"...really,is there any other kind in the 21st Century ? We gave up " small government" forever on VJ Day 1945.
bgeasyas123
Actually Grimmace, the majority of the people that pass the IQ test would be independents that are too smart to vote for a party....but then again I bet you assume they would all vote republican anyway.
Vapsman
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
jakejake
cut taxes for 95% of americans... that is total BS!!! my taxes went UP at the beginning of the year. granted they only went up 2 dollars per week for FICA but they went UP! and the S.O.B. Obama said in his SOTU address that he hasnt raised taxes 1 dime on any american... i guess that is true when you raise them by 20 dimes for me per week, i guess that it is still true that he didnt raise my taxes 1 dime, just 20!
chutchin
Excellent analysis.
dbro0009
here here Gkenyon
kilchis
Thank you for clarifying,it's nice to have these facts in front of us.What baffles me is that they don't seem to matter to T-Party and otherlike people.They just go on to create more red herrings.I hope that it's not just racism or reverse snobbery but it sure is ignorant.As hard as I tried when I was a teacher too many people just seemed immune to reason and to evidence
estcruzer
I don't know about IQ tests, but history tests would definitly be in order. We will be reliving the worst presidents of our past over and over again until our schools decide to educate our children in history.
sippewissett
Agree on all counts. I'd add to this sentiment, "They are the greatest argument I've ever seen for mandatory IQ tests before a citizen can vote in a national election" the same requirement for having kids. If the next generation is populated by these same nitwits, there will be proof of the dumbing-down of America. We're sliding into second-class status now and not coincidentally, only 62% of kids nationally graduate from high school while other nations are producing disproportionate % of scientists, doctors, mathematicians and engineers.
Lmaris
To jakejake below If your FICA tax increased, it means your income has increased. The FICA cap is the same for 2009 and 2010 ($106,800). The cap increased in 2009, but that increase was determined in 2007, during the mis-management of Bush II, so lets not pretend you know what you're talking about.
gameon
Typical liberals, trying to find excuses for why Obama is doing so bad. The Tea-party exists to promote small government,only someone who relies on government would have a problem with that. It's those principles that took Kennedy's seat from you and stopped socialized medicine ,for now at least. And it's those same principles that will put more conservatives in office come November.
Thanks for the advice,but I won't be taking any recommendations from out of touch liberals who are on their way to a Jimmy Carter-ish flop.
Hey, do you remember when Brown won Kennedy's seat ? Bet you didn't see that one coming. More surprises to come.
And a hush falls on the angry liberals as reality sets in...
pennsykid2000
If they really want small government so much, why didn't they protest the policies of the most fiscally irresponsible president ever, George W. Bush? He inherited record surpluses and turned them into record deficits. (The only president in 30 years to balance a budget was the only Dem president of the last 30 years, until Obama. Do teabaggers recognize that fact? Certainly doesn't seem like it. ) Bush and the Republican congress failed to pay for both wars (the more expensive one was totally by choice), two huge tax-cuts that mostly benefited the wealthy, and a $600 billion prescription drug benefit. Did these people try to mobilize a primary challenge to Bush in 2004, campaign against him in the general election? Of course not, because they don't really care about deficits, only the political party of the president--if it's "R", then they look the other way; if it's "D", they will protest everything. Typical unpatriotic hypocrites.
momolala
Another teabagger who changes the topic when they have no answer for the question.
indamiddle
I think you should be the first person to protest big government entitlements by making a stand and renouncing Medicare and Social Security when the time comes if it hasn't already. Let's see how a market base health insurance system satifies your needs.
citivas
If that's the case, then why doesn't the party agree that all our modern presidents are equally bad? The last small government presidents were in the 1920's and even those were more than happy to give all kinds of special consideration to business interests. Reagan and the two Bush presidents were huge government presidents and are responsible for a vast majority of the very same national debt the Tea Party is against.
JohnConnughton
Hello gameon.
You are wrong to think only someone relying on government (I assume you mean welfare or UC) respects a need for the size of government. First, you do too, if you expect potholes to be filled and you expect the protection of police and firefighters. If you expect somebody to provide the equal opportunity inherent in education. If as the population increases you expect somebody to sort out how many congresspeople come from where. You expect some common agency to fund the R&D behind medicines and drugs that will extend your lifespan, that would otherwise be too expensive a risk for even corporations. You expect someone to to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
So how big is that? I am not going to say there's no fat in the thing or that it could not be leaner, but your term 'smaller' is far too imprecise. Now that it is coming out, look over the budget line by line. What detail would you cut, and what result would that produce? Personally I do not want starvation in the streets, because that produces desperation, and that produces more crime. Then what, more money for more police? Etc. The world is a BIG place, so 'government' needs to be proportionate.
Ronin58
"why Obama is doing so bad".
If anyone wants to see the contrast between the well informed and the illiterate and ill informed....this is a perfect example.
I am fairly dispassionate about the ideological disputes out there;however, I am really surprised that the posts from the so-called "Conservative" element
are uniformly and universally puerile and ill conceived...not to mention an insult to the English language.
Oh,sorry to single you out as an example,Gameon, but it really is remarkable how your associates share not only the same rhetoric but the same poorly expressed and muddy thoughts.
Maybe there is something wrong with the tea being served at those parties.
mcasio
Waiting for your reply gameon. Why no Bush protests? What would you cut?
Hello?
Hello?
Hmm...game must be over.
NotFooledTX
I guess the truth really stings, huh gameon?
It can't feel good to learn that the republican party is playing you as a gullible dupe...and you bought it all.
ittybittykitty
Did you know that Brown is pro-choice? Seemingly more of a moderate Republican? We need a few more of those.
gameon
Hey i'm back,had to run my business for awhile. Wow you people go bananas when you're left alone.
To answer some of your questions about things I would cut or decrease the funding for;
1.N.E.A.-Minor yes,but I would cut it just the same.
2.Prescription drug benefit - Gone.
3.Foreign aid-Cut it all ,it's unnecessary.
4.Farm subsidies-See ya.
5.Auto bailouts- Let them go under,only the strong survive in business.
6.Military- There are many ways to cut the military budget substantially.
7.Federal education spending- Our money is being wasted by teachers unions and the inevitable beauracracy that has resulted.We need to clean house.
8.Oil subsidies -gone ,if they aren't already.
9.The entire stimulus bill.
10.NASA; A geeks wet dream that in the end has gotten us exactly what?Velcro? A couple footprints on the moon?
11.Nancy Pelosi's air travel.
Cut some of those and we'll still be able to "fill potholes".
Bush is to blame for his defecits,Obama is to blame for his.They both suck.Obama's defecits are bigger, so he is the worst offender. Pretty simple stuff.
sippewissett
Take a course in economics and then come back and post. You show no appreciation for the difficulties involved in pulling out of a worldwide recession, especially since jobs during the last bubble were created by real estate and consumer spending -- neither of which is coming back. And health care accounts for 62% of personal bankruptcies in this country (Harvard study, 2009) so you can yammer all you want about socialized medicine, but no one in countries with that system go broke or homeless trying to pay for their medical bills.
The tea party MAY have had the virtuous and impractical goal of small government early on, but it is now riddled with absurd "members" from the KKK to survivalists to birthers to the angry unemployed. It's a motley crew looking for simplistic answers to complex 21st c. problems, which is why Palin is th ideal keynote speaker. She knows how to deliver simplistic ideas better than any of the other loonies.
gameon
Sippewisset: So your answer to bringing jobs back is what exactly? Big government ? Who is going to pay for your socialized medicine? I'll tell you who, business owners and the middle class. It will depress economic growth and deepen our recession and debt. It sad that people go bankrupt from health care, but the solutions democrats are giving are unsatisfactory and aimed at solidifyiny their lock on power, not delivering better health care to more people .
Many solutions exist that do not involve a complete handover of individual freedom to a government that can't be trusted and those are the ones I support. I believe in a seperation between health care and State.If you don't ,that's your opinion,I have my own.
You go ahead and keep thinking the Tea-party is full of a bunch of idiots and we'll keep on winning elections. You are the classic example of someone who underestimates their opponents .Please keep it up.
Ronin58
Hey,Gameon
Excellent ripostes !
Your laundry list of cuts sounds great...if only the puppet masters of the Tea Party would support cuts in farm subsidies,oil subsidies, and useless defense projects that yield them a good bit of revenue and profit !
Your Tea Party is similar to the populist uprisings in earlier iterations ...in the 20th Century ...the Falange in Spain ...Black Shirts in Italy...
Father Coughlin ...the Know Nothings and the Wide Awakes in the 19th.
All were easily manipulated .
Certainly the extreme left has nothing to be proud of either ...
and you are very wise to say :
"You are the classic example of someone who underestimates their opponents .Please keep it up."
Your ideological foes should not be wary of underestimating the Tea Partyists...they should be very wary of underestimating the skill and subtlety of the vested interests that exploit their hate and simple-minded narrow focus.
gameon
But Ronin, if one assumes that the Tea-party can be manipulated by evil then why can it not be used for good ? Since I have no influence in the Republican party I have been forced to join a movement where as an individual I can have an impact.
I agree that the Tea-Party will eventually sell out like everything else,but till that happens I plan on giving it my full support. If the Tea-Party is full of those with hate and simpleminded narrow focus I will try to use them to accomplish noble goals.Useful idiots are a great asset.
Right now the Tea-party is the most honest political movement in America in my opinion. So it is no surprise to me that we recieve the most vicious attacks from the left. This article is just another one that I will soon forget.
Ronin58
Gameon,
Reasonably stated and thoughtful.I believe you are a person of fundamental goodwill...and you can take a lot of abuse !
A couple of arguably self-centered concerns on my part :
1. Certainly there are examples of "manipulating for the "good" ...hell, FDR and Lincoln used people pretty ruthlessly,but always with an eye on their humanity and a deep respect for human dignity. Even Gandhi was known to press the right buttons on people ...people forget he was a lawyer before he became a Great Soul.
However,history informs me that most "movements" that are based on very
cloudy principles...like "lower taxes or small government" begin to develop a craving for direction and "Leaders" . The process evolves as the "Leaders" subsume the original principles ,and then take direction from where the real
source of "force" resides. In the case of the Tea Party,which undoubtedly has rank and file members who are genuine and honest in their desire for the greater good,it is the muddled purpose that leaves the door open to the manipulation by the corporate,religious(or better religiosity-driven), and those who resist financial regulation or managed health care for instance. Ultimately it will be their agenda that is served. ( check the voting records of the so-called conservatives in the congress ,and see who has been the most supportive of the subsidies you are right to question.)
I am more concerned that you will be manipulated in the end...you already see a point in the future where even the TP might devolve into a corrupt institution.
Nobody in America or steeped in the American tradition really favors big government...not even the so called liberals(who are a mythological group akin to unicorns) ...favoring Big Government is like being in favor of Nuclear Weapons ...once they are in existence they are devilishly hard to rein back into nonexistence...nobody wants 'em but there they are...with benefits and big drawbacks...but immutable at the moment.
2. Why don't we all retire the words "Liberal" and "Conservative" or any other dehumanizing label...let's call each other by name and what we stand for, not some archaic and meaningless terms designed only to stop dialogue and push each other away .
I am as guilty as anybody for throwing around labels ...and I will stop now.
gameon
You're right Ronin about throwing around labels,but it's part of my strategy. I like to do an initial post of disjointed thoughts that are sure to bring out the opposition,then I pick their ideas apart one by one. Sometimes I succeed,sometimes I don't.On the rare occasion I find someone who is actually worth engaging in mature debate with.In this case it happens to be you and I appreciate it. The end goal of all of our efforts is to win hearts and minds for our ideology. But, some times I just like to piss people off !
Returning to the Tea-party issue; The fact that the tea-party doesn't have a rigid agenda is one of its strengths. It allows us to oppose things on the polar opposite of each other (example:Bank bailouts/socialized medicine). Positions that aren't taken by anyone political party.It's a place for people who disagree with where we are headed and have no outlet in the traditional political parties.
The elite rule us by dividing us,that's why they will eventually have to either consume the tea-party or do away with us through propaganda like this article. I think of the Tea-Party as just one more check and balance for the powers in charge. It's just ba good ol' fashion grassroots movement ,the likes of which we need more of ,not less. Look where the establishment has gottten us. Deligitimizing the Tea-Party is just what they want,less activism = more control for them. We may not be perfect but at least we're trying .
And I really wish all the religious wackos and KKK freaks would just go away. It really is not a good representation of the normal Tea-Party member at all.
politicalpam
The Teabaggers are no more "immune to facts" than anyone else. They are the product of a breakdown in public education. They do not know the history of their own country and have no ability to reason. Hopefully, their ignorance of politics will enable them to succeed in dividing the GOP and the dems will continue to remain in power. Thus far it seems that they do not even have the skills needed to organize a convention.
hhayes
Wow, talk about revisionist history. Here are some actual Reagan facts:
In the late 1970s (under Carter) our economy had tanked. Inflation was at 13% and mortgage interest rates hit 20%. The misery index was at a 40-year high. State and federal income taxes, in some cases, exceeded 80% of income. The economy continued its downward spiral after Reagan was elected---even after his across-the-board income tax cuts were first passed. Then, about a year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy roared back. The Dow Jones Industrial Average went up for 18 consecutive years, growing from 800 to to over 10,000. The economy under Reagan grew 40%, adding 15 million new jobs. And by the end of the 1980s, nearly all industrialized nations had sharply lowered taxes to compete with the U.S. While it's true that Reagan's economic policies created record budget deficits and raised the national debt by $2 trillion, national wealth rose by over $8 trillion at the same time. The lower tax rates also increased tax revenues, from $500 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion in 1990.
timeflies
Bottom line reason for Reagan's sainthood: Exactly which Republican president in the past 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 ... years can be admired? Nixon? That's why the GOP is now stretching all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt (1901 -1909.)
LutfiUSMC
Don't forget the Iran- Contra gate, Oliver North, cut and run from Beirut, the famous Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, supporting Saddam Hussein in Iraq on one side, and the Israeli were supporting the nasty Mullah on the other side in Iran , and that is the change I believe in.
FarLeftFist
Also the PATCO strike by the Air Traffic Controllers Union in 1981, they went on strike for higher wages and better benefits, Reagan's response: If they don't return to work within 48 hours all 13,000 will be terminated. True there was a no-strike clause in their contracts but instead of finding common ground he threatened hard-working U.S. citizens.
Grimmace
Yeah, we would have been much better off if Reagan had tried to find "common ground" with PATCO. That way we could have enjoyed many more of the same crippling strikes from public service unions that Britain enjoyed during the 1970's.
FarLeftFist
You forgot to mention SUCCESSFUL crippling strikes.
Grimmace
Successful for the unions perhaps. But not so successful for the rest of the country.
This user is no longer registered.
camper
Wulfe......You are having a little selective amnesia yourself. The 80's started with a low that was as low and probably lower than today. That recession was as a result of Jimmy Carters failed four years of on the job training. By the end of Reagans presidency the economy was booming. Your black lab could have gotten a job if he was'nt such a slacker. Yes he ran deficits, and spent huge sums on star war etc. and lots of other bad stuff. Lets give blame and credit where due.
Oenolicious
Hate to say something nice about Carter, but a lot of the domestic problems he had can be laid at the feet of the policies of the Johnson and Nixon/Ford administrations.
FarLeftFist
Carter's whole time in office he tried to find ways of alternative energy. Kinda wish he succeeded now don't we.
Grimmace
"Carter's whole time in office he tried to find ways of alternative energy. Kinda wish he succeeded now don't we."
Because after all Carter (or any President for that matter) are experts on physics, chemistry, business, and the energy industry. Therefore we should enable them to spend billions of taxpayer dollars in their search for the energy equivilant of the fountain of youth. And of course if the Government doesn't do it, then no businesses or individuals would ever try to invent new technologies on their own to shatter the status quo and make billions of dollars for themselves and their shareholders.
Yeah, if only we had enabled Jimmy Carter with a blank check and a second term we would now be able to drive a car with merely a solar panel affixed to the roof.
This user is no longer registered.
camper
FLF-The whole problem with the Carter administration was that they spent four years trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. You don't get any points for trying. This is the lesson our current president must learn and quickly. Jimmy Carter...Good man....very bad president. You can judge Reagan for the quality of his character but he was a very good president.
Grimmace
Connie, where exactly did the Republicans say that the 80's recession was COMPLETELY inherited from the prior administration? Sure, Republicans would peg many of the problems of the early 80's to Carter just as Democrats (and particularly the whiner-in-chief) try to peg their problems to Bush. But here's the thing, if Obama can match Reagan's performance through the balance of the decade then he stands to gain the credit that Reagan himself enjoyed. I'm betting that he can't even come close. I hope that I am wrong.
Waynoo
Yo Grimmace,
"Because after all Carter (or any President for that matter) are experts on physics, chemistry, business, and the energy industry."
Jimmy Carter did graduate work in nuclear physics...oh, I'm sorry, nucular fisicks...didn't want to eclipse the Bush year's vernacular.
greguva
I just have a word to say about Jimmy Carter. I feel that he has been wrongly maligned. There were clearly some problems with his presidency, notably a 6% increase in the inflation rate, but if you look at the facts, things actually weren't as bad under Carter as many people 'remember' them to be. US gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4% under Carter, more than it did under any Republican president in the last 60 years except for Nixon's first term. The change in federal surplus/deficit as a percent of GDP was better under Carter than all but 3 presidents since 1940, behind only Roosevelt's final term, Clinton, and Truman. Employment grew by 3% under Carter; the only presidencies with better employment growth since 1940 are Roosevelt's third term and LBJ. So, try not to be so hard on the man.
Grimmace
If the 1980's -- particularly the middle and late 1980's -- were a nightmare then please give me more nightmares. We should be so lucky to see an economy, employment, and stock market to match the 1980's during this current decade.
pennsykid2000
The 1990s were even better, thanks to Bill Clinton, the only president in the last 30 years to produce a balanced budget, after inheriting record deficits. Did Republicans appreciate that? Of course not, they impeached him. His successor, W, turned those surpluses into record deficits. Did Republicans attack him for that? Of course not, they renominated and then re-elected him. Repubs are the most hypocritical and unpatriotic voters there are.
Grimmace
Pennyskid,
No doubt that it was great to be President during the Holiday from History when the greatest threat to our country and economy was the Bosnian War and Y2K. A time when the stock market was booming and filling up the treasury with capital gains from such game changers like dogfood.com.
Unfortunately, Bush didn't have it so easy when we finally figured out that maybe every dot.com wasn't destined to settle on multi billion dollar valuations. A time when Middle East terrorism could no longer be ignored. A time when we figured out that maybe it wasn't such a good idea for everyone to own a home, etc.
I guess timing is everything, but a more nuanced study would probably conclude that maybe Bill Clinton wasn't such a defecit hawk and George Bush such a spendthrift. Perhaps it had a lot more to do with the times they resided in the White House and the challenges they were presented with.
And that doesn't relieve George Bush for spending too much nor wipe out completely the efforts of Clinton, but perhaps puts it into a little more perspective.
This user is no longer registered.
bloodgimp
Oh good god Grimmace, are you kidding me?! "A time when Middle East terrorism could no longer be ignored"? Bush did EVERYTHING he could do to ignore the warnings of 9/11. It's well documented how he refused to listen to Richard Clarke; how Ashcroft said he didn't want to hear anything about Al Qaeda. There really isn't 1 brain amoung the republican party is there.
gameon
So bloodgimp, I suppose you would have supported a inilateral invasion of Afgh. ,after only nine months of Bush being in office ?
Aranxa
But the music was great!
timeflies
Seriously, thanks to Uncle Ronnie, the only good thing about the 1980s was the music.
nk5otr
Reagan didn't know for certain how his appointees would vote on Roe v. Wade.
From Ronald Reagan's diary entry July 6, 1981 regarding Sanda Day O'Connor: "She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she'll make a good Justice."
LutfiUSMC
On Mr. mccain , does any one remember fort Ord in California and the deal that honest mccain did for his special friends .
periscope
Raygun was the typical Republican dolt. He believe in the bromide of "less government," instead of having all the government necessary to protect society.
Ergo: in addition to the biggest tax cuts for the rich, which is how he began, he also said that the dirtiest word you could call someone in his administration was, "A re-regulator," since Raygun was hell-bent on deregulating federal rules and told the Justice Dept. he didn't want them enforcing anti-trust laws.
All of this led to the first, record deficits in excess of $100 billion, it also led to the S&L debacle due to lack of regulation of these banks, and it led to the "too big to fail" banks and insurance companies that plague us to this day.
The lesson from all of this is that "tax cuts" and "deregulation" aren't panaceas for America, they are instead our ruin.
DakLak
The Republican No! Party is empty headed, short-sighted and has very convenient amnesia ... or they are just simply two-faced.
wareagle82
Basically, what we have here is illustrative of liberals like Peter - when faced with a bumbling president of their own who appears more clueless from one day to the next, they resort to misdirection and obfuscation. They attempt to change the subject from their guy's shortcomings to a man who isn't even alive anymore, let alone president. By the way, Pete, your side's patron saint - FDR - was a bit less than the sum of his parts, too, proloning the Depression rather than ending it with his prescriptions. Anyhoo....
As much as the left loves to pretend as though neither Reagan nor the 80s existed, let's recount reality:
--Reagan, working with a Dem majority in Congress, also pushed through tax cuts, sparking the largest peacetime expansion of our economy in US history, one that continued well into the 90s.
--Reagan's military buildup ultimately brought down the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain, making free nations of what had been sattelite slave states. This was done IN SPITE OF the appeasement-minded Dems, who thought Reagan a cowboy who would spark WW3. Didn't quite work out that way.
--speaking of selective memory, folks criticizing the Afghani battle with the Soviets is a good example of that. The Dems conveniently forget the Russians were the bad guys. Yes, the US fumbled the aftermath of the Soviet pullout but, at the time, helping Afghanistan was the right thing.
BostonGuy
Wareagle82 said" misdirection and obfuscation" but isn't that exactly what you are doing? What about this article is inaccurate? Reagan had some success and some failures like any president, but this article seems to be pointing out that the GOP of today has little insight of the GOP of yesterday. If the Tea party people were around during the 80's they would HAVE to protest Reagan and his policies if they are true to their philosophy's
rustywheeler
I guess not everyone read the article.
mcasio
"They attempt to change the subject from their guy's shortcomings to a man who isn't even alive anymore, let alone president. By the way, Pete, your side's patron saint - FDR - was a bit less than the sum of his parts, too, proloning the Depression rather than ending it with his prescriptions."
Did you really just bash liberals for criticizing Reagan because it changes the subject and he's no longer alive and then go after FDR in your next sentence? Do you even attempt consistency in your posts? Oh wait...my fault. I forgot FDR was still alive. Saw him the other day at a Dinky Donuts.
wareagle82
no, it's called an analogy. Rehashing FDR by current-day issues makes no more sense than revisiting Reagan. Presidents make decisions based on facts and assumptions known to them and a few others during a specific time. What seems a great idea decades ago may sound terrible today, or vice versa. There is simply no point in analyzing Reagan, FDR, or any other president unless the analysis is done in teh context of their time, something Peter is not doing.
mcasio
Sorry for my snarky tone, and thank you for a thoughtful response (I'm sure I don't deserve it). However, the effects of a president's actions aren't isolated to that time period. I'll give you that its impossible to predict the future, but isn't it ok to view presidential action through the spectrum of time. If a president's actions have a negative effect years later, then why shouldn't we rehash? Either way, I thought the overall point was apt: Conservatives (some) like to hold up Reagan as a beacon of conservative values when he doesn't really fit in with the current definition of them. I FDR would be an apt example from the left of someone who also wouldn't quite fit into today's liberal cannon as nicely as some would make it seem. No one is the saint their followers make them out to be.
albion
He was speaking to Elvis about the UFO alien that landed in Exeter NH.
Grimmace
Reagan wasn't a dictator. In order to get some of what he wanted he had to give some of what he didn't want. He dealt with mostly Democratic congresses during his tenure. Most of the things that Mr. Beinart lists are the things he had to compromise with Democrats on in order to get other things he wanted.
On Federal workers -- most of the new hires were a part of a vastly expanded military and conversely most of Clinton's loss of federal jobs were those same military jobs. Clinton got to cash in the peace dividend that Reagan enabled.
On amnesty... Reagan didn't want to grant the amnesty but unfortunately he comprised with the Democrats who were pushing for amnesty in exchange for "tougher" enforcement. That enforcement of course never came. That amnesty cost us somewhere around 2.3 million undeserving new Americans (almost twice what was predicted). A new amnesty will cost us an estimated 12 - 20 million new undeserving Americans and the reality will also probably be twice as high as forecasts as new illegals start the legal goldrush for the border in anticipation of the amnesty. Reagan later said that the amnesty was his greatest mistake in office and he was absolutely right.
Bottom line... The 1986 amnesty was a terrible mistake and if anything it only made the problem of illegal "immigration" even worse. We've had about a dozen mini-amnesties since and the problem only grows worse. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
SpacelySpaceSprockets
Compromise, now there's an ideal the current crop of Republicans cannot begin to understand or tolerate.
Grimmace
Compromise is not always good. The 1986 amnesty is but one example of a bad compromise.
The defecits that Reagan created were mostly a compromise with Democrats to increase spending in non-defense (mostly unconstitutional) areas of the budget. Were those compromises good -- especially now that libs are blaming Reagan for those very same defecits that his compromises with Democrats created?
Grimmace
The bottom line is thus...
If Reagan was such the un-conservative that this one sided recitatation professess then all the libs that inhabit this site would be lauding his Presidency rather than castigating him as the beginning of the end of America's greatness.
Does the reality of Reagan's history stand up to some of the mythology that Conservatives have created? Of course not. And that is no different than the fond memories liberals have for FDR, JFK, and LBJ.
libfixer
Well put. It's like I'm watching my brother's kids jump up and down, getting excited about something they can't even comprehend.
pmc617
As "an angry white geezer", I appreciate knowing someone remembers The Gipper for what he was, a big government enthusiast,
BostonGuy
Wareagle82 said" misdirection and obfuscation" but isn't that exactly what you are doing? What about this article is inaccurate? Reagan had some success and some failures like any president, but this article seems to be pointing out that the GOP of today has little insight of the GOP of yesterday. If the Tea party people were around during the 80's they would HAVE to protest Reagan and his policies if they were to remain true to their philosophy's
sonofloud
Don't forget Reagan also created the homeless problem, first in California as governor and than nationally as president, by drastically cutting the HUD budget and closing psychiatric hospitals.
This user is no longer registered.
Cforchange
yes indeedy, those and similar nation wide tax cuts have made this America plenty less safe virtually everywhere. There's the college campus like VA Tech, victims of longterm kidnappings like Jaycee Dugard, or the half dozen women killed at their health club, multiple police killed at the neighborhood coffee shop.... examples are too plenty.
The spate of work place murder sprees and the explosion of police being murdered while they attempt to enforce our laws attracts some attention but little action. The routine is similar to the revelation of a secret personal failure like a Tiger or Edwardsgate or even comparable to your sport's team earning championship title - the public rises up and chatters until they're numbing purple and then quiet. They're all pooped out from the gosip. But it is just incredible that the general public does not protest our failed system in specifics.
Even the military on their own US home base are not free of violence and unnecessary deaths caused by those who should be medicated, supervised and yes, institutionalized. Incarcerating does not work - it's more expensive and they're entitiled to parole.
Maybe if those budget changes were short term intead of 30 years permanent we would not have evolved to the low place where we rest today. Are we so polarized that we can't make policy adjustments that are good for our general being. How can small government in this case be justified when too many citizens and their safety are at risk?
I loved Ronnie and still do but that doesn't mean you stick you head in the sand and ignore immediate problems in order to adhere to some fabled ideology. Every good leader addresses pressing issues at hand - it is mystifying logic as to why the GOP machine continues pressing for a 30 year old strategy somehow trying to ignore or shout over the obvious negative changes.
Somehow I perceived issues of public health and safety to be a top priorty of our government. But silly me, it leads to darn socialism. Imagine that.
bulldog17
Reagan was a better man and a better idea than has been anybody on the left in decades. The poor dumb bastards on the left were so confused and remain that way today.
bulldog17
I would say, son, let us worry about it. We really do not require your attempted perversions of history. You libs just cannot get over the idea that Reagan was and is a far better idea.
mcasio
Reagan was an idea? You just blew my tiny mind. I always thought of him as a person, or at least a drooling rock.
timeflies
He did have nice hair. But then so does a Chia Pet.
One thing Reagan will always be reviled for is his homophobic inaction on the AIDS epidemic. No amount of Republican revisionism can touch that gaping lack of character.
dana64
TEAGAN Was the ANTI-COMMUNIST IDEA..............and that man behind his rise whose name i forget ......
dana64
anti-Government idea who grew the government..................he duped you all with his smile.
but i liked his Tear down this wall............
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.