Reagan, Obama, and Agents of Change

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

I’m an Edwards supporter (my avatar is switched to the Packers until after they win the Super Bowl), but I feel like somebody needs to defend Obama for his comments concerning Ronald Reagan as a change agent. Even my own candidate has taken Obama to task for it. “This President,” Edwards said, referring to himself, “will never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change.”

While that sort of thing might score points with the party faithful, it’s not being very true to the study of history. Ronald Reagan and the Movement Conservatives who got him in the White House in the first place were undoubtedly successful in reshaping the nature of the federal government. They started the process of strangling the last breath from centrist and progressive Republicanism (recall that Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency) forged an alliance with Christian fundamentalists that exists (albeit frayed) to this day, and set us on a path toward a decade of Republican control of Congress.

Following the Roosevelt Administration, two generations of Americans had believed in the power of government to do good in society, but many of those same Americans (Reagan Democrats) were convinced that government is an unnecessary evil, and that we would be much better off by allowing the marketplace to regulate itself. Corporations shipped jobs to Mexico and Singapore by the thousands, and rather than burn down their gated communities, the middle class gratefully lowered the capital gains tax. The Middle Class was created by acts of political principle, but Reagan convinced the Middle Class to abandon these principles. Ronald Reagan, not an agent of change?!

Prior to 1980, Christian Fundamentalists would never have supported a Hollywood actor for President, particularly one who was divorced and an adulterer who had impregnated his second wife before marrying her. Reagan was a man of no discernable faith, other than his actor’s ability to repeat bible verses on cue, and who was so awestruck by an audience with Pope John Paul II that he fell asleep in the middle of the conversation. He managed to turn the Southern Baptists against Jimmy Carter, a devout Baptist and, to this day, an Elder and Sunday School teacher at his home church in Plains. Ronald Reagan, not an agent of change?!

The fact is the Richard Nixon changed the country, but not the government. His stunning duplicity brought an end to the average person’s faith in our public institutions – ironically setting the stage for the next generation of conservative demagogues. There was some legislation that resulted from all his nefarious activities, but none of it has been particularly effective. The early steps toward campaign finance reform seem quaint compared to the billions being spent buying and selling candidates today. And the War Powers Act, meant to reign in the President’s power to wage war, has been less than spectacularly successful.

And Bill Clinton’s place in history may be even less significant. It’s likely that he might only be remembered as part of the first husband-and-wife team of American Presidents. And I say this hoping that one of his key achievements, the North American Free Trade Agreement, will be scrapped and left in the Port-O-John of History. We had prosperity during the Clinton years (good) and we had cordial relationships with other nations (good) and we had fiscal responsibility (good). But these accomplishments are only “great” in comparison to the disaster that the Bush Administration unleashed on an unsuspecting country. I give Clinton partial credit that he was able to accomplish what he did with an openly hostile Congress. But real change? Considering the direction where the country went in 2000 (and 2004) it would be had to make that argument.

So stipulating that not all changes are for the better, I would say that Obama is correct in using Reagan an example of how one man can change a country.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Thanks for a well-reasoned analysis of this.

Reason and critical thinking on DU have been like water in a desert for a few weeks now (hell, for a few months).

Recommended!

[TwilightGardener]

2. Good post. Any of our candidates would do well to figure out

how Reagan did what he did with so much overwhelming support, even from blue-collar Democrats--it had little to do with specific policy, but everything to do with politics and the national mood in the 70's. Being able to harness the national craving for a change in direction, to bring about an equivalent revolution of progressive government that has an impact for the next 20 or 30 years, is something we should be hoping for--that's why it's important to understand history, and Reagan's appeal.

[Adelante]

3. Thank you so much

It's a pleasure to read a balanced view instead of a political slam for a change.

[OneGrassRoot]

4. Very well-reasoned post. I want to slip in quickly before vitriol starts...

Many were stunned at what we perceived (and note that I'm saying "we perceived") as blatant pandering to the right using someone who is a hot button issue for liberals (no doubt about THAT one), at the expensive of the democrats.

I don't think many of us dispute that the democrats have not been as successful in the "rallying" aspect as Republicans, and had Obama clarified his statement with what you said, "stipulating that not all changes are for the better" - knowing good and well it IS a hot button name - I don't believe this blowup would have occurred.

I don't dispute that people with horrible agendas can be effective leaders. They all pander; I just feel Obama pandered in a way that was very ill-advised and divisive.

Damn...that took too long because of interruptions, so I'm sure vitriol has entered the picture by now...lol.

:hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

5. and....

the reason I'm posting so much about this issue when I've never engaged in things about other candidates is this:


I can deal with others not AGREEING with the fact that so many have been upset by this - for various reasons, such as yours, others perceive it and have reacted differently...or not reacted at all.

What upsets me most is that so many seem to NOT UNDERSTAND why we have been affected so strongly by this statement.

I can understand the "other side" of this equation, even though I don't agree with it at all. But so many don't seem to get the decades of history of why we have been upset by this.

[SteppingRazor]

6. The irony is that both sides are saying the other doesn't know or want to know history...

As you've just said, your side of the argument is pissed off that the other side doesn't "seem to get the decades of history of why we have been upset by this."


Meanwhile, the OP states, "While that sort of thing might score points with the party faithful, it’s not being very true to the study of history. Ronald Reagan and the Movement Conservatives who got him in the White House in the first place were undoubtedly successful in reshaping the nature of the federal government."


Amazing that two sides of an issue can be angry at each other, supposedly for committing the exact same sin of not knowing history, no? It's like assassinating a murderer or stealing from a thief.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. Yes...

and this OP gave a good example of a well-reasoned post. And I can certainly see that perspective, but can disagree with how Senator Obama went about making his point.

Many Obama supporters, however, have seemed to not understand the other side of the equation...they don't seem to be aware of the hot-button name that is Ronald Reagan and why the way Senator Obama said what he said has resulted in such a reaction. And this is not a parsing issue on my part; as I've stated, I believe it was a calculated statement with a certain intent, one which I happen to feel was ill-advised. But, again, that is my perception and opinion as someone for whom Obama has been my second choice.

But, yes, your point is well taken.

[SteppingRazor]

8. I definitely understand your point.

I think the point may not be as relevant, though, for the people Obama is trying to court. And by that, I don't just mean independents, but also the youth vote. After all, the youngest voters in the 2008 presidential election were born in 1990. For them, even the Clinton presidency is a hazy memory, and the Reagan presidency might as well be Nixon -- a disaster, sure, but one that can be looked at through the objective lens of history, rather than the visceral reaction of someone who lived through the times. Of course, such a general statement won't be correct all the time -- I know plenty of people my age and younger (I'm 30) that can't stand Reagan, despite either barely remembering the fellow or else having no memory of him at all.

[OneGrassRoot]

9. Yes, and that in and of itself is disturbing to we "old folks" ... lol

I'm 44, but I'm feeling soooooooo old here lately.

I definitely realize his comment won't get the same reaction outside of DU. And, while it's disturbing that many younger people aren't aware of the history, that's life. And I've always wondered if most of those here who don't understand the other side of the equation are indeed under 35 or so. That would explain a lot to me (and I don't mean that as a diss at all).

But, as far as the candidate vetting process, this has been a significant moment for some here. No doubt, many more are to come, so we all need to pay attention to all the candidates. Hopefully we can discuss these things as they arise and keep an open mind, trying to see all sides, so we can come to an understanding within ourselves about the candidates and understand others will arrive at a different place within themselves. I've engaged in this discussion because of my sincere concern and because I have nowhere else to go to discuss things.

;-)

[SteppingRazor]

11. I've got zero evidence, but I would hypothesize that you're correct...

in saying that many of the people who are dismissing the anti-Obama side of this are generally younger than the people who are expressing the most outrage over it.

I tend to agree with the side expressed in the OP, but I think it's foolish to just dismiss the concerns of the other side out of hand. By the same token, of course, I think a lot of people on the other side would also do well to walk a step in the shoes of those they disagree with. But, as with most emotionally charged issues, that's a difficult thing to do.

Anyway, here's to discussing the situation rationally. :toast:

[elana i am]

18. maybe so

i was 6 years old when reagan was elected, and so i really don't have any feelings one way or the other about him. i know from government and history classes he was a right-wing looney, but i wasn't old enough at the time to be self-aware let alone politically aware.

even so, i always assumed that us liberal folk were very cerebral and pragmatic and logical about things. i didn't find this place until after the 04 primaries, too late to see the catfighting. i'm seeing the ugly side of DU now.

now what i can understand is a visceral hatred for all things clinton, because that's where i might be prone to lose rationality. so i try to stay away from discussing them.

[zulchzulu]

10. K&R and yes, the Pack is getting that trophy!!!

It's like saying we need to have a quarterback like Tom Brady...without the butthead mentality of Tom Brady. :rofl:

Here's to Brett! :toast:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. We've managed to avoid the political flame war...

But stepped right into the Playoffs Flamewar!

Ah well. Everybody at work here is dressed in Packers regalia, and we're having a "tailgate party" in our conference room at lunch today -- too freaking cold to do it outside.

[babylonsister]

13. Love your post, but

would you please let Eli have his 'Seinfeld', and could you warm it up a bit there for my guys? :evilgrin:

Good luck Sunday! :toast:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. I heard about that...

For those who didn't, a local TV station is cancelling its regularly-schedule airing of "Seinfeld" reruns this weekend because they heard that the sitcom is Eli Manning's favorite show. There was some discussion of airing a Vince Lombardi documentary in its place.

Now THAT'S homefield advantage!

Can't do anything about the temperature unless Global Warming gets really out of hand over the next 48 hours -- DAMN YOU, AL GORE!!!

[babylonsister]

17. It IS getting serious!

http://gothamist.com/2008/01/18/seinfeld_offers.php

Seinfeld Offers Eli Manning Something About Nothing

After news that a Green Bay Fox affiliate would not be showing Seinfeld because it's Giants quarterback Eli Manning's favorite show (the Giants are heading to the land of Cheeseheads to play the Packers in the NFC Championship), it was up to Jerry Seinfeld to rise to the occasion. The Mets fan told the Post, "I'm going to send Eli a complete collection of 'Seinfeld' DVDs and a partial collection of 'Hogan's Heroes' for inspiration!" We think Eli's gonna have to ask Archie about Hogan's Heroes.

The Giants' Michael Strahan also scoffed at the attempt to get at Manning, "Don't they have 'Seinfeld' DVDs? We can always watch 'Seinfeld.' If they think that's going to mess him up, I should probably move to Green Bay. I could be very successful there with some of my ideas."

WLUK general manager Jay Zollar, who had told viewers, "No Seinfeld for you!" in light of Manning's impending arrival, said, "We never went into this with the intention of thinking that this was anything but fun and lighthearted." Hmm - maybe if the Giants win, WLUK should be made to air a Seinfeld marathon.

Mayor Bloomberg and Green Bay Mayor Schmitt have a friendly wager on the game - it's cheesecake vs. cheese-wedge sunglasses!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

19. New York Cheesecake?

Hell, I'd throw the game for some free cheesecake!

[thoughtcrime1984]

29. I agree with your post, and your choice of NFL team

Well done, and go Packers!

[OneGrassRoot]

23. Jumping in to give props to Brett and the Packers!!!

We're seeing eye to eye on this issue. LOL.

I'm a Steelers gal, #1...but Packers #2. How can anyone NOT pull for Brett?




:toast:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. I was always a fan of Bill Cowher

Best face in all of professional sports. That's face that was born to be a coach.

[elana i am]

14. repost

i agree. and i'll just repost what i replied elsewhere:

ok well, i was 6 years old when reagan was elected, but i remember what i learned in government and history classes. everything he says in that clip can be verified and supported with facts. reagan WAS a unifying and iconographic figure for the republicans and as such had the support needed to affect much sweeping change.

from that statement i glean obama wants to be the liberals' answer to the conservatives' reagan. nowhere does he say he admires reagan's policies and positions. i have common sense enough to know it's understood obama does not agree with, condone or admire reagan's policies. i mean come ON! their ideologies are diametrically opposed.

that said, somehow, some way, reagan hit on a magic formula for touching people and eliciting their admiration and trust that propelled him into the political stratosphere. obama wants to be the one to do that now. what's wrong with that?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. We haven't studied the conservative movement enough...

Now we can do without the lies and religious dogma, but I think there's a lot of "back office" stuff that we can learn about their ascent. You have to acknowledge the genius in their wrapping a poisonous economic agenda in a candy-coated social agenda, and then convincing millions of people to swallow it. And then defend it even after it caused them to lose their jobs and their homes.

Totally. Fucking. Brilliant.

Evil. But Brilliant.

[Barack_America]

20. Thank you very much for this well-reasoned analysis.

I think that it's shame that so many people around let their enthusiasm for their candidate cloud their undertanding of history. It gives me great relief to read a post that highlights that at least some posters have not done this.

I do wonder if people's ability to comprehend this is at all regional. I grew up in the counties that defined the Reagan Democrats, so I immediately understand the affinity that many still feel for him and the sense in appealing to them to come "home", so to speak.

I'm always happy when I see a thoughtful, intelligent post from a fellow midwesterner (irregardless of our loyalties, football-wise ;) )

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. My new Executive VP is from Detroit

and worked in the auto industry for years. She actually GOT A TICKET to last week's playoff game against the Seahawks. She told us that when she was given the ticket, she didn't know what it was because, as a Lions fan, she'd never seen a playoff ticket before. "I thought it was a bookmark," she said.

But I'm familiar with your experience, having lived for several years in Cincinnati. A friend who was the political director for the IBEW there said that it drove him nuts that dues-paying union members would vote Republican over gun control. "Try buying bullets after you're out of a job," he would tell them. But it rarely did any good.

[Barack_America]

24. Can I ask you a question about the debate...

Do you think that Hillary made a mistake when she kept repeating "illegal guns" instead of "guns obtained illegally"?

That immediately perked my ears up considering the number of "sportsmen" where I grew up (even though most of them wouldn't recognize a deer camp if they saw one). Anywho, these sportsmen are absolutely paranoid about their 2nd amendment rights and will flip out if you call a gun "illegal". They seem to think that's code for "destroy the 2nd amendment". In any case, she spoke about placing more restrictions on gun owners, which certainly didn't help her. But when she kept driving that message home saying by saying "illegal guns", I winced. I actually thought, "well there goes the general election if she's nominated". She's never been popular with that demographic, but if she had managed to win over a few, I think they just changed their minds.

Curious about your thoughts.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

26. Good Idea, Wrong Semantics...

I think she was trying to emphasize a desire to look at gun control through the prism of law enforcement. Go after the underground firearms trade and punish people who commit crimes with guns, rather than advocate a national system of registration (which is an anathema to many blue-collar gun owners). But using the phrase "illegal guns" was a decidedly bad idea -- and I think you're right that if she gets the nomination, that phrase is going to come back to haunt her.

Even more than abortion, gun control is an issue that drives blue collar, rural voters (who ought to be love our economic agenda) away from the Democratic Party. My wife's uncle is retired veteran and an avid hunter. He's also a lifelong union member who always votes Democratic. But one evening at deer camp a couple of years ago, he shook his head and asked me, "How did the Democratic Party ever get on the wrong side of guns? We're supposed to be the party of the working man, so why are they trying to take our guns away?"

To borrow from John Edwards, there are "Two Americas" when it comes to gun control. In urban areas, where we see that carnage caused by "illegal guns," gun control is nothing less than an attempt at survival. In rural areas, where there are probably more guns per capita, but less gun crime, gun control is an attempt to destroy a significant part of their culture.

I applaud Hillary for trying to change the terms of the debate, and I think the party as a whole needs to reframe this debate.

[Barack_America]

21. this deserves a kick. n/t

[progdog]

25. Thank You!

[redqueen]

28. It's not one comment in a bubble... that's the problem.

It's also the fact that he called the Republican party the "Party of ideas" since Clinton was elected, and his DLC quotes from his book...


Sorry... the reaction to his comments isn't just happening here... and no amount of wishing it were just misunderstanding or "faux" outrage will make it better.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

30. The Party of Ideas...

I would have to agree with Obama on that one. You may not agree with those ideas (I sure as hell don't) but the fact is that conservatives created a set of governing principles that has all but overturned the New Deal. Conservative ideas have, regrettably, kicked our ass over the past decade. When Bill Clinton famously proclaimed a decade ago that "the era of Big Govermnemt is over," he was effectively declaring that conservative ideas had won the day.

And now? The Democrats have a congressional majority back, not because we've have won back the hearts and minds of the voters with a new and more attractive set of ideas, but because George W. Bush is such a cataclysmic failure that anybody and anything seems good by comparison. Look at health care. With the notable exception of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic candidates all pussy-foot around the size and scope of the program -- it's a Big Government Program, but nobody wants to own that. We're still running scared when it comes to conservative ideas.

And while we're giving credit to Reagan, let's not forget his 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. If the Democrats around here could only learn that one!

[redqueen]

31. I disagree srongly. Not just with the ideas, but the notion that they're "The party of ideas".

Just because they have the Mighty Wurlitzer at their beck and call to trash our ideas and vault theirs into near-dogma, does not mean that it is true.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. Their ideas kicked our ass...

For nearly three decades, our ideas have been in retreat. The fact is that now have to re-introduce the middle class to the concept that government can play a powerful role in improving their lives. We have to rebuild the whole notion of the common good. Welcome to 1925.

If you don't want to give the Repukes credit for what they managed to achieve, that's your perogative. Me? I'd rather learn from my enemies than dismiss them in a snit. I want to make damned sure that my great-grandchildren don't have to (again) create a strong middle class in this country.

[redqueen]

33. A snit?

For nearly three decades, THIS PARTY has been in retreat... chasing after the right, and dragging the whole country with them.

The fact is that we now have a corporate-controlled media that will put us at a disadvantage, no matter how hard we fight.

To give repukes credit for what corporations have made possible is IMO nonsensical.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. A snit...

It is what it is. What's nonsensical is allowing our outrage to blind us to what happened to this country over the last thirty years.

Now after more than seven years of George W. Bush, I'm not going to deny you the legitimate need for catharsis. We're all pissed off here. But we need to be pretty cold-blooded about creating an alternative message and rebuilding the progressive majority that we had during the previous generation.

Now here's where I would find fault with Obama on this issue. While it's honest to say what he said, can you possibly imagine Ronald Reagan giving credit to FDR for anything or acknowledging that Jimmy Carter had any good ideas? Not hardly.

But that doesn't mean he's a closet Republican or that I won't vote for him if he gets the nomination.

[redqueen]

35. I would never say he's a closet Republican... and of course I'll vote for him.

And I agree with you that no republican would ever give credit to ANY democrat for any good ideas.

However I still bristle at the notion that the repuke party has done anything to give them credit for... even the "ideas", as they had the M$M propping them up and helping them to catapult the propoganda the *entire* time.

If *any* group deserves credit, it's the M$M / Corporatocracy. Not repukes. Repukes are only their puppets.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

36. Giving Credit...

I guess I don't really make any distinction between the Republican Party and the Corporatocracy. And I guess if we're splitting hairs that way, certainly we shouldn't give Reagan any credit at all, as he was only their paid spokesman.

As Bob Goldthwait once remarked, "Blaming Reagan for the way the country is run is like blaming Ronald McDonald because you don't like your hamburger -- neither one of them is really in charge."