Ronald and Nancy Reagan dealt with the aftermath of a 1983 Beirut bombing.
In a season that has seen GOP candidates vying for Ronald Reagan's mantle, two authors say the former president wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Ronald Reagan was one of us, a Cold War anti-communist union leader in the 1940s when neocons were still in mourning for Leon Trotsky. He was a militant free-market conservative in the 1950s when they were still wild about Harry. He was a fiery Goldwaterite in the 1960s when neocons were going all the way with LBJ.
None can say with certitude how Reagan would have responded to 9-11. Yet, it is hard to believe he would have invaded Iraq, absent hard evidence of Saddam's involvement in Sept. 11. For, in spite of Reagan's reputation as a cowboy, prudence – that most conservative of virtues – was a hallmark of his presidency in the Cold War conflict.
Would Reagan "walk out of" Iraq? Far from clear. He scurried out of Lebanon in 1984 after things got hot there. During the Reagan years, the United States was pro-Iraq in its war against Iran, although we also sold weapons to Iran to raise money for a terrorist war we were secretly financing in Nicaragua, while denouncing terrorism. It's hard to find any "unshakable set of principles" in this mess.
Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan, but some conservatives think he's OK.
Republicans in 22 states face a great dilemma as they go to the polls Tuesday: Who is the better conservative? Four candidates are working hard to make the case to be the GOP standard-bearer. But it's turning out to be a tougher sell than any of them imagined.
But the real fight is between John McCain and Mitt Romney, who are battling for Ronald Reagan's mantle. Neither man comes close to the ideal, which leaves many conservatives -- including several prominent right-wing talk show hosts and pundits -- wondering what the future holds for their ideas.
Is conservatism fading from the party of Lincoln and Reagan? Is the Republican party moderating or abandoning the principles that made it a success?
If this is, as many argue, a "long war", then in a two-party system, don't the Democrats at some point have to take joint ownership of it?Parties don't wage wars, nations do. One could make the case that the war, rather than being the sole overwhelming reason for electing McCain, is actually a compelling reason, given their convergence on domestic issues, why you might as well stick Hillary in there. I don't think Mrs. Clinton will be so eager to lose the thing once it's on her watch.
Anyway, just a glum thought. I'm now going to sleep in hopes that, when I wake up, it will all be a bad dream and Calvin Coolidge will be ahead in the primaries.
If John McCain secures the Republican presidential nomination, his victory would signal a revolution in American politics—a divorce, after a 28-year marriage, between the Republican and conservative establishments.
McCain would be the first Republican nominee since Gerald Ford in 1976 to win despite opposition from organized conservatism, and also the first whose base in Republican primaries rested on the party’s center and its dwindling left. McCain is winning despite conservatives, not because of them.
The next occupant of this house will be a problem-solver, if younger voters have their say.
Will the 2008 presidential election turn out to be the last hurrah for the ideals of the Baby Boomer generation?
More and more, the discussion on the campaign trail is turning away from idealism and toward a discussion of "pragmatism." Stressing practice over theory is nowhere more pronounced than with younger voters. Ben Lazarus, a Yale sophomore who is active in the student group for Obama, put it this way: "There's a new sensibility in how our generation looks at politics and elections. We look at people who are genuine. We look at people who are problem-solvers."
Would America be better off with a president who appeals to people's ideals? Or does the United States need a chief executive who is a practical problem-solver first and foremost?
Anyone who saw the Democratic debate Thursday night can envision the new future on their horizon: identity politics and self-congratulation over race and gender; tax increases (back to estate tax hikes, income tax rates go up, payroll tax caps lifted, etc); internationalism for the sake of internationalism (defer to the U.N., E.U., apologies for past conduct, contextualizing terrorism), more government (teachers, the poor, the middle class, etc. all need new government programs to add to those we have), and legislating judges (more Ginsburgs and Breyers).
American history suggests that about every 80 years, a civic (or Joshua) generation, emerges to make over the country after a period of upheaval caused by the fervor of an idealist (or Moses) generation. In 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932 and 1968, as members of new generations -- alternately idealist and civic -- began to vote in large numbers, the United States experienced major political shifts. This year, the civic-minded millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, are coming of age and promising to turn the political landscape, currently defined by idealist baby boomers such as Clinton and George W. Bush, upside down.
They're smiling, not bearing their fangs.
"If you get endorsed by the New York Times," Mitt Romney told John McCain at Wednesday night's Republican debate, "you're probably not a conservative."
"Let me note that I was endorsed by your two hometown newspapers who know you best," McCain replied, "including the very conservative Boston Herald who know you well better than anybody."
A newspaper's editorial endorsement may not be the last word on who is or isn't a conservative, but the question of who's the most conservative Republican contender for the White House is spurring hot debate. As it should.
Conservatives among want two assurances: first, that McCain would veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress; second, that he would not emulate Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush in naming liberal Supreme Court justices such as John Paul Stevens and David Souter.
It should be easy for conservatives to get over their McCain issues since overall he was always the most conservative of the major candidates, but of course if these pundits were rational they would already see that.
And if Democrats give the GOP the gift of Clinton, which still seems very likely, these pundits can pretty much ignore McCain and focus entirely on Hillary Clinton's purported Trotskyism, murder and drug running operations, "shrillness," her husband's penis, etc.
Is it morning in America again, again?
It's been two decades since Ronald Reagan left office, but he still looms large in the American political imagination. During Tuesday's Democratic debate, one conservative observer chortled: "Democrats are talking about Reagan more than Republicans do."
And to be sure, the GOP campaign season has -- in part -- been a contest to see who can measure up to Reagan's legacy and keep together his old coalition of economic and social conservatives.
Why does Ronald Reagan still dominate our politics?
Conservatives might think of John McCain as our potential TR, Mike Huckabee as our potential FDR, and Mitt Romney as our potential JFK. Support the one you prefer.
But don't work yourself into a frenzy against the others. Let the best man emerge from a challenging primary process. And if there is no clear-cut winner, then the delegates at the GOP convention can turn on the fifth ballot to an obvious fallback compromise candidate, one who would be just fine with conservatives--Dick Cheney!
Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.
And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.
