The Reagan Myth

Opinion Journal ^ | July 17, 2006 | Fred Barnes

[The Raven]

-snip-

Liberals pretend the Reagan years--in contrast to the Bush years--were a golden idyll of collaboration between congressional Democrats and a not-so-conservative president. When Reagan died in 2004, John Kerry recalled having admired his political skills and liked him personally. "I had quite a few meetings with him," Mr. Kerry told reporters. "I met with Reagan a lot more than I've met with this president."

-snip-

[RoadTest]

I admired Reagan a lot, but today we know he made a very big mistake in telling Israel to get out of Lebanon when they had conquered it. Let's face it: either Israel runs Lebanon or Syria does - one or the other.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

And so, by being claimed by politicians of all stripes as one of their own, Reagan enters the pantheon of the great Presidents.

[tcostell]

I'm sure there are a long list of small mistakes made by the Reagan administration that can now be found with the gift of 20/20 hindsight. But the thing I remember most about those years was the personal differences between Reagan and Carter.

On the whole, I say, it was Reagan who shot Liberty Valance, and that's good enough for me.

[rhombus]

And so, by being claimed by politicians of all stripes as one of their own, Reagan enters the pantheon of the great Presidents.

Claimed or just used? Either way I agree it is a sign of greatness. What politician does not try and use the words of the founding fathers? However, I'm glad someone took on the issue of St. Reagan being used as a way to Bush-bash.

[rhombus]

But the thing I remember most about those years was the personal differences between Reagan and Carter.

Indeed yes. And should we not recall the contrast between Clinton and Bush as well?

[gondramB]

Well the liberal are overstating this...

But Reagan had three advantages over Bush43.

1. The Iranian hostages were freed the day he was inaugurated.

2. Even Democrats were tired of Carter

3. Reagan was a once in a generation speaker.

Then he was shot, lived and came back even stronger and brought the iron curtain down while lowering taxes. Even people who didn't like his politics had grudging admiration for at least some of that.

[gondramB]

tcostell: But the thing I remember most about those years was the personal differences between Reagan and Carter.

rhombus: Indeed yes. And should we not recall the contrast between Clinton and Bush as well?


Yes, but... The Democrats weren't tired of Clinton in the way they were fed up with Carter.

[rhombus]

Yes, but... The Democrats weren't tired of Clinton in the way they were fed up with Carter.

Which makes what Bush had to do even harder.

[gondramB]

>>Which makes what Bush had to do even harder.<<

Agreed. And whoever comes next is gonna have a hard time too - the country is really split.

[rhombus]

Agreed. And whoever comes next is gonna have a hard time too - the country is really split.

I agree that there is a split in the country. However, I won't go so far as to say it is the worst it has ever been. Geez, we had a civil war. You can't get much more of a split than that. Also we've yet to see members of Congress physically attacking each other which we've also seen in the past. The appearance that we are split in terrible ways is promulgated by the old guard main stream media because they have lost their ability to define unity of thought. With the rise of alternative news sources we are finally free to enjoy that split rather than suffer from the pronouncements of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather et al.

[tcostell]

I've maintained for a long time that for the Democrats, Clinton was the exception. He was a man of such strong personal charm that he was able to sell the same old tired class warfare and socialism package of the left to the Democrats one last time. Then he maintained his popularity by creating a false wealth through tax code changes. Then because he had little to no principles, whatever worked well he took credit for, and whatever failed he blamed other for.

But with him gone now, all we have left is the Democratic party of Jimmy Carter.

Universal appeasement

The peace of unilateral surrender instead of conflict which leads to victory.

Deeply held shame of America and all that it stands for.

Socialism, socialism, socialism.

The weakening of America's strategic position in international diplomacy.

It goes on and on. Howard Dean isn't the next Clinton... he's the next Carter. John Kerry isn't even the last Carter. Murtha IS the last Carter, but without the education. Pelosi, Boxer, Edwards.... they lack any real vision so they go with what they know, These are CARTER's DEMOCRATS.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

And should we not recall the contrast between Clinton and Bush as well?

There isn't as much. I'm no fan of Clinton, but he wasn't a disaster on the scale of Carter. Once he abandoned the idea of universal health care, he basically let the economy trundle on on its own. While he let a lot of things slide foreign policy-wise, he didn't actively court disaster like Carter did.

I've a feeling Clinton will go down in history like Calvin Coolidge: Admired by the history-minded within his party, but otherwise dismissed, far from a national icon. Carter is going down like Harding: An embarrassment best forgotten.

The result is even if Bush were as great as Reagan -- which he's not -- the contrast between Bush and Clinton would be less than that between Reagan and Carter.

[Dixie Yooper]

"I admired Reagan a lot, but today we know he made a very big mistake in telling Israel to get out of Lebanon when they had conquered it"

Reagan helped Israel pull out of Lebanon by using our troops to take over their positions. It was never Israel's intention to occupy Lebanon since Israel is a small country with limited resources. Conquering a country is one thing, occupying it successfully is next to impossible.

[gondramB]

>>I agree that there is a split in the country. However, I won't go so far as to say it is the worst it has ever been. Geez, we had a civil war. You can't get much more of a split than that.<<

And in 1800 we almost lost the Republic. In the 60's it seemed like the generations would be perpetually at war. This country is resilient.

BTW, down here we refer to that conflict in the 1860's as the War of Northern Aggression or The War between the states when we are trying to be polite. :)

[Coldwater Creek]

Whatever Reagan did in Lebanon, he forgot to avenge our Marines!!!!

[RobFromGa]

Agreed. And whoever comes next is gonna have a hard time too - the country is really split.

After the Nov 8, 2006 mass liberal hate-fest, this will be less of a problem, as the loudest-barking moonbats will finish off the remaining credibility of the left once and for all.

[rhombus]

There isn't as much. I'm no fan of Clinton, but he wasn't a disaster on the scale of Carter.

I fully agree. And he's just grown worse with age. Carter's ineptitude just made it easier for Regan once in office.

The result is even if Bush were as great as Reagan -- which he's not -- the contrast between Bush and Clinton would be less than that between Reagan and Carter.

I think you are making this judgement WAY TOO SOON and perhaps even and apples to oranges comparison since they both faced exremely different challenges. As you point out, Reagan had an easier row to hoe due to Carter being worse than Clinton. The advantage Bush had over Reagan is the rise of a more diversified media to help get the message out. Reagan's advantage as an actor served him well against the traditional media that was aligned against him. But a silver tongue alone does not greatness make. For now and the next 2 years Bush is our guy. Let our children's children worry about greatness provided they're not wearing Burkas.

[paudio]

A very good article. It's been only less than 2 decades since Reagan era, yet there are so many myths about Reagan. Both from left and right.

[rhombus]

BTW, down here we refer to that conflict in the 1860's as the War of Northern Aggression or The War between the states when we are trying to be polite. :)

Hah! :-) Next time the South decides to make a stand for "states rights" pick a better issue. By standing up for cheap (free) labor the South did more to hurt States rights that ever before in the history of the Republic. Couldn't they have just hired illegal Mexicans to do the jobs Americans weren't willing to do? /sarc

Hey, I'm just kidding. Don't call out Nathan Bedford Forest's insurgents on me, OK? /more sarc