Posted on 09/18/2007 10:44:03 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As soon as former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson announced that he was mulling over a run for the presidency, pundits and voters alike began to announce comparisons between Thompson and Ronald Reagan. Now that Thompson is in the race with both feet, it is worthwhile to examine more carefully ways in which he is or is not somehow parallel to Reagan.
It is important to note at the outset that Republicans have to come to grips with the facts that there was only one Reagan and that he was not perfect (though he was very, very good). Constant seeking after the "next Reagan," followed by regular disappointment, is an indication that many Republicans and conservatives have simultaneously a) concluded that Reagan is easy to replicate and b) so idealized him that no candidate can actually meet the expectations that result. This makes them look silly.
Nevertheless, Reagan was the most successful Republican politician in the second half of the twentieth century. Just as great caution should greet any proclamations of the "next Reagan," it would be foolish for Republicans not to think about how his successes might be repeated, and whether particular candidates offer a reasonable prospect of contributing to that repetition.
There are some obvious ways in which Thompson does not parallel Reagan as a candidate. The first is that he does not have executive experience, unlike Reagan's two terms as governor of California. The Tennessean will have to overcome the nation's recent reluctance to turn to the Senate for presidents, and will have to convince Americans he can be an effective chief executive. Thompson has also not spent two decades or more advancing his political ideas as Reagan did in the years before 1980.
Critics of both men claim to find a parallel in their allegedly soft work habits. This claim should neither help nor harm Thompson among voters, who want an effective chief executive but who remember that Reagan's so-called "laziness" was neither well-proven nor, if it was true, a real handicap to presidential success.
Thompson, like Reagan, has been an actor. Some persist in believing that Reagan's success was due to his acting ability, but this by itself is a poor explanation. Thompson's acting ability—or more precisely his poise and stage presence—may help him at the margins, as it helped Reagan, but it will hardly be enough. As other commentators have noted, his authoritative roles may help him a bit more than did Reagan's less weighty roles. All in all, however, a focus on Reagan's and Thompson's acting does not illuminate Thompson's prospects or his desirability as a candidate.
Reagan's folksy charm has often been cited by pundits as a contributing factor to his success, and here too Thompson has been cited as Reaganesque. To the extent that Thompson presents the picture of a regular guy from a modest background displaying no outsized ambition, he can indeed tap into the same currents that fed popular admiration of Reagan. However, at the end of the George W. Bush era, the premium on folksiness may not be what it once was.
It is in two other areas, less noted by the media, that Thompson has a real opportunity to excite voters as Reagan did. First, a key to Reagan's success was that he was able to keep together—or perhaps it is more accurate to say put together—economic conservatives and social conservatives. It is unlikely that any Republican candidate can succeed without maintaining that alliance. A crucial reason that no other top-tier candidate has cemented a dominating position in the polls is that none have been able to make a compelling case for why they are capable of accomplishing that task. Thompson has the potential to be that candidate.
Second, it was not Reagan's acting career that made him a "Great Communicator," it was his willingness to communicate big ideas. He stood out among political figures for his capacity to discuss big principles and then connect them in a persuasive way to issues of the moment. George W. Bush has almost entirely eschewed such argumentation (except when discussing democratization in foreign policy), and so have the leaders in the Republican primary field. Thompson, on the other hand, regularly builds his argument around "first principles" of individual liberty, limited government, and federalism. This sort of discourse is arguably vital to rallying and unifying Republicans, reaching out to conservative independents, establishing distance from the Bush administration, and building an appealing contrast with a Democratic nominee who will undoubtedly focus on a bottomless promise of new and expanded programs. It is not self-evident that Thompson can pull it off, but he is the only candidate in the top tier of the Republican field who seems interested in trying. In the end, if Fred Thompson can successfully reintroduce a discourse of principles to the political arena, he will parallel Reagan in the one way that counts the most.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew E. Busch is a Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center.
I mean Joe lunchbucket that works all week and on the weekend goes hunting, fishing, or to the range.
Most every election the NRA will endorse a candidate for POTUS but few have ever had the NRA president out campaigning for them.
When Fred ran for the Senate Charlton Heston personally went to Tenn to campaign for Fred. Thats a tough act to follow.
SS is going to go broke if something isn’t done about it.
If Fred can assure the younger voters that they wont get taxed to death and can let the seniors know they wont be kicked to the curb he can sell the truth to them.
President Bush tried but couldn’t articulate the message over the liberal MSM. I think Fred can do that.
Everyone is sick of taxes and he can sell his message there.
Fix the borders, stop the illegals, then we’ll talk. Fred can sell that.
I can see Fred getting lots of crossover, except the rabid barking moonbats, code pinkos, welfare leeches, queers, abortion clinic workers, and some confused sucker mom’s. ( or is that soccer mom’s?)
When Fred wins the nomination I don’t think the election will be that close.
“That’s what the media did with “America’s Mayor,” “
He was NYC’s Mare, and he dressed the part.
Duly noted. What is nonapplicable in this, however, is that Thompson has not been on the same stage. Get back to us after a reasonable number of "debates."
Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy, Folksy,
Just a little somethin’ to help you FredHeads get your buzz on...
;D
Besides the principles, I'm guessing she has a nest of spiders at her core.
The Tennessean will have to overcome the nation's recent reluctance to turn to the Senate for presidentsIf it's Thompson vs. Clinton, what's the "nation" going to do about it's "reluctance to turn to the Senate for presidents"? Vote to keep Bush in office another 4 years?
This is yet another of a huge number of pieces that mention Thompson as a senator with no executive experience while failing to mention that his odds-on most-likely opponent will be, yes, that's right, a senator with no executive experience. (Or do they all think that her time in the WH drawing up enemy lists counts as executive experience?)
Duly noted. What is nonapplicable in this, however, is that Thompson has not been on the same stage. Get back to us after a reasonable number of “debates.”
By “Fredheads” you of course mean the majority of us here at FR, including the founder, Jim Robinson, right?
Rudy has no choice but to make 9/11, and therefore the WOT his centerpiece issue with republican primary voters.Not just 9/11. He actually does have executive experience and it was good experience. He took a broken city (a huge broken city) and fixed it. I think he has the potential of being a good president on many issues, while, of course, being a total liberal on some very important issues that count, which is why I am not backing him in the primary but have already sent in my first contribution to Fred.
But it's not correct to say Rudy only has 9/11. He also has NY.
Ronald Reagan didn't consider himself a better man than Howard Baker. Baker was Reagan’s Chief of Staff. And Bush43 never thought he was a better man than John McCain either. Maybe better candidates.
But it's not correct to say Rudy only has 9/11. He also has NY.Though I live here and appreciate Rudy's taming of NYC, I have never deluded myself into believing that anyone in the rest of the country gives a crap whether Rudy kept it from flushing down the toilet or not. Rudy does not also have NY to run on.
Ok, here I go, out on a limb, seeming to defend a guy who is not my candidate. But I just hate when inaccuracies are repeated over and over again, no matter what side does the repeating.
First of all, you’re wrong. Americans DO care whether ANY major US city gets “flushed down the toilet” or not. And secondly, even if you were right about that (which you’re not), the only point I was trying to make is that executive experience is rare in this primary season, on ALL sides, and Rudy happens to have some.
Once again. I’m for Fred. I sent him one check, I’ll send him more. But I hate to see history rewritten, no matter who does the rewriting of it, even those on my side.
FredT is a pro-defense, pro-limited govt, pro-federalist, pro-tax reform, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-trade, pro-business, pro-entitlement reform, anti-special rights, secured borders and anti-amnesty conservative. Fred wants to preserve and strengthen American sovereignty, kill the Islamofascists and win the WOT.
I like Fred and I like his chances of becoming the next POTUS.
Does that ring a bell?
Yeah... So?
There’s a difference between asking for a handout, which NY did in the 1970s, and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, which is what NY did under Rudy.
The first case engenders nothing but disgust from the rest of the nation. The second, a certain amount of admiration. You know, you root for people who get themselves out of a mess.
You say you live in NY, but I have my doubts. I don’t think you realize how big the turnaround was, and how it was noticed elsewhere.
And then there was 9/11. Are you saying it would have had a larger impact on the American public had it been in some “better” city?
FredT is a pro-defense, pro-limited govt, pro-federalist, pro-tax reform, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-trade, pro-business, pro-entitlement reform, anti-special rights, secured borders and anti-amnesty conservative. Fred wants to preserve and strengthen American sovereignty, kill the Islamofascists and win the WOT.You got that right. That's one long list of sterling credentials, in my book.
BTW, in response to the '93 bombing of the Towers, Rudy set up his Emergency Crisis Center at -- get this -- Ground Zero! Brilliant!
The east side of Billings isn’t the preferred side, but I guess it does have more local color.
Sterling corroded by voting for China MFN status...when he knew very well that they were Communist ultra-protectionist and would never abide by any “steenkin” free trade rulez.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.