Posted on 05/08/2009 10:30:50 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Excuse me, Jeb Bush, but your daddy and brother already helped push the Republican Party beyond “the good old days” of its Reagan legacy, and we all see how well that’s been working for the GOP since 2006, don’t we.
And excuse me, Gen. Colin Powell, but which election did you win because “Americans are looking for more government in their lives, not less …”?
Forgive me if I seem a bit cranky here, but, being a card-carrying Reaganaut since 1964, it’s hard not to be whenever the national media lectures the GOP on how to regain voters’ trust. Inevitably, the advice involves abandonment of Ronald Reagan and the core conservative principles he advanced.
Ever wonder why they never tell Republicans to forget Teddy Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln, the GOP’s other great presidents, or admonish Democrats to stop glorying in FDR and the New Deal? There's a simple reason, which we'll discuss shortly.
The former Florida governor got caught up in this all-too-familiar game in the wake of Sen. Arlen Specter’s return to the party of his heart. Bush likely wasn’t thinking specifically about Reagan, but that hardly mattered to media headline writers or legions of talking heads eager to see the GOP forever abandon things like limited government and individual freedom.
That’s why it’s futile to make angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin distinctions between not “living in the past” or not “worshipping the Reagan era,” but applying his values and principles in new ways. You might as well be playing craps with a loaded pair of dice.
The difference with Reagan is that he was the only modern president to reverse Leviathan’s expansion into every facet of everyday American life. Bush I raised taxes and increased spending so he could be “the environment president.”
Bush II, admittedly preoccupied by the aftermath of 9/11, presided over the biggest pre-OBama explosion in federal spending since LBJ. But then at the end of his White House tenure, he launched the federal takeover of the financial system that set the table for Obama's "Gangster Government." (HT to the Examiner's Michael Barone for coining that entirely suitable phrase).
And don't forget that, once the GOP’s Contract with America majority in Congress lost their nerve and the budget battle with Bill Clinton in 1995, all most of them had to offer in the years thereafter was lip service for Reagan's values and principles. They richly deserved to be tossed out of power in 2006.
So, the demand is always to forget Reagan because, as The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell reminded us earlier this week, Reagan effectively challenged Leviathan and began the process of restoring limited government in Washington. Here’s one measure Morning Bell noted of that process:
“Under President Jimmy Carter, the percentage of state expenditures coming from federal funds rose to 35.4%. Reagan lowered that number to 24.9%. Unfortunately, under President George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President George Bush that number shot up again; reaching 42.5% in 2005.”
With President Obama, the federal treasury is becoming the largest single state funding source. Soon, the states will be mere administrative organs for Washington bureaucrats. Then, the liberal dream of destroying federalism – the constitutional heart of the Republic - will be fully realized.
Thanks to Bush I, as soon as Reagan left town, Leviathan resumed the growth path it was on when Reagan arrived. And let's remember why he came (as he explained in his 1982 State of the Union Address): “Our citizens feel they’ve lost control of even the most basic decisions made about the essential services of government, such as schools, welfare, roads, and even garbage collection.”
Republicans win when they promise to restore our citizens’ ability to control their government and their own destinies (remember, we all have a rendezvous with destiny), and then actually deliver on that promise. They lose when they deliver more government instead.
Here’s something else Reagan said, in his first inaugural:
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”
Reagan’s maxim is as true today as it was in 1981, and it will be true across a thousand tomorrows. The crucial question for Republican leaders now is, as always, will they heed or ignore that truth?
Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott’s Copy Desk blog on washingtonexaminer.com.
George Bush Sr. dropped the ball.
The Bush family has been an absolute disaster for the GOP and the USA.
And GWB picked up the ball but misread REagan’s words and thought Reagan was for big government spending.
Add to the fact that the idiot moron Repubes in congress went along with all the spending instead of sticking to tried and true conservative ideas.
The republican party as it stands today with the Rinos in charge will never win the WH or congress for a very long time.
Add to the fact that the idiot moron Repubes in congress went along with all the spending instead of sticking to tried and true conservative ideas.
__________________________________
That’s the key. As long as they don’t convey true conservatice ideas, there will be no wins. Why in hell can’t they get it?
Instead of leading with idea they resort to the politics of destruction.
Reagan is the legacy. But today is 30 years after Reagan was elected. While the core values remain and should, the communication, execution and presentation of them needs to be updated and made relevant to today.
Since impeachment, conservatives have been losing more people to the democrats. But asthey would rather sit in their poopy diaper. Sure it's messy and stinks, but hey, they didn't compromise or modernize the message.
I truly despise H.W. Bush, am baffled by G.W.Bush, but I remember Nixon and Gerald Ford also.
Outside of Reagan and a couple or a few historical presidents, who do we love? Almost no one. Life is a bitch and then you have to vote.
And if we want to argue that states ought to be governing themselves instead of the Federal government to make decisions, if we want those decisions to return to the local and state level, we have to be willing to let regions of the country that aren't exactly conservative make decisions that would make most Freepers puke.
If there's going to be a return to true principles of small government, that means that has to take precedence over Federal-level policy.
please no more bilingual—ie double talking — bushes.
How dare you people try to elevate your stupid Alan Keyes party by claiming Republicans like President Ronald Reagan and Governor Sarah Palin.
If you have a party then use your own (giants?) to advertise it, don’t use another party’s leaders and heroes and legends to fill in what you don’t have.
“— every single state McCain won except for Texas took more Federal dollars than they paid out last year.”
I’ve thought something like that might be the case. Could you provide a link for this data?
Gee, what could it be?
Borders, military bases, research centers, coastlines, nationally owned land and management, military enlistments and the resulting after costs, vast amounts of open land that allows huge expenditures of defense dept. funds.
Without specifics we don’t know what the complaint is.
No, he didn’t DROP the ball. He caught it, then made a DELIBERATE U-turn and headed for the opposite goal-post. GWB simply continued the run, handing us off to Obambi. If we don’t do SOMETHING soon, it’ll be over the goal line and we’ll finally be cooked.
I would have to second you on that.
I admire George W. for his steadfastness in the face of a disgraceful performance of the media, the entertainment industry, the intellectual elitists, and all of the other Leftist kooks.
Still, he expanded entitlements and emphasized “compassionate conservatism”, which, judging from his policies, seems to be just another way to say socialism. And he did nothing to slow down illegal immigration.
I could not disagree with you more. I think that if conservatives actually did the things you suggest it would not hurt them and it would probably help them. The truth I have observed is that elected conservatives are pretty spineless. They generally are way too polite and civil to a group of very vile people called democrats. Can you give me some examples of elected conservatives telling people to “go to hell”? How about examples of elected conservatives resorting to the “politics of destruction” (a phrase I first heard used by Clintoon who claimed he was a victim but actually he was a master of)? How about elected conservatives going “Ann Coulter X 10”? I do not remember any of this happening myself. I believe that you may be confusing the conservatives with the libs who do engage in all the activities you mentioned.
They've had their moments, but generally I have to agree with you. They absolutely do not represent the ideals of self-government and federalism. They're imperialists, statists, and oligarchs through and through. Their elite connections alone tell you that.
Baloney. Liberal propaganda, I hear that one at least twice a week, usually oozing from the mouth of a George Clintonopoulos, an Ed Schultz, or a Bill Moyers. Why are you saying the same stuff they do?
Everyone knows that Republicans' main problem is getting their message through the hostile MSM filters. And you turn around and bash conservatives on that account?
Instead of leading with idea [conservatives] resort to the politics of destruction.
Oh, baloney! Who invented the politics of personal destruction? The Democrats! It's bred-in-the-bone Saul Alinsky! It's pure Hillary! And you accuse conservatives of that? What, was David Brock engaged in "the politics of personal destruction" when he repeated in print things that only Arkansas State Troopers had said among themselves, about the Clintons? Was he "destroying" people when he dug into what the Clintons did to shut down the Madison Guaranty and Whitewater investigations, or when he wrote about Hillary's commodities "trading profits"?
When Republicans investigate Democrats, liberals call it "personal destruction" -- something they don't call it when they go out to destroy someone like Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin. They practice it, and then they accuse Republicans of doing what they do, when Republicans don't do it!
So why are you using their rhetoric?
I think his family has always been too close to the coupon-clippers in the GOP, the "economic conservatives" who don't give a damn about social issues -- idiot liberals can run around marrying their horses or their stepchildren, as far as the Yacht Club RiNO's are concerned -- but they save all their vinegar for tax issues. They give the GOP a real image problem as a party of people who have no principles, no morals, and no vision for the country, but only bank balances that they cling to bitterly.
Read my lips: TARP will be paid back.
Not happening because big gov. won’t let it.
Reagan won the Cold War, the Bushes keep watering it down because deep down they shifted from fighting terror in Iraq to Democracy in Iraq. They are in a conflict of interest to destroy and finish the attempted murder of Reagan and his legacy, all for their jealous petty selves and legacy narcissistoid manias.
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.