The Reagan Revolution and Its Discontents

National Review Online ^ | August 26, 2009 | Steven F. Hayward

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

. . .
Much of the admiring conservative literature about Reagan, like that written by liberals, also focuses chiefly and too narrowly on the Cold War story.
. . .
The difficulties Reagan had controlling spending and the growth of government were not lost on conservatives during and immediately after his presidency. The case for disappointment, verging at times on betrayal, was made often while Reagan was in office. For example, the Winter 1984 issue of Policy Review contained a symposium called “What Conservatives Think of Reagan.” .
Terry Dolan, head of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, complained: “There has been no spending cut. There has been no turnover of control to the states. There has been no effort to dismantle the Washington bureaucratic elitist establishment. . . . The question when Reagan got elected was whether he was going to be closer to Eisenhower as a caretaker or to Roosevelt as a revolutionary. He’s been generally closer to Eisenhower, preserving the status quo established by previous liberal administrations.” On and on the conservative commentariat fulminated. Conservative journalist M. Stanton Evans: “This has been essentially another Ford administration. It has been business as usual, not much different from any other Republican administration in our lifetime.” Paul Weyrich: “The radical surgery that was required in Washington was not performed.”
. . .
Today we speak of the three liberal Republican senators (one of them now a Democrat) who backed Obama’s stimulus package. In 1981, there were as many as 15 such senators in the Senate Republican caucus .(w
. . .
Gingrich was frequently included among conservatives who expressed frustration with Reagan. “Ronald Reagan is the only coherent revolutionary in an administration of accommodationist advisers,” Gingrich complained in 1984.
. . .

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

This is a long article by Hayward discussing his new two volume analysis of President Reagan's Presidency, subtitled 'His presidency was better than expected, but worse than desired.' He analyzes successes and failures, the often bitter disappointment of hard core conservatives, the betrayal and support by moderate and liberal Republicans. The arguments include the fact that politics is the art of the possible and that no one administration can undo all of the destruction done to our liberties by generations of politicians.

[PhilDragoo]

M. Stanton Evans calling Reagan another Ford.

Evans was editor of the Indianapolis News--which ceased to exist.

Coulter called him the greatest living authority on McCarthy--fine, but I am losing patience with Reagan anklebiters.

I found how hard a sell Goldwater was. And getting there counts for so very much.

Your comment here contains two truths vital to our age:

The arguments include the fact that politics is the art of the possible and that no one administration can undo all of the destruction done to our liberties by generations of politicians.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

It may not have been clear, but the criticisms were made by a large part of the conservative leadership during Reagan’s first term. I remember it well, because I was critical of many of his actions at the time, especially including his decisions on appointments, from VP Bush on down.

[RC2]

This is exactly why I say we have to change our States, then change the House and then the Senate. If we can do that and if they will work with a new President, things will change. Any politician has to have the country and its interest at heart or it’s a waste of time. We need to go back to the Constitution, get rid of laws that are meaningless but desctructive. Break off ties with countries that hate us and let them know we will not be pushed around. If they push, we will do more than just push back. This is how we will get our respect back as a country. It would be a tough row to hoe but it can be done.

[DaveTesla]

Just stopping it and rolling it back was a miracle in it's self.

[Publius]

Excellent article. And the sting of a wasp in the last sentence.

[Max_850]

I see the merit in that but it is too slow. It would take years to reverse the damage done that way. We will be way to far down the Fascist/Socialist path by then.

[parsifal]

Great article. I enjoyed it.

parsy, the reader

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I take it you mean the last sentence in the excerpts? One mans RINO is another man’s conservative, I guess. The article is six full pages, the book is two volumes.

Ping to ls.

[Publius]

“Domestically Ronald Reagan did far less than he had hoped, he did far less than he had promised, less than people wanted — and a hell of a lot more than people thought he would.”

This is what I meant.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I see the merit in that but it is too slow. It would take years to reverse the damage done that way

The French tried to do it the fast way in 1789. That way also has problems. See my homepage.

[PhilDragoo]

Just stopping it and rolling it back was a miracle in it's self.

Against the entrenched liberal establishment from the Congress to the press, his was an uphill battle.

Difficult to picture from our perspective.

There was nothing from Roosevelt through Carter of any sunshine at all until Reagan.

Nixon was after all price controls and the EPA.

The analysis attempts to dismiss the Cold War--impossible.

The major fact of existence of the Soviet Union set the dimension of the political arena.

Appalling that Evans would miss that.

Beyond taxes, Reagan tore down their wall for them, but was too much the gentleman to point it out.

Despite the despicable treason of worms like Ted Kennedy.

[RC2]

I understand but the option could get ugly.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>If I seem to emphasize the negative aspects of the Reagan years, it is only because I grow tired and impatient with the most common form of Reagan nostalgia today, which is more reminiscent of his “morning in America” campaign of 1984 than of his much sharper and purposeful campaign of 1980.

Haywood should stick to the accomplishments and successes of the Reagan Presidency and stop whining. Would have been great if Reagan had a GOP House to ram through even more conservative policies. As it was, the Reagan Presidency was based in substance.

Reagan's policies in the 1980`s were good for America and good for the world. Reagan won the Cold War, dismantled the Soviet Empire and the communist Eastern Bloc, freeing some 500 million people from totalitarian rule; revived a battered US economy from the worst conditions since the Great Depression; enlarged the military and expanded national defense; cut federal income taxes 25% across the board, reducing top tax rates from 70% to 28%; reduced welfare state and non-defense discretionary expenditures; reduced overall federal spending as a percentage of GDP; and seriously reduced federal regulations like never before. Reagan`s leadership was extraordinary, winning two historic elections and uniting America behind common goals. In the 1980`s Reagan confronted Democrats head on; fought liberalism to a standstill; and halted America's slide towards euro-socialism.

The Reagan Presidency expanded individual freedom and that is always a good thing.

[Moonman62]

It may not have been clear, but the criticisms were made by a large part of the conservative leadership during Reagan’s first term. I remember it well, because I was critical of many of his actions at the time, especially including his decisions on appointments, from VP Bush on down.

With the hindsight of 30 years, GHWB was his biggest mistake.

[Moonman62]

It’s funny how of all the presidents since Reagan, it was Clinton who encouraged the most economic growth, and contained government the best.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

it was Clinton who encouraged the most economic growth, and contained government the best.

Having a solidly GOP Congress for most of his terms probably had a lot to do with it.

[Reagan Man]

It was the 1994 Republican Revolution, along with Newt's Contract With America --- based on Reagan policies --- that advanced a conservative agenda and held Clinton's feet to the fire. BillyBoy was smart enough to go along for the ride and not fight the inevitable.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Reagan`s leadership was extraordinary, winning two historic elections and uniting America behind common goals.”

Period.

[Brett66]

Actually I thought Clinton showed how you could stop government spending in it’s tracks. Back when he shut the government down while confronting congress, he was wanting more spending and made the congress pay politically for trying to simply hold the line on spending.

I thought a Republican president could do this exact thing, but force congress to accept real spending reductions and elimination of programs.

I thought maybe even Bush would do this, hahahahaa! I cracked myself up!