Posted on 03/08/2012 6:24:52 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
Wall Street Journal editor William McGurn, a former Bush White House speechwriter, argued in an article Tuesday that Mitt Romney is no worse off now than Ronald Reagan was at this stage of his historic 1980 campaign. He compared these two races and also tried to show that President Barack Obama is the heir to Jimmy Carter.
The Romney camp would probably welcome these comparisons — but it’s more a theory in search of facts. There are indeed some similarities, but the differences are far more striking.
Both Reagan and Romney did begin as frontrunners, both stumbled. Romney’s outcome is still unknown. But other than the fact that Carter was a tougher politician than Obama, that is where the similarities end.
Reagan was fervently opposed by corporate America, Wall Street and, yes, The Wall Street Journal, in the lead up to the 1980 campaign. As much as Romney is fervently supported by them now. In 1980, Corporate America preferred former Texas Gov. John Connolly and Amb. George H. W. Bush to Reagan, the maverick populist.
Indeed, when Reagan announced his candidacy in late 1979, the Journal asserted “for political packaging, we do not need to turn to a 69-year-old man.”
The words “populist” and “Romney” don’t often collide in the same sentence.
The issues in 1980 were far more consequential than today, just as the differences between Carter and Reagan were greater and more divisive than the differences today. Romney and Obama, as well as Carter, have a far greater belief than Reagan in the state’s power, goodness and redistributive powers. Even after he was head of the federal government for eight years in Washington, no one ever thought Reagan was part of the establishment — the manor to which Romney was born.
From a cultural standpoint as well, Romney and Reagan stand poles apart. One born rich, a son of the Ivy League, the other born in poverty, a son of the Prairie League.
The issue of Soviet communism loomed over the 1980 debate, though the struggling economy and rampant inflation ranked as most important to the American people. The world is a far less dangerous place today than 31 years ago, and the economy is in far better shape.
Reagan understood acutely the connection between the spiritual America, the economic America and the defense of America. The vitality of the people has to be restored so they could again believe in the future — and so begin rebuilding America’s defenses and resolve. With this muscular foreign policy, Washington could face down Moscow.
Today, we worry about the potential for one Iranian nuclear device. In 1980, Reagan had to worry about 10,000 Soviet nuclear devices.
Romney is championing the federal marriage amendment — one of the most anti-conservative, harebrained notions ever cooked up by the borderline geniuses of the GOP. We don’t know how Reagan would have reacted to this proposal. But we do know he believed deeply in the dignity and the privacy of the individual.
Consider, in 1978, Reagan opposed Proposition 6 in California, which would have banned homosexuals from teaching in the state public schools. Voters turned it down — and its defeat was credited to Reagan’s opposition.
Reagan’s 1980 campaign produced few negative ads. Even when he was under assault in the primaries, most Reagan ads featured the Gipper talking into a camera about the benefit of his radical tax cuts for individuals. The tagline: “We have to move forward but we can’t leave anyone behind.”
The ads producers, Jeff Bell and Elliot Curzon, dubbed the commercial, “The Good Shepherd.”
Unlike Romney, Reagan had 30 years invested in the conservative movement and was beloved by most of the GOP base. Romney has no such wellspring of support. Even those conservatives who support him do so guardedly, defensively.
Romney seems largely a product if his consultants and handlers — doing and saying what they tell him. Reagan, however, had men around him who saw their job as amplifying his message, not submitting it to focus groups.
There is also a difference in the fundamental character of the two. Though I have never met Romney, I’ve worked with politicians going on 40 years now, and he seems like a man who is very unsure of himself.
But Reagan, whom I worked for and with, appeared to me — and millions of others – like a sunny man who was very sure of himself. So confident was he and other successful aspirants, they spent their time talking about and to the voters and not about themselves.
Perhaps most revealing, as the campaign has progressed, Romney has not “grown” as is often the case but is looking more opaque and ill defined. John F. Kennedy, Reagan and Obama all enlarged as men in their quests for the presidency. As they moved closer to the Oval Office, the more people thought about them, the more people thought of them.
THIS was a great man.
“Nothing Like”?! How about exactly opposite?! Or world’s apart?! Or good vs evil?!
It’s interesting, isn’t it? Two candidates, and their supporters, keep trying to compare their guy TO Reagan. A third simply says he worked WITH Reagan.
Now, some holes can be punched into all three stories, but it is telling the difference. And while we’re at it - Rush’s comparisons with Santorum to Reagan on social policies? Really? Now I’m not as old as Rush, but I remember Reagan Carter pretty well. I don’t remember much of anything about the social issues being an issue, even though we knew where Reagan stood.
Lost me by lumping Reagan with Obama at the end.
No question Reagan and Romney are very different. Likewise Carter and Obama.
I lived through Carter and there was a sense he was an embarrassment. I think people fear and dislike Obama much more.
Reagan started out with the conservative base and had to convince moderates he wasn’t a threatening right winger.
Romney starts with moderate respect and has to energize the conservatives.
I think the American people cannot wait to vote Obama out of office.
I am excited about none of the candidates but will gladly vote for “other” when facing Obama.
I know many Freepers have passionate feelings about their guy, but ANYONE who thinks that our worst choice will be as bad for the country as Obama is simply a fool, ESPECIALLY in light of the recent comments made by Leon Panetta.
The Left wants to destroy our country and if Obama wins, he will stack the court with radicals the likes of which our nation has never seen.
After the primaries, we MUST come together and support the guy not named Obama.
Reagan’s positions on the issues throughout his political life were clear and unambiguous.
Romney, not so much.
C’mon man!
He’s a populist through and through. How many other politicians know that Michigan trees are all the right height?
I met Reagan never met Romney but he is still no Reagan !!!!!!!
Given the homosexual push by the judiciary, I’m not sure Reagan would not support the marriage ammenment. He certainly had no qualms about an outright ban on them in the military: “We ask, DON’T join” worked quite well. Aside from that, this was an excellent article.
I think the American people cannot wait to vote Obama out of office.”
Oh, man, do I ever hope you are right!!!!! It looks likely that we will have to do so with Romney....not that I like him, but we have to oust obama! (I fear, however, that Romney can’t do it...he is that weak).
Romney has no shot....zip...zilch...nada.
Well, they both have nice hair.
Rush and I are about the same age. I share your recollection that social issues played no important role in the 1980 election. Reagan's campaign was primarily about two things: (1) challenging the Soviet Union by restoring US military strength; (2) restoring economic prosperity by lowering marginal tax rates and reducing the growth of the federal government.
Glad you shared that, and glad to know we remember the same campaign the same way. It is stunning to me, STUNNING, to see Rush make this false comparison. Correcting such falsehoods is what he has done for 23 years. This is tremendous slippage in my opinion, and with potentially dire consequences.
Yeah! What the hell is the reference to the height of trees? I know he said it but what do it mean?
Romney’s not weak. Romney, I think, is an SOB. his conservative support is weak.
I think he’s trying to create nostalgia, where life was just perfect in Middle America in the 1950’s, where everybody lives in the suburbs with tree-lined streets.
Agreed, I heard Reagan speak as president. He was absolutely golden and magical. No one compares.
I think Rush may be using again
So, the man, Romney, who has done the following:
1. Supported Gay Adoption
2. Supported Gay Marriage
3. Wholeheartedly supported Abortion.
4. Proclaimed he was not a Reagan Conservative.
5. Supports Global Warming
6. Implemented a form of Socialized Medicine with RomneyCare with it’s Individual Mandate
7. Doesn’t like nore understand the concept of limited Government.
8. Is a continual and serial liar.
This total creep is like Reagan?
TO arrive at that conclusion the writers of this drivel would have to throw out everything he did as Governor and 95% of everything else.
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.