Skip to comments.GOP Young Gun: 'Reagan Revolution' is over
Posted on 12/10/2010 8:55:42 AM PST by Sub-Driver
GOP Young Gun: 'Reagan Revolution' is over By Michael O'Brien - 12/10/10 10:47 AM ET
The "Reagan Revolution" that spurred a GOP renaissance in Washington is dead, one of the party's new faces said Friday.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee and one of the Republican "Young Guns," said that the movement sparked by President Reagan's election in 1980 fizzled out with Democrats' wins in the congressional elections of 2006.
"The Reagan Revolution ended in 2006 when Pelosi took the gavel definitely in 2008," Ryan said in a video interview with The Wall Street Journal. "So a new era is beginning."
Republicans had long credited the resurgence of the party led by Reagan for their victories in the 1994 congressional elections, in which they won control of the House and Senate, as well as for the victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election.
But Republicans have also sought to recast the party as the GOP of a new generation that has broken from past leaders and learned from its mistakes. That sentiment had in part animated the new crop of "Young Guns" a trio of Ryan, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and incoming House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to promote themselves as new faces of the GOP.
The new Republicans coming to Washington, many of whom hail from a later generation than their predecessors, aren't interested in the kind of "small ball" that dominated political debate in the 1990s, Ryan said.
"No more school uniforms and prescription drugs it's the big picture," he said. "And that's the kind of healthy conversation we've got to have in this country."
Hear, hear!!! We must progress forward!
what just got typed???
Does that label us "Progressives"???
I'm not sure what the alternative for conservatives is but I like what the Tea-Partiers are trying to do.
Forget the Reagan Revolution ... what we’re looking at now is the end of GHW’s “New World Order”.
Dude, it was over when George HW became President.
Actually I think it was over when Iran Contra hit the fan,
Nancy called in the astrologers, and Reagan began showing the first early signs of Alzheimers.
“Young gun,” Paul Davis Ryan, Jr. (born January 29, 1970) might want to check his holster.
President Reagan’s movement is alive and undergoing a revival in the form of Sarah Palin. It’s hardly President Reagan’s fault that RINOS went off the conservative reservation, but it’s up to these “young guns” to do their part to bring the Grand Old Party back to the glory of President Reagan. Sarah Palin is trying.
The progressives may have started the fire, but until they completely control the media and internet, now we know who the arsonists are.
From the ashes, this generation's "Reagans" will either do what Reagan couldn't do or it's truly over. The revolution is here. obama wasn't kidding when he said "We are the ones we've been waiting for."
Yes it was over with George. That “compassionate conservatism” was akin to reinstating the welfare society with a vengeance.
Zactly. Thus far, I remain unimpressed. Big talk, and I don't like this 'dissing of President Reagan. Hardly his fault that so-called conservatives went RINO. No discipline.
Let's see January, "young guns." I want to see straight shooters.
Excellent! I am very happy and pleased that you’re on this thread. I thought of you straight away.
Perfectly stated. Thanks very much! I should have read the comments before I posted.
Walk that walk before talking about President Reagan’s movement being over. That’s just not true. A RINO hiatus with democrat rule, for sure, -— but going back to Reagan is going back to Constitutional government and we have to go back even more than President Reagan could accomplish.
Right. Reagan was right and his Revolution lives on.
Me too Jim.
I don't hear the libDems dissing FDR, Truman, JFK or Clinton for that matter. Too many FReepers acting like malcontents. Without Reagan there would have been no 12 year GOP control of the White House. No 1994 Republican Revolution and NO Contract With America.
Reagan's conservatism was a throwback agenda to the era of low taxes, a strong military and serious deregulation of the federal bureaucracy.
Some folks need to wake up!
Spoken like a good liberal.
I really try to like Paul Ryan — and then he goes and says something stupid like this...
Still, the Reagan Revolution has been dead for quite a long time. It was dead, in my opinion, in 1995, when Bill Clinton managed to shut down the Federal Government and blame it on the Republican Congress. And Newt Gingrich — all hot and bothered at the time in an illicit affair with his now wife — remained strangely silent and cowered before the Slick One. From that point on, Slick Willie got credit for everything that was accomplished, even if he coopted Republican ideas.
Even when Bush was elected — his tax cuts most certainly were Reagan-inspired policies — even Bush himself went along with Congress, both Democrats AND “Big Government Republicans,” on a spending spree that would have made Tip O’Neill blush.
The Reagan Revolution had been on life support, really, since the whole Bush 41 “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” debacle. the 1995 Government Shutdown KILLED it. But in 2006, the Democrats finally finished burying the corpse, retaking Congress, throwing dirt in the face of the few Conservatives left in Washington. 2008 made it even worse. The American People voted in Socialism. Now that they’ve got it, they have voter’s remorse — but Marxist’s and Progressives NEVER surrender the power given them, not without a fight.
So, today, we need a Reagan Renaissance. Ryan is wrong if he thinks the failures of Republicans are due to the failures of Reagan’s PRINCIPLES. No! Reagan’s principles were Constitutional, sound, true to the vision of our Founders, and sensible considering the threats our nation faced both internally and externally in the time that Reagan lived and governed. Reagan’s principles did not “fail,” at least, not insofar as they were tried!
Remember, Reagan’s principles were never fully implemented. He had to work with a predominantly Democrat Congress during most of his presidency. That he accomplished as much as he did is miraculous. Reagan once stated that the only thing he regretted was not using the veto and shutting down the government over the continued overspending of the Democrat Congress. Hindsight is 20/20. We can learn from the Master’s mistakes.
A Reagan Renaissance can take Reagan’s principles — and then go BEYOND what Reagan accomplished. Take it to it’s logical, CONSTITUTIONAL ends. That was what Ronald Reagan ultimately envisioned. His greatest speech, “Rendevous with Destiny,” outlined his goals, which were only partially fulfilled in his lifetime. Their complete fulfillment still remains before US. We should take his vision as our goal.
Perhaps Mr. Ryan is right. Maybe the Reagan Revolution is “dead.” But if he is saying that with the slightest bit of disdain for or dismissiveness of the principles of Ronald Reagan, the Congressman need an attitude adjustment. We need to look back TO the vision of Ronald Reagan, remember the “shining city on a hill, “ and say, with him, that we can still get there, though the battle is going to be much harder than we had ever imagined. It will indeed, take a Reagan Renaissance — but we can honor the Gipper with one more victory.
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Ba'al--The Who?
"COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS DESPOTISM"--Thomas Jefferson
I won’t quibble on actual vs. percentage, however, I’m talking about making cuts of 50% not 1%. Granted it can’t happen in four years, but that needs to be the direction.
I remember the Reagan years well. I know precisely what he did to throw a cog in the socialist machine, but a lot of damage has been done in the last 100 years and we need 100 years heading in the opposite direction, not just stopping where we are at.
In what universe were the NAZIs conservative??? They were socialists who believed that individual rights were simply a road block to the greater glory of the all encompassing state.
Please don't repeat Leftist propoganda.
Yes, Reagan did what could be done at the time. However, we now need to do more, far more.
Points here are:
1) Doesn't seem logical: totalitarianism doesn't seem to be a logical extension of the extreme right-wing version of freedom from government. But the hippies of the sixties were all for love, peace, and freedom and their extension into tyranny doesn't seem logical either.
2) The Nazi thing (and as far as I'm concerned a large part of the Democratic party) is about "extremism." By definition, "extremism" has the element of "fanaticism" that loses track of what it was originally trying to do. It has become unreasonable and, therefore, defies logic.
We need a movement far more serious than the Reagan Revolution. Cutting taxes is a must but tax reform and elimination of whole programs are called for. All areas of government needs top to bottom review on the federal, state and local level. Serious cuts need to be made. Government employees need to be cut loose. Military also needs to trim the fat. No stone should be left unturned.
there is a big difference between dead and over.
The american revolution of 1776 us over but the results are not dead.
I take issue with the term “dead” in that it implies “came to nothing”
The tea party movement and the RINO roundup this last election (see kicking castle out, and forcing Crist to reveal himself) is a proper continuation of the results of that revolution.
The extreme extension of conservatism goes through libertarianism and continues on to American Mountain men. The extreme extension for the American right is no state, not a hyper state of any kind.
Your confusion is in looking at the political world as a single line that goes from one extreme to the other. It is not. There are a multitude of paths (monarchist, fascist, tribal, communist, socialist, theological, and a plethora of other utopian schemes) that all end in total state control when taken to their extreme.
Running personal liberty to its extreme does not result in a larger more powerful state, it results in the absence of a state. The only reason that the NAZIs got tagged as being on the “right” is because they were attack Soviet Russia and it served the purposes of the American Left.
Hard to tell what you're basing your assumptions on about what I'm saying. I never said anything about a straight line - far from it. You're not addressing the points and examples I made about the nonsensical and illogical nature of extremism (like how "love and peace" turns into tyranny). You're example of mountain men may be one branch of right wing extremism. You haven't addressed the question why today's Nazis and Skin Heads ID themselves as another branch of right wing extremists.
It's a interesting subject to me but no big deal. The theory is that at some point the extremes on both the left and right bend around and meet at some crazed point.
I disagree about using the word “reformation”. It has a distinctly religous connotation and would—like using Reagan or conservative revolution—immediately turn off the very people we’re trying to reeducate. I am a Christian and proud of it, but too many people in this country do not like anything with a religious connotation.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, LomanBill.
I understand and share your enthusiasm for Pres. Reagan. Hard to believe but its been a long time since Reagan’s passing. In the meantime the left has reletlessly demonized him and conservatism.
I think it prudent to carry his banner quietly. IMHO we must find a name for our revolution that does not immediately raise the hackles of the very people we are trying to win over.
Paul Ryan is definitely a straight shooter. Paul has integrity and is willing to take on the old dirty dogs in the GOP.
It's idiotic statements like this that indicate the Reagan revolution is over. Naziism was National Socialism and a leftist totalitarian ideology. To put the Nazi's to the right of Reagan is either a gross misunderstanding of politics or a disgusting lack of education. Ergo an indication that the Reagan revolution is over.
Its important we keep the facts straight about the actual record of Reagan's Presidency and not dismiss his accomplishments. Its also critical we set realistic goals. A 1% cut in the feds share of GDP is not insignificant. Lets not forget, Newt and the GOP Congress eventually balanced the budget by holding spending near the rate of inflation. Bush then raised spending from 18.2% of GDP to 20.7% --- even with the War in Iraq placed off budget. Obama has upped the ante to 25.4% in 2010.
Philosophically, I'd say we agree. Things have been headed in the wrong direction for far too long. While the new GOP House has to set the bar high, its goals also have to be realistic. Boehner&Company has to somehow hold Obama in check and not allow him to run amok and continue his fiscal insanity. The GOP needs to hold its ground until we can hopefully vote in more changes come 2012.
DEADWRONG! It just proves that some posters are idiots. Don't get carried away.
Nazi refers to totalitarian National Socialism, which was coined as fascism.
Conservatism was defined by Russell Kirk as "the negation of the secular ideologies", i.e. all the -isms of the 19th and 20th centuries: naziism, fascism, socialism, communism etc.
Any suggestion that "pure" conservatism equals nazism is an egregious smear and a blatant misread of political history.
Now we have a tax “deal” that is fast becoming TARP2
A false premise based on the acceptance that the right wants to control people. As for people calling themselves things, there is never an explanation for such things. Finally, "peace and love" turning violent is nothing new and is the fundamental element of every utopian state. The Soviets were all about happiness. They just needed to kill the people who didn't accept how that was going to happen.
There is no logical way that extreme libertarianism ends in state control.
Headline gave a different impression than the article...
He said no such thing that I can see from this article as far as "dissing" Reagan or the agenda. He made a comment about how it was killed by 2006 and 2008 elections and now it is time for a new era to begin. Granted, I would have preferred he said something along the lines that it is time to reignite that same agenda and success, but what he did say wasn't "dissing" anything that Reagan did.
In the interview, Ryan says he is a member of GenX and he believes that this "new crop of people" and "new generation of people" coming to Congress are "firmly committed" to "founding principles" and "core principles".
I'd say Reagan was firmly committed to founding principles and core principles, and did all he could to advance the conservative agenda for the better part of 30 years. In fact, Reagan is still influencing American politics today. OTOH, Paul Ryan has done nothing to advance the conservative agenda. Hopefully that will change soon.
Unlike Boehner's first lieutenant Eric Cantor, I like Paul Ryan, but he should choose his words more wisely.
History just isn't the strong point of the slackers--takes too much attention span.
Are you suggesting that Nazi’s were conservative? How’s that public school education working out for you?
>>”...at some point the extremes on both the left and right bend around and meet at some crazed point. “
That is because the “extremes” are both anarchism, either “socialist” anarchism, or “individual” or “selfish” anarchism. Both of these are imagined to lead, ultimately, to utopia. Inevitably, they do not. Ever. They only lead to an almost identical tyranny.
Bad choice of words. Everything can be taken to excess, but I really meant “extreme right wing” more than “extreme conservatism.”
Well, as I said, extremism and fanaticism defy logic. Point being, it's not an open-and-shut case - there seems to be sensible arguments on both sides of this subject which I consider not very important, but interesting.
The movement of society has been relentlessly left since at least 1900 and the issue of our day is extreme left/socialism/Communism. Conservatives are about getting us back to a Constitutional republic with limited government. Maybe we'll have to fight for it with guns if necessary like our founders fought for freedom.
Maybe the difference on the right between legitimate and extreme (not as the left portrays it but in reality) is illustrated by the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. I think in America, you had "Give me freedom or give me death," but kept on track with restrained Christian values. In France, the revolutionaries were worse than the regime they overcame - there was no restraint and a blood bath followed.
I understand. I was directing that more to the conventional media group-think that being conservative means being a jack-booted brownshirt.
Hey, I like that. Compared to “revolution”, “restoration” is a relatively benign word. However, it encompasses the gamut of a peaceful political solution—i.e. voting the Marxists out at the ballot box—to a forceful revolution. Another component to the word is that it points no fingers that would arouse people’s defensive mechanisms.
I was speaking with my sister the other day. She rejects the Marxist label despite her belief that she has a right to other people’s money and everyone should earn equally. I try to steer clear of politics with her because all she does is parrot demrat talking points. In any case, she bemoaned that America is not what it was. My point is that even some of the demrat “useful idiots” are yearning for at some semblance of a retuen to traditional America. I think “restoration” is a word these folks will not deem offensive.
Where appropriate I will use the term “American Restoration” whenever I speak about taking back America. Maybe you and I, LomanBill, can start a trend.
Wrong! In case you hadn't noticed, Reagan is more popular now than when he left office. He has withstood the test of time. His policies have been proven to have led to prosperity.
The whacko lefties are the only ones "recoiling" from the Reagan Revolution. The Nov. elections were all about getting back to "Government IS the problem"