Posted on 03/17/2016 3:14:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
I miss Ronald Reagan. Even his harshest critics must admit that he had an unflagging belief in the general goodness of the average human being, a commitment to the American experiment and faith in the ability of most people to make decisions in their own best interests without undue meddling by officious busybodies.
Above all, Ronald Reagan -- like a number of other truly great American political leaders from both sides of the aisle -- had the ability to inspire Americans to see the best in themselves and their neighbors. We are stronger as a people, better as a country, when we can do so.
What are we now? A nation ripped apart by politicians who pander to this group and that, inflaming outrage and encouraging finger-pointing, capitalizing on fear and fomenting hatred by false accusations and name-calling, raising grievance-mongering to an art form.
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued a statement after Donald Trump's primary wins on Tuesday March 15, saying, "Let's ... be clear: this is not a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. This is the culmination of years of divisive and extreme politics embraced by Republican leaders."
That's rich, coming from a party that has spent the last 40 years (and even more stridently the last 10) calling whites "racists" and Christians "bigots" and "haters"; declaring men to be incipient rapists in an utterly non-existent "war on women"; accusing defenders of Second Amendment rights of not caring about the deaths of crime victims, and those concerned about the solvency of Social Security as people who want to "push Granny off a cliff."
The message for the party comes from the top down, and President Obama has been at the forefront of the hostility. He ran in 2008 as a unifier, but has certainly not governed as one. Cops are "acting stupidly," business owners "didn't build that," small-town working-class people are "bitter," "clinging to their guns or their religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." When Muslim extremists slaughtered Christians, Obama chastised us about the Crusades. Vice President Joe Biden, at his most insipid and deceitful, guffawed to an audience of black Americans, saying that Republicans "are gonna put y'all back in chains." Obama's first attorney general, Eric Holder, called us "a nation of cowards."
This attitude has filtered down through the media, into academia and throughout American culture. It is ubiquitous.
I am not a Trump supporter. But as I have written on multiple occasions, Trump's rise is a function of Americans' being fed up with their concerns being ignored, belittled or recast as hatred toward others. Americans who live on the Mexican border see, day in and day out, the perilous consequences of an open border with a violent drug war on the other side. With 94 million Americans out of the workforce -- over one-third of the adult population -- people are worried about the loss of jobs, the fiscal irresponsibility of promising "free" benefits to everyone and the long-term stability of our social safety net. Their concerns are legitimate. They are tired of being called names. Yes, they are angry.
The word that commentators are using to describe the current political (and cultural) climate is "toxic." No kidding. But where are the inspiring statesmen and women, the cultural leaders, the media personalities who can defuse this inflammatory situation?
This past week, I read a wonderful article titled "Friendship From Above," written by Providence College professor Anthony Esolen. In his essay, he extols the virtues of the institutions that he says "effectively bring people together to forge strong and lifelong friendships, bridging differences of race, ethnicity, education, and wealth. " Professor Esolen makes a compelling (if brief) case for those institutions -- the military, sports and the church -- as places where legitimate friendship develops and flourishes. But it was his description of friendship itself that pulled at my heart as I read it:
"You don't wring an apology from your friend for every one of his shortcomings. You don't let your friend know he will lose your friendship if you cross him in opinion. If your friend speaks incautiously, you overlook it, and do not let your feelings be hurt. You don't put the worst construction on your friend's words or deeds. You don't follow your friend with a forensic team searching for error and sin. You don't lay to your friend's charge the sins of his forebears. You overlook much and forgive the rest, because you too are no saint."
True friendship is born of love. Not merely love of the friend, but love of friendship and of peace and of kindness generally. Americans do love friendship and peace and kindness. Why can we not treat each other like this? Imagine how different our college campuses would be, our political debates would be, our government would be, if we assumed the best about each other, rather than the worst.
The kind of leader that America desperately needs right now is one who has a larger perspective; who genuinely likes people; who sees and understands that beneath the heated rhetoric and the baseless accusations and the old wounds daily rubbed raw, most Americans are kind and decent people who want the best for their families, and for others as well.
We need the kind of leader who can inspire Americans to rise above our differences. But I seriously question whether that is what we will get.
To put it another way, Trump is far from the best available candidate. But he may very well be the best we deserve and are capable of electing.
You’re getting it. Its just in New York flavor, that’s all. Reagan was a westerner. Trump is a New Yorker. The stereotype has been there in a thousand movies. Reagan and Trump are more alike than you will ever admit.
Quit whining and go in for the big win.
No, Trump IS the VERY BEST of America and the ONLY candidate who loves America, all Americans, and wants to inspire everyone to BE Americans and bring back Reagan’s idea of America as she should be again.
Reagan's critics, and there were a lot of them, never said a nice thing about him. After they found their insults did not work they called Reagan Teflon.
Reagan was regularly called extreme, heartless, cruel, a dunce, out of touch, just a B movie actor, a hater a fascist, a cowboy, reckless and other things that can't be printed.
Washington Democrats hated Reagan with a passion. The media hated Reagan. They tried to get him impeached.
And when they could no longer attack Reagan they went after Nancy. She was continually attacked.
And they went after everyone in his administration.
There is nothing wrong with Trump or Cruz. They inspire people. Trump particularly loves America and is doing so much to make things better.
Please don't fall into the trap of Reagan loved by everyone, Trump divisive.
The people who are divisive are Soros, Obama, Clinton, Moveon.org and the people trying to destroy America.
Trump is a patriot. He loves America. He is lied about but he will win.
“Where Hollywood?”
“You’re looking at him.”
“Where?”
“Right here!”
“Where?”
“Here!”
SPOT ON !
“Please don’t fall into the trap of Reagan loved by everyone, Trump divisive.”
Most recently, they want to remove his name from the DC airport they love him so much.
Andrew Jackson was not a statesman or a spit and polished politician.
But he was what was needed at the time he was elected as the 7th president in 1829. He served two terms.
He ran on a campaign, among other things, of “Route the Vipers Out,” of Washington.
He was profane, a brigand, and willing to crack heads.
But things had gotten to a point in the country at the time, where he was precisely what the people wanted to go in and make a difference.
It’s very much the same today.
You go to war with the army you have rather than what you would like, right? It’s not Trump’s fault the GOP could not produce another Reagan since Trump met the man in his youth.
Wonder what this writer would have thought of Governor Reagan and later President Reagan how he handled thugs.
How Governor Reagan dealt with the Berkeley protesters in 1969!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCr3nL78qWs
Reagan handles a protester in 1980
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEXOpm0H7QA
“Above all, Ronald Reagan — like a number of other truly great American political leaders from both sides of the aisle — had the ability to inspire Americans to see the best in themselves and their neighbors.”
What a lot of nonsense. I doubt that this writer is old enough to remember the political climate in 1980. The 80s were no golden age of harmony in the country.
The GOP establishment was solidly against Reagan. He was too inexperienced or too conservative to suit them. They never did warm up to him, witness GHW Bush’s veiled insult in his “kinder, gentler America” theme.
The Democrats and the press were even worse, they ridiculed Reagan throughout his entire Presidency.
This election is no worse than what has gone on before. The big difference this time is that a total amateur is destroying the political hacks who think that they own the country and they can’t believe what is happening.
A very accurate recounting of what happened.
No, they were not, but the difference is the staffers of the office holders got along and helped hammer out the deals over drinks and smokes. They got along with each other after the cameras were off, not anymore, we all hate each other.
Teddy Kennedy and his comrades were as nasty and vengeful a crowd as we have today, going as far as siding with the Sandanista communists while we were fighting them.
Tip O’Neill was a double dealing liar whose word was no good. He agreed to budget cuts when Reagan proposed his first budget, then reneged on them creating a mess in the nation’s finances.
Probably not, but there were enough moderate or conservative Democrats and enough moderate or liberal Republicans in Washington that the conflict between the two parties was more muffled than it is today.
It wasn't that Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan were friends, it was that neither could count on getting everything his own way, and they had to work maybe with each other, but certainly with people who didn't agree with them 100%.
The GOP establishment was solidly against Reagan. He was too inexperienced or too conservative to suit them. They never did warm up to him, witness GHW Bush’s veiled insult in his “kinder, gentler America” theme.
Really? They voted for him. He may not have been their dream candidate or president, but they generally supported him.
Who was in Reagan's cabinet anyway? Schultz, Baker, Schweiker, Brady, Thornburg, Peirce, Brock? Plenty of moderates.
Tax cuts plus a hard-line on Russia (at first anyway): that was acceptable to pretty much all Republicans and most Americans.
If you've sniped at other Republicans down through the years, you've done what you reproach the '80s Establishment for -- probably more -- so what's the problem?
If the election were held today, who would be your first choice for President of the United States?Who would be your first choice for Donald Trump's running mate? |
 |
Thanks Kaslin.
bump
This is some of the revisionist history. Bob Michel was the weak minority leader for the Republicans, willing to roll over for the Dems. That’s the only reason there was a veneer of civility.
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.