It looks like Bloomberg Insider published one of the more talked about pieces of the day, and it's on one of my favorite subjects.
Ronald Reagan remains the modern Republican Party's most durable hero. His memory will be hailed as The Great Uncompromiser by those who insist the GOP must never flag in its support for smaller government, lower taxes and conservative social values.
His record tells a different story.
During Reagan's eight years in the White House, the federal payroll grew by more than 300,000 workers. Although he was a net tax cutter who slashed individual income-tax rates, Reagan raised taxes about a dozen times.
In June, Jeb Bush said Reagan "would be criticized" by today's GOP. In May, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said Reagan "would be stunned by the party today." Mike Huckabee said a year ago, "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a nearly identical take in 2010, arguing Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today."
I've written a lot about this because I think it speaks to a larger truth. To my mind, the radicalization of the Republican Party is the most important development in American politics in at least a generation, and the GOP's abandonment of the Reagan legacy helps capture just how far the party has gone.
As we discussed a while back, Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, and he supported the precursor to the Buffett Rule. In his first term, Reagan raised taxes when unemployment was nearing 11% -- imagine trying this today -- and proceeded to raise taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office. It's a fact the right finds terribly inconvenient, but "no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people" as Reagan.
Reagan gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants, expanded the size of the federal government, tripled the deficit and added trillions to the debt, backed bailouts of domestic industries, and called for a world without nuclear weapons. Reagan also routinely compromised with Democrats, met with our most hated enemy without preconditions, criticized Israel, and illegally funneled arms to Iran.
And then there's his gubernatorial record: in California, Reagan increased spending, raised taxes, helped create the nation's first state-based emissions standards, signed an abortion-rights bill, and expanded the nation's largest state-based Medicaid program (socialized health insurance).
Reagan "could not get through a Republican primary today"? Reagan could not get through a Republican primary without being laughed off the stage today.
And why is this relevant today? For one thing, it's at least interesting to appreciate the fact that Republicans have a religious-like reverence for Reagan -- the RNC literally once labeled him "Ronaldus Magnus" -- but they have no use for his approach to governance.
But more importantly, it should tell the American mainstream something important when the GOP moves so far to the ideological extreme that it's no longer the Party of Reagan.
Leave a Comment:
Paging all protectors of St. Ron... Come forth and defend him from the slanderous slings and arrows!!
Well, O....Kay....
But we're still the Party of Lincoln! (except for that Civil War, and Emancipation thingie. . .)
...the intelligence and pragmatism...
Well, O...Kay.....
except the G.O.P. is NO LONGER the party of Lincoln, and hasn't been for about 100 years; Lincoln would be astonished and appalled at the changes that have ensued. The Democratic Party of 1860 more closely resembles today's Republicans, while today's Democratic Party hews rather close in many key areas to the original Republican Party.
Not making this stuff up - it's basic American political history 101, readily verifiable.
My response to the socialism charge is - "So what?"
Medicare is just socialism! So what?
Social Security is socialism! So what?
Socialism is un-American! Sez who?
I am a REAL American and I say socialism is not un-American.
Whatever works, Jesus was a extreme Democratic/socialist, he fed 5000 men with their families for free! That's how Liberals roll. Good example to follow for all.
I be 70 Sept. 25th. I was taught that "The United States of America" is a socialistic republic. We are not a "Democracy"!
Social Security would not be considered Socialism since you pay into it from your own earnings. The theory is you get it back; but it's not a an entitlement or a socialistic program by definition.
Yea, and where did our money we put into to go, why is it failing?
I'm new here, don't know how to vote. TheFave, certainly makes a good point.
To my mind, the radicalization of the Republican Party is not the most important development in American politics in at least a generation. Rather, to my mind, the most important development in American politics in at least a generation is the willful, systemic, deliberate refusal of the mainstream press to note or report upon the radicalization of the Republican Party.
At a time when we most desperately needed the press to perform the function for which it was given special Constitutional sanction and protection, there has been instead a concerted avoidance of the issue, a tacit conspiracy of averted eyes and a normalization of radicalization. Covering the radicalization has become a "niche" market for people like Rachel and the bloggers that is beneath the awesome dignity and contrary to the principles of magisterial neutrality of the Broder-worshiping courtiers of the Beltway MSM.
Good point.
The special subservience of the mainstream press to money, power, and right-wing ideology wasn't an accident; it was a foreseeable and foreseen result of media ownership consolidation. Journalism is no longer the business of any of the major press entities. Instead they serve the interests and worldview of the moneyed classes that run them.
You'll never shame a modern news conglomerate into doing better journalism. They do what they do not out of incompetence or laziness, but because what they are up to is serving the interests of their true masters. (Note: those true masters? They aren't us.)
When the press calls them out (like NY Times, Huffington Post, MSNBC) they are labeled as Left-Winged media. If it's not on Fox News, it's not true.
If you want to understand the modern American media, go watch "Network." Particularly Ned Beatty's speech to Peter Finch's "Howard Beale" character.
Paddy Chayevsky was once asked if "Network" was his view of what could happen. His reply was "the movie is my view of what has happened." That was in 1979.
The MSM is a wing of the GOP. And both are dying- one by demographics, the other by "teh internets".
I come here a dozen times a day, seldom glance at the ads (sorry, MSNBC), do not subscribe to any newspapers or news magazines, and never watch the Big Three news hours. I prefer LINK TV, etc. And I am a geezer. The kiddies "watch" their cell phones.
We could also talk about the radicalism of the Left.
Wow, that was seriously lame. But, to take the bait for the hell of it, what do you mean?
Also, one point: ALL the progress of the 20th century was because of "leftist radicalism".
Oh, Jack Blair, you mean the type of radicalization that led to African Americans having equal rights as white people, and the kind that gave women the right to vote? Or maybe the kind that led to women's right to choose, or perhaps free public education for kids? Why those no-good radicals. Next thing you know, we'll have gay people in the military, allowing them to marry, and letting women get paid the exact same amount as men for the same type of work. I can't even begin to think about what the hell they think about the environment--they must think the environment needs protecting, or something. I can't believe that these radical leftists are even allowed to live!
And now THIS, just in: The RNC just arbitrarily decided to strip delegates of their constitutional right to nominate the candidate of their choice. These elitists think they can get away with stripping people of their rights and their vote as long as they pull this trick close enough to an election to get away with it until after the fact when it is too late. URGENCY! CAL DOJ AND DEMAND THEY PUT A STOP TO VOTER SUPPRESSION 202-514-2000. This is just a foreshadowing of the kind of obstructionism they plan for the election! The UN needs to monitor voting in swing states. These people will stop at nothing, they are capable of anything, ANYTHING! VOTE!!!!
The GOP (and the country) like Reagan because he was a successful President. He turned the country around. He stared down the USSR. He also broke a bunch of laws, but hey, it was for a good cause.
Reagan (or more precisely the memory of Ronaldus Magnus) is proof that the GOP wants power more than policy. If McCain had won, they would have loved everything he did, despite having to hold their nose at voting for such a "moderate."
In their mad scramble to come up with a winning coalition of issues voters, the GOP has ended up with a ticket that has to promise things it can't deliver and scare people into believing that Mitt is the "lesser of two evils." Blech.
I feel sorry for Republicans; they just can't get their message straight.
Today, at their convention, they're going to have to tone things down and
feign concern for the "you people" in the path of this hurricane, while at the
same time, convey their fire-breathing message that kicks all those "you
people" to the curb. Plus, they'll have to recognize weather forecasts and all
those uncomfortable "sciencey things" they don't believe in and all those
agencies they want to defund. Excedrin headache #47...
Nope - wrong. He didn't stare anybody down. The USSR collapsed from within - not because of anything Reagan did. He ran away from Lebanon. He beat up on a little tiny country - Grenada. But he did not tear down the Berlin wall and he did not stare down the USSR.
He did not break laws for a good cause. He was keister-deep in Iran-Contra which was not for a good cause.
He coined one of the most un-American phrases of all time: "The government is the problem." This was said about a democracy - where the government IS the people. And true to form the seeds he has sown have born fruit in the most anti-American, anti-people ideology personified by Romney-Ryan.
He was not successful by any measure... other than causing harm to my country - the USA.
Reagan was at the right place at the right time of history; he had nothing to do with the fall of communism. Perestroika and Gorbachev did. If Carter had won in '80, it would have happened under his watch, or whomever was elected in '84.
I had friends die for that 'good cause.'
Casey was a treasonous, out of control monster. And Cheney is his spawn.
Ummm why would you write something that makes Obama look so impotent by comparison?
Not sure if you're commenting on my post or Steve's piece, but for my part:
1) Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill and a Democratic congress to get things done. That's the good stuff. He worked with Ollie North to do stuff congress expressly did not allow him to do--that's the bad stuff. (Plus he reduced my Pell Grants--the meanie!)
2) Obama got a lot done in his first two years, not impotent at all. He saved the country from a recession much worse than the one Reagan started with, he ended one war and has made good progress on the other. All despite absolute 100% obstructionism from the Republicans in Congress.
and 3) I write what I believe to be the facts. Not partisan talking points.
Addressing Benen, but your comments are interesting as well.
It can't be helped.
Mike, bb has a real hate for Benen because he wishes he could have a successful blog of his own. Just sayin.
At one time the two parties felt the need to work together. Maybe I'm biased, but it sure looks like the GOP has gotten giddy about putting their foot down. And maybe I'm swayed by McConnell's statement that their only goal was to push out the president. We know that's their goal, but it's such an antagonistic thing to say. I'd like to throw out every person on Congress who signed the Norquist pledge.
I agree completely that the press isn't helping. Is it above everyone's pay grade to investigate and report when a candidate is clearly lying?
But the main thing is that government isn't evil. Government isn't something I want to get rid of. I want much better schools. I want higher taxes to pay for what we need. I believe in good liberal values. And forget the deficit - we have to reign in the costs of health care. That's the elephant in the room.
(Comment went in the wrong place. Moved it over.)
Faux Pas makes very good points. Former Repubs hardly recognize their party today. For example, Former Gov bush, those voted out by the baggers, in other words reasonable men like Chuck Hagel & others. Also after watching Sixty Minutes, it is unbelievable a lobbyist like the hateful Norquist could possibly wield such power. Now that is pure evil. Republicans have created a monster. After what he has said about just needing someone to sign what he dictates & Mc Connell saying what he did about their only priority was defeating Obama proves their deviousness. Can you imagine what they would do if Democrats made such outrageous statements?
If you read Rachel's book, "Drift," you'll see that Reagan was a liar, a warmonger, and an authoritarian right from the start. The things he did then that look moderate now were just concessions to the fact that American politics wasn't as utterly corrupted then as it has become. Were Reagan around now he'd be as wingnutty as the rest of them.
I really get offended by this misguided idea that Reagan was some sort of moderate. He was as radical as those times would let him be, and he set both his party and the country as a whole on the path to the radical right-wing authoritarianism we now see manifested.
Your "warmonger" had only 337 combat deaths in his 8 years of the presidency. Obama has about 145 in 3.5 years, roughly the same pace.
The difference being, of course, that Reagan started all his little wars, whereas Obama is just cleaning up Bush43's messes.
jheartney: Hear! Hear!!
Nope, Afghanistan belongs to Obama now, lock stock and Karzai. It was a huge mistake that he has embraced, just like GITMO and number of other Bush failures that he continues.
For those of us a little longer in the tooth: "El Salvador is Spanish for Vietnam". We were already sending "advisors" to El Salvador and came pretty close to getting more involved. A good judge of how militarily involved we are going to get in a country is look at size of a planned embassy. The San Salvador one was going to be pretty massive.
That said, I'm getting pretty uncomfortable with the number of advisors we have sent around the world.
To show you how off base the thinking on Afghanistan is, Eisenhower inheirited a much much bigger war from Truman and ended it within six months. He even had the prisoners exchanged and most of the troops home within 20 months. By contrast, Obama still has soldiers dying in combat 43 months after his inauguration.
bannedagain:
Reagan rode to power on fact-free jingoism about the Panama Canal. He began the mindless military buildup that continues to this day, and brought to power many of the neocons who later went on to launch disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
His low body count stems in part from the fact that the cold war wasn't over yet (so launching wars willy-nilly didn't please Reagan's moneyed backers).
The main action he did launch, Grenada, was a comic-opera fiasco that didn't lead to a PR disaster only because it was so small and inconsequential, and because the press had been kept out of the invading forces. (Read Rachel's terrific book for more detail on this.)
Banned, you are a moron. Let's run down Reagan's legacy shall we?
1) Cut and ran in Lebanon.
2) Escort British Warships to the Falklands (Whoa! How brave!!)
3) Bomb a fruit stand in Libya
4) Create the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, the precursor to the Taliban and Al-Quada
5) Equip Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapon material and technology
6) Treasonous arms deals with Iran, enemy of the United States (only 3 years removed from hostage crisis
7) Just for kickers, his successor also bombed a fruit stand, but in Panama, not Libya. Said successor also failed to eliminate Saddam Hussein in first gulf war.
I could go on and on about Republican military lameassery, but I think I've made my point.
Forgot about Grenada...
I don't know all the facts about the Korean War, but have you noticed that the military didn't clamor for a surge in Korea when Eisenhower became President? Have you noticed that this President is drawing down our forces in Afghanistan and that most will be gone within the next year? Are you aware that 60 years later we still have troops in Korea to keep the peace? You might want to reconsider your last post.
judy
In case you didn't know it, we are leaving both troops and bases in Afghanistan after 2014
Judy -
You don't know much about Korea. Go read about it and come back.
citizen:
It's matter of perspective. For instance your "cut and ran" in Lebanon saved the lives of perhaps a thousand American servicemen (not named "citizen" of course), by reaching the correct conclusion that the deaths of 260 servicemen was not an excuse to cause the deaths of 260 more, a lesson that Obama refused to learn in Afghanistan.
As a reminder, Afghanistan was only a motel for terrorists, nothing more. No alqueda are Afghans, the 9/11 hijackers trained in the US not Afghanistan, the money came from the UAE, not from Afghanistan, and while our troops were fighting (and committing suicide at record rates) in Afghanistan, Bin Laden had been living in Pakistan our nominal ally for probably the last 5-6 years of his life at least.
The initial attack on Afghainstan made sense in the same way that the Doolittle Raid made sense, action HAD to be taken, but staying there past the first year or two was insane.
bb would say anything to be right. But he is not. He is full of @!$%#.
To bannedagain and notagrrl...yes, I am aware that we are keeping some troops in Afghanistan after 2014 - anywhere from 6000 to 25,000 are the estimates. We currently have 28,500 troops in South Korea to protect the border and the South Korean peoples.
While General MacArthur wanted to expand the war in Korea into China, Truman fired him in 1951. When China did get involved later, President Eisenhower threatened to use the nuclear option and increased military action IF the fighting didn't end. That plus the death of Stalin lead to the Armistice being signed in 1953. I stand by my post, but I am more than willing to read and learn. Next time notagrrl, be specific if you find my knowledge lacking!
Reagan couldn't get elected today, that is clear. Frankly, I could never stomach the guy. And as far as being dubbed "the great communicator," that was totally lost on me. Romney is an empty suit, the perfect candidate for the hardliners. They can call the shots and he and his model family can smile for the camera. A bit like the Warren G. Harding debacle.
My future is very bleak--elderly, no steady job, no healthcare (I'm self-employed). I am convinced that while the Obama administration remains a disappointment, a Romney presidency will put the last nail in my coffin, financially speaking.
To my mind, the radicalization of the Republican Party is the most important development in American politics
Throughout our history, there have been three political parties (whatever their names): the national progressive party, the national conservative party, and the southernist party. The two national parties have been in an even tie mostly, so the southernists allied with the party that would respect their "peculiar institutions." Never before in American history have the Southernist traitors completely taken over a major political party. They were a coalition with the Democrats, but they did not control. After the Democratic "treason" on civil rights, they decided that the next time they made an alliance, they would be the controlling party. The Southernists are a parasite, and we all know what happens when the parasite takes over the host. Hopefully, we will live through the death of the host this time, without having to go through an actual shooting-people civil war again to defeat the traitors.
And BTW, Reagan only looks good when compared with today. Go read "Drift" to see the major major role he played in the destruction of our old constitutional republic with his high crimes and misdemeanors (Irangate? Contragate?) He stands Number Two behind the traitor Nixon in his pernicious influence, and all this Reagan worship by people who should know better is unseemly. Back when he was in office, his policies SUCKED. They only look good in comparison with what the traitor Romney and the party of fascists, theocrats and white supremacists he heads would do. Which shows HOW BAD they are.
The master of dogwhistle politics would fit right in today's GOP.
Now it's Clinton that is their hero when it suit's their purpose.
it has become apparent in our socially engineered moral and culture wars sponsored and payed for by amoral parasites who don't think everything is enough for them...that anything left of depraved unapologetic sociopathy is to be called socialist held in high contempt and demonized...
Yea!!! It is almost official. Now what are their plans? Will the t party advance its agenda? Why not cover the role call it's part of the party. Just cause they are the onesa with the POT!!
Reagan would be in trouble today. Even his son on MSNBC said this Rep Party is not the same party today as it was then. Reagan son sounds very upset with the Rep party today.
Don't need to say much more on that.
Romney will never be in charge because he really don't believe in any one thing. He's been flip flopping on every issue from the very beginning since the primaries with the GOP. Then he picked the House Congressman Paul Ryan (for those who never watch the votes or session on CSPan) used the whole year in a half passing LAWS to attack Women Legal Rights. As for me I DON'T TRUST HIM/VP/RYAN on anything. VERY UNTRUST WORTHY. Like the REAL head of the GOP said, WE JUST NEED HIM TO SIGN HIS NAME, NO MORE OR LESS.
The media abandoned us during the Bush Administration. Since he would not/could not answer questions they just ignored his news conferences. On several occasions the room had to be filled with White House staffers. The least they could have done is go, record his ignorance so the morons that voted for him would GET IT.
They are cowards. Scared some nut case Republican will call them liberal. Liberals made this country what it was before the radicals took over the Republican Party. Liberals are responsible for feeding the hungry, health care for the sick and elderly, clean water, clean air. Social Security, voting rights for women and blacks, etc. etc.
Republicans are poised to take all of that away and they will be successful. Once they have embedded themselves in office, they change the laws so that you cannot vote them out. Texas is a prime example of this idiocy. Our schools suck, our Board of Education has been contaminated by ultra-conservatives who have changed history. The water stinks like sewage (in some areas it will burst into flames if you put a lighter up to the faucet). We have had 11 small earthquakes in this area in the last few months due to frackling. (This area has NEVER had earthquakes before.) They pump the contaminated water back into the ground after they extract the coal. When you hear Gov. Perry brag about job creation..he is taking credit for government jobs on the military bases, plus jobs provided by polluters that are PAID to come to Texas when other states don't want them. Texas is lost and if Romney wins this election all America will be lost.
Thanks to MSNBC for having the guts to stand up for the little people who made this country what it is today.
Fret not, the Democrats did not get to be the longest Political Party on earth because their inept. Pitch-in and don't give up, never. Always remember, there are good and honorable men too.
They ain't the party of Lincoln anymore either.
Personally I'm surprised the GOP haven't called Obama a Martian since he sent Curiosity up. He's anything.... anything at all, but "one of us."
Now, you know, the truth, it isn't a European Socialistic model of Government that Obama is modeling the US after but, a MARTIAN form of absolute rule, whence the plot to steal the Whitehouse originated.
"The GOP (and the country) like Reagan because he was a successful President. "
Oh please! They like Reagan because he gave the go ahead to be greedy... "Greed is good"... and to stop all that pussy 50MPH speed limits, solar panels and conservation stuff.
That's worked out as well, hasn't it??? As well as all the other GOP "successful" crap like deregulation and tax breaks for those who don't need them. The "Reagan success story" didn't even last a generation before it proved unsustainable and its ideas complete failures. Reagan and his GOP getting in charge is why we're in the mess we are today.
Albert is correct, listen to the people that lived it. It began with deregulation, then came his trickledown theory. IT DID NOT work! We are now living in the consequence.
Jesus' teachings were about helping the poor, loving thy neighbor, and not giving in to retribution against those who have wronged us -- essentially all the things today's Republican's can't stand. Yet, if you don't worship Him, you are a godless communist. Reagan raised taxes seven of eight years in office, gave arms to Iran, signed an abortion-rights bill, etcetera -- essentially all the things today's Republicans can't stand. Yet, if you don't worship him, you're an America-hating socialist.
I simply cannot fathom having heroes that I hate. It boggles the mind.
In 1962, when Reagan formally switched his allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republicans, stated, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me." Fifty years later, were he still alive and reasonably concious of what was going on, he would probably re-register as a Democrat and say, "They're back!"
Yea, R. Reagan was a staunch Roosevelt/Truman Democrat in the 40s and 50's. As head of the screen actors guild, in 47, at the Hollywood bowl, Reagan throws a Dem pep rally for Turman. Then RR had a change for heart in the 60's and went for the money instead of the people like FDR and "Give uh Hell" HT.
My politics are pretty left wing, but I was a closet Reagan fan (still believe Clinton was a better modern pres.). It isn't so much what a president believes to me as it is 'that' he believes ... stand by your principles and believe in them dammit. Reagan did, and even when I disagreed I respected him. Clinton did, and I agreed and respected him. Obama ... I believe ... has done that and I have disagreed on the health care passed and some other things ... but I think he believes in what he is trying to do. I do not think Mitt 'believes' in much, other than getting elected ... just saying ...
I come across as such a hater here ... that isn't right. Dammit ... Mitt's a human too. I am not being facetious here when I say that I have to believe that Mitt Romney thinks he is a good person and wants to be a good person, and crawls in to bed every night believing he is a good person. I just honestly do not believe he has a 'core' ... he is a consummate business guy ... he adapts to what the market calls for in order to 'make the deal' ... that is outstanding in a private equity company (no matter what I think of that business model) ... it is some scary damned @!$%# in the leader of the free world ... just sayin'
..He's a lawman's friend, he's all night DJ, sure don't think much like the records he plays.
He's a drugstore truck driving man, he's the head of the KLU Klux Klan, when summer comes rolling around, we'll be lucky to get out of town (Joan Baez7jeffery Shurtleff at woodstock). To RR with luv.