home

A Return to the Reagan Years?

Ronald Brownstein, fearful that Democrats will emerge from the November elections with a president and large Democratic margins in the House and Senate, urges Democrats to abide by their duty to govern as if they were Reagan Republicans. This is because Americans are faithful to the ideology of Reagan and recognize that the New Deal represented a failure of ideas. Voters who send Obama to the White House are rejecting George Bush, not Reagan's belief that government is the problem.

The evidence in support of this fever dream goes unstated. Is it not more likely that the public supports Obama because he argues that a responsible government can act to improve the lives of its citizens? Isn't it possible that voters are tired of waiting for wealth to "trickle down" as Reagan-era economic theories (revived on steroids by Bush) promised? It is Reaganomics, not the New Deal, that represents a failure of ideology.

< Philadelphia Inquirer Endorses Obama, Blasts McCain's Choice of Palin | Late Night: SNL with Sarah Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 10:19:54 PM EST
    We will be mindlessly lectured that vast majorities of the public still subscribe to all of Reagan's ideas unless and until someone tries something different.

    I'm not sure Mr. Brownstein's. . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 10:27:40 PM EST
    thesis is wrong.  I see no particular evidence that the critical middle of the electorate that's voting for Obama is doing so because they want to see some drastic anti-Reagan policies put in place.

    Obama has not campaigned on the notion of radical change.  Rather, he's stood for cool, centrist leadership.  The core of his economic policy has always been middle class tax cuts, not increasing revenue through tax increases on those who can pay.  He's proposed no major new programs, his health care plans have never included mandates, and on social issues while he himself is liberal he's made it clear no one need reexamine their own, more conservative beliefs.

    He deliberately invoked Reagan during the primaries and he sometimes seems to be channeling Reagan himself (such as in the debates).

    So I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that many voters -- the key block -- could well be surprised if they don't wind up with a generally Reaganesque, but competent, administration.

    Reaganomics is a success for the wealthy! (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by imhotep on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 10:38:52 PM EST
    On Bob Brinker's Money Talk today, a concerned taxpayer asked whether Obama would raise taxes on qualified dividends.  The example used was $100,000 in dividends, would your taxes go up?
    SPLORT!!!

    I personally (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by eric on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 11:05:10 PM EST
    repudiate Reagan and all that he did.  With that being said, I think people cling to Reagan's name more that what he really did.

    I say that it is time to more beyond that myth.

    IMHO Reagan was a worse president than W., (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magnetics on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 11:46:21 PM EST
    not least because he enabled the latter's ascension.


    It all goes back to Nixon (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 11:50:31 PM EST
    Reagan was an "amiable dunce" made possible by Nixon.  It was Nixon who devised the nefarious "southern strategy" and nearly invented the whole idea of "culture war".  Nixon is the true evil genius, Reagan merely his less interesting spawn.

    Reagan's legacy (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by TomStewart on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:18:07 AM EST
    Is George W. Bush. His policies are Reagan's writ large. America has rejected Bush, Reagan;s polices have wrought utter disaster. We can view the man through vaseline smeared glass, but he lagcy has brought America to the brink of ruin.

    "Please play fair" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by hoser on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    Brownstein is just doing what the Repugnants always do when they regain the minority:  "We know we played dirty while we were in the majority, but we'd like it for you guys to go back to playing fair just like you did under Daschle, et al."  Then they get someone like Newt and Delay to play the obstructionist, etc., etc.

    Similar to what Broder (none / 0) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    said when Democrats got control of both houses in the 2006 elections.

    After six years of strident partisan Republican perfidy, Broder said now's the time to be bi-partisan.

    Idiot.

    Parent

    Reagan's legacy (none / 0) (#3)
    by lepidus on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 10:29:32 PM EST
    It is a little unsettling how no one really talks about the fact that all of the Bush White House stuff is an extension of the Reagan legacy. By and large the accepted wisdom in the media seems to be that this isn't the case. Even Obama likes to pay lip service to Reagan while proposing policies that contradict him.

    A long overdue gift as well. (none / 0) (#5)
    by WillBFair on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 10:36:51 PM EST


    Obama is (none / 0) (#8)
    by WS on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
    running on "transforming" the country and "turning the page."  

    Meanwhile, the McLaughlin Group ran an entire episode and asked whether Obama was a socialist or a Marxist.  It was bizarre.  

    Obama, Friday (none / 0) (#13)
    by lambert on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:17:20 AM EST
    Here:

    "[OBAMA] What happened was Democrats had gotten complacent, had gotten fat and happy. they thought there was a government program to solve every problem. Ronald Reagan came in and said we need to break out of the old ways of doing things and create a leaner, more effective government," he said. "That was the right message then. I think that right now we went too far in the wrong direction. We can't go back to the old liberalism of the past, but [when] you are on your own economic philosophy [of] Bush and McCain doesn't work either. Let's try a new way where we apply common sense, have government do what it does well.

    Would somebody like to parse that?

    No need to parse. (none / 0) (#14)
    by TChris on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:58:48 AM EST
    How about taking him at his word?  He wants a government that will perform effectively to meet the needs of the nation without becoming bloated and wasteful.

    Parent
    you know (none / 0) (#17)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    that may be what reagan said but it wasn't what he did.  government did not become more efficient during his years.  to the extent that happened, it was during the clinton years when we cut spending and actually started working on the backlog of so many pending petitions to the government.

    for example, republicans used to actually make government less responsive in dealing with people's requests for various services (like disability payments) because they didn't want to expand social services.  clinton put the staff and regs into place so that if you had a disability request, you would get an answer more quickly.

    reagan may have talked about more efficient government but it didn't happen.  democrats really need so stop participating in the lionization of this bad president and giving him credit for stuff he didn't do.

    Parent

    'He' refers to Obama, not Reagan (none / 0) (#18)
    by TChris on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    I know that (none / 0) (#19)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:52:17 PM EST
    Obama is buying into a Reagan myth.  He is wrong about the history and the politics.  He is pretending that Reagan actually did something to streamline the government and make it less "bloated".  All Reagan did was make it more responsive to corporations and less responsive to people.  There's nothing efficient about making a sick kid wait years to get government help - that's the real legacy of Ronald Reagan.

    But for some reason, Obama buys into the idea that Reagan actually wanted government to be efficient and responsive, thus advancing the Reagan myth and stiffing the person who actually made government more responsive - Bill Clinton.

    (for another example, see also: FEMA)

    Parent

    from the post (none / 0) (#20)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:53:31 PM EST
    "Reagan came in and said we need to break out of the old ways of doing things and create a leaner, more effective government."

    So say Obama.  But he is wrong about what Reagan actually did.

    Parent