Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cast a Giant Shadow - is the Reagan legacy a hindrance or a help to the GOP today?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    The term 'Left' is pretty broad mate.
    Some countries have long histories of left-leaning, centre-left, socially progressive parties in power on and off for extended periods without becoming Gulags for Pete's sake.
    The term 'Left' is pretty broad when we include other countries but how broad is it when we are discussing the United States?

    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    My mother grew up in Poland before WWII. She experienced Left and Right tyrannies in power (and I'm talking power of life and death!) and always said they were both absolutely f_ _ _king awful.
    While very interesting, how does it apply to the U.S.?

    My wife has some pretty interesting stories about growing up in a Socialist nation but it really doesn't apply to what is going on in the U.S. politically right now.
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #17
      In the US about one person in seven ( 1 in 7) maybe one in six, would describe themselves as "Progressive" or the equivalent as "Liberal." They are overwhelmingly present in larger urban areas and particularly on the coastal regions of the US. Outside those areas they are primarily confined to university towns and campuses.

      For example, in my state Arizona, outside Tucson (U of A), Tempe (ASU) and Flagstaff (NAU) all university towns, Progressive values pretty much are nonexistent. California is that way too. Only the coastal region in the larger cities is Progressivism predominant.

      But, one need only look at the Democrat party platform to see what Progressive values in the US are. You can also go to the teacher's unions (NEA and AFT) to see their politics are in lock step with those same values.

      One reason for the clean dichotomy in the US is that unlike all of Europe, and many other nations, third party politics are pretty much excluded from the table. It is rare for a third party politician to get elected to state or national office. Bernie Sanders is just about the only one in Congress in decades to do so and even he is running as a Democrat for President.
      The difference is that the European system of parliamentary rule divides up seats by party percentage in winning the election. The US system is "Winner take all."

      Each has its strengths and weaknesses. A big weakness of the parliamentary system is that fringe candidates and parties can gain power and even control the government. That would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to have occur in the US.
      So, by US standards Obama is very much a fringe candidate with almost extreme positions. By European standards he's pretty Centrist or Center-Left in his views.

      Comment


      • #18
        Reagan's policies worked within his historic context. Many of his major policy themes are neither sustainable nor desirable in a universal context. The Reagan venerated today is more an idea than a historic reality.

        Comment


        • #19
          I will agree that I haven't heard anyone longing for the days of Reagan when discussing current candidates, any more than democrats are longing for Kennedy or FDR. The ones I talk to definitely wish for a more defined candidate who doesn't apologize for having traditional values. The Tea Party in my view is really not the same as the hard-core leftists...they are a response to the hard-core leftists. I'm not sure the Tea Party would exist without discontent felt by traditional right-wing people...the feeling that the left was basically gaining ground and becoming the new moderate, while the right continues to get marginalized, mocked and attacked.
          If Republicans are longing for anything it's just that their party come up with a decent candidate that they can get behind and feel good about. Throw another Romney out there and the longing will continue unabated! This might explain the early spike in Trump's popularity...the hope that maybe he's the real thing and not just a blowhard! As someone who usually votes conservative myself, I'd welcome a candidate who isn't afraid to take on the left, who will compromise but not cave in, who bites back when the inevitable vicious personal attacks come from the liberals. Not Trump, maybe, but someone! Reagan doesn't even enter my mind when looking at the choices we face now...last time I checked he's dead.

          Comment


          • #20
            For me, that's the only good thing about Trump - he makes us forget Reagan (we hated him as much as Thatcher).
            Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

            Comment


            • #21
              On a related note;
              Bill OíReilly uncovers new details about Reaganís presidency in new ĎKillingí book
              EXCERPT:
              ...
              GLENN: All right. So tell me the most interesting thing in the book. Because actually, I havenít read it. But Iíve thumbed through it.

              BILL: Well, you should read it or have someone read it to you. You have a lot of servants.

              GLENN: I would read it. If it was written by anyone else, I would have read it three times by now.

              BILL: No, you wouldnít, Beck. No, you wouldnít. Hereís the most interesting part of the book. Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasnít okay. And the White House was able to keep that from the press and able to keep that from the people. He had his good days and his bad days. And we were taking our research from the people who loved Reagan, not from the snipers on the left. Okay? But the people who worked for him for a long time. People who admired him. On his bad days, he would even come down to the Oval Office and watch soap operas on TV. And on his good days, he was brilliant. But there came a point in the second term where his main advisers, Baker was the chief of staff, if you remember, was so concerned about him, that they had a meeting in the Oval Office. And he came into the meeting. And he didnít know that he was being watched, and if he had not performed well, they were going to try to remove him under the Constitution. And vice president Bush would have taken over the presidency.

              PAT: But this had nothing to do with ó

              GLENN: This had nothing to do with the shooting?

              BILL: No, it did. Because the shooting changed his physiology and his psychology. Youíre shot at that level and you almost die, you get that kind of trauma, youíre never the same. Never the same. And because of his age, he ó his recovery time while it seemed on the surface was miraculous, it really wasnít. So that he would be in and he would be out. But Iíll tell you why, when we were researching this and we found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic, and then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union. And we go through that. And itís all weaved together. But the book I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan.

              GLENN: I will tell you this, Bill, that I actually do find it fascinating. Thereís a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact ó did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party. They thought he was a lightweight. Itís a fascinating read. ...

              Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/09/28/bill-oreilly-uncovers-new-details-about-reagans-presidency-in-new-killing-book?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_l ink

              Comment


              • #22
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=tpW5i_lftCI

                http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...orchoosing.htm


                OK, not sure how to place the vid in the post box here, first link is to the video and second the site where found.

                Point is, has this message really gone out of date with Conservatives?
                Reagan didn't "invent" this theme, he was just great at articulating it, and getting a majority of voters to vote him and this concept into office.

                (BTW, this was delivered in 1964, 51 years ago)

                Just noticed, I posted the excerpt above, here's the full length version;
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCqtokmpl9A
                Last edited by G David Bock; 28 Sep 15, 18:57.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  Reagan's policies worked within his historic context. Many of his major policy themes are neither sustainable nor desirable in a universal context. The Reagan venerated today is more an idea than a historic reality.
                  I tend to agree, we have to remember is that Reagan was willing to compromise to get 75% of what he wanted. Today he would be labeled a "RINO" for even having a beer with Tip O'Neill muchless daring to comprise.

                  We need a Republican Party for the America of 2015 ... not one that is stuck in 1984.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post
                    I tend to agree, we have to remember is that Reagan was willing to compromise to get 75% of what he wanted. Today he would be labeled a "RINO" for even having a beer with Tip O'Neill muchless daring to comprise.

                    We need a Republican Party for the America of 2015 ... not one that is stuck in 1984.
                    How is the America of 2015 different from that of 1984 (or 1964) in your opinion on fundamental issues that divide the demo Left from the GOP Right?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=tpW5i_lftCI

                      http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...orchoosing.htm


                      OK, not sure how to place the vid in the post box here, first link is to the video and second the site where found.

                      Point is, has this message really gone out of date with Conservatives?
                      Reagan didn't "invent" this theme, he was just great at articulating it, and getting a majority of voters to vote him and this concept into office.

                      (BTW, this was delivered in 1964, 51 years ago)

                      Just noticed, I posted the excerpt above, here's the full length version;
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCqtokmpl9A
                      Posting YouTube videos is a bit annoying.

                      When you click the YouTube button it creates this:

                      <YOUTUBE> </YOUTUBE>

                      With [ replacing < and ] replacing >. I have to use <...> because otherwise that would be automatically invisible, sorry.

                      Anyway, what you want to do is take the end of your YouTube link (tpW5i_lftCI) and put that between the YouTube bits.

                      So you get:

                      <YOUTUBE>tpW5i_lftCI</YOUTUBE>

                      When you have that (with [...] instead of <...>) you get:



                      It's a pain, but once you do it a few times it starts to make sense... a bit. Anyway, hope that helps.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think Reagan is political product placement with the GOP. Not really connected with the current political plot and having very little to do with the reality of Reagan's policies.

                        In the long run it doesn't really matter anymore than aspirations to be Kennedy-esque with the Dems.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post
                          I tend to agree, we have to remember is that Reagan was willing to compromise to get 75% of what he wanted. Today he would be labeled a "RINO" for even having a beer with Tip O'Neill muchless daring to comprise.

                          We need a Republican Party for the America of 2015 ... not one that is stuck in 1984.
                          Agreed. Again, Reagan won more electoral points than any other Presidential candidate in history. He didn't do that by alienating everybody who wasn't ideologically committed.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Provokatsiya View Post
                            Agreed. Again, Reagan won more electoral points than any other Presidential candidate in history. He didn't do that by alienating everybody who wasn't ideologically committed.
                            But that sort of attitude isn't tolerated in today's political bickering.

                            And it must be said that Reagan's policies were very much a product of his time. His approach to military spending (something conservatives continue to support) was built around the goal of defeating the Soviet Union by outspending them and demonstrating the weakness of their economy/military. Today's "gotta keep spending more!" conservatives don't have a goal in mind beyond the nebulous War on Terror.

                            That's why I believe Reagan was such a great president - he was an ideologue who could work with others and compromise on policy without sacrificing his own beliefs in the process. While the old "I'll go down with my ship!" fanatic earns some respect for their devotion to the cause, when it comes to the Chief Executive, I want a man who is more concerned with doing what works, not what is ideologically perfect.

                            Still, the level of worship Reagan gets is off putting. I fear that people who idolize him too much risk losing sight of the man in favor of the idea. I prefer my heroes to be flesh and blood, not marble.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                              I think Reagan is political product placement with the GOP. Not really connected with the current political plot and having very little to do with the reality of Reagan's policies.
                              Sort of similar to what Che is to leftists.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                                But that sort of attitude isn't tolerated in today's political bickering.

                                And it must be said that Reagan's policies were very much a product of his time. His approach to military spending (something conservatives continue to support) was built around the goal of defeating the Soviet Union by outspending them and demonstrating the weakness of their economy/military. Today's "gotta keep spending more!" conservatives don't have a goal in mind beyond the nebulous War on Terror.

                                That's why I believe Reagan was such a great president - he was an ideologue who could work with others and compromise on policy without sacrificing his own beliefs in the process. While the old "I'll go down with my ship!" fanatic earns some respect for their devotion to the cause, when it comes to the Chief Executive, I want a man who is more concerned with doing what works, not what is ideologically perfect.

                                Still, the level of worship Reagan gets is off putting. I fear that people who idolize him too much risk losing sight of the man in favor of the idea. I prefer my heroes to be flesh and blood, not marble.
                                As I said before, he was great for his time, but times change. The coalition is fracturing-you need a new one, a new idea to unite people, and possibly new targets. It's the same thing that the Democrats were doing in the 80s with FDR. The GOP unfortunately is probably going to need to learn the same lesson that the Democrats did in 1984 before they wake up.

                                And can I also bring this up again: where did the neocons ever get the idea that Reagan was interested in trying to socially engineer Arab society with said built up military? I can't recall that being a policy directive in the 80s-one thing that is missed is how "realist" Reagan was in some aspects, i.e, Iran-Iraq and China. Even with the Soviet Union, it was the old Truman doctrine + more arms spending in the first term, hard-headed Nixonian detente 2.0 in the second. Defined realistic goal with a grand strategy and competent tactical execution.

                                It disgusts me that Wolfowitz is advising Jeb Bush. They should have been PURGED.
                                Last edited by Provokatsiya; 29 Sep 15, 00:33.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X