The Case Against Ronald Reagan

We’ve heard a lot of lip service to our nation’s 40th president by prospective Republican candidates since the official kickoff of the 2008 campaign (the day after the ’06 midterms) and a lot of promises to match conservative words with conservative action if elected. Given the thrashing Republicans took last November and the consensus among candidates for why they lost- abandoning conservatism- it’s not hard to see why appeals would be made to Ronald Reagan in order to make their candidacies look better. However, in so comparing, much is being misunderstood about the Reagan presidency and what exactly made him a great president. I would argue as David Brooks did some time earlier that a Reagan clone is not what America needs in 2008 despite what most Republicans appear to be yearning for.

It’s easy to see why conservatives, feeling betrayed by Bush’s second term missteps, would want one of their own to be the Republican standard-bearer next year. But what kind of conservative are they looking for exactly? There are actions and words in each of the declared (and undeclared) candidates which would qualify them as conservatives and likewise actions and words that would disqualify them. None of the candidates, official or otherwise, appears to be conservative on absolutely every issue as it would seem the base would demand.

Rudy Giuliani’s conservative economic and fiscal policies combined with his tough action on crime and 9/11 heroism is cancelled out by his stances on social issues and past ethical concerns. If conservatives are looking for a candidate with unquestioned and unwavering credentials on social issues they need look no further than Sam Brownback. His views on abortion would require a day’s journey to reach even the pro-life movement’s mainstream. Brownback’s candidacy fizzles along with other single-issue candidates when people discuss Iraq with the Senator or fiscal policy with Tom Tancredo. These second-tier, single-issue candidates are keeping themselves on the sidelines by taking unpopular positions on issues that are very divisive even within the party.

Ronald Reagan, by contrast, represents the consummate conservative to conservatives: someone whose (Protestant) Christian faith was as visible as the suit he was wearing; someone who advocated smaller government, lower taxes, and economic freedom and opportunity for all Americans; and someone who wasn’t afraid to get tough with our nation’s enemies. Conservatives identify aspects of the presidency and the man they particularly admire and are quick to point out that Reagan’s landslides prove that uncompromising conservatism can win in America. What they fail to mention or even realize is that Reagan’s victories occurred in a different time in a different political climate against very different candidates. Notice how no Democrat is hoping to become the next Walter Mondale or even Jimmy Carter.

What conservatives and Republicans should strive for instead is someone who, like Reagan, is the right person for the right time. That is what made Ronald Reagan a great president. His vision for America and drive for change were what Americans wanted twenty-five years ago, but things have changed dramatically since then. First and foremost, America is at war right now, and Reagan was certainly not a wartime president. America’s economic and social conditions are also quite different than they were in the 1980’s: massive foreign debt and housing crises have replaced double-digit inflation and high unemployment as the main economic threats on the horizon; stem cell research and gay marriage, both well outside the vocabulary of 1980’s social commentators, are now very much in the spotlight today. Republicans need a candidate who, while not 100% conservative on every issue, can suit today’s reality and deal with today’s problems instead of an ideal total conservative from a different era.