Every time Republicans lose ground in federal elections, we hear the same chorus coming from the Beltway establishment: conservatism has had its day, Americans are moving left.
We heard it in 1982 and again in 1992, very clearly in 2006 and most definitely in 2008.
But, if you look closely at each of those elections (save 1982), the victorious Democrats had not defeated Republicans running on a Reaganite record, but Republicans who had adopted the Washington habits of their Democratic peers.
And let us recall that the most successful Democratic President since FDR, Bill Clinton, won not by opposing Ronald Reagan, but by co-opting his ideas. In 1992, he wasn’t running to expand the federal government, but to re-invent it (whatever that means) and to “end welfare as we know it.” He may have governed more to the left than he campaigned in his first two years in office, but, after Republicans won Congress in 1994, he quickly shifted gears and steered clear of tax increases and big-budget boondoggles.
No man has ever been elected president by running against Ronald Reagan. The American people have never repudiated his ideas at the ballot box. Indeed, the last Democrat to win the Oval Office did so by borrowing Reagan’s rhetoric, you know that stuff about “living beyond our means” and proposing “a net spending cut.”
No man has ever been elected president by running against Ronald Reagan.
Yeah, but he only left office 22 years ago– out of 223 years of the office’s existence. Kind of a silly thing to say.
But otherwise I totally agree with you. It would be wise for both parties to act in accordance with Reagan’s rhetoric. I don’t want to live in a future where I am using Charmin as currency and wiping my ass with dollar bills.
I agree that people are trying to say conservatism has had it’s day.
I think that’s simply wishful thinking on their part.
The American people have never repudiated his ideas at the ballot box.
I would disagree, over the last decade, with both parties controlling Congress and inflating the defecit, it seems like the voters have totally “repudiated” Reagan. Not that that is desirable– it just shows that voters like it when Congress spends others’ money on their behalf.
Question: Is everyone aware that Reagan raised taxes (several times) and tripled the deficit, right?
It’s important to separate the myth (what commenters at RedState called Ronaldus Magnus) from the actual man in office.
BDB, to give you a chance to clarify – were you referring to his campaign rhetoric versus what he actually did, perhaps? Although you did refer to a Reaganite “record,” which, again, would indicate you’re referring to actions while in office not just campaign promises. To this point, Jeremy: by inflating the deficit, later Congresses were continuing the practice under Reagan (and from far, far earlier, of course; it’s not like that practice started with the man).
[Since this comment does not address the subject matter of the post, I will not be responding to this or your other posts in this thread. –Dan.]
Turpentine,
Reagan did not grab the pendulum and reset it on fiscal conservative. About that you are correct.
He merely stopped runaway inflation and reinvigorated the stagnating economy.
He was a total failure at bringing entitlement welfare under control, ditching the department of education, restoring the national infrastructure to peak condition, getting the welfare class off the couch, ending obesity, getting all people to whistle while they work, taking credit for the good work of others and convincing the elite left that he was not an amiable dunce.
Your crowd has screamed about the Bush tax cuts as a special gift to the rich for a decade. Your crowd claims it caused the recession and put us where we are. Now, your crowd is beginning to say that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be a blow to the economy and likely cause a double dip recession. Which is it, Turpentine? If Reagan “taxed” us into the long period of growth and prosperity, why don’t your guys just tax us into permanent wealth and a life of ease?
See how easy it is to be stupid?
torrent isn’t sharp enough to see he’s stupid, heliotrope. drive by squat and vrap is all he’s capable of.
I recall some liberal pundit on CNN stating that in 2012, the Republican nominee would be [at least as liberal than John McCain, probably more so.]
It’s still possible I suppose, but it’s looking very unlikely. The current crop of hopeful nominees is much more conservative than McCain.
Sorting through all the examples of excellent parenting and manners, I’m trying to find acknowledgment of the deficit spending of Reagan. I guess the spittle hitting your monitors is the closest we’re going to come to that.
“Our crowd” does not claim the Bush tax cuts put us where we are today. Banking deregulation played a larger part in it. But, plain and simple, one of the largest contributors over the Bush admin to the deficit was the Bush tax cuts (It’s just math, people. If you can refute it, prove it, and try to act your purported ages and do so, sans namecalling). Now, in the middle of screaming about the deficit, the GOP wants to extend tax cuts, which would cost (unlike what Palin claimed) $3.1 trillion over the next decade, 700 million for the wealthy alone. During the unemployment benefits discussion, the GOP insisted that anything which cost money had to be paid for. Which is it, people? What is the GOP plan for paying for these tax cuts?
[crickets]
Applebaum in WaPo:
BDB, I await your “if the facts are on conservatives’ side, why must they name-call and attack their enemies” reminder to your commenters.
Do I stand corrected? They why add this one sentence latter?
Here is Turpentine at his most opaque:
Cost? Cost who? Why, the government, of course. The first job of every citizen is to pay the friggin’ government. Now if we accept Turpentine’s numbers (and giggle at Sarah Palin) I wonder why government spending can’t be cut by “$3.1 trillion over the next decade” and unfunded entitlements whacked as well.
After all, Obama has dumped far, far, far more that an additional “$3.1 trillion over the next decade” on us.
Comeback, Turpentine, with your edifying economics model of taxing us into prosperity.
What, pray tell, role did Fannie and Freddie play in the current mess? Were they just a useful braking system that kept things from being worse?
Turpentine, did you notice that the rich (rats that they are) are abandoning the high tax states droves? What do you think causes “outsourcing?” Maybe it is time to tax the breath out of the poor. After all, when you have killed the goose, it is time to blame the egg.
You sad sack commies have no model of success to point to.
Turpentine, did you notice that the rich (rats that they are) are abandoning the high tax states droves?
Indeed, given how torrentprime’s own Obama Party supports tax evasion and flat-out nonpayment when it comes to taxes that they themselves imposed and support, on what, exactly, is he lecturing us?
Why do you suppose John Kerry tried to evade Massachusetts taxes on his yacht, torrentprime? Is he unpatriotic? Is he arrogant, greedy, and selfish?
Why do you suppose Charles Rangel flat-out refused to pay taxes on his income, abused subsidized housing to provide himself with cheap offices and pied a terres, and tried to hide all of it? Is he unpatriotic? Is he arrogant, greedy, and selfish?
If tax cuts are not beneficial, torrentprime, then why is the leadership of your Obama Party so busy trying to create individual ones, instead of forking over and paying for them? Why is this behavior not only endorsed, but supported and celebrated by your Obama Party, who rewards these sorts with massive blowout birthday parties, plum chairpersonships, and Presidential nominations?
Reagan did have a spending problem, but he was also facing a difficult situation. The tax cuts of the early 80s made a great deal of sense; inflationary crises are best handled with cutting taxes while the central bank disinflates the money supply (this helps reduce the pain of disinflation, and avoids the risk of a depression). This model was first used by post-WWII Western Germany, and led to the German Economic Miracle.
However the spending levels were extreme. Reagan did push for budget cuts in the early 1980s, but faced with the Cold War and an arms race balancing the budget became impossible. This birthed the American corporate welfare state (not a bad idea at the time; a lot our modern tech came from military investments in the 1980s I think), but over the decade (and the twenty years since) Congress became fatally addicted to debt.
By no means was this entirely Reagans fault; spending cuts were a fundamental part of his economic package, but restoring faith in American military preeminence was every bit as important as dealing with the economy. His spending policies helped push the Soviet Union over the cliff, assuring the triumph of Western democracy over Eastern Europe communism.
Personally, I don’t blame Reagan for his spending priorities; the Soviet Union was too large a threat, and the consequences of weakness to severe.
so um yeah, in other words, Reagan wasn’t perfect but he did try a bit harder then his successors, and he faced unique challenges. and cutting taxes really does make sense in some cases, though not others (like cutting taxes below the Bush tax levels would be disastrous right now, though keeping them enacted where they’re at is probably a good thing given deflation).
BTW, the trade deficit is a consequence of budget deficits; if Republicans really had cut spending like they kept saying they would we would have a lot more jobs today. But it looks like more and more of those are being voted out (yay!) and new ones are getting in. Besides, there are plenty of fiscally conservative Democrats too, and they aren’t happy with Obama at the moment. The two groups make natural allies (iirc this is how the budget got balanced in the 90s?).
The TEA Party is an unaffiliated movement. It thinks it has the best chance of reorienting the Republican Party. Do these “plenty of fiscally conservative Democrats” have the guts to unite with the TEA Party or to run as fiscally conservative Democrats and unite with the Republicans?
The ball is in play.
heliotrope: to be honest, I don’t know. They seem to be unhappy in their alliance with the far left, but they still need to shift obama to the center; unlike clinton, I don’t think centrism comes naturally to the president. I think at this point no one knows what new power sharing agreement the democratic coalition is going to come up with, or what future relations with the white house will be.