Q. Who was the most successful and admired Republican politician of, at least, the latter half of the 20th century?
A. Easy. Ronald Reagan.
Q. And why was he so successful?
A. Because he had better ten-point plans than Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Because more Americans agreed with him than with the Democrats on certain hot-button issues. Because he inspired people, and because he was a leader.
What’s my point? My point is that the perpetual moaning and groaning from the Healey crowd about Patrick not being “specific” enough and talking too much about “the politics of hope,” in addition to being either willfully wrong or wildly misinformed, misses a really important fact about politics: leadership matters.
Remember “morning in America”? I mean, come on — what the hell does “morning in America” really mean? Nothing, obviously — it’s just a feel-good slogan that doesn’t actually say anything about what you’d do in office. And yet, here’s what a hard-core Reaganite wrote shortly after Reagan left office:
MORNING IN AMERICA
Reagan Rebuilt the Presidency
EDWIN J. FEULNER JR.
Ronald Reagan changed the political landscape in ways that, just a few years ago, seemed unthinkable. Today even liberals use words that eight years ago would have branded them as reactionary turncoats.
Even his most ardent opponents acknowledge that Mr. Reagan dramatically changed the tone of the nation. Jimmy Carter, in a 1979 speech, said America suffered from a “malaise.” America was also suffering from Sky- high interest rates, inflation, and unemployment, and its prestige abroad had hit rock bottom-not things that inspire revelry.
What Mr. Carter didn’t say was that part of a president’s job is to help shape national attitudes. If America was on a “downer,” he shared the blame. On came President Reagan, saying, “It’s morning in America,” “Jobs and growth instead of tax and spend,” and pledging to free the entrepreneurial spirit from excessive taxation and regulation.
The establishment intelligentsia dismissed such rhetoric as corny and simplistic, as indeed it would have been had there been no substance behind it. As it was, the president’s rhetorical skills helped restore the image of forceful, dynamic leadership to the office of the presidency, and this was crucial in galvanizing support for his policies….
Presidents leave lasting legacies by establishing new frameworks for public policy debates.
Now, needless to say, I’m not all that psyched about some of the frameworks that Ronald Reagan established. So I don’t agree with much of what Mr. Feulner says on the merits of Reagan’s policy ideas. But Feulner is absolutely right about how Reagan was so successful in changing the national conversation as dramatically as he did.
“The tone of the nation.” “National attitudes.” “The image of forceful, dynamic leadership.” That stuff matters. And Deval Patrick brings the same skills that Reagan had (with a very different agenda behind them, needless to say) to the Governor’s race. Anyone who thinks those skills have no bearing on actual governing doesn’t understand much about politics, and doesn’t understand why Ronald Reagan was an effective president.
Or Stevenson, whose success was in articulating his point of view. It was rejected, but cohesive.
Do you think Eisenhower shifted the entire national conversation the way Reagan did? I don’t.
He quietly rebuilt the country after WWII, and kept our involvement in Korea to a minimum – the first time we fought with UN forces instead of our own. Greatest peacetime expansion in history. Genesis of civil rights (Adlai gets some credit for that, too). You said ‘successful’, not influential.
<
p>
For that, I would choose Goldwater.
On both Eisenhower and Goldwater. Have you seen the HBO docu about him yet?
So maybe someday.
I thought all of you Repubs were media consuming whores… đŸ˜‰
<
p>
(Totally kidding…and the docu is on Goldwater, in case I wasn’t clear.)
Now that I’ve seen all of Sex and the City, I can begin watching Six Feet Under!
I don’t have HBO either, but if this was on Goldwater, I’d definitely want to look for it on DVD.
<
p>
When I think about the Reagan era, I remember it being very divisive. You either loved him or hated him. He either made you rich or kept you poor. He was either going to start WWIII or was the greatest defender of the free world. I was 10 years old when he was elected, and I was taught to hate him and his trickle down economics. But if you supported Reagan, it wasn’t luke warm. You were there 100%.
<
p>
Like Reagan, Patrick has enthusiastic supporters. And I think he faces the same potential of deepening the divide. For as much as his words inspire those who support his message, they antagonize, perhaps alienate is a better word, those who don’t share his vision. I’m not saying this divide will happen, I’m just saying the potential is there. It’s not necessarily a bad thing — maybe we need some deepening in order to get the conservatives engaged in running for the legislature where I think we really need some balance.
<
p>
On another note, rollbiz, thank you for not being mean to me on that earlier thread. I appreciated it.
<
p>
To answer briefly, the docu is on Goldwater and it’s fascinating to me and the political junkies I’ve shared it with. As far as not being mean to you, well…I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to because I do a lot of commenting here but I try very hard to save mean to those who have nothing else to say besides unloading baseless and divisive attack material which causes further apathy in ther voting population. You’ve not fallen into that category yet, so I’ll defend you no problem.
<
p>
‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ Voltaire, I would argue, was smarter than us all. He mixed dissent and unity in a way which, when understood, is truly profound.
While I can see the hunger for balance, I can see the disgust with those who have promised it in the last decade plus. I can also see that if you see a divisive approach from Deval, you haven’t paid close if any attention to his speeches. Of note very recently was his rally at the Common. He made it clear that all are welcome in his campaign, and he re-iterated the issues with the politics of what seperates us as opposed to what unites us. I suggest at least that you watch it before tearing him as divisive.
I don’t think Deval himself is divisive, and I don’t think that Reagan was either. I just think that when you get a strong response, there will be an equally strong counter. The Republican revolution that happened at the federal level over the past 10 years was due, in part, to their success of unifying the fractured counter response.
<
p>
I don’t know that the counter response in MA will be Republican, Independent or Democrat, but if Deval wins, I predict there will be a conservative counter.
Sort of…I think the counter response on a national level was based on an ideological premise which those like I are disgusted with because overt religious movements have no place in politics.
<
p>
Look, having talked to hundreds of voters I would say that I expect the Reagan effect in reverse. Not reversed in terms of idealogy but in terms of party. I have been in a position as a phonebank volunteer to talk to hundreds or maybe thousands of people (I don’t keep count). I’ve run into a number of conservative voters who understand the insider/ousider angle, and still more who are just disgusted with the politics and the machine of MA that have existed long before I was born or certainly of voting age.
<
p>
What intrigued me for a time was the fact that more traditional conservatives were supporting Patrick. Certainly not all of them, but a good number I talked to. They seemed to have some valid reasons, and I wanted to share them in response especially to the echo chamber arguments which happen here…-
<
p>
-It’s an outsider, stupid… Many conservative folks, traditional Repubs, are supporting or considering the ticket because their fed up with the “machine” much more than they are with a particular party.
<
p>
-World on our shoulders… Other conservative folks are just plain fed up with having the religious right dictate untruths to them. The big R Right hasn’t stood up for true Conservatives in some time, and I think that it’s time these folk were given someone else to look to. Those in the Right who see through scare tactics and attack ads will probably go Mihos as a reflexive, but I ask you this: Do you seriously think he could ever be taken seriously as the “Ambassador of Massachusetts”? I personally think not.
<
p>
There is no Conservative counter beyond the scare ads we’re seeing now. Why? Because the people that run this campaign know that record, vision, charisma, and tact; among other aspects, are not what they can run a campaign on to their advantage. It’s simple.
<
p>
The counter response is already underway. The problem with it is that, if you’re not scared, you’re not on board. I wil hedge my vote, my livelihood, and the few things I own that in a fair fight or even a slanderous one the vote on fear loses to the vote on reason and hope.
when does the next reliable poll come out?! anyone know?
David, I understand your point as it relates to Deval. However, I don’t share your view about Reagan’s supposed effectiveness. Thanks to GWB, we tend to think of Reagan as someone he was not. Yes, he did have the “rhetorical skills” which caused many to overlook his obvious flaws, and was very effective in front of a camera. However, I would stop short at using the word “effective” or “inspired” to characterize Reagan. He was at best, a more reasonable GWB. To date, GWB benefits from the anti-intellectual, chest-thumping, and reactionary “framework” Reagan presented. People forget the 1980s were marred by unparalleled consumerism, reactionaryism (is that a word?) and selfishness which were expressly or implicitly promoted by Reagan.
I certainly don’t recall actual hostility to intellectualism from Reagan, as we now get from Bush. He just wasn’t a chin stroking type himself. That might have been because that administration was more consistently ideologically conservative, and this administration is anything but conservative.
<
p>
This is an excellent point.
<
p>
I think Reagan’s great attribute was his ability to exude sunny optimism, which in 1979-80 was in short supply. That is why Carter is often remembered for the “malaise” thing and why the “There you go again” zinger was so lethal. In addition, Reagan was a disarming (no pun intended) personality, and managed to charm the Democrats in Congress into supporting a hugely successful tax reform.
<
p>
Clinton had this talent to a degree, though I am still mystified at why he was/is a more polarizing figure than Reagan.
<
p>
DP seems also to have this talent, which is in large measure why I voted well to my own left on September 19, and will again in November.