The Next Reagan Revolution?

Over at the Atlantic, good solid liberal Matt Yglesias says it's perfectly fine that Barack Obama praises Ronald Reagan's "change trajectory," and dozens of Democrats in comments mostly agree that Reagan is a fine example for a progressive candidate (policies notwithstanding) because like Obama, he had a "sunny disposition."

Meanwhile, in the heavens, the earth has ceased moving around the sun.

Democrats. Reagan. Hero worship? The metaphysics of American politics simply won't accept that a body of disdain and vitriol built over a quarter of a century, once in motion, won't stay in motion. It has to. That's why the strange mass apologia on the left strains belief.

Dig the pretzel self-twisting routine from these Obama supporters:

It's true that from a liberal perspective, Reagan was an awful President, especially when it comes to union-busting but also on a number of other issues such as the right to choose, affordable housing, etc. But none of this was really appealing; it was much more Reagan's sunny disposition and stories about the pipefitter and so forth.

[and]

You need to claim to be above partisanship -- and offer something genuinely new, both symbolically and substantively -- in order to produce a durable partisan realignment. Neither of the other candidates are likely to produce much realignment. I think Obama might.

Yeah, that union busting thing was bad, but the man did rise about partisanship - and dawg, he looooved those jelly-beans, too! That's my kind of change agent, dude.

Ah, but there are real Democrats who don't take the strange Yglesias pass on Reagan worship lying down. Here's one who is exactly spot on target:

Ronald Reagan was a sociopathic demagogue.

Now, maybe it's fine to compare oneself with a sociopathic demagogue--someone capable of preaching states' rights on the killing field of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney; someone who could tell Menachem Begin that he was at Auschwitz when he was on a Hollywood studio lot; someone who could persuade millions that the Sandinistas were coming for us through Harlingen, TX, so we could go kill us some Nicaraguan peasants; someone who said he thought it would be a great time for an outbreak of botulism when poor people in Oakland were being handed out food by the Hearst family; someone who preached small government while blowing the budget and growing the federal bureaucracy.

But I beg to differ. This Reagan-to-Rushmore insanity has got to stop.

Obama may well have misspoken, (it was probably just an accident comparing Richard Nixon with Bill Clinton) and any Democrat can certainly admire the 40th President's political skills out loud. But he should hustle to debunk the idea that Ronald Reagan is his model for change - and fast.

As Jon Swift said, Obama "wins the Hasty Pudding award as the most crossdressingest candidate after Giuliani with his sudden transformation into a Reagan Democrat."

Running to the right of Hillary Clinton on domestic policy may well pay dividends in the general election - but first he has to get there. And many voting Democrats remember the Reagan years very, very well.

UPDATE: Matt Stoller has an excellent analytical post on how Obama's Reagan moment may well have cost him Nevada. One clarification - lots of commenters seem to equate Obama's age with that of his followers, insisting if he'd "lived through" the Reagan years, he might not have blundered into praising him - but Obama's a year older than me, and must remember Reagan's presidency quite clearly.

Comments

[Mike P]

Tom,
I thought you heard. Apparently Thursday was "Democratic presidential candidates adopt 'right wing frames' day":
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14266.html

Fun for the whole party!

[Slappy]

I was in fifth grade when Reagan was elected. The day before we would get hot lunches. The day after, ketchup was handed out with every bologna sandwich because we needed a vegetable and every meal was served cold. And from that point on, American's expectations of their government diminished greatly. To the point where Republicans with a straight face told us the government was not to be trusted and was not responsible or capable of serving the people through education and health care and a fair wage. But the fact that the Commies never landed their nuclear subs on the shores of Coney Island if proof enough for many that Reagan was a god. His presidency marked the beginning of a very ugly period in American history. Hopefully one we are watching end.

I don't want a president wanting to please the right. And Obama's use of his church and religious under tones is enough for me to root for Clinton. Should Edwards drop out of course.

[Linda]

This is the last nail in the coffin for me. No way is this man a progressive democrat. No way will he make the kind of changes that need to be made to get this country back on the right track. One more neocon or neocon apologist will just about sink us for good.

I would consider Ronald Reagan to be our worst ever president if it weren't for the sociopath currently in that spot. They are definitely two of a kind. Hearing a supposed democrat invoke the man's name tells me everything I need to know about him.

[amparker]

He is utterly shocking -- what he is doing in the Nevada caucuses (Culinary Union strong arming their members and telling them either not to go to the caucus or threatening their jobs if they don't vote for Obama) not to mention the phenomenally crooked Iowa caucuses that were stampeded by students from outside the state - or returning to their own states to double vote!! This is one of the most crooked campaigns I've seen from a Democrat - it's comparable to W's. I wish that Democrats would stand up and not be afraid because he's African American to reveal his dirty tactics and his right wing talking points. Oh and what's the deal with Leahy? I don't get it-- I briefly forgot that Obama does not believe in Wahington insiders and doesn't take money from lobbyists like Exelon.

[tina oticica]

I am just keeping my fingers crossed Hillary will rise above the mudslingig tactics of the media; she is attacked mercilessly everyday. It is hard to give an honest opinion about Obama, whose dirty tactics I have known for a while through Seth A. in B12 Solipsism. The race card pops up immediately.
Gosh, Reagan has a really bad history, from the days of finger-pointing "communists" to inane and evil government.

[bruce b.]

Can someone go back and find all the nice things TW said about Reagan when he died?

Obama's point -- that Reagan CHANGED Washington and set the tone for the times more than either Clinton or Nixon -- was correct, and not arguable. However, it IS true that he used words that could be taken to mean that he AGREED with most of those changes. He was vague, as Obama often is.

[Tom K]

Y'all are crazy, except for Bruce.

Remember Reagan talking up FDR? That's what Obama is up to.

The most interesting thing about it is, it suggests he's already looking to the general election. Which might be a big mistake: a contested primary against HRC is not time for reasonableness or truth-telling.

[bruce b.]

I agree with TK's post above.

Interesting that Hillary has now attacked Obama on precisely these points. It is almost as if TW is COORDINATING his postings with the campaign. this is not the first time this has happened. Is TW receiving "talking points" from the Clinton campaign?

I don't think this line of attack is a winner for Hillary. Because Obama just says, "look, I wasn't DEFENDING Reagan's policies or ideology. I was just saying he used effective strategy and tactics to change the nature of discussion in Washington. I want to learn from EVERYONE who has been successful. Let's not play the same old partisan games."

And the press eats it up... and Hillary looks bad.

Let's see what happens.

[Tom W.]

Bruce - I never though I'd live to see the day you'd be sticking up for a Democrat using Reagan as a paradigm for anything. Truly amazing.

And if you look at some of this stuff over the past few weeks, you'll see me out in front of any talking points.

[Slappy]

Hillary Clinton apparently also likes Reagan quite a bit. Wonderful.

From her website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

[James]

Oh, give me a break. Obama plainly wasn't endorsing Reagan's agenda -- he was simply noting that Reagan was a more successful president in advancing his agenda than Clinton or Nixon were in advancing theirs. He's correct about that, and progressives had better start thinking more critically about why that was so, rather than dismissively saying "Reagan was a sociopathic demagogue." That's way too easy and overly simplistic.

And for you and other Clinton operatives to even hint that Obama's statement means that he "is turning into a Reagan Democrat" or "Obama is running to the right" -- or any other iteration of "he's engaged in Reagan hero worship" -- is more than a bit ridiculous. Were Bill and Hillary doing either of those things when they said this:

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere."

(http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health/index.html)

I want to be able to enthusiastically support whoever the nominee is -- but if Hillary wins by having her supporters deploy the kinds of scorched earth tactics they've been using against Obama, that's going to be rather difficult.

[Tom K]

Tom W wrote:

"I never though I'd live to see the day you'd be sticking up for a Democrat using Reagan as a paradigm for anything. Truly amazing."

Notably absent here is any attempt at analysis. To me, it reads as: "Bruce, you are committing treason toward the irrational anti-Reagan community by analyzing statement about him rationally."

AND

"And if you look at some of this stuff over the past few weeks, you'll see me out in front of any talking points."

Uh, Tom, the people who get the talking points are exactly the ones who you'd expect to be "out in front". Whether or not you're one of 'em, that's just a fact.

For what it's worth, having long ago noticed the trend Bruce refers to, I personally concluded that you simply think like they do. But keep up the lame arguments, and maybe you'll convince me otherwise (not that you should care -- I'm not in the "persuadables" category for HRC).