Here we have the supposed realist Patrick Buchanan waxing nostalgic - I'll spare a lot of copying, it really isn't worth reading, but have to bring in one paragraph:
Reagan defined conservatism for his time. And the issues upon which we agreed were anti-communism, a national defense second to none, lower tax rates to unleash the engines of economic progress, fiscal responsibility, a strict-constructionist Supreme Court, law and order, the right-to-life from conception on and a resolute defense of family values under assault from the cultural revolution that hit America with hurricane force in the 1960s
Eeek! Yes, the "good old days"! Lower tax rates? Certainly not relative to Social Security--nor even purely on general, Pat must have lost the budget deal of '86. Fiscal Responsibility? Huge deficits were a hallmark of the Reagan years. Strict Constructionist court? Does the name Sandra Day O'Connor ring a bell? Actually, I give Kennedy even lower marks, he signed on with the left on Kelo, and when private property goes, the very foundation of any rights are gone. Kelo is right in the running with Roe for worst abdication of the role of supporting the constitution in history, and we have a Reagan appointee with the majority on Kelo, and a Reagan appointee as the swing vote supporting Roe.
Abortion? Yes, the words were nice, but there wasn't even an attempt to actually move on anything. W got rid of partial birth, it shows a certain dis ingeniousness on Pat's part to not remember that Reagan did precisely NOTHING on that issue. "Family values"? Again, words are nice, but I'm not sure that I see anything of reality to point to as Reagan being any stronger than GW for example.
Republicans USED to be known as "the party of fiscal conservatism", but it was REAGAN more than anyone else that destroyed that issue for the party. I'm not saying that I "completely disagree"--it is VERY hard to win anything being "the party that says no", but making a decision and then claiming you never did takes "honesty and consistency" off the conservative table and then what you have left is called liberalism. I don't really think Pat wants to go there.
It is true that Republicans can see themselves as "victims of their success" relative to the loss of the USSR as the all-purpose enemy. It is apparent that Terrorism just isn't ideologically satisfying enough for guys like Pat, but it can take a few decades to fully develop a really good villain for some. Pat may need a few more 9-11s before he sees them as worthy of attention at a purist level, unfortunately after we take the HillBama plunge in '08, I expect that the Terrorists will help Pat see that the new evil can kill a few millions too, once you get "incompetent" folks like W and Cheney out of the way.
I'm not sure it makes any difference who is the Republican front runner. The navel gazing and wishing for the past seems like the prevalent Republican sentiment. I suspect after 4-8 years of 100% Democrat rule a few will start to realize that purity, navels and history are all nice but the real world tends to be more messy and tends to "intrude" on introspection and wishes after a bit. I don't believe in living by relativism, but only a fool thinks it isn't a factor. We tend to operate by "compared to what" and the frog boiling is always an issue.
Having said all of the above, I very much believe in Reagan and consider him EASILY the greatest President of the 20th century. The REAL Reagan, not an imaginary one. To buy into a fantasy Reagan reflects badly on the real meaning of what Reagan stood for.
Pat and many Republicans are comparing today with a vision of Reagan that never was. When they have the opportunity to compare the real experience of a number of years of HillBama, etc with the crop of Republicans running in the future, the bar will be at a different place and the tune will change. Words and ideas are powerful, but many times it takes experience before true understanding is gained.
No comments:
Post a Comment