Not a Big Truck

People forget that Reagan lost this debate with Mondale.  In a later debate Reagan uses the famous age-exploitation line which became the most memorable line from that debate season.  But, Mondale got the Gipper in this particular debate.

The McCain campaign is running a dishonest and dishonorable campaign.  It has decided to throw out as many shiny metal objects as possible in hopes of distracting voters and the media from issues or stories that could be devastating to McCain’s candidacy.  Give them credit, they’ve been really good at it over the last few weeks.

Republicans and Democrats have used such tactics before. As an earlier post notes, however, Republicans tend to use them more often and, probably, more successfully. So, in that sense, this campaign hasn’t provided that much that is new in terms of dirty tactics.

What does seem remarkable about the McCain campaign is its apparent lack of an ideological core. What does it stand for? Why does he want to be president? What are Republicans bringing to the table that is different than the last eight years? What improvements have they made to the Goldwater/Reagan Republican party?

Bush at least had “compassionate conservatism” (2000) and the notion of exporting American democracy through hard power (2004).  Even if neither of those ideas materialized into something beneficial, it at least lent some sort of meaning to those campaigns. At this point, it seems like Republicans are running just to remain in power, offering no agenda.  Maybe I’m missing something, but “reforming Washington” just doesn’t seem like a guiding philosophy for a party, especially one that would be reforming the government that it has largely controlled for the last 8 years.   

Say what you will about Goldwater/Reagan Republicanism (it certainly had its limitations, but there was a governing philosophy there. Goldwater took a massive defeat in 1964, partly because he refused to compromise on his guiding principles. Reagan didn’t alter his positions to fit the electorate, he held his positions until the electorate moved to him. There was an intellectual current to that movement.

What is the intellectual current running through McCain’s candidacy? Country First? This lack of a vision for the country, I think, is the reason the McCain campaign focuses so much on winning the short-term battles in the media.  They release tough ad after tough ad to keep the attention of the media and to create the perception that they are winning, but seem to provide very little in terms of revealing any novel intellectual insights into how reform or change will be instituted in government. 

The campaign is trying to win this election to govern, but governing should be a means to an end. Some policies or some governing philosophy should be the end. The current Republican party is trying to govern for the sake of governing or, at most, just to prevent the Democrats from governing.

The Conservative party in Britain has been out of power for over a decade. Things were grim for that party during the Blair years. But while out of power, they reformed themselves, found a fresh intellectual core, and adjusted their conservatism to meet modern challenges. Relying on Thatcher’s conservatism no longer sufficed.

The Republican party must recognize that it will have to cut its ties to Reaganism and find a new intellectual current to revive its party. Such a revival will be difficult to occur while still in control of the government. Campaigning simply for the right to govern and not for the opportunity to infuse new ideas will only delay the inevitable reconfiguration that American conservatism must undergo.

Then again, as an Obama supporter, maybe I’m just hoping the Republican take a dive.

I’ve been watching the Republican convention over the last few days and it came as no surprise to me that Ronald Reagan has been invoked multiple times. This is no different than the primary battle when most of those Republican debates could be simplified into who could be most persuasive in convincing the audience that he is most like Reagan.

Republicans view Reagan, I think correctly, as a transformative president. They view him as their FDR. There is a constant effort by party activists to find the Gipper’s replacement and among candidates to preserve that legacy.

One needs to only observe the modern Republican party to recognize that no major player in that party today can claim to be heir to Reagan.  They claim to be for lower taxes, less government, strong national defense, pragmatic foreign policy, and the defense of traditional values–although it is entirely unclear that the party actually still stands for these things. 

Is simply adhering to–or trying to adhere to–these policy positions what Reaganism was about?  Reagan’s greatest success, I think, was not any policy proposal, but rather the restoration of hope and optimism in America. The change in attitude within the nation from the Carter years to the Reagan years could not have happened as a result of mere policy proposals.  Americans needed to be led and to have revived a vision of America that had waned from the late 60s through the Carter years.  It was morning again in America.  

Reagan spoke of American exceptionalism and of America as a city on the hill. America as an example for the rest of the world is a hopeful message far removed from the nastiness and vitriol of the present Republican party.

While it is not my intention to contend that Barack Obama is the heir to Reagan–there are serious and deep policy differences that would render this impossible–it does seem that he is the clearest heir to Reagan’s persona. Obama understands that America needs to be revitalized. Such a revival requires more than a change in policies. It requires leadership and rhetoric from the president. 

Additionally, Obama seems to share Reagan’s temperament. Obama is measured, calm, and seemingly always in control of himself.  Reagan had similar self-control and balance, an emotional intelligence that Nixon, for example, lacked. 

Few honest observers could argue that this Republican party, based on the Bush legacy and the tenor of the speeches at the convention, is pragmatic, measured, and disciplined. Indeed, John McCain seems to be less disciplined, more emotional, more erratic, and more prone to disproportionate responses than even Bush, let alone Reagan. 

Let’s be clear: there is no heir to Reagan’s policies on the national political stage this election season. There are those that advocate those policies–all speakers at the Republican convention–but none that have demonstrated over the last eight years the dedication required to turn rhetoric into results.  The ideals of limited government and of American economic individualism really have no party in today’s America.

But, in light of the Republicans’ descent into the politics of derision and hatred, the candidate in this election that seems most Reaganesque in terms of leadership, optimism, and self-control is certainly Barack Obama. 

So, does the legacy of Reagan belong to the man who leads and inspires like Reagan or to the man and party that provides mere lip service to the policies of Reagan?