Redstate

There aren't any conservative ideologues running in this election. Reagan was a bonafide leader of THE conservative movement when he was elected president. None of the candidates running right now are bonafide conservative ideologue. Many of them *are* conservatives, and advocate conservative things, but none are true "movement" conservatives as Reagan was.

That's not really an indictment of our field. I have no problemt voting for any of them, but the facts are what they are. Rarely is there a true conservative ideologue running our party and/or running for president. The only true conservatives who led our party IMO were Reagan and Goldwater. Everyone else were Republicans who advocated conservative polices - there's a difference.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

A Reagan comes along only once in a 100 years. The bigger question is who would Karl Rove support. Obviously, he is sitting it out for now, but once he puts his weight behind someone, watch out.

For two reasons: 1) Strong defense and 2) limited government. IMO, both are at the core of what it means to be a conservative.

Reagan was a combination of FT's policy, Rudy's tenacity and determination, and Huckabee's authenticity. No current candidate can compare to Reagan's communication skills, unfortunately, but I would say Huckabee comes closest.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

First and foremost, Reagan had an optimistic vision for America. Whatever problems this country has faced, and will face, he left no doubt that this nation could and would overcome them.

Reagan had an unflappable belief in the American people to do the right thing. He did not believe in turning to government for answers, but instead, to turn government back over to the people to seek answers by the people.

Among the current crop of candidates, I believe Reagan would most align himself with a Fred Thompson, purely for his philosophy and vision for the future.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

To me, Reagan's greatest triumph was his relentless clarity on the character of the Communist enterprise. It's worth recalling that this clarity was hardly popular with the elites of the country. I had occasion to be reminded recently that even Jeane Kirkpatrick (RIP), as late as 1979, sort of sneered at Reagan when he sent her a note congratulating her on the famous essay "Dictatorships and Double Standards." Reagan remembered the treachery and ruthlessness of the Commies from his days as a union leader in Hollywood. He never doubted for an instant that Communism was a wicked system of imperial domination exercised primarily by a principled antipathy for the West; and that its agents, provocateurs and sympathizers were active in the West, preying on our weaknesses.

Anyone familiar with my Redstate posts will know where I'm going with this. There is no one in the GOP field, and only a narrow and distrusted minority in the GOP as a whole that approaches a similar clarity with respect to the menace of the Jihad. As with the Communists, Western politicians and opinion-makers resolutely refuse to take seriously the tradition of the enemy, its roots in the religion of Muhammad; and even when that tradition is seriously as a question of foreign policy, it is dismissed as a question of domestic subversion and sedition.

We have ample evidence of the penetration of out institutions by Islamic seditionists -- in our prisons, in our government, in our media. We have abundant evidence of the success of the enemy's propaganda, his cunning exploitation of our weaknesses, his shrewd intimidation and obfuscation.

There is hardly anyone of stature in this country willing to speak clearly to this menace. We are waiting for a new Reagan.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Giuliani worked for Reagan in the Justice Department and then applied many of Reagan's principles to whip New York City into shape. Take what you will from that.

The former mayor may not have been an anti-abortion activist like some politicians, but remember that Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens, which has continued until now and appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. Reagan was exceptional but not perfect.

*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

Enough already on the Reagan Worship; he's gone, he's no longer a factor, he's history. And this prolonged adulation of him by us trying to transform the current day candidates into his clone is a useless exercise. I'd venture to bet that 70% of the electorate couldn't recount a single thing he did other than bringing down the Wall and Communism. So how about focusing on today's values with today's candidates and get on with who will serve the conservative cause the best.

Brad,
I know you didn't say this directly, but Sean Hannity says it enough and it bothers me a bit. There seems to be a tendency among conservatives to treat Reagan as if he was the be-all-and-end-all of conservatism. But we know this isn't true. Reagan did not get up every day and look in the mirror and ask himself, "How can I be more Reagany?" (and if he did, I would think less of him, not more) Instead, I hope he asked himself how he could better embody those principles upon which this nation was founded.

And that is exactly what we need to do. We do not need to worship Reagan or even seek to emulate him. Instead we should seek to emulate those greater truths that by their very nature made Reagan great. In making him the target, you guarantee that you will fail. As Machiavelli reminds us, This is like the skilful archer, who seeing that the object he would hit is distant, and knowing the range of his bow, takes aim much above the destined mark; not intending that his arrow should strike that high, but, in flying high, it may land at the point intended.

Anyway, having said all that, I have no idea who Reagan would vote for. In the end, Reagan was often more pragmatic than I would have preferred.

Charles
--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross
that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

What, that's not the right answer?....

Well, I suspect your point is that Reganomics tends to transform into what each of us wants, reinforcing whatever we already believe; so, each of us would naturaly assume Regan would vote for our personal choice, probably for the same reasons we did. After all, none of us would want to go against Regan.

A Reaganite means to be a believer in a strong economy (fewer regulations, more competition), a firm foreign policy (not afraid to use the military), small government (people required to be self-reliant), and the basic idea that with hard work and perserverence anyone can achieve anything in America.

I think he'd vote for either Thompson or McCain because both are serious men, both have a strong commitment to life, and both have no trouble calling a spade a spade in the foreign policy realm.

The other possibility is that Reagan would take one look at this field of candidates, and declare his own candidacy out of frustration.

Lastly, do we know who Reagan voted for after his conversion to conservatism? I guess he voted Goldwater in the primaries. Anyway, if I knew the answer to that, especially in '96 if he still had his faculties at that point, the question would be easier to answer.

Also, do we know who he voted for in primaries for senate and governor's races?

in the current GOP field. And looking for him is a useless exercise. I also think it hurts the GOP with the indies. By going on and on about someone who left the politcal scene nearly 20 years ago makes the GOP look out of touch with the present. I want a candidate who speaks about the current issues facing America. Issues that Americans care about and applies the Reagan principles in solving or handling said issues.

Fred's federalism and 'government get out of the way' style of both governance and economics is right at the core of Reaganism.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

. . .and tell me that Ron Paul does not resemble Reagan the most. Reagan lists Hayek and von Mises as his favorite economists. He talks about freedom and liberty from government in the same vein as Paul. Remember Paul was one of only 4 Congressmen that endorsed Reagan over Ford in 76. In the interview Reagan discusses abolishing the Education Dept and other wasteful government efforts that only Paul is talking about today. There is not one ounce of "compassionate" conservatism in this interview.

I know, I know, you hawks will point to Reagan on defense vs. the Soviets. There is a big difference between the Soviets that one by one took over Eastern European nation states and going to war against Saddam. Also, Reagan realized his mistake in sending in troops into Lebanon and we should do the same now with Iraq.

Start flaming: but please do so after you read the interview. Paul is the heir to the Goldwater/Reagan limited government mantle.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html

Thompson captures the Reagan phisophy but not the Reagan optimism. Reagan was upbeat and inspiring. Thompson is dour and just looks like he can't leave the room soon enough.

I assume he'd support Duncan Hunter, a strong-on-defense Californian. But really, he's dead and we cannot be sure.

I know the answer you're looking for, Brad, and there is no way. Especially not after this [more].

Of the current "frontrunners," I suppose he'd vote for Governor Huckabee, as the two hold similar social views and he would understand the fiscal pressures placed on a Republican governor by a Democratic legislature and by the federal government. (I'm not excusing Huckabee; rather, I'm guessing how the President would have looked at it.)

I am not interested in his remarkable personal characteristics. I want to know what people think was the essence of Reagan's message on government policy.

I'm not sure you can do that. So much of his politics was a result of his personal characteristics and his personal history and they all blend into what is distinctly Reagan. He came not form wealth, but worked hard to earn what he had. He knew the communists from his prior, very personal confrontation with them and their minions. He learned the acting craft that better trained him for giving his moving speeches. He traveled the country and loved both it and its people whom he met on a regular basis. While doing so he was also writing daily monologues for radio, and despite his critics assertions that he only read his prepared speeches was quite capable of writing them on his own. Above all he had an optimism so overwhelming, you couldn't even let him onto your tv without it lifting you up. And then of course there was his sharp wit and him never taking himself too seriously ("Sorry honey, I forgot to duck.") While he was a leader in the conservative movement, he was never an ideologue, and would have been the first to demure that he was not THE anything; even as regards being President, he was the steward of the office which itself was bigger than he was.

In policy matters these translated into a pragmatic approach intent on achieving his vision for America. He was strong on defense, strong on what he thought of as fair trade and which we now call free trade (because Dems have corrupted the phrase), unafraid to confront evil where he found it, for a smaller government, and mostly for giving people control of their lives instead of yielding more and more power to government. Yet even here it was his own optimism that allowed him to lead the country through a brief recession and break the back of the stagflation that had brought our economy to its knees. Yes, the tax cuts were important, but it was his confidence that we WERE able to overcome our problems that brought us through.

Given those characteristics, there really is no one in the race to compare to him. Perhaps Tancredo matches his policies, but Tancredo can't win and that would violate Reagan's pragmatism. Certainly not Guiliani (his abortion and other liberal positions make him a no-go for that) although Reagan would not be afraid of appointing him Attorney General, or perhaps even startling public opinion and the MSM by appointing him Secretary of State. I'm sure he would be happy to have Mitt at Treasury or his budget office, but I'm not sure he would vote for him as president, he just hasn't been tested outside of Mass. on the political front. Not John McCain who has violated his 11th commandment. So it would be down to Huckabee or Thompson, and in the end I think he would go with Thompson, who has probably followed a path similar to his own, but doesn't quite have the same effusive optimism.

Less government, less taxes, less regulation, more pride, more individual resposibility, more military strength!

You don't spit into the wind, you don't tug on superman's cap, and Don't try to compare your candidate with Reagan.

It's hard to tell what he'd make of the war. He, like Goldwater, faced an enemy that it was possible to make a sort of peace with, through strength.

Our enemy can't be deterred. They're irrational. So it's hard to tell where Reagan would be on this war.

So I don't know if he'd vote for Giuliani, for a fighting spirit, or a Thompson, for a willingness to fight while still keeping an eye on that other issue dear to him, abortion.

HTML Help for Red Staters

of a great America, a wonderful country that could do just about anything if it only kept trying. That's true in good part, and even where it isn't, it's a great ideal to try to live up to. And that's a deeply conservative vision, in that it doesn't call for rearranging our society to match someone's pet theory.

I think there we have two candidates that would appeal to him. One's Thomspon. He is the man in the race most devoted to conservative ideals, and like Reagan he's not afraid to speak about them.

The other is John McCain. I know some of his stands aren't popular here, but the ideology is much the same. When McCain says that America doesn't have to lower itself with a policy of torture, that's very much the spirit of American optimism. The Gang of 14 was a triumph for conservatism, which takes no pleasure in one-party rule. Even his calls for more military in Iraq echo Reagan's perseverance.

I think Romney is a little too much a pragmatist to appeal to Reagan. The Americas that Rudy and Huckabee want are significantly different than the one Reagan wanted to defend.

Reader, infrequent commenter here.

I can't help but be amazed that a large proportion of Republicans and conservatives seem convinced that Reagan was some sort of magician with the public and media because of his acting prowess/charisma.

People admired him (and despised him) for what he believed in and stood for. Rugged individualism, small government (which coincides with the first), and a strong national defense.

He did not back down and capitulate. To the Soviets or his domestic enemies. Sure, he was unable to accomplish much of his agenda because of the massively Democratically controlled Congress and to some extent the resignations of key small government advisors early on (like his Sec. of Interior - can't remember his name).

When Americans were attacked, ie Libya he responded quickly. He did what he could to improve national defense against the Soviet Union. And he was never shy about calling them the evil empire.

He also adhered mostly to the Constitution with his deep belief in federalism. He did not issue massive amounts of executive orders like the recent presidents nor was he unafraid to use the veto.

Of course, because of his charisma, he was able to communicate his agenda and everyone knew where he stood. And why he believed what he did. And that, my friends is why he was adored by so many. Principles clearly laid out with a primary understanding of the primacy of the individual - not the state.

And, lest Republicans forget, that is why conservatism was popular. People, in general, like to be left alone and help others as they see fit through their churches, etc.

Who he would vote for? Beats me. I'm sure he'd be disappointed by the field.

The most discouraging thing about the current state of the GOP is that the party has a whole has lost site of what it means to be a Reaganite. Reagan stood for limiting the size and scope of the government; transferring power from Washington to the states; getting government off the backs of businesses and the little guy; promoting individual freedoms; lowering marginal tax rates to encourage economic growth; and reducing federal spending.

Has anyone heard any of these principles in the current GOP debate? Oh they all pay lip service to these ideas, but hardly any of the candidates is seriously talking about or doing anything about these principles. They spend most of their time arguing who is the most pious and who would expand the power of the government the most and spend the most to pry into your bedroom and to round up and deport anyone who doesn't fit someone's idea of what it is to be an American. No wonder we got our butts kicked in 2006 and will likely get them kicked again in 2008.

I suppose if I had to choose for the Gipper, I would say Fred Thompson might come the closest. He is at least seriously talking about federalism, supply-side marginal tax rate cuts and is not openly wearing his faith on his sleeve (did anyone ever ask if Reagan went to church every Sunday?).

"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts."
Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11, 1989

Based solely on domestic issues, he'd support Ron Paul. Obviously there would be a great divide on foreign policy that would probably lead him to ultimately support someone else. Strictly in terms of domestic policy, though, his suggestion that the most frightening words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help," suggest he'd go for the libertarian. He'd also give himself a good swift kick in the rear end for his Supreme Court nominations and support someone whom he would consider unlikely to make the same mistakes (i.e. not Rudy).

www.republicansenate.org

Reagan is NOT available!! But, someone else might be....
My bet is that RR would vote for him.

He comes to us at a time when the country is deeply divided and searching for leadership. He is a tall, deep-voiced, slow-talking guy from a Southern border state, a small-town country lawyer. He comes from a humble, middle-class background, always extolled the virtues of hard work, and did not attend an elite East-coast university. He has no “executive” experience to speak of, and only minimal legislative experience, but he is very popular in his home state. And there has been a tremendous grassroots effort to bring him into the presidential race.

Although he has been a proponent of some excellent ideas and programs, he has been widely criticized for his style. While he has appeared presidential in multiple debates, the critics have repeatedly said that his opponents got the best of him. He has also been criticized about his appearance. He doesn’t appear “healthy”, and his face looks old and wrinkled beyond his age. He is not very photogenic. Sometimes it looks like his clothes don’t fit him well. And although he communicates in a way that common folks can understand, some call his speech “boring”.

As for his personality, he is polite, reserved, and humble, with a sense of humor. He often appears to be deep in thought. His character and honesty have basically never been questioned, and he really doesn’t bring a lot of baggage to the campaign. While he does not claim or appear to be a particularly religious man, he maintains that he has faith in the Christian God, and has always been a person of principle.

Many say that his election would be a huge mistake. They say that right now we need a person who can unite the country. He seems more focused on dealing with the significant problems that we face than in providing an optimistic view of the country and the world.

And no, he is NOT Ronald Reagan and never will be.

But……he does have an aircraft carrier named after him, and his face is on Mt. Rushmore.

Reagan would vote for the candidate who most closely adheres to the Constitution. He might have compromised to get things done, but unlike most of the current crop of Republicans he never sought out unconstitutional measures to promote.

as far as I can tell. Reagan loved McCain and hired Rudy. It is tough to say whom he would vote for, well, actually it would be impossible to say for sure.

Molon Labe!

Reagan would not support the Huckster unless it was the general election. He'd more than likely back Fred Thompson. Like or not, Fred's views line up best with those of Reagan. There is no disputing that.

http://www.huckabeefacts.org

Mr. Thompson is for government provided healthcare for those who "can't afford it" and tampers with the free market choices in how healthcare is provided by creating government mandates with generic unachievable goals like "streamlining." He is for using tax payer money to invest in "alternative fuels" which, as we've seen with ethanol, sends mixed economic signals and causes research resources to be wasted in ineffective solutions. Reagan wanted to abolish the Education Department, but I've not seen any concrete areas to cut spending from Mr. Thompson, let alone a promise to do away with unnecessary departments. I'm afraid that once you get past the generic rhetoric Mr. Thompson is a fair distance away from the core policies and philosophies of Ronald Reagan.

"I'm afraid that once you get past the generic rhetoric Mr. Thompson is a fair distance away from the core policies and philosophies of Ronald Reagan."

How 'bout a little blast from the past falcon?

"In terms of domestic policy Ron Paul was also without peer. He uniformly opposes government powergrabs and intrusions into sections of American life where it has no business. The government has no authority and ought not to be involved in medical care, or any other entitlement program. Let the free market and individual liberty, which created our wealth and our standard of living, continue to propel this nation forward. We should never turn away from that path to the failed schemes of big government that totalitarian regimes the world round have proven to be abject failures."

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/falcon

My quick reaction to a debate six months ago is immaterial to a present analysis of Fred Thompson's position on the issues relative to Reagan's position. I'm not being critical of Mr. Thompson for having generic rhetoric; all politicans do out of necessity to get their main points across. I'm being critical because his substantive proposals indicate that he is for government intervention in areas like medicine for purposes of benevolence with taxpayer money and he refuses to quantify the government programs he would try to cut.