The Crucial Democratic Reagan Primary
This recent tussle among the Democrats over invoking Reagan—even to make an obviously pro-progressive, pro-Democratic point—reflects the character of the Democratic race and the nature of some of the lukewarm progressive response to Obama that you see expressed in the netroots. Obama cited Reagan as an example of someone who “changed the trajectory of America.” Now, as I understand modern progressive demonology regarding the 1980s, most Democrats agree with this, but often view the change in question negatively. Obama’s use of Reagan here, his rivals’ responses to it, and the criticisms from Democratic pundits and activists all capture quite nicely the main tensions on the Democratic side this election year.
Obama talks endlessly, constantly, incessantly, about change—his is allegedly the “change we can believe in,” while Edwards’ change is that for which you fight, and Clinton’s is the change that is no change at all (but for which you have to work really hard). So Obama invoked Reagan as an example of someone who could build a large political coalition and bring “change,” while Clinton belittled this as she belittles everything Obama says, because her public persona and her record, such as it is, epitomise the Democrats’ response to the Reagan years from the “defensive crouch” on foreign policy to her overall mostly “centrist” positions and she and her husband memorably demonised the Reagan years as the “decade of greed,” etc. Meanwhile Edwards is, as ever, in adversarial, fight ‘em-to-the-death mode and wants to make clear that he has no truck with any of those lousy Republicans. Yeah, John, we get it—you’re a tough guy! The typically flabbergasted netroots and progressive pundit responses were all along the lines uttered by Edwards: how dare you mention the name of the ancient enemy! For progressives, this is just the kind of seemingly conciliatory language that makes them wary of Obama, whom they regard as lacking in the necessary zeal.
At one level, I can sympathise with this response. My family and I cringed when we heard Newt Gingrich give a much more fulsome paean to FDR in January 1995 when the new Republican majority took over the House. But this is actually different—Gingrich actually admired FDR and what he did, and was making peace with FDR’s legacy, while Obama was not accepting, much less endorsing, what Reagan did. He was acknowledging that Reagan had been a significant political player who had turned the country in a different direction. In other words, he was acknowledging that Reagan was successful at implementing his agenda (or at least some of it) and thereby saying that the same opportunity might be available for Democrats in this election (with the none-too-subtle and none-too-modest implication that it would be a missed opportunity unless the Democrats nominated him). This is a clever move, in the same way that Tony Blair paying respect to Thatcher’s legacy was clever, but it entails none of the ideological baggage that usually goes with these sorts of statements. Unfortunately, because of the Democratic response to his remarks, the implicit comparison between himself and Reagan, who was vastly more qualified for the job in either 1976 or 1980, is not seen as evidence of the man’s delusions of grandeur, but is instead taken as another example of his transcendent power to unify America. Well, I’m not buying. I have generally dismissed or viewed very skeptically claims for Obama’s “transformational” potential, whether in foreign affairs or domestic politics. These theories attribute too much importance to symbolism and vague rhetoric, and they take Obama’s views too little into account. However, I might be willing to see how Obama represents the possibility of the Democrats’ reconciling themselves to Reagan and the Reagan-Bush years, in part because there may be good reason to think that the political era that began in 1980 is coming to a close.
Cross-posted at Eunomia
I don’t have any direct measure of this, but I do wonder how real this controversy is, in the sense of whether people outside the chattering classes would even think to be bothered by Obama’s mention of Reagan. Democratic elites might dislike Reagan, but he was very popular, and certainly his large majorities involved a number of Democratic voters. I certainly don’t have any immediate urge to worry that Obama is referencing Reagan in this way.
— Justin · Jan 19, 05:45 PM · #
Re: Mr. Reagan being ‘vastly more qualified’, you would be correct to note that his formal executive experience (in California and at the helm of the Screen Actors Guild) exceeded what Mr. Obama offers (none). However, Mr. Reagan had no experience as a legislator, was (for a national politician) abnormally ignorant of policy, and had a great deal of difficulty recognizing logical fallacies or conceiving of policies in terms of measurable systemic effects rather than reciting anecdotes.
I am curious. What features of the period since 1980 are most salient in distinguishing it from the previous period? Are these the features that are now evaporating?
Please note, in 1990 as in 1979, the United States was properly described as a ‘mixed economy’, albeit one lacking certain features common in the rest of the occidental world (state-owned industry and public provision of medical care as the default). The ratio of public expenditure to domestic product had seen some flux, but within the fairly narrow range established in the immedate post-war period (.18 to .24). Discretionary domestic expenditure accounted for but 15% of all federal expenditure, the ratio of military expentiture and debt service to domestic product were increased as a matter of public policy, and the administration just about foreswore (after 1981) modifications that might have generating a declining share devoted to entitlement expenditures.
One unambiguous example of the administration persuading Congress to enact a notable changes in public policy was the Kemp-Roth tax cuts. The proportionate size of the cut may have been without precedent, but the policy itself was not a novelty. A Democratic Congress had enacted cuts at the behest of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson in 1964 and with the co-operation of Pres. Nixon in 1969. One macroeconomic feature appeared almost immediately following the 1981 tax legislation and has remained with us since – the running of chronic merchandise trade and current account deficits. That we joined Argentina and others in the ranks of the world’s debtor nations may be reasonably attributed to the administrations works, but somehow I suspect that people who trade in the notion of a Reagan Legacy do not have that in mind.
You might argue that the administration initiated regulatory changes that had a significant effect in various sectors, most notably broadcasting. However, the previous administration had initiatives of this character as well (in the transportation and petroleum sectors). Some changes in the regulatory regime were enacted by a co-operative effort of politicians from both parties. Those with regard to savings-and-loan associations would be a sad example of this.
The administration also initiated an expansion of the military and a more aggressive and antagonistic disposition toward Soviet Russia. However, Mr. Carter offered in 1979 that he had been had by the Soviet government and had his own plans on the table in 1980 for expanding the military. One might argue that he would have been less likely to carry them out or resolutely or appoint officials who would, but who among the crop of Republican and Democratic candidates for President in 1980 would have encountered a Congress more obstructive of such ends than Mr. Reagan?
You might argue some counter-factual propositions: that a Democratic administration would have abandoned in 1981 or 1982 attempts to restore price stability (please note though that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board at that time was one of Mr. Carter’s appointees), that an unrestricted Democratic administration would have responded to the crisis in heavy industry by national economic planning and systemic subsidies, or that another decade of judicial appointees of the sort that hit the courts between 1953 and 1981 would have left us saddled with a constitutional ‘right’ to welfare payments and the like. None of this is altogether unreasonable, but it is difficult to demonstrate.
To what about the last 27 years ought the Democratic Party reconcile itself to that it has not already?
— Art Deco · Jan 19, 06:10 PM · #
Evidently, based on the quotes that I have read, Obama was able to state that Reagan “changed the trajectory” of the nation absent any sense of irony. And that would be an amazing feat by my book. He would have more accurately , and more descriptively, described America had he said that ‘Reagan changed the trajectory of the middle class in America”. However, that would not have gone over so well since the middle class understands what the trajectory is that is manifesting itself on them. No, that would not have gone over well at all. You, or Obama, or whomever, want to continue the bullshit, because you think it will get Dems elected? Fine. But bullshit it is…the selling of the guy to America has not stopped since Lew Wasserman and the mob decided in the early 60s that they wanted one of their own in the White House. And Obama is even acting a bit like Reagan…pimping that old GOP talking point about the so called “anti-war love in” crowd from the 70s, in the same interview you cite. And exactly who was that? What Dem leader in the 70s ever took a position like that? But hey, feed the myth….even at your own expense. One last thing…would that John Edwards WAS a tough guy. One is need to stop the wolf coming at our necks in the nation. Well, the housing situation will get our/their attention. You can bet on that. And the deregulation started by Carter, hawked by Reagan, and completed by Clinton, “changed the trajectory” all right.
— jonst · Jan 19, 06:46 PM · #
I like your closer – that the time may be ripe for Obama’s Reagan riff because “the political era that began in 1980 may be coming to a close.” In other words, Obama feels he can afford to be generous. I’m not sure, though, that Obama is only praising Reagan’s political skill and not the effects of his policies – he said that Reagan tapped into a general sense that government had grown bloated, that “there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.” That implies that Reagan put government social spending on a diet, and that progressives were ultimately the better for it — perhaps beginning now, as ‘the era that began in 1980’ gives way to a new progressive wave.
— Asp · Jan 19, 07:28 PM · #
“the selling of the guy to America has not stopped since Lew Wasserman and the mob decided in the early 60s that they wanted one of their own in the White House.”
Take your meds.
— Art Deco · Jan 19, 09:01 PM · #
Art Deco,
Ah, the mating call of the asshole…instead of addressing the crux of the matter, and offering evidence why what I argue is factually bogus…you attempt to use a lame, adolescent phrase, ‘take your meds’. I doubt you knew who Lew Wasserman was.
— jonst · Jan 19, 11:35 PM · #
I have heard of Mr. Wasserman. He was a Hollywood agent who represented Ronald Reagan at one point.
You made no argument. You made an assertion that Mr. Reagan’s political career was an artifact of the machinations of a Hollywood agent and La Cosa Nostra acting in tandem. How can I take that seriously? You neglected to mention the Bilderbergers, the Elders of Zion, or the Bavarian Illuminati.
— Art Deco · Jan 20, 03:10 AM · #
Jimmy Carter’s entire career was built on weakness, appeasement, anti-Military feeling, and big heaping dose of weakness wrt Iran. Killer Rabbit was right. Carter’s intrinsic weakness (which was part of his character) led to Reagan who promised some ass-kicking. Of course Reagan failed in that regard with Iran but did some in other areas. Mostly SDI and increased naval/air spending, deals with the oil sheiks to collapse the price of oil (gutting the Soviet’s ability to pay their army and client states).
Obama IMHO likely senses that he is identified with weakness and appeasement (he is right — he is). And seeks to remedy that by invoking Reagan. The foreign policy challenges are: what to do if/when Pakistan falls to the Taliban/AQ ? It’s not JUST the nukes it’s cut-off of our troops in Afghanistan (they are supplied through Pakistan) via truck. Along with Iran’s nuclear program, and Russia’s overt threat to pre-emptively nuke anyone threatening Iran. Including the US and Israel.
Obama’s “hug the responders” comments and general weakness (people will love the US because his granny lives in a mud hut in Kenya) have left him vulnerable to a “missile gap” political attack which unlike JFK’s has the virtue of being true.
— Jim Rockford · Jan 21, 05:26 AM · #