I’m a loud and proud Mitt Romney supporter. And it bothers me that I have to defend him as much as I do with fellow Republicans. The far right has been looking for the “anti-Romney” candidate all year long fearing that Romney isn’t “conservative enough” to go against Barack Obama. I’m here to tell them they’re absolutely wrong.
When I ask far right conservatives just what the heck are they looking for, the answer I get the most is “the next Ronald Reagan.” But what they don’t realize is that they’ve created this monolithic myth around Reagan that is not only inaccurate, but is impossible to live up to.
The far right wants to believe that Reagan was the most conservative president in history who never had to compromise in his life. If only.
While Reagan certainly talked a good game of conservative principles and values, his record shows that while some taxes went down, others went up, and government spending as well as the national debt continued to grow under his administration uninterrupted. Moreover, Reagan had a Democrat-majority Congress all throughout his eight year term in the White House. He couldn’t get anything done without their approval, which led to some of the greatest pieces of bipartisan legislation this country has ever seen, including the 1982 Job Training Partnership Act, the 1983 Social Security Amendments, the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, and the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
So how is that any different from what Romney had to deal with as governor of Massachusetts with an 85% Democrat state legislature? Romney passed what he could and vetoed anything he didn’t like, but ultimately reached across the aisle whenever he had to and solved a lot of the problems Massachusetts had, which included spending cuts, lowering taxes, and health care reform, that turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million budget surplus and gave the state a credit rating upgrade.
The far right also accuses Romney of being a flip-flopper on issues like abortion. Hello again Ronald Reagan, who signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act as governor of California in order to reduce the number of back alley abortions that was out of control in California at the time. Reagan then “flip-flopped,” and later became pro-life.
In fact, Reagan was also a liberal Democrat while he was working in Hollywood, supported Franklin Roosevelt’s big government policies under the New Deal, and was divorced.
Today’s far right would consider Reagan to be a “moderate sellout” with “too much baggage in his past.” They would have you believe that the difference between Romney and Obama is a difference between Coke and Pepsi. I couldn’t disagree more. Romney is a foreign policy hawk, a staunch supporter of lowering taxes, and an unapologetic free market capitalist with 25 years of private sector experience under his belt, just as Reagan was. Obama, on the other hand, is a career politician who fights for tax hikes and believes government is the solutions to all of life’s problems.
Romney provides a stark contrast to Obama much like Reagan did to Jimmy Carter in 1980. The country was suffering from a crippling recession with any hope of an economic recovery blunted by excessive taxation and regulation. One candidate blamed the American people for being soft and lazy instead of looking at his own misguided faith in big government solutions and redistribution of wealth policies while another firmly believed in free market economics and understood what makes America the great nation that it is – because of its liberty, prosperity, and strong national security.
Déjà vu 2012, where Americans have to choose once again between continuing down the same path of big government-based solutions and economic stagnation under its current leadership or switch gears to a leader who wants to flex America’s muscles and reopen the private sector economy for business again without apologizing for either.
“Coke and Pepsi?” Yeah right.
Photo Credit: Howard O. Young
The Discussion
I have always found it interesting that conservative politicians and candidates idolize Ronald Reagan in their messages, but we have failed to realize that he was a liberal from Hollywood that raised taxes. Today's Republican Party vehemently opposes ANY tax hike. Complete contradiction.
"Is Reagan vs Romney like Coke vs Pepsi?"
Yes. They're both bad for you.
2 Replies
1 Replies
Gentlemen --
True, those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it, but repetion must be in the context of now and not 1980. Country has changed markedly economically, ethnically, socially since President Reagan's adminstration --
Neither Mitt/Newt has R's principles, guts or vision
4 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
I think we make a great mistake to compare conservatism today to conservatism in Reagan's day. They ain't the same animal! Conservatism today has come into its own, can stand on its own, and needs to break principles less to carry the ball forward. Ronald Reagan WAS the most consecrative president of all time when comparing where conservatism was at the time. As to Romney, he is no Reagan. In fact, he's barely a Republican. His entire record shows he's a center left guy. What he is saying on the campaign trail now is easily dismissible when looking at this liberal record. His record is pro-abortion, anti-2nd Amendment, big government. I ignore what he claims he'll do. I look at what he DID do.
23 Replies
22 Replies
21 Replies
I am not sure I understand your argument. I enjoyed reading it but I am a little confused.
Are you trying to convince the far right they should vote for Romney or that they shouldnt? Sounds like you want them to vote for him...
But if they want a consistent conservative, how will you by convince them to vote for Romney by showing them that Reagan was not a consistent conservative convince, despite their similarity?
I assume your argument will only work if the far right only wants another Reagan, regardless of how consistent he is as a conservative.
It seems to me that you show quite well that their view of Reagan is fictional. But is that enough to get them behind Romney?
Anyway, good article.
16 Replies
15 Replies
10 Replies
3 Replies
Great great great great article my friend! I should print this article out, and show it to those people who are as I call them the 'late to the party purists' - who loved Romney four years ago but despise him now.
Also - Gingrich spent nearly 30 years in washington, Paul spent over 25 and Santorum nearly 20. Romney - none.
And he's the insider?
1 Replies
This runs shivers down my spine, First of all Ronald Reagen was a movie star that already had fame and fortune and could run for President with out making ties to Special Interest groups of the Central Bank, doing this He made peace with Russia instead of starting WW3.
I knew Mr. Reagan, and you sir are no Ronald Reagan.....
2 Replies
1 Replies
Honestly, I think when people say they wish another Ronald Reagan would walk through the door they are really wishing for a person who could deliver the conservative message as effectively. Reagan was the best. You're right that he didn't always govern in accordance with the rhetoric. Unfortunately, Romney falls well short in this regard. That doesn't mean he won't be an effective president, it just means he doesn't garner the kind of enthusiasm one would like to see in a leader.
You would have to also acknowledge that his health care reform was anything but conservative. His response that it's a state plan vs. a federal plan is lacking.
Btw, in my opinion Gingrich is less conservative than Romney.
7 Replies
5 Replies
3 Replies
Good points/article on Reagan and Romney. On the narrow question of governing style, Reagan and Romney are similar. Reagan governed as a pragmatist.
You lose me on the election analogy, though. Even if you believe that Obama is the worst prez ever, there just aren't many parallels with Carter. Obama isn't facing a challenge on the Left. And that it's going to be pretty difficult for Romney to run to his Right (and get traction like Reagan).
Obama v. Romney feels more like 04: A polarized electorate and a slowly improving economy. '04 liberals (like '12 conservatives) were CERTAIN that a majority of the country hated Bush (wrong!). They also nominated a stiff patrician Mass. flip flopper who lacked the ability to connect with voters. Hmm.
2 Replies
Maybe it's time the Republican party stopped defining itself with one President who left office almost a quarter century ago. Maybe Reagan would lose some of his luster if his ideological supporters were cognizant that deficit spending started during his tenure, that the Soviet Union was decaying regardless of any American tough talk, that we have a bellicose Iran today due in large parts to actions yesterday. Personally, I don't think we need another Reagan.
Your point directly contradicts itself. You argue that Romney was, like Reagan, a secretly moderate, statist "conservative" under whom government grew. In the same breath you state that he's a "staunch free-market capitalist" against big government. One of these things is not like the other.
7 Replies
6 Replies
2 Replies
2 Replies
On the points in your article and logic of presentation of debate, deserves +1pt. But, there are some things that are not mentioned that are also correct.
Foreign Policy Hawk - Obama can't be argued as being Carter who shrank and allowed the US to endure years of humiliation. Instead Obama starts his own personal war in Libya (against the Constitution and War Powers Act). Continued GWB war policy. Iran: Carriers, warships, saber rattling. Obama is a hawk contrary to the rose colored glasses of his left's supporters. Romney is supportive of Obama's positions in a Coke v Pepsi way - both lead to war with Iran.
Liberty: Romney stated he would sign NDAA as is. Obama did
Special Interests: Romney & Obama - just flavors of Wall Street interest
2 Replies
1 Replies
The republicans paint themselves as the "Family Values" party.
Reagan had a divorce and his children were at odds with his positions.
Romney has been married over 40 years to the same woman, and his children all support him unquestionably.
Gingrich? 3 wifes, 2 religions. Family values? ha.
Mr. Giokaris- Terrific essay. Another thing to add to your very in depth analysis is that Reagan was in the White House 30 years ago. A lot has changed since that time- the Internet and instantaneous communication and reporting, the Middle East, a couple of wars, different kinds of economic problems, the gains of the gay community, medical technology and lots of other things. Maybe it wouldn't be so great if our GOP candidates were "too much" like Reagan.
Romney has been beaten unmercifully because radical right wingers are controlling the party. They have the loudest voices and they are the most passionate, especially the evangelicals. But, they don't represent anywhere near a majority in the nation, and maybe not in the party. The problem is that that they dominate Iowa and South Carolina and will probably dominate the primaries in a few more states. I'm saddened that the Silent Majority (GOP moderates and Independents) have remained mute. I assume they will not be in the general election and will give Romney a victory assuming we can get him nominated over the objections of the ultra conservatives.
3 Replies
1 Replies
Romney is selling himself short. He has a lot of accomplishments, both in the private and public sectors, as a competent and efficient executive. I really hope he's tackling his campaign's challenges as the seasoned problem-solving businessman he is. If so, he'll come out a stronger candidate on the other end. Great analysis BTW!