what today's Republicans don't get about Reagan

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

What Today's Republicans Don't Get About Reagan

by Jacob Weisberg,   Feb. 24, 2016

He supported the biggest amnesty bill in history for illegal immigrants, advocated gun control, used Keynesian stimulus to jump-start the economy, favored personal diplomacy even with the country's sworn enemies and instituted tax increases in six of the eight years of his presidency.

He was Ronald Reagan.

The core beliefs that got Reagan elected and re-elected were conservative:  lower taxes, smaller government, and a stronger, more assertive military.  By Reagan was also a pragmatist, willing to compromise, able to improvised in pursuit of his goals and, most of all eager to expand his party's appeal.

The current field of Republican presidential candidates invokes Reagan as a patron saint, but the characteristics that made him a successful politician seem lost on them.  Instead, they've turned his party into a swamp of nativism, ideological extremism and pessimism about the country's future, in direct opposition to Reagan's example.  And they've transformed primary season into a reality show of insults, betrayals and open feuds, defying the so-called 11th Commandment that Reagan espoused:  Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republican.

Once in office, Reagan said that anytime he could get 70 percent of what he wanted from a legislature, he'd take it.  Today's congressional Republicans won't settle even for 99 percent:  Their mentality has shifted away from having policies and governing, toward a kind of bitter-end obstructionism.

In the early days of the presidency of Bill Clinton, congressional Republicans essentially went on strike, treating any legislative accomplishment as a Republican defeat, but they came to the table for a budget deal in 1997.  With President Obama, they have largely refused to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic president.  The tactical obstinacy of the 1990s has curdled into the belief that any compromise constitutes betrayal, a dynamic now playing out in the primaries.

The issue that shows the divide most sharply between Reagan and the current crop of presidential hopefuls is immigration.  In the past, Republican candidates have been justly criticized for deploying racially coded messages around crime and welfare.  But in the main, the party has for decades embraced Reagan's notion of American identity based on immigration, assimilation, and economic opportunity.  Every Republican presidential nominee since Reagan has been a moderate on immigration, and has wanted to bring Latinos into the Republican fold.

How did the inclusive, forward-looking Republican Party of Ronald Reagan become the crass, xenophobic party of Donald J. Trump and Ted Cruz?

The rise of super PACs and the right-wing media has disempowered the party's gatekeepers, while wage stagnation has widened the opening for populist demagogy.  This year's primary candidates have learned the lesson not only the exploiting prejudice around immigration and terrorism works politically, but so, too, does defying the party's elders and its official apparatus.  Thus, Mr. Trump thrives and the establishment favorite, Jeb Bush, is already out.

A more surprising reason for the shift?  Money.  In economic terms, Republican politicians see increasing returns to extremism.  The Citizens United decision has raised the potential financial stakes of presidential elections for media companies, political professionals and candidates alike.  The presidential campaign of 2016 will most likely cost upward of $5 billion, more than 10 times the one that elected Reagan in 1980.

A lot of people get rich in a $5 billion industry, and some are politicians.  Mr. Trump is not the only contender to make the calculation that running for president is win-win, burnishing "brand" value even for the losers.  Ben Carson — yes, still in the race — seems more interested in selling books than in attaining higher office.  Marco Rubio has already enjoyed years of patronage from a billionaire auto dealer in Florida.

The examples of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee underscore the point that a no-hope presidential run has more upside than downside.  A career as a right-wing celebrity — a stint on Fox News, speaking fees, book advances — is more profitable than one in the Senate.  These incentives have helped to shift the Republican Party from a party of opportunity to a party of opportunists.

The loser could be the party itself.  Unless it repudiates the inflammatory rhetoric of the primary, it will lose Reagan's claim to the center and become more like one of Europe's chavinistic right-wing parties.  In the 1980s, it was said that the Democrats looked for heretics while the Republicans looked for converts.  To watch the spectacle in the 2016 primaries is to see those tendencies reversed.

Jacob Weisberg is chairman of the Slate Group and the author of the Ronald Reagan volume in the American Presidents series.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/opinion/what-todays-republicans-dont-get-about-reagan.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

 

[bonnie]

The issue that shows the divide most sharply between Reagan and the current crop of presidential hopefuls is immigration.  In the past, Republican candidates have been justly criticized for deploying racially coded messages around crime and welfare.  But in the main, the party has for decades embraced Reagan's notion of American identity based on immigration, assimilation, and economic opportunity.  Every Republican presidential nominee since Reagan has been a moderate on immigration, and has wanted to bring Latinos into the Republican fold.

How did the inclusive, forward-looking Republican Party of Ronald Reagan become the crass, xenophobic party of Donald J. Trump and Ted Cruz?

 

 

The face of immigration is far different today than a couple of decades ago. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Not really.  It is only different in the twisted rhetoric of politicians.

[Geoarrge]

What these delusional columnists don't realize when they conflate objection to illegal immigration with xenophobia, is that millions of American Latinos want their cousins to wait in line and fill out the paperwork as much as Donald Trump does. 

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Not really.  It is only different in the twisted rhetoric of politicians.

Of course,should have thought of that.

[bonnie]

41 minutes ago, Geoarrge said:

What these delusional columnists dwhat they left behind.on't realize when they conflate objection to illegal immigration with xenophobia, is that millions of American Latinos want their cousins to wait in line and fill out the paperwork as much as Donald Trump does. 

We have more than one American Latino in our immediate family,they will also say the same.

When my DIL immigrated from Russia after marrying my son,another family member had to sign to sponsor in addition for her  to make sure she did not become a burden on society.

Previously immigrants came with the intention of assimilating. They did not come to recreate what they voluntarily left behind.

No attempt was made to insist that the repressive laws of their country was implemented here.

They did not protest Free food shelf's because it wasn't exactly what they wanted. There was no free food as we have today.

They learned english as quickly as possible so as to provide for their families. Free language classes were not available to them to largely ignore.

They did not  complain about the money not being enough  they were given by taxpayer's to care for their families.Free money was not available.

They did not have to have re-education classes to teach them not to rape women because of the way they dressed.

They did not have to have an english interpreter for medical care because even ten years later they refused to learn english.

They did not create a scene at a place of business to insist that it operate as  the country they left behind.

They did not attempt to close a business that offered a menu with items they would not eat.

 

They did not accept a job they knew would require them to violate their religious beliefs and then sue their employer after being required to follow the rules of their employment.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I live in a county where the Latino population outnumbers the Caucasians.  No, it wasn't that way when Reagan was president, but it was close.  I actually have seen no difference in the attitudes of Hispanics today than from 30 years ago.  They had their Cinco de Mayo celebrations, they spoke Spanish and some didn't learn English, they needed interpreters, there were gangs and shootings.  Many Caucasians were less than enthusiastic about have Hispanics for neighbors.  But by and large, the Hispanic population was quiet and friendly.

People who are Muslim have been immigrating to the US for over 200 years.  Yes, there are bad Muslims...just as there are bad Catholics, bad Baptists, bad Methodists, bad Mormons, and bad Adventists.  

Asians (Buddhists and Hindu) have been immigrating to the US for eons, as well.  And the Caucasian "Christian" population looked upon them with derision and contempt.

This happened with to Jewish population in the US, as well.  Jews were not welcome in many parts of America.  Why?  because of their religion and because of the idea that Jews were sneaky and underhanded.  (I think jealousy played a big part, in that many Jewish men were brilliant businessmen.)

 

However, the focus of the article wasn't "immigration," though it was mentioned.  The focus was how and why the Republican Party has changed into the "swamp of nativism, ideological extremism and pessimism about the country's future."

As a Republican, I thought the author brought up some REALLY good points.

And the notion that came to my mind when reading the article was that Donald Trump (who many now claim is the face of Republicanism) is the uncanny reincarnation of Archie Bunker.  

 

[bonnie]

Donald Trump is at the very least a egomaniac. He is so full of himself that if he bends over it will run out. Most republican politicians have only a very thin veneer of conservatism. Underneath there is little difference between them and democrats.

I live in a county where the Latino population outnumbers the Caucasians.  No, it wasn't that way when Reagan was president, but it was close.  I actually have seen no difference in the attitudes of Hispanics today than from 30 years ago.  They had their Cinco de Mayo celebrations, they spoke Spanish and some didn't learn English, they needed interpreters, there were gangs and shootings.  Many Caucasians were less than enthusiastic about have Hispanics for neighbors.  But by and large, the Hispanic population was quiet and friendly.

People who are Muslim have been immigrating to the US for over 200 years.  Yes, there are bad Muslims...just as there are bad Catholics, bad Baptists, bad Methodists, bad Mormons, and bad Adventists.  

All true. But the last couple of decades has brought a new type of immigrant.

One of my neighbors has a winter home in Arizona. She enjoyed that for years up until the last ten. She no longer uses it,it is worthless to her now for her own use. Guess why? She has had very bad experiences as a older single white woman and that area is so crime ridden by immigrants she no longer spends winters in Arizona. Resale value is in the tank.

One of my immediate family has a latino wife and lives in Arizona. He felt forced to relocate for the safety of his family and their education. Why do you suppose that is? Not because the Hispanic population where they live is quiet and friendly.

Are there many Hispanics and Muslims  as you describe? Of course there are. Until the last couple of decades when did this good,fill in the blank,attempt to cause financial harm to businesses that provided products they felt were wrong to consume? When did they deliberately apply for and accept a position for employment that they knew ahead of time required them to violate their conscience and then sue?

When did previous immigrants of any religion,race etc burn the american flag repeatedly? Then demand to be cared for by americans?

How many mosques or houses of worship were built and were used for recruiting for ISIS? We have a lot of them here.

Until the last few years it would never have occurred to me to object to a mosque being built in our small town. At present it would be a hard sell for most of us..Does that make me and the others of this small town a mindless bigot? Probably to some here,I can live with that just fine

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bonnie]

I belong to a number of forums because of what I do online. Each one has hundreds of active members. It has been interesting to watch the gradual shift over the last few years. Most now that acknowledge they would vote for Trump are very free about disliking the man.But they do they feel he is more authentic about who he is and he hammers on a couple of points that appeal to them. Whether that is being honest for the right reasons or being honest because you simply don't care(I lean towards the latter) many are being drawn to that.

Obamacare, the direction gay rights has taken and the immigration as it stands now has caused them to swallow their dislike and lean towards Trump.

Initially these three topics were enthusiastically championed by the majority.Not so any longer.