MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Desperately Seeking Reagan

Commentary: If there's one thing that can unite the GOP like the Gipper did, it's the specter of another Clinton in the White House.

January 29, 2008


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

It's only fitting that tomorrow the Republican presidential debates will come to an end precisely where they began almost nine long months ago—at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, the closest thing the Republicans have to hallowed ground. And it's to the memory of Reagan that the party turns as it struggles to hold together the fraying strands of the conservative coalition, one made up of traditional business interests, hawkish neoconservatives, Christian "social conservatives," and libertarians.

Without strong support from each of these factions, the Republican nominee's road to the White House will become a nearly impossible climb. Yet each of the field's leading candidates—John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee—draws support from at best two or three of them. As it stands, says John Samples of the libertarian Cato Institute, the Republican Party is suffering from "depression, lack of interest, and confusion" in the wake of the Bush years. But all is not lost for the GOP. There's nothing that pulls squabbling troops together more effectively than the need to defeat a common foe, and no enemy is more reviled among Republicans than Hillary Clinton.

The New Right coalition that launched the Reagan Revolution came together in the late 1970s to oppose such developments as Jimmy Carter's handover of the Panama Canal and the SALT II disarmament talks. Appealing to business-minded fiscal conservatives from Main Street to Wall Street with its attack on New Deal regulation and social programs, the coalition also pleased many libertarians with its emphasis on reducing government, supporting states' rights, and defending national sovereignty against such threats as the United Nations. It drew in social conservatives through its shrewd alliance with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and its opposition to such 1970s excesses as feminism and gay rights—and it was all held firmly together by anti-Communism. By drawing these groups together, the New Right delivered the White House to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan, a divorced former Hollywood actor, received two-thirds of the white Christian evangelical vote over Carter, who was himself a Christian evangelical from the Deep South. He also won support from so-called Reagan Democrats—working-class voters who were drawn in, often against their own economic interests, by the Republican's tough stance on national security, crime, and what they saw as a too-permissive society.

The Heritage Foundation became the brain trust of the Reagan era, spelling out the nuts and bolts of the conservative revolution in a publication called Mandate for Leadership, a catalog of the most horrifying things liberals could imagine: privatization of everything from the nation's highways to the air-traffic control system; closing down the Department of Education; ending food stamps and welfare; putting Medicare in private hands; rolling back health, environmental, and corporate regulation; and cutting taxes on the wealthy and on corporations.

These different projects were not considered to be ad hoc or pragmatic steps towards gaining power and running government. They were thought of as ways to implement a conservative ideology. Above all, New Right ideology sought to reverse the New Deal belief that government has the ability to aid, serve, and protect its people. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language," Reagan once said, "are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Such rhetoric—and the accompanying cuts to both taxes and social programs—was music to libertarian ears, as well as a boon to corporate profits. Reagan cared less about crushing abortion and gay rights, but he paid enough lip service to issues of "morality" to keep the Bible-thumpers in the big tent, as well.

Reagan's zealous anti-communism initially won the hearts of the original crop of neoconservatives (though they ultimately found him too fainthearted in his quest to expand the American empire). Under the so-called Reagan Doctrine—also designed in large part by Heritage—U.S. troops remained at home, while covert support flowed to right-wing guerrilla insurgents (then known as "freedom fighters") to help "roll back" communism in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. He also benefited from the courage of democracy movements in Eastern Europe and Gorbachev-era reforms within the Soviet Union: Reagan may have said "tear down this wall," but it's Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel who did it, just in time to secure Reagan's legacy.

Reagan also said, "Politics is just like show business. You have a hell of an opening, coast for awhile, and then have a hell of a close." Though in fact, the administration that began and ended with a bang actually had to compromise on many of its goals, restrained by a solidly Democratic Congress that managed to fend off the most drastic cuts to the social welfare system and keep Robert Bork off the Supreme Court (though it also increased military spending). George H.W. Bush couldn't energize the conservative coalition the way Reagan had, and the party lost the White House in 1992.

But Mandate for Leadership paved the way for the Contract with America, and the Republican back bench, led by Newt Gingrich, seized Congress in 1994. It tied Clinton's hands except when he was willing to triangulate—as he all too often was, agreeing to bank consolidation, welfare "reform," and widespread deregulation.

Clinton also helped bring sex to the foreground as an increasingly important ingredient in the conservative coalition—not just Bill Clinton's irrepressible libido, but the notion of controlling sex and sexuality as an organizing force for government. Sex was brought to bear by the social conservatives, chief among them, the right-wing Christian fundamentalists who clustered around Washington and plunged into politics as never before. Unlike the libertarian and business-minded Republicans who were usually pushing for less government, social conservatives didn't hesitate to use the central government to achieve their goals, passing laws about who is allowed to have sex with whom, who should reproduce and under what conditions, what family structures were and were not legitimate. In addition to banning abortion, the social conservatives wanted to legislate sexual behavior by rewarding traditional nuclear families with tax cuts, punishing single mothers with welfare cuts, and ostracizing gay people in whatever way possible. The 1998 impeachment was a shining moment for the sex police. Conservatives of other ilks—including many who couldn't care less what the president did with his cigars—were all too happy to climb on board because of their general loathing of Bill Clinton and his policies.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

The "down-ticket" effect if Hillary is nominated will be lethal to a lot of Democrat candidates. http://unitedagainsthillary.wordpress.com
Posted by:YJanuary 29, 2008 5:35:44 PMRespond ^
I look foward to a Hillary win, it will give us back both houses again. As it was so it shall be.
Posted by:CladariJanuary 29, 2008 11:00:16 PMRespond ^
Ron Paul = CONSERVATIVE You like everyone are not being fair and just. Ron Paul is the most conservative of all....wake up. RONALD REAGAN would have supported him first and foremost.
Posted by:evangelineJanuary 30, 2008 6:57:24 AMRespond ^
ron pual ron paul ron paul sure has a lot of cheerleaders (or whiners) if any article does not only mention paul they feel slighted. Grow up, quit whining. And by the way libertarianism is a Utopian ideal that only works in the real world if you beleive might makes right.
Posted by:robJanuary 30, 2008 9:59:31 AMRespond ^
AMERICA WAKE THE [deleted] UP......WHEN DR.FRANKENROVES DONE WITH HILLARY 51% OF THE COUNTRY WILL BELEAVE SHES CARYING WILLIE HORTONS LOVE BABY!
Posted by:Bobby DeckerJanuary 30, 2008 3:46:56 PMRespond ^
they all have one thing in common--hating negroes.
Posted by:kayJanuary 30, 2008 6:50:40 PMRespond ^
Telegram from Florida's Straight Talk Express. stop.... We're Sorry America. Florida's blue-hair's and snow birds just had a tragic senior moment. They flocked to John McCain's pitiful lies and angry scare tactics... stop.... Governor Mitt Romney nearly beat McCain in Florida 35-31%, but the petty little old senator turned even uglier... stop. Mitt Romney needs your help to bury McAmnesty on Super Tuesday... stop. Conservatives every where have rejected John McCain, but with Huckabee splitting republican votes, well, here we are. stop.stop. stop voting for Huckster. You must derail McCain's nomination next Tuesday. Please, GO Vote Mitt Romney!
Posted by:NewzarooJanuary 30, 2008 10:24:18 PMRespond ^
Feel better Mr. Ridgeway? Writing about our country's recent political history as you see it, but NOT as it actually was, according to facts. A list too long to post here.
Posted by:T. BrownJanuary 30, 2008 10:41:41 PMRespond ^
"I'm the new Reagan"... "I'm the new JFK"... "I'm the new FDR"... "I'm the new MLK"... Four great men who had two things in common. First, they were the right leader for their moment in time. Second, they have all passed on, and so has their moment. The past isn't coming back, and the future has its own specific problems. Anyone who keeps trying to assume the mantle of a dead leader will lose my interest. I want a leader who's looking forward, not back.
Posted by:RWGJanuary 30, 2008 11:07:07 PMRespond ^
Even though I consider myself a diehard conservative, I'd rather see Hillary, a self proclaimed liberal, in the White House instead of McCain, a closet liberal, who will further sully conservatism with his liberal leanings. We stand a better chance of winning with a true conservative in four years if a democrat takes this country to the dumps.
Posted by:Johnny BoyJanuary 30, 2008 11:22:53 PMRespond ^
I hope people realize that they really will have Bill Clinton as President again if they elect Hillary. My stomach hurts at the thought of it. Bill will take over her Senate seat - that will give him official capacity and then he will be able to act as the co-President more easily. Vote for Obama - he is substantive (see his website for full disclosure of all policies) - experienced but not establishment - smart and moral. He also knows how to listen to people who do not agree with him. I doubt that you can say that about John McCain. "If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, Spitzer would likely appoint a fellow Democrat to take over her Senate seat. So far, speculation about potential successors has focused on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose father once held the same Senate seat. But Spitzer could just as easily appoint Bill Clinton, who, under New York law, would fill his wife’s Senate seat through 2010. A special election would then be held, and the winner would serve the final two years of her term, which expires in 2012." Feb 18, 2007 9:57 PM by Bill Sammon, The Examiner [www.examiner.com]
Posted by:yoch3January 30, 2008 11:44:41 PMRespond ^
I agree with all those who are saying we need to stop splitting the conservative vote. PLEASE if you want to see a conservative in the White House, switch to Huckabee! It's time for the true conservatives to rally around the most conservative candidate left... which is Huckabee. See for yourself who is more conservative, by their record and on the ISSUES, at the independent site OnTheIssues.org.
Posted by:Allen FullerJanuary 31, 2008 12:41:43 AMRespond ^
Please...perhaps a few, but this is a fear tactic...I will fight with any man...if he is a man...we love Condi, Powell, etc. it is the ideas, not some silliness about color.
Posted by:BlulyJanuary 31, 2008 1:32:47 AMRespond ^
This "down-ticket" talk re: Hillary is nonsense and not factually based. Weeks ago, The Third Estate Sunday Review pointed out the obvious: Hillary's turning on the base. Obama pulls in independents. For the full slate of candidates in an election, Hillary's better for Dems (straight ticket voters) and Romney's better for Republicans. The 'hybrids' of John McCain and Barack Obama weaken the races for their own parties because their support is cross-party.
Posted by:BradJanuary 31, 2008 8:03:05 AMRespond ^
Johnny boy, dems won't take the country to the dump. It's already there! Lies, treason (we will NOT FORGET Valerie Plame!),torture, selling our souls for oil interests and Halliburton, DOMESTIC SPYING ON YES, YOU!, turning virtually the entire world against us, need I go on? How could it possibly get any worse than this? Oh yes...the "terrrrrrists" that y'all seem to see around every corner. This administration is the terrrrrrrists because they sought to instill fear in Americans through lies, deceit and their own selfish interests. I could go on...Katrina? Remember Katrina? And, what is a "true" conservative, anyway? Someone more selfish, more self-centered, more "do as I say, not as I do", self-righteous than this group of thugs? Wow! I can't wait for 2009!
Posted by:katJanuary 31, 2008 9:00:36 AMRespond ^
I am not sure that I am convinced in a collective resistance against the Clintons will not allow her to win. As James Ridgeway has pointed out, there is not a strong sense on how to feel the "Republican plantform" and its effects on a conservitate/evangelical/libertarian base. They may all not like the Clintons, but when they vote with their feet, a collective vote against the Clintons does not necessarily translate into a collective vote for any one Republican. We already know that hard-headed conservatives will vote against Clinton anyways, but if there is no consensus for any of the conservative front runners,then how do we know that people won't just "vote for change?" Which could mean a leveling vote against the Republican party, the same that happened in the Congressional realinement, or the "referendum on Bush", two years ago?
Posted by:Christopher Clough-HunterJanuary 31, 2008 9:13:04 AMRespond ^
You have just described the modern GOP
Posted by:fred_53_99January 31, 2008 10:08:11 AMRespond ^
I was so proud during the 1980s - knowing that my president was staring blankly out the Oval Office windows, [deleted] in his diapers and not a goddamn thing going through his Brylcreemed head.
Posted by:A Proud RepublicanJanuary 31, 2008 7:55:21 PMRespond ^
I'll bet yoch3 lies in bed at night, eyes wide and cold shakes, imagining Bill Clinton being fellated by Monica Lewinsky at a Planned Parenthood clinic....
Posted by:yoch3 haterJanuary 31, 2008 7:59:25 PMRespond ^
LOLOL! Now here's a person who knows how to put things into perspective! Here's to "the good ol' days"!
Posted by:katFebruary 1, 2008 8:41:04 AMRespond ^
Republicans and democrats alike should get off Hillary's back. The fear mongering that she'll reunite the republican party because of her husband is absolute nonsense. People with their short term memories need to remember that the day Bill was impeached, by a republican house, Zogby polls showed him to have a 72% approval rating. The idiot in office now has a 30% approval rating (how it's this high, God only knows). Moreover, Bill's sexual transgression, when compared to the antics of Bush and his neocon imbeciles, is wane in comparison. But, when I look at the morale majority in this country and their apathetic attitude towards the real problems facing the U.S., I won't be a bit shocked to see McCaine or Romney get elected and carry out the insane path that Bush and company has led us down. Most republicans don't give a dam about the constitution being trashed, world laws being broken, wars being started on the basis of false evidence and lies, the firing of U.S. attorneys who don't support a Bush agenda, or the leaking of CIA agent's name, but oral sex, now that's a shame, worthy of God's greatest fury. It doesn't matter if Hillary is elected or not, but what does matter is another four years of the same doctrines that is ruining this country. So, republicans, flock to the polls and vote against Hillary and let's all have another wonderful term of scandal, wars, God, guns, and gay bashing. And when it's all over and your dead, you can play your harps sitting on the right shoulder of the almigthy compalcent in the fact that you're a "real conservative"!
Posted by:allen livingstonFebruary 1, 2008 8:10:02 PMRespond ^
Whether or not the Clintons (dare I say Billary?) will unite the fractured GOP base around its eventual nominee remains to be seen. But I'll bet more than a few evangelicals and social conservatives will give McCain another look WHEN (not if) he selects Mike Huckabee as his running mate. Thank you Mike for staying in the race and cutting Romney off at the knees on Super Tuesday! Sure, the thought of his being one heart beat away from Commander-in-Chief scares me a little. But I think I'll get over it. It beats the thought of General Billary any day of the week. Size Billary up for a combat helmet and put her/him/it in an M-1 Abrams tank. Do I hear Dukakis anyone?
Posted by:PoliticoFebruary 2, 2008 2:22:26 AMRespond ^
What are Reagan attributes,s it that he was the greatest con man in the history of the world for convincing America that debt is prosperity or/and that the Nicaraguan Sandinista army was going to march through Mexico, invade Texas and capture Wash., DC., a good idea? Was it that for at least his last term in office Reagan had Alzheimer's and that Republican Presidents don't need a brain or a mind, which they prefer, to be President?Maybe it's all of these attributes that they worship in Reagan although idol worship is a sin. The Democrats are going to have to smash Reagan's heritage for what it is, the facilitating the implementing of a soviet-fascist type government for the USA, that's Reagan's true legacy, the destruction of American freedom by lies and thuggery by Bush and the Republican Party.
Posted by:bogi666February 2, 2008 11:23:53 AMRespond ^
Excellent analysis in this article. Well put! But nice try in your subtle attempt to discount Ron Paul and curve his previous statements into something off-the-wall. Like the rest of the corporate media, you seem to be hoping to get by with a brush-off stab - ridicule, as it were. Just to write him off as long as you possibly can. But again, excellent analysis and valuable background history in all the remainder.
Posted by:ScottGordonFebruary 3, 2008 11:43:52 PMRespond ^
The problem with the Clintons and their whole wing of the party it that true and independent minded liberals dislike them almost as much as the republicans. Given Clinton's "reforms" to welfare that created a rush to push people off the welfare roles is it any wonder that independent minded liberals disdain him? That is of course minor compared to NAFTA which threw labor out in the cold and created the immigration crises by driving Mexican farmers under (they can't compete with subsidized US agriculture). Of course there is also the fact that the Clintonites like Sen Joe Liberman all voted for the idiotic war in Iraq. Is it any wonder that Liberman had to run as an independent because real Dems and liberals wouldn't accept him, or that there were those who defected to Ralph Nader in 2000 when Gore ran on the Clinton platform instead of away from it? I for one refuse to support Hillary or Bill in anything, she served on Wall-Mart's Board of directress and he pushed expanded trade with China. It's obvious that they are republicans wearing the democratic label, and corporate dems are worse than republicans they're back stabbing traitors. Edwards was the only true progressive with a shot at winning and now he's gone and we're left with Obama as the only decent candidate. I sure hope he wins the nomination so I don't have to throw my vote away on Nader as a protest vote.
Posted by:Michael ZFebruary 4, 2008 3:55:24 PMRespond ^
I have to laugh at the Dobson idea that his followers are "pro-life, proor-moral, and pro family and find this in Ronald Reagan, a wife, and political party swapper,who funded his illegal wars with profits from "Freedom Fighters" who now the U.S. calls Terrorists, and exchanged weapons for cocaine. Senile Ronnie's administration was anti-environmental, union busting, deregulating, and debt ridden. His Treasonous acts have recently been surpassed by Bu$h & Co.. And I can't believe I hear candidate's want to emulate this image. Just shows you how stupid American's really are.
Posted by:Dr.FunFebruary 6, 2008 4:30:26 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















Charlie and Sarah

Drill, Baby, Drill

Torches and Pitchforks

Quote of the Day


More MoJo voices...



bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2008 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS