Why Reagan?

[Czhorat]

Posters here and conservative commentators (Sean, Rush, etc) always invoke Reagan's policies as the example of what this country needs today and of what would resonate with voters. This might be sacrilege, but I don't quite see it. Economic challenges facing the country in 1980 included runaway inflation and a stagnant economy. Welfare was perceived as having become more of a "hammock" than a "safety net". The biggest foreign challenge was our struggle against the Soviet Union, a single nation-state against whom we'd fight little proxy wars throughout the world.

Today's challenges are different. The 1990s era welfare reform drastically cut down on abuse and, with a greater emphasis on work, changed the perception that people were there to "abuse the system" and get a "free ride". Rising health-care costs have made the average American more sympathetic to the idea that government should take an expanded role. The lack of severe inflation over the past decade has people more concerned about a shrinking economy and less about the devaluation of money (and the increased indebtedness of the average American has probably made inflation less scary). Our foreign enemies isn't a single nation-state but smaller states and loose networks of non-state actors.

In short, it's a different world than it was nearly 30 years ago when Reagan was elected. Principles might not change, but policies need to evolve to reflect new realities. If Reagan were to reappear today and campaign against "welfare mothers driving Cadillacs", against health-care reform, for a large military buildup, and for cutting both taxes and government services I do not believe he'd get the same reception he did in 1980.

[CrusaderFrank]

Posters here and conservative commentators (Sean, Rush, etc) always invoke Reagan's policies as the example of what this country needs today and of what would resonate with voters. This might be sacrilege, but I don't quite see it. Economic challenges facing the country in 1980 included runaway inflation and a stagnant economy. Welfare was perceived as having become more of a "hammock" than a "safety net". The biggest foreign challenge was our struggle against the Soviet Union, a single nation-state against whom we'd fight little proxy wars throughout the world.

Today's challenges are different. The 1990s era welfare reform drastically cut down on abuse and, with a greater emphasis on work, changed the perception that people were there to "abuse the system" and get a "free ride". Rising health-care costs have made the average American more sympathetic to the idea that government should take an expanded role. The lack of severe inflation over the past decade has people more concerned about a shrinking economy and less about the devaluation of money (and the increased indebtedness of the average American has probably made inflation less scary). Our foreign enemies isn't a single nation-state but smaller states and loose networks of non-state actors.

In short, it's a different world than it was nearly 30 years ago when Reagan was elected. Principles might not change, but policies need to evolve to reflect new realities. If Reagan were to reappear today and campaign against "welfare mothers driving Cadillacs", against health-care reform, for a large military buildup, and for cutting both taxes and government services I do not believe he'd get the same reception he did in 1980.

"In short, it's a different world than it was nearly 30 years ago when Reagan was elected. Principles might not change, but policies need to evolve to reflect new realities."

You nailed it! Don't you see that?! A new Reagan would approach today problems by applying principles first!

For Conservatives it means that free people acting in their own interests, taking care of their own business are far more ruthlessly efficient with their dollars than somebody in Washington ever would be!

I'm not kidding when I tell you that you nailed it!

[asda1]

In short, it's a different world than it was nearly 30 years ago when Reagan was elected. Principles might not change, but policies need to evolve to reflect new realities. If Reagan were to reappear today and campaign against "welfare mothers driving Cadillacs", against health-care reform, for a large military buildup, and for cutting both taxes and government services I do not believe he'd get the same reception he did in 1980.

Wait two years and compare the world we face to the world we faced 30 years ago. History may not repeat but it certainly rhymes.

Cadillac driving wellfare queens may not be an issue, but cadillac driving UAW members in a job bank that haven't worked for 2 years and live on bailout money just might be.

Seems to be the consensus that inflation is coming back with a vengeance before to long as well. Add inflation to a recovering economy and guess what oil prices will look like. Seems like an apt comparison to me.

Who doesn't think we will see gas prices break $5 before the end of 2010? Maybe even higher.

[Czhorat]

You nailed it! Don't you see that?! A new Reagan would approach today problems by applying principles first!

For Conservatives it means that free people acting in their own interests, taking care of their own business are far more ruthlessly efficient with their dollars than somebody in Washington ever would be!

I'm not kidding when I tell you that you nailed it!

Thanks. I'm not exactly sure how those principles would be applied. I think they'd have to be stated in a bit more sophisticated a manner than they currently have been.

Being for "lower taxes" is all well and good, but there has to be some limit as to how low, especially as people now seem to have more expectations from their government. High tax rates don't seem to top the nation's concerns.

How would you articulate your principles to solve today's problems?

[Creefer]

I think if Reagan were on stage today, he'd go the opposite with military, and instead of build up, draw down.

Our military was in shambles when Reagan entered office, and the Soviet Union was a very real, and much more dangerous threat to anything we face today.

Reagan very much wanted a balanced budget, but could not accomplish that given his priorities of dealing with the Cold War, cutting taxes, and dealing with congress.

[asda1]

If inflation is high and the economy stagnant. I think "govt is not the solution, govt is the problem" will be the only platform necessary.

But that depends on getting to a point where spending is visably hurting the middle class and the only solution offered by Obama in 2012.

If economy bad, and spending bad. What exactly is Obama going to argue for? I hope we can beat a platform of, "Just give me more time, it will work I promise."

[CrusaderFrank]

Thanks. I'm not exactly sure how those principles would be applied. I think they'd have to be stated in a bit more sophisticated a manner than they currently have been.

Being for "lower taxes" is all well and good, but there has to be some limit as to how low, especially as people now seem to have more expectations from their government. High tax rates don't seem to top the nation's concerns.

How would you articulate your principles to solve today's problems?

It depends on the "problem". Take Healthcare. The problem is that the individual is not the real client and has no incentive to shop for a better price, the government and insurance companies have distorted the market.

We need to put the consumer back on top, so that how he allocates his healthcare dollars drive the bus. That will drive down costs!

[croupier101]

He tax and spent, he borrowed and spent. He expanded earned income tax brackets, he expanded welfare, etc.

I guess they call him conservative because of his huge expansion in military spending too.

[CrusaderFrank]

He tax and spent, he borrowed and spent. He expanded earned income tax brackets, he expanded welfare, etc.

I guess they call him conservative because of his huge expansion in military spending too.

Yes, I too remember when Reagan closed Congress during the 1980's

[Czhorat]

It depends on the "problem". Take Healthcare. The problem is that the individual is not the real client and has no incentive to shop for a better price, the government and insurance companies have distorted the market.

We need to put the consumer back on top, so that how he allocates his healthcare dollars drive the bus. That will drive down costs!

How? Outlaw insurance? I'm curious as to how you think this would work. It strikes me as a radical change (not necessarilly a bad thing, but radical nontheless).

[Creefer]

He tax and spent, he borrowed and spent. He expanded earned income tax brackets, he expanded welfare, etc.

I guess they call him conservative because of his huge expansion in military spending too.

You well know his early tax cuts out-weighed the later tax increases. Keep on with the "Reagan increased taxes" revisionist history, though.

[croupier101]

Yes, I too remember when Reagan closed Congress during the 1980's

Nope, just proposed huge budgets, and then signed just about everything that came across his desk.

[croupier101]

You well know his early tax cuts out-weighed the later tax increases. Keep on with the "Reagan increased taxes" revisionist history, though.

Revisionist history? Ask the investors who saw capital gains taxes go up 8%.

The man signed the largest tax increase in American history. The God of conservatives, #1 out of 44 in tax increases. Talk about revisionist.