Understood. Will shut up after this bc I’ve already outstayed my welcome. but think that analysis (like the con inc of today in the opposite direction) doesn’t acknowledge that Reagan’s agenda and rhetoric addressed a particular set of problems that existed in 1980. that agenda solved many of those problems (directly w the economy and indirectly w the USSR). The GOP, instead addressing new issues in the 90s -- like immigration and entrenchment of the civil rights regime -- chose to adopt a zombie approach of repeating Reagan’s rhetoric and enacting ever more ideological versions of his policies that didn’t make sense given current conditions. Think you are confusing this zombie Reaganism w the man himself. (Note too that Buchanan, who tried to update the GOPs agenda to face a new reality in the 90s (including immigration) was in Reagan’s admin and has remained v pro Reagan; Reagan also endorsed HW much later than expected in the 92 campaign and his public silence helped juice Buchanans campaign early on)
“Was Reagan woke” is an interesting debate, and I always lean towards “yes” until I remind myself that Pat Buchanan remains a staunch Reaganite to this day. Who knows both the man and the globalist threat better than Pat?
With mixed cases like Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, even Truman, men who I want to like but seem to have helped create Woke, you have to remember the political landscape of the Cold War, with immigration well below what we have today. The threats facing America were radically different.
I’ve landed on a funny inversion of enlightened centrism-- it’s just not fair to hold these men to our modern (based and redpilled) standards. It was a different time folks.
Eisenhower was the best of that bunch. People like Reagan because of personal attachment. The issues were different back then and he represented a resurgent Americanism. They do not want to accept that the resurgent Americanism led to many of our problems today
Not to hairsplit too much, but I’d say Reagan’s “resurgent Americanism” left the door open and undefended to wokeness, moreso than created it-- even if the words are superficially the same, the psychology and motivations of the latter are very different. As are the people for that matter
This piece is unfair. Reagan -- at great risk to his livelihood and political prospects -- v publicly endorsed Goldwater, in part bc Goldwater opposed the nascent civil rights regime. I can’t speak to the kerner commission response you highlight (which is admittedly lame) but thats offset by his support for a candidate that opposed the end of free association.
Criticizing Reagan for his immigration policies is also misplaced. Mariel happened during carter and was linked to anti communism (and a huge voting block in Florida). They were already here, what was Reagan supposed to say in an election everyone thought would be very close?
The 86 legislation included many controls on immigration and penalties that were subsequently held “unconstitutional” by the Fed judiciary. This was / is absurd but again, what was Reagan supposed to do? Reagan (like many people of his generation) trusted the system and couldn’t conceive of lawfare campaigns and insane judges. That may have been naive, but there were very few politicians who offered anything different at the time.
Point taken on refugees. That wasn’t at scale tho until the late 80s and the communist bloc began to disintegrate causing opportunity for mass migration by previously controlled populations.
In general think it’s not cool to dump on Reagan. he was a great president who achieved a lot and was the trump of his day. Will take a fools errand and speak for the dead, but I bet he’d have been an ardent trump supporter in 2016 and now
He primarily endorsed Goldwater for economically conservative and anti-communist reasons. The civil rights stuff didn't play a factor. His rhetoric throughout his political life was comically Con Inc. The resurgence of "city on a hill" rhetoric owes to Reagan. The 86 amnesty was touted as immigration control and some restrictionist groups backed it for that, but obviously that was not how it turned out. Still. his longtime support for legalizing illegals negates the immigration control aspect of the amnesty.
Barry Goldwater might've had the correct position on this, but he was hardly *our* candidate. The man's primary gripe was the specific legal structure and legislative path of Civil Rights. He was neither George Wallace, nor Strom Thurmond.
With regard to immigration, the criticisms go far beyond Mariel. Reagan explicitly framed immigration as a positive. He did so in terms of vision and rhetoric (see 1980 Debates), as well as legislatively.
At a certain point the excuse of "His hands were tied, he couldn't do anything, and he was outwitted by those nasty Demonrats!" stops holding water - especially when the man in question enjoys branding as a "Staunch Conservative Fighter."
As to how Reagan would have percieved Trump? Who knows, Trump was in many respects an outright repudiation of Mr. New Dealer-Turned-Conservative. Regardless of speculation on whether or not Reagan would've ended up a bitter Never Trumper, it's worth pointing out that the dichotomy specifically constructed by NRO-types and GOP insiders during 2015 was between "Reaganism" and "Trumpism."
Understood. Will shut up after this bc I’ve already outstayed my welcome. but think that analysis (like the con inc of today in the opposite direction) doesn’t acknowledge that Reagan’s agenda and rhetoric addressed a particular set of problems that existed in 1980. that agenda solved many of those problems (directly w the economy and indirectly w the USSR). The GOP, instead addressing new issues in the 90s -- like immigration and entrenchment of the civil rights regime -- chose to adopt a zombie approach of repeating Reagan’s rhetoric and enacting ever more ideological versions of his policies that didn’t make sense given current conditions. Think you are confusing this zombie Reaganism w the man himself. (Note too that Buchanan, who tried to update the GOPs agenda to face a new reality in the 90s (including immigration) was in Reagan’s admin and has remained v pro Reagan; Reagan also endorsed HW much later than expected in the 92 campaign and his public silence helped juice Buchanans campaign early on)
I agree. Reaganism did lead to a lot of economic growth but came with a lot of side effects he and his supporters didn't foresee.
Amen!
"Americans hate crime and disorder, but many are programmed to think the criminals and rioters have legitimate grievances."
Only if they are black criminals and rioters.
“Was Reagan woke” is an interesting debate, and I always lean towards “yes” until I remind myself that Pat Buchanan remains a staunch Reaganite to this day. Who knows both the man and the globalist threat better than Pat?
With mixed cases like Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, even Truman, men who I want to like but seem to have helped create Woke, you have to remember the political landscape of the Cold War, with immigration well below what we have today. The threats facing America were radically different.
I’ve landed on a funny inversion of enlightened centrism-- it’s just not fair to hold these men to our modern (based and redpilled) standards. It was a different time folks.
Eisenhower was the best of that bunch. People like Reagan because of personal attachment. The issues were different back then and he represented a resurgent Americanism. They do not want to accept that the resurgent Americanism led to many of our problems today
Not to hairsplit too much, but I’d say Reagan’s “resurgent Americanism” left the door open and undefended to wokeness, moreso than created it-- even if the words are superficially the same, the psychology and motivations of the latter are very different. As are the people for that matter
This piece is unfair. Reagan -- at great risk to his livelihood and political prospects -- v publicly endorsed Goldwater, in part bc Goldwater opposed the nascent civil rights regime. I can’t speak to the kerner commission response you highlight (which is admittedly lame) but thats offset by his support for a candidate that opposed the end of free association.
Criticizing Reagan for his immigration policies is also misplaced. Mariel happened during carter and was linked to anti communism (and a huge voting block in Florida). They were already here, what was Reagan supposed to say in an election everyone thought would be very close?
The 86 legislation included many controls on immigration and penalties that were subsequently held “unconstitutional” by the Fed judiciary. This was / is absurd but again, what was Reagan supposed to do? Reagan (like many people of his generation) trusted the system and couldn’t conceive of lawfare campaigns and insane judges. That may have been naive, but there were very few politicians who offered anything different at the time.
Point taken on refugees. That wasn’t at scale tho until the late 80s and the communist bloc began to disintegrate causing opportunity for mass migration by previously controlled populations.
In general think it’s not cool to dump on Reagan. he was a great president who achieved a lot and was the trump of his day. Will take a fools errand and speak for the dead, but I bet he’d have been an ardent trump supporter in 2016 and now
He primarily endorsed Goldwater for economically conservative and anti-communist reasons. The civil rights stuff didn't play a factor. His rhetoric throughout his political life was comically Con Inc. The resurgence of "city on a hill" rhetoric owes to Reagan. The 86 amnesty was touted as immigration control and some restrictionist groups backed it for that, but obviously that was not how it turned out. Still. his longtime support for legalizing illegals negates the immigration control aspect of the amnesty.
Barry Goldwater might've had the correct position on this, but he was hardly *our* candidate. The man's primary gripe was the specific legal structure and legislative path of Civil Rights. He was neither George Wallace, nor Strom Thurmond.
With regard to immigration, the criticisms go far beyond Mariel. Reagan explicitly framed immigration as a positive. He did so in terms of vision and rhetoric (see 1980 Debates), as well as legislatively.
At a certain point the excuse of "His hands were tied, he couldn't do anything, and he was outwitted by those nasty Demonrats!" stops holding water - especially when the man in question enjoys branding as a "Staunch Conservative Fighter."
As to how Reagan would have percieved Trump? Who knows, Trump was in many respects an outright repudiation of Mr. New Dealer-Turned-Conservative. Regardless of speculation on whether or not Reagan would've ended up a bitter Never Trumper, it's worth pointing out that the dichotomy specifically constructed by NRO-types and GOP insiders during 2015 was between "Reaganism" and "Trumpism."
Fair points on Wallace, the 80 debates, and the many Reagan alums who became never trumpers