Well, he probably wouldn't be invited to the GOP Convention to speak, based on his anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-constitutional, anti-conservative track record.
Reshared post from +Victoria Hudgins
Google+: View post on Google+
314 view(s)
What Would Reagan Do?
I think Reagan would have some stern words for both parties today, though I would also think he'd be a bit tougher on the far Left and Right. Plus we're about 30 years past Reagan and a lot has changed since then.
You realize that even in the time of Reagan he was treated just like Paul this year? It took a major fight within the party to turn the tides.
As I’ve said, Obama and the current batch of Congressional Dems are to the right of Reagan.
Sadly, in several ways, yes.
I was initially going to go back to his years as California governor (the 1967 abortion bill, the increases in funding for state universities), but that wouldn't necessarily be fair since positions can evolve over time (as +Mark Means has noted).
There is one thing that is distinctive about 1980s politics – while the Republicans and Democrats would certainly fight over some issues, they would also cooperate on a personal and even political level. Reagan probably considered Tip O'Neill a friend. Senator Dan Quayle co-authored legislation with Ted Kennedy.
The point about Reagan's admiration of FDR is telling, since Obama has been portrayed as admiring Reagan. Certainly both Obama and Reagan believe that it is essential to clearly articulate one's vision, and both Obama and Reagan believe in a strong military and a strong economy (although they would probably quibble on some particulars).
As to Means' point about the changes that have occurred since the 1980s, probably the two biggest changes are the end of the Cold War and the emergence of China as an economic power.
Even by the time that Reagan's successor had to deal with the invasion of Kuwait, the end of the Cold War certainly changed the military and foreign landscape. While Kissinger argues that many of the issues that he faced in the Nixon Administration were similar to issues that Presidents face today, the absence of an "us-vs-them" divide on the international level results in a different foreign policy landscape. You can't install a "hot line" phone between the White House and al-Qaeda.
Economically, the emergence of China (and India and other countries) on the economic front has resulted in an economy that is very different from the economy of 1988. I'll grant that Japan was producing its share of American goods in the 1980s, but Japan didn't have a billion plus people willing to work at extremely low wages.
_"Plus we're about 30 years past Reagan and a lot has changed since then."_
True enough, +Mark Means — except the Republican political leaders keep invoking Reagan as their spiritual leader, close to as being saint, when his actual record wouldn't get him past the front door today. They do so by embracing his image but not his reality — a reality that, while he did much I disagree with, he did so as a political realist who could work with Tip O'Neill, for example.
I think the main reason is that Reagan projected an image. He was an actor, fergoshsakes. He was high on rhetoric, regardless of his position. And it's that rhetoric, that image — the avuncular grandpa who could give the Commies what-for — that the GOP embraces today without actually accepting the dissonance of his record to their current political positions.
Reagan is not the only one who projects an image. Kennedy and both Roosevelts did also. I can't tell yet whether future generations will place Obama in this category.
You can see some of the same things with Kennedy. The prevailing gospel is that if Kennedy had won a second term, OF COURSE he wouldn't have escalated the war in Vietnam. I personally think that he would have.
I agree, +Dave Hill. At the time, there were still plenty of what used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans" — Republicans from NE states who would probably be considered left of some Democrats these days. It was easier to build working coalitions when significant caucuses of either party could be counted on to compromise and work with members across the aisle. Although Reagan was considered right of them, he was still wroking within a party where he had to appeal to them and work with them. The contemporary bifurcation of the electorate makes that verboten at this point.
You're also right, Dave, a lot of Republicans invoke his name and, like you said, I think it's more for image than anything else.
I wasn't all that politically aware back then but the main thing I remember about Reagan was that he was referred to (more than once) as a 'cowboy' and projected the image that America was a fairly strong nation.
One of my main gripes about Obama is, to be blunt, he comes across as a puss and a weak leader….a spoiled child who throws a tantrum whenever he doesn't get his way. To me he doesn't represent a strong America and Reagan did.
That said, I'm not thrilled with a lot of politicians these days, not just the President.
I agree, +John E. Bredehoft — Kennedy had the (mis)fortune to die before the polish had worn off, even with the Bay of Pigs debacle. Every indication is he would have continued the escalation in Viet Nam. Would be an interesting parallel world to visit. How would it have changed the arc of LBJ's life, and Bobby Kennedy's? Would we have escalated, but gotten out sooner? How would it have impacted the Civil Rights struggle?
I'm not critiquing Reagan for projecting an image. My observation is that the image projected doesn't actually correlate very much with reality, unlike, say, the Roosevelts. Given that Reagan served two full terms, vs JFK, that makes it even less conscionable.
I don't quite understand, +Mark Means, the perception of Obama as "a puss and a weak leader", and how he doesn't "represent a strong America." I just don't see it.