Conservatives understand that Obama's admiration for Ronald Reagan is a mile wide but an inch deep.
The day before his State of the Union address, President Obama took to the pages of USA Today to sing the praises of Ronald Reagan.1 And why not? With the Reagan centennial less than a fortnight away it can do Obama no harm to write a few kind words about The Gipper. Obama thus begins his tribute:
Ronald Wilson Reagan was a believer. As a husband, a father, an entertainer, a governor and a president, he recognized that each of us has the power – as individuals and as a nation – to shape our own destiny. He had faith in the American promise; in the importance of reaffirming values like hard work and personal responsibility; and in his own unique ability to inspire others to greatness.
Obama's words are nice, pleasant and inoffensive. Yet in reading them there's something that seems boilerplate about them. It's as if he's going through the motions. If you remove the references to governor and president, Obama could have very well been writing about Neil Diamond.2
So does President Obama admire the 40th President? Yes he does. But not in the manner expressed in the USA Today article. If one wants to know what Obama really thinks about Reagan one should consider his remarks before Democrats in Columbia, South Carolina as he was battling Hillary Clinton in that state's primary in January 2008:
Folks are talking about how I supposedly said how wonderful Ronald Reagan was. (Laughter) Now let me tell you what I said just in case you're getting it third-hand. (More laughter) What I said was that Ronald Reagan, back in 1980, was able to tap into the discontent of the American people and he was able to get Democrats to vote Republican. They were called Reagan Democrats. Remember that? And what I say is that we as Democrats right now should tap into the discontent of Republicans. (Applause) I want some Obama Republicans. (More applause) I say Obamacons. (Laughter) So I didn't say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies. What I said was that it is the kind of working majority that we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward. (Applause)3
Now it is true that a few days earlier Obama, while being interviewed by the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal, had described Reagan as a "transformational figure." Yet it must be noted Obama stated, "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way Bill Clinton did not."4 So one could read Obama's comment as a means by which to diminish Bill Clinton and by extension Hillary Clinton rather than to elevate Reagan. Obama's subsequent remarks in South Carolina seem to confirm this line of reasoning.
So Obama, ever the community organizer, admires Reagan as a conduit by which "to move a progressive agenda forward" (read: liberal agenda or socialist agenda). Obama admires Reagan only in the sense that he aspires to be to progressives what Reagan is to conservatives. But given Obama's disdain for Reagan's policies, I have a bit of a hard time believing when he praises Reagan for his ability "to work with leaders of all political persuasions to advance the cause of freedom, democracy and security around the world, including reducing nuclear weapons and imagining a world, ultimately, without nuclear weapons."
After all, let us remember the issue of nuclear disarmament is what drove Obama's passion when he studied at Columbia University in the early 1980's. Indeed, in March 1983 Obama penned an article on the subject for Sundial, a campus magazine in which he expressed support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "as a powerful first step towards a nuclear free world."5 So are we to believe Obama thought highly of Reagan's ability to work with world leaders during his administration's arms buildup of the early 80's? It's difficult to contemplate Obama viewing Reagan's "we win, they lose" approach towards the USSR as anything but simplistic and jingoistic. We can only imagine what Obama thought when Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire." Or how about when Reagan refused to give up the Strategic Defense Initiative when Mikhail Gorbachev offered to eliminate nuclear weapons? I am certain Obama would have gone, well, ballistic. Of course, there is certainly nothing Reaganesque about the new START Treaty with Russia. If Reagan were alive and kicking he would have opposed Obama's approach to national security with every fiber of his being.
It is, of course, smart politics for President Obama to express his admiration for Ronald Reagan. Yet conservatives understand that Obama's admiration for Reagan is a mile wide but an inch deep.
Endnotes
1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-23-ronald-reagan-president-obama_N.htm
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPU6gqUSXU
4. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Transformation_like_Reagan.html
5. http://documents.nytimes.com/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article#p=1
Obama only admires Reagan for his ability to be remembered as a great President. That is something that Mr. Obama can only aspire to as he continues his efforts to make Jimmy Carter look like a Presidental genius.
The author quotes President Obama as saying this about Ronald Reagan; “He had faith in the American promise; in the importance of reaffirming values like hard work and personal responsibility; and in his own unique ability to inspire others to greatness.” Obama doesn’t admire Reagan, he despises Reagan and literally everything Reagan stood for.
What Obama desperately desires is the combination of charisma and elocution of Reagan. President Obama firmly believes that Ronald Reagan guided America down the wrong path as far as policy is concerned, but he is envious of Reagan’s ability to communicate his vision to the people. When Obama praises Reagan out loud the unspoken statement is; “I wish I could trick’em the way Reagan could!” because that’s what he believes. He believes that Reagan sold America a bill of goods and Obama wants the same opportunity.
Progressives tend to judge all they come in contact with according to their own modus operandi. Since their first thought upon awakening each day is; “How can we trick’em today?” they believe that all politicians think likewise.
What President Obama refuses to acknowledge is that he gives absolutely no value to such things as hard work and personal responsibility. He places the value on what a person acquires and places no value on how that person acquires it. The Obama administration is all about supplying the indolent with the veneer of respectability. President Obama desires what he believes was Reagan’s ability to fool the people. What he fails to understand is that Ronald Reagan actually believed in hard work and personal responsibility, so it was easy for Reagan to express himself on these values. Obama can’t sell any of his bromides to anyone other than committed progressives. The issue here is that, despite what progressives want to believe, respectability cannot be given nor decreed, it has to be earned: And earning anything is beyond progressivism.
Bill
I must point out the contradiction in your statement. You speak about the indolent, and I agree, but then you say, “Obama can’t sell any of his bromides to anyone other than committed progressives.” The indolent are not “committed progressives” but they are sold on his ideas. To the unwashed masses the idea of indolence is a good thing and they constantly say “Gimme some a dat” and Obama replies with “I’ll give you some from the Fat Cats”. Note the comment from the woman in Detroit who was there to get some of “Obama’s stash” and she added “That’s why we voted for him!” There is no hint of progressive thinking in this, only basic human want and basic giving of dog treats by Obama. Many of these people will understand this and by 2012 ask, “Why are you treating us like dogs?”
Aaron
RE: your idea about the “nuclear free world”, why is it that no one asks for a “Black powder free world”, a “Cordite free world”, a “Semtex free world”, or a C-4 free world”?
Ivan,
I can understand your point-of-view. However; while committed progressives will buy whatever Obama is selling, the indolent will buy whatever ANYONE is selling as long as it comes with a check, cable access, and a Smartphone. So; while there are technically two groups ‘smelling what the ‘O’ is cooking’, they don’t directly affect the narrative, nor do they have the organization requires to gain a seat at the table for dividing the spoils. As you aptly said; “There is no hint of progressive thinking in this, only basic human want and basic giving of dog treats by Obama.” Buy-in is not required from livestock.
Bill
It seems you have thought about my comment carefully, but do you think that ANYONE except the Democrats is selling these ideas? Yes, there are a few RINOs, but we know who they are. No organization? What are the public sector unions and the ACORN type groups? No, I think we can say that within the Obama voters there are a minimum of two groups, the nomenclatura progressives and the unwashed masses to name the largest. The difference between Reagan and Obama is that one promoted ideas that moved the masses to take a bath and go to a job interview while the other offers free perfume.
You are correct when you list public service sector unions within the same group as Community Activist Organizations that are modeled after the ACORN template. These include, but are not limited to, special interest groups such as NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, SPLC, and a plethora of others. All these organizations, I believe, are to be included in your ‘nomenclatura progressives’ set. This is the ‘organized’ portion of the progressive left.
I still question whether any power or strength may be reasonably assigned to the second group, the ‘unwashed masses’. While most of them are registered to vote, most routinely fail to exercise their vote: Just too much trouble to focus outside themselves for the amount of time it would take to actually go to the polls. If activists didn’t drag them to the voting booth, they wouldn’t even remember there was an election. While they may be cajoled into bloc voting they cannot be motivated without an immediate pay-back (like a promise of free pizza and sodas once the bus returns to the church from the polling place).
Because of the level of narcissism included in the life situations of such ‘people’, they will never organize in the traditional sense. Their level of self-absorption precludes it. Most in this group may be best described as borderline sociopathic and cannot be relied upon to routinely deliver their vote.
Bill
I think we agree on most of the big issues, so we can agree to disagree on the small ones.
Ivan,
If there is separation in our stance; I don’t believe it to be much more than 3 degrees. We both acknowledge that there is a core group in this country that reflexively agrees with the Obama worldview and therefore backs all legislative and executive policy nostrums forwarded by this administration.
We also agree that there is another sub-set of the population whose backing of such policy is primarily based on their own self-centered desires to live as comfortably as possible without true effort. Unlike the true progressives who provide loyalty due to ideological kinship; the ‘unwashed’ masses will shift their loyalties to literally anyone that ensures them of the continuation/expansion of their ‘right’ to the fruits of the labor of others.
Bill
Yes, that’s true. The thing that has me thinking is that this second group, all groups really, are fungible. Being a person who enjoys work for works sake it is hard for me to think of a person who prefers not to do something each day that makes his life worthwhile and meaningful. Acknowledging that most ideas are self-centered and learned by social contact it would seem that many people could be moved from being takers, to self-providers and onto providers of others, by proper leadership. Wouldn’t at least some of these masses shift their loyalties to anyone that can ensure them of the continuation/expansion of their ‘right’ to the fruits of THEIR labor? I think they would, and that the greatest disservice now is to the people who think that free is actually free.
To quote Charles Krauthammer, “Don’t listen to what he says; watch what he does.”
So, guys, why in the world should a progressive like Obama agree with Reagan’s values or political goals anyway? You write as if you’d caught Obama up to something nefarious. Now I know that from your standpoint Obama can’t do anything right or acceptable. To borrow from the very first “Star Trek Guide” characterization of Klingons, they fart in airlocks.
So what about Obama’s comments on Reagan? Of course he admires Reagan for what he sees as Reagan’s success–Regan’s undeniable ability to inspire people and to frame a coherent policy vision. Who wouldn’t admire that in politics, regardless of party? Obama isn’t being deceptive here; he made his substantive view of Reagan quite clear. Is it really that hard to understand? Patton hated Rommel, but admired him for his abilities.
Gestell,
“Now I know that from your standpoint Obama can’t do anything right or acceptable.” I’m willing to give credit where credit is due. I thought that President Obama handled the whole situation of the captured American ship captain off the coast of Somalia fairly well. I’ll also give him kudos for his compromise over the extension of the current tax rates in this country for all citizens.
An aside here: Even if progressives had been successful at decupling the top earners from everyone else they’d only have increased revenues by $70 billion per year. Not much coverage there when you’re running $1.5 trillion deficits during the same reporting period. Congress has never had a revenue problem; they’ve always had, and still have if the SOTU was any indication, a spending problem.
Back on track: I felt our Commander-in-Chief struck an almost perfect tone in his Tucson Memorial Speech. The issue we’re dissecting here is President Obama’s supposed admiration for Reagan. Consensus seems to be that while Obama has little love for the Gipper’s policies; he seems greatly enamored by the ‘connection’ Reagan had with the American People. To covet such skills in and of itself is not an issue. You’re tracking correctly.
Response to Ivan,
Your perspective is little different from the balance of us. Yes the motivation behind personal behavior has definitely changed. I’m old enough to remember that such things as out-of-wedlock pregnancy, divorce, and inability to feed one’s family due to loss of employment, used to be embarrassing situations for the persons caught up in such conditions. Persons caught up in such circumstances were more than likely to attempt to ‘hide’ such conditions and struggle mightily to overcome them in secret: This is no longer the case.
Twenty five years ago, when my wife required a surgery and we lacked health insurance; I took a second job for almost three years to pay the bill. Today a person facing such a challenge throws up his hands and says; “The government has to do something!”
Another factor is the change in how the ‘collective’ we looks at success. I’ve always viewed the ‘rich’ as someone to be emulated. I wanted to develop the same set of skills, hopefully with the same result. Imitation has been replaced with envy. Why spend all those years denying gratification, saving money, and working long, hard hours to achieve financial comfort when you can vote a politician into office that will use the force of government as your personal advocate to provide short term comfort for little or no effort.
These two shifting attitudes, more than any other combination, has in my opinion resulted in the conditions we currently subsist under. Sadly, it seems as if most citizens are willing to trade liberty for security and we all know what Benjamin Franklin opined about that.
Bill
“I’ve always viewed the ‘rich’ as someone to be emulated. I wanted to develop the same set of skills, hopefully with the same result.”
First, I’m old too, 67, so I remember growing up in simpler days. Back then, I didn’t really think about the rich much and I seldom felt any big desire to emulate them. It didn’t seem like they were much happier than my family. All we wanted was a chance to show what we could learn and do. All though my working years I separated my work and my money and that allowed me to enjoy my work more. Sometimes the two would conflict and I took steps to correct the situation. I seldom worked two jobs, but I did work overtime most of my life, with a record of 71 hours in one week. I recognize this thing you speak of “denying gratification”, but as I said before work can be fun, or at least gratifying. Then you mention “shifting attitudes”. If attitudes can shift towards collecting a welfare check and stopping on the way home to buy a lotto ticket, why can’t they shift back to buying some material for $1, working on it for 1 hour, and selling it for $30? Do that 40 hours a week for 40 years and you get $2.32 million, you meet a lot of good people, and you get the satisfaction of saying “See that widget? I made that!” The next time you see a Corvette, a J. I. Case backhoe, a Caterpillar bulldozer, a Ford pickup truck, think of me because I made, designed, and sold parts for all of them. And all of that was done while I was out seeing 46 states and 16 countries. Yes, there were some “long, hard hours” and the money is important, but without accomplishments a man is not a man.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by RodneyJenkins, IC Politics. IC Politics said: Does Obama Really Admire Reagan?: Conservatives understand that Obama's admiration for Ronald Reagan is a mile w… http://bit.ly/fgo7V2 [...]