Reagan in ‘77; Rush-Newt-Cheney in ‘09
[Posted by Karl]
Noemie Emery has a wonderful article, “Reagan in Opposition,” posted at the Weekly Standard. She begins in 1977 with some wonderful reminders of how the GOP was written off (as it has been every 16 years or so since the end of WWII). Indeed, Reagan himself was written off, and Emery suveys his comeback at the tactical and thematic level.
Emery focuses on four things that stand out about Reagan’s behavior while in opposition:
- He was focused on large, central themes;
- His tone was unfailingly gracious and civil, and focused on issues, not men. In his many newspaper columns, he was almost never partisan or even explicitly conservative;
- He was an optimist, focused on hope and the future;
- He was able to lead both a movement and a party.
That’s a pretty good checklist — and a daunting one — for any of the Republicans already laying the groundwork for a presidential run in 2012. (For those who bemoan the seeming permanent campaign season, take note that Reagan never really stopped running after the 1976 campaign.)
Perhaps the most striking of those four factors was Reagan’s civil and often non-partisan tone. After all, one of Reagan’s more memorable speeeches (at CPAC in 1975) blasted the GOP as carrying a banner of “pale pastels” instead of “bold colors.” But Reagan also understood that the GOP could carry a banner of bold colors without looking like he was trying to impale his opponents on its standards.
Of course, not everyone on the Right is laying a foundation for a presidential run in 2012. There are plenty of roles for conservatives and libertarians of varying stripes to play.
Lapdog pressmen like Howard Fineman may be as eager as Barack Obama to make Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney the face of the GOP, but that is not really their function. E.J. Dionne frets that the Democrats’ strategy here is backfiring, that figures like Limbaugh and Gingrich are setting the news agenda. Allahpundit correctly notes that Dionne’s thesis — that the media hypes Rush’s controversies because it’s secretly right-wing — is just plain dumb. But Dionne and Fineman do have a point in noting that the Right’s pitbulls have been more effective than the GOP’s elected officials in getting arguments into the national discussion, even when the lapdog press frames them negatively. They are currently creating the issue spaces Republicans can later occupy with a more civil tone — if they ever get their acts together.
–Karl
As I have commented elsewhere, the coverage of Newt, Rush and Cheney aren’t really skewed (as E.J. Dionne believes) except in the sense that they are creating “drama” and plenty of raw material for reporter and pundits to work with.
Meanwhile the White House is setting up their own TV crew to cut out raw material for the media to work with. Reporters really don’t like to use the “pool” footage, as it doesn’t bring any “exclusive” value to their work, so you can easily see that dealing with White House “propaganda level” releases are even more problematic. The White House should get a grip on journalistic reality.
Reporters start every day hoping to the “big story” that will set them apart from their peers. If they can’t find that story, their write whatever they have to seem as big as possible.
Neo (46a1a2) — 6/5/2009 @ 12:29 pmBut when they get real “drama” .. damn.
Excellent post, Karl. Thank you.
Machinist (9664a8) — 6/5/2009 @ 12:36 pmNeo, Most reporters now seem to be afraid to seem less worshipful of the light worker then their peers, so we see reporters bowing, standing and otherwise debasing themselves to Obama in ways the office of the President never called for. I see little place for journalism or journalistic principles in these boot lickers.
Machinist (9664a8) — 6/5/2009 @ 12:40 pmI used to find it disgusting to see spokesmen like Peneta or Stephenopolus degrade themselves telling obvious lies that they clearly knew were lies, in the hope the press would carry their water. To see professional “journalists” actively joining in to this is even worse.
Machinist (9664a8) — 6/5/2009 @ 12:45 pmWait a minute, I thought just yesterday Patterico was eager for Cheney or Limbaugh to be the GOP presidential candidate in 2012. Is Patterico a “lapdog pressman like Howard Fine”? Is Barack Obama among his mostly enthusiastic commenters?
panorama (6d4c42) — 6/5/2009 @ 12:47 pmThe GOP doesn’t have a Reagan waiting in the wings. Romney and Pawlenty are about the best we have right now with any name recognition and that is weak for Pawlenty. Gingrich is a good talker but he blew his chances years ago with his personal messes.
The only chance for Cheney, who no doubt doesn’t want it, would be if Obama gets us into a disaster. I can think of a couple. One would be an attack on Israel by Iran. That would be a cataclysmic disaster that would probably mean the end of the Middle East and oil prices that made it useless for fuel. A massive energy shortage due to Obama’s fecklessness will take longer to occur.
If either of those events came to pass, Cheney might be the father figure that all the childlike voters who put Obama in office would run to. All those “funemployed” who living off their parents.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/5/2009 @ 1:02 pmPlease explain to me how terminating the franchise of an independently owned retail store that does not rely on the parent company for financial support, but in fact buys inventory and pays a franchise fee harms the financial well-being of the parent (absent poor customer service or fraud).
I cannot understand what is going on with this, either. This stinks and I think people will start to wonder. There is something here that smells like bankruptcy fraud. Those dealers are an asset. Why throw them away ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/5/2009 @ 1:08 pmSomething is happening with your comments, Patrick. This was for another thread.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/5/2009 @ 1:09 pmHoward Fineman’s column looked pretty good to me, especially considering his peers’ Obama worship. So what if Rush, Cheney and Newt are the faces of the Republican party? Some might be scandalized by their blunt talk, but they’re confronting the Obama myth. They force the media to admit that not everyone is enchanted with Obama and his herd of unicorns. The leftists advising us to dump Rush, supposedly for the best interests of the GOP, have been exposed as liars or clueless.
Those who don’t want Rush/Cheney/Newt to be seen as the leaders of the opposition can best do so by speaking up with their own opposition.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f447d7) — 6/5/2009 @ 1:28 pmDear Mister Fantasy play us a tune
Something to make us all happy
Do anything take us out of this gloom
Sing a song, play guitar
Make it snappy
There will never be another Reagan.
poon (093c46) — 6/5/2009 @ 1:40 pmMore wishful thinking from a lefty troll.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f447d7) — 6/5/2009 @ 1:53 pmLet me play Devil’s Advocate here, Karl, even though I generally do agree that more civility is needed. Reagan’s political world of 1977-80 was a whole lot different than the political world of today. For better or worse, virtually all citizens not directly involved in government received their news from the mainstream media (newspapers, magazines, and newscasts) in those days than do now. In Reagan’s era, he had to cloak his strong conservative arguments in courtly and civil tones or else the opinion-makers of the day would have dismissed him as a Larouche-like fringe candidate, notwithstanding the fact that he served two terms as governor of the largest state. It was his clam, reasoned, and amiable manner that allowed him to appear on shows like Meet the Press and land his syndicated newspaper column.
Today, I would guess that a huge chunk of the electorate gets at least a part of their news and opinion from outside the MSM, so the need to be civil in order to win favor from them is obsolete. The Dems sure didn’t act in that manner from 2001-2008.
One last quick observation is that the MSM kingpins of the 1970s were men who had been born in the 1910s and 20s, were usually WWII or Korea veterans, and even if they were FDR liberals they weren’t particularly hostile to cultural conservatism. Today’s MSM kingpins were born in the 1940s or 50s, were as likely to have protested the Vietnam War as to have served in it, and have dripping contempt for social conservatives. The comparison to Reagan’s Era only goes so far.
JVW (53e60b) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:09 pmJVW,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f447d7) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:19 pmYou make some valid points about the differences between then and now. But it can’t hurt to have someone to offer Reagan-style leadership. If deluge of leftist trolls and Mobys say it won’t work, that’s a sure sign it is working and they’re scared.
“Today’s MSM kingpins were born in the 1940s or 50s, were as likely to have protested the Vietnam War as to have served in it…”
This is also an accurate description of Rush, Newt, Dick and the other “conservative” leaders.
poon (093c46) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:26 pmDid Rush, Newt or Cheney protest the Vietnam War?
DRJ (180b67) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:27 pmDionne’s thesis — that the media hypes Rush’s controversies because it’s secretly right-wing — is just plain dumb.
That garbles his thesis.
The media is “dragged to the right” by a need to magnify reactionaries because it’ll piss people off – and that’s how you attract viewers.
It’s not finding common cause with Tom Tancredo.
steve (4be49f) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:29 pmThe last man elected POTUS sounding like a bomb-thrower was…?
—-
Also, I think some people are missing one of my points, which is that I am contrasting RR against today’s pitbulls — in the context of noting that they are doing something different from what RR was seeking to do. The possible exception is Gingrich, whose quasiwalkback on Sotomayor suggests he may be interested in exploring a 2012 run.
One of the larger points I am trying to make (with limited success) in posts like this is that a lot of people fall into the trap of debating “should Republicans do ‘X'”? or “what tone should Republicans have”? There are lots of Republicans, even more conservatives, not to mention libertarians. Debates of this sort reductively talk about them like a big lumpen mass, when the world is more complex than that.
Put another way: How much time do Democrats spend worrying about the tactics of the SEIU, ACORN, CodePink, MoveOn, CAP, etc.? Not much, I’d argue. The Dem establishment understands that different factions can use different tactics in pursuit of a common agenda. The Right needs to start figuring that out.
Karl (7aaa21) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:31 pmsteve,
Your version of Dionne leaves out the part where he complains that the media doesn’t air enough criticism from Obama from the Left. That would be conflict, too. So what explains the MSM focus on conflict generated by Limbaugh over conflict generated by the Left, in Dionne’s world, if not the notion that the mSM is itself too reactionary?
Karl (7aaa21) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:34 pmLimbaugh’s explanation is that people like him get attention because they present a stark contrast to the hordes of Obamaphiles in the media.
Amid all the hymns sung to Obama Christ, these dissenting voices ring out. The MSM try to discredit them, but they can’t ignore them. That’s a reminder that it only takes a few people speaking the truth to rip apart the curtain of lies.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f447d7) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:35 pm“Did Rush, Newt or Cheney protest the Vietnam War?”
DRJ,
Either that, or they were for the Vietnam war but let other fight and die in their place.
poon (093c46) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:44 pmDon’t forget to call both Bush’s a “chickenhawk” too, poon.
SPQR (72771e) — 6/5/2009 @ 2:51 pmPoon is quite fond of eating it’s poon.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/5/2009 @ 3:10 pmCheney was in University, and married w/children, thus deferred.
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c533) — 6/5/2009 @ 3:16 pmNewt was also in University: BA-’65, MA-’68, PhD-’71, and was married w/children, thus also deferred;
Just off the top of my head, I think Rush failed the physical, plus he had a very high lottery number.
“So what explains the MSM focus on conflict generated by Limbaugh”
Why does the left continue believing what Limbaugh says is news. PMSNBC is obsessed with his utterances. Does ABC report on what Olbermann and Maddow say?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 6/5/2009 @ 3:31 pmdaleyrocks,
“Why does the left continue believing what Limbaugh says is news”?
Because David Axelrod tells them to.
Which out to be the response anytime someone brings up the whole issue of Limbaugh (or anyone else) as the “face of the GOP.”
Karl (7aaa21) — 6/5/2009 @ 3:44 pmdaleyrocks,
The Limbaugh obsession by the Obamites and the MSM, but I repeat myself, is partly shock and mainly anger that he doesn’t shut up as he’s supposed to.
Obama and the congressional Dems defeated the Republican party once and for all. Conservatives are utterly discredited. If the Republican party is to have any future, it has to become more like the Democrats, to avoid scaring away moderate voters. So Limbaugh should just hang up his golden EIB microphone.
That was the script. However, Limbaugh and Cheney aren’t playing along. Limbaugh continues to strip the bark of Obama and his sanctimonious hypocrisy — calling on others to sacrifice while he keeps the Oval Office warm enough to grow orchids and takes a small fleet of aircraft to New York with Michelle.
So the coronation of King Barack I has been rudely postponed. He’s adopted policy after policy of the evil, freedom-hating, torturing Bush administration. He hasn’t found a way to close Guantanamo. And he doesn’t dare accept Cheney’s challenges to release the memos showing the fruits of terrorist interrogation in foiling plots. And his fabulous health care legislation may be in jeopardy, as congressional democrats look nervously to 2010. They seem to be waking up to the fact that Obama’s interests and their own interests are not necessarily identical.
How unpardonably rude and uncivilized of Limbaugh and Cheney to interrupt the coronation and Obama’s final victory. What do they think this is, some kind of democracy where they can practice free speech?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f447d7) — 6/5/2009 @ 3:48 pmSo what explains the MSM focus on conflict generated by Limbaugh over conflict generated by the Left, in Dionne’s world, if not the notion that the mSM is itself too reactionary?
Combat is better television than information. Loudmouths are any consultant’s archetype. Hannity provoking Jesse Ventura would be critical mass.
steve (6edd4e) — 6/5/2009 @ 3:48 pm“He’s adopted policy after policy of the evil, freedom-hating, torturing Bush administration.”
Bradley – And the Democrats were ripshit today that a couple of Republicans said that the closed door briefing today on interrogations confirmed that the EIT produced actionable intelligence and disrupted terrorist plots – saved lives even.
Squealing like pigs the Dems were, claiming the Republicans were playing politics with national security. SHUT. UP.
Can you believe that?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 6/5/2009 @ 3:55 pmThe last time I stopped by you all were pretending that you didn’t love Palin as a candidate in 2012 even as others were posting things desperately in her favor.
Can I assume that the party of ‘no’ is planning to run Cheney in 2012? I think you’ve found the only candidate who would do worse than Palin in a presidential race. Have fun with that!
bells bells (7bdd5b) — 6/5/2009 @ 4:21 pm“Can I assume that the party of ‘no’ is planning to run Cheney in 2012?”
Dude, assume to your heart’s content. It’s not exactly like a lot if us really care what you do, so go for it.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 6/5/2009 @ 4:29 pm‘Dude’, I am a woman.
bells bells (7bdd5b) — 6/5/2009 @ 4:30 pmBut, I wouldn’t expect you to know the difference.
bells bells (7bdd5b) — 6/5/2009 @ 4:31 pmbells bells,
I’m terribly sorry, but your messiah’s popularity has fallen as of late.
This is Rasmussen’s approval index numbers for Obama — the gap between approve and disapprove, from Jan. 21 to the present, excepting Mother’s Day. The last number, 0, means Obama’s approval and disapproval rating numbers are now tied.
Approval Index
28
30
29
26
22
21
23
22
22
21
23
21
17
15
18
19
17
14
11
14
14
15
15
19
19
19
19
17
17
13
13
11
11
10
10
15
15
14
14
13
12
10
11
11
14
14
16
15
10
8
10
13
16
14
15
8
8
6
6
6
9
9
8
6
4
5
7
7
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
7
8
11
8
5
3
3
6
8
8
6
5
5
5
2
2
3
2
4
3
7
6
3
2
2
6
5
5
3
5
5
4
2
2
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
7
7
5
7
8
7
4
4
5
8
7
7
6
6
5
3
1
5
6
10
9
10
7
5
3
2
0
Time for new talking points from Axelrod!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (af0794) — 6/5/2009 @ 4:43 pmBrad, this is what unpopular looks like:
In the final full month of his Presidency, just 13% of American adults said they Strongly Approved of the way that George W. Bush performed his job as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapproved. That gives the President a -30 rating on the Presidential Approval Index
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
Time for some new talking points from Rush “butt-pimples kept me outta ‘Nam, honest!” Limbaugh.
poon (093c46) — 6/5/2009 @ 4:51 pmpoon,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (af0794) — 6/5/2009 @ 4:58 pmThe correct comparison is not with Bush’s final month, but his first few months. At this rate, Obama is going to be Jimmy Carter II. You might as well get used to it.
Don’t even bother poon. It is quite obvious that this little twit dis not interested in anything except obnoxiously long posts (without substance). Probably to make up for something else uh-hem, that is decidedly not obnoxiously long.
bells bells (7bdd5b) — 6/5/2009 @ 4:59 pm“but his first few months”
Before or after he and Cheney dropped the ball on 9/11, Brad?
poon (093c46) — 6/5/2009 @ 5:02 pmTake a break in moderation, bells bells. I’ll check your comments when I have time.
DRJ (180b67) — 6/5/2009 @ 5:05 pmHuh? DRJ why do you insist on silencing the opposition? When your kind ‘has time’ to engage in real dialogue then maybe the public will ‘have time’ to upgrade your party from the toilet.
bells bells (7bdd5b) — 6/5/2009 @ 5:14 pm[I’m not “silencing the opposition,” I’m moderating your potty-mouthed comments — so that makes your toilet analogy right on point. — DRJ]
poon – If Bush was so unpopular, why is Obama adopting his policies? Give me a break.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 6/5/2009 @ 5:26 pmComment by poon — 6/5/2009 @ 4:51 pm
Actually, if you’ld do a little checking, you’ld find out that Rush failed his physical due to a HS football injury (wrenched knee, or some sort), plus had a “175” lottery number, and no draftee with a number higher than “125” was inducted under the lottery system.
AD - RtR/OS! (b0c533) — 6/5/2009 @ 6:00 pmPawlenty or Romney, seriously is that the best you can consider. Who warned of the state of events we see here today, who talked about flowery words but no accomplishments, how community organizers were similar to mayor, except for the responsibilities, the need not to give terrorist Miranda rightsm who spoke against the stimulus, even dared Obama to veto it, and start over. You answer that question and you have Emerie’s answer,
narciso (996c34) — 6/5/2009 @ 8:30 pm“Before or after he and Cheney dropped the ball on 9/11, Brad?”
In October 2001 Bush had the highest approval rating of any president in the history of the Gallup poll (dates back to the 1930s).
Doesn’t mean squat, but…
Dave Surls (8be03d) — 6/5/2009 @ 8:55 pmWay back when I was a lefty, we opposed the government.
Carpe diem.
Ag80 (425b0a) — 6/5/2009 @ 9:38 pmThe lefty trolls still haven’t figured out they can’t defend Obama by attacking Bush.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0005ac) — 6/5/2009 @ 10:05 pmKarl rightly points out what I have said which is the non-cocktail foot soldiers are opening paths for a cock-tailer to walk through.
You need both to win.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/6/2009 @ 7:54 amI’m wondering how a Gingrich-Jeb Bush ticket might play in Peoria.
I think Gingrich is the one person who could make Obama look foolish in debates and actually appeal to the wider cross section of voters (read reagan democrats).
voiceofreason2 (445035) — 6/7/2009 @ 6:39 am