On Hannity & Colmes last night Oliver North sought to portray Barack Obama as an "empty suit," at which point Democratic political strategist Bob Beckel erupted, "That's what they said about Ronald Reagan." Beckel went on to make the case that Obama's candidacy resembles the Reagan candidacy of 1980.
Is it possible that Barack Hussein Obama is the next Ronald Wilson Reagan? Well, Reagan too was a strong advocate for "change." When Reagan ran for office the economy was in a shambles. Inflation was in double digits, growth was stagnant, interest rates were high, and the stock market was barely higher than it was a decade earlier. Abroad, the Soviet bear had gobbled up 10 countries between 1974 and 1980. There were 100,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. In Iran, U.S. policy had helped topple the Shah and usher in the Ayatollah Khomeini. Hostages were being held by Islamic radicals. President Carter diagnosed Americans as suffering from a kind of national depression which he called "malaise." Clearly change was in order.
But Reagan was a man of large ideas. He positioned his career against the big idea of the twentieth century, namely collectivism. Reagan saw collectivism in a menacing Soviet empire abroad, and an expanding welfare state at home. When I first came to America the national ethos had been set by John F. Kennedy who told young people that if they were idealistic and caring, they should join the Peace Corps. To Kennedy it was the government servant who was the true noble American. Reagan disputed this. To him it was not the bureaucrat but the entrepreneur who was the embodiment of American idealism and greatness. Reagan sought to bring about a cultural shift in America in which parents would rather see their children become inventors and business owners rather than paper-pushers in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Reagan also had concrete ideas about how to bring about his grand aspirations. He sought to roll back the Soviet empire by deploying Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe. He sought to deploy missile defenses to shoot down Soviet missiles and also to invite the Russians into a defensive arms race that he knew they couldn't win. He proposed bringing the top marginal tax rate down from 70 percent to 28 percent. He proposed a 30 percent across-the-board tax cut. He sought a restrictive monetary policy to wring inflation out of the economy, combined with tax cuts to unleash entrepreneurial initiative. He backed privatization of government activities that could be better performed by the private sector.
Let's leave aside Reagan's astounding accomplishments in actually getting his ideas implemented, and the great political and cultural revolution they produced. Let's just focus on the fact that Reagan had the vision and he had the specific policies to produce it. Where is Obama's vision for America that goes beyond "bringing us together"? How exactly does Obama propose to do this? What are his imaginative fiscal and monetary proposals? If Obama wants to get troops out of Iraq, what is his alternative strategy for winning the war against radical Islam? Does he have anything more to offer other than the vacuous "really going after Bin Laden"? To ask these questions is to answer them.
The conventional wisdom is that it would be harder for John McCain to beat Hillary Clinton than it would be for him to beat Barack Obama. From what we've seen of Obama so far, this is not so. But it may be useful for let Democrats think this. The party that by all reckoning should win the White House in November may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 24)
61. im surprised that noone has mentioned that reagan and his administrations were responsible for both saddam and osama flourishing. besides giving arms to iran, the conservatives of the 80s befriended saddam and trained and supplied osama bin laden.
barack obama is nothing like reagan at all. reagan was a disgrace to america.
mike at 5:50PM on Mar 7th 2008
62. Dinesh has hit the point. We see a bunch of ametures chanting for " change " . " Change " by what ? ( 1 ). Obama can not bring the troops back overnight from Iraq as it is absolutely impractical. But he claims he would. ( 2 ). He wants to change Washington cyndrome for American Politics. But he is campaigning under the shed of all old Washington politicians. ( 3 ). Obama is daily attacking the coporate interests and the lobbysts . But he is getting free ride from the Media Barons and their employees.
Hey, I can keep on going.
My final cnclusion is that OBAMA GOT A NICE OPPORTUNITY TO RELEASE HIS EMPTY REHTORIC BUT HE HAS NO MILESTONES NOR ANY IDEA TO FIX OUR PROBLEMS.
BEING A DEM IF I CAN NOT VOTE HILLARY IN THE NATIONAL POLE , I WOULD RATHER CHOOSE McCAIN , AFTER ALL THEY ARE TRANSPARENT AND WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE.
onlooker at 5:56PM on Mar 7th 2008
63. Mac,
Maybe you can help me out as you're a former military guy. For years I haven't felt comfortable putting my hand over my heart during the anthem, pledge of allegiance, or on any other occasion (presenting of arms, etc.).
If you'll tell me what the proper tradition is from a military perspective, I'd appreciate it. Now, I'll probably get blasted for this, but it doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with my patriotism whether I engage in paying respect to the flag or the country in this manner. I can understand that it's traditional and proper to follow those forms in the military. Maybe some of you will say that it's really no different for civiilians, and maybe you're right.
To me, these outward signs simply do not express my feelings of patriotism. They may to other people and I can respect that. It seems to me that I can best express my patriotism by obeying the law, paying taxes (my fair share), treating my fellow citizens with respect, working hard, and contributing something of value to my community and country, voting, supporting my country in a crisis, and even dissenting from policies that I don't agree with, and so on...
Just because someone salutes the flag by placing their hand over their heart (I'm speaking of civilians), doesn't necessarily mean that they're patriotic, just as not doing so doesn't mean that they're not patriotic.
So, I'm not so sure that I'm really worried whether Obama saluted the flag or not. Maybe as a government official he should when it's appropriate. But, if we base our views of someone's worthiness to be president (or any other official) soley by outward manifestations of patriotism (some of which haven't really been around that long), then I wonder what's more important to us: conformity for the sake of conformity or a real love of country that is not always so easiliy outwardly manifested.
Let the flaming begin!
Lloyd Weber at 5:59PM on Mar 7th 2008
64. I know you didn't ask me, but given that I have significant military experience I'll offer my two cents. You don't have to be military to be an expert on patriotic customs.
But having attended hundreds of military ceremonies, I can tell you that civilians are encouraged to pay tribute with the "Civilian Salute" (hand over heart)during the playing of the National Anthem, though no one runs around to check.
Customs and traditions simply show respect for others' feelings. I'm not Buddhist, but I bow to my elders when in the Far East. It's just common courtesy.
Freedom at 6:12PM on Mar 7th 2008
65. Your comments are well taken. In the spirit of the contest. Amazing how everyone cannot see the forest for the trees. Read his book please. Know who you are voting for. So, you are ready to vote for someone who has overseas Muslim ties. Has done a good snow job I am afraid. Forgive me, but people can be such sheep. Nominate him. He will never make it.. So be it..
Oh and by the way, you are all probably sexist. I could not resist. I will take your comments OFF LINE!
Good Luck to you, I hope to not say, I told you so.
Little Rock 2008 at 6:17PM on Mar 7th 2008
66. Regarding Obama's patriotism
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3759803
Here is the actual clip, for those that don't know how to find things out for themselves, but would rather make assumptions to support their own point of view.
After listening to the woman sing, it's a wonder he didn't have his hands over his ears.
dani at 6:25PM on Mar 7th 2008
67. Dinesh is right about one thing: Obama is no Ronald Reagan. He's BETTER than Ronald Reagan in most, if not all, areas and heaploads better than "Hillary the Beast" as I call her.
Ronald Reagan's administration was... one of the worst jokes of the last 100 years. The only thing that Ronald Reagan did (as a person who respected the man until I started researching what he actually did while in office) was to set this country down the course to it's ruination. Clinton was able to stop it for a time, however Bush Jr. has started us down the same dead-end road that Reagan pushed us down once again.
It will take someone of extreme fortitude and intelligence to get us out of the quagmire that we are in right now.
Christopher at 6:32PM on Mar 7th 2008
68. I think the nasty neocons are indulging in a bit of the old, "The enemy of your enemy is ?"
If they can't 'nail' Obama as a Muslim and such, they'll 'nail' him as 'unready' and of course 'our' best bet is Hilary.
Have the neocons forgotten that Hilary is, after all, a Clinton? Not on your life, they haven't!
They'd like nothing better than to chant, "Remember the Clintons?", all the way to the election. HA! Busted!
not-pboyfloyd at 6:29PM on Mar 7th 2008
69. Mr. D'Souza, let's examine ONE questionshall we:
( I know it's 2 questions, but they are conjoined),
"If Obama wants to get troops out of Iraq, what is his alternative strategy for winning the war against radical Islam? Does he have anything more to offer other than the vacuous "really going after Bin Laden"? "
----------
First allow me to begin with a question of my own. At what point did the war in Iraq become "the war against radical Islam"? This quote from president Bush states that WE are not at war with Muslims, as a rule.
"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends.- Sep 20 2001
When did you, Mr D'Souza, decide that Iraq was the head of islamic radicalism?
Another quote from president Bush:
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.- Mar 19 2003
Gee whizzzzz, haven't we done this yet? No ambition?...How about setting up house for the next 100 years and depleting your oil for ambition?
As for the second(part) qyestion: Someone should REALLY go after BinLaden. It's a fucking national shame that we haven't captured this piece of excrement...after all this time!
---
Everyone else,
I'm not saying to vote Obama, all I'm saying is don't step in the B.S. that Mr. D'Souza spreads. Vote YOUR conscious, not mine, not Dinesh's...YOURS.
mac at 6:32PM on Mar 7th 2008
70. No Ron Regan and thank god for that. RR more than tripled the national debt, broke unions, ignored antitrust laws, sowed the seeds of the elimination of our pension system, put the insane out of institutions and onto the street, prevented the USSR from putting down the Taliban in Afganistan (and CAUSED 911), increased our prision populations dramatically, increased the sale of cocaine in the innercity to finaced revolutionaries in South America (destabilizing their governments and causing a flood of illegal immigration to the US). Quite a record! Obama is no Regan, and thank God!
Alouisis at 6:42PM on Mar 7th 2008
71. While it would be absolutely incorrect to presume to judge his patriotism from that clip, he shows an incredible lack of awareness of the cultural norm for a politician. He should be more in tune with what others think is appropriate if he wants to be successful. Don;t give people anything to wonder about!
(I'd have given him more of a pass if he DID have his hands over his ears...)
Freedom at 6:35PM on Mar 7th 2008
72. And yet another racist post by D'Idiot.
It's time to get him kicked from AOL.
http://daol.aol.com/main
Use the feedback heading and let them know.
tim at 6:39PM on Mar 7th 2008
73. Nothing more needs to be said than what has been said right here. D'Souza is dead on about Obama, everyone wants to say he's our big hope for the future, yet he hasn't really said that he's for anything except for "Change" "Hope" and "The Future". Yes we can? By God I hope we don't.
Oh, and for comment number 15? Typical liberal, can't think of anything to say back to a conservative? Call him a racist, that always does it. Idiots.
Jon at 6:57PM on Mar 7th 2008
74. Hillary Clinton has no more experience to be president than Barack Obama. Simply because she was a First Lady for eight years hardly qualifies her for the highest office in the land. There's a big difference between the ceremonial role of a first lady accompanying the president on foreign policy trips, and actually setting down across from a foreign leader and engaging in life and death negotiations. Hillary has done none of the latter. Neither has she ever led or managed a government department or agency.
All Hillary has is a last name and we have already been down that road. We voted for the current clown because he has a familar name and he's been a disaster.
randy at 7:12PM on Mar 7th 2008
75. ATHEIST
Reply to: 50. Mr. Hays.... you must have been busy lately... with no time for posting. This applies to certain others as well who seem to be too busy working ... boo-hoo for me.
Anyway, where is Biola U? I have never heard of it.
__________
Just didn't have anything to add to the conversation.
I think the race between Obama and Hillary is too close to call. Maybe I'll get interested after the convention, when we know who got the nomination.
BIOLA stands for
Bible Institute of Los Angeles
They bought a campus in Orange County, in a city called La Mirada. And, IMO, they're the #1 Christian school. Yes, I know about Liberty University, but Biola does more neat stuff.
www.biola.edu
LINK: On February 25, 1908, our founders established the Bible Institute of Los Angeles to impact the world for the Lord Jesus Christ.
http://unbound.biola.edu
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?node=home/specialdeals/ipod&cid=AOS-US-AFFC-IPOD&aosid=p201&AID=10480986&PID=1547706
William Hays at 7:35PM on Mar 7th 2008