« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rush to Reaganism for Grand New Party Comeback

Liberty never goes out of style

By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report

Originally published in Race42008.com

Gamecock sees no inherent contradiction between Rush/Reagan conservatism and most of the themes and policy proposals presented in David Frum’s Comeback nor Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s Grand New Party, despite the hype of some columnists and the author’s themselves.

Both books, but especially Frum’s, claim to be departures from Reaganism, which they see as fashioned solely for the problems of 1970’s and ‘80’s. I disagree, and think that their bold characterizations of their proposals are mostly self aggrandizing contrarianism.

That said, except for Frum’s internal contradictions within the book concerning President Bush and the above, I found most of their economic proposals to be welcome additions to the debate fiscal conservatives should have been having over the past decade.


The most important and pleasing discoveries in either book were that Douthat rejects the premise of the liberal gospel in Thomas Franks’ What’s the Matter with Kansas? and agrees with one of my long time arguments that the GOP must be the champion of middle and lower income families.

Douthat understands that it is not in America’s interest, no matter their economic station in life, to vote for Democrats who advocate proven failed economic policies. Franks’ book operates from the liberal premise that, obviously, Democrats are for the poor and middle class but that these voters have been tricked into voting for Republicans over irrelevant social issues.

Douthat rejects the premise and also points out the economic effects of a failure to adhere to conservative values.

I reject Frum’s argument that the GOP needs to move to the left on abortion, fetal stem cell research and marriage. Rush babies, the Reagan generation and even the new globalist liberals are majority pro-life, recent polls show. Science is on the side of opposition to government funded ESCR, and 38 states have voted to outlaw same sex marriages.

Both books make some arguments that Reaganism is obsolete due to the death of the USSR and that tax rate cuts can only go so far. I could not disagree more.

Reaganism is about timeless principles of Liberty, limited government, and practical application of values to human nature that the Founders based our society upon.

Yes, the USSR is gone, but Russia isn’t. China is making a challenge and radical Islam seeks our destruction. Evil exists, always will and the USA will always be its target unless we are vanquished. Peace thru strength sound familiar?

The major issue of our day, energy, cries out for Reagan-like de-regulation.

With respect to health-care, McCain’s proposals are market based. I remember Reagan and Rush being for market based free enterprise.

Yes, we need to make a comeback, but we aren’t that far back compared to the 1980’s. We are a young movement compared to the Democrats. And, yes, we need some of the new in the Grand Old Party, but not too much. Conservatism is our game.

Taxes? The democrats want to raise taxes, so it’s not so much that we seek tax cuts as a panacea for all that ails America, but surely Reagan would oppose tax hikes, and so must we.

The GOP must try and educate the younger voters that don’t remember the disastrous liberal economic policies of the 1970’s and the Reagan supply-side policies that gave us 25 years of the greatest boom in history. We must use the energy issue to highlight our virtue.

I highly recommend both books to conservatives to aid in fashioning policies on health care, social security, regulation of industry and our lives (even up to banning Edison’s light bulb) and that as we fashion new policies we be guided by the principles of Reagan and Rush Limbaugh.

There are no contradictions.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Tags:

COMMENTS

  • SteveLA

    Game,

    In your view what were the legs of the Republican party under Reagan in the early 80′s, realizing you were on the other side of the ditch then? I’m a fool who voted for Ford way back then, but that’s me.

    For me:

    Restore the military which was destroyed under Carter.

    Restore US power and prestige on the world stage.

    Fighting Communism and the spread of the same throughout the world.

    “What ever your problem is, government is not the answer”.

    Controlling spending, and reducing the role and spread of the Federal Government.

    To some extent, restoring a moral tone to the government, but I would assert this was not a major leg.

  • pilgrim

    I have been thinking a little about this topic myself lately, and I am grateful for your writing this blog.

    One thing that I wish the Rs would stress over and over again is how animosity Ds have for any conservative nominee for the Federal Bench who is from a minority. They will eventually allow a conservative white guy to become a Federal judge. If you are Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, or countless others whose names escape me for the moment, then they will fight like they are possessed to keep you from getting the appointment.

    They are sending out a message that if you are a minority and a conservative then you need not apply.

  • SteveLA

    Reagan, in attempting to define conservativism, said: “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

    Reagan in Reason magazine, 1975.

    I’m pretty much in line with this point of view.

  • gamecock

    followed by social issues and Iran. I waved good bye to many fellow evangelicals then mainly due to the failed liberal econ policies of Carter and the dems. Reagan also got pro-lifers and strong on defense dems.

    I also agree with your list, but the top 2 were econ and life, followed closely by Iran/USSR/defense in general.

  • Wisecracker

    I hope that we can attract Reagan Democrats and Independents in this election.

    I think that some in the conservative media don’t understand that you have to win at the ballot box in order to govern, and there isn’t always a Reagan to vote for.

  • gamecock

    a

  • Neil_Stevens

    Reagan was wrong there I think, in that he tried to classify the post-Woodrow Wilson left as anything that existed at the time of the founders.

    The Republican party today is the coalition of both the liberals (such as Thomas Jefferson) and the conservatives (such as John Adams). The Democratic party today is too infused with Marxism, Progressivism, and Fascism to have been anything that existed then.

    Yes, I’ve in the past called Jefferson a proto-Marxist, but that doesn’t mean he actually was one.

  • gamecock

    Clearly Reagan was a neo-con. One cannot read his book of letters and the book Reagan’s war and not see his moral outrage at the USSR and our policy of detente/containment.

    His heart ached for the millions in slavery behind the Iron Curtain.

    Ironically, Jefferson went to war against the Barbary pirates over trade.

  • Neil_Stevens

    Wilson, a devout Progressive, had a domestic policy. That’s where FDR got a lot of his ideas.

  • gamecock

    to the importance of the essence of libertarianism to modern day conservatism and yes, his broad statement about who would what from long ago was inherently problematic.

  • Susannah

    This is a very interesting diary. You have made me interested in Frum’s book, in particular.

    By they way, I agree with much of what you say about Reaganism appealing to voters right now–especially the peace through strength part now that Russia has invaded Georgia (and now since Obama has no foreign policy experience). Not to mention, I think that a lot of Reagan Democrats, who voted for Hillary, would consider voting for McCain because Obama said in the PA debate that he would raise the capital gains taxes and the payroll taxes, and Hillary said that she wouldn’t.

    Now, as far as abortion goes, I am pro-choice in the first trimester, but I am against partial birth abortion and I think that Obama’s position on the BAIPA is disgraceful. So, I do think that many moderately pro-choice voters could support a “values” ticket. Anyway, great job. :-)

  • Tim_Schieferecke

    He’s eaten so many shoed feet he could crap out more than Nike produces.

  • gamecock

    1