The American Spectator : The Original Mr. Anti-Establishment: Ronald Reagan

Text Size

Political Hay

The Original Mr. Anti-Establishment: Ronald Reagan

By Jeffrey Lord on 6.15.10 @ 6:08AM

The Establishment's attacks on Sharron Angle have a familiar ring.

They didn't like him.

To be more precise, they thought him an extremist, un-electable, an ultra-right wing nut, dumb, ignorant and, more to the point, not one of their crowd.

One out of six was absolutely correct.

Ronald Reagan was not one of their crowd. Ever.

The "crowd"" was The Establishment. The Establishment as it appeared in all of its various incarnations during Ronald Reagan's political life. First it was the California Republican Party Establishment. Then the Liberal Establishment. Followed by the national Republican Party Establishment. Next up was The Eastern Establishment. Last but not least was the Washington Establishment.

And in each and every case save one (1976), Reagan -- and more to the point today -- the people who came to be known as "conservatives" or "Reaganites" beat those Establishments like a drum.

In the wake of the Nevada Senate primary victory of Republican Sharron Angle (and the emergence of South Carolina's Nikki Haley and the continuing popularity of Alaska's Sarah Palin -- not to mention other conservatives around the country), yet again The Establishment resurrects exactly the same now very old and tired alarms once raised about Ronald Reagan himself.

Who are these people?

Believe it or not, Webster's Dictionary actually provides a definition for "the Establishment" (although they don't capitalize that initial "T"). Definition: "The people and institutions constituting the existing power structure in society…the dominant or controlling group in a field of endeavor or organization."

It's hard now, impossible even, for many to understand the scorn and derision Reagan first faced when he emerged on the national political scene. Let's go back and take a look at what was once said of the man now revered by the American people as the greatest president in American history, according to a Gallup Poll taken a month after Barack Obama took office.

On January 22, 1965, which is to say two days after Lyndon Johnson was inaugurated and the liberal Great Society was launched in earnest -- three months after LBJ's landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater -- the New York Times was already on Reagan's case.

In just one story alone, in which Reagan was said to be weighing a race for Governor of California the following year, the liberal line that would follow Reagan for the rest of his active political life was already in evidence.

• "Conservatives" the piece said, were looking to Reagan as a way out of the "wreckage" of the 1964 election. Times Translation: Here goes the right wing again. Who created the Republican wreckage in the first place? Conservatives, that's who. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, that's who. Why in the world would the GOP ever turn to a Goldwater supporter like Reagan for anything?

• "Republican organization leaders in California," said the paper, were skeptical that Reagan, an actor, was "going anywhere." Times Translation: The guy is an actor, has no substance and he's an extremist to boot. Get serious.

• Why was Reagan a joke? First, said the Times, there was that televised Goldwater speech in October, 1964. Times Translation: We have Reagan on film saying wacko things -- on television for God's sake -- that are (in the paper's words) "a brisk denunciation of the welfare state and Communist appeasement." The Times used this quote from his Goldwater speech, in which Reagan urged standing up to Soviet Communists, to illustrate just how nutty an out-of-the-mainstream extremist Reagan was:

Page: 1 2 3 > Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (101) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.15.10 @ 6:27AM

A great gift to America's citizens would be to close the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy (Has never produced a drop of energy but whose budget is 43 billion a year) and cut the EPA in half.

When you see a group in Washington start to talk in those tones, the extremists of big government will have been voted out and a new age will begin.

Melvin| 6.15.10 @ 6:41AM

As Ronald Reagan told the Soviet General Secretary, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" with absolute conviction, we now must tell Mr. Obama with the same conviction and steadfastness.

"Mr. Obama, get out of our wallets!"

Mr. Reagan buried the Soviets with an arms race they couldn't afford and this brought about their eventual destruction. Obama is using the same tactic to bury us under an unsustainable debt that we cannot afford and it to will bring our eventual destruction as a united Country.
This madman must be stopped before he succeeds.

Mimi| 6.15.10 @ 7:26AM

" THIS MADMAN MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE HE SUCCEEDS" .....Unsustainable debt to .....Cloward- Pivens. Ignore and delay strategy in the GULF.....to Cloward-Pivens. "Flatten the land to..remold it!!! Play dumb....play golf....play bands & parties.....Air-force one trips to help...(On the road to defeat) Democrats. They all need to go....First the followers in 2010 ! Then out with the "WACKY-KID " in 2012!!

JCfromDC| 6.17.10 @ 6:49PM

Why not, Mr. Obama, get out of OUR town!

Brian Mc| 6.15.10 @ 7:07AM

To quote a phrase, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it, anymore!"

Wake up, America. No more of this "oh, well" crap. WAKE THE HELL UP!

The day I changed from a sniveling crybaby to a growing, learning, productive member of the greatest country on earth...Ronald Reagan's inaugural address. Who will step up and give the next great clarion call to self-government, self control and personal accountability?

That person better step up to the plate, quick.

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:39PM

Maybe if Bush, Wall Street and Big Oil had been responsible adults, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in, huh?

Self-government? That's unconstitutional...
Self control? Starts at home, baby
Personal accountability? Ditto.

Christopher Holland| 6.16.10 @ 1:03AM

I thought Obama was the new messiah and could walk on water? He was the guy who was going to change the climate and stop the seas from rising - he said so in his inaugeration speech. How could somebody as stupid as Bush and mere bagatelles like Wall Street and big oil stop The Man from working his miracles. You speak heresy, my learned friend, you dare to suggest that The Annoited One does not have the power to work miracles after all! Begone with you, you ignorant peasant, your doubts pollute these fair pages and bring scorn and contempt upon your pitiful soul.

Purpleguy| 6.16.10 @ 2:58AM

Anointed and the Messiah are your words, not mine. But, I would say Barack Obama has done more good for this country in 16 months than Bush did in 8 years. He did more the first 3 months than Bush did for the first 4 years...! Walk on water - maybe - a better President than a Republican -- abs0lutely!

JCfromDC| 6.17.10 @ 6:54PM

Yeah he put us in more debt in 3 MONTHS than Bush did in 8 YEARS, quarudple the debt and more on the way. Bush on steroids.

Convet| 6.16.10 @ 10:50PM

More stupidity from the purple people-beater.

Ret. Marine| 6.15.10 @ 7:14AM

Never discount those who believe they are on a God-rightious mission. Proud is not a good attitude to be stuck on. This progressive movement has never been right when it comes to the average household, has never been good for anything other than the lies they spew on a daily basis and goes against the good book, it's leaders and God himself.
Pride is another way of saying "we are better than you because we know it" The day is coming and we are counting those of the likes of this articles intent, when this country is going to get fed-up, real fed-up and pent up with the evilness we see of our detractors. They only represent approx. 20% of this country, they know it, we know it. They can be taken down and we know how to do it. No more will this country demand the "lesser of the two evils" but will in fact demand open and honest discussion on facts, not made up nonsense. We also know they do not have facts on their side. Pretty sad when one thinks of this alone. We in fact, have them on the run. There is no way this upcoming election is going to have a positive impact on the progressive idea of the ideal life in these here United States. It is being turned over and exposed as the vile hatred of freedom we now reconize as a disease on our Republic. When a disease opens up and festers it's sores to an ugly solution, things tend to get ugly. We are in fact seeing with our lieing eyes this sore being exposed for the threat it is. It's time to cut this cancer out of the body politics. Never loose faith for the truth, never back down with evilness, and always put trust foremost on your mind. The sore we witness today is hussein the destroyer, the cure is sunshine. We must expose this cancer and rid ourselves of it's uglyness, and soon before we find ourselves exposed to the puse being shot at us. Good folks true to their faith believe in miracles, and like Mr. Regan, they come around once in a generations lifetime, we must reconize it before we can get behind it. God save the Republic.

Mimi| 6.15.10 @ 7:43AM

" THE CURE IS SUNSHINE " You nialed it Ret Marine! Take "SUNSHINE" door to door. In the inner and outer cities, to the towns big and small....to all the countryside. We must walk the walk every truth bearer. If we have known candidates we must start the walk NOW.....KNOCK on every DOOR.

TennesseeVolunteer| 6.15.10 @ 7:26AM

Nov. 2, 2010 will be our 2nd Independence Day. After that we must be vigilant and teach our children and young adults of the danger of socialism and 'something for nothing'.
This is going to be close because the evil elitists are having their way but not for long. "Hold on" my friends.

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:41PM

"teach our children and young adults of the danger of socialism and 'something for nothing'." - you have, and they see through your garbage and manipulations ... that's why you lost Huge in 2008!

Christopher Holland| 6.16.10 @ 1:07AM

This is 2010, baby, read the papers and see what the opinion polls say now. 2008 is so yesterday.

Purpleguy| 6.16.10 @ 2:55AM

Yeah, and McCain surged ahead of Obama by 5 points in August 2008 - how'd that work out fer ya? Demos will win in 2010, you betcha!

Convet| 6.16.10 @ 10:51PM

Don't feed the liberal dumb-ass troll.

chuck| 6.15.10 @ 8:18AM

The first vote I ever cast was for Ronald Reagan. At the time I just could not understand the hatred the poured forth from the media towards the man, the President that the country loved and gave two landslide victories. It just goes to show how out of touch The Establishment is with the heartland of America. But then, they(The Establishment) are wrong about damned near everything. Actually, maybe everything.

Ronald Reagan, where are you when we really need you???

And who can pick up where you left off?

DonDuke| 6.15.10 @ 10:28AM

"Ronald Reagan, where are you when we really need you???" Great point Chuck and one that I think of often. Because I believe that we can rant all we want to about these idiot "progressives" and how we are going to throw them out, but who will inspire this? Who will take the mantle? Who will capture the imagination of the people? Where indeed is the NEXT Ronald Reagan? I haven't seen him/her yet.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 4:37PM

Don,
Hi! Welcome to the conversation.

I know several million folks who would contribute the maximum to a Palin/ (honest moderate, name left blank) ticket.
See, whether she likes it or not, Sarah is already leading the charge, and doing so brilliantly.
Heh,
She is taking the MSM heat and attention off dozens of crackerjack congressional candidates.

See, Sarah "sells newspapers" ...whether for or against her, and she will bring out the conservative "base" in this off year election. The middle roaders who voted for Obama won't be out, and many of the welfare queens haven't gotten any of "Obama's stash" yet, so many of them won't be voting.
Man, is she stacking up the "chits" or what. heh.

Captain Midnight| 6.15.10 @ 8:35AM

I watched the TV debate between Reagan and Mondale. When Reagan delivered his famous line, "I will not let the youth and inexperience of my opponent be an issue in this campaign", the TV director switched from a front view to a right profile of Reagan with Mondale in the background looking directly at him, laughing uncontrollably. The debate was over, point, set, match. Those who pick up his mantle will successfully continue where he left off.

cuban pete| 6.15.10 @ 8:58AM

You are correct Captain. Mondale said after that debate he told his staff the campaign was over.
Thank God for Mr.Reagan. His legacy will continue to grow. America will come to its senses again and get back on track.

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:43PM

So a joke and a one-liner is how you become President... I get it.

Christopher Holland| 6.16.10 @ 12:56AM

If Ronald Reagan was so stupid, how come he ended the cold war and destroyed the Soviet Union? If that is the work of a stupid man, then I will vote for the fool any day of the week. Intellligence is a completely unnecessary quality in this scheme of things.

Reading about Ronald Reagan and the media reminds me of the saying about F D Roosevelt in the 1930s - everybody hated him except the voters. Everybody hated Ronald Reagan, but he won every election he contested in a landslide. Pretty damn good for an idiot.

bluecollarbytes| 6.15.10 @ 8:36AM

So the New York Times operates out of a well established political playbook. Where is its creativity, after 50 years?

Howard| 6.15.10 @ 9:14AM

"So the New York Times operates out of a well established political playbook. Where is its creativity, after 50 years?" There is no creativity at the NYT. It is a rigid, didactic, rag, that is living off its seed capital. I remember in 1967 or so Time Magazine had a cover with a Rockefeller/Reagan ticket as being quite electable. Reagan also "lost" in 1968; he entered the Republican race before the GOP convention. Nixon had everything sewn up, but it was a chance for the Gipper to set the stage for future national campaigns .

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 9:16AM

Mr. Lord,
Thank you.
That column was truly worthy of you.
Thank you also for the re-perspective on what Mr. Reagan went through.
In these days, many of the younger of us simply look back and say "Duh, well of course Reagan won by landslides...he was right about so many things!)

You remind us just how "improbable" a President Reagan truly was in 1978.

Al Adab| 6.15.10 @ 12:45PM

Ken,
Totally off subject, I just finished reading "Fighter Pilot" the memoirs of Col. Robin Olds edited and published by his daughter Christina. Great read and wise words from a great leader. Get it and enjoy.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 1:25PM

Al Adab,
Welcome back! I just ordered it along with "Grand Jihad" by a guy named Mccarthy.

I read the "Fighter Pilot" excerpts on amazon.

Did you know I am a pilot? I drive the closest civilian plane to a P-51 ( A Bellanca Super Viking).

I have never been in air combat...heh...except over New York and Atlanta.
hEH..I love to firewall it...then politely ask the commercial jets to "please expedite...I'm right on your tail."
(180 MPH speed limit descending around airports.)

Al| 6.15.10 @ 3:17PM

Yeah, I knew you fly. I covered a lot of my part of the world in a Super Vike too, although not my own, great bird. Did my UPT at Webb in Big Spring (long ago). You'll enjoy the Olds book.

Mattled| 6.15.10 @ 9:19AM

I'm reading Reagans diary right now at 1984. The media HATED him.

Many Libtards will pointbto Odoogies dismal poll numbers and say ; Reagans were this low at the same time of his Presidency.

Here's the distinction ( which the intellectually dishonest left will trumpet their DNC talking points).

95% of the media were against Reagan. He wrote about how they just plain lied.

95% of the media are FOR Odoogie and he is well below 50%. I don't believe the 44-46% numbers.

Odoofus is in the 30's. Basically the Dem voters.

purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 6:00PM

And, you are reading Reagan about Reagan ... hmmm there's no self-serving stories in there, huh? They called him "Mr. Teflon" ... wonder why?

purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 6:00PM

And, you are reading Reagan about Reagan ... hmmm there's no self-serving stories in there, huh? They called him "Mr. Teflon" ... wonder why?

chuck| 6.15.10 @ 8:18PM

purpleturd,

From what you write, I'm guessing your probably early to mid 20s. You probably weren't alive, or have no memory of the Reagan years. The American people LOVED Ronald Reagan. So you can really keep your snotty-assed ignorant comments about him to yourself.

You don't have a clue.

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:33PM

Wrong on all accounts. I voted for the man 2x - then. You're right - they LOVED ... they don't anymore except a few dregs of the Reagan Revolution. The Reagan coalition has broken apart and the only response is a weak Tea Party made up of upper middle class middle-aged whites who won't be around long before they need the Social Security and Medicare they rail against - unless they are so dumb they are on both already and don't know it. Have a nice day!

JimE| 6.15.10 @ 9:56PM

Puplremoron,
Finish reading obama's book yet?

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:34PM

Nope, don't read autobiographical. Not interested in how someone sees themselves - it's irrelevant.

Christopher Holland| 6.16.10 @ 1:11AM

Maybe he was called Mr Teflon because it was easier to write than Mr Reagan?

JimP| 6.15.10 @ 9:55AM

I never thought of them in this way. What a pleasing, and accurate IHMO, analysis. Just right to get the day off to a good start. Uncle Ronnie, et al, as rebels against 'The Man'. Working to take down the leftists and the 60's radicals.

Thanks Mr. Lord. You made my day.

davelnaf| 6.15.10 @ 10:23AM

Liberals are the real ‘clingers’ in American society. They cling to now discredit ideas of domestic and foreign policy that have proved wrong so many times that one has to be a fool, or a liberal, to touch them with a ten foot pole. But such is the religion of liberals that societal destruction is their version of creationism. The catechism of this religion tells the ideologically faithful that politically talented, but otherwise reality challenged, people can bring discredited ideas back to life just because they are so special.

But at long last the liberal faithful are getting what they deserve with the presidency of the Chosen O. Reacting to Obama’s ineptitudes, they have gone very quiet, which, historically speaking, is an ominous sign. When it became apparent that reality was not Jimmy Carter’s strong suit party stalwarts publically criticized him to try to shock him back to reality, but the effort backfired. We did not have an alternative media back then and all of this criticism came as something of a shock to the uninformed masses and by midterm of Carter’s presidency voters had turned on him. Liberals are justifiably weary of repeating this mistake and contributing to an effort that might marginalize the Bamster. But, by doing this, they are also ruining what little opportunities they might have, when the time comes, to rise out of the ashes of Obamism.

What's up with this?| 6.15.10 @ 1:00PM

Today's Mr. Anti-Establishment, Rand Paul, is in a new flap about his board certification as an ophthalmologist. I'm reading that the board that has most recently certified him is one that he himself created, with his wife as vice president. Good grief, is that true?

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 1:28PM

What's Up,
Pretty common in the medical world. A local leading proffesional sets up standards.

What's Up With This?| 6.15.10 @ 2:32PM

I didn't know that, Ken; thanks.

The (Louisville) Courier-Journal "reported Sunday that Paul says he is a board-certified ophthalmologist because he has been approved by a group that he founded. He lists himself as the president and owner of the National Board of Ophthalmology, his wife is listed as the vice president and his father-in-law is the secretary...Paul told The Courier-Journal Saturday that he had no plans to talk about the National Board of Ophthalmology and its standards. His campaign did not respond to a renewed request for an interview Monday."

That kind of thing may be common, and I'll take your word for it, but it sure sounds fishy to me.

What's Up With This?| 6.15.10 @ 5:02PM

I've been looking for the Web site of the National Board of Ophthalmology -- has anyone found it? Is that organization housed in Dr. Paul's spare bedroom, or maybe his basement? Is it certifying physicans, and if so, what are the standards they must meet? I wonder whether patients face higher fees from physicians "board certified" by him...

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 7:57PM

Hi back What's Up.
Heh, no no extra fees...just a lot of extra work for him. (scroll down for a cool thought from me about my wife.).

There are only four people in the WORLD who are certified with my wife's name in her field. Each of them trained elbow to elbow with her, and are honored and proud to say so. You have seen my wife on TV. She is a genius and works her butt off every day.
She feels so delighted when they ask her for her "OK" to practice her procedures with her techniques...and tell their patients so.

As for her compensation...she is thrilled that her techniques will not be lost to the profession when she ages or dies.

What's Up With That?| 6.17.10 @ 12:29PM

She sounds like a heckuva gal, Ken. I'm sure that her "lifetime achievement" has meant extended lifetimes for her patients, who are fortunate to have found the physician they needed.

I guess my larger question about Dr. Paul's self-certification is whether or not he tells people the fine print about it -- "Yes, I'm board certified; formerly by the American Board of Ophthalmology, but now through the National Board of Ophthalmology, which I founded and owned. I have met my own high standards."

Ah well, he may be exactly what the voters want.

Best regards to your lady.

Nate| 6.15.10 @ 2:01PM

A comparison between Ronald Reagan and some of these candidates seems a little odd.

You have to remember that Reagan read and thought a great deal about politics over a period of DECADES before he became what he was as president. He was a very smart man -- and you're right, people on the left and right didn't see this -- and he did something it's very, very difficult to picture Sarah Palin or this Angle woman ever doing: he QUESTIONED himself and his own beliefs.

Reagan was -- of course -- a man of deep conviction, but he also had a certain humility about his convictions, and people picked up on that and it's one of the reasons he was so well liked even by many Democrats. (My family was completely made up of "Reagan Democrats.")

You didn't have to buy his view on -- say -- the capitol gains tax to like him, but he was about something much bigger and more important. But he could only speak to this bigger, more important thing because he was willing to put the intellectual work into thinking about it. He was not one of these ignoramuses who brag how authentic they are -- how "real" they are as Americans -- because they know nothing of the world or their country.

Anyway, I liked reading this article all the same. As always Lord writes a good piece.

Nate| 6.15.10 @ 2:06PM

And it's true: Angle is being derided. But that's because she's just plain old WEIRD.

Scientology, alcohol prohibition, abolitishing Social Security. I'm not exactly sure that these are items that are going to make up a winning platform for the Republicans.

It seems like Tea Party candidates have turned EASY victories for the Rs in Kentucky and Nevada into really difficult ones that are going to cost your party money and energy it need not have spent.

But be my guest!

I just can't wait to hear what Angle says next!

And remember, we all have to deal with the daft and the dizzy in our midst. I remember not too long ago one of my favorite Democrats talking about a UFO sighting on national television.

God Bless America!

neo-libertarian| 6.15.10 @ 7:18PM

Ronald Reagan from the grave could beat Reid if you could get him on the ballot. Ross Perot fresh from his 80th birthday and using the same old pie charts could beat Reid. Rod Blogovoich smoking one of Clinton’s cigars behind a glass visitor’s window could beat Reid. Ken, the Retired Marine, hell even Margie could beat Reid. Nate, even you in all your inglorious troll failure could be given a tossup chance to beat Reid. As for the real candidate, Sharron Angle, she could don a Fedora, ride a bicycle in the buff through the Mormon Tabernacle Choir every Thursday till November 2nd and STILL beat Old Harry.
Besides all your rehearsed talking points about the lady are outright lies, gross distortions, or meaningless within the scheme of political discourse.
God Bless the people who love America, Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty; to hell with the rest.

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:50PM

No lies, dude... there is video of her talking about the prohibition of alcohol, fluoride in water being a communist plot, abolishing Social Security AND Medicare (ought to be a big vote getter in retirement communities in Nevada)... she is so extreme and out of the mainstream, even a TEA BATH won't heal her wounds ... they've redone her website and taken down her most extreme views, but not for those who got their first! Just like Rand Paul has been muzzled, the R's think if you shut them up, they can still win... we'll see ... KY blue? Hmmm what a nice thought.

Tim*| 6.15.10 @ 9:49PM

It's called Sharrontology , and Nevadans get it .

Sharron Angle, following her come-from-behind Republican Primary win Tuesday, has bounced to an 11-point lead over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada’s closely-watched U.S. Senate race.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada, taken Wednesday night, shows Angle earning 50% support while Reid picks up 39% of the vote. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:52PM

Hmmm, that's a nice jump for Harry from the low 30's ... and he's just getting started. What's she going to say next? I forgot about the Scientology connection -- yep, that's a religion alright. They may not like Harry much, but they ain't gonna vote for no flake.

JimE| 6.15.10 @ 9:59PM

Nate,
Scientology, alcohol prohibition, abolitishing "Social Security." What's the differnce between this and your islamic contoller's program?

John II| 6.15.10 @ 2:32PM

I quit reading the NY Times years and years ago, but in my workplace (academia) I am surrounded by people for whom the Times is a kind of secular magisterium--and the U provides free copies in the dorms, rather like Gideon bibles in motel rooms.

But it all works to my advantage not only for staying generally informed about the latest puffs of Kulturesmog, but also for anticipating the future with uncanny accuracy. Whatever is in the air at the U in the way of such anticipation is almost certain to be foolish or wrong or both. For example, when Israel is being denounced on campus, I know with about 98 percent assurance that Israel has just done something sensible in response to something murderously outrageous. When a tax measure or state proposition is being touted as correct and morally sound, I know with 99 percent certainty that the only sane response is to vote against it. When some lefty deadbeat is invited at considerable tuition-supported expense to speak on campus, I know with 100 percent certainty that anything--ANYTHING-- I do instead of attending the smugfest is an infinitely better use of my time.

In a universe prone to obscurity, it's rather nice to be favored with such clear choices.

Doug Lee| 6.15.10 @ 2:52PM

Without President Jimmy Carter, we might never have had President Ronald Reagan. A great disaster thus gave way to a great blessing. Now we have President Obama, an even greater disaster than Pres. Carter. There is no guarantee that history will repeat itself, but as this article nicely points out, there are many good signs to that effect.

Nate| 6.15.10 @ 3:51PM

First, anyone who knows anything about history knows this:

History NEVER repeats itself.

Second, I don't see any real comparison of Obama to Carter, nor do I see how Obama is a "disaster," unless you're a shallow ideologue. At some point, you should allow reality to impinge on your opinions if only ever so slightly.

Al Adab| 6.15.10 @ 4:00PM

If President Al Naqis is not a bad star, how would you describe his administration? From my perspective it seems extremly ideologically agenda driven. Do you disagree?

John II| 6.15.10 @ 9:24PM

First, you're wrong. In broad outline, history often repeats itself--enough, for example, to spur Tocqueville to anticipate the likes of Obama as a potential threat to the American experiment.

Second, Obama is like Carter in many ways, both personally and politically. Personally, Professor Obama's past is shady and his presence is an odd, if predictable, mixture of insecurity, ignorance, and arrogance. Politically, Professor Obama, like Carter, is an avatar of domestic trendiness and international weakness.

Third, your claim not to see any of this is merely a reflection of your own ignorance and arrogance, rather grandiloquently if tediously assured by your implicit boast of a connection to something you call "reality."

So that, fourth: you, sir, are an ass. A-S-S: ass.

Tim* | 6.15.10 @ 9:59PM

Yeah Right Mr.History , Like Napoleon & Hitler Invading Russia And Retreating .

Like U.S. Presidents getting assassinated .

Go Home.

JimE| 6.15.10 @ 10:00PM

"History NEVER repeats itself. " you are correct because you and your useful idiot friends keep rewriting it.

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:57PM

Isn't it interesting how this narrative from the right started even before he became President Obama - wonder why? He could cure cancer and stop world hunger and they would still complain it took him too long. After the one trick pony Bush, Obama is a blessing to this country. I truly believe a lot of deep seated distrust of him comes from his color. It's a sad commentary on America, still. But if he had been white, criticism of him would long ago have ceased. Don't bother to throw racist crap at me, you know what I'm talking about. If you do, make sure you point out another black man you do trust, can you ?

Christopher Holland| 6.16.10 @ 1:20AM

I missed something here - if Obama is a blessing to the country, can you tell me what a curse looks like? If Obama could cure cancer and stop world hunger, could he do something really hard like getting Americans to play soccer? For a guy who is supposed to be a miracle worker, he is pretty shy about working miracles.

Purpleguy| 6.16.10 @ 10:34AM

There you go again ... as if anyone promised miracles. He's not Bush, and that's miracle enough for us.
If you're waiting for anyone to perform actual miracles, I have a nice little insane asylum for you. Maybe you can find ET there too?

Convet| 6.16.10 @ 10:55PM

Try Herman Cain, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell or Alan Keyes MORON.

JCfromDC| 6.17.10 @ 7:56PM

From somebody who DOES know a LOT about history, it is repeating itself right before your blind, ignorant, eyes!!!
You had better read up on the downfall of the Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1930s. The recent takeovers by government, of Finance, Auto Industry, Health, and probably soon, Oil; the call for a "Youth Corps" internal security force equal to the standing Military (forgot that one didn't you?); all these 40 "czars" answerable to no one... Reminiscent of a fairly young, charismatic orator who did the same things then. And his party symbol was ensconced in a circle, too. His cult was built around radical ideas, and all oppositon to him was squelched, one by one... newspapers, radio stations shut down, opposition parties silenced, until no one's voice was heard but HIS.
History NEVER repeats itself, you damned fool? Are you SERIOUS????
They didn't listen or didn't care then, but it just "sounded good" and they all fell for it, and 80 million paid for it with their lives.
Get real.

JmsA| 6.15.10 @ 3:05PM

Has anyone had the opportunity of listening to the 1967 debate between Ronald Reagan and Robert Kennedy about the Viet Nam war? It was a thing of beauty, to the point that upon its conclusion, Mr. Kennedy turned to his aides and said in an non too pleasant manner, don't ever get me in a debate with that $#& again! To be fair, however, one must readily admit that Mr. Kennedy more than held his own when challenged by members of the questioning panel, particularly insofar as defending U.S. policy in Viet Nam in relation to the actions of communist North Viet Nam.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.15.10 @ 4:01PM

JmsA..

Believe it or I did see that. I was a heavy duty RFK fan at the time and was stunned to see my hero lose.

I still have a soft spot for Bobby....we'll never know, always the tragedy of death at an early age. But I wound up on the side of the winner...who really did know what he was talking about!

Nick | 6.15.10 @ 11:26PM

JmsA,

I came across a transcript of this debate, online, several years ago. I think someone from American Thinker posted a link. I found it fascinating.

One of the parts I remember clearly was when Governor Reagan talked about the difference between a "declared" war and an "undeclared" war. He explained that in a declared war the Commander-in-Chief had the authority to imprison journalists for national security reasons.

Sometime since WWII, we, as a nation, have forgotten the power the president has in a declared war. This is why Congress has only declared war 11 times, in 5 different conflicts.

A quick google search found this 10 minute clip of the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMzTcvXk1j4

Governor Reagan and Senator Kennedy, both, slap around a snot-nosed, John Kerry-like, commie Limey student. They slap him around good for spouting commie propaganda and lies.

Steve K| 6.23.10 @ 12:53PM

Commie Limey? Sir, we Limies have never been commies! I'll admit, our Intelligence Service was very nearly Communist-controlled. Bloody Burgess, MacClean, Philby and co still give them nightmares.

Also, as a Limey, I have to say I regard Mr. Reagan as probably the best US president in many a long year. He, and our own Maggie in the 80s, made quite a tag-team against the Soviets. I really doubt either of us will get anyone half as good for a long time to come.

JCfromDC| 6.17.10 @ 8:05PM

JmsA:
Is that debate anywhere to be had online, RWR/RFK? Would love to hear it! I was around in'67, 8th grade, but I was a political junkie even then!

michigander_sandusky| 6.15.10 @ 3:08PM

I recall that Reagan was originally a Democrat, but switched to Republican in the early 60's. Now true conservatives are less and less finding a philosophical home in today's Republican party. Our two party system continually moves to the left. Perhaps it is time for a new party.

RCV| 6.15.10 @ 10:55PM

Obviously, you and other conservatives will have to decide whether to leave the GOP and start a new party, but it's pretty hard to contend that the GOP has "moved to the left". The Republican party of Teddy Roosevelt through the days when it had senators such as Tom Kuchel of California, Bill Scranton of Pennsylvania, Jacob Javits and Kenneth Keating and Nelson Rockefeller, Evert Dirksen, Ed Brooke, Clifford Case and a host of other "liberal Republicans", was a lot less conservative than the GOP of the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Nick| 6.15.10 @ 11:43PM

RCV,

It was because of Republicans, like the ones you list, that the democrat party had control of the House of Representatives for 44 years.

RINOs don't lead, so they should just get out of the way!

Christopher Holland| 6.16.10 @ 1:26AM

True, but look on the bright side. If you continually move to the left it means that sooner or later you will walk in a full circle, so you end up back where you started. The same is happening to the GOP - after Ronald Reagan retired the party started walking in a circle and now it is coming around to where it was before. It took a long time, but progress is progress.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.16.10 @ 2:29PM

The Republican Party is the conservative party and if you don't see that then you're willfully blind. What you're suggesting will empower Democrats for the next 40 years and entrench radical Obamaism to the point that we'll envy the dictatorship of Hugo Chavez for its freedoms.

Louis Jenkins| 6.15.10 @ 4:12PM

That is a problem. The two party system continually picks up stakes and moves further to the Left. But isn't that what the Liberals desire? To get the Republicans to the left? Maybe it is time. But I will weigh in on the Republican side one more time, and if it doesn't flush it is time to be out of the Republican party. Nothing like looking for new ground.

Al Adab| 6.15.10 @ 4:28PM

The photo over this story tells a lot. It was the guy with the glasses who wrotye, "I am not interested in making [govt] more efficient, for I intend to reduce its' size." That must be our creed. We had a chance after '94 and blew it. We can only hope we get another and do not fail again.

RCV| 6.15.10 @ 10:57PM

But he didn't reduce its size, nor did he reduce the deficeit!

Al Adab| 6.16.10 @ 11:09AM

RCV:

Goldwater didn't get elected if you recall.

Marc Jeric| 6.15.10 @ 4:52PM

Governor of California is automatically the boss of the University of California regents. On my wall above the dinner table I have hanging my UC Ph.D. diploma signed by Ronald Regan. My conservative friends are envious, and my "liberal" friends are appalled. What fun!

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 7:34PM

I want to brag on my lovely wife.

Her picture hangs right next to Ronald Reagan's in his college library.
She was awarded the "2007 Ronald Reagan Lifetime achievement Award" by Eureka college due to her life time of pioneering medical work.

Her award and picture hang right there. Can you folks imagine how honored I am to be her husband?
Ken

Mike| 6.15.10 @ 10:39PM

Chuck and JimE write"

chuck| 6.15.10 @ 8:18PM

purpleturd

JimE| 6.15.10 @ 9:56PM

Puplremoron,

Dear Chuck and Jim E

Hi "Shit for Brains"

As long as we're name calling, we might as well go all the way, a**holes.

Purpleguy| 6.15.10 @ 11:11PM

Comparing Ronald Reagan to George Washington is ridiculous. George Washington was a giant, who could have been "King" if he wanted. He showed the way to become an American President.

Ronald Reagan started this country on the Borrow and Spend path to bankruptcy we are still on thanks to Bush I and Bush II ... Reagan left us with 3 Million Illegals he gave amnesty to and the legacy that has left us; he also left us with the AIDS epidemic which might have been stopped, had he bothered to even speak about it once; Reagan also started this deregulation is good kick that we are living with the horrible results of today - the Great Recession of 2008 and the BP Oil Spill of 2010, all because deregulation is good. The Reagan revolution is dead, buried with him and gratefully so.

Even after all that, comparing Sharron Angle to Ronald Reagan is even worse. She truly is a wack-job. Fluoride in our water is a communist plot? End Social Security and Medicare? Really? Reagan was a doddering old Alzheimer's victim, but he wasn't nuts. Add Rand "Im a real doctor" Paul and Mark "I have so many awards" Kirk to the mix and there's 3 Senate seats for the Democrats in November...

Christopher Holland| 6.16.10 @ 1:29AM

Aside from all that, you like the guy.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.16.10 @ 2:28PM

Obviously, you support the status quo of Americans paying for Democrat politicians and their misbegotten progeny getting rich at tax payers expense epitomized by Harry Reid.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.15.10 @ 11:17PM

Purpleguy...

OK, we'll mark you down as doubtful...

Nick| 6.16.10 @ 1:09AM

What an interesting week it has been.

First, in last week's primaries, President Dither was ZERO for 4 in endorsements, while "Saint" Sarah Palin was 3 for 4, you betcha'!

Also, the unions flushed $10 million on a left-wing kook in Arkansas. And, stupid North Carolina democrats voted for the first guy on the ballot! What a bunch of maroons! Or, maybe they thought he was from the Green party!

President Dither is also set on making Afghanistan another Viet Nam. He is also siding with terrorists over Israel, again. What a shock.

And, tonight, Keith Olbermann-child and Chris Matth-spews trashed O'Bama's speech, tee-hee:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....mmand.html

The worst part about the oil spill is that none of that black gold, oozing up from the earth, will end up in the tank of my F-150!

Imagine if the oil is still flowing in November.

Yosemeti Sam| 6.16.10 @ 3:24AM

Kodak moment - Gorbachev paying homage to
the deceased Reagan lying in state.

Did Gorby come to the ultra-establishment joke
of "lion of the senate " Kennedys' sendoff?

Gorby knew giants when he dealt with them - he
thus ignored pipsqueaks.

Jeffry| 6.16.10 @ 3:35AM

First of all, Reagan was a befuddled old doofus! It was his hanlders the Ne0-cons like Gingrich, Bush and Cheney, that really ran things. Second, Reagan had nothing to do with the end of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was a good, honest and earnest Liberal Socialits who was determined to reform the Soviet system and make it better. Sadly, he was unable to accomplish his dreams and reactionaries, no doubt paid for by Wall Street fatcats, seized power.

Now you idiots want to support Palin? What a dullard. She's nothing more that a c**t!

Michael Tomlinson| 6.16.10 @ 2:26PM

You need to quit smoking dope and masturbating at the altar of Obama.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.16.10 @ 8:31AM

Jeffry,

"USEFUL IDIOT", go on and eat your fingers. You will feel even better.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Michael Tomlinson| 6.16.10 @ 2:24PM

The problem isn't when the left attacks a conservative it's when we eat our own -- Tom Delay, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, etc.. When we do that then the result is the election of Barack Obama and a radical Democrat Congress populated by the likes of two-faced egotist Jim Webb of Virginia.

Vasu Murti| 6.16.10 @ 2:39PM

The following quotes and comments are excerpted from There He Goes Again: Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error, by Mark Green and Gail MacColl (Pantheon Books, New York, 1983)

"There were two Vietnams, north and south. They had been separate nations for centuries." (Radio, Jan. 1978)

When not artificially divided by the Chinese or French colonialists, Vietnam was politically united for much of its history.

"The communist dictator of North Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, refused to hold the elections and when a million of his people started moving south away from communism (under the terms of the agreement) his troops barricaded the frontier and halted the migration." (Radio, Jan. 1978)

It was the newly created South, not the North, that refused to hold elections. In fact, Ho Chi Minh complained when balloting did not occur. President Eisenhower, in his memoirs, stated that experts agreed that "possibly 80% of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader" if elections had been held.

"...but...when these attacks and forays became so great,...John F. Kennedy authorized the sending in of a division of marines, and that was the first combat moves in Vietnam." (2/18/82)

In the face of a rapidly deteriorating military and political situation--of somewhat larger proportions than "attacks and forays" on individual soldiers--the first official American ground troops were sent to Vietnam. They were in the form of two--not one--U.S. Marine Corps divisions, and they landed at the U.S. air base in Danang in March 1965--nearly a year and a half after JFK's assassination.

"Up until now (the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) the Soviet Union has not used its own military forces in its imperialism. It's taken over country after country, but it's done it with proxy troops." (Des Moines Register, 1/8/80)

Soviet troops were used in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

"Today, we re not equal to the Soviet Union, and that is why they were able to cross into Afghanistan." (The New Yorker, 3/24/80)

There must be other reasons--an unquestioned U.S. military and nuclear superiority did not seem to deter Soviet troops from crossing into Hungary in 1956, or 12 years later into Czechoslovakia.

"Certainly their (the Soviet Union's) entire beliefs--beginning with the disbelief in God--their entire beliefs are so contrary to what we accept as morality. Witness a Kampuchea and an Afghanistan and so forth." (3/18/83)

Morality and politics don't always mix. Consider the fact that it is the United States, not the Soviet Union, that recognized Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Kampuchea. It was under Pol Pot's reign from 1975 to 1979 that an estimated three million Cambodians were massacred.

"Those (nuclear weapons) that are carried in ships of one kind or another, or submersibles, you are dealing there with a conventional type of weapon or instrument, and those instruments can be intercepted. They can be recalled." (5/13/82)

Submarine-launched missiles cannot be recalled!

"But I do believe this: that it is rather foolish to have unilaterally disarmed, you might say, as we did.." (3/3/81)

The United States did not disarm in the '70s; it dramatically strengthened its nuclear forces.

"During the last 10 years, the United States decreased its military spending." (1/14/82)

"As you can see...in constant dollars, our defense spending in the 1960s went up because of Vietnam. And then it went downward through much of the 1970s." (11/22/82)

Not so. According to the controller of the Department of Defense, the U.S. defense budget in 1982 constant dollars, was $179.9 billion in 1971, while we were fighting a war with Vietnam; in 1981, that constant dollar figure was 193.9 billion.

"Incidentally, the first man who proposed the nuclear freeze was in February 21st, 1981, in Moscow--Leonid Brezhnev." (12/10/82)

Nope. The freeze idea was first officially proposed by Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR), in 1979, as an amendment to SALT II.

"The whole progressive tax system is a foreign import--spawned by Karl Marx a century ago. He viewed it as one of the prime essentials of a socialist state. He said that in imposing socialism on a people, the progressive income tax should be used to 'tax the middle class out of existence.'" (Screen Actor, Sept. 1959)

Karl Marx is not the architect of our tax system, although in two lines in the Communist Manifesto he says a graduated income tax would be an instrument of socialist policy.

The progressive income tax evolved gradually in the U.S. from the income tax created during the Civil War. The 16th Amendment legalized the income tax, and the Act of 1913 provided its first progressive features. This legislation drew its inspiration from two economic philosophers, William Stanley Jevons (and Englishman) and Karl Menge (an Austrian).

"History shows that when the taxes of a nation approach about 20% of the people's income, there begins to be a lack of respect for government...When it reaches 25% there comes an increase in lawlessness." (Time, 4/14/80)

History shows no such thing. Income tax rates in Europe have traditionally been far higher than U.S. rates, while European crime rates have been much lower.

"In the Great Depression, nothing like that (riots caused by economic hardship) ever took place when the situation was much worse..." (1/5/83)

Farmers in the Midwest sabotaged milk deliveries and food shipments, and stood by with shotguns to keep their homes from being foreclosed. Army troops brutally dispersed WW I veterans marching for a bonus in 1932. During the coal strikes in many states, police and sometimes state militia and the national guard arrested those "banding and confederating." Hundreds of mounted police stormed demonstrating auto workers in Detroit. Grocery stores in Oklahoma were raided during the food riots there.

"Swarms of locusts and grasshoppers; a plague of crickets, cutworms, and ants; and swarms of mosquitoes are making life miserable and even impossible in some parts of the world...Some experts are treating this as an unexplainable mystery. Actually, there is no mystery about it...The most effective pesticide, DDT, was outlawed...on the theoretical grounds that if might, under some circumstances, some day, harm someone or something." (Radio, Oct. 1978)

DDT's most prized characteristic, the ability to remain in the environment and to provide long-term effects, ultimately backfires, since insects slowly develop resistance to it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are slowly poisoned as it builds up in the food chain. By 1972, DDT had been detected in 99% of human tissue samples in the U.S. It is a proven carcinogen. It has a devastating effect on birds, fish, and other wildlife. That's why the Environmental Protection Agency banned its use in this country.

"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources." (Sierra, 9/10/80)

Trees do emit hydrocarbons, but the Environmental Protection Agency does not find that cause for concern. Trees decay into nitrous oxide, which is not an immediate threat to human health. On the other hand, emissions of man-made oxides of nitrogen are harmful.

"The First Amendment doesn't say anything about that (prayer in schools)."

It does, at least according to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled, in Engle v. Vitale: "Under that amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the 14th Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity."

"Somehow they (young people) never seemed to have heard the other side. Never heard, for example, that marijuana contains 300 or more chemicals and 60 of those are found in no other plant." (Radio, Mar. 1979)

Before you get too excited, put this in perspective--tobacco smoke contains over 3,000 chemicals.

Nick| 6.16.10 @ 6:50PM

Vasu Muti,

Mark Green is a communist, and thus, a liar.

Bob Edmunson| 6.16.10 @ 3:04PM

Excellent essay. Watch MSNBC’s special “The Rise of the New American Right” tonight to prove that Mr. Lord is correct. “The more things change the more they stay the same.” Tonight expect Matthews claim that the “New American Right” wants to overthrow the US Government by use of force. Ironically, Matthews will use the anti-establishment movement of the American Revolution and their motto; “Don’t Tread on Me” as prove of the “New American Right” intentions. Of course Matthews will also use the same worn out arguments that Mr. Lord’s essay points out!

Joe Heathen| 6.16.10 @ 3:05PM

Given the Taliban-like quest for philosophical political purity, neither Reagan nor Goldwater would withstand the litmus tests of tea baggers were either to be candidates of national prominence.
-
Thusly, this commentary becomes nothing more than an exercise in absurd futility.

S.L. Toddard| 6.16.10 @ 8:03PM

Mr Lord, continuing from our last discussion, you wrote that "the United States government, no longer United and having lost 11 states was in danger of perishing from the earth". If the United States consisted only of 22 states after the WBTS then what? When the colonies seceded from Great Britain, did Great Britain cease to exist - did it "perish from the Earth"? The government of the United States existed while the CSA were at war with the Union, and would have existed even had the Union made peace with the Confederacy. How could it both have existed and have perished?

Also, with regards to the Confederacy, you argued that the CSA were not entitled to independence because they established "a government based on slavery, where the government did not have the consent of the governed". If having "a government based on slavery, where the government did not have the consent of the governed" is a disqualifier for independence, then the US was not entitled to independence either. Is that not the case? Or are conceding this point and moving on to another (that the southern states didn't have their rights violated etc)?

Roland| 6.21.10 @ 5:58PM

Mr. Lord writes: 'Webster's Dictionary actually provides a definition for "the Establishment" (although they don't capitalize that initial "T").'

Of course they don't capitalize the T. It is improper to capitalize an article unless it is the first word of a sentence or a title.

Montana| 6.28.10 @ 2:43PM

You gotta love all the conservatives in Kentucky who voted for Rand Paul and brought him to national exposure, priceless. Let’s face it they will try to vote this liar in but we can only wait and see if there is other skeletons in his closet, oh yeah he is not a racist, I repeat, he is not a racist. Great thing is we are talking about Kentucky, so being a racist maybe a positive, we will see. Yee Haw!