-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Normally, I wouldn’t wade into a dispute between two people who are quite capable of arguing for themselves. But some of what Peter Wehner says in response to Mark Levin about the Reagan record requires a response itself. Wehner argues that George W. Bush stacks up pretty well against Ronald Reagan in the conservatism department.
Let’s start with illegal immigration. Levin has excoriated Bush for being weak on illegal immigration - but Reagan, at least by the Levin standard, was far weaker. Reagan, after all, signed a bill granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, something Bush never supported. And in a 1984 campaign debate, Reagan went so far as to say, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”
This is because Reagan didn’t engage in the same semantics about what constituted “amnesty” as Bush did. Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform” would have legalized a much larger number of illegal immigrants than the Reagan amnesty did. The conservatives who supported the 1986 amnesty — including Pat Buchanan — could at least claim they didn’t know what the consequences would be. Much of the opposition to the Bush amnesty was based on the failures of the Reagan amnesty: the amnesty happened but the promised enforcement never materialized; the amnesty legalized a much larger population than expected; it was rife with fraud; the conditions for legalization proved illusory; there were six subsequent smaller amnesties; illegal immigration increased.
Regarding the Supreme Court, Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia, among the greatest jurists in history. But he also appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, both of whom turned out to be fairly problematic from an originalist perspective. Bush appointed two terrific conservative jurists to the High Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and no O’Connor or Kennedy clones.
Two words go conspicuously unmentioned here: Harriet Miers. Bush had the benefit of a readily identifiable cadre of conservative jurists and lawyers to choose from. Reagan frequently had to guess about a nominee’s conservatism. Yet Bush still nominated Miers, to near-universal conservative opposition. Left to his own devices, he may well have given us Justices Miers and Alberto Gonzales rather than Roberts and Alito.
How about taxes? Reagan was the architect of the historic 1981 tax cut, one of the most significant pieces of economic legislation in American history. Bush cut taxes multiple times as well, though the cuts were not nearly as large. At the same time, Reagan, unlike Bush, increased taxes many times during his presidency - including what was then the largest taxincrease in American history (the TEFRA tax).
Reagan did raise some taxes. But the Reagan tax cuts were larger than the Bush tax cuts by just about every measure — percentage of the economy, percentage of tax cut, dollar amount, etc. The Reagan tax cuts were a key part of a policy mix that ended stagflation. Reagan was a net tax cutter who left the top tax rate lower and the tax code simpler than Bush did.
Bush’s tax cuts — which were still on balance worth supporting — were littered with Keynesian nonsense in 2001, were paired with massive unfunded spending on both guns and butter that could lead to tax increases in the future, and did not have the same economic impact.
On entitlements, both presidents were failures (though Wehner wants to give his old boss credit for trying and failing on Social Security reform without giving Reagan credit for some of his proposals prior to the payroll tax-hiking commission). Reagan’s Medicare expansion was repealed, Bush’s is still adding to the entitlement’s unfunded liabilities. If Bush had succeeded on Social Security reform, his record would look much different. Finally, on foreign policy I’ll simply say that Reagan won an unambiguous victory against a much bigger foe than Bush faced.
My point isn’t that everything Reagan did was great or everything Bush did was awful. That clearly wasn’t the case. But it interesting that to make Bush seem more conservative, one must either devalue Reagan’s accomplishments or take his policies out of context.
View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/18/diminishing-the-reagan-record
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Nuts to Nutter
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Too Many Tims| 3.18.11 @ 11:42AM
Bush the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler Bush the Second.
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of Bush the Third,
But when from earth the Fourth descended
God be praised the Bushes ended
LarryK| 3.18.11 @ 11:59AM
One thing can be said good about Bush 43, "He didn't take any crap from terrorists"
Baffling| 3.18.11 @ 6:12PM
Well, apart from that whole 9/11 thing.
You know, the biggest bowl of crap any terrorist has ever served up and it got taken right on the chin.
The response to which included a good, solid 3 months of dedicated effort in Afghanistan before resources started being pulled out in preparation for Iraq. I guess that only rates if Americans were somehow interested in getting Osama et al after 9/11. Otherwise, sure, if you give them a pass, he totally didn't take any crap from like The Shining Path.
On the flip side, Osama told you that Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon in the wake of the barracks bombing was the reason they thought large terrorist attacks like 9/11 were required and desirable.
Jonah| 3.18.11 @ 7:22PM
GWB had only been POTUS for a little more than 7 1/2 months when we were attacked on 9/11, so I think it's a little unfair to blame the whole mess on him.
Clinton was in office for 8 years and during that time he repeatedly rejected Sudan's offers of custody of Bin Laden. So, I think the old horndog Democrat deserves a little of the "credit" for that terrible day, too.
gsr| 3.18.11 @ 12:10PM
Exactly right Mr Antle, back when RR granted amnesty, the number of "illegal amigos" was much, much smaller than today.
Secondly, the public, stated policy of Mexico is to encourage the "migration" of their peasants. That was not known or perhaps not even announced by Mexican leaders back in '86. It has been policy for about 15-20 yrs now.
Lastly, with today's weak economy, does it make sense to allow tens of millions more of poor and poorly educated "migrants"?
Two things are needed more than any others to improve our country:
1) Develop domestic energy resources
2) Lower all forms of immgration.
Greta| 3.18.11 @ 4:12PM
gsr FOR PRESIDENT 2012!!!
Wayne | 3.18.11 @ 12:24PM
No conservative would have pushed "No Child Left Behind", Then add the stupid nation building in Iraq with the empty promise of using Iraqi oil to pay for it. Bush was more neo-con than conservative and more a globalist. He set the plate for Obama with his selection of the worst Secretary of Treasury in US history. Then you have the expensive medicare drug program. On a conservative scale of 1-10, Bush is about a 4 while Reagan is about a 7. (That amnesty was a huge mistake, as well as his missing a great opportunity to get rid of the Department of Energy and Department of Education).
Of course Obama is a Big O.
RJ| 3.18.11 @ 12:34PM
Lyndon Baines Bush a conservative? No way no how.
Even worse, Obama, Bush and Clinton were all, for different reasons, grossly unqualified to serve as President of the United States. This era of bi-partisan incompetence and corruption remind one of the days of Nero and Caligula in the Roman Empire.
Mike W| 3.18.11 @ 12:37PM
Leaving aside the Iraq debacle, when Bush nominated Miers for the Supreme Court he should have been drummed out of office by conservatives, and by all thinking persons.
Reagan screwed up with the 86 amnesty. Nothing was ever followed through with and it turned out to be a massive mistake. Regardless, George W. Bush was a monumental catastrophe for America and for the Republican party.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 12:38PM
Reagan made some mistakes but he wasn't a RINO like GWB.
ole red| 3.18.11 @ 1:08PM
Comparing Reagan with Bush is like comparing lightning to a lightning bug. Reagan, we now are coming to appreciate, was fairly intellectual; his gift was in dumbing down complex ideas for public consumption. Bush, while not stupid, was not a man with many intellectual concerns. Reagan had a set of core principles which were consistent and he was --with the exception of amnesty--highly consistent in his application of those principles. Bush was pretty ad hoc about most decisions, certainly not discernibly conservative, and seemingly moved greatly by his religious beliefs. Bush did well on terrorism, but he made a sentimental and very stupid decision to remain in Iraq after capturing or killing the various members of the Hussein ruling clique.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 1:24PM
"Compassionate Conservative" rubbed me the wrong way from the beginning. Conservative principles are compassionate; they stress the importance of the individual and teach self-reliance.
Conservatism doesn't need a qualifier, it stands head and shoulders above the garbage ideology of Collectivism.
Warrior | 3.18.11 @ 1:57PM
Exactly. There is no comparison. Reagan had to negotiate with heavily democrat controlled legislative bodies and had to compromise unwillingly. Bush had Republican control of both houses and still managed to be leaning left of center. If we are going to use analogies, Reagan was using a spear while W had M-16's at his ready.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 2:03PM
Reagan was a visionary who believed in the individual, everyday American. I loved him for it.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:40PM
Dittos.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:41PM
Try to imagine Obama saying "Government isn't the solution to the problem; Government IS the problem."
I dare you. Your head will spontaneously combust.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 4:42PM
I disagree with the notion that W was dumb. If you read some of his speeches instead of listening to them, its much easier to see. W, in my opinion, had conservatism at heart, but was misguided in his later years as president.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 5:37PM
I think W is intelligent, he's just more of a Maine Republican, (like his dad) than a Texas Republican.
CalMark| 3.18.11 @ 1:13PM
Let's not forget the Specter Fiasco, when Bush spit in the eye of conservatives by endorsing Specter over Toomey in 2004.
Bush could have stayed out of the fight, and Toomey would have won the nomination and probably Specter's seat, because 2004 was a good GOP year. Instead, Bush pushed Specter over the top, warmly endorsing him more or less, "because he was there."
The conservative blogosphere went ballistic, and Bush destroyed much of any remaining conservative good feelings for him. Perhaps the viciously vile Democrat campaign, which goaded conservatives into voting against M. Jean-Francois, allowed Bush to eke out a victory. Otherwise, the Specter Fiasco could have played no small part in giving us President Kerry.
The damage for Bush's pigheaded Establishment RINO "Hug-the-Democrats" game has been incalculable. It gave us Specter, leading to Obamacare and other legislitave atrocities; it prevented confirmation of originalist judges; it shattered the GOP and gave us McCain and ultimately, Obama. If the most alarming predictions turn out to be true, Bush's obstinate treachery to his own party and base could be the indirect cause of the death of the United States of America.
Bush is not a complete failure only because of his Supreme Court appointments and his stand against terror. In the case of the latter, though, he fought wars with kid gloves, frequently betraying American military personnel, so as not to offend our enemy.
Bush IS one of the worst presidents ever, but for the oppposite reasons Democrats give.
Casey Abell| 3.18.11 @ 1:15PM
Reagan will always get a pass from conservatives because he talked such a good game. But when you start examining his record - immigration amnesty, big tax hikes, running from Lebanon, selling arms to Iran, a large expansion in the federal budget even after inflation, O'Connor and Kennedy, etc. - well, the talk doesn't seem quite so good.
Still, Wehner will get nowhere challenging Reagan among conservatives. Reagan remains a secular saint for conservatives, while Bush is the evil RINO. No point-by-point examination of the actual record will ever change that.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 1:40PM
Reagan couldn't have his cake and eat it too. Everything he beleived in had to be compromised a bit because he never had the luxury of a republican congress. That's why they called them "Reagan Democrats"
David T| 3.18.11 @ 1:47PM
True, RR's actual record doesn't stack up to the Reagan legend. And I still don't understand why he didn't retaliate after Hezbollah (i.e., Iran)bombed the military barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 U.S. servicemen.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:16PM
Because liberals like yourself would bash him for being a war-mongering fascist, but since he didn't do anything, now you want to bash him for not doing it.
You liberals are impossible to please. If all these things are true, Reagan should be the Liberals favorite president of all time.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 2:00PM
Sorry, Casey, the proof is in the pudding. After Reagan's eight years in office, the Reagan and Republican Party brand was so strong Americans elected him for a third time with Bush the elder as his stand in.
We all know what happened after GWB finished his two terms. RINO Bush's massive spending mis-adventures shredded our party, leaving it so weakened and in such disrepute Americans elected a radical Leftist in 2008. Only the courageous activism of the Tea Party has saved us.
Say what you want, but you and others like you will never be able to besmirch Ronald Reagan's name by trying to rewrite history. We were there and we remember.
Casey Abell| 3.18.11 @ 2:27PM
Again, Reagan's shortcomings get downplayed or ignored. He lost the Senate in 1986 and more than two dozen House seats in 1982. In fact, the 1982 election left the Republicans with only 166 seats in the House, fewer than they had after the 2008 election.
Reagan recouped some of those seats in 2004, but the Democrats controlled the House throughout his tenure. Bush helped the GOP control both houses for most of his eight years. This isn't to denigrate Reagan - every president has his electoral ups and downs, Reagan and Bush included.
It's just that conservatives remember Reagan's wins and forget his losses. They remember Bush's losses and forget his wins. It's always going to be that way.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:04PM
REAGAN, not congress, won his election in 84 by winning 49 of 50 states.
You take the election records of a democrat controlled congress 3/4 of the way through a 40 year run.
But don't let the facts get in your way there, buddy.
CalMark| 3.18.11 @ 3:07PM
REAGAN "lost the Senate"? Almost all GOP Senators were RINOs (even more so than now) who fought Reagan tooth and nail about almost everything. They lost big because they were RINOs with no coherent message.
As for the 1982 analogy: learn your history. The "Solid South" (solidly Dem, that is) still had a decade to run. A lot of those guys were conservative Democrats, a breed that doesn't exist anymore. They formed a coalition with the Republicans to get a lot of Reagan's agenda passed.
CalMark| 3.18.11 @ 3:08PM
P.S. In 1980, they won 12--count 'em, 12--Senate seats. I imagine you think that was in spite of Reagan...
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:10PM
Not to mention, one could say that reagan is the real reason for the 1994 end of said 40 yr run. AND the change in the entire political scene and moved this country to the center-right.
just sayin'.
Casey Abell| 3.18.11 @ 3:18PM
Reagan gets credit for wins in 1994 that occurred six years after he left office? Meanwhile, he gets no blame for losses in 1982 and 1986, when he was actually in office?
Come on, guys, this is getting funny. Reagan won some and he lost some, just like Bush and most other presidents. But Reagan's losses - and his substantive policy mistakes - get flushed down the memory hole for too many conservatives.
I think Reagan was easily the greatest president of the post-WWII era. But he wasn't perfect, he didn't always do the right (in both senses) thing, and he lost some political battles. Sorry, this is just a recognition of reality.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:33PM
If anything, Reagan turned this country into a center-right country. I hate to be repetitive but you liberals are pretty thick-headed.
A shift in power in Congress is more a sign of a change in ideology in the country as a whole.
P.S. I didn't give him credit, I said, "one could say" as in "one could argue." Precisely what I'm doing.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:47PM
I never said Reagan was perfect, I just said he was damn near.
I like GWB, I just wish he had been stronger that's all. Obama's destruction of our country is horrifying, and I don't think he would have been elected if the Republican party hadn't allowed the Left to define us.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:51PM
I think Reagan was easily the greatest president of the 20th century.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 4:43PM
Correction: Best EVER!
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 5:40PM
Nah, George Washington will always be number one, in more ways than one!
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:18PM
It's always going to be that way because it's the truth. The stark differences between the election outcomes of 1988 and 2008 say it all.
I defended GWB for eight long years, and that wasn't easy; much the of withering criticism from the Left was tough to bear. Too bad W didn't deem it important to be a strong stand-bearer of the Republican Party and defend Conservatism and loyal American Conservatives like me.
Casey Abell| 3.18.11 @ 3:21PM
Well, how about the stark differences in the election outcomes between 1982 and 2002? I guess that says nothing.
Reagan himself got a lot of withering criticism - from the right. His tax hikes, immigration amnesty, and arms sales to Iran were particular sore points. But it's all forgotten now, somehow.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:23PM
You're right, Casey, RR made mistakes--but he never got us a freakin' Obama. Give me a break!!
Casey Abell| 3.18.11 @ 3:29PM
Bush never got us a freaking Kerry, either. But nobody remembers that.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:35PM
Geez! you liberals can't see the forest through the trees...
8 years of Reagan = a third term in the form of HW Bush.
8 years of W Bush = The most radical leftist president our country has seen is elected.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:39PM
What does that have to do with RR? Besides, 2004 was a lot closer than it should have been. GWB never defended himself and his policies, he believed he was above the political fray. He was wrong.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:29PM
GWB is getting some of that criticism from the Right right now, wouldn't you say? W's gotten plenty of criticism from the Right; well-deserved I might say.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:21PM
--standard-bearer---
mysterian| 3.18.11 @ 2:12PM
Reagan's experience in '86 amnesty led to today's enforcement first demand.
I'm still amazed that most right side pundits don't recognize that their Mier's response showed their principles to be of the same cloth as the emperor's new clothes.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:13PM
These Liberals want to make Ronald Reagan out to be one of their own, but anyone who knows who the real Reagan is (Beyond the presidency - pre-1980) knows that this man was the second coming of Goldwater.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:25PM
You notice the Left has no desire to make GWB out to be one of their own. Hmmmm, wonder why.
Casey Abell| 3.18.11 @ 3:28PM
Um, what? Conservatives' opinions of presidents should depend on what leftists think?
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:34PM
They had a point about W's mis-management of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. As a Conservative, GWB's massive spending and support for amnesty were difficult to defend.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:37PM
Personally, I don't give a flying f--- what you leftists think. You are a cancer on this country and you must, and will be defeated! again!
Greta| 3.18.11 @ 4:17PM
AMEN!!!
Ted| 3.18.11 @ 3:34PM
James,
Your point are well take, but I wish you would add one more critical point:
Bush was dealing with a MUCH more favorable Congress.
It is truly amazing Reagan was able to get any tax cut, let alone what he did. He was dealing with the Tip O' Neils etc.
Bush had a majority or near majority in both houses for most of his administration.
Does anyone remember that.
I don't believe Bush was ever a conservative.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:35PM
Me neither.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 3:38PM
Buckley's book, "The Reagan I Knew" is a good one.
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 3:48PM
Buckley's another great!
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 4:45PM
You are correct, sir. Where would this world be without the intellectuals like buckley and bob tyrell?
NoLib| 3.18.11 @ 5:41PM
Now you're just kissing up! :)
OldUncleTom| 3.18.11 @ 9:44PM
I worked on Reagan's 1970 campaign for governor of California, and supported his through both terms in the White House.
But reading this article, I find myself laughing that the author takes this topic so seriously today, yet writes as if he is deciding whether Moe or Shemp is the funniest stooge.
Is this what modern conservatism is down to? No wonder the RedNeck Mardi Gras is taking over the GOP!
Jonah| 3.18.11 @ 10:07PM
RINO elitists just like you nearly destroyed the Republican party and are the reason we want to nominate a true Conservative like Reagan to run against Obama.
Worthless countryclub snobs like you need not apply.
OldUncleTom| 3.19.11 @ 8:11PM
Today's "true conservatives" would not tolerate Reagan's ability to work with others, or his willingness to compromise.
Reagan was far too practical to pass modern GOP vetting, but you go ahead and believe in the cartoon character you have made of him, if it makes you feel better.
Jonah| 3.19.11 @ 8:50PM
Nice try rewriting history. Reagan was more conservative than the other Republican candidates in 1980.
You RINOs are good at compromise, alright, good at compromising your principles that is. I'm not even sure if cynics like you have principles.
You're just Democrat-lite; why should the American people choose Democrat-lite when they can choose the real thing?