Just when Ronald Reagan seems to have survived a Nationalist Right charge that his philosophy was a kind of zombie Libertarianism, here comes Henry Olsen promoting his 2017 The Working Class Republican book theme saying that Reagan was a Franklin D. Roosevelt New Dealer.
The occasion was an Olsen-Devine debate umpired by Modern Age editor Daniel McCarthy on the subject of: Who was the real Ronald Reagan? My response was to quote Reagan himself when he visited with the top conservative leadership in Washington soon after he was elected president. He referred to several well-known conservative intellectuals who had influenced him but “it was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture.” He said Meyer “fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought — a synthesis that is recognized by many as modern conservatism.” (READ MORE from Donald Devine: Ronald Reagan Is Still the Answer to Conservative Disarray)
I was there and I heard him say it! That philosophical synthesis was called “conservative fusionism.” Reagan himself rose as part of that early William F. Buckley Jr. political movement at National Review magazine. He read the books and supported the politics, rising to governor and two successful terms as president inspired by those ideals. After all these years the polls show that Ronald Reagan is still the most popular conservative political and governmental leader, and few think he was anything like FDR.
The fusionist answer is to reinvigorate both freedom and tradition, especially what Reagan called the “secret” of our success, federalism.
Henry Olsen begs to differ and his book on Reagan was very subtle. His normal process was to list some two-dozen word statement by Reagan and emphasize some phrase from it that had an FDR-like sound to build his case for Reagan New Dealism. Olsen might even concede that some of the words did not fit FDR, but that they could be explained away — and were. He would say “I have no doubt Reagan would want to cut the budget today” but then add — but he would do so “carefully and with an eye toward need.” Well, sure, but how does that make him a New Dealer?
I guess one could make the case Reagan was similar to Columbia University economist Raymond Moley who early on helped organize Roosevelt’s so-called Brain Trust. But he very soon broke with FDR and became the major intellectual opponent of the New Deal. Steven F. Hayward, an academic author of a two-volume biography of Reagan, told Olsen that Reagan might at most have held merely one of FDRs four major beliefs.
History shows that Reagan actually opened his 1976 campaign directly contrasting himself to Roosevelt. Olsen quotes Reagan saying that “Franklin Delano Roosevelt embarked on a course that made bold use of government to ease the pain of those times.” But Reagan added that even FDR became concerned that abuses had taken place and that “unfortunately, that warning went unheeded” so that “today, there is an economic autocracy, born of government’s growing interference in our lives.” Olsen reports but does not emphasize that Reagan only conceded that “some of his [FDRs] measures seemed to work” — that is, only some, seemed to work.
In 1976, Reagan actually proposed to cut a third of domestic spending in such areas as education, job training, community development, commerce, welfare, law enforcement grants, revenue sharing, Medicaid, energy, and transportation. Olsen correctly noted that Reagan had to back down from these cuts and conceded it was for political reasons but emphasized that Reagan did expect the states and localities to pick up much of the support for any cuts. But how does belief in decentralization show he was compassionate like FDR, who centralized policy? To Reagan, devolving power to states was no minor distinction but essential federalism. Olsen responded that Reagan did not argue the national government had “no role” at all. Of course not.
Olsen quotes Reagan when running for governor; but he emphasized the beginning phrase rather than the stronger conclusion. Reagan began — “We cannot accept the negative philosophy of those who close their eyes” hoping life’s “problems will disappear.” But, Reagan added, “neither should we unquestionably follow those who pass the problems along to the Federal Government, abdicating their personal and local responsibilities. The trouble with that decision is that for every ounce of federal help we get we surrender an ounce of personal freedom.”
The fact is Reagan was reasonable and made concessions to reality but “every ounce” is a rather strong libertarian statement. Olsen stresses Reagan favored Social Security, supported by his popular 1964 Barry Goldwater election speech. But in that speech Reagan said that supporters “lied about” Social Security being fiscally sound, and that Goldwater would make it into “real insurance.” Actually, FDR had a sound retirement system in New York that Reagan would prefer at the state level. In fact, when he became president, Reagan even touched the “third rail of politics,” cutting benefits for Social Security by increasing the retirement age, saving billions. (READ MORE: Left, Right, and Center Agree Big Government Doesn’t Work)
The so-called New Deal moderate Reagan even proposed a plan to transfer Medicaid into a totally federal block grant but in exchange for the federal AFDC and other welfare policies to be transferred entirely to the states. That did fail but he still transferred 77 national welfare plans into nine broader state block grants. He (with some help from the author) cut the sacrosanct Federal Retirement program by billions in regulatory changes and created a new program taking costs down from 44 to 20 percent of payroll, saving multiple billions.
Unlike FDR, Reagan proposed a tough market program to fight stagflation and had the courage to mostly stick with it, even into a recession, losing 28 House seats in the following election. But this resulted in 25 years of prosperity thereafter. He proposed a gold commission to reduce the Federal Reserve’s ability to manipulate the market. It was unsuccessful, but he did get the Fed to informally follow gold prices which they generally did until the 2008 Great Recession.
Reagan cut non-defense federal budget spending by nine percent, reducing 100,000 employee slots. He rejected his California policies and supported the Hyde Amendment, Federal Health, and Charity Drive restrictions limiting abortion. On defense, as Margaret Thatcher said, he won the Cold War without firing a shot and committed fewer overseas troops than most other Presidents.
Some moderate! In 2014, Olsen (and associate Peter Wehner) questioned whether Reagan actually cut nondefense spending, although Olsen somewhat separated himself later. Wehner argued that Reagan actually increased domestic spending from $149.9 billion in 1981 to $173 billion in 1988. But he counted “budget outlays” rather than “budget authority,” and did not account for the fact Reagan’s Reconciliation Act had reduced spending from the previous Carter fiscal year’s1981 budget. A 1991 budget table that took it into account found a 9.6 percent decrease.
In a more recent interview Olsen argued that fusionism has failed because it is unable to fuse traditionalism and freedom into a plan for today. But fusionism is a balance, a tension, a synthesis between freedom and tradition rather than a Hegelian fusion with a plan. The fusionist answer is to reinvigorate both freedom and tradition, especially what Reagan called the “secret” of our success, federalism, which since the New Deal has been undermined ounce by ounce until it has become an impregnable mountain inhibiting free traditional decisions by free peoples. (READ MORE: Thank Media’s Toxic Culture Wars for Today’s Universal Unhappiness)
So what is the bottom line about the real Reagan? He, like almost everyone today, thinks big government does not work. But Olsen insists 100 years later it must be defended. Even Woodrow Wilson’s progressive Brookings Institution — knows it does not work.
In his 2014 article replying to my earlier critique, Olsen claimed that the real issue was not whether Reagan was a fusionist but whether he was a “pure” libertarian. But he conceded, “Devine ends his piece by arguing that Reagan believed in a blend of traditional and libertarian thought. I agree.” So Reagan’s was not New Deal thinking but fusionist philosophy, right?
Donald Devine is Senior Scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during the president’s first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 11 books, including, most recently, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles — and he is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator.
