Is Obama the Democrats’ Reagan?
In many ways Obama’s platform is the inverse of Reagan’s. As Reagan did in 1980, today Obama wants to change how America is seen in the world, and promises a profound shift on the defining foreign policy issue of the day. Domestically, Obama, like Reagan, proposes a completely different approach to taxation, and sees the current relationship between the private sector and government as wrongheaded. Of course the substance of the two men’s platforms could scarcely be more different, but in terms of the magnitude of the change they sought to make, they have much in common.
The economic benefits of keeping taxes low are so widely accepted today, at least among Republicans, as to seem commonplace and uncontroversial. Reagan’s supply-side economics were seen at the time, though, as radical, as Wilentz’ history reminds us. It was Reagan whom George H. W. Bush was mocking when he referred to “voodoo economics,” and Bush’s constituency in the Republican Party was broad enough for Reagan to put him on the ticket. Obama’s voting record puts him well to the left of most of his congressional colleagues, but this needn’t be an impediment for him, especially if, as Reagan, he chooses a running mate who is seen as more moderate.
Obama may well find his “Reagan Democrats,” too. Carter’s critics from the left rejected his handling of the economic malaise of the late 1970s, leading many who might otherwise vote Democrat to back Reagan in 1980. Bush, and McCain, who is already being described by some as seeking George W. Bush’s third term, are routinely criticized from the right on foreign policy, and conservatives who see the Iraq War as an unacceptable and lamentable mistake may be drawn to vote for Obama. A number of conservative commentators have already strongly hinted that they prefer him to McCain.
Obama is, as Reagan was, a natural speaker, able to evoke emotion without emoting clumsily himself. There are other similarities of less importance; just as columnists and news anchors speculate whether America is ready for a black president, so was there a genuine question in 1980 about whether a divorced man could be elected president.
There are many differences between the two men. Obama is running against a self-styled “maverick” who may thus be able to distance himself from the deeply unpopular Bush, while Reagan ran against Carter, who could hardly denounce his own policies. Reagan, like Obama, entered politics as a second career, but by the time he ran for president Reagan had significant political experience; service as a state senator, and less than one full term in the US Senate cannot be compared to two terms as Governor of California.
To whatever extent Obama can capitalize on the pendulum swinging in his direction, he may be poised to win sufficient support to gain the Presidency, and his vision of America could transform politics for a generation just as Reagan did, especially if Obama were to win a second term. Obama offers a narrative that appeals not only to Democrats but also to the unaffiliated, and a not negligible number of Republicans, as Reagan put together a coalition among supporters who were not natural allies.
Perhaps the most stark difference of all, though, is in each man’s self-perception. Even after helping to bring about the end of the Cold War and the start of a period of tremendous prosperity, Reagan was habitually modest. By contrast, Obama already casts himself in legendary terms, referring in speeches to his legacy when he has scarcely clinched his party’s nomination. As long as Obama remains more preoccupied with his image and message than with policy and governing, he will approach Reagan only in rhetoric, not in accomplishments.
Give me a break. Obama is the Dems return of Carter. Ron was never a flip flopper or a panderer.
“By contrast, Obama already casts himself in legendary terms, referring in speeches to his legacy when he has scarcely clinched his party’s nomination.”
Reagan was never a megalomaniac, and not one to suffer delusions of grandeur. If anyone could be excused of such high self importance and regard and get away with it, it most definitely would have been the Gipper – but it was never his nature to claim credit for real and major changes he helped engender. Great leaders like Reagan are consistent, lead with strength and purpose, put their nation’s interest ahead of their own, never shy from major challenges and from those that seek to undermine America.
He loved his nation wholeheartedly with unquestionable pride, and the thought of having tea with the enemy and negotiating would without a doubt be viewed as noxious and asinine as Obama’s reluctance to place his hand on his heart during the national anthem or refusing to wear a patriotic lapel pin.
There’s nothing legendary about Obama, he’s a community agitator whose devotees are too blind to scratch below his flimsy veneer; too invested in his cult of personality to acknowledge flaws that reveal critical and very serious weaknesses, that ultimately if his candidacy is fulfilled can and will endanger us all. If he’s the Democrats answer to Reagan, God Help America.
“In many ways Obama’s platform is the inverse of Reagan’s.”
And that is the only reason he is the left’s Reagan.
“Obama is, as Reagan was, a natural speaker, able to evoke emotion without emoting clumsily himself.”
Ever hear him without a teleprompter?
Very good, thought-provoking piece. Twisted as it sounds and as much as I hate to say it, you may have a point. If Obama wins this election, it’ll be a categorical nightmare for this country; if he doesn’t, he’ll be a political martyr. We have to tread very carefully the next few years — let alone the next few months.
Obama is running on a platform of “flip-flops” and lies. Granted, he would make a fantastic evangelical minister with his oratory, however, his resume is more than thin, he has accomplished very little, has no experience in running anything! Do we really want this man our President? I think not, and I believe by November, the majority of American’s will agree. It is my hope that the black community does not mark the ballot because of race/color, but rather who is best at the job. Too many Obama Kool-Aide drinkers out there and it scares the hell out of me!
Obama is a creation of the media, Reagan was the opposite. Reagan ran on three major nation changing ideas. Obama has no ideas.
A great man on the one hand, empty suit on the other.
Have I answered the question?
Like Reagan, Obama will enact disastrous tax policies, pursue illegal, clandestine wars, collaborate with the Iranians, and take credit for anything that inadvertently goes right while he is in office. In that sense, I feel the comparison is valid.
The clandestine war Obama would start unfortunately would be with the American people.
BO has divided this country worse than ever, who would have thought that was even possible? No matter what your opinion of Reagan, he was a uniter and in a big way. Reagan won the electoral vote in a landslide. BO is still scraping for every electoral vote in all the usual toss up states. How is he different again?
“Obama’s voting record puts him well to the left of most of his congressional colleagues, but this needn’t be an impediment for him, especially if, as Reagan, he chooses a running mate who is seen as more moderate.”
True, but isn’t it sad that this should be so — in America, of all places? This is just more evidence of how far to the Left the country has moved since 2000. It continues to be a harbinger of worse times to come unless there is a substantial change in the culture.
Ronald Reagan was a well read man who clearly understood national defense and economic issues. He wrote an amazing amount of articles, letters, and speeches. Reagan was truly one of our best educated presidents. The same most certainly cannot be said of Barack “Barry” Obama. This shallow man has written little except a couple of mildly interesting autobiographies. There is practically nothing available revealing a supposedly well developed political philosophy. Obama is an intellectual lightweight. This also why he is afraid of engaging in debates with John McCain. Reagan attended Eureka College—a little known school. Obama received his law credentials from Harvard University. He is living proof that the far more famous academic institution is often overrated.
What a long, twisted. and winding road to get to this final conclusion:
“As long as Obama remains more preoccupied with his image and message than with policy and governing, he will approach Reagan only in rhetoric, not in accomplishments.”
And there you have it! Obama will NEVER approach Reagan in accomplishments…except in his own mind.
Obama is a narcissist, pure and simple. Reagan was not! Obama is strictly a “wanna-be” mid-American values candidate…Reagan WAS mid-America values personified! I could go on and on…
The differences could not be more stark, except in the political coincidences that mark their campaigns and their “time”. Other than that you are grasping at straws to compare the two…and it isn’t pretty!
Rebecca, just wondering…are you really CANADIAN or just an American living in Canada???
Either way…it figures!
Obama is the “anti-Regan”
Sooner or later there was bound to be a very big showdown with the Left. This election is actually a much-needed confrontation with the Left in the U.S. Up or down, it has to be done. The Gramscian Marxists of the last forty years have penetrated and control every aspect of our education system, and so THEY control the narrative of the country’s history now. As such, their young charges are accustomed to hearing the Left’s ideas on taxation, foreign policy, and culture being elevated to the “high moral ground,” while the conservative narrative is beaten up as retrograde and stupid. What’s more, the kiddies do not even know what the words “Marxism,” “Communism,” or “socialism” mean. Since the early eighties the Left uses the descriptors “liberal” and “progressive” for their worldviews and policy prescriptions, so the kids are genuinely flummoxed when you suggest that Obama is a closet-Communist.
With young people the only way socialism will be finally discredited, in their lifetime anyway, will be for Obama to win and for his policies to harm the economy and the nation’s defense posture and foreign policy. This is why I reject the idea that Obama is on a par with the historical significance of Ronald Reagan. Obama is much more like Jimmy Carter and his reign will be as short and disastrous.
I don’t recall Reagan saying his mere presence could stop the rise of the oceans. Something far more powerful and probably sinister is at work here. Cults of personality always end badly.
Whenever I see Obama’s campaign I have awful, frightening flashbacks to 1997 and Blair’s first: the empty rhetoric, the baseless optimism (for “Yes we can!” read “Things can only get better!”), the leftist agenda hidden by an easy charm that fooled even Conservatives so well that they still believe that the high, wasted, taxes we have today are nothing to do with the guy who ran the show for ten years.
He’s not the Left’s Reagan: he’s America’s Tony. And you really, really don’t want one of those.
This article is rubbish. Disingenuously terms applied vaguely to disguise the extreme and dangerous nature of The Obamboozler and his – ahem – “policies.”
Says Walberg – Reagan and Obama :
“both wanted change”
“both wanted the world to look at their country differently”
“both see a completely different approach to taxation”
“both see the current relationship between the private sector and government as wrongheaded.”
… hey, why not throw Hitler into the mix too…so did he.
Well, maybe it’s “1984″ again.
The thematic likenesses between Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm are: the betrayed revolution; the person’s subordination to the Party collective; the rigorously enforced class distinctions among Party members, i.e. the Inner Party, the Outer Party, the Proletariat; the Cult of Personality; concentration camps; Thought Police; compulsory, regimented, daily exercise; the youth leagues.
As in the Nazi and Stalinist regimes, propaganda is pervasive; Smith’s job is rewriting historical documents to match the contemporaneous party line, the orthodoxy of which changes daily. He re-writes and re-prints newspaper articles (society’s official records) to delete from the collective memory all people rendered unpersons by Party order
Unfortunately….the comparisons are chilling. The propaganda by the deadwood media to match the party line…utilizing distortions, faked photographs, forged documents. The Cult of Personality, where hopey-changey meets abracadabra. The Person’s subordination to the Socialist Party…where ANY straying from the Party line is met with ferocity and venom in extremis. (see, ie Joe Lieberman).
It’s 1984 again…and this is Carter’s Revenge.
No, Obama is the Democrats Carter.
Either he loses badly to McCain and the nation is saved from resurgent socialism… for now. And the Leftists still remain not discredited in the eyes of their adoring young ideologues and idiots. Or…
Obonga wins, and he and his Party put into the nation the poisonous serum of their policies, foreign and domestic, which wreck the economy and cause catastrophe overseas, maybe even a nuclear Iran that throws the dice… And the nation is finally convinced that Socialism IS A FAILURE. IT HAS ALWAYS FAILED EVERYWHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED. The true Marxists were never in the Soviet Union. Stalin killed them or threw them in the gulags. Only in the West have they survived and thrived. And now they await their date with destiny: their final repudiation.
Barack Obama only believes in and promotes Barack Obama. Ronald Reagan believed in, promoted and WAS America.
President Ron was a puppet with big businesses hand working his mouth. Reagan did not bring about the end of communisim. Communisim in the USSR collapsed due to the criminals who ran it and their failed foreign policies. It is always a surprise when fascist on the right accuse the left of being socialist. Capitalism is about to collapse because at its center is greed. Proof – how much did gas cost when Bush was installed as president and how much does it cost now where you live. More proof – where is the $20./barrel promised when we went into Iraq. As of yesterday oil is hovering around $143./barrel. If Sen. Obama is not elected I’ll see you all in the bread lines.
The central difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan was inscrutable even though he had a long public record. Obama in contrast is extemely transparent. Obama is the black version of Bill Clinton. Reagan was comfortable in his own skin. Obama is highly uncomfortable in his skin.
Casey is evidence of the sort of idiots that the dems rely on.
Communism fell all on it’s own, it was just a coincidence that Reagan was busy trying to take them down. Bullpuckey. Not even Gorbachev believes that.
Obama is the Republicans McGovern….
Nothing is more asinine than comparing Obama to Reagan. Obama is the anti-Reagan.
Reagan was not a break from the past, but a return to traditional values and an antidote to decades of “blame America first” Liberalism. Obama’s mantra of “change” is more about “no more Bush.” Obama’s popularity is a secondary symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Obama is not running on a consistent platform and philosophy. He is all over the map speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He is the Zelig of presidential candidates.
What change Obama can offer standing on the liberal Democrat Platform?