Over the
years following the end of his presidency, Ronald Reagan’s name has gained an
almost mythical reverence among many modern Conservatives. Yet, given the GOP’s dramatic shift to the
right in recent years, the fact is that a comparative moderate like Reagan
would find it very difficult to gain support from contemporary Republicans. How could today’s Conservatives ever stand
behind a man who was once a registered Democrat, the president of a union, and
an admirer of FDR? Could they support
someone who advocated gun control, increased the size of government, and preferred
diplomacy over military action?
The answer to these questions
appears obvious. Despite their
unflagging admiration for him, were the “Conservative patron saint” to run for
president today, he would most likely be met with hate, scorn and humiliation.
Here are 10
reasons why today’s GOP would shun the true Ronald Reagan:
1) He was originally a
Liberal
Just as his father was a strong
supporter of the Democratic party, so too was the younger Ronald Reagan. For 30 years, from 1932 to 1962, Reagan was a
registered Democrat and cast his first votes for liberal candidates. Later in life, he additionally worked on a
number of Democratic campaigns, including that of Helen Douglas in her failed senate
race against Richard Nixon.
Only in the 50s, when Reagan began
dating a Republican actress, did his views begin to become more
Conservative. This trend continued as he
started working for GE, where he gradually began to adopt the views of his
Conservative employers. However, it was
not until 1962 that he finally switched parties and declared himself a
Republican. [1]
2) Early in his life,
he was a strong supporter of New Deal policies and admired FDR even in his
later years
Reagan cast
his first vote for president in 1932, supporting Franklin Roosevelt. Thereafter, he was an outspoken supporter of
FDR’s policies, and voted for Roosevelt in each of the following three
elections.
Even after
World War II and Roosevelt’s death, Reagan, characterizing himself as “a New
Dealer to the core”, continued to support and admire the man.
Once recounting his beliefs from
that period of his life, Reagan recalled that:
I thought government could
solve all our postwar problems just as it had ended the Depression and won the
war. I didn’t trust big business. I thought government, not private companies,
should own our big public utilities; if there wasn’t enough housing to shelter
the American people, I thought government should build it; if we needed better
medical care, the answer was socialized medicine. [1]
However, even as Reagan’s views
began to drastically change over the years, it seems that ‘the Gipper’ still
harbored a soft spot for FDR. As
president, Reagan frequently mentioned Roosevelt in his speeches, and twice
spoke at events honoring the former leader. [2]
Even though he disagreed vehemently
with Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society legislation, Reagan appears to have seen
a difference between these policies and the New Deal. The evening after giving a speech honoring
Roosevelt, Reagan commented in his diary that “The press is dying to paint me
as now trying to undo the New Deal. I remind them I voted for FDR four times.
I’m trying to undo the ‘Great Society.’ It was LBJ’s war on poverty that led to
our present mess.” [3]
Reagan also took time during one of
his speeches to explain how the New Deal was different from the Great Society,
detailing why he preferred one over the other:
The New Deal gave cash to the poor, but the
Great Society failed to target assistance to the truly needy and made
government the instrument of vast transfer payments, erecting huge
bureaucracies to manage hundreds of social programs. The Great Society failed in two crucial
aspects: It fostered dependence on government subsidies, and it made the
transfer of money from Washington bureaucrats to those in need seem like a
mission impossible.
I was a New Deal Democrat. And
I still believe, today, that there is only one compassionate, sensible, and
effective policy for Federal assistance: We must focus domestic spending on the
poor and bypass the bureaucracies by giving assistance directly to those who
need it.
Comparing these statements
to the rhetoric of the Tea Party and the modern Right-wing, Reagan appears more
like a moderate centrist than the Conservative ideologue that Republicans have
fashioned him to be. For many Conservatives who still admire him today, it seems that they have separated this
aspect of Reagan’s personality from the vision of him contained within their
imaginations.
3) He was an active
member, and then president, of a union
Reagan
attended his first board meeting with the Screen Actors Guild in mid-1941. However, his involvement with the union was
interrupted a little over a year later as he joined the military during World
War II. Nevertheless, after Reagan had
completed his service in 1946, he once again resumed his place within the SAG. There, less than a year later, he was then
elected third vice-president.
However, On
March 10, 1947, just six months later, Reagan was elected president of the
SAG. From there, he would then go onto
serve for another six terms and would lead the SAG through many tumultuous
times, including the Hollywood Blacklist era, the House Committee on
Un-American Activities hearings, and the
SAG’s first three strikes. He would also
meet his future wife through the SAG, actress Nancy Davis. Reagan eventually resigned his presidency in
1960 before moving on in his career. [4]
As
Republicans continue their bald-faced attacks on workers unions, one has to
wonder what Reagan’s modern counterparts would think should they realize that
he, too, was once an active member of such an organization. Were
Reagan to run against a Tea Partier today, how long do you think it would be
before that attack ads, featuring his former left leanings, his admiration of
FDR, and his former union membership, would start to air? Today, it seems hard to imagine a Republican
winning an election, especially a primary, with such a history.
Yet, even assuming that some Conservatives could forgive him of these
previous “offenses”, Reagan would likely have a much harder time escaping the
legacy left behind by his surprisingly Liberal record.
Let us take a closer look.
4) His tax record was
not ‘Conservative enough’
Following
his inauguration as governor of California, Reagan almost immediately raised
taxes to reduce the state deficit. These
measures, coupled with spending cuts, succeeded in balancing California’s
budget and prevented the state from plunging into a fiscal crisis.
Later, as president, Reagan lowered
taxes only twice: once in 1981, and then again 1986. However, this second tax cut, the Tax Reform
Act of 1986 (TRA), was actually surprisingly progressive in nature. Although it lowered taxes on the very rich
from 50% to 28% and increased the bottom tax bracket to 15% from 11%, the bill
imposed the largest-ever corporate tax increase and closed a number loopholes,
thus raising the effective corporate tax rate even further.
Additionally, the TRA also greatly expanded
the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which acted to significantly reduce the
tax burden on many of the working poor. The
EITC has since proven itself one of the most powerful tools to reduce
poverty. However, Conservatives have
recently begun to support removing these measures so that the poor are once
again made to “pay their fair share”.
Furthermore, Reagan raised taxes,
in one form or another, eleven times during his presidency: at least once every
year from 1981 to 1987. These included closing
additional loopholes for businesses, a number of tax hikes to fund Social
Security (particularly for those with high incomes), the Deficit Reduction Act
of 1984, and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA)
(otherwise known as the “greatest peacetime tax hike in American History”). [5]
Reagan also frequently talked about
reforming the tax code and removing loopholes.
In a lighthearted 1985 speech that now sounds eerily similar to recent speeches
given by Barack Obama and other Democrats, Reagan addressed a group of Atlanta
high school students and made clear his intention to crack down on tax dodgers.
In his words:
We’re going to close the unproductive tax
loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their
fair share. In theory, some of those
loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible
for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of
his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it.
If
our current tax structure were a TV show, it would either be Foul-ups, Bleeps and Blunders, or Gimme a Break. If it were a record
album, it would be Gimme Shelter.
If it were a movie, it would be Revenge
of the Nerds or maybe Take the
Money and Run. And if the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, ever wants a
theme song, maybe they'll get Sting to do, ‘Every breath you take, every move you
make, I'll be watching you.’
[6]
Looking at
the history here, it seems that Reagan was a man who understood compromise and valued
pragmatism over idealism. Although he
advocated, and in many cases implemented, Conservative fiscal policies, he was
also capable of recognizing when it was time to make a deal for the common
good.
Compare these actions to those of
his party members inhabiting Congress 40 years later, and you will see a
sickening contrast. Even in the face of
adversity, when our country and her people need them the most, it seems that
they have lost the ability to compromise and come together as the leaders of
our nation. Instead, they sit atop their
hill, bickering and name-calling.
Would Reagan be proud? I don’t think so. Were he here today, Reagan would be among
that diminishing group of Republicans still able to compromise and work
together, even with members of the other party, to get things
accomplished. Yet, as entities such as
FOX News continue their purge of moderate Republicans who “step out of line”,
someone like Reagan likely wouldn’t last very long. He wouldn’t be “obedient” enough.
5) Reagan presided
over soaring deficits and a massive expansion of government
Despite his
campaign promises to balance the budget, cut spending, and shrink the size of
government, deficits soared under Reagan and the federal payroll expanded
immensely. This, however, has largely
been ignored by modern Conservatives as they clamor to praise Reagan and his
policies.
Let’s take a closer look at some of
the fiscal realities of Reagan’s tenure as president.
First and
foremost, Reagan did little to reduce expenditures, as he said he would. In fact, federal spending increased,
averaging out to about 22.6% of GDP during his years as president (compared to
an overall average of 20.6% between 1971 and 2009). As a result, public debt almost tripled,
jumping from $712 billion, to over $2
trillion between 1980 and 1989. [7]
Furthermore, those who say that Reagan
shrank the size of government are badly mistaken. On the contrary, the government instead added
about 61,000 federal employees to the payroll during his years in office (In
comparison, Carter and Clinton shrunk the federal government by 8,000 and 373,000
employees, respectively). [5]
While one could argue that Reagan’s
spending increases might have been justified due to the threat posed by Soviet
Russia and the subsequent military buildup, the claims that he actually reduced
the size of government, and the deficit, are simply incorrect. Although he did cut funding to a number of
programs during the early stages of his presidency, this trend quickly stalled,
and soon Reagan either created new programs to replace those removed or he was
unable to negotiate further spending cuts with the Congress.
6) He wasn’t “hawkish”
enough
Despite the rhetoric applauding his
supposedly tough defense policies, Reagan wasn’t actually the steely-eyed hawk
that he has been made out to be.
Although he greatly increased defense spending and challenged the Soviet
Union, compared to Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton or even Obama, Reagan was
comparatively skittish when it came to actually committing the military to any
kind of conflict.
In reality,
Reagan only presided over two relatively minor wars: the two-day invasion of
Grenada (whose army totaled about 600 men), and the bombing of Libya. Compared to Bush Sr., who launched ground
operations in Panama and Somalia, as well as the Gulf War, or Clinton, who
launched air campaigns in Bosnia, Iraq and Kosovo (all of which were more
significant than the Libyan bombing), Reagan’s record seems positively tame.
[8]
Even comparing his defense policies
to those of Obama, who has responsibly managed the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, authorized the bombing of Libya, utilized drones to great effect,
committed Special Forces units to successfully fight our enemies, and
authorized numerous effective airstrikes; one has to conclude that the idea of Reagan
being “exceptionally” tough when it comes to the military is laughable, at
best.
Ultimately,
Reagan’s foreign policy strength lay in his diplomatic abilities, as well as
the threatening might of our military.
After studying him, it is obvious that he detested the idea of war, and
was willing to do almost anything that he could to avoid it.
Even as Conservatives accuse Obama
of being weak because he signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia,
one has to wonder what Reagan would think of this. He too, after all, signed such treaties and
abhorred the idea of a nuclear war.
Would Reagan not agree with Obama here?
7) He supported gun
control
Although Second Amendment rights
were a strong element of his election campaigns, in action, Reagan was not the
gun lovin’ Conservative that many remember him as. Instead, he took a very common sense approach
when it came to gun control. Like many
current Republicans (and most Democrats), Reagan respected people’s basic
rights, yet realized that some gun regulation is necessary for a society to
function safely.
As governor of California, Reagan
signed the Mulford Act, which, at the time, was the most restrictive gun control
law ever passed in the state. In
addition to imposing a 15-day waiting period on people wishing to purchase guns,
the bill also made it illegal to carry loaded firearms on the street, in public
spaces, or in one’s vehicle. [9]
After his presidency, Reagan also backed several very
important pieces of gun control legislation.
In a 1991 op-ed, Reagan explained the reasons why he
strongly supported the Brady Bill (so named after his press secretary, James S.
Brady, who was badly wounded in the attempt on Reagan’s life), and why he
believed that more stringent gun regulations would benefit the nation.
In his words “[concerning the assassination attempt] This nightmare might never have happened if
legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back
in 1981”
Reagan then went on to explain in more detail why he supported the
bill, clarifying, among other things, the number of lives that could saved if
it were passed. As Reagan argued “This
level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do
that, and I say more power to them.” [10]
Additionally, Reagan also lent key support to the 1994 assault weapons
ban, which only passed the House by two votes.
At least two members credited Reagan’s encouragement as the deciding
factor determining their “yea” votes.
Looking at his record, it is clear
that were Reagan to run for office today, he, like many other Republican
moderates, would likely be crucified by interest groups such as the NRA. Is it any wonder that both Republican and Democratic
politicians have abandoned any attempt to impose new gun regulations, no matter
how potentially beneficial? At what
point did common sense and pragmatism become such punishable sins in the eyes
of the far Right?
8) He granted amnesty
to 2.9 million illegal immigrants
In 1986,
Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which put into
place many measures designed to stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering
the country.
Although the bill was touted as a
crackdown on illegal immigration, it largely failed at this purpose due to the
lack of a sufficient enforcement mechanism.
However, despite this, the bill did create a way for many illegal immigrants
to finally pursue full citizenship, eventually allowing 2.9 million of them to
become fully fledged Americans.
In Reagan’s own words:
We have consistently
supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair
to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to
come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve
the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without
access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of
these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if
they choose, they may become Americans. [11]
It seems that Reagan, as well as other
Republicans of the era, understood the importance of providing a way for
illegal immigrants to come forth and become true citizens. As stated by Republican Congressman Allen
Simpson, “[concerning the IRCA] It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can
bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for
me."
Furthermore, in a 1984 presidential debate with Walter
Mondale, Reagan explained that "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.” [12]
Now, however, with their fervent crackdowns on illegal
immigrants, it seems that many modern Republicans have lost this ability for
empathy. Rather than looking back on the
mistakes made by Reagan’s previous attempts to fix this problem and working to
produce a workable solution that could potentially benefit everyone, many
Conservatives have instead chosen an emotionally charged path of persecution
and vengeance. In a world where the word
“amnesty” is an obscenity, and cooperation is a pipe dream, how can we ever
truly expect to find answers to such urgent problems?
9) He once legalized
abortion
In 1967, as governor of California,
Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, which was designed to cut the
number of dangerous backroom abortions by legalizing the procedure. [13]
Although, to be fair, Reagan later
regretted this decision, the fact still remains that were he to run today with
such a mark on his record, he would have a very hard time convincing the modern
Republican party to embrace him.
Certainly, any Conservative candidate running against him would likely
take advantage of this past action, utilizing the party’s now unforgiving
nature to their advantage.
10) Reagan was against
torture
Like John
McCain, who obstinately refused to support torture despite calls from his party
members otherwise, Reagan, too, recognized the barbarity of such practices and
chose to reject them. Yet, with all the
excuses made for the Bush administration when it was found out that the
military was torturing prisoners of war, one might never have guessed that the
“Conservative idol” was opposed to such acts.
However, in reading his signing statement on the U.N. Convention Against
Torture, it seems that there can be little doubt as to Reagan’s views on the
matter.
From the
signing statement:
The United States
participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It
marks a significant step in the development during this century of
international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the
Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition
to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world
today.
The core provisions of the
Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal
prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each
State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its
territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution. [14]
It is
common knowledge that the arena of American politics has shifted toward the
right over the last decades. However,
the rate at which the GOP has lurched away from the center is startling. Now, after only a little over twenty years,
what used to be the Republican party during Reagan’s era now looks almost
unrecognizable when compared to the modern GOP.
Simply taking into account many Republicans’ general distaste for Mitt
Romney, who is in many ways more Conservative than Reagan, can tell you as
much.
Although
Reagan was, most definitely, a Conservative man, the point to which his image
has been altered to fit the contemporary ideology is astounding. Yet, is it much of a surprise? For those who can profess to live by the word
of Jesus Christ, then turn around and deny aid to the poor, persecute those of
other religions, defend the rich, deny equal rights to homosexuals and support
war, it seems little wonder that they could similarly change their perception
of Reagan’s legacy to fit their beliefs.
Rather than envisioning him as he was, they have distorted Ronald
Reagan’s name and turned it into a platform with which to represent all things Conservative.
Whether truth will ever be
recognized and this state of affairs ended, no one can know. However, one thing can be certain: as of now,
the man and the myth have become two different things.
[1] Reagan, Ronald. An American Life: The Autobiography. Simon & Schuster. New York, 1990. Print. June16, 2012
[2] Snyder, Allen. Ronald Reagan on
Franklin Roosevelt: The Significance of Style. Firstprinciplesjournal. First Principles
ISI Web Journal. Aug. 20, 2008. Web. June 16, 2012.
[3] Reagan, Ronald. The Reagan Diaries. Brinkley, Douglas.
Harper. New York. 2007. Print. June 16,
2012.
[4] Ronald Reagan. Sag.org. Screen Actors
Guild. 2012. Web. June 16, 2012.
[5] Green,
Joshua. Reagan’s Liberal Legacy.
Washingtonmonthly.com. Washington Monthly. Feb. 2003. Web. June 16, 2012.
[6] Ronald Reagan understood "to make a deal he
would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases," said Obama. Politifact.com. Politifact. Apr. 3,
2012. Web. June 16, 2012.
[7] BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: HISTORICAL
BUDGET DATA. Cbo.gov.
Congressional Budget Office. Jan. 2011. Web. June 16, 2012.
[8]
Beinart, Peter. Think Again: Ronald
Reagan. Foreignpolicy.com. Foreign Policy Magazine. Aug. 2010. Web. June
16, 2012.
[9] The Mulford Act. CAL. PEN. CODE § 12031 : California Code - Section
12031. 1967. Web. June 16, 2012.
[10] Reagan,
Ronald. Why I’m for the Brady Bill. Nytimes.com. New York Times. Mar. 29,
1991. Web. June 16, 2012.
[11] Reagan,
Ronald. Statement on Signing the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986. Nov. 6, 1986. Web. June 16, 2012.
[12] A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty for Illegal
Immigrants. Npr.org. National Public Radio. Jul. 4, 2010. Web. June 16,
2012.
[13] Crosby,
Margaret. A Contemporary Abortion Law for
California. ACLU Newsroom. ACLU
of Northern California. Apr. 23,
2002. Web. June 16, 2012.
[14] U.S. Signs U.N. Convention Against Torture.
Findarticles.com. CBS Interactive.
2011. Web. June 16, 2012.