This is supposedly a link to the interview with the Reno Gazette Journal, in which Barack Obama compares the current times to 1980 when he alleges the country was “ready for a change” and that Ronald Reagan effectively capitalized on that desire.
Let’s see. I’ve read follow up articles from Obama supporters in which they try to pitch this as a nuanced expression – Obama was discussing the times, and the Gipper’s ability to capitalize on the mood of the nation, but not praising Reagan’s policies? (Friends, Democrats, countrymen, I come to bury Reagan, not praise him?)
Problem #1: Obama makes this reference during a time in which the Republicans are falling over themselves comparing themselves and their policies to Reagan. Even Rudy Giuliani repeats “Reagan, Reagan, Reagan” in between saying “9/11, 9/11, 9/11″. So this comparison or analysis is not happening in a vacuum; it’s not part of an abstract debate. Either Obama knows this and is trading on the popularity of Reagan anyway, or the man is inexcusably clueless (the Ken Lay problem).
Problem #2: Obama calls Reagan’s popularity a reaction to the “excesses of the 1960s and 1970s”. This in fact may have been true about his election and perhaps even re-election. But Reagan was also very clearly saying one thing and doing another. The “shining city on the hill” was also selling arms to Iran to fund covert operations in Nicaragua; participating in violent regime change in and Panama; busting PATCO; allegedly negotiating with Iran to hold US hostages until after the election; blowing out the budget and deficit to fund the military-industrial complex, etc. Does this bring back any fond memories? Is this what the country needs – an affable wolf, who will try to run covert circles around Congress and the Judiciary?
Problem #3: Reagan’s election was a reaction to the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. Obama gives the American electorate too much credit here for both foresight and historical memory. One doesn’t have to look too far back to see why Reagan was elected: high interest rates, gas/oil embargo, Iran hostages, Carter’s uninspiring personality. Reagan could have explicitly promised all the things he ended up doing: blowing out the budget and deficit, invading small defenseless countries, extending the power of the executive branch through covert operations, etc., and he still would have been elected. And it would have been just a lot more of the same as the 1960s. Americans were reacting to Jimmy Carter, not voicing a desire for some paradigmatic shift.
I don’t want to go on and on. I think the bottom line is: if you’re trying to appeal to Democrats, especially progressives, it’s crazy to bring up the reminder of the last long dark period in American politics. Between Reagan and Bush I, there were twelve years of the same crazy neo-cons who re-surfaced in the administration of Bush II. Mentioning Reagan favorably in a speech or interview rubs a raw wound for Democrats and progressives; it should be considered the third rail of especially primary politics. At best, that kind of pandering to conservatives should be saved for the general election.
