This Election is NOT About Ronald Reagan

It's over. We lost.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, folks, but we've gone from refighting the battles of 1968 to refighting the battles of 1980. The right-wing seems fixated on refighting the battles of 1992, but we'll get to that another time. Right now, it's time for a wake up call.

It's over. We lost.

Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan in 1980. Reagan cloaked a reactionary conservative message in a message of optimism and change. He won the message battle so effectively that in 1984, he won a massive 49 state landslide victory. And he did so because he convinced many Democrats to support him.

Somehow that message got lost because a lot of us are too interested in playing "gotcha" politics and focusing on the past rather than the problems that face us today.

Coalitions are important, because they help build the majority to fundamentally change things. When you start operating on bad faith, that's when things stall. That's when nothing gets done. You don't need much proof of that beyond the last eight years.

I understand the temptation to fight back. I really do. When you've been beaten and bullied by fearmongering reactionaries for near three decades, it's hard to think of any other option but to fight back. And you know what? Fighting back is necessary sometimes. When they engage in a partisan witchhunt of a sitting president. When they call us traitors and cowards. When they smear the war record of a decorated hero. But here's where we went off the rails: You've stopped fighting the politicians. Now you're fighting the voters.

Because Barack Obama is talking about uniting the country again. The Republicans are foaming at the mouth trying to divide us. To drive a wedge between us. To use fear to win. Again.

And what has the reaction of this community been, for the most part? Obama's compromising. He's conciliatory. He's talking like Joe Lieberman. He's not one of us.

There is a difference between Rush Limbaugh and a Republican who voted for George W. Bush twice because he felt he was a "regular guy," or maybe really believed in the war in Iraq at the time. There's a difference between Sean Hannity and the Republican voter who didn't see a compelling reason to cross party lines to vote for John Kerry. There's a difference between Joe Lieberman and a working-class Democrat who voted for Reagan in 1984.

You want those voters back? You start operating on good faith. You don't make voters feel stupid for voting for Bush. Everyone but the dead-enders know how lousy a President he is right now. No one has to be told that they made a mistake voting for the man. If we reach out to them, they will vote for us in November.

But those same voters won't be happy to hear a candidate who attacks Ronald Reagan. Part of the beauty of the Republican obsession with the Gipper right now is that none of them have an ounce of the political skill he possessed. They pale in comparison to Reagan among the GOP faithful right now. Many Republicans - dissatisfied with the Bush administration - might give the Democrat a chance, if we give them a compelling reason to do so.  

And if we do it right, we're going to win over voters across the aisle to build a coalition greater than the Reagan coalition, rivaling the New Deal coalition in its ability to create real and lasting change.

I can't settle for the same old battles. Not when we've got the opportunity for so much more.

•  Tips

  For change.

  by ptmflbcs on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:02:55 PM PDT

  •  The 1984 landslide was not entirely due to

    Reagan having a successful message.  He also had a poorly positioned and ineffective opponent.

    I said it at that time:  it is a huge mistake to nominate the Vice President of the President who was just defeated for re-election in a landslide.  That ticket had been firmly repudiated by the voters.  Better to give someone else a chance.

    Then Mondale compounded the problem by 'promising' to raise everyone's taxes.   It may have been honest, but it has to be among the most politically stupid moves I've ever seen anyone make.  After that, he had absolutely no chance at all.

    But, Mondale won the nomination because it was "his turn".  Now Hillary claims it is "her turn," but half the electorate already swears they will vote against her.  This would put a Hillary nomination in the same class as the Mondale nomination:  an electorally suicidal move for the Democratic Party to make.

    by John Poet on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:49:12 PM PDT

•  Beautifully said

  I believe this is THE decision democrats have to make.

  The choice couldn't be more clear.

  by broui on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:07:51 PM PDT

•  A burst of rationality through cloudy skies

  Thanks

  by science first on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:11:28 PM PDT

•  NOW you tell us.

  Crap.

  by Rob Cole on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:14:25 PM PDT

  •  already sent in that vote, Rob?

    no takebacks.

    by Kimball on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:31:38 PM PDT

    •  Yep.

      Looks like I'll have to leave the country now.

      by Rob Cole on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:46:56 PM PDT

•  "so much more"....

  What is the "so much more"? When Republicans cross over, what are they expecting and what happens to catching up on some of the progress our Democratic party hasn't been successful at making since 1994?

  Will Obama only take us treading water in the name of compromise? Whereare we goingwith him? I still don't know.

  Also, are you suggesting we go along with the "Reagan was great" ruse to fool Republicans? (because he wasn't at all great when it came to social democracy)

  And was there a difference, really between Joe Lieberman (VP candidate in 2000) and the Democrats who ran away from Jimmy Carter toward a wave of new conservative idealism in '80?

  by Iddybud on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:15:59 PM PDT

  •  The power of a mandate.

    The Clintons believed that to win over Republican voters, you needed to move to the center. That wasn't the case. Bill Clinton didn't win over any Republican voters despite moving to the center. Obama is going about a different strategy. He is defining the center around his own progressive policies.

    by ptmflbcs on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:22:15 PM PDT

    •  Ahistoric contrast.. Hillary 2008's not Bill 1992

      Bill Clinton had Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush to beat in '92. One of Clinton's first acts as President (regarding gays in the military) was incredibly controversial and showed he was not exactly the centrist he'd run as being. Some on the far left said he should've gone further with Don't Ask Don't Tell, but I can still recall the buzz..the controversy..even with moderates.. at the time. After he insinuated that the U.S. had gotten "two for the price of one", meaning his wife as a partner (re: healthcare) rather than traditional first lady, the claws really came out and the gloves came totally off of the right wing. By '94, Clinton was nudged by mid-term elections back into the role of centrist where he'd remain for the rest of his years. If he hadn't done so, nothing would ever have been accomplished by Congress. They played hardball with him and conducted investigation after investigation on him. His Congress would've looked like our current Congress....getting nothing accomplished...had he not been a President who sought consensus.

      But that was governing without a Democratic majority.It's hopeful (and looking like) our next President will be a Democrat and will have a Democratic majority in Congress for the first time in many, many years. This is a time to be bold...not to play at bipartisanship.

      I don't see how Republicans have changed their stripes, although W. Bush has given the party a shitty name and sent them into a state of confusion about who they are in 2008. They're weak, even though still stubbornly partisan.

      What causes you to think Hillary Clinton has to (or will) take the same approach as her husband did 15 years ago? The Democrats are finally free, by political circumstance, to take advantage of our party's progressive strengths.

      Obama will meet the same mythical "center" that any Democratic president would meet in 2008. If he's going to "define" it as you say, he'll be doing it from where he first meets those who've elected him...and too many of them may be Republicans.

      There's a price to be exacted from promising them something in exchange for a vote,is there not?

      I still sit here unconvinced that this spells "progress" for those of us from the progressive tradition.

      by Iddybud on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:13:48 PM PDT

      •  What causes me to think that?

        Mark Penn, Terry Macauliffe, etc.

        The American people are a lot smarter than Clinton's advisors seem to think.

        by ptmflbcs on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:24:50 PM PDT

        •  I don't understand what you're saying here

          Was this a reply to my comment? If so, I have absolutely no idea what you're insinuating.

          by Iddybud on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:27:01 AM PDT

•  Just the same Hillary's Lieberman remark

  doesn't mean shit to me either.  This election ain't about Lieberman or Reagan.  We're not electing a candidate because of what he or she said about somebody else.  As an Obama supporter I'm disappointed that so many Obama supporters jumped all over Hillary for her comment about Lieberman after the shit Obama went through for his Reagan comment.  The supporters of both sides need to stop being so petty.

  by puakev on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:20:36 PM PDT

•  "NOT About Ronald Reagan" -- it's NOT ??

  I had no idea til now.

  As for it's over.

  It became "over" when an entire branch of govt, under assault as inferior in relevancy to a growing Unitary Executive, stood by and did nothing about it.

  Not even after seeing the entire DOJ scandal excavated, revealing just how hollowed out the judiciary is, as well. And how controlled by partisan politics.

  And congress has done nothing. Nice letters. but nothing.

  Presidential Candidates are fine with this. They are fine with no accountability -- or you would hear THAT being a campaign issue. It's not. Instead faux things like "Chnage" and "Experience".

  Sen Obama went so far, months ago, as to saying that Impeachment should not be taken lightly. That Bush/Cheney indeed had done some bad things, but that we should make sure that we reserve Impeachment for extraordinary crimes against our COnstitution. (And what, I wonder, would those be  -- with the threshhold for "serious crimes" not met according to the Accomdationist Senator who wants to bridge America.

  It's over when our COngress votes to uphold domestic spying. It's over when FISA is reauthorized -- and over when a Democratic Party Senate Majority Leader schemes to disregard the hold on legislation in committee placed by a fellow Democratic Senator.

  it's over when your Speaker of the House condemns a member of her party for stating with hyperbole that Bush has made a game of killing people overseas.

  It's over when both those above events, in two different chambers, happen on the very same day -- which they did.

  But you won't hear about that.

  It's over because we're now considered a Torture State by our friends Canada.

  And it's over because we our elected leadership -- and our Presidential Candidates -- do not make it their high priority to restore Checks and Balances and the rule of law, by voting NOW, vs lofty promises of actions to be taken only AFTER ascension to the Presidencial throne in Jan 2009.

  The election might as well be about Reagan, or Nixon, or Tigers in the San Francisco Zoo. Becasue it's certainly not about fixing this country NOW -- not after one's annointment.

  America is broke and broken. And that's a real shame. But by all means carry on Daou and other worthless homepage recommended diary content.

  by rhfactor on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM PDT

•  There's a very important factor...

  ...that it seems everyone has overlooked about how Reagan beat Carter.

  Perhaps the most important factor.

  Forget his grandpa persona, forget his codes, forget the perception of his "message for change".

  Ronald Reagan beat Carter because the Reagan campaign convinced the government in Iran to hold the American hostages until after the presidential election.

  The Carter Administration had made real progress with the Iranian government and that government was on the verge of releasing the hostages to Carter. The only real problem the Iranians had was that Carter refused to sell them the weapons they wanted.

  The hostage thing hurt Carter more than anything else. If he could have got the hostages released, through diplomacy, while still being tough with the Iranians about refusing to sell them weapons, he would have beat Reagan.

  But the Reagan Administration convinced the Iranians to hold the hostages, release them to his administration if he won, and they would give to or sell to the Iranian government any weapons they wanted.

  I think it was the very day after Reagan was elected that the Iranian government announced they were releasing the hostages to the new Reagan Administration and it was shortly after that that the Reagan Administration began the illegal transfer of weapons to the Iranians.

  Sorry to jump into your diary for this but I forgot to post it in any of the other Obama/Clinton/Reagan diaries and decided to use your diary as an opportunity to post it.

  Reagan became president of the United States by committing treason, not by inspiring The People.

  by Rex Manning on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:28:41 PM PDT

  •  Thats true...

    And well spoken!!

    by RDemocrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:32:45 PM PDT

    •  Thank you.

      by Rex Manning on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:35:02 PM PDT

      •  True.

        And seemingly fast becoming lost to general memory, this story.

        by Rob Cole on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:57:08 PM PDT

        •  It totally slipped my mind...

          ...until early this evening.

          by Rex Manning on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:25:42 PM PDT

  •  Ugh.

    Correction:

    But the Reagan Administration convinced the Iranians to hold the hostages...

    should read...

    But the Reagan campaign convinced the Iranians to hold the hostages...

    by Rex Manning on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:27:39 PM PDT

•  But...

  What you fail to realize is that Obama attacked the NRA and if he was nominated, they would mount a huge advertising blitz in every single southern, and mid-western swing state there is. In some of those areas, attacking the NRA is considered an attack on the Constitution itself. In the general, Obama will actually drive more of these voters away than he will attract.

  by RDemocrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM PDT

  •  In swing states . . .

    it might have an impact.  It won't have any impact though in GOP strong-holds where the vote is likely to already tilt heavily towards the GOP.

    Regardless of who wins the nomination they will be attacked by some special interest group.  Even John Edwards might be vulnerable based on his stance on the assault weapons ban.

    I also think that the economy and other national stories might trump fears of losing second amendment rights -- at least amongst a substantial segment of independent voters.

    by NotGeorgeWill on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:05:42 PM PDT

•  Reagan cited FDR as a role model.

  And we all know how traitorous Reagan was to the Republican party as a result.

  by Bundy on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:32:08 PM PDT

•  Of course it is!

  Because we'll be running against Reagan in 2008.

  I don't mean that the Republicans, failing to find a nominee to everyone's taste by their convention, will dig up Reagan's corpse, name him Party President-for-Life along the lines of Kim Il-sung, and run him at the top of their ticket -- though I wouldn't put it past them.

  Rather (and this is functionally identical) they will, lacking any message of their own, position their candidate as Reagan's heir.

  McCain: "I'm as old as Reagan was -- when he left office!  And I can't remember things!"

  Romney: "Look at my hair.  Reagan inspired this hair.  Well, actually, I cut it right off his scalp and glued it to my head."

  Huckabee: "God sent Reagan before me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop and unfasten.  I am the servant of Reagan, the Lord's anointed!"

  Giuliani: "I'll never forget 9/11. My first thought was: Ronald Reagan."

  Thompson: "You want wrinkles?  I got wrinkles!"

  It'll be like that comic book where Superman dies and all these heroes appear from nowhere, either claiming to be Superman or to have somehow inherited his cape.   It'll be the Reign of the Reagans.  If we're not equipped to argue against Re-run Reaganism now, when will we be?

  by WIds on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:18:46 PM PDT