With the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan quickly approaching, there appears to be some that want to cause divide in the conservative ranks before the celebration. Take for instance the Los Angeles
100 years after his birth, Republicans clearly still venerate his memory, but they have moved so far to the right that his actual record wouldn't live up to their ideals.
Or but it gets worse. With no reference to who ran Congress the LA Slimes writes, "Moreover, Reagan, the putative foe of big government, accumulated hundreds of billions in debt by the end of his second term. It was Democrat Bill Clinton who cleaned up the mess, leaving a budget surplus behind in 2000.
If you are Tea Party, you know that Reagan can't spend a dime. There is no Constitutional authority for the executive branch to have any power over the purse. It was Democrats who ran Congress, specifically the House of Representatives under Tip O'Neil's lead who had that power. It was after 1995, when Clinton experienced the benefits of budget surpluses because Republicans in Congress running both houses decided to make serious budget cuts. Oh, how the real record is hidden! It seems presidents get a lot of blame, but it's Congress who decides how much to spend overall. Let's not forget, Ronald Reagan never made the argument that we must spend a trillion dollars to get the economy moving either like one Barack Obama. Rather, he used tax cuts like John F. Kennedy believed in to spur economic growth.
In fact, it appears throughout the article the LA Slimes forgets much of what Reagan did. Take for instance the Cold War. Reagan beat the Soviet Union by building up our military and forcing the Soviets to the table. Prior to this, US policy was based on the hope no ground would be lost to communism while looking at how we can co-exist. Reagan knew this didn't work and made tensions between the two countries more intense, so Reagan changed thinking. However, if you were reading the LA Slimes today, you would get a much different take on the matter. They write:
In fact, history may see in Reagan a great president, just not in the mold of his current boosters. His greatness rested precisely in his readiness to abandon his conservative principles when it made sense to do so. That's how he helped achieve the gains often ascribed to him: He delivered the knockout blow to communism by making common cause with the enemy. He protected national security by backing away from nuclear weapons. Had he listened to his apoplectic right-wing critics, the Soviet empire would never have collapsed and the Cold War would not have ended.
This had nothing to do with liberalism. Reagan's strategy wasn't influenced by Democrats or liberalism, it was influenced that communism is evil and it must be defeated. Plane and simple. Today's liberal embraces many of Marx's views, and I am sure Reagan would want nothing to do with it, let alone walk away from his own conservative principles and embrace what the left preaches today.
In short, a bogus myth about Reagan has become far more precious to today's GOP than his actual record. Despite venerating Reagan, the party has moved to the right of him, suggesting that the federal government should be kneecapped and that a unilateralist, militaristic foreign policy would fulfill Regan's legacy. Reagan, however, didn't demonize his enemies, snub allies or try to destroy the federal government.
Really, Reagan has become more precious to today's GOP? You mean the same party that for the last three or four years has become more liberal through neocon beliefs with GOP leaders actually going on record saying we need to get past the days of Reagan, a subject Rush Limbaugh has addressed while cursing the same Republicans for attacking Reagan.
Here's the bottom line through all of this nonsense about Reagan in the LA Slimes.
"In this tsunami of adoration, Reagan is touted as the model of Republican, and even "tea party," virtue."
Liberals don't want Republicans to return to the principled days of Reagan when the GOP had character that outshone most and was symbolic of that shining city on the hill. They know the both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush's brand of neocon political philosophies is what loses elections for Republicans, while sticking to Reagans solid conservative beliefs win elections for Republicans. Turn the people against Reagan but telling half truths, and you weaken the GOP's chances. Isn't that what this article really does. It tells the Tea Parties you should hate Reagan without giving the entire Reagan record, and then it tries to make the case Reagan would hate the Tea Parties because he gave up the principled conservatism you see in Tea Parties today.
