From Washington Dispatch.com
Commentary
Reagan’s Death has Panicked the Democrats
Commentary by Vincent Fiore
June 17, 2004
Even with the death of Ronald Reagan, the country's mainstream media and by extension the liberal establishment, cannot help themselves. Ronald Reagan has been deceased all of one-week come Saturday, but the muted and benign locution’s voiced by Reagan's many detractors and enemies is quickly coming to an end.
The first few night’s after Reagan's death, the chattering class was awash in muted yet high-minded praise for America's 40th President. Listen to Ted Kennedy, the old liberal lion and adversary of Ronald Reagan: “We often disagreed on issues of the day, but I had immense respect and admiration for his leadership and his extraordinary ability to inspire the nation to live up to its high ideals.”
Presidential contender John Kerry’s statement on Reagan’s death was equally as gratuitous and stately. “Americans will bow their heads in prayer and gratitude that President Reagan left such an indelible stamp on the nation he loved.”
But as it became clear that Reagan was nearly as big in death as he was in life, the silver-lined words of liberal praise started to tarnish. The debate over Reagan's greatness will rage for decades to come for some among the political class. For the majority of the American people, the debate has already been settled.
It remains to be seen if flamethrowers like Ted Kennedy will contain the liberal impulse to speak their darkest thoughts, and thereby prove that Reagan's death was just a short respite from their continued hate against the presidency of George W. Bush. In an election year, it may be too much to ask that what the opposition party has shown Ronald Reagan in death should be shown to the sitting president in life; respect for the office and the man who occupies it. Regarding Bush, no one said you have to love him.
Make no mistake; the liberals of 1980 despised Reagan as much as the liberals of 2004 hate Bush today. Far from loving Reagan, democrats now seek to minimize him as far as his legacy is concerned. But do not be surprised if during the coming presidential debates in October between Bush and Kerry, you hear a classic rejoinder along the lines of “and let me tell you something Mr. President (wait for the perfect pause…), you are no Ronald Reagan.”
In relative haste after Reagan’s death, liberals asserted politics into a time of national mourning, a period where politics were to be put aside, if only until the end of the funeral.
Once it became clear that similarities between Bush and Reagan were as natural as blue is to sky, the talking heads sensed a major problem on their hands.
You can hear it voiced in a piece by MSNBC contributor Howard Fineman, or senior Democratic Party strategist Philip James writing for Guardian Unlimited in the UK. One-time California Gubernatorial candidate Arianna Huffington of Salon.com writes of Bush being “no Reagan,” and you see on the op-ed pages of the New York Times.
Perhaps the best place to see the consternation of the liberal establishment and the“Bush is no Reagan” watchword is the “John Kerry For President” web site. If you read the blogs and messages found there, you can detect a sense of fear in the air.
While it is easy to say that Bush is no Reagan, it is far harder thing to ignore the comparison that has, incredibly, caused the modern day liberal establishment to actually use the name of Ronald Reagan as a bludgeon against the re-election George W. Bush.
Like Reagan, Bush is looked upon as being out of touch with the average American.
Like Reagan, Bush is as hated in Europe as Reagan ever was.
Like Reagan, Bush is considered a militaristic “cowboy.”
Like Reagan, Bush is considered an “amiable dunce” or “moron.”
The above is what some would call personality traits. I call it slander.
But what of comparisons between the two men in policy and vision?
Like Reagan, Bush came into office when the nation was under an economic dark cloud, though Reagan’s task was much deeper in its totality of economic revitalization.
Like Reagan, Bush prescribed marginal rate tax cuts to right the economic ship.
Like Reagan, Bush set out to rebuild a military that suffered under the stewardship of democratic predecessors.
Like Reagan, Bush is committed to fighting the “evil empire” of the 21st century, terrorism.
Still more:
Like Reagan, Bush has policy initiatives that can be labeled as sweeping.
Like Reagan, Bush can deliver the big speech when the moment calls for it the most.
Like Reagan, Bush believes that freedom is endowed from God, and not given by man.
And like Reagan, Bush believes in the good and irresolute will of the American people.
Indeed, when looking at President Bush under the lens of the Reagan presidency, it is right to say that “Bush is no Reagan.” But Reagan was no Bush, to be fair.
Both men had qualities that the other lacked, and styles of governing that reflected a different era of life that both men grew up in. Both bought life’s experiences, their own, into the presidency. For Reagan politically, FDR was a major influence. For Bush, it was Reagan. All that means is both mean knew greatness when they saw it.
There are many differences for Bush compared to Reagan. He does not have the smoothness and ultra-quick wit of Ronald Reagan, nor is he comfortable with the English language at times. He has trouble promoting his political successes to the electorate, and at times communicating with members of his own party. Still, these are mostly points of style, something a person may grow into over time, and experience.
According to MSNBC’s Howard Fineman, “George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, and no Franklin Roosevelt and no Winston Churchill.” True. He is not. But whether Mr. Fineman realizes it or not, Bush seems to be in good company.
If someone would have told me six months ago that the liberal establishment in an election year would be using the name of Ronald Reagan as a conduit for the defeat of Bush in November, I would have told you that they have a better chance of getting John McCain to be John Kerry’s Vice-President. This too, shall pass.
Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City.
© Copyright 2004 The Washington Dispatch |
