...but they just can't seem to blow John McCain's campaign down.
The vitriol abounds as the breeziest of pundits attack Senator McCain's "conservativeness," each clinging to the hopeless search for "the next Ronald Reagan," each failing to understand that there simply won't be a "next Ronald Reagan." As Zenpundit wisely asserts, Reagan was a "man for that time and place."
Though the term "change" has come to be so overused as to make President Bush's "turn the corner" sound earth shatteringly unique, it holds some definitive merit. Toeing the party line, strict adherence to party doctrine and vilifying any and all who fall outside the strict guidelines of the so called "Reagan" conservatives, all are either completely lost on the American voters or have grown so singular as to be reviled. Times change, circumstances change, global events change, politics change.
The idea that the Republican base, message and leadership of 2008 should mirror that of 1988 is thickheaded, ignorant and, if McCain's momentum is an example, a political relic. John McCain's success tosses a wrench into the ideological works of the aging philosophy of the GOP. What Rush Limbaugh calls the "destruction of the GOP" is actually an evolution. And the hardliners would do well to take notice as 2010 is just around the corner.
9 comments:
Am getting sick of the constant mud slinging within conservative and/or Republican ranks, it's self defeating. Smart refreshing post this....
Hi Otto,
Thanks for the kind words. What a lot of republicans fail to realize is that as the accepted definition of "conservative" narrows so to does mainstream popularity.
Hope you enjoyed your vacation.
What's especially strange is that the "Reagan Coalition" somehow survived three cycles with pre-Reagan conservatives on the top of the ticket (Bush '41 '88, Bush '41 '92, 'Dole 96), but somehow could not survive McCain.
I have been thinking about this hysteria, and it seems to be generated by the MSM, which is so in-love with McCain and hateful of Reagan that they cannot believe both could be part of the same party.
MSM hateful of Reagan? You serious? What evidence is there for this?
One other thing to bear in mind too is that the "Reagan Coalition" was only one particular arrangement of parties. There was nothing magical about the arrangement besides the numbers.
Adrian,
What degree of granularity are you looking for... hateful v. loving or hateful v. dismissive?
Bear in mind I was 4 years old when Reagan left office so I don't know anything about the coverage he received while in office, but while I've been old enough to notice there seems to be a cult around him where nobody questions the dogma that he "beat the Soviets", points out his national debt, mentions Iran-Contra, or remembers how close he helped bring the world to nuclear war. Instead the MSM have this image of him as "strong leader" and leave it at that.
Adrian,
I don't disagree that Reagan was (like every other) an imperfect President. But I have to ask for some clarification regarding this bit:
"or remembers how close he helped bring the world to nuclear war."
The Soviets were scared out of their minds by Reagan's rhetoric, and thought that he would launch a first strike to wipe them out. Reagan was informed of this, and was told by CIA that if he went ahead with Able Archer, a NATO exercise, the Soviets would think it was cover for a first strike. Reagan went ahead anyway, the Soviets mobilized nuclear forces in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and possibly their ICBMs as well. The Soviet alert went down after Able Archer ended. With the Cuban missile crisis, the closest we've come to nuclear war.
Post a Comment