February 13, 2006
HE MUST MEAN A DIFFERENT REAGAN (via Robert Schwartz):
An Outspoken Conservative Loses His Place at the Table (ELISABETH BUMILLER, 2/13/06, NY Times)
"Nobody will touch me," said Bruce Bartlett, author of the forthcoming "Impostor: Why George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." "I think I'm just kind of radioactive at the moment."Mr. Bartlett, a domestic policy aide at the White House in the Reagan administration and a deputy assistant treasury secretary under the first President Bush, talked last week at his suburban Washington home about his dismissal, his book and a growing disquiet among conservatives about Mr. Bush.
Although "Impostor" is flamboyant in its anti-Bush sentiments — on the first page Mr. Bartlett calls Mr. Bush a "pretend conservative" and compares him to Richard Nixon, "a man who used the right to pursue his agenda" — its basic message reflects the frustration of many conservatives who say that Mr. Bush has been on a five-year federal spending binge. Like them, Mr. Bartlett is particularly upset about Mr. Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan, which is expected to cost more than $700 billion over the next decade.
He is unhappy, too, with the president's education and campaign finance bills and his proposal to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, which many Republicans call a dressed-up amnesty plan.
There's nothing more amusing than folks who worship Ronald Reagan complaining about George Bush on the issues of spending, judges, entitlements, and immigration. Of course, to really match how angry they were at RWR during his administration W would have to raise taxes a few times and open negotiations with the enemy the way the Gipper did. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 13, 2006 5:34 PM
It's not the stupid party for nothing.
One would have hoped that conservatives, of all people, would have a better grasp of history.
I was a teen for the Reagan years, and don't recall, but whose legacy did the guardians of conservative purity claim Reagan was besmirching? Goldwater? Taft? Cicero?
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at February 13, 2006 6:43 PMMichael Reagan?
Posted by: Mike Beversluis at February 13, 2006 7:17 PMJim,
The old troglodytes, like Bruce Bartlett, were just as much in fear of the Hollywood-trained communications power of Ronald Reagan as the Left was. At worst, they tut-tutted the fact Reagan (and Thatcher, too) rose taxes and directl negotiated with Gorbachev. Remember how a lot of them would merely pass blame on TEFRA to Bob Dole?
When it comes to GWB, they're mainly in fear of Rove and his grass-roots organizational skills. Around, oh, 2014, those old trogs will be lambasting the latest GOP nominee who doesn't hold firm to the ways of Dubya:)
Posted by: Brad S at February 13, 2006 8:03 PMThe kiss of death for a conservative is to be lionized by the NYTimes. Yesterday Chuck Hagle, today Bruce Bartlett.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 13, 2006 8:57 PMReagan was a father figure for many on the right, who was there at the beginning of the movement, in this case being with Goldwater in 1964. GWB on the other hand not only has a father who they never trusted to begin with, but because of his family background they see him the in same way Ann Richards try to paint dad during the '88 campaign, as someone who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.
It's a lot easier to go after the actions of someone you see as your lesser than someone who was there on the front lines of the ideological battle before you were, and it's also easier to ignore the failings of the former, while magnifying those of the latter.
Posted by: John at February 13, 2006 10:04 PMA passage from Robert Novak's 1987 introduction to Witness by Whittaker Chambers may give a flavor of 1980s conservative Reagan-bashing:
[The contention that Chambers was leaving the winning side for the losing side] might have seemed repudiated in August 1984, when President Ronald Reagan posthumously awarded Chambers the Medal of Freedom. Here was a president not afraid of confrontation with the Soviets [...]
But that White House ceremony for Chambers marked the apogee of Reaganism. Since then, the Reagan administration has lurched towards detente and faltered under inexorable pressure to conciliate rather than confront. The prospect is that President Reagan will be leaving office with his doctrine for assisting counter-revolutionaries worldwide in tatters and the initiative in the hands of the Kremlin. [highlighted for amusement purposes] [...]
Dazzled by the new raiment in the Kremlin, America's most ideologically rigorous anti-Communist administration has been enticed by detente, confirming another of Chambers' prophecies: "In the struggle against Communism, the conservative is all but helpless." He lacks the discipline, the self-sacrifice, indeed the courage.
I recently came across a new printing of Witness with another introduction by Novak, in which this passage is, uh, conspicuously absent.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 14, 2006 12:50 AMOJ:
For the record, I once had my picture taken with Novak and I have nothing personal against him: I just think it would be nice if the same conservatives who underestimated Reagan during his term and then lionized him afterwards would admit they just might be wrong about Dubya as well.
He will, of course, be considered the epitome of all things conservative once he's out of office.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 14, 2006 8:22 PM