Reagan Hagiography

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 00:53


Rick Perlstein's piece on Reagan should be required reading.

It is a quirk of American culture that each generation of nonconservatives sees the right-wingers of its own generation as the scary ones, then chooses to remember the right-wingers of the last generation as sort of cuddly. In 1964, observers horrified by Barry Goldwater pined for the sensible Robert Taft, the conservative leader of the 1950s. When Reagan was president, liberals spoke fondly of sweet old Goldwater.

Nowadays, as we grapple with the malevolence of President Bush, it's Reagan we remember as the sensible one.

Reagan was a psychotic man who nearly blew up the world and used paranoia and fear to change our culture and government in horrible ways.  He also wasn't particularly popular, though as a politician, he's worth admiring for his raw political skill.  Conservative ideology is based on greed and fear.  There's no such thing as a good conservative leader, period.  It is a fundamentally bankrupt, corrupt, and fraudulent ideology, and there is nothing laudable about people like Reagan who tap into the worst of America.
Matt Stoller :: Reagan Hagiography

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Reagan Hagiography | 50 comments
Cool. (4.00 / 1)
Agreed, which is why you drawing parallels between Reagan and Obama is irresponsible and, quite frankly, ignorant.
knock it off (4.00 / 5)
I didn't draw parallels between Obama and Reagan, I wrote very clearly that Obama doesn't understand the right-wing if he thinks that Reagan was about sunny optimism. 
[ Parent ]
you have no idea (0.00 / 0)
First of all, it is a conventional commonplace of middle of the road democratic politicians to say positive things about Reagan. John Edwards CFR article trots out that cliche of all cliches about Reagan's "inspirational" "tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev" line. Jimmy Carter called Reagan "inspirational". I'm sure Bill Clinton did the same. If saying nice things about Reagan makes a politician evil in the Stoller framework, then you are unable to work with any of the big three and your singling out of Obama is absurd.

Second, you don't understand at all how most Americans make decisions about politics. Reagan's very political success was based on being able to clearly signal racism and xenophobia to those segments of the population that responded to the message, while remaining a genial positive figure for the rest of the public. Jim Webb was Reagan's Secretary of Navy and he used clips of Reagan praising him in his run for Senate. If you are correct, and all invocations of Reagan are endorsements of the worst racism, why didn't you condemn Webb?

[ Parent ]
There's a diary at dKos advancing the same dumb meme... (4.00 / 4)
....diarist quotes all sorts of Dems gushing about Reagan. Doesn't bother to mention that most were made at his death or during the media orgasm of his funeral.

I think Matt and the rest of us understand very well the coded racism which every American is immersed in. The point here is not why Matt or I are not attacking Webb but....

Why out of all the political leaders in this country's history Senator Dope 'Hope' chose St. Ronnie to build his plea for support on to the Gazette executive board?

I'm sure the SteelWorkers will be amused.

But of course the real message got thru to the Gazette Board namely,

'Don't let the skin color and rhetoric mislead you. I can be depended on when the unions give you trouble. I'm your boy!'

The real question this widening discussion of Obama's totally dumb statement has brought to center stage is why you and others are willing to tie yourself in a knots to defend him in a clear instance of his using the very tools St. Ronnie did for his own personal self-aggrandizement.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
i'm not defending obama, I'm attacking your sloppy "analysis" (0.00 / 0)
If you want me to believe that George Miller is endorsing a Reaganite, you need to do something more than a few weirdly interpreted snippets.

[ Parent ]
George MIller.... (0.00 / 0)

....Miss Nancy's pal? That guy?

Look the old way of looking at things are not working. In this Obama has it right.

Miller's with Miss Nancy in her stupid 'off the table...' and 'we are doing all we can...' memes.

He ain't no progressive no more.

The Democratic Leadership now own the occupation of Iraq. They've funded it; they bought it.

They're on the wrong side of the biggest issue, not to mention the Farm Bill and other shenanigans with our civil rights, and that makes their 'endorsement' of Obama worthless.

The whole outmoded idea that so and so 'endorses' so and so is bullshit anyway. All it generally means that the party of the first part got a nice chunk of change from the party of the second part.

Both 'parties' Dema and ReThug are rotten to the core with MIC, Insurance and financial bribery legalized and rampant.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Man, do yourself and the rest of us... (2.67 / 3)

......a Big favor and stop with the Kool-Aide.

Obama is on video drawing parallels between what he himself wants to do and what St. Ronnie 'accomplished' and it's Matt's fault that Obama is totally ignorant of who Reagan represented and what he 'accomplished' as President!

Bwaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhahhhhhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaa...snort...

Game over pal. You just jumped that shark.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
but matt, you forget reagan was brilliant... (4.00 / 2)
...in "king's row."
speaking of Reagan... (4.00 / 1)
HERE [rotten.com] is another must-read hilarious (sarcastic and critical) summation of Ronald Reagan and his Presidency.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
I'm no fan of Reagan (4.00 / 1)
but, Matt, you're taking this ridiculously far.

You're discounting the opinion of by far the greater half of America that remembers Reagan as a flawed but affable leader that had more successes than failures.  Those people may be ignoring or ignorant of a lot of history, but their impressions don't count for nothing.  Reagan did bring optimism, he did rebuild American morale (at least for the middle and up classes), and he did in some sense represent his times and the electorate of his times. 

You can't just rewrite history and turn the man into nothing more than an ogre.  Yes, he was an ogre.  But he was more than that.

Yes, he was an ogre... (4.00 / 5)
...who made a good number of Americans feel that they could have anything they wanted and that it was okay to trample on anyone who got in their way.

If "the greater half of America" wants to remember that fondly, then we really have a lot of work to do.

[ Parent ]
america is just not pure enough for you (0.00 / 0)
Most Americans have completely unrealistic ideas about US history and role in the world. If you see your job as sneering at their ignorance, enjoy yourself. Some of us would like to, you know, win some elections; stop the war; feed the poor.
[ Parent ]
How's that working out for you and Miss Nancy, (4.00 / 2)

..............''Sellout' Reid and the rest of the Democrats who are supporting Mr. 24 % in his excellent adventure?

Far from sneering Matt is trying to open up a dialogue about what is actually going on in D.C. as opposed to what Obama, Lieberman, Miss Nancy and Reid are telling the nation what is happening.

dKos is now available for he low-info 'Democrat' to wallow in Republican memes and frames.

Check it out. But.....

Cut out the fact-free attacks on Matt.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
the progressive democrat lost (0.00 / 0)
Kucinich is gone. We have 3 middle of the road to conservative Democratic candidates left.
[ Parent ]
What Raygun Brought (4.00 / 1)
Raygun also brought supply-side economics and a recession.
[ Parent ]
Reagan TALKED it, but did NOT bring optimism (4.00 / 1)
Reagan years are downward mobility years.  People felt it.  There was the feeling that I am sure future anthropologists will document through music:

  Billy Joel: Allentown
  Miami Vice: "From the office of the President right down to me and you"
  anything by Springsteen
  the emergence of Kurt Cobain

and perhaps TV shows and economic data.  I was professionally involved with some very Republican people at the time.  While we did not discuss this sort of thing, they had the attitude that Americans were spoiled and had had their hour. 

The optimism came back with Clinton.  Yes, they were stressful (politically) years, but there was a feeling that this was America on the move again.  In daily banter there was more confidence in the nation, the economy, the spirit of Americans.

 

[ Parent ]
Reagan Brought Some Other Things Too (4.00 / 6)
After he defeated President Carter, a native Southerner, Reagan led an administration that seemed to cater to Southerners still angry over the passage of the Civil Rights Act after 16 years. The Reagan team condemned busing for school integration, opposed affirmative action and even threatened to veto a proposed extension of the Voting Rights Act (the sequel to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed a year later and focused on election participation). President Reagan also tried to allow Bob Jones University, a segregated Southern school, to reclaim federal tax credits that had long been denied to racially discriminatory institutions. [http://www.npr.org/t...]

I find it ironic that Obama finds a president who tried to roll back the Civil Rights Act someone he would pick to highlight in his media appearances.

[ Parent ]
boo makes me sad (0.00 / 0)
that is all. ;-(
[ Parent ]
Again, why should Obama bring up Reagan at all? (4.00 / 5)
There's just no reason to go along with the St. Ronnie myth. No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to talk about the positive aspects of Ronald Reagan.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
I agree entirely with (4.00 / 1)
your assessment of Reagan, except for your estimation of his popularity. Here are his Gallup numbers for most of his presidency:
http://en.wikipedia....

His average was 57%. (Clinton's numbers were better through more of his presidency, but I think his average still comes to 58 or 59%.)

But the other thing is, Reagan won two electoral landslides, and his second win came with 59.2% of the popular vote. Since 1940, only Johnson and Nixon ('72) surpassed that.

There was a lot of the worst of America to tap into.

But what was the actual percentage of voting-age Americans who voted? (0.00 / 0)
If I recall correctly, in 1984 something like 52% of the voting-age population actually voted.  So Reagan's supposed landslide that year was actually about 30% of the voting-age population.  The real landslide winner was NOTA.
[ Parent ]
yes that's true (0.00 / 0)
but I only use the term landslide with respect to the electoral vote, which in 84 was 525 to 13.

[ Parent ]
Reagan popularity (4.00 / 7)
Just the mention of Ronald Reagan's name sends shivers through me.  Once told a very Republican friend of mine who could not understand my dislike of him that the only thing I agreed with Reagan about was motherhood and apple pie and I wasn't so sure about the apple pie.  For a Democrat running for the Presidential nomination to give more credence to the Republican icon is a very cynical attempt at vote getting no matter how people try to explain away the point he was attempting to make.
Reagan was a Demagogue, Pure and Simple (4.00 / 4)
Here are two definitions of a demagogue. They help to explain why Reagan came to power and how he played the role of a friendly, well-meaning politician in order to retain popular appeal from the very people whose well-being and livelihoods his policies were hurting.

"A political leader who gains power by appealing to people's emotions and prejudices rather than their rationality."

"Demagogy (also demagoguery) is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public - typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda."

Obama may have distanced himself from some of Reagan's policies but his recent invocation of Reagan as a positive figure indicates he may be traveling down the same road of demagogy by appealing to the prejudices of the editorial board of the newspaper whose support he was courting.

Here's a good example of Obama's demagogy:

John Edwards overtly criticizes CORPORATIONS for their excessive influence over lawmakers and legislative decision-making.

Obama, on the other hand, directs his criticism only at "LOBBYISTS", now that the word "lobbyist" has become a term of popular derision.

But who do the lobbyists work for? It's the CORPORATIONS, of course, but Obama the demagogue doesn't want to take them on publicly because they are a) running both the economy and our government at the present time and b) providing the lion's share of his campaign contributions.

[ Parent ]
But The Sad Fact Is, There's Some Truth In These Memories (4.00 / 4)
Every generation of rightwing leaders really is worse than the ones who came before!

True, that doesn't really make the previous generation warm and cuddly.  But Reagan actually could be pressured, shamed, and guided by Nancy (and her astrologer) to change direction.  In fact, that's a large part of why he's so fondly remembered.  (If he hadn't changed direction, he might have blown us all up, and he wouldn't be remembered at all!)

With Bush, however, there is simply no changing direction, not even a subconscious admission of having ever made a mistake.

It's pretty damn hard for anyone not to look good in comparison to that.

But, of course, we haven't seen the next rightwing leader yet.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

HuckaBee! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Or Ron Paul! (4.00 / 2)
Tear up your money and your credit cards, we's goin' back to gold dubloons!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
That's a good point (0.00 / 0)

But Reagan actually could be pressured, shamed, and guided by Nancy (and her astrologer) to change direction.

Say what you want, Reagan had his Nixon-goes-to-China moment when he signed the INF treaty.  I don't care if it was largely Nancy's doing, concerned about his place in history.  He did it.

To get some idea of the RW reaction, B-1 Bob Dornan gave a speech at the time describing the President of the United States as a "useful idiot" for the Soviets.

I'd like to think that GWB's Nixon-goes-to-China moment would be peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but I suspect recent activities in that area are just a smokescreen to give the Saudis cover when he bombs Iran.

[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
Reagan's sole redeeming quality was his aversion to nuclear weapons.  I have a copy of a NATO military magazine portraying a sultry communist vixen cooing about all the great conventional weapons the USSR gets to buy with the money they saved not building missiles thanks to the treaties Reagan signed.

Closest Bush has come to such a thing is the Dubai ports thing.  That wasn't redeeming, just him putting money and business ahead of hating Muslims and security paranoia. 

[ Parent ]
Ever rightward (0.00 / 0)
Sure it is a small sample but the average Progressive Punch score for this term for retiring Republican House members is a respectable 15.22 (Progressive Punch does not include a score for Denny Hastert which would pull the number down slightly).  The average for new Republicans (those 13 first elected in 2006 plus Paul Broun) is a pathetic 3.78.  The most moderate of the group is the questionably installed Vern Buchanan (10.34, 81st among Republicans in the House).

By contrast, although most of the newly elected Democrats have decent scores (the average is 86.98), at least half of the most conservative Democrats (7 of the bottom 12 and 10 of the bottom 18) in the House were first elected in 2006.  There is a reason that many Bush Dogs are freshman:  that is how they vote.

[ Parent ]
RAYGUN'S ECONOMY (4.00 / 4)
The Reagan Worship increased as Pres. Fredo's poll numbers went down. I wish the DNC would start trumpeting Alan Greenspan's remarks:

"The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."

LINK:

http://www.washingto...

He's their problem, not ours (0.00 / 0)
There's no upside for Democrats in attacking Reagan.  The myth of his greatness has been firmly established by a corrupt media, but that works to our advantage, as the Republicans wait in vain for the next Gipper to save them,
forever uninspired by their pygmy leaders.
No one is saying .. Obama has to attack Ray-gun .. (4.00 / 2)
just that he doesn't have to mention him .. it's almost like Bill Richardson mentioning "Whizzer" White
[ Parent ]
There's no point in building him up, either (4.00 / 1)
Especially in a Democratic primary. 

And he needs to be brought down a notch if we're ever going to accurately establish the Dems as the party of fiscal responsibility--he was the origin of this don't tax and spend nonsense.

[ Parent ]
Carter, Reagan, Volker and inflation (4.00 / 2)
I'm surprised no-one mentions Reagan's economic record.

In 1980 inflation was in double digits because of the oil crisis following the Islamic revolution in Iran.  This was around the time Carter was trying to convince people to turn down their thermostats.  The country was also at the end of a decade of stagflation due to Johnson & Nixon's military spending in Viet Nam with no cuts to domestic programs.  If you missed the 70s, wait.....

Reagan introduced tax cuts that if anything would have pitched the US economy into Weimar-republic-like hyperinflation.  Volker, Fed Reserve chairman at the time, instituted a very tight money policy that got inflation under control, at the cost of a very severe recession (much worse than recent recessions).  After Congressional losses in 2002, Reagan also backed down on some of his tax cuts (Stockman later admitted that they didn't believe their own figures), a big difference from GWB.

By the time of the 1984 elections, inflation was under control and the twin stimuli of tax cuts and military spending had ameliorated the recession.  It was morning in America again.  The bill was to be paid down the road (by the unlucky GHWB, who really inherited the bill for Reagan's fiscal folly, and by Clinton, whose tax hikes on the wealthy continued the return to fiscal discipline and helped bring down interest rates, setting the stage for the 90s boom).

Art Buchwald had the best take on Reagan: It took Lyndon Johnson to get people to care about the poor, and it took Ronald Reagan to get people to stop caring.

Carter was way ahead of his time (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
carter LOST the election to Reagan (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Does that make Reagan... (4.00 / 2)
....admirable.

A good president?

Sane?

None of the above?

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Loss (4.00 / 1)
Winning's the only thing that matters to some small people. And since they're too intelligence-challenged to make a case for the truth, they instead will do and say anything to get that win, even if they have to convince themselves that the lies they've told are the truth.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968
[ Parent ]
plead guilty (0.00 / 0)
I think if Kerry had won, we'd have withdrawn from Iraq and saved 10s of thousands of lives. I'm so fucking petty that that's much more important to me than the bruised feelings of delicate liberals who think symbols are the ultimate purpose of politics.

If Carter had been able to understand the massive dissatisfaction with his presidency, we could have avoided Reagan and untold damage. I'm just interested in  actual wins, not gestures.

[ Parent ]
Hell, (4.00 / 2)
If only we had listened to Adlai:


  We travel together, passengers on a little space ship, dependent upon its vulnerable reserves of air and soil, all committed for our safety to its security and peace, preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and I will say the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate and half miserable, half confident, half despairing, half slave to the ancient enemies of mankind and half free in a liberation of resources undreamed-of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all.


[ Parent ]
I love adlai! (0.00 / 0)
Right guy, at the wrong moment. 

That's a great quote.

[ Parent ]
It's The KEYNSIANISM, Stupid! (0.00 / 0)
This is all quite fresh in my mind, since I just interviewed a post-Keynsian economist for a story about Californias budget crisis yesterday afternoon.

By the time of the 1984 elections, inflation was under control and the twin stimuli of tax cuts and military spending had ameliorated the recession.

In the popular imagination, Keynes="big government"=New Deal and Friedman="free market"=Ronald Reagan. But there are three different strains of Keynsianism--military Keynsianism, domestic spending Keyndsianism, and tax-cutting Keynsianism.  Reagan used two out of three, and that has become economic orthodoxy down to this day.  However, those are by far the weakest forms of Keynsianism, since they do the least to build long-term social welfare, which is not just a good in itself, but a source of future growth that is much broader and more reliable than the alternatives.

Abandoning--or at least severely downplaying domestic spending Keynsianism--has been a key component in accelerating the good times for the top 20% or so, while most of the rest have been treading water, at best, for the last 20-30 years.

And Milton Friedman?  Where does he fit in?

Rhetoric baby.  Pure and simple rhetoric, that's all.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
As an economics prof told me once... (0.00 / 0)
....if the government is going to stimulate the economy by pumping money into it, it is better if the money is not just spent on things that get blown up.

Well we have, or had, the best equipped military in the world, at the same time as a national infrastructure that is deteriorating into third world status. 

[ Parent ]
of course the old ones look good (4.00 / 1)
When compared to the new conservatives, the old ones always look good.  They keep getting worse over time. 
Don't waste your time (0.00 / 0)
When Reagan died the media gave us a week-long orgy of fact-free propoganda that would embarrass Kim Jong-Il.  They're not about to examine his real record.  We can't even get them to discuss the real issues of today.
Fine, but (4.00 / 1)
Let's not elect as our Democratic or progressive standard-bearers in primary or general elections demagogues who evoke Reagan's name in order to ingratiate themselves with the right wing and low-information voters.

We need courageous leaders who are going to call it like it is and rally to the side of the citizenry whose livelihoods and political and civil rights are being tossed into the dustbin by the corporatocracy that put Reagan into office.

Obama is edging too close to the enemy camp for my taste.

We need to elect leaders who are going to eject corporations and monied interests from controlling our government. But it is becoming increasingly apparent from Obama's Gazette remarks that he is not going to be the pivotal leader who leads this charge at the presidential level.

[ Parent ]
1980 (0.00 / 0)
Jimmy Carter was probably the most fiscally conservative Democrat in the country at the time. He fought the Kennedy-Joe Califano-Tip O'Neill old guard majority of the party to try and balance budgets in the face of ghastly stagflation generated by oil embargoes and the Vietnam/Nixon hangover. We were paying 4 times the amount for a gallon of gas as we were in 1970. Social Security really was on it's way to going bankrupt before the 1983 bipartisan deal brokered by Greenspan, passed by O'Neill and signed into law by Reagan. In 1980 inflation was 18%. "Buy today because it'll be more expensive tomorrow" was the mantra. Couple that with job insecurity due to the huge wave of foreign competition that was gutting American manufacturing in the electronics, steel, and auto industries, the concurrent housing slump and people were primed for change. 

Most of the Dem DC party establishment had grown to hate the "peanut farmer". They felt this interloper was depriving them of their just reward, their due after they'd spent years being stymied by Nixon and Jerry "the veto pen" Ford. They not only wanted to fully fund the Great Society programs LBJ had instituted, they wanted much more. Take a look at Teddy Kennedy's positions in his primary campaign  against Carter if you want to know how out of touch the Dem DC establishment was with the electorate. Even though Carter had horrible approval ratings he beat Kennedy and the villagers challenge for the nomination because most Americans didn't want another $25 a month in welfare payments. We wanted to be able to afford a house and have a job.

Suburban voters, manufacturing and housing trade workers, etc. became Reagan Democrats because they liked the sunny optimist who told them their problems were all the villagers' fault and all we needed to do was roll back taxes and adopt a can do spirit. They bought the phony trickle down theory because Reagan was so sure of himself while Carter seemed sure of nothing. 

If you want the kind of tidal wave mandate required to make the huge changes this country needs in healthcare, energy, environmental and foreign policy we need a shift to our way of thinking as large as Reagan's was the other way in 1980. We need those Reagan Democrats and independents on our side.

You won't get that with Hillary who tried to disenfranchise college kids in IA and is trying again with casino strip workers in NV. She's a false hope who if elected will continue to triangulate in retreat, plucking small bore incremental domestic legislation here and there like Bill did in his second term and the maintaining the status quo internationally. She'll always be looking toward that 50% + 1 she'll need for a second term.

You won't get it with Edwards either who seems determined to demand an apology from half the country before accepting their support.

Obama is right. I've talked to a lot of Repubicans and indies who will vote for him given the chance. These same people will vote for a pig like McCain or Romney with a vengeance instead of Hillary. They won't bother to even listen to Edwards. 


You've Got Some MAJOR Errors Here, Dude! (0.00 / 0)
But I don't have time to go through them all.  So instead, I'll just quote this from Wikipedia's account of the 1980 primary campaign:

Ted Kennedy had been asked to take his brother's place at the 1968 Democratic Convention and had refused. He ran for Senate Majority Whip in 1969, however, and many thought that he was going to use that as a platform for 1972.[3] But then came the notorious Chappaquiddick incident.

Kennedy refused to run in 1972, and again in 1976. Many suspected that Chappaquiddick had destroyed any ability he had to win on a national level. However, in the summer of 1979, he consulted with his family, and that fall, he let it leak out that because of Carter's failings, 1980 might indeed be the year. Gallup had him beating the president by over two to one.

Kennedy's official announcement was scheduled for early November. There was a prime time interview with CBS's Roger Mudd and it was a minor disaster. Kennedy flubbed a number of the questions and couldn't exactly explain why he was running, and the polls, which showed him leading the President by 58-25 in August now had him ahead 49-39.[4] Then the hostages were taken in Tehran, Iran and the bottom fell out of the Kennedy campaign.

Carter's approval ratings jumped in the 60-percent range in some polls, due to a "rally 'round the flag" effect [5] and an appreciation of Carter's calm handling of the crisis. Kennedy was suddenly left far behind. Carter beat Kennedy decisively in Iowa and New Hampshire. Carter decisively defeated Kennedy everywhere except Massachusetts, until impatience began to build with the President's strategy on Iran. When the primaries in New York and Connecticut came around, it was Kennedy who won.

Carter was still able to maintain a substantial lead even after Kennedy swept the last batch of primaries in June. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record. On the penultimate day, Kennedy conceded the nomination and called for a more liberal party platform in what many saw as the best speech of his career. On the platform on the final day, Kennedy for the most part ignored Carter.

The real conflict that Carter started out with in 1977 was his attack on water projects.  This was, in theory, a sensible good-government measure, which bothered pork-barrel politicians of both parties, rather than liberal Democrats per se.  But instead of doing it collegially, and brining in Congressional leaders to explain the long-term gain in return for short-term gain, Carter promoted himself alone as "cleaning up Washington" and so he immediately turned a bipartisan majority against him.

That combination of good government progressivism and political ineptitude was one of the defining characteristics of his presidency.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Take 2 (0.00 / 0)
Ezra Klein has a somewhat different take.
Reagan Hagiography | 50 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox