Many Conservatives think this is 1980 all over again. I wish that was true, but I don’t think it is. Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan. He’s an Establishment Rockefeller Liberal Republican. He’s not charismatic and doesn’t unite the Right like Ronald Reagan does. Obama is nothing like Jimmy Carter. He has not faced a primary challenge. He is a charismatic demagogue who has a hold on a large segment of America. He is a symbol and a has the popular culture supporting him in a way Carter never had. Too many Americans have their emotions invested in him, like he’s some god-king Pharoah from ancient Egypt.
America has also changed since 1980. There are more single people because of economic conditions and lifestyle choices. More Americans are dependent on the government. The Left has complete control over the popular culture due to the GOP’s dumb culture war they started in 1992. The suburbs, which were the bastions of the coalition that elected Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan have been in Democratic hands since 92, although the GOP made inroads in 2010. There are different factors at play that should make Republicans on guard and not think this is 1980 all over again.
Republicans relish the tempting thought of history repeating itself: an incumbent Democratic president, widely perceived as a disappointment or a failure, heads into an election with seven out of every ten Americans believing the “country is in deep and serious trouble.” After dismissing his Republican challenger as an unserious joke, the hubristic incumbent loses the popular vote by a wide margin and the Electoral College by a landslide.
While Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is sure to enjoy the comparisons of this year’s presidential election with the one 32 years ago, Republicans shouldn’t fool themselves about the difficulty of the task before them. While it’s possible that Romney could win big, any serious examination of this race should recognize several enormous changes that have taken place in our national political environment in the past three decades, shifts that work against a repeat of Reagan’s rout of Carter.
So if the racial demographic change amounts to only a small shift in favor of the Democrats, what societal trend has helped them? The declining number of married Americans. In 1980, about 65 percent of all American adults were married; today that figure is 51 percent. Among married Americans, Obama’s job approval is a low 38 percent; among those not married, it is 54 percent.
Campaign messaging such as the Obama camp’s “Julia” ad indicates that the Democrats understand that single Americans, particularly single women, make up one of the most important groups of voters for their campaigns to mobilize. If being unmarried makes you more receptive to the Democratic party’s message, then Obama and his allies enjoy a bigger pool of persuadable voters than their counterparts did in 1980.
This is a different country than in 1980. The Democrats have realized this and instead of fighting, they have embraced it and used it to their advantage. Starting in the early 90′s Republicans have been fighting a losing culture war against trends that are outside the control of government. The result is whole swaths of voters and areas of the country that view Republicans in a negative light. Conservatives need to adapt to the times.
What The Republican Party should do.
It may be too late for this election but one of the reasons I am getting active in the GOP is try to change Republican culture. Family values are great and should always be part of Conservatism and the Republican message. But the Right needs to reach out to single people as well. This is where Libertarianism can come in. The core of Libertarianism is freedom and Capitalism. Most singles are attracted to images of money and greed. The GOP should run Libertarians (Not the Paulian types) and have commercials showing people with Lexuses and Yachts. At the end of the ads a voice should say: “vote Republican and you too may have this one day!” Have another commercial of a candidate vacationing in the Bahamas at a beach bar and say “If you vote for me I will help create conditions so that you can have the opportunity to make money and have a great time!” Take this Lexus commercial below.
Imagine a Republican campaign ad using this imagery. That would send a powerful message. Vote Republican so that the economic conditions give you the opportunity to drive a car like this or go to cool parties. This would attract many people who normally may not give the GOP a look.
Attracting married voters don’t need to contradict attracting single voters who are motivated by greed and a good time. In fact, both can complement each other. Family Value voters and money oriented single voters both can be sold on fiscal responsibility and economic freedom. A sound budget and good economy means families can plan for the future. It also means good job opportunities for single voters, which in turn means they will have money for nice cars and great vacations. In short the GOP should have a one two punch of Family Values Conservatism for families and Libertarianism for single people.
If the Republicans haven’t followed this 2 front approach, this could not be a repeat of 1980. It would be the Republican version of 1932 and the Democratic Party would be looking at a 20 year lockout of the White House, 80 House seats and 20 Senators.
I do think Obama will be defeated, but I don’t think it will be a slam dunk like many Conservatives think. We are dealing with a cultural phenomenon 20 years or more in the making. We are up against a symbol. Let’s not take this election for granted! Let’s do all we can to end the Pharaonic Regime!
I was assigned to the State Department in then West Berlin. Reagan’s visit had us being very very busy. However, those who worked on his trip got to be at all of the events and were treated very well by White House advance. I was at that speech, and the speech at Templohof Airbase. When Reagan called for Gorbachev to ‘Tear Down This Wall’ there was a brief pause before polite applause from the Americans in attendance. After all, we knew that he didn’t mean it, surely, just rhetoric…why, there was no way that he could possibly understand the intricacies and subtle diplomacy required here in West Berlin!
It turns out that there was a huge fight between State and Reagan on whether that section of the speech should stay in. State tried to remove it, so did the other agencies. Reagan kept it in.I got to read the telexes over that issue and it was a fascinating insight in to the way DC works.
There was one person at State in West Berlin who believed that the collapse of Communism was at hand and for the life of me I can’t remember his name. He worked in the econ section though. On November 10th 1989 he calmly went into work at The US Mission West Berlin and issued a rather nicely worded ‘I Told You So’, and then took the rest of the day off.
Progressives can’t make up their minds whether they like Ronald Reagan. Some still despise the man and blame him for our economic situation, 21 years after he left office. Others delusionally compare Obama to Reagan. The Left claims Reagan would find today’s Republican Party too Conservative. I personally think Reagan would find today’s GOP too Economic Progressive and very negative. They can’t make up their minds about Reagan. Some however do show their true feelings.
A Bronze statue of Ronald Reagan was vandalized in Newport Beach, CA. The attacker used a pickup truck to do the damage. One theory is that the person was after the bronze material. My instinct tell me this was one of the Occupy loons.
NEWPORT BEACH (CBS) — A bronze statue of former President Ronald Reagan was vandalized early Sunday, according to officials.
Police received a call at approximately 5:30 Sunday morning about a possible vandalism in progress at the Bonita Canyon Sports Park.
A witness saw a suspect tie something around the top of the statue and the other end to the front of his vehicle. The witness said the suspect then got into his vehicle and put it in reverse in an attempt to pull the statue down.
Ronald Reagan was the last great American President. The others who followed him where Liberals who drove this country into the ground and gave us this 3rd World Liberation Ideologue in the White House, who will probably be succeeded by another Liberal.
The disrespect of the Ronald Reagan statue makes my blood boil. Reagan is an idol to me and I lament the fact I have not liked a President since. I really hope that one day I can like a President again and feel proud at the job they are doing. One can dream!
Arthur Laffer, the economist who was President Reagan’s chief economic policy advisor, and who is considered the “godfather” of supply-side economics, has endorsed Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan- nine percent tax on income, a nine percent national sales tax, and a nine percent corporate income tax, as being “a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy”.
Remember what happened when President Reagan implemented Laffer’s supply-side ideas in the early 80′s after four years of Jimmah Carter and the dimocrats screwing up our economy, which was so bad that we actually had a “misery index” of double digit unemployment, interest rates, and inflation?
We had the greatest economic growth in world history after income and corporate taxes were slashed across the board. Over 20 million good jobs were created in only a few years that finally got us out of the economic “malaise”, as Carter himself called it, which was caused by his idiotic fiscal and economic policies.
Kinda reminds me of the current idiot occupying the White House, although as bad as Carter was, at least he didn’t hate America, and purposely try to destroy the U.S. economy, like Obungler and the dimocrats are doing today.
The Godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer, has given Herman Cain’s signature “9-9-9″ economic plan a critical boost, even as it has come under heavy fire from his GOP presidential competitors
The famed economist told HUMAN EVENTS that the proposal was pro-growth and would create the proper conditions for America’s economy to expand and thrive again.
“Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy,” Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS in a statement. “The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates.”
Added Laffer: “Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9.”
Laffer also said that “such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment.”
At the GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Cain’s plan received criticism from many of the candidates on stage. Click here to read the rest.
The differences Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are too long to list. Needless to say, Reagan believed in the genius of the American economic system while Obama views it as inherently flawed and unfair. Ronald Reagan inherited a far worse economy when he was sworn in on January 1981 and we did have a recession in 1982 but he never lost faith and he won an overwhelming reelection in 1984. Obama has been doubling down on the failed Keynesian policies of this first 2 1/2 years.
by Stephen Moore
If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama’s economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.
The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.
By the end of the summer of Reagan’s third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and ’84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would “overheat.” In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a “double-dip” recession. By the end of Reagan’s first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.
The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the “supply side” of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.
The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.
The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take “five to ten years of austerity,” with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of “barely 1 or 2 percent.” Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, “The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come.”
The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn’t work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP.
Mr. Krugman was, for once, at least partly right. How could Reagan not look good after four years of Jimmy Carter’s economic malpractice?
Fast-forward to today. Mr. Obama is running deficits of $1.3 trillion, or 8%-9% of GDP. If the Reagan deficits powered the ’80s expansion, the Obama deficits—twice as large—should have the U.S. sprinting at Olympic speed.
In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama’s lap. You don’t believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren’t indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown.
There is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn’t the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs.
But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama’s deficits gotten us?
This story from the UK Daily Mail will warm the hearts of all good, right-thinking people who love the USA (especially YOU Rodan!), and cause great raging and seething among the Left:
Nancy Reagan last night lost her balance and fell as she arrived to watch a speech by Republican freshman senator and Tea Party darling Marco Rubio
The frail former First Lady was being escorted to her seat in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, California, by Senator Rubio when she lost her footing and took a tumble.
Mrs Reagan had asked Senator Rubio to speak at her late husband’s presidential library following his election to the U.S. Senate last year.
The pair had arrived to a standing ovation, but there were hushed gasps as the 90-year-old, who was leaning heavily on a walking stick, slipped and Senator Rubio leapt to catch her.
Assisted by onlookers, the senator for Florida helped Mrs Reagan back to her feet and the applause resumed. A library spokesman told CNN that she was unhurt in the incident.
Such chivalry simply does not exist anymore in the minds of the liberals. They cannot wrap their minds around it. To me, this photo is the perfect response to the other side’s commercial showing a Paul Ryan facsimile pushing Grandma in her wheelchair over the cliff.
May God continue to bless Senator Rubio and Mrs. Reagan!
Now that the Left has co-opted Ronald Reagan (after Reagan is safely in his grave), it is time to look back at how our 40th president, handled budget negotiations. Reagan was practical, knew when to hold firm and when to back off a bit. Reagan was definitely (unlike the candidates who followed him) a conservative but he concentrated on economics and defense and getting things actually done. In politics as as in life, sometimes you have to make choices which does not always get you everything that you want.
by Rich Lowry
Ronald Reagan, God rest his soul, has been dead for seven years. This is long enough for liberals to feel safe making him their pet Republican.
In their telling, Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, passed tax increases, negotiated with the Soviets, and then pretty much called it a day, adjourning to share a friendly after-hours drink with his bosom buddy, Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill. These heterodoxies would get him ostracized in today’s Republican party, proving that the GOP has been hijacked by dangerous extremists.
Needless to say, that’s what they called Reagan and his supporters back when the Gipper was alive and governing. Beyond their obvious opportunism, though, the newly minted Reagan nostalgics of the Left have a point: Reagan didn’t get everything he wanted, and he had to compromise. This isn’t a telling polemical point so much as a banality, a truism about any leader in a robust democratic society.
Reagan inevitably had to make choices. Confronting a Democratic House, he could cut taxes and fund a defense build-up, or try to balance the budget. He had the right priorities; the economic growth he fostered and victory in the Cold War made the budget surpluses of the 1990s possible.
As for raising taxes, Reagan acceded to a big tax increase in 1982 only after a historic, much larger cut in 1981. He gave a little back after finding a shift in the political climate on Capitol Hill too difficult to resist. (He later regretted surrendering, since the budget cuts promised in exchange for the tax hike never materialized.) With the Soviets, he negotiated only when he knew he had a position of strength. These moves were the zigs and the zags of Reagan pursuing his highest goals of fundamentally lower taxes, a freer economy, and the defeat of the Soviet Union.
Both sides, then, tend to misunderstand the well-springs of Reagan’s achievement. Having grand goals is easy, if you don’t care much about reaching them. Cutting deals is easy, if you don’t care much about where they take you. Knowing how to accommodate reality, when to give way and when to stand firm, while never deviating from your ultimate purposes, is the stuff of statesmanship.
When such statesmanship is in the service of transformative and noble ends, it deserves honor for all time. It is what defines a Reagan or a Lincoln. The Great Emancipator’s later career was partly devoted to the perilous work of slowly pushing the envelope of public opinion toward the abolition of slavery. The abolitionists hated his compromises and caution. He, in turn, hated their self-righteous purity. But both the abolitionist agitation and the shrewd political leadership were indispensable to changes unimaginable on the cusp of the Civil War. Lincoln called radicals in his party “the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with — but after all their faces are set Zionward.”
The tea partiers in Congress will have to make their own bows to statesmanship. If David Gergen is ever on CNN praising them for their supposed responsibility, they might as well not have come to Washington in the first place. They should never become house-broken. On the other hand, they can’t let tactics become destructive to their ends, or oppose anything that doesn’t meet a test of absolute purity.
In 2008, young voters voted overwhelming for Barack Hussein Obama. There was talk of a permanent Progressive majority and that the GOP was called the Grey Old Party. Well times have changed!
For the first time since the Reagan era, the GOP now leads among young voters. What has caused this change? For starters it’s Obama’s terrible economic policies. His State Capitalist model has failed, as many of us knew it would. Another factor is the GOP’s new found emphasis on economic and fiscal matters. Young voters want a better economic future and a chance to make money. They see that there’s a chance they will never have the lifestyle of their parents. This has made them sour on Progressive economics.
Millennials voted 66 to 32 percent for Barack Obama in 2008 and identified as Democrats rather than Republicans by a 60 to 32 percent margin.
But white Millennials have been moving away from the Democrats. The Democratic edge in party identification among white Millennials dropped from 7 points in 2008 to 3 points in 2009 to a 1-point Republican edge in 2010 and an 11-point Republican lead in 2011. [...]
It’s not hard to come up with plausible reasons for these changes. Obama campaigned as the champion of “hope and change” in 2008 and assured crowds of young people that “We are the change we are seeking.”
But the change they have seen is anything but hopeful. Youth unemployment rates have been at historic highs. Young people have seen their college degrees produce little in the way of job offers. [....]
In the wake of the 2008 election, I argued that there was a tension between the way Millennials lived their lives — creating their own iPod playlists, designing their own Facebook pages — and the one-size-fits-all, industrial-era welfare-state policies of the Obama Democrats.
Instead of allowing Millennials space in which they can choose their own futures, the Obama Democrats’ policies have produced a low-growth economy in which their alternatives are limited and they are forced to make do with what they can scrounge.
Ronald Reagan won over young voters in the 80′s with an optimistic message of economic growth and a bright future. The post-Reagan GOP forgot this and spent their time talking about how bad American society had become, a bleak future and giving moral lectures. Now that the GOP has found it’s economic focus, it’s attracting young people back. This was a concept Reagan grasped back in the 1980′s.
Whether its the 1980′s or the 2010′s, young voters want an optimistic vision of the future. They want to hear about a better tomorrow and opportunities to advance in life. In a turn of events it’s the Democrats who are now negative about America, like the GOP was in the 90′s and 2000′s. Obama’s demagoguery is turning off many younger voters who can’t stand negativity. He comes across as a crank who’s miserable.
Hopefully Republicans can cement this hold by continuing to address economic concerns and pursue an agenda of economic opportunity.
Tonight at 8pm eastern time, Urban Infidel will have Robert Spencer as her guest on The Urban Infidel Show! Come join us!
One of the most sickening memes to be pimped to us from the, (and yes, I’m borrowing a catchy phrase from doriangrey,) treasonous fifth column media is that Barack Obama is Reaganesque in the performance of his duties as President. Those of you with an adult memory will remember Ronald Reagan as the man who simplified the tax code by eliminating huge sections of it. He lowered marginal tax rates to their lowest levels in any era, (the top marginal rate was 28%.) He flattened out the pyramid, and he eliminated a vast array of shelters and credits in order to insure that the so called rich were not able to escape their fair share. At the same time, he projected American strength by beefing up the military and vastly increasing its budget, not just from a conventional standpoint, but also by going full bore into the SDI missile defensive shields. This system, which is a thorn in the sides of the Socialists since its inception is the world’s only true defensive weapons system, as it is designed not to harm anybody, but simply to shoot down incoming missiles aimed at us. Just to make another quick point, how anyone calling themselves an advocate for peace would be able to oppose this system is beyond astounding. Ronald Reagan had inherited a far worse economy from Jimmy Carter, and by deregulation, lowering tax rates, and defunding large swaths of the federal bureaucracy, he was able to show vast improvements in the economy by this point in his Presidency. Barack Obama is increasing government regulation, adding new taxes at an astounding rate, and indeed creating new government bureaucracies by executive fiat. He is in effect the anti-Reagan. Indeed, it takes an incredible amount of dishonesty to draw this comparison in a serious manner. So, naturally when we need that level of dishonesty, I give you MSNBC.
Fortunately, during that same show, Chris Matthews made the mistake of having someone with an adult memory, Michael Steele, on as a guest. The result was one that I probably would have had, outright laughter. My favorite part? Well that would be Matthews and his other guest, Joan Walsh, are actually feigning hurt feelings at the concept of being laughed at for making this comparison.
The bottom line is this, if you do not wish to be laughed at, do not say stupid things. Equating Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan qualifies under this rule. I understand the why, President Obama’s performance of the job he successfully campaigned for in 2008 has not been stellar, to say the least. Even his most ardent supporters are beginning to show frustration with his performance to date. The only thing left for them is to try to equate him with someone who was actually good at the job. That is why it is somewhat amusing to me to witness the same people who viciously maligned Reagan, called him stupid, derided his policies, now attempting to co-opt his legacy for their man.
Special note: The post I put up two days ago was not advocating for tax increases as a means to closing the budget deficit. In fact, I argued the opposite. For whatever reason, some folks assumed that I had taken the opposite view, and was for the so called balanced approach. As someone who has an understanding of the Laffer Curve, I can assure you that I fully understand that Tax Rate Cuts lead to increased revenues.