Posted By Chris Queen On February 16, 2011 @ 6:45 am
There’s an curious trend happening these days — some might even call it disturbing — in which members of the Left are falling all over each other to compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan. If it weren’t so odd, and at times over the top, it would be easy to dismiss it as quaint and merely laughable, but this meme has become head-stratchingly bizarre.
The comparisons have been going on since Obama was barely inaugurated, but the last few months have seen an upswing in the Obama-as-Reagan narrative. We can point to two occasions which come together to serve as the main impetus for what has turned into a seemingly endless comparison. The first and most obvious one is the centennial of President Reagan’s birth. This momentous event has been accompanied by a wave of Reagan nostalgia, obviously from all of us here on the Right, but, interestingly enough, also from the Left. That’s right, even the Left has finally come around to see what a great man Reagan was, albeit grudgingly.
The second event is actually a pair of speeches President Obama made within a few days of each other. When Obama spoke at a memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shooting, he made a masterful speech, even if the service was marred by truly strange crowd behavior. The speech was possibly one of Obama’s finest moments. A couple of weeks later, he delivered his State of the Union address. The mainstream media attempted to paint the address as another deftly delivered speech, but it was just full of the same empty, vague platitudes as any number of speeches Obama gave during his campaign.
Seizing on this train of nostalgia for a truly remarkable president like Reagan and on a pair of alleged high notes for Obama, the Left has picked up the ball of Obama-Reagan comparisons and run with it. Time even ran with a now notorious cover featuring a photoshopped image of Reagan standing next to Obama, his arm around the younger president’s shoulder, a photo that is as tacky as those electronically edited duets between a living singer and a deceased one. It was an audacious move, to say the least.
Sadly, we know the truth. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. And even though most of us know this fact, it’s worth pointing out the reasons why there is no comparison between the two men. Here’s a list of reasons why Obama can’t even hold a candle to Reagan.
We’ll start with the obvious elephant in the room with these comparisons…
7. Obama Hated Reagan! (So Naturally, They’re Alike.)
The Time cover reads, “Why Obama [Hearts] Reagan.” This one may take the cake as the most egregiously false headlines of all time. Even the article inside points to the contrary. Two paragraphs in the story show that Obama not only despised Reagan, but he also made it his mission to undermine everything Reagan stood for:
In many ways, the Gipper gave Obama his start. Obama’s first public political act occurred on Feb. 18, 1981, just 29 days after Reagan took the oath of office in Washington. The 19-year-old sophomore, who had just abandoned the nickname Barry for his birth name Barack, climbed onto an outdoor stage at Occidental College to urge his school to divest from companies doing business in apartheid South Africa. “There’s a struggle going on,” he called out. “I say, there’s a struggle going on.”
Wait a second: should the Left be comparing Obama to Reagan or to Foghorn Leghorn?
In the years that followed, Reagan would come to epitomize all that Obama opposed. Reagan cut social spending in America’s cities, backed what Obama called “death squads” in El Salvador and began to build what Obama regarded as an “ill conceived” missile-defense shield. “I personally came of age during the Reagan presidency,” Obama wrote later, recalling the classroom debates in his courses on international affairs. When he graduated from Columbia in 1983, Obama decided to become a community organizer. “I’d pronounce the need for change,” Obama wrote in his memoir. “Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds.” A decade later, he was still at it, leading a 1992 Illinois voter-registration effort aimed at breaking the Reagan coalition’s hold on his state’s electoral votes.
Obviously we know and can take away from what we’ve read here that Obama and Reagan have stood on near diametrical opposites of the political spectrum. We can also see above and from what we’ve looked at in Stanley Kurtz’s book Radical-In-Chief that the actions of the Reagan administration served as a catalyst for Obama’s choice of Alinskyite community organizing as a profession.
So why doesn’t Obama brush off the comparisons?
Next: Obama’s Reaganesque foreign policy?
6. Obama’s Foreign Policy Is Just Like Reagan’s. No, Seriously. It Is.
One of the most fascinating aspects of Reagan’s presidency was the fact that he was able to sign treaties with the Soviets while working to increase our missile defense and taking steps to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union.
Shortly after Obama was inaugurated, a group called the Atlantic Council had the nerve to write an article about the president’s plans of total nuclear disarmament entitled, “Fulfilling Reagan’s Dream.” In it, the author paints Obama as a successor to Reagan in terms of foreign policy:
In 1986 at the Reykjavik summit, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, both passionate about nuclear disarmament, shocked deterrence experts with an unimaginable proposal – total nuclear disarmament. “It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,” said Reagan. “We can do that,” replied Gorbachev, “Let’s eliminate them. We can eliminate them.”
Today, having won his election on a campaign of “change,” President Obama has promised to take “urgent new actions” toward a goal of “eliminating nuclear weapons.” In fact, with public opinion and a growing consensus of world leaders on his side, Obama is now better positioned than any previous global leader to accomplish what Reagan and Gorbachev couldn’t achieve over two decades ago – national and international commitment to total nuclear disarmament.
In April 2010, journalist Anderson Cooper had the audacity to compare Obama’s foreign policy to Reagan’s yet again. As the author of the blog Vocal Minority put it so well:
As he met earlier this week with world leaders, Obama continued to further jeopardize our national security and embolden our enemies: Decreasing our nuclear stockpile, letting the entire world know that no strike on our soil will result in a nuclear retaliation … If it hurts us and strengthens everyone else, Obama proposed it.
In response to this nuclear summit, commentator Anderson Cooper had the chutzpah to compare Obama’s foreign policy approach to that of Ronald Reagan, and was wondering why Republicans were so disagreeable.
Unfortunately, Anderson Cooper couldn’t be more wrong. Reagan’s foreign policy was based on the clear concept of “peace through strength.” Even though he worked to drastically cut down the nuclear arsenals on both sides, Reagan knew we had to have a strong defense to survive.
Obama’s foreign policy appears to be “peace through appeasement and neutralizing our own strength.” Decimating our weaponry, alienating our allies, and treating our military as some sort of social experiment are not the keys to a strong foreign policy. And they’re certainly not Reaganesque.
Next: How the Left is trying to will an Obama reelection…
5. Reagan And Obama Had Similar Polling & Approval Numbers…Therefore, They’re Just Alike!
Even before the midterm elections which proved disastrous for the Left, certain members of the mainstream media began to look obsessively at Obama’s polling and approval numbers and compare them to Reagan’s numbers at the time. This comparison of data was an obvious attempt to give the Left a bit of encouragement, but it can also be seen as an attempt to sort of will the 2012 election in Obama’s favor.
In October 2010, The Atlantic published an article entitled “Democrats Look to Obama/Reagan Comparisons for Solace.” The article covered the obsession with Reagan’s polling numbers from around the 1982 midterm elections. In the piece, Nicole Allan writes:
President Obama is in better re-election shape now than President Reagan was at the equivalent point in his first term, according to a new poll from National Journal and the Pew Research Center. In August of 1982, only 36 percent of voters wanted Reagan to run again, according to Gallup polling. The new NJ/Pew poll, however, shows that 47 percent of of the public would like to see Obama run for re-election in 2012.
The beacon of hope here for the White House, of course, is that despite taking a beating in the 1982 midterms, Reagan won 49 states and 59 percent of the popular vote in 1984, successfully installing him in his second term. And Reagan, like Obama, launched his presidency during a tough economy. In 1982, the country’s unemployment rate was nearly identical to what it is today.
Obama/Reagan comparisons have been captivating downtrodden Democrats recently, providing hope that the president will be able to recover from a rocky two years and what figures to be a brutal midterm Election Day and find his footing as a historic, popular president.
So this is the game! The Left is wishing like Snow White that Obama will be their prince who comes along and rescues them from failure by becoming a “historic, popular president.”
Unfortunately, Allan ignores the fact that Reagan had to fight against a press that insulted and undermined him at every turn with virtually no alternative media to present a balanced view or defend him from his critics. Obama has the mainstream media, which is, for the most part, complicit in his agenda.
Where now it’s easier to make an informed decision and see both sides before forming one’s opinion on Obama, during Reagan’s time, voters had to look past a near constant barrage of anti-Reagan coverage in the media. This fact makes Reagan’s historic reelection in 1984 even more remarkable.
Next: Handling tough economic situations…
4. Reagan And Obama Both Inherited Difficult Economic Challenges. (See…Just Alike!)
The economic situations that both Presidents Reagan and Obama inherited are quite similar, as the media is far too eager to point out, but the way each chief executive handled their economic problems couldn’t be farther from each other.
Rather than allowing the economy to correct its own course, Obama has placed a firm hand on it. His administration has used billions of dollars in taxpayer money to bail out and prop up entire sectors of the economy. He has placed burdensome regulations on the financial sector and has even gotten involved in attempts to curb executive compensation. Legislation involving health care reform and environmental regulation have been classically tone deaf to the dire state of the economy. He talks about jobs, jobs, jobs, yet his administration’s policies have done little to inspire businesses to create them. It’s obvious that Obama and his advisors are Keynesians, and this progressive, hands-on approach to the economy has lead to little or no growth and precious little light at the end of the tunnel.
By contrast, Reagan responded to the economic malaise brought on by the seventies with an unprecedented tax cut and a hands-off, minimalist handling of the economy. Reagan’s economic policies encouraged entrepreneurialism and investment and led to astounding growth. Deregulation helped certain sectors of the economy grow in ways they had not before. There’s a reason why the eighties are remembered as a time when the economy boomed.
These differences weren’t lost on the folks at Time:
This is where the Obama-Reagan comparison begins to break down. Lou Cannon, who wrote the Reagan biography that Obama read on vacation, points out that economic growth in the U.S. in the four quarters following the 1982 elections averaged a steroidal 7%. Most economists expect the U.S. economy to grow no more than half as fast this year. “If you were to say to anyone now that the U.S. would have a 7% growth rate in 2011, they would be writing the second Inaugural speech already,” says Cannon.
That Reagan era growth can easily be attributed to the economic policies of his administration. The Left can make all the comparisons they want between the economy Obama inherited and the economy Reagan inherited, but that’s where the comparison has to stop. There is simply no comparison between the two administrations’ handling of those economies. And there’s no comparison to how the economy has responded to each president’s policies.
Next: Big government vs. small government…
3. Obama And Reagan Both Had Revolutionary Views Of Government.
The Time article notes that both Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan held views of the role of government that were revolutionary for their time. Yet interestingly enough, the leftist magazine tries to downplay the fact that the two presidents’ views fall at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Instead, the authors attempt to frame Obama’s government expansion as an effort to change public perception of government, a more nuanced philosophy than that of Reagan:
“What Reagan ushered in was a skepticism toward government solutions to every problem,” Obama said. “I don’t think that has changed.” But then he went on to say he believed his election would spell “an end to the knee-jerk reaction toward the New Deal and Big Government.” In Obama’s mind, his election was not an endorsement of the outsize government role that Reagan battled — bureaucratic, ever expanding, self-interested — but a cry for government that could carry out its basic missions more effectively. “I think what you’re seeing is a correction to the correction,” Obama explained.
No one was unclear about Reagan’s guiding philosophy: “Government is the problem,” he declared on his Inauguration Day, and by then he had been saying it for nearly 20 years. Obama’s is more complex. He wants to reset the public’s attitude toward government, reverse 30 years of skepticism and mistrust and usher in a new era in which government solutions are again seen as part of the answer to the nation’s ills.
But, as we can see from both words and deeds, Reagan clearly favored smaller government, while Obama has done more to increase the role of government in our lives than we could ever imagine.
Here are quotes from Reagan’s first Inaugural Address that explain, in pretty straightforward style, his view of the role of the federal government in the lives of Americans:
“It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states. The States created the federal government.”
“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
“It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”
And Reagan’s actions backed his words.
Under Obama’s watch, the federal government has expanded greatly. The administration has laid plans to take over the American health care system, bailed out large sectors of the economy, spent taxpayer money hand over fist to “stimulate” the economy, and have even tried to tell us what and how much to eat. And the list goes on.
Clearly, the difference between Obama and Reagan on the role, size, and scope of the federal government is more than a matter of mere perception.
Next: Visionaries?
2. Obama And Reagan Were Both Men Of Vision. (Or Were They?)
After Obama’s State of the Union address last month, freshman Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) wrote an op-ed piece hailing Obama’s “vision” and comparing it to Reagan, going so far as to say Reagan would appreciate it:
When President Obama stood before Congress and talked about “winning the future,” I thought about President Reagan. While Obama was attempting to rally the nation around a need for economic growth and a theme of international competitiveness, what he was really doing was inspiring a nation.
Just as it did three decades ago, what America has needed during these tough economic times was a vision — a clear goal for our nation and a path forward, a plan that set aside the comparatively petty differences of party and personal pride and declared that for us to overcome the challenges facing our nation, we must work together.
I suspect that Ronald Reagan would have appreciated such an optimistic vision for our nation’s future.
Obama has been hailed as a visionary man by the Left. Reagan is clearly seen as a visionary by the Right, and with the passage of time, the Left has finally begun to grudgingly accept Reagan as a man of great vision. But look closely at what the two campaigned on and stood for, and it’s easy to see who the true visionary is.
It was hard to tell what Barack Obama really stood for in 2008. Hiding behind meaningless phrases like “post-partisan” and “post-racial,” Obama delivered flowery speeches full of rhetoric and words like “hope” and “change” that were, at their core, devoid of genuine meaning. Obama’s was essentially a backward-looking vision, placing blame on “the last eight years” and offering to mop up problems rather than go in a specific new direction.
By contrast, Reagan had an infectious, optimistic vision. He sought to restore America’s confidence and greatness, to resurrect the “shining city on a hill” that he believed our country was. He placed the credit for America’s value on the American people, and he believed in empowering citizens in every way possible:
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we are in a time when there are no heroes just don’t know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter–and they are on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They are individuals and families whose taxes support the government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet but deep. Their values sustain our national life.
I have used the words “they” and “their” in speaking of these heroes. I could say “you” and “your” because I am addressing the heroes of whom I speak–you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God.
Compare statements like these to “hope and change,” and tell me who the real visionary is.
Next: The Great Communicator vs. the teleprompter…
1. Reagan And Obama Are Great Speakers…Another Reason Why They’re Just Alike!
Reagan was given the apt nickname “The Great Communicator,” and rightly so. Some of the biggest highlights of Reagan’s career were his speeches. There has been much fuss made about Obama’s way with a speech, and while I suppose he is a serviceable speaker (for some reason, I actually called him a “good speaker” in a post on the Obama presidency last year), he doesn’t quite reach the heights of Reagan.
Reagan was a brilliant speechmaker, but what set him apart from most was his ability to ad lib and speak off the cuff. Reagan was always ready with a quick, mischievous one-liner when the situation called for one, and his wit was always sharp. Once, when asked about the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, Reagan explained to a journalist his philosophy of not weakening the United States’ defenses too much with one line:
Too much SALT isn’t good for you.
In 1984, during a mic check for his weekly radio address, the president uttered a classic line:
My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
He caught flack from the Left for the offhand remark when it went public, but it’s proof of Reagan’s sense of humor. He could poke fun at himself as well. He was fond of making fun of his age, as evidenced by one of his favorite quips:
I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I’m in a cabinet meeting.
By contrast, Obama’s over-reliance on the teleprompter is quite famous, as is his seeming lack of ability to think on his feet in situations where the teleprompter fails him. Also, Obama’s speeches are often humorless, save the occasional cheap shot at the Right. The president often frowns and furrows his brow, appearing dour and negative as opposed to looking serious. He is clearly not the rousing, inspiring speaker that Ronald Reagan nearly always was.
Next: A conclusion…
Take a look at this short montage of Obama/Reagan comparisons:
I’ve said this before (just recently, as a matter of fact): there will never be another president like Ronald Reagan, at least not in our lifetimes. Even the best of the best that the Right has to offer will be hard pressed to measure up to Reagan. And as we’ve seen, there is no real comparison between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. As hard as the Leftist media is working to make the comparison, it’s simply impossible.
It’s funny how the same media who loathed Reagan in his day are fawning all over his memory now in their attempts to make Obama look like him. (The one exception is Life. Their centennial tribute to Reagan includes an essay by Joe Klein that was simply out of line, so full of backhanded comments that I stopped reading it after five or six paragraphs.) The article in Time is both downright disingenuous and chock full of comparisons that are stretched so thin as to be unbelievable. As one writer on the Right so aptly put it:
“Transparent” and “cheesy” are only two of the adjectives which leap to mind when assessing TIME’s over-the-top propaganda effort. What makes the the propaganda all the more blatant is that TIME had few good words for Reagan while he was in office.
Is it not amazing that it’s taken the news media exactly 100 years to discover that Ronald Reagan was a role model?
While he lived and even after he died, they shot every arrow and dropped every bomb they could on this man and his reputation. Now that it’s his 100th birthday and America is celebrating, they find him useful. They’re trying to rub Reagan’s magic all over a floundering Barack Obama.
But why? The reason is simple: the Left has been looking for their version of Ronald Reagan for the past 30 years. They thought they had one in Bill Clinton, then they thought it was Hillary Clinton, and now they’re placing all their bets on Barack Obama. And it is taking a bit of image pre-habilitation on the part of the mainstream media, making endless comparisons between the 40th president and the 44th. The trouble is, these comparisons just won’t stick.
—
Chris Queen hails from Covington, GA. Check out his non-political writing on his blog, Random Thoughts From The Revolution, or follow him on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment