Politics

The Real Ronald Reagan

Jun. 20, 2012 3:13pm

S.E. Cupp is a New York Daily News columnist and TheBlaze TV host that has previously written for the Washington Post, Slate, Human Events, American Spectator, FOXNews.com, NASCAR.com, the Detroit Free Press and others. As a political commentator, Cupp appears on TheBlaze TV's 'Real News' and MSNBC's 'The Cycle' daily.

S.E. Cupp is the author of Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity (Simon & Schuster, 2010) and co-author of Why You’re Wrong About The Right (Simon & Schuster, 2008).

Read more about S.E.'s work at www.thesecupp.com

Cupp: The Real Ronald Reagan

 

Poor Ronald Reagan. He gets tossed around so often. Can’t the guy rest in peace?

This past week, it’s Jeb Bush, who has delighted in injecting himself into the 2012 presidential campaign of late, whether it’s been helpful to the Republican nominee or not. Sounds like Bill Clinton has some competition in the campaign interference department.

Last Monday, Bush told a group of reporters that Reagan, as well as his own father, George H.W. Bush, would have a difficult time earning the nomination of today’s ultraconservative Republican Party.

“Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support,” Bush said, noting in particular his father’s compromise on taxes as an example of what Poppy Bush and Reagan were once able to achieve.

The assertion, though neither accurate nor novel, still managed to whip the press into a frenzy over the perceived slight against the state of modern conservatism.

Yes, the same conservatives who nominated John (The Moderate) McCain in 2008 and Mitt (The Massachusetts Liberal Obamacare Author) Romney this year would apparently find Reagan too compromising to pass muster today, the story goes.

I’m not sure which Republican Party Jeb is talking about, or why he’s talking about it at all, for that matter. But for one thing, our collective memory of Reagan has faded to the point of amnesia. The guy who told Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” was hardly a mealy-mouthed moderate.

So here’s a brief lesson for those who think Reagan was just Dennis Kucinich with a tan.

He famously campaigned against state-sponsored welfare programs, pledging that he would “send the welfare bums back to work.” That’s the kind of toxic language that got Newt Gingrich in trouble this year, when he called President Obama “the food stamp President.”

Reagan so despised the caprice and power of organized labor that he told an entire fleet of air-traffic controllers to get the hell back to work. If Jeb Bush thinks a union-slaying hard-liner couldn’t get elected today, he should visit Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who managed to do it — twice.

Reagan was so supportive of capital punishment he could make a Texan blush today, once declaring, “Individuals are responsible for their actions. Retribution should be swift and sure for those who prey on the innocent.”

His “War on Drugs” campaign would be considered disturbing by Ron Paul libertarians. And one of his Supreme Court nominees, Robert Bork, was so controversially conservative, he was eviscerated by a Senate committee, giving us the expression “to bork.”

From Reaganomics, espoused by folks like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) today, to his hawkish foreign policy, Reagan would fit in quite nicely with his party in 2012.

Cupp: The Real Ronald Reagan

Jeb Bush

But you know who wouldn’t fit in with his own party today? A Democrat named John F. Kennedy. If you subjected one of the left’s most hallowed heroes to the kind of silly time travel experiment that often befalls Reagan, JFK wouldn’t find too many friends on the progressive left today.

The Democrats of 2012 couldn’t very well wage a class war against the 1% and put up someone like Kennedy — a product of Choate, Harvard and Hyannis Port whose family millions and political pedigree make Romney look middle class.

Kennedy supported censuring Joseph McCarthy, signed a balanced-budget pledge and argued for lower tax rates — especially on high-income earners.

He aggressively pledged to rid the world of communism and replace it with American democracy, abandoning detente in Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, Berlin and Latin America, and had us on the brink of nuclear war.

He virtually ignored the civil rights movement to avoid angering Southern Democrats, only addressing the brewing crisis when it became a matter of national security.

Someone like JFK wouldn’t be much of a Democrat today.

But no one talks about the death of the moderate Democrat, even though scores of Blue Dogs have either retired or lost their elections due to an increasing appetite for liberals with more progressive bite. As former Alabama Democratic Rep. Artur Davis recently put it when he announced he was changing his party affiliation:

“I see the Democratic Party taking a step backward. . . . I see more of an embrace of identity politics and group politics, which makes us more fractured than united.”

Which brings us back to compromise, and the idea that Reagan’s ability to work with others would somehow put him outside the conservative sphere today. Compromise is a tactical strategy, not a sign of ideological weakness. Every President does it because he has to.

Cupp: The Real Ronald Reagan

Let’s not forget that, unlike JFK, Reagan at times had a House and Senate that opposed him, making compromise a necessity, not a choice.

Some of Reagan’s strongest opponents were, in fact, establishment Republicans — guys like Jeb Bush’s dad, who called Reagan’s fiscal policies “voodoo economics.”

If Reagan were alive today, he would probably find that some things have changed. But the party he loved and the causes he cared so deeply about are still here, still very much a part of the conservative movement. If Jeb Bush thinks otherwise, maybe he should switch parties.

This column originally appeared in the New York Daily News. 

Comments (16)

  • Patriot760
    Jun. 25, 2012 at 2:43am

    Great job, S.E.! Thanks for setting the record straight for the knuckleheads.

    Report this comment

    Patriot760  
  • Churchill
    Jun. 24, 2012 at 1:30pm

    I think I’m in love with you S.E. Cupp!!! Great article. People constantly talk about the tea party being ultra conservative etc. But nobody talks about how far to the left the Dems have moved. They’d be more at home in Europe NOT the land of the free!!

    Report this comment

    Churchill  
  • Optimist4now
    Jun. 22, 2012 at 4:28pm

    Ronald Reagan would probably not fit in with the progressive bent of the Bush Republicans, just as JFK would not be accepted by the progressive progression of the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s time for Jeb Bush to sit down and be quiet, it’s time for the Constitutional Conservatives to reestablish their place in the Republican Party if a third party cannot compete.

    Thank you S.E. for a wonderful insightful piece.

    Report this comment

    Optimist4now  
  • WILFREDFROMSUNCITYFL
    Jun. 22, 2012 at 12:45pm

    S.E. is on target once again. The total package: beautiful, tough, smart and conservative. We need her this year, now more than ever.

    Thank you, President Reagan.

    Report this comment

    WILFREDFROMSUNCITYFL  
  • JUSTANOTHEROPINION
    Jun. 22, 2012 at 1:00am

    Jeb Bush, what a loser. The only reason he did not run for POTUS is because us Floridians know him all to well and he did not want to be embarrassed by losing this state by a land slide. Who actually gives two poops what he says or (if it’s possible) thinks.

    Report this comment

    JUSTANOTHEROPINION  
  • SLOWBIDEN
    Jun. 21, 2012 at 1:49pm

    Even George washington warned us against a party system in his farewell address. In short he said that it creates corruption. Any time some congressman or senator caters to his party before his state he is unconstitutionally sound. Just as Obama caters to the democrats before we the people. I Guess George Washington knew a thing or two. He was also a Christian like 99.4% of the founding fathers.

    Report this comment

    SLOWBIDEN  
    • bement14
      Jun. 21, 2012 at 9:47pm

      Though if you compare our two party system it is vastly better than others with multiple parties. The benefit from our system is that we elect the person instead of the party. If you compare Ron Paul to someone like Senator Snowe you can see the vast differences within a single party. If you look at other countries they are able to allow parties to define politics, which is much less in our country, even now when it is at what I believe is the most polarized in years.

      Report this comment

      bement14  
  • TomFerrari
    Jun. 20, 2012 at 9:06pm

    Nice piece, S.E.!

    And a salient point that Reagan WOULD fit into today’s Republican party,
    while JFK would NOT fit into today’s “Democrat” party.
    I have too many conservative friends that are “Democrats” and their “Dad was a Democrat.” Who say, they’ve “always been a Democrat and always gonna be a Democrat.”
    The party has left them. They are gobsmacked by what news manages to actually reach them about the goings-on in today’s so-called “Democrat” party, which is nothing more than a Socialist party at this point. It was invaded by the Socialists of the 60′s who have risen through the ranks and are now choking the living be-Jesus out of what remains of what we once knew as the “Democratic Party.”

    Report this comment

    TomFerrari  
    • The Third Archon
      Jun. 21, 2012 at 3:57am

      So…what you’re saying is the whole point of having multiple parties, i.e. ideological diversity, is a bad cause–it would be much nicer, quicker, and more reflective of the values of REAL Americans if we’d just have a one party system comprised of two parties with identical platforms? You mean what we ALMOST have in the status quo?

      Report this comment

      The Third Archon  
  • The Third Archon
    Jun. 20, 2012 at 8:42pm

    “The Democrats of 2012 couldn’t very well wage a class war against the 1% and put up someone like Kennedy — a product of Choate, Harvard and Hyannis Port whose family millions and political pedigree make Romney look middle class.”
    LOL–Romney’s net worth is between $190-250 million by contemporary estimates, that SURE IS middle class alright.

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Jun. 23, 2012 at 10:39am

      “would make Romney look middle class”…

      the key word there…if you read… is LOOK…the Kennedy’s are the closest thing to an American Monarchy in the last 230 years….that is why they called his presidency Camelot…NOT because they saw him as a great leader…but they FEARED he would become a KING and surplant his knights to rule over us….yes some of it was because they viewed it as a “new day” for Amerca that would usher in peace and the people LOVED him and Jackie….but anyone that knows that fable of King Arthur knows that his reign was full of war, death, strife, and infidelity…wow…yeah..just like Kennedy…the real “historical” Arthur..or the best idea of who he was…also lead a life filled with war, death, and strife…even if he did unite the tribal and Roman aligned people of Britian into a nation…

      Report this comment

      VRW Conspirator  
  • The Third Archon
    Jun. 20, 2012 at 8:40pm

    “He famously campaigned against state-sponsored welfare programs, pledging that he would “send the welfare bums back to work….Reagan so despised the caprice and power of organized labor that he told an entire fleet of air-traffic controllers to get the hell back to work…Reagan was so supportive of capital punishment he could make a Texan blush today…His “War on Drugs” campaign would be considered disturbing by Ron Paul libertarians…and one of his Supreme Court nominees, Robert Bork, was so controversially conservative, he was eviscerated by a Senate committee…From Reaganomics, espoused by folks like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) today, to his hawkish foreign policy, Reagan would fit in quite nicely with his party in 2012.”
    These are the POSITIVES of Reagan’s presidency in your eyes?! Dear God, I’m terrified to think of what his MISTAKES might of been, if those are the HIGHLIGHTS of his presidency.

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
  • KidCharlemagne
    Jun. 20, 2012 at 5:44pm

    “His “War on Drugs” campaign would be considered disturbing by Ron Paul libertarians.”
    ============================================================

    Reagan wasn’t perfect………..and the War on Drugs is proof of that.

    Once upon a time in America, The Volstead Act enriched violent criminals like Al Capone far beyond their wildest dreams by reducing the number of competitors on the playing field and keeping prices (and subsequently net profits) artificially high by reducing available supply. As a result, organized crime flourished and the taxpayer went broke as a result of applying the flawed strategy of protecting organized crime from competition and reducing excess supply….

    Fast forward to Nixon’s (and later Reagan’s) War on Drugs and business is once again booming for organized crime:

    ——————————————————————
    “Mexican drug cartels’ US reach expanded over 300 percent in two years
    09/30/2011

    Mexican drug cartels have expanded the scope of their U.S. operations over 300 percent in two years, from operating in at least 230 cities in 2008 to more than 1,000 cities in 2010, according to a comparison of the U.S. Justice Department’s National Drug Threat Assessments.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/30/drug-war-mexican-cartels-u-s-reach-expands-over-400-percent-in-two-years/

    Report this comment

    KidCharlemagne  
    • TomFerrari
      Jun. 20, 2012 at 9:01pm

      The solution for the drug problem, at least for now,
      is to SEAL the border!

      When a farmer cannot get his crops to market, he goes out of business!
      That is why states (such as Texas) built lots of “Farm to Market” roads!

      The cartels aren’t making drugs for fun; nor are they doing it because they are anti-American.
      No, they do it for PROFIT.
      Eliminate access (border) to their market (the USA) and you eliminate the profit.
      Eliminate the profit, their motive is gone for making the drugs. They will try to find new ways for a while, but, their success will be such a rarefied occurrence, they will wither and fade away. Drug lords will retire on their billions to comfy mansions, after fighting it out with each other for the remaining spoils of their operations.

      Americans will attempt to manufacture domestically, but, with our relatively minor levels of corruption, will be caught.

      Israel is able to secure its borders. We can send robots to Mars.
      WE CAN SEAL THE BORDER.
      We just need the political will to do so.

      Mexicans and immigrants (both legal and illegal) should support a SEALED BORDER.
      50,000 Mexicans have been MURDERED by the drug violence in Mexico.

      One has to wonder, is any of the drug money being recirculated into political campaigns here in the USA to keep the border OPEN?

      Report this comment

      TomFerrari  
    • psychokittis
      Jun. 21, 2012 at 11:20pm

      @ Tomferrari,
      Yes, sealing the borsder is part of the solution. Another part would be doing like Singapore. Drug dealers get the death penalty. Same should go for the users, since drug violence happens so that those selfish individuals can get stoned. Yes, I said give users the death penalty along with their soppliers. Problem solved.

      Report this comment

      psychokittis  
    • KidCharlemagne
      Jun. 22, 2012 at 10:06am

      TomFerrari
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:01pm

      The solution for the drug problem, at least for now,
      is to SEAL the border!
      ===============================================

      Like it or not, millions of American jobs depend on NAFTA right now and if you tried to “seal the border”, then you would send a whole lot of Americans to the unemployment line.

      That’s about as logical as stabbing yourself in the heart to keep mosquitoes from landing on your skin and subsequently siphoning your blood.

      I’m not a big fan of NAFTA, but this is reality at the moment and if all cross-border traffic were to suddenly come to a halt, then it would set off an economic depression.

      It’s easy to say “seal the border”, but you would have to sacrifice a whole lot of American livelihoods as a consequence.

      Report this comment

      KidCharlemagne  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

TheBlaze

Channel Finder

Find TheBlaze on your TV

This zipcode is invalid, please try again

Channel Finder

TheBlaze is available on channel .

Spread the word!

If you can't find TheBlaze, please call to upgrade your package

Channel Finder

Unfortunately, TheBlaze is not available on .

But you can help! Call at or press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

But you can help! Press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

Continue

Request TheBlaze

Please complete the form

I would like to receive news and information from TheBlaze.
Skip

Thank you for supporting TheBlaze

Interested in doing more? Spread the word about TheBlaze to your friends and family.

Spread the word!

TheBlaze Magazine
Restoring Love