Bush vs. Reagan vs. Gingrich

[PatrickG]

Okay...

I know that, to a lot of people, Reagan, Gingrich and Bush are the anti-christ.

But I really see fundamental differences between them. I have respect for Gingrich and Reagan that I do not have for George W. Bush. And yes, I think Gingrich had a scuzzy personal life... But I feel that the party as led by W. has betrayed the small government ideals of Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" and I continually find it flat out offensive to compare W. to Reagan, who actually did appeal to a segment of Democrats and if nothing else was a thousand times the orator that W. will ever be.

1. Is it fair to call George W. Bush the successor to Reagan?

2. Are Gingrich and George W. more comparable or in conflict regarding the ethos of American conservatism?

My feeling is that they all look alike to liberals and that Bush supporters are eager to smooth over the differences. But the differences seem disturbingly stark to me. If you don't mind, particularly if you're not a regular here, I'd like those of you who respond to consider how your own political views may impact your answers.

[Calybos]

Well, let's see.

Reagan helped put forward the notion that government was inherently evil, and his administration perpetrated the screw-the-poor policies of "supplys side economics," benefiting the rich and corporations at the expense of workers. Bush's crowd has done the same.

Reagan subverted the Constitution to prosecute illegal, undeclared wars. Ditto for Bush.

Reagan had nothing but contempt for other nations, ally or no, ignored the UN, tried to destroy women's right to choose, and openly discarded science that worked counter to corporate interests (global warming, alternative energy, endangered species, etc.). That describes the Bush policies perfectly.

Reagan wasted billions, even trillions, on unneeded and unworkable military spending, treated military action as the first and best response to any international troubles, and generated a gigantic, unprecedented deficit after condemning Democrats for their wasteful spending. Bush has copied this agenda word for word.

The Reagan era engendered the "President is above the law" philosophy embodied in Oliver North, and insisted that the Constitution shouldn't get in the way of the Chief Executive's power to protect America... the Bush administration is currently making similar claims.

So except for Bush being clumsier and more blatant about it--I really don't see a huge difference in attitude or damage to the country.

[f. chong rutherford]

Okay...

I know that, to a lot of people, Reagan, Gingrich and Bush are the anti-christ.

But I really see fundamental differences between them. I have respect for Gingrich and Reagan that I do not have for George W. Bush. And yes, I think Gingrich had a scuzzy personal life... But I feel that the party as led by W. has betrayed the small government ideals of Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" and I continually find it flat out offensive to compare W. to Reagan, who actually did appeal to a segment of Democrats and if nothing else was a thousand times the orator that W. will ever be.

1. Is it fair to call George W. Bush the successor to Reagan?

2. Are Gingrich and George W. more comparable or in conflict regarding the ethos of American conservatism?

My feeling is that they all look alike to liberals and that Bush supporters are eager to smooth over the differences. But the differences seem disturbingly stark to me. If you don't mind, particularly if you're not a regular here, I'd like those of you who respond to consider how your own political views may impact your answers.

Yes, for two reasons. The first is that both have shown remarkable resiliance and resistance to scandal--even as those scandals engulf those around them. The resiliance comes from many different places, not the least of which is a constant underestimation of their intelligence and influence. Reagan dodged 'Iran-Contra' with reliable, believed claims that he wasn't involved. Actions in South and Central America under his tenure were carried out under auspices of executive privledge and legality--in a way similiar to tactics used to defend domestic surveillance. This should be no surprise, given the formerly junior status (under Reagan) of several now senior government officials (under Bush). Also, success breeds immitation.

Reagan, through image manipulation and speechcraft, was able to present himself as an everyman. In his roots, he was an everyman, though by the time he ascended to political power, he was far removed from that label (even though, by some definitions, he was a member of the 'Hollywood Elite' as President of the Screen Actors Guild, then as Governor of California). Bush has managed some of the same image manipulation. Crawford, Texas allows Bush to project the image of an everyman farmer, and deflect his status as a third generation old money member of the Ivy league. Domestically, they have similar marks, both creating and managing budgets with high deficits, with responsibility for those deficits deflected to other sources.

The stark contrast between the two is in foreign policy. Reagan era foreign policy centered on covert military action, through domestic and foreign operations, to carry out American policy. Some of these policies continued under Bush Sr.. The history of the world changed, however, at the moment Bush Sr.'s White House decided to eliminate and disband the Afghani Muhajadeen and pull U.S. support completely from Afghanistan. Had the U.S. stayed to stabalize the region, it's doubtful the Taliban would've risen there--and by proxy would've curbed the influence of Osama Bin Laden.

Bush foreign policy is more overt in the exercise of American power. However, the overt nature of the policies are proving detrimental to fiscal solvency. The generally abrassive embrace of U.S. power also didn't win many allies in the so-called 'War on Terror' which has placed the country in the dubious position of 'damned if we do/damned if we don't' in Iraq. The likely outcome of Iraq will be similiar to Viet Nam--at some point, the public will become so disenchanted with the continued fighting and military occupation that it may no longer be politically feasible to maintain a presence. However, if Iraq is left unattended, in the same way that Afghainstan was after 1990, then this could lead to very dire and dangerous consequences in a short period of time. Even worse, the current U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is incomplete, and largely also forgotten. Should the Taliban return to power, they may find more overt and willing allies in the Middle East.

Gingrich's biggest contributions to the political right were the 'Contract with America' the creation of the famous memo 'Language: A Key Mechanism of Control' (advocating the use of optimistic verbiage in political speech, ostensibly a form of 'political correctness') and the 'Conservative Revolution' that turned control of Congress over to Republicans in the mid-90s. In these ways, he's intellectually heads above Bush and Reagan, and held a different sociopolitical agenda. Bush is shrewd at discerning the path of least resistance to leadership and power. Gingrich is more akin to Karl Rove, as someone who can create a plan to leadership and see that it's well executed.

[PatrickG]

See, I'd say that Bush has perpetuated the idea of government being evil by doing evil things. Reagan was much more of a deist. He used the term "God" more than anybody but Nancy visited an astrologist and he had gay friends. I don't see where Bush would fit.

Reagan had a service record. Bush went AWOL. Reagan worked his way up from the middle class. Bush is a rich frat boy who passed out, puking at Hunter S. Thompson's place and got kicked out on the street. Reagan was a brilliant orator. Bush can't even follow a teleprompter.

And I think most of the comparisons made are mistakes. Any staunch conservative is likely to:

Put American security interests first, above even its closest allies, when making policy decisions. Even if it screws the allies a bit in the process.

Oppose abortion and likely favor criminalizing it.

Favor venture capitalism over environmental policies. Among other reasons, with the belief that venture capitalism -- when run intelligently -- will treat the environment as a resource and that environmentally unsound policies will be corrected by market factors.

As for the president being above the law and all that, I tend to think that the entire Cold War ethos of National Security, which Reagan didn't invent, already established that idea.

Then again, I think virtually every president since Jackson overstepped their bounds and consider FDR to be dangerously close to a communist and a tyrant.

If you hate Reagan, I suppose you won't see Bush as being different. If you like Bush, you'll see him as the progression of Reagan. I don't feel that's the case though.

[Adam Crocker]

And I think most of the comparisons made are mistakes. Any staunch conservative is likely to:

Put American security interests first, above even its closest allies, when making policy decisions. Even if it screws the allies a bit in the process.

So where does any of them fit on this and how? Moreover, how do you define American security interests? The Bush administration claimed that American security interests were in invading Iraq. A similar ethos was at work with the interventionist policies of the Cold War, which Reagan followed. Yet I don't see how any of these convincingly were American security interests.

[PatrickG]

Not saying I agree with Reagan's idea of "American Security Interests".

I just feel that Bush took the idea of "American Security Interests" farther.

I understand why Reagan resisted scandals like teflon. He was a smooth talker. A pleasant, reassuring figure who seemed confident in American prosperity.

I don't understand why Bush has not been impeached, even with a Republican congress. The guy just seems untrustworthy. You can judge a person's compteence and intellect by how they carry themselves and Bush, frankly, sucks. He seems perpetually angry. He's short-tempered. He wears suits that don't fit. He has zero charm. He's never once convincingly conjured up the image of American prosperity and he spends all of his time talking about threats and enemies.

If I could ask him one question and grill him for an answer until I was satisfied, I would ask him who America's enemies are, from A to Z. I would ask him how and why he includes citizens in that list. I would ask him if he feels that enemies of America should suffer and if that includes torture for purposes other than questioning.

How Bush would answer those questions and how Reagan would answer those questions, I imagine as being quite different -- both in terms of content and how well polished the answer would be.

[Samurai]

Coming from a Republican, I see them each as individuals with their own beliefs, strengths, flaws, and ways of doing things. Bush is only "the successor to Reagan" in that he's the latest Republican president. They differ in quite a few ways, as do a great many Republicans. We aren't the single-minded clones the left makes us out to be... the party includes everyone from atheists to devout believers, economic conservatives to spend-thrifts, social conservatives to pro-abortion rights folks. "He's a Republican" actually tells you very little about what the person definitely believes.

Personally, I'm more of a Reagan Republican. IMHO he was the greatest president of my lifetime, and I cried as I watched his funeral. I doubt we'll see another like him anytime soon.

[Sanagi]

The thing that really makes Bush worse than the others is the stupid grin that he gets during speeches when he pauses to let whatever nonsensical thing he just said sink into the audience's heads.

[Acecool]

Probably the worse thing about Reagan, and there is a lot of bad things, was his covert war on unions. His firing of air traffic controllers who serve a vital function and still don't get the respect they deserve was probably the most blatant pro corporate, screw the working guy moment. That was the moment, the slide, from general prosperity to the wretched conditions we are finding ourselves in now.

I could go on and expound on what I wrote above, but I am afraid if I do, I won't stop.

I cried when Reagan died because so many people hold him in such high esteem, when he deserved none of it.