Is Thompson a Reaganite? Was Reagan?

Today's New York Times story about whether Fred Thompson will be accepted as a genuine conservative and a true heir to Ronald Reagan is rather confusing, not least because the Times does not seem to have a clear idea of what it means to be a conservative in 21st-century America. To be fair, neither do I.

Some of the Thompson stances identified as conservative—opposition to the Medicaid drug benefit, support for gun rights and tax cuts, respect for the division of powers between state and federal government, the belief that we "get our basic rights from God, not government"—sound pretty good to me. Others—"unwavering support for the war in Iraq" and a desire to restrict immigration, for instance—make Thompson look less appealing. Likewise one Thompson position the Times identifies as unconservative: his support for the restrictions on political speech known as "campaign finance reform." My personal reactions aside, it's not always clear what makes these positions conservative.

Take the war. The case for invading Iraq relied on a very broad understanding of self-defense that was at odds with traditional conservative skepticism of foreign entanglements, nation building, and attempts to remake the world in our image. Staying there is conservative, I suppose, in the sense that it continues what we're doing. It may also be conservative in the sense that self-described conservatives are more likely to support staying the course than self-described liberals or progressives are, but I suspect those numbers would be reversed if the war had been launched by a Democrat.

Similarly, the Times cites Thompson's desire to restrict immigration as distinctively conservative, ignoring the many self-identified conservatives (including President Bush, John McCain, and The Wall Street Journal's editors) who are more pro-immigration. Conversely, Thompson's opposition to federal caps on punitive damages and lawyers' fees is tagged as unconservative, even though it is consistent with his avowed support for federalism. Speaking of which, the Times notes that Thompson voted against the law that established a de facto national DUI standard by threatening to withhold highway money from states that refused to adopt a BAC cutoff of 0.08 percent. That makes him more of a federalist than Reagan, who went along with similar legislation aimed at establishing a de facto national drinking age of 21.

Comments

somebody | September 7, 2007, 5:03pm | #

Wow, almost like principled conservative, but with a lot of exceptions. Expect him to do whatever he feels is good if he becomes president. Why not just run as Dubya II?

TrickyVic | September 7, 2007, 5:06pm | #

What was that arrangement Reagan had with Iran?

Episiarch | September 7, 2007, 5:12pm | #

The Times considers conservative any position which is the opposite of theirs. Duh.

shecky | September 7, 2007, 5:16pm | #

The True Conservative is the one with the deepest, most resonant voice. Clearly, that would be Fred Thompson.

Taktix® | September 7, 2007, 5:19pm | #

Neo-cons killed conservative stars...

Sing along!

TrickyVic | September 7, 2007, 5:22pm | #

I'm not sure if the neo-cons did it, or if they strangled themselves with power.

But I'm singing along anyway.

Milo Bloom | September 7, 2007, 5:28pm | #

"What was that arrangement Reagan had with Iran?"

-- goodwill gifts.

Ashish George | September 7, 2007, 5:31pm | #

"It may also be conservative in the sense that self-described conservatives are more likely to support staying the course than self-described liberals or progressives are, but I suspect those numbers would be reversed if the war had been launched by a Democrat."

If the war had been started by a Democrat, I think conservatives would be much more vocal in their criticism of the conduct of the war, but I don't think they would be less likely to support staying than liberals. There are a large number of liberals who are pretty consistent in their opposition to pre-emptive wars (roughly, the people who read or might be inclined to read magazines like The Nation or The Progressive). Remember the chant, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" The paleoconservatives are a fairly small group, so there is no comparably large anti-war constituency on the right.

"Similarly, the Times cites Thompson's desire to restrict immigration as distinctively conservative, ignoring the many self-identified conservatives (including President Bush, John McCain, and The Wall Street Journal's editors) who are more pro-immigration."

The vast majority of self-identified conservatives favor more restrictive immigration policies. Any Republican presidential candidate who take a pro-immigration line could kiss the nomination goodbye.

TrickyVic | September 7, 2007, 5:44pm | #

""but I suspect those numbers would be reversed if the war had been launched by a Democrat."""

Probably. But I don't remember Republicans whining about Clinton bombing's of the former Yugoslavia. My memory might be a little off though. Anyone?

Tom Grey - Liberty Dad | September 7, 2007, 5:45pm | #

The acoustic rhythm is certainly right -- but Bush was elected in 2000 as a NON nation builder.

9/11 changed everything ...
Islamists killed conservative stars,
...
with bombs as planes and bombs as cars...

The conservative also loves American values, and thinks America is great, even if imperfect.
The (welfare/ victim-fetishist) liberal hates the imperfections of America so much, they feel more sympathy for the world's anti-Americans than for the real victims of the anti-American tyrants.

9/11 shows that treating terrorists like criminals, presuming innocence until AFTER the crime, basically means accepting that terrorists will get and use a nuke / WMD.
(Although Tel Aviv is more likely the target than Miami, or Moscow or Mumbai.)

What is the conservative position AFTER a successful terrorist WMD attack? And shouldn't the likelihood of such an attack be considered in creating a conservative position today, before a successful attack?

This Ron Paul '88 voter thinks so, but now I have 4 kids, too!

methodistbeth | September 7, 2007, 5:55pm | #

Who is Fred Thompson? Fred Thompson has a train-wreck of both a message and an identity. He pulls contract with America out of one pocket, and he says ignore tort reform.

He unravels an ancient screed of “federalism”, and he says forget about no child left behind. He squares up his Reagan mask, and he wants to hoard the microphone from the money and voice of neophytes.

Now that he has the room thoroughly confused. He says no tax-cut pledges. Well, read my lips—no Fred Thompson.

VM | September 7, 2007, 6:09pm | #

Tricky -

mixed:

CNN report, "Although the measure passed, it was hardly an overwhelming show of support for President Clinton's Kosovo policy.

Thirty-eight Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, and three Democrats -- Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-South Carolina) -- opposed the resolution. "

[...]

"And even though Majority Whip Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma) was part of a bipartisan group of senators who wrote the resolution of support, he voted against the measure."

Some of the arguments sound eerily familiar:

""Clearly we know what the goal is here. The goal is to contain Milosevic. The goal is to stop the extraordinary violation of human rights. The goal is to undermine his military capability," Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) said. "We can achieve those goals.""

M. | September 7, 2007, 6:09pm | #

The (welfare/ victim-fetishist) liberal hates the imperfections of America so much, they feel more sympathy for the world's anti-Americans than for the real victims of the anti-American tyrants.

So you fell for that one? I guess the right repeated it enough that it became true to many people..

The real problem is that many people on the right associate criticism of the USA (even if constructive) with anti-americanism, which it isn't (life isn't binary - you can like something yet wish it was better (even if your wishes are misguided)).

Les | September 7, 2007, 6:16pm | #

9/11 shows that treating terrorists like criminals, presuming innocence until AFTER the crime, basically means accepting that terrorists will get and use a nuke / WMD.

So in order to stop terrorists from getting a nuke, we have to presume that terrorists are guilty BEFORE they commit a crime?

This is confusing. Planning a terrorist act is a crime. Working with known terrorists is a crime (unless you did so for the U.S. government during the Cold War). Are you suggesting the government should arrest and imprison people BEFORE they've committed these crimes? Considering all the innocent people who have already been arrested and imprisoned, why do you have such faith in the government that you would approve of expanding its power so dramatically?

Chris S. | September 7, 2007, 6:18pm | #

Tom,

Wait, terrorists changed everything by threatening us with WMDs? Were you asleep during the Cold War? Were we in less danger when we had hundreds of actual nukes (not your fantasy "24" style terrorist nukes) pointed at us? Were we in less danger during the Cuban missile crisis? "Everything changed" is the mantra of people who wish to exploit tragedy. Nothing changed -- we were always in danger, and yet we have always managed to preserve American values, including the presumption of innocence.

God's Own Drunk | September 7, 2007, 6:19pm | #

The GOP has so mangled and betrayed its priciples the last few years, "self-described consevatives" don't even know what "conservative" actually means.

Morat20 | September 7, 2007, 6:21pm | #

Cynically, a "true conservative" these days is an older, white gentleman that looks like your grandpa and has a rural or Southern upbringing.

Or looks like he does.

I've given up trying to understand what 'conservatism' means these days. The intellectually coherent versions -- the ones that can be understood even if you violently disagree with every word of it -- are in the distinct minority.

What's called "conservatism" these days seems to boil down to hate (liberals, gays, immigrants, whatever), greed, or just...optics.

"He looks conservative and talks like a conservative" is probably enough for Thompson. Whether he actually IS conservative doesn't matter, because he's not going to be called on to be one.

Ken Shultz | September 7, 2007, 6:28pm | #

These days, I'd go so far as to say that a conservative is someone who wants to use the government to better society.

Cultural identity issues are beside the point.

SIV | September 7, 2007, 6:40pm | #

......self-identified conservatives (including President Bush, John McCain, and The Wall Street Journal's editors)..

Well these three have to "self identify" as conservative as they aren't recognized as such by other conservatives( a few of the WSJ editors might slip through).

SIV | September 7, 2007, 6:55pm | #

The vast majority of self-identified conservatives favor more restrictive immigration policies.

It might help if you actually read "conservative" pundits or listen to talk radio. There is pretty much a consensus on having much less restrictive legal immigration laws. The policy objected to is selective and non-enforcement of immigration laws.

J sub D | September 7, 2007, 7:19pm | #

What is the conservative position AFTER a successful terrorist WMD attack? And shouldn't the likelihood of such an attack be considered in creating a conservative position today, before a successful attack?
I don't know if this is a conservative position, but I'm afraid I'd support eradicating Islam. Religions have been eradicated before, You'd have to be hard, heartless and perform evil acts to do it. But, like I said, it's been done before. If these fanatical religious morons drop a nuke somewhere, mark my words, it will get real ugly, real fast.

Ken Shultz | September 7, 2007, 7:44pm | #

Oh, and I recently had a conversation with a self-identified liberal, who when asked what a true liberal was responded that it was someone who hates Nixon.

So enough with the question of what true conservative is anymore--what's a liberal these days?

TLB | September 7, 2007, 8:18pm | #

the many self-identified conservatives (including President Bush, John McCain, and The Wall Street Journal's editors) who are more pro-immigration

They have to self-identify because most everyone else realizes they're corrupt elites who put money above what's right for the U.S.

Oh, wait. You already knew that.

Alan Vanneman | September 7, 2007, 8:26pm | #

We "get our basic rights from God, not government"? Excuse me, but where did that come from? There is no mention of God in the U.S. Constitution, which, as I recall, is the "supreme law of the land."

SIV | September 7, 2007, 8:41pm | #

Vanneman,


Pardon me if I don't get your post but if you think we get our rights from the State or it's Constitution you are commenting on the wrong blog. Feel free, that never stops joe, Dan T or anyone else!

mantooth | September 7, 2007, 8:49pm | #

I think Alan is disagreeing with the "Rights From God" statement, which bothers me as well. The God I remember from the Bible wasn't a big fan of freedom. Just saying "Hey Moses, we noticed that we've been lost for awhile" is enough to get the ground to open under your feet, killing you and your family.

http://www.thebricktestament.com//the_wilderness/the_second_rebellion/nm16_03.html

Ken Shultz | September 7, 2007, 9:35pm | #

If you guys can't get it through your heads that claiming that your rights originate from something other than government...

...that from gay marriage to recreational drug use, that from keeping the fruit of your labor to the right to hire whomever you choose to mow your lawn...

If you get so hung up on the concept of God that you can't see past it for what it is. ...an important claim to rights far beyond any that the government may or may not grant us, then please, please, please don't talk to non-libertarians about politics.

...you're not just embarrassing the rest of us, you're being counterproductive.

Pig Mannix | September 7, 2007, 9:46pm | #

Today's New York Times story about whether Fred Thompson will be accepted as a genuine conservative and a true heir to Ronald Reagan is rather confusing, not least because the Times does not seem to have a clear idea of what it means to be a conservative in 21st-century America. To be fair, neither do I.

It's like this: anytime I start to believe I'm a conservative, I read the National Review and decide most conservatives are people that are sorely in need of a swift kick in the nuts.

Anytime I start to believe I'm a libertarian, I read Hit & Run, and, well... nevermind.....

It may also be conservative in the sense that self-described conservatives are more likely to support staying the course than self-described liberals or progressives are, but I suspect those numbers would be reversed if the war had been launched by a Democrat.

Haha! Good one! I've yet to see a Democratic war the Republicans couldn't bring themselves to support eventually, going back at least as far as Vietnam.

joe | September 7, 2007, 9:55pm | #

It may also be conservative in the sense that self-described conservatives are more likely to support staying the course than self-described liberals or progressives are, but I suspect those numbers would be reversed if the war had been launched by a Democrat.

Self-described liberals and progressives were opposed to staying the course in Kosovo when that was a war, and tore into Cohen and Albright when they tried to sell Operaton Desert Fox.

This assumption that the left must always and everywhere behave like the right is nonsense.

joe | September 7, 2007, 10:03pm | #

"from God, not from the government" is a statement of rights being inherent to one's status as a person, rather than being artifacts of the state.

Everyone, conservatives and liberals, agrees with this sentiment. They may disagree about the precise nature and extent of those rights, but the inherent and inalienable nature of rights is a common frame of reference, and doesn't define conservatism at all.

JengoPop | September 7, 2007, 11:54pm | #

Yes, but who do you favor for Republican nomination? Who will win, Rudy, Mitt, Ron Paul, Fred? Vote today at http://www.pollicious.com

Steve | September 8, 2007, 12:23am | #

It may also be conservative in the sense that self-described conservatives are more likely to support staying the course than self-described liberals or progressives are, but I suspect those numbers would be reversed if the war had been launched by a Democrat.

Agreed. I've always wondered how "spreading democracy" could be so Trotskyist (with a one-word difference) but still so palatable to "conservatives." It could very well be simple partisanship at some subconscious level.

Ashish George | September 8, 2007, 2:48am | #

"There is pretty much a consensus on having much less restrictive legal immigration laws. The policy objected to is selective and non-enforcement of immigration laws."

Laws are only one component of public policy. In order to enforce immigration laws that they think are too routinely violated, conservatives are willing to endorse all kinds of ridiculous ideas (I know, let's build a wall on Mexican border!). The coercion and invasion of privacy required to enforce these laws would result in much more restricted immigration flows--not to mention bigger government.

James Quentin Clark | September 8, 2007, 4:48am | #

I don't see what the big deal about Fred Thompson is. Is he saying anything that at least three of the other forty candidates aren't? Aside from hideous face recognition and some star power, why is anyone getting goosebumps over another "True Reagan Conservative"(TM)?

Darren Eistadt | September 8, 2007, 7:32am | #

Ashish:

You write "If the war had been started by a Democrat, I think conservatives would be much more vocal in their criticism of the conduct of the war, but I don't think they would be less likely to support staying than liberals."

If the war had been started by a Democrat using the techniques that our current President used to start it, there would be nothing but criticism from every member of the right wing.

If the war was prosecuted by a Democrat using the techniques that our current President and his administration are using, it requires no effort of imagination to consider how quickly the articles of impeachment would be drawn up and a guilty verdict reached by the Senate.

Fritz | September 8, 2007, 10:06am | #

I remember the good old days when conservatives were champions of the monarchy and aristocratic privelage, and the liberals where the advocates of limited government and laissez-faire who yelled about their taxes.

Then it was easier to keep things straight. Now the only real difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives still [at least superficially] support federalism, and liberals don't. The conservatives think we're free when the federal government stays off our backs, while state and local govts have near full discretion.

Then of course they complain about medical marijuana states, gay marriage states and sanctuary cities.

TrickyVic | September 8, 2007, 1:02pm | #

"""The case for invading Iraq relied on a very broad understanding of self-defense that was at odds with traditional conservative skepticism of foreign entanglements, nation building, and attempts to remake the world in our image."""

I have conservatives arguing me that this is false and remaking the world in our image has always been a conservative idea.

I think the Republican party is having an idenitity crisis. Or, maybe they have become bipolar.

"""I don't see what the big deal about Fred Thompson is. Is he saying anything that at least three of the other forty candidates aren't?"""

Thompson appears to be more conservative, when was the last time Republicans cared about substance.

TrickyVic | September 8, 2007, 1:03pm | #

"""The conservatives think we're free when the federal government stays off our backs, while state and local govts have near full discretion."""

LOL, I think their vote on Terry Schivo put that to bed.

TrickyVic | September 8, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Not to mention that the Republicans supported the expansion of federal government on our backs and love the idea of removing judical oversight. They have great disdain for states passing laws they don't like as you point out.

They complain about whiny Democrats but love Coulter and Rush O'Hanity whining about liberals. They are bipolar!!

dhex | September 8, 2007, 5:08pm | #

trickyvic: it's not bipolar it's merely

TEAM RED TEAM BLUE GO TEAM GO

matt | September 8, 2007, 6:10pm | #

Steve - it IS partisanship, whether conscious or subconscious. Most people have picked their favorite team and don't bother much with the details.

There is no identity crisis - the average citizen has little concern for independent analysis of the issues, as long as his team is winning while the other team suffers.

TJIT | September 8, 2007, 10:03pm | #

Personally I think Fred is popular because of the other candidates running. Guliani and Romney were both in politics in the northeast.

I think statism just soaks into most politicians pores when they govern in that part of the country. I think politicians there are just genetically incapable of trying to limit the scope of government.

Distrust of the other candidates explains part of Fred's popularity.

joshua corning | September 8, 2007, 11:45pm | #

I think politicians there are just genetically incapable of trying to limit the scope of government.

Perhaps this may explain Bush, who is more blueblood then Texan.

de stijl | September 10, 2007, 11:42am | #

Verbatim quotes from when Clinton was committing troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
---Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
---Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
---Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
---Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W Bush (R-TX)