Reagan as Liberal Hero

The Washington Monthly is rerunning Joshua Green's thoughtful and provocative 2003 essay that declares Ronald Reagan a liberal in an Adam Smith tie. Comparing the Reagan presented in a series of recent conservative biographies, Green concludes:

The real Reagan…would bring discord to the current conservative agenda. If you believe, as conservatives now do, that raising taxes is always wrong, then it's hard to admit that Reagan himself did so repeatedly. If you argue that the relative tax burden on low-income workers is too light, as the Bush administration does, then it does not pay to dwell on the fact that Reagan himself helped lighten that burden. If you insist, as many hardliners now do, that America is dangerously soft on communist China, then it is best to ignore Reagan's own softening toward the Soviet Union. As with other conservative media efforts–Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Channel, The Washington Times–the purpose of the Reagan legacy project is not to deliver accuracy, but enhance political leverage.

But, as Reagan himself liked to cite from John Adams, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is that Reagan, whether out of wisdom or because he was forced, made significant compromises with the left. Had he not saved Social Security, relented on his tax cut, and negotiated with the Soviets, he'd have been a less popular, and lesser, president. An honest portrait of Reagan's presidency would not diminish his memory, but enlarge it.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[joe]

Comparing Reagan’s Soviet policy to the Iraq policies of the administration and its critics makes the neocons’ self-appellation “neo-Reaganite” seem silly. Reagan made effort at all to invade the Soviet Union, overthrow the regime, and install a pro-American government – even in his first term. Instead, he engaged in a Kerry-esque offensive of high-minded rhetoric, tough talk, international initiatives, bilateral negotiations, containment, and support for indigenous dissenters. His primary use of the military in his efforts was to deter attacks, prevent expansion, and encourage internal dissent by flaunting America’s obvious military superiority, thereby humiliating the Soviet government and military. This was quite similar to the Clinton-era policy towards Saddam.

By the logic of many hawkish regulars, Reagan could only be described as objectively pro-Soviet.

[Bill G]

I think Reagan’s biggest legacy was that he reshaped the political debate and pushed the Left back on its heels.

They have yet to recover.

[thoreau]

Somebody writing on Salon.com (yes, I know, boo! hiss! gag!) said the following:

It is a quirk of American culture that each generation of nonconservatives sees the right-wingers of its own generation as the scary ones, then chooses to remember the right-wingers of the last generation as sort of cuddly.

I just think it’s an interesting comment and related to the topic of “Reagan as Liberal Hero.”

Maybe an innocuous interpretation is that:
1) Conservative policies rarely turn out to be the apocalyptic atrocities that leftists predicted, so conservatives are remembered with more fondness than they received from contemporary critics. (This is not to say that conservative policies always turn out peachy, but when the left is predicting massive starvation and oppression of women if we elect anybody a Republican, well, it’s easy for the policies to look good compared to the predictions.)

2) Conservative Presidents, just like liberal Presidents, have to make compromises, so they always wind up acting less conservative than they originally came across as. And “less conservative” means “less scary” to liberals.

Then again, maybe conservatives really are becoming scarier. Not my preferred theory, but always possible.

[Mo]

In 20 years (or when Bush dies), someone on the future left will write the same article about W. They will talk about his AIDS spending, his No Child Left Behind, prescription drug benefits, etc.

I remember reading a similar article about Dick Nixon around his death (talking about EITC and a few of his other social programs). What gives? I never really read these types of articles about “liberal” presidents from the right extolling their conservative sides.

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

As with much of the dove rhetoric, you ignore the connection between the massive defence spending, the aggressive military posture, the bombing of Libya, and the efficacy of negotiation. They are related. Soviets negotiated because they had no choice.

If Saddam had come forward after negotiations and agreed to step down because he feared for his life as a member of the Axis of Evil, that is successful hawkism as well as dovism. There is no negotiation without a real threat of violence.

[Jason Ligon]

Mo:

The liberals have FDR, they don’t need anyone else.

[John Hensley]

“I can’t recall Communism spreading anywhere at all except in the minds of the CIA.”

And Afghanistan.

and Nicaragua, and Salvador, and Grenada, and Ethiopia, and Peru, and Colombia (they’re still working on that one)

Yes, some of these places are rather small on the map. But they look much bigger when you’re standing on them.

[joe]

Jason,

And if the goal was to use enough force to compel Saddam to be docile until he regime died (as was the strategy that led to the hammer and sickle coming down), the use of force against Afghanistan, and regular bombing of Iraqi air defense and suspected WMD sites and the Kosovo War would serve just as well as the bombing of Libya.

But of course, Bush II (unlike Reagan) wasn’t interested in avoiding war, cajoling his opponent to change, and bringing him to the table. A genuine neo-Reaganite would have had Mr. Reagan’s faith in the “City on a Hill” effect.

And to head off the rejoinder, “Saddam was no Gorby,” I say, neither were Brezhnev and Chernenko.

[Jason Ligon]

“If you argue that the relative tax burden on low-income workers is too light, as the Bush administration does, then it does not pay to dwell on the fact that Reagan himself helped lighten that burden.”

Now there’s a sophisticated argument. Lighten that burden compared to what?

[Jason Ligon]

Speaking of which, Tyler Cowen at marginalrevolution.com links to a Heritage piece by Art Laffer. It has a good breakdown of tax policies of Kennedy, Reagan, and talks clearly about what the Curve is and isn’t good for:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

[Jack]

Yep, Reagan is a liberal.

[Gadfly]

I forget who said it, but it goes something like “show me your checkbook and I’ll tell you who you are.”

The Reagan checkbook was badly out of balance, with heavy expenditures on military items in a time of peace. This turned traditional economic thought on its head and could hardly be considered “conservative”, at least in the fiscal sense.

[Jeff Clothier]

I was a kid in the Reagan years, but I clearly recall media discussions of Reagan’s disenginuity then. So many parallels to today – budget busting while preaching fiscal restraint is only one example. Neocon ghouls have been champing at the bit to take control of the man’s history and legacy to shore up their failing agenda. I have felt sorry for him for a decade, living with Alzheimer’s, but I feel more sorry for him now. A little balanced truth about the man would do him more honor than gilding the lily of his life to use as a battle emblem.

[John Hensley]

First, I can’t think of a single conservative (or libertarian) who is out there stumping to raise taxes on the poor.

Second, Reagan softened to the USSR when and only when it started to deal seriously with the US. Doesn’t Josh remember Reagan’s first term, when the US press were sure that he was going to get us all killed?

Third, Reagan assisted in the US opening to China, saying that even though the chi-coms were murdering thugs he was willing to work in the interests of peace. (Nixon, for his part, called Reagan “not pleasant to be around” — probably much too conservative for him.)

[Ricky]

Gadfly said, “The Reagan checkbook was badly out of balance, with heavy expenditures on military items in a time of peace.”

Communism was spreading and the soviets were very aggressive. It was not “a time of peace.”

[Todd Fletcher]

Of course, he only negotiated with the Soviets after he had taken a hard line with them for years, and was convinced that Gorbachev was the real deal.

Is that what Carter would have done?

[Gadfly]

It was certainly not a time of war – unless you count Grenada. Russia’s rhetoric was tame compared to Kruschev’s day and I can’t recall Communism spreading anywhere at all except in the minds of the CIA.

[JDM]

“If you argue that the relative tax burden on low-income workers is too light, as the Bush administration does, then it does not pay to dwell on the fact that Reagan himself helped lighten that burden.”

Now *that* is deeply dishonest and unfair. Thanks for the quote, I won’t waste any time reading the article.

[Kevin Carson]

John Hensley,

Bob Novak has repeatedly griped that the poor, thanks to the increase in the personal exemption and lowering the bottom rate to 10%, had a greater tax cut proportionally than the rich.

As for “saving Social Security,” does that refer to the massive increase in the payroll tax that was spent to offset the general budget deficit, and that is now represented by IOU’s? You know, the SS “surplus” that’s been accumulating from our payroll tax overpayment for the past twenty years, that Alan Greenspan doesn’t want us to ever see a penny of?

[Mo]

John Hensley,
There was an op-ed in the WSJ about the poor being “lucky duckies” and the need to raise taxes on them so they could feel the burden of high taxes, too. There were a few other articles from some other relatively mainstream conservatives along the same lines (raise taxes on the poor so they feel the burden too), but the meme never caught on. Slate followed it for a while and noted a few times the idea popped up.

[Josh]

“I can’t recall Communism spreading anywhere at all except in the minds of the CIA.”

And Afghanistan.

[Gary Gunnels]

Well, to be honest, it should be noted that Reagan was never as tough on the Soviets as either his supporters wanted him to be, or his detractors feared he was – indeed, he was always willing to bend his ear to Soviet proposals. Furthermore, in 1985 when he did start working with Gorbachev, it quickly pissed off many of his supporters – I can still remember that George Will article where he called Reagan a “dupe” – I can also recall my father and some of his friends calling him a “traitor.” I think his willingness to deal with the Soviets was one of the better aspects of his his Presidency.

[Gary Gunnels]

Josh,

If the disaster that was Afghanistan for the Soviets is “Communism spreading,” well, give me more of that. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

You know, Reagan also admired FDR; in 1976 he said that he was America’s last real “leader.”

[split lip rayfield]

“If you argue that the relative tax burden on low-income workers is too light, as the Bush administration does …” now there’s a nice little rhetorical trick. Apparently the Bush administration argues that the relative tax burden on low-income workers is too light. What a crock of shit.

That is all.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Yeah, the dope’s always better in the summertime, isn’t it.