"Liberal lovefest for Reagan follows predictable pattern" by Jonah Goldberg
 

Published Friday February 11, 2011

Jonah Goldberg:

Liberal lovefest for Reagan follows predictable pattern


The only good conservative is a dead conservative.

That, in a nutshell, describes the age-old tradition of liberals suddenly discovering that once-reviled conservatives were OK after all. It’s just we-the-living who are hateful ogres, troglodytes and moperers.

Over the past decade or so, as the giants of the founding generation of modern American conservatism have died, each has been rehabilitated into a gentleman-statesman of a bygone era of conservative decency and open-mindedness.

Barry Goldwater was the first. A few years ago, his liberal granddaughter produced a documentary in which nearly all of the testimonials were from prominent liberals like Hillary Clinton and James Carville. Almost overnight, the man whom LBJ cast as a hate-filled demagogue who would condemn the world to nuclear war became an avuncular and sage grandfather type.

Down the memory hole went one of the most despicable campaigns of political demonization in American history. Even Sarah Palin hasn’t been subjected to an ad in the New York Times signed by more than 1,000 psychiatrists claiming she’s too crazy to be president (though I don’t want to give anybody any ideas).

Then there was William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, the magazine I call home. For more than four dec- ades, Buckley was subjected to condemnation for his alleged extremism. Jack Paar (the Johnny Carson/Jay Leno of his day for you youngsters) was among the first of many to try to paint Buckley as a Nazi. Now, Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times book review section, who is writing a biography of Buckley, insists that Bill’s life mission was to make liberalism better.

But it’s Ronald Reagan who really stands out. As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of his birth, the Gipper is enjoying yet another status upgrade among liberals. Barack Obama took a Reagan biography with him on his vacation. A slew of liberals and mainstream journalists (but I repeat myself) complimented Obama’s State of the Union address as “Reaganesque.” Time magazine recently featured the cover story “Why Obama (Hearts) Reagan.”

Meanwhile, the usual suspects are rewriting the same columns about how Reagan was a pragmatist who couldn’t run for president today because he was too nice, too reasonable, too (shudder) liberal for today’s Republican Party.

Now, on one hand, there’s something wonderful about the overflowing of love for Reagan. He was a truly great president, one of the greatest according to even liberal historians like the late John Patrick Diggins. As you can tell from the gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth from the far left, the lionization of Reagan is a great triumph for the right, and conservatives should welcome more of it.

On the other hand, what is not welcome is an almost Soviet airbrushing of the past to serve liberalism’s current agenda. For starters, if liberals are going to celebrate Reagan, they might try to account for the fact that they fought his every move, alternating between derision and slander in the process.

As Steven Hayward, author of the two-volume history “The Age of Reagan” asks in the current National Review, “Who can forget the relentless scorn heaped on Reagan for the ‘evil empire’ speech and the Strategic Defense Initiative?” Hayward notes that historian Henry Steele Commager said the “evil empire” speech “was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all.”

The point isn’t that liberals were wrong to oppose every Reagan policy. But what they seem to ignore is that those policies were the products of a political philosophy. Sure, he made pragmatic compromises, but he started from a philosophical position that the self-anointed smart set considered not just wrong but also evil, stupid or both.

While the encomiums to Reagan & Co. are welcome, the reality is that very little has changed. As we saw in the wake of the Tucson shootings, so much of the effort to build up conservatives of the past is little more than a feint to tear down the conservatives of the present. It’s an old game.

For instance, in 1980, quirky New Republic writer Henry Fairlie wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which he lamented the rise of Reagan, “the most radical activist of them all.” The title of his essay: “If Reagan Only Were Another Coolidge ...” Even then, the only good conservative was a dead conservative.

Contact the writer: JonahsColumn@aol.com

Reflects my views.

I didn't care for Reagan much back then and still don't.

He had a nice genial personality but his policies were not to my liking.

What, exactly, is Goldberg's point? That "liberals" are more hypocritical than "conservatives"? That "argument" is ridiculous on its face. There is no correlation. He might as well try to determine whether tall people are more hypocritical than short people. I will hand it to Goldberg, though. He has made a nice career for himself as a professional victim of the evil "liberals."

If Goldberg wasn't allergic to introspection, it might occur to him that the reason many left-wingers speak well of past conservative icons is to illustrate that the current so-called "conservatives" are not conservative at all. Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, and the rest are right-wing, but they are not conservative. They have no intellectual integrity and no respect for the tried and true. So, I say bring back the true conservatives - Goldwater, Reagan, Buckley. I disagree with every syllable they utter, but at least they had core principles.

BTW, what point is Goldberg making with this gem: "...Barack Obama took a Reagan biography with him on his vacation..."? Is that supposed to prove something? Good grief.

If you're going to compete, and expect to win, against an opponent, it's best to study your opponent.

"O" is no dummy.

Neither are his handlers. :rolleyes:

The cover story on Time last week was an article about Obama's keen interest in Reagan's presidency.

Seems that Obama called a number of historians to the WH last year once or twice to discuss past presidents. I think it was Douglas Brinkley who mentioned that Obama was most interested in Reagan's presidency.:o

Reagan had 3 or 4 summits with the Russians during his 2 terms. I remember he remarked they kept dying on him before he could get anything accomplished. :D IIRC, at one point he decided to put ABM missles (Pershings?) in W. Germany and maybe Turkey. Any he called them the Evil Empire along the way. The left was apoplectic over this.

Fast forward to Reykjavic in the summer of 1986. Gorby wants to eliminate all missles if we abandon SDI. Reagan says no will do. Summitt ends. Resut: Gorby goes to DC in Dec. 2007 and signs the most comprehensive missile treaty ever, eliminating ALL intermediate range nuclear weapons.

He had stagecraft sure. More importantly, he had "statecraft" .;)

To ignore his successes and simply pass him off as a likeable buffon, as many do, is just plain ingorance or willful deception.

Here's 8 minutes of history..from the players involved...on both sides of the globe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=595W4JJHa2U&feature=related

I'll leave telling the ATC's to "F" off, then firing them for another thread. ;)Likewise his collaboration with leading DEMOCRATS to overhaul the Tax code in 1986. Closest thing we have ever had or will ever have to a "Flat Tax".


Just sayin'.;)

That is exactly why I at least respect principled politicians. I EXPECT Obama to propose hard left solutions. I expect Hillary to be less hard left, but still on that side. Same for Goldwater and Reagan. I keep looking for a Conservative of principle. I see hints of it, but most disappoint before too long.

I don't know why you would expect that. What has he done that makes you think he is hard left? People keep saying that he has moved to the right because of the mid-terms. I suppose he has turned that way to some degree, but he never was very far to the left.

if obama is "left", then i'm the pope.

jonah goldberg is an idiot, living off his mama, who made her bones with dirty tricks for nixon and the arkansas project. and her husband, who ran NANA as a front for the c.i.a.. anything else?

Yes, your Holiness?

I never cared much for RR either, although he did give a good speech or two. Nor do I believe Obama is a leftie. I'm pretty sure I'm the pope.

Yes, your Holiness?

I will agree with Palin for once: In an exchange with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace by invoking Ronald Reagan, indirectly comparing herself with arguably the greatest President of the last century. “Those standards have to be high for someone who would ever want to run for President, like, um, wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor? Wasn’t he in Bedtimes for Bonzo, Bozo, or something? Ronald Reagan was an actor,” Palin said.

humor aside, if you really believe obama is "left", then there's no point in further discussion. someone who hobnobs with the alumni (and often soon to be rehired members) of goldman sachs, citibank, etc.? and has kept all of bush's business friendly, wealthy friendly policies in place, as well as the "war on terror", and the war on individual rights?

STOP! You guys are killing me!

Reagan had his good points but he was clueless about environmental issues, Vietnam (while gov. as Cal. he had no small contact with this issue), and Latin American history, Nicaraguan particularly.

He raised taxes and he cut and ran in Lebanon. The enduring love affair righties have with him indicates the level of devotion they have to symbolism.

Goldberg is some kinda dimbulb. As for predictable patterns:

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/v...rnworldMLK.jpg