I believe America is ready for a Ronald Reagan Moment

[Armstead]

Before I get slammed for the headline, this is not an endorsement of Reagan or the GOP in terms of substance or issues. But one must give credit where credit is due....And this is not an endorsement or condemnation of any Democratic candidate. I have my own biases and preferences, but I'm trying to look at the bigger picture here. So I have deliberately not mentioned any of the current candidates in this.....And the standard disclaimer. This is my interpretation and opinion only. Your mileage may vary.

-----

Ronald Reagan and the GOP Right won in 1980, and set off a fundamental shift in the political, economic and social landscape for two very basic reasons.

1)The Gipper was a great campaigner backed by a very savvy political machine. He had the mix of charisma and optimism mixed with indignation at the status quo that transcends political positions. And his team knew how to sell a message.

2)More importantly, his message and platform perfectly captured the desire of the country at the time for fundamental change. He laid out a Big Vision, combined with a critique of the current situation, that resonated with the mood of the country at the time. He was Bold, and took advantage of one of those basic swings of the political pendulum that periodically occurs.

By 1979/80, the nation was in a very bad mood. People were exhausted, dispirited and angry, after a period of social turmoil, economic shocks and stagnation and frustration with a form of liberalism that seemed to have run its' course. People perceived (somewhat correctly) a welfare system that had become bloated and bogged down with bureaucracy, and which seemed to contribute to the problems it was intended to rectify. Many people felt personally beseiged by what was perceived as a growing and increasingly intrusive government.

Reagan came along, and offered the opportunity to clear that away with a "fresh start." Rather than promise to snip around the edges or make incremental change, he promised fundamental reform and a shift in basic values. "Morning in America" was more than a catchphrase -- it had an optimistic symbolism that perfectly captured what an exhausted and frustrated nation was looking for at the time.

What is most important is that Reagan and the GOP Right correctly perceived an undercurrent in the national mood that defied the long-held conventional wisdom of his own party. They did not avoid the label "conservative" and they were not afraid of being branded as "too far to the right." Instead, they reasserted an ideological principle that resonated with conservatives and extended to moderates -- and even to some people who had been traditional liberal Democrats, because the country's bad mood was bipartisan.

So, they both created and reflected a fundamental shift in the values of the US, and led the country in a very clear and defined direction. They swung the pendulum in a very basic way.

That brought us over 35 years of a shift from social values to individual and institutional greed. The goal of social justice was eclipsed by bottom-line calculations of accountants. "We're all in this together" was replaced by "Greed is Good." The Holy Markets and the Infinite Wisdom of Business replaced the notion of a balance between the public and private sectors and the common good.

This continued through the 1990's, although it was given a somewhat more compassionate facade of "neo-liberalism" which was basically just a kinder and gentler version of Corporate Conservatism.

NOW -- flashing forward to the present -- the US is ready for another swing of the pendulum. This time to the left, and to a greater acceptance and support of liberal/progressive values. Where once Big Government was seen as the problem, now Big Corporate Power is widely seen as the burdensome intrusive power structure. And people are open to more humanistic values again -- both in an altrustic sense, and for their own self-interest.

This discontent is still more of an undercurrent in the media and political world. But it is very real and it has become very mainstream. All that is needed to tap into it is a Democratic Party that STANDS FOR POSITIVE LIBERAL CHANGE IN A REAL AND FUNDAMENTAL WAY.

Like Reagan, that means an unapologetic commitment to an ideology. In our case it is the need to return to what I'll call Liberalism (which includes what is now also referred to as progressive populism). Not snipping around the edges or neo-liberal "centrism" but a fundamental re-committment to the principles of liberalism and progressive values.

Despite the way it has been characterized by the Media and Political Elite, this does NOT mean some self-defeating overly idealistic veering to the "far left." Rather it is a very Big Tent. It is embodied by a range that includes such diverse figures as Paul Wellstone, Bernie Sanders, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin, Dick Gephardt (on domestic economic issues) and even Jim Webb, to name a few. While these and other liberals span a fairly wide spectrum, they all have a basic commitment to the core principles of populist liberalism, and are pulling in the same direction.

Just as Reagan embodied a New Conservatism for those times, the Democratic Party can embody a New Liberalism tailored to today (but not the conservative brand of neo-liberalism). Such a wide-ranging coalition can certainly include the more centrist Democrats. However,to make it work would require bargaining. The centrists should be willing the Wall St. dominance and to stop enabling the Corporate Power Structure, in terms of degree of influence.

It's possible to get more specific, but this is already a long post.So I'll just say that whoever the Democratic nominee is, the party as a whole would benefit and win (IMO of course) by recognizing what Reagan and the New Right accomplished, and learning a lesson from it.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I think the Reagan Democrats will come back as Obama Republicans.

[Labors of Hercules]

2. So, um, Who are you thinking should be "Reagan" in this scenario???

:popcorn:

[Armstead]

3. I deliberatly avoided that

I have my own thoughts, which I've stated in other posts.

But I do believe that this could apply to any of the Democrats who win the nomination, if they were open to the basic point of honestly standing for fundamental liberal change, both in their message and specifics.

[BeyondGeography]

22. Forget it with Clinton

What's needed is underlying reform before we start pushing new programs. Edwards and Obama say they are committed to restoring the balance of power between the public and private spheres, and Obama has been particularly strong on the issue of transparency. This more than anything will position Democrats as the peoples party and force the other side to do what we've done for the last 30 years, which is play defense.

Clinton is not and never will be a reformer. If she wins the nomination and loses the general, we really will be looking at a Reagan scenario. Many people called him the winner of the 1976 convention for the speech he gave there. Four years later, his victory reshaped the Republican Party and the country. The same thing could well happen at the 2008 convention if she wins and doesn't put one of the reformers on the ticket (which I doubt she would).

Either way, I think you're definitely onto something with your OP.

[Kucinich4America]

20. How about Dennis Kucinich?

We could even run Ron Reagan Jr for VP, if we want to keep it as Reaganistic as possible.

[Lasher]

4. Another thing that helped Saint Ronnie get elected:

He made a secret deal with Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian government to delay the release of American hostages until after the 1980 presidential election.

And it didn't hurt him much to have Carter's debate notes that William Casey had stolen for him.

http://www.geocities.com/thereaganyears/1980election.htm

[intheflow]

23. That picture!

:spray: :rofl:

[asdjrocky]

5. Fantastic post Arm-

K&R

[YOY]

6. Wasn't Reagan considered "far-right" by most prior to his election?

I hardly think anyone we propose is going to be that kind of equal in shift to the left.

Unless we picked Kucinich...but who am I kidding....sadly, it would never happen.

[Armstead]

7. They were brazen and good salespeople

They overcame the stigma of being "far right" by emphasizing the positive aspects of the conservative philosophy -- individual freedom, opportunity and self-reliance -- while ignoring the negative consequences of a dog-eat-dog society and the inevitable formation of powerful anti-competitive monopolies under unregulated markets.

[YOY]

8. They've already set up the obstructions that are heavily imprinted in the mind of Americans

That's why the shift to the left will be nowhere as strong, but it will happen. If a shift to Hillary means a shift to the left, then color me perplexed...better than nothing, but it won't fix what ails us.

We just haven't really had a good moment of proper blame and admittance of guilt of the Conservative movement.

Probably won't sadly.

[Armstead]

9. Hard core conservatives will never yield

But there is (I believe) a large group of "soft conservatives" and moderates who would (and are) rethinking their acceptance of the crap that has been fed to them for the last 35 years.

[Lasher]

10. And then there's attrition.

Younger voters are pretty smart and many will see the failures of their parents' failed 'conservative' philosophies. That's the only way you're going to see any change in the 25 percenters. Hell, even to this day I have email wars with people who think the only mistake we made in Vietnam was getting out. They will never change.

[YOY]

12. I wish I shared your optimism Armstead. I really do.

I think it's going to take a stronger hit on people's pocketbook than what is current. In the late 70s the inflation was pretty high and the gas prices skyrocketed. Employement was at low as well I think. I was only 5 at the time so I recall little.

Most "conservatives" really aren't taking any huge financial hits these days. All of us with any common sense are taking huge hits to our view of exactly how far an aministration is willing to go to keep up their facade of "everything is just fine", but most American's think with their wallets and the "I've got mine, FU." attitude is what I grew up with.

I do hope you are right though.

[Cosmocat]

14. I agree ...

The country is simply too afluent and secure right now for any signficant movement to occur ...

I think the best we can hope for is a return to some level of civility with Rs increasingly getting bumped out of office for being TOO extremely right wing ... As a resident of PA, I can point to our senate race last fall ... Santorum was the third ranked majority senator, and was very "effective" at his job ...

But, he was bat shiite crazy and right wing extremist, to the max ... While PA is anything but "liberal" he got ousted, and it wasn't even close ... BUT, by a DLC type democrate, who had beat a Kucinich style opponent in the primary by a BIG margin ...

SO, the state basically traded a far right extremists for a centrist - Santorum went TOO far A LOT more than the people of the state having a pull to the left ...

[Armstead]

21. My optimism is hard-earned over 56 years

I've been through a lot of ups and downs over the years, in terms of my relationship to the prevailing political climate. And any optimism has been sorely tested as a result.

But I do believe there are a lot of similarities between then and now. Just as Jimmy Carter was considered a "last straw" regarding Democrats, GW makes Cartoer seem like Mr. Poopularity at the moment.

On a deeper level, I honestly believe people have come to realize that the "I've got mine.FU" philosophy actually works against their own self-interest. Affluent hard-core conservatives may not be taking any financial hits -- they're actually a lot better off. But many of the Reagan Democrats with skyrocketing gas prices, health care costs, real-estate costs, etc. Plus they're not feeling a lot of job security these days.

And, on a deeper level yet, I think the same intrusiveness that people once attributed to Big Government has been shifted to Big Business. People are getting screwed and tattoed by the monoliths.

Also, I wouldn't underestimate the effect of an obviously useless war and a hypocritical brand of Right Wing Republicanism that is steadily eroding peopel's privacy and civil liberties in a much more direct way.

I hope I'm right too.

[cascadiance]

11. Though not as current and memorable for folks alive today, perhaps an FDR moment is needed!

That was just as fundamental a shift, and I think less confusing when we talk about what we want done, which is a lot more akin to what FDR did than Reagan did.

But for current relevance that some might understand in terms of scope and impact, I understand your Reagan reference.

[Armstead]

18. Good point -- But I can recall the Reagan years.

You're right that FDR is a more appropriate comparison in terms of goals and philosophy.

Nevertheless, my basic point is that at certain points, the pendulum is poised to swing in the opposite direction in a major way from the status quo.

The politically successful parties and candidates recognize that at the tipping point in the zeitgeist.

Personally, I think there was that potential in 2004 too, but we blew it that time.

[Cha]

13. Not knocking your post, Armstead..

But, shouldn't you add, "lies" to number 1..just to be official?

[Armstead]

17. I was trying to be objective

But yes, "lies" could also fit in there quite appropriately.

Though I did use the word "salesmanship" which is a close euphamism. :)

[Clark2008]

15. That's great except for one thing...

We don't have a candidate (running) who could pull that off.

[xxqqqzme]

16. I always thought the 'Morning in America' slogan was ironic.

Coming from someone closer to midnight than dawn. But then publicans don't have a clear understanding of irony.

[Armstead]

19. Or Mourning in America

[Arugula Latte]

24. I think that "get government off our backs!" line was such utter bullshit.

Whenever I asked people who liked Reagan "what exactly is it you'd like to get rid of? Are you tired of regulations governing the safety of your food? Would you do away with oversight of nuclear power plants? Should air traffic be left to its own hit-or-miss ways?, etc." they always looked at me with blank looks and blinked several times. I never got an answer. That "overregulation" myth was such B.S.

[Armstead]

28. I agree to an extent

I think a lot of people chafed at the general idea of government intrusion and bureaucrcacy on a gut level because human nature is basically libertarian, in the sense that people don't like large institutions that have power over them.

Reaganism turned that onto government. However, by doing so, they ignored and enabled the increased growth of Big Corporate.

Today, IMO, I believe people are more aware of the burdensome nature of Big Business that in their daily lives and as they see what is happening nationally.

[silverback]

25. Another difference...

I think the big point your analysis misses is the legacy of Barry Goldwater and it's influence on the 1980 election. We don't have such a figure, Clintons "third way" doesn't qualify and neither does Al Gore.

Goldwater was the man who created the conservative movement RR rode to victory, even Hillary was a Goldwater girl back then.He was defeated by LBJ and the country had a long series of crisis with an unpopular war, a presidential impeachment, an economic crisis, and an extremely ineffectual Democratic incumbent for RR to run against.

All Reagan really did is forge an alliance between the Goldwater conservatives and the religious right, something Goldwater himself was repulsed by. We as Democrats haven't reached out to a large group like that to build a coalition that can win an electoral landslide like Reagan did. I believe the next president will be a Democrat, but this isn't a new progressive movement winning an election, it's simply a national rejection of the neoconservative agenda, which is different.

If we wanted a Reagan style victory signifying a pendulum shift in American politics we'd have to create a situation where we brought a new block of voters into the party, probably the libertarians.

Drop gun control entirely and adopt the legalization of industrial hemp, maybe throw in a balanced budget and the Democratic party would win such a victory.

American politics would be significantly different today if JFK and Goldwater had gotten the chance to campaign together and have a real policy debate as they had planned. That sort of statesmanship doesn't seem to exist anymore.

[Armstead]

27. I see that as a parallel

You are correct. In my effort to boil doen a very complex subject, I didn't include that.

However, I believe there are more parallels than differences. IMO, the Goldwater Right was similar to the Progressive/Liberal movement. Instead of a central organizing figure like Goldwater, there are more grassroots leaders and participants out there, and smaller national leaders like Wellstone (RIP), Bernie Sanders, and other politicians of the progressive Caucus variety.

There's not the equivalent of the Religious Right, thank God. But I think such a movement into the mainstream could benefit from a combination of all those who do not want the dogma of Christian conservatism thrust on us.

[Irreverend IX]

26. "Freedom" is the ideal that will guide the next pendulum swing.

Both the right and left are now infested with authoritarians and prohibitionists. Many Republicans want to ban pornography, abortion and homosexuality. Many Democrats want to ban guns, violent video games and "vulgar" music. And that's not even getting into the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions act, habeas corpus, the drug war, etc.

One of the major reasons Ron Paul has been picking up steam is that he is perceived to be uncompromisingly pro-freedom, although he's actually pro-life and has some funny views on the establishment clause. If a Democratic politician came out uncompromisingly against the drug war, "Homeland Security" bullshit, gun control, censorship and other infringements on individual freedom while maintaining the need for industrial regulation in the public interest, they would sweep tons of discontented voters.

[Armstead]

29. I tend to agree with most of that

>>>>If a Democratic politician came out uncompromisingly against the drug war, "Homeland Security" bullshit, gun control, censorship and other infringements on individual freedom while maintaining the need for industrial regulation in the public interest, they would sweep tons of discontented voters.

I think there is a careful path between legitimate response to the need for security and the authoritarian, intrusive bullshit of the "Homeland" variety.

While there is room for differences in some respects, I totally agree that the focus needs to be shifted to industrial regulation combined with individual freedom.