Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Matt Stoller: Obama's Admiration of Ronald Reagan (Democrats beware)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 06:06 AM
Original message
Matt Stoller: Obama's Admiration of Ronald Reagan (Democrats beware)
The video clip above is Barack Obama explaining his admiration of Ronald Reagan. I've transcribed it here.

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.


There are many reason progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking. He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely skilled politician. But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable.

Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservatives to take advantage of the backlash against these 'excesses'.

It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power. Lots of people don't agree with this, of course, since it doesn't fit a coherent narrative of GOP ascendancy. Masking Reagan's true political underpinning principles is a central goal of the conservative movement, with someone as powerful as Grover Norquist seeking to put Reagan's name on as many monuments as possible and the Republican candidates themselves using Reagan's name instead of George Bush's in GOP debates as a mark of greatness. Why would the conservative movement create such idolatry around Reagan? Is is because they just want to honor a great man? Perhaps that is some of it. Or are they trying to escape the legacy of the conservative movement so that it can be rebuilt in a few years, as they did after Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I?

I don't know. But if you think, as Obama does, that Reagan's rise to power was premised on a sunny optimism in contrast to an out of control government and a society rife with liberal excess, then you don't understand the conservative movement. Reagan tapped into greed and fear and tribalism, and those are powerful forces. Ignoring that isn't going to make them go away.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. round and round and round we go
now it's Obama, in a day or so it will be Clinton. And we'll all pluck articles by bloggers who support Obama and bash Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Since when has Matt Stoller endorsed Clinton? And even if he did, does that change what Obama said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. read a few threads from yesterday about discussion of his book-I do think some
were dismayed,stunned, grieved (I am talking of Obama or Obama leaning folks).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Probably the ones over 18. I just realized - those born AFTER reagun, just turned
18. It's sad to show such opacity to history...Much as I am happy Obama brought new voters....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. When will be "Love Day" on the Democratic Underground?
For all the "peace types" it should be a natch'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaybeat Donating Member (729 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. Nobody put those words in Obama's mouth (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. Ray-gun did what he did 'cause he delivered a message
Whatever you think of the outcome, the citizens of this country responded.

We can only hope that communication tools like "the internets" can keep such a lie with a spin from being propagated again.

But Reagan did steer the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. That dog won't hunt! But continue to flail about, It's mildly amusing.
:eyes:

What matters is ACTION:

Obama recently voted "yea" on the bill that would ban "Cluster Bombs."

But not HRC. She voted "nay."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
7. didn't know Matt Stoller wanted in on this stupid shit
But by all means, everyone pile on board the dumbass express.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. LOLOL
dumbass express, i like it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
8. What part of "I think they felt..." don't you and Stoller understand...?
:eyes:

In other words, Obama isn't "agreeing with Reagan's basic frame." he's admitting that voters of that time agreed with Reagan's basic frame. And that's pretty hard to dispute, looking that the results of both 1980 and (especially) 1984.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
9. I crossed Obama off the list when I read The Audacity of Hope with its Reagan love
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Stoller obviously read it too
Obama from pages 156-157

"The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie--contained a good deal of truth."

He makes the argument the DLC made about the size, role of government. When people talk of expanding the pie rather than slicing it they are using smokescreens for talking about cutting back on social programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. And here's an image of how he "grew" that pie, that us liberals wanted to "slice"
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 12:45 PM by robbedvoter

and speaking of bureacracy - remember the pentagon $10,000 toilet seats - that was OK, as long as it didn't go kids lunches. Borrow and spend - living on credit cards didn't make anyone rich. Clinton's stimulus package - did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Ugh... that pie-growing part of the comment... just UGH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. It's pretty clear that Obama sees the 60's and 70's as negatives for Democrats
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 12:32 PM by autorank
He either doesn't know what he's talking about or he'd deliberately dissembling.

Why is he running a Democrat? What Democrats are on his A list?

Is he unaware that we've had a rigged game economically in the country for decades?

Couldn't he at least read a little Kevin Phillips before he pops off in this way?

This is entirely too strange. Here we're in the most important election of our time and
one of the "leaders" in the race sounds like a crypto conservative.

What a comment on our time. What a comment on the primary process. This guy can sneak in
before he's fully understood and we're stuck. I find this totally unacceptable.

The early primaries are clearly designed to favor big money and lousy candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Agree. And I'm STUNNED by many Obama supporters' unwillingness to stare this in the eye.
Maybe that's what happens when you get hit by the BAM!

I like Obama - but I'm saddened by these statements. And puzzled by the twisted explanations and attempts at shutting down discussion of what Obama is talking about. I really want this train to slow down, while we judge who's best to drive it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. They need to read his book to learn who they are voting for
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. Watching Obama over the past several years and
hearing remarks that make me wonder - "where the hell did he come up with that world view" I remember...

I remember that the anchor and providers in his life were his grandparents. The people with the most influence on him are from the WWII generation. It is reflected in his political views. He looks young but seems lost in another time.

His rejection of his mother's generation (those pre and early boomers) seems very personal. He doesn't know what he doesn't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. he was either too young - or out of the country - during Raygun years - correct me which
and got his info via MSM rose glasses (the teflon makers), or other indirect false perceptions. he certainly didn't "live" those years - and missed the entire point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. He was attending Ivy League schools in the 80's
He was smart enough to be president of the Harvard Law Review but not smart enough to know what was happening in the country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. I am 24 and I love the 60s and the 70s
I've read that it was a time of great social changes, and people were active and people believe that the personal is the political, people were not apathetic and cynical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Thank-you for posting that!
It'll take your generation and my boomer generation together to advance the movements begun in the 60s and 70s to the next level.

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC