Reagan's political thinking was clearly formed in the crucible of post war conservatism. Part of the thinking (by people like Hayek and Nozick) involved linking Communism to ever increasing expansion of government. The point here wasn't that New Deal Democrats were some kind of fifth column, but rather their policies would evolve into socialism and thus an erosion of liberty.

At the same time, evangelicals were becoming politically active, and formed an alliance with traditional Catholics. This was in part in response to the tumult of the sixties--notably, the anti-war movement. Old guard liberals grew disgusted with the excesses, and many became neo-cons. I don't know if any of this stuff really shaped Reagan's thinking. In his personal life, he didn't care much for religion. But he was able to forge an alliance between the intellectual conservatives of the cold war era and what we now call social conservatives.

The Conservative Ascendancy by Critchlow is an outstanding book on the subject.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/CRICON.html

Interestingly, the political thought that was so influential to Reagan and thus American politics has not yet received much academic investigation. It's a project I'm seriously thinking about.

By the way, one thing that Critchlow's book will do is it will help you understand what a neo-conservative really is, and why their presence in the Republican party should not be considered inevitable or even likely to persist. Though there is a battle between cosmopolitan elites and populists that is quite evident in the Republican party now, there's also a battle between small government types and neo-cons.

TenuredVulture wrote:Interestingly, the political thought that was so influential to Reagan and thus American politics has not yet received much academic investigation. It's a project I'm seriously thinking about.

I say go for it, because my feeling is the effort will, collaterally, reveal a man lacking the imagination, & incapable of the sort of incisive thinking, required to form a coherent set of political beliefs. It seems it would also have to come to grips with the discord between any such professed beliefs and things like his fiscal actions as an executive in both CA and as POTUS.

Yes, it's true, I struggle to believe that Reagan was not the "Borat(x)" of post WWII american politics.

Evan Bayh is retiring. Wow.

If today was the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, I think the GOP would pick up 8 Senate seats (ND, NV, AR, IN, IL, DE, PA, CO). There time for the Democrats to fix things and maybe cut that number in half, but if the GOP can land a big recruit in NY or WI, the Senate could be in play.

jerseyhoya wrote:Evan Bayh is retiring. Wow.

Seriously? What for? I suppose I could look that up myself.

I don't understand this. He appeared to be gearing up for another campaign as late as last week and was well ahead of potential GOP candidates. Maybe there's something else going on . . . But, there goes another Senate seat. If you like how our government operates now, just wait til next January when the Republicans control the Senate(unfortunately, I think the Senate is in serious jeopardy).

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Interestingly, the political thought that was so influential to Reagan and thus American politics has not yet received much academic investigation. It's a project I'm seriously thinking about.

I say go for it, because my feeling is the effort will, collaterally, reveal a man lacking the imagination, & incapable of the sort of incisive thinking, required to form a coherent set of political beliefs. It seems it would also have to come to grips with the discord between any such professed beliefs and things like his fiscal actions as an executive in both CA and as POTUS.

Yes, it's true, I struggle to believe that Reagan was not the "Borat(x)" of post WWII american politics.

I'm not so much interested in Reagan's thought. Rather, I'm interested in British and American political thought between 1945 (or thereabouts--there are important seeds planted in the pre-war period by people like Schumpeter, Oakeshott, and so forth but 1945 is a convenient peg) and 1965. I'm especially interested in anti-totalitarianism by people like George Orwell, Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper, and John Dewey.

Well, according to a statement Bayh's given, he apparently just didn't think the Senate was the place for him to get things done:

After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned My decision was not motivated by political concern.Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election.

But running for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough. And it has never been what motivates me. At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor.

Two weeks ago, the Senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation: our exploding deficits and debt. The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted ‘no’ for short-term political reasons. Just last week, a major piece of legislation to create jobs — the public’s top priority — fell apart amid complaints from both the left and right. All of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state and our nation than continued service in Congress.

jerseyhoya wrote:If today was the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, I think the GOP would pick up 8 Senate seats (ND, NV, AR, IN, IL, DE, PA, CO). There time for the Democrats to fix things and maybe cut that number in half, but if the GOP can land a big recruit in NY or WI, the Senate could be in play.

There's a rumor that Mort Zuckerman may throw his hat in the ring in NY as an Independent or Republican (a la Bloomberg). Not a conservative, but not a diehard liberal either.

Klein:

In related news, Evan Bayh has decided to retire. He said he wants to spend more time scolding his family for moving too far to the left.

Bayh being one of the fouler Senators--a hypocrite who frets over every dollar spent domestically but throws the public's money around like Paris Hilton on meth when there are furriners to be killed or corporations in "need"--I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.

Perhaps Harold Ford will move to Indianapolis today and explore a run there.

cshort wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If today was the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, I think the GOP would pick up 8 Senate seats (ND, NV, AR, IN, IL, DE, PA, CO). There time for the Democrats to fix things and maybe cut that number in half, but if the GOP can land a big recruit in NY or WI, the Senate could be in play.

There's a rumor that Mort Zuckerman may throw his hat in the ring in NY as an Independent or Republican (a la Bloomberg). Not a conservative, but not a diehard liberal either.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have trouble seeing the public, even "our" New York public, turn to a billionaire real estate guy who runs a lame newspaper. This is more about Zuckerman's mammoth ego and a sad wish to Be Like Mike (all the billionaires here have some of that) than any realistic political calculation.

That said, it's truly amazing how the Democrats managed to fuck up every single Senatorial replacement situation between the '08 election and Kennedy's passing. Unprecedented, probably. Gillibrand, Burris, Bennet in Colorado, Kaufman in DE, Kirk in MA--they're all either terrible statewide politicians or folks who were pre-disqualified from running for re-election with the advantage of incumbency.

I kind of had the feeling that when the Dems went from Schumer at their campaign committee and Dean at the DNC to Menendez and Kaine, they'd lose something. But it's hard to believe how comprehensively they've botched what was a great situation 15 months ago.

dajafi wrote:Klein:

In related news, Evan Bayh has decided to retire. He said he wants to spend more time scolding his family for moving too far to the left.

Bayh being one of the fouler Senators--a hypocrite who frets over every dollar spent domestically but throws the public's money around like Paris Hilton on meth when there are furriners to be killed or corporations in "need"--I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.

Yeah, but I'd rather have a moderate Democrat that votes with his party at least part of the time than the consistent "no" vote that the Republicans will nominate and probably win with.

dajafi wrote:

cshort wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If today was the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, I think the GOP would pick up 8 Senate seats (ND, NV, AR, IN, IL, DE, PA, CO). There time for the Democrats to fix things and maybe cut that number in half, but if the GOP can land a big recruit in NY or WI, the Senate could be in play.

There's a rumor that Mort Zuckerman may throw his hat in the ring in NY as an Independent or Republican (a la Bloomberg). Not a conservative, but not a diehard liberal either.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have trouble seeing the public, even "our" New York public, turn to a billionaire real estate guy who runs a lame newspaper. This is more about Zuckerman's mammoth ego and a sad wish to Be Like Mike (all the billionaires here have some of that) than any realistic political calculation.

That said, it's truly amazing how the Democrats managed to $#@! up every single Senatorial replacement situation between the '08 election and Kennedy's passing. Unprecedented, probably. Gillibrand, Burris, Bennet in Colorado, Kaufman in DE, Kirk in MA--they're all either terrible statewide politicians or folks who were pre-disqualified from running for re-election with the advantage of incumbency.

I kind of had the feeling that when the Dems went from Schumer at their campaign committee and Dean at the DNC to Menendez and Kaine, they'd lose something. But it's hard to believe how comprehensively they've botched what was a great situation 15 months ago.

I actually like Bennet. Think he's a damn bright guy. He doesn't have any electoral experience, but he's raising buckets of money. He's just probably going to get caught in the wave. I don't think there's a whole lot different that Dems in Colorado could have done better.

Bennet is the one I know the least about--I think he had an education background, which is always a plus for me (though it probably doesn't bode well for electoral success; you make a lot of enemies running schools, and your failures are generally higher profile than your successes). You might well be right that Colorado, as a purple state represented like a blue state, is just a tough one for the Democrats this year.

VoxOrion wrote:Reagan also had a completely different attitude toward immigration. The 1986 immigration reform that he requested and signed, while not completely opposed to modern conservative opinion, is pretty darn different than what they want. I think the greatest change at that point was for family oriented immigration policies as opposed to skill based (what we see in most of the rest of the Western world). Aside from that, he was very interested in open boarders. I suppose an anti-immigration conservative would argue that Reagan would have a different approach in the day and age of domestic terror, but I think whenever you get into the realm of "what would they have done if things were different" you are wasting time and should just defend your position some other way without trying to imagine what George Washington would do. One of the last times I heard Hannity, probably around the 2006 elections, he was carrying on about St. Reagan and his idea of immigration reform in the same breath.

The view on immigration of the right and left are pretty much the same for different reasons. The right doesn't want the cultural change that immigration brings and is afraid they will have to pay higher taxes for social services. The left fears immigration drives down wages at the low end of the income spectrum and is bad for the environment, because it increases the population growth rate. So different reasons, but both would happily stop immigration. The lobby for immigration is pretty much limited to business and Hispanics.

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:Whether one thinks Reagan was a "great" president, there's no doubt in my mind he was a successful president. He accomplished most of what he wanted to do, and the country was in better shape when he left office than when he started. Are there other criteria for presidential success? I guess one could make an argument for "lasting impact"; Reagan's pretty good on that score too, what with historians referring to the "age of Reagan" and all.

I'll try (no doubt unsuccessfully) to pre-rebut PtK by noting, again, that I'm just talking about effectiveness in office, not the underlying merit or lack thereof of Reagan's policies and politics. I still personally find his support for the dirty wars in central America deplorable, as well as his pandering to American racism (kicking off his '80 campaign in Philadelphia, MS; references to "welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks," etc). But there's no question that he was singularly successful and effective among modern Republican presidents; Bush I and Nixon were political failures, Bush II was a policy disaster, Ford was a non-entity.

Some people might take issue with the notion that anything much that happened while he was in office was necessarily what "he" wanted to do. Those people would suggest he was the ultimate sock-puppet POTUS: successful, certainly, but not the foundry of that success.

And is there anything to substantiate the case for him truly forming a coherent political philosophy under his own steam, rather than having it poured into him? If so, I'm unfamiliar with the credible evidence, and would welcome sources.

In the end, much of what you say doesn't matter. If a President can appoint the right advisers and cabinet secretaries to create and implement good policies, does it matter in the end if he is the propounder of the grand detailed vision that is implemented or merely a sock puppet, who is told what to say. I think we judge, and rightly so, the accomplishments of administrations in their entirety, including the off-stage philosphical types and political schemers who have the President's ear. So, I'm comfortable judging Reagan simply by what was achieved and any lasting changes in political direction of the nation. The increased debt has to be factored in.

dajafi wrote:Bennet is the one I know the least about--I think he had an education background, which is always a plus for me (though it probably doesn't bode well for electoral success; you make a lot of enemies running schools, and your failures are generally higher profile than your successes). You might well be right that Colorado, as a purple state represented like a blue state, is just a tough one for the Democrats this year.

Interesting guy. His dad was a State Department guy (Bennet was born in India when his dad was posted there), who went on to run USAID, NPR and then Wesleyan University. His brother is the Editor of The Atlantic Magazine. He did Wesleyan/Yale Law, then got into business in Colorado working for Phil Anschutz (big conservative/cofounder of the MLS) managing major capital. Moved into public sector working as Chief of Staff for Denver Mayor/current CO Dem Gov candidate John Hickenlooper, who later appointed him to be superintendent of Denver Schools. Just a really intriguing background. Although I have never seen him speak, so he might be terrible at that, and I don't know what his big issues are politically.

I was joking, but its weird to me that no one has brought up his Soviet policy, which is the biggest problem I have with what Reagan did. I probably don't have much of an argument here given how things ended up, but it annoys me how high tensions were raised given that the Soviet Union was well on its way to collapsing already even without the escalation of the arms race. I don't think it was worth the risk and I know of at least one documented case during Reagan's presidency where it almost DID cost us everything.

Again I realize this is all moot though.

allentown wrote:In the end, much of what you say doesn't matter.

It does if your purpose is to assess what the person contributed, how much they actually conceived strategy and directed the flow of events, vs merely what took place during his reign.

I generally agree with you that it doesn't matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.