Lots of headlines are claiming that Hillary Clinton is attacking Barack Obama’s remarks about Ronald Reagan. When one reads the stories, though, Clinton doesn’t mention Reagan; she targets Obama’s assertion, from the same session with the Reno Gazette-Journal, that Republicans have been the “party of ideas” for the past decade-plus.
Why hasn’t she joined the Reagan pile-on? Because she can’t: she lists Reagan among her most admired presidents. Presumably this is for much the same reason Obama singled him out: Reagan’s “optimism,” and his success at crossing party lines to create an electoral juggernaut.
The problem with Obama’s remarks on both points is context. When he says that Reagan “put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it,” he ignores that the path Reagan chose was a fundamentally destructive one, and distinctly at odds with the “clarity” and “optimism” with which Obama identifies him. Which is to say that Reagan sold a bill of goods to those Americans who crossed party lines to support him, and got away with it. Presumably Obama doesn’t think of himself as a huckster, so it’s an odd comparison to make.
Regarding the GOP as the party of ideas of the past 10 or 15 years, look at where that takes us: to 1993, when the Clintons introduced their health care reform plan. The point that the Clinton years didn’t produce a lot of innovation is accurate enough, but it neglects to consider the savage resistance to new ideas from the right, who were still marching down Reagan’s “fundamentally different path.” It was not an ideal growing climate for new ideas.
And when you look at Obama’s policy proposals, you’re hard-pressed to find anything in the way of ideas that haven’t been offered by Democrats in the past. The same is true, of course, of Clinton and Edwards; the most significant differences between the three are rhetorical and methodological, not ideological.
The reflexive condemnation of Obama’s remarks arises at least in part from previous attacks by Obama against his opponents from the right. While Obama clearly didn’t endorse the Reagan Revolution, he has adopted right-wing talking points on several issues, including unions as special interest groups (as opposed to organizations representing, you know, working people), Social Security and health care plans (not that he’s alone on that score). The argument that bringing Reagan into a conversation about himself had no significance beyond highlighting certain superficial similarities between the electoral climates of 1980 and 2008 doesn’t wash; it’s part and parcel of Obama’s effort to create another, similar coalition, albeit to presumably holier purpose.
One can argue—wrongly, I think—that what Obama is doing, paying periodic homage to the right, is necessary to win the White House, but one can’t argue that he’s not doing it.
For the reasons Obama listed, President Reagan had among the highest favorability ratings of any president. Bill Clinton had a comparably dismal rating. This was not because of any kind of political climate (which this article cites as the reason), but because he was never able to assemble enough of a movement to match his vision for America.
Ben, that’s nonsense. Clinton’s approval ratings compare favorably with Reagan’s on both the high and low ends, and Clinton’s approval rating when he left office was actually a bit higher than Reagan’s when he departed.
Recall the “great communicator?” What I think Obama meant was that Reagan was able to get a large majority involved in his “vision” and that ability led to an ability to create real change. In no way did he suggest that the change was good; only that it was real. This is partly, I think, to counter the criticism that Obama is “only” inspiring.