Is Obama channeling Reagan?
07 Feb '11 01:111 edithttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinsley-reagan-20110205,0,468079.story
Time magazines cover this week features a photoshopped picture of Ronald Reagan with his arm around President Obama. The cover story purports to answer the question no one was asking until Time magazine brought it up. Is president Obama channeling Ronald Reagan?
The article points to three evidences for this possibility.
1. First are quotes from various folks endorsing the proposition such as hyper-historian Douglas Brinkley saying, "Obama is approaching the job in a Reaganesque fashion."
2. Tweets from Press Secretary Gibbs over Christmas about how Obama was reading a Reagan biography was also used as evidence. Additionally, both Reagan and Obama advocated for defense cuts and a simplification of the tax code in their second state of the Union Adress.
3. Actions and remarks seem somewhat similar to each other. An example is how both harp on the bipartisan responsibilities of government.
Of course, both Conservative and Liberal alike cringe at the thought of this comparison, however, who can blame them for perhaps fostering this perception? After all, during the Reagan years inflation dropped from 10.4% in 1981 to 3.7% in 1987. Also federal revenues doubled from $517 billion in 1980 to more than a trillion dollars in 1990. And lastly, the unemployment rate dropped from 9.7% in 1982 to 5.4% in 1988. Of course, the 800 pound gorella in the room is that currently about 79% of the voters think that the economy could collapse as where under Reagan a renewed optimism and patriotism erupted. Reagan also witnessed to end of the Cold War and emerged victorious in relation to the Iranian hostage situation.
Having said that, are the two really all that different? After all, under Reagan the federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it was in 1981. Then the Reagan tax cuts left large and growing budget deficits combined with increased spending which added to the national debt. And lastly, Reagan's tax increases were the largest proportionate ones in US history. Of course, it did not help that a few historians called his foriegn policy "Wilsonian".
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00006/
"In short, it is hard in 2009 to point to any concrete evidence that Regan's Revolution fundamentally altered the nation's trajectory toward bloated, centralized, interventionalist government. Whatever Reagan's achievments, and they were many and deserve our respect, it is worth asking whether Reagan's optimistic rhetoric and vision for America helped perpetuate the liberal agenda rather than preserve or recover anything resembling, say, Burkean Conservatism or the Founding Father's philosophy of limited government.'
As for myself, I see the two on different philsophical demensions. On the one you had Reagan who once identified the government as the problem. He was quoted as saying, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Conversely, president Obama said in his first news conference, "One Federal Government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life. It is the only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money. Which leads to more layoffs." It should be noted, however, that under Reagan around 35 million jobs were created. Conversely, Obama promised 4 million but has of yet seems to be losing jobs by the hour. So why then if both seem to add to the scope and size of the federal government do they seem to have two different results? From my vantage point it is the perception that Obama is tinkering with the economy via stimulus packages, cap and trade, and Obamcare. All of these programs have negative effects on the economy at large as well as add to the ever increasing worry about the national debt that was not felt in Reagan's era. Conversely, Reagan seemed to increase defense spending with the notion that America needed to be strong to defeat the Iron Curtain. By itself, I suppose it could be seen as a stimulus package, but I do not give it credit for the economic recovery the US encountered under Reagan just like I see no benefit to the Obama stimulus aiding the US economy now.
I suppose my biggest disappointment with Reagan was not rolling the size and scope of government. In addition, I blame him for appointing Bush Sr. as his VP. It was an attempt to consolodate the Conservatives and Moderates in his party. However, it gave rise to Bush Sr. becoming president along with his son later that brought us to the mess we are in now.
Time magazines cover this week features a photoshopped picture of Ronald Reagan with his arm around President Obama. The cover story purports to answer the question no one was asking until Time magazine brought it up. Is president Obama channeling Ronald Reagan?
The article points to three evidences for this possibility.
1. First are quotes from various folks endorsing the proposition such as hyper-historian Douglas Brinkley saying, "Obama is approaching the job in a Reaganesque fashion."
2. Tweets from Press Secretary Gibbs over Christmas about how Obama was reading a Reagan biography was also used as evidence. Additionally, both Reagan and Obama advocated for defense cuts and a simplification of the tax code in their second state of the Union Adress.
3. Actions and remarks seem somewhat similar to each other. An example is how both harp on the bipartisan responsibilities of government.
Of course, both Conservative and Liberal alike cringe at the thought of this comparison, however, who can blame them for perhaps fostering this perception? After all, during the Reagan years inflation dropped from 10.4% in 1981 to 3.7% in 1987. Also federal revenues doubled from $517 billion in 1980 to more than a trillion dollars in 1990. And lastly, the unemployment rate dropped from 9.7% in 1982 to 5.4% in 1988. Of course, the 800 pound gorella in the room is that currently about 79% of the voters think that the economy could collapse as where under Reagan a renewed optimism and patriotism erupted. Reagan also witnessed to end of the Cold War and emerged victorious in relation to the Iranian hostage situation.
Having said that, are the two really all that different? After all, under Reagan the federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it was in 1981. Then the Reagan tax cuts left large and growing budget deficits combined with increased spending which added to the national debt. And lastly, Reagan's tax increases were the largest proportionate ones in US history. Of course, it did not help that a few historians called his foriegn policy "Wilsonian".
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00006/
"In short, it is hard in 2009 to point to any concrete evidence that Regan's Revolution fundamentally altered the nation's trajectory toward bloated, centralized, interventionalist government. Whatever Reagan's achievments, and they were many and deserve our respect, it is worth asking whether Reagan's optimistic rhetoric and vision for America helped perpetuate the liberal agenda rather than preserve or recover anything resembling, say, Burkean Conservatism or the Founding Father's philosophy of limited government.'
As for myself, I see the two on different philsophical demensions. On the one you had Reagan who once identified the government as the problem. He was quoted as saying, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Conversely, president Obama said in his first news conference, "One Federal Government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life. It is the only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money. Which leads to more layoffs." It should be noted, however, that under Reagan around 35 million jobs were created. Conversely, Obama promised 4 million but has of yet seems to be losing jobs by the hour. So why then if both seem to add to the scope and size of the federal government do they seem to have two different results? From my vantage point it is the perception that Obama is tinkering with the economy via stimulus packages, cap and trade, and Obamcare. All of these programs have negative effects on the economy at large as well as add to the ever increasing worry about the national debt that was not felt in Reagan's era. Conversely, Reagan seemed to increase defense spending with the notion that America needed to be strong to defeat the Iron Curtain. By itself, I suppose it could be seen as a stimulus package, but I do not give it credit for the economic recovery the US encountered under Reagan just like I see no benefit to the Obama stimulus aiding the US economy now.
I suppose my biggest disappointment with Reagan was not rolling the size and scope of government. In addition, I blame him for appointing Bush Sr. as his VP. It was an attempt to consolodate the Conservatives and Moderates in his party. However, it gave rise to Bush Sr. becoming president along with his son later that brought us to the mess we are in now.
Back to Top