Much confusion persists among today’s Republicans, particularly among the younger set, as to the nature of Ronald Reagan’s supposed ideology. Those of us old enough to remember 1976 clearly remember how persistently, how hard, the left-wing, pinko national news media then hammered the boilerplate “RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGUE” figuratively onto the innocent Mr. Reagan’s noble forehead. The irony is that so many Republicans—including Rudy Giuliani who is old enough to know better, including also many younger Republicans now in the House of Representatives—have absorbed the myth.

Mr. Reagan was no ideologue. He was a courageous man of strong principle who led the country with consummate skill and great valor as a bedrock American conservative. Younger readers who feel sure that I am wrong about this might carefully research two specific acts of Mr. Reagan’s as president: his bailout of Harley-Davidson in 1983 and his order to the U.S. Marines to withdraw from Lebanon in 1984. Both of these actions cut against the general grain of the Reagan presidency. Why did he take them? I think that it was because he was a conservative, not an ideologue. Traditional conservatives balance many factors subjectively before reaching a decision; no one factor dominates, nor is the right decision at one time and place always the right decision at another. It is wonderful that Ronald Reagan is so widely revered today, but it is ironic that he is almost as widely misunderstood in his own party.

Admittedly, the respondent above did not bring Mr. Reagan’s name into the discussion; I did that. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the matter of Reagan’s supposed ideology merits some consideration in the present light.

Howard

One respondent above has written that “Presidential qualities do not include `artful responses to taunts’ or even the less specific `sharp wit’ at all.” He is right in my view. Glibness is much overrated as a leadership quality, which in part, for example, is why the blog rates the non-glib Tommy Thompson relatively so highly. The point is well taken.

Another respondent, Jerry L. Williams, points out that Republicans who have learned nothing from the 2006 debacle deserve to lose again in 2008. Naturally he is right.

Korey Kaczynski supports Ron Paul. So in some ways do I. I still remember when Dr. Paul headed the Libertarian presidential ticket in 1988. He was a good man then, a loyal American patriot—and he still is. Dr. Paul reminds us all that the Constitution, on which our liberties so greatly rely, is nothing but a venerable scrap of paper unless we choose to take it seriously. Dr. Paul is right in this. I hope that his age and health permit him to remain active in Congress for many years to come, reminding you and me over and over of the importance of proper loyalty to our unmatched Constitution. (Regarding the well-known recent exchange in South Carolina between Dr. Paul and Rudy Giuliani, one must admit that Mr. Giuliani slammed Dr. Paul with remarkable gravity and style. However, the Big Slam distracted attention from the otherwise evident stupidity of the nonreason Mr. Giuliani advanced for supporting the war in Iraq. I also happen to support the war in Iraq, but for Duncan Hunter’s reasons, not for Rudy Giuliani’s. Among the various other Republican candidates, only Jim Gilmore debated at such a low, grade-school-recess level as did Mr. Giuliani in South Carolina.)

Korey also observes that the Founders were ideologues. My view is that this was true of some of the Founders: most notably Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, plus their honorary associate Tom Paine. However, I believe that it was not true of James Madison, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry or, most importantly, George Washington. The historical question involved is fascinating, worth further discussion in this blog either now or at some future date.

One respondent expresses unequivocal support for Mr. Romney. While my support is admittedly slightly more equivocal, it is hardly less enthusiastic. I like Romney.

Another respondent kindly writes, “It is intriguing when one such as this author is able to perceive into the future, from careful deliberation, a little farther than so many Americans who cannot see past the end of their own nose.” I don’t have much to add to what he wrote, but of course I feel that the other views he expresses are entirely correct, and I appreciate his warm words of encouragement.

John M. Moore’s reply is worth serious consideration. Quite rightly, most of us are suspicious of being dealt or sold, yet Mr. Romney is indeed a dealer, a salesman. I had not known much about Charlie Baker. Surely Mr. Romney had his own reasons for treating Mr. Baker as John points out that he did. Good reasons? I don’t know. Such questions are entirely fair and are up to Mr. Romney to answer. Mr. Romney does admittedly sometimes leave an impression of too much cleverness for his own good: that’s just the man’s personality; he probably cannot change it. Regarding John’s several other questions, my answer is that they are all good questions, every one of them. I certainly do not have the answers. Any reader who has not yet read John’s reply above, should. It merits careful consideration in all its parts.

My instinct nevertheless tells me that the doubts about Mr. Romney, though valid doubts, nonetheless regard relatively insignificant blemishes on an extraordinarily full life; and that, in the end, the doubts will serve to illuminate the strength and depth of Mr. Romney’s character rather than to question its integrity at the core. Mr. Romney naturally must answer such questions to the satisfaction of Republicans like you and me. I believe that he can and suppose that he will, but surely I could be wrong in this. We shall see.

If it is the same John Moore, as I think, one might also read his insightful words here.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

Howard

Quote: “If I am right, all factors considered, Mr. Thompson probably cannot win unless Mr. Romney quits, dies (God forbid), or self-destructs.”

The previous quote best states what in all likelihood will be the scenario in the GOP primaries at the beginning of next year. The vast majority, thus far, severely underestimate Mitt Romney only because they do not know him. His influence slowly, surely and steadily gains from out of obscurity and he will be the next President of the United States of America.

It is intriguing when one such as this author is able to perceive into the future, from careful deliberation, a little farther than so many Americans who cannot see past the end of their own nose.

As for Mitt Romney, just look at Romneycare. Our medical industry needs more capitalism, not less, and that man is entirely the wrong person to do it. For an explanation of what more capitalism would mean, there’ve been a rare few books written from the perspective that the nanny state shouldn’t provide healthcare. Here’s an example:
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=19256&parentid=4&stocknumber=CU9116&page=1&itemsperpage=24

Romney didn’t have the guts to make the politically hard decisions involving deregulation that would have really helped the healthcare problems his state was experiencing. Instead he promoted a program that had the state take over the burdens instead. It was politically easy, but it didn’t work.

(Full Disclosure: I’m a health care one-issue voter. I don’t know much of anything about Mitt Romney except that his stance on drugs and health care is distinctly opposed to mine.)

Are you out of your mind?

You’re saying that to have the right stuff for presidency, you have to be a scumbag? Anyways, Ron Paul did throw it back after the debate; he challenged Rudy to a debate on foreign policy and then later held a press conference entitled “Educating Rudy.”