A Quarter Century After Reagan, a few thoughts from my bud, Bob Lonsberry ‚©

[BTS]

It was an anniversary the media chose to ignore.

On Saturday.

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Possibly the most important day in the second half the 20th Century.

I listened to it on the radio.

I was 21 and the manager of a Kentucky Fried Chicken in a little upstate New York town. I had opened alone and then a couple of employees had come in to help for lunch and as they tended customers I stayed in the back and made chicken and filled orders and listened to him take the oath of office.

It was one of the most exciting days of my life. It was as if someone had taken a padlock off the future. The hostage crisis was over and the gas lines were over and the 21½ percent interest rates were over.

And America was talking proud.

After the malaise of Jimmy Carter and the uncertainty of the 70s, the country had a direction and a purpose.

It was a great time to be an American and it was a great time to be a Republican. And watching him take the reins of power my political affiliation of a lifetime was cemented. I read every word and memorized every name. It was a crusade, with Ronald Reagan in the lead and a philosophy as the cause.

Which is probably why the media ignored it.

The media understands that Ronald Reagan and what he stood for are a repudiation of the global socialism they prefer. They see him as an anti-hero and they cringe at the patriotism he inspired and exemplified.

That’s why you didn’t hear anything.

But media antagonism toward a conservative American is nothing new. And remembering Ronald Reagan in the context of media disdain for him accomplishes nothing.

It is more useful to remember his inauguration as a yardstick against which to measure the performance of contemporary Republicans. Unfortunately, doing so only highlights the shortcomings of Reagan’s partisan successors.

Ironically, the Republican Party of today has more in common with Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale than it does with Ronald Reagan.

Whereas Ronald Reagan was a conservative of conscience, most Republicans today are mere conservatives of convenience. And when in power, it never seems to be convenient for Republicans to be conservative.

Instead, they seem to wholeheartedly embrace the big-government and welfare programs which Ronald Reagan argued so convincingly against. With longstanding and secure holds on Congress and the White House, the Republican Party seems to have forgotten the philosophies of Ronald Reagan, or even of the Contract With America. Rather, they seem content in trying to out-Democrat the Democrats. The Republican Party doesn’t oppose massive socialist transfers of wealth, it proposes them.

And runs up the debt and ignores the border and pussyfoots around like the bungler Ronald Reagan replaced. Twenty-five years ago, in the face of that Republican president, Iran released our hostages. Today, in the face of another Republican president, Iran is building a nuclear bomb.

That change isn’t for the better.

And the change in the Republican Party isn’t for the better.

With its incredible grip on power, the party of Ronald Reagan seems incapable of doing much but make excuses. For a generation the Republican Party has used promises to acquire power. Well, it now firmly has power, but continues to defer the fulfilling of its promises.

And that is the Democrats’ fault.

Or so we are told.

When the Democrats were a majority in the Senate, they controlled things. But now that the Republicans are a majority in the Senate, the Democrats still control things. At least to hear the Republicans talk.

Somehow, the only issue the party seems united on is the need to expand and further its power. If only we get the White House. If only we get the Senate. If only we get more seats in the House. If only we get 60 seats in the Senate.

If only the Republican Party would get off its backside and live up to the principles and vision of that man who was sworn in 25 years ago.

It’s reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln’s concerns about General George McClellan. The general was always getting ready to fight but never quite got around to fighting. Eventually President Lincoln became exasperated and wrote, “If you don’t want to use the Army, I should like to borrow it for a while.”

The same thing could be said to the Republican Party. If you don’t want to use your power, the people who put you in office would like to borrow it for a while.

To put our national house in order. To bring our federal policies into line with the clear principles taught by Ronald Reagan – the clear principles he found in the Constitution of the United States. To turn the tide on rampant anti-freedom socialism. To cut taxes and cut spending and make government smaller and people freer.

Twenty-five years ago that’s what Ronald Reagan told us the Republican Party stood for.

Now I’m not sure what it stands for.

All I know is that the Democrats would be worse.

All I know is that somewhere over the last quarter century the Republican Party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage. And we have power today, but we do not have principle.

Yes, the media ignored this anniversary.

But so did the Republican Party.

Probably because it didn’t want to be embarrassed by a comparison with its past.



- by Bob Lonsberry © 2006



Picture of Ronald Reagan as a Young Boy





Photograph of Ronald Reagan (with "Dutch boy" haircut) Neil Reagan (brother) and Parents Jack and Nelle Reagan. (Circa 1914).

[Accountable]

That's the kind of president we need again. It never occurred to me that we should commemorate the 25th anniversary, but it would've been nice.

[Benjamin]

The media understands that Ronald Reagan and what he stood for are a repudiation of the global socialism they prefer. They see him as an anti-hero and they cringe at the patriotism he inspired and exemplified.
I don't know about that. After all, the media helped the republicans in their attempt to bring down Clinton. I was watching CNN one evening not too long ago and the newscaster refered to Reagan as "our wonderful president from the 80s." So much for the left-wing bias in the media.



I was a republican back in the Reagan days. He did help restore pride in our country. His rhetoric (more than his economic policies) helped reinvigorate our economy. The buildup of our military and the Star Wars program were instrumental in ending the Cold War and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Aside from that, Reagan is extremely overrated as a president and as a man. He ratted on his fellow actors during the McCarthy era. His administration tripled the U.S. debt and defied congress when they provided arms and funding to the Contras. His deregulation of industries resulted in the S&L crisis and other scandals. He also punished Israel for destroying Iraq’s nuclear facilities when we should have praised their action.

[Accountable]

Benjamin wrote: I don't know about that. After all, the media helped the republicans in their attempt to bring down Clinton. I was watching CNN one evening not too long ago and the newscaster refered to Reagan as "our wonderful president from the 80s." So much for the left-wing bias in the media.





I was a republican back in the Reagan days. He did help restore pride in our country. His rhetoric (more than his economic policies) helped reinvigorate our economy. The buildup of our military and the Star Wars program were instrumental in ending the Cold War and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.



Aside from that, Reagan is extremely overrated as a president and as a man. He ratted on his fellow actors during the McCarthy era. His administration tripled the U.S. debt and defied congress when they provided arms and funding to the Contras. His deregulation of industries resulted in the S&L crisis and other scandals. He also punished Israel for destroying Iraq’s nuclear facilities when we should have praised their action.
Just being picky:



Most argue that tripling the debt was necessary to accomplish the buildup that collapsed the Soviet Union (that Jack built).



I would argue that it wasn't the deregulation that caused the S&L crisis any more than a burst dam causes a flood. Had the dam never been built, it would not have burst. The deregulation was necessary. The scandal(s) would have happened sooner or later.