The End of the Reagan Era, or Is It?
With Barack Obama holding on to a reasonably sizable lead in the polls, increasingly more people are wondering whether this means that “the Reagan Era” has come to an end. After all, Obama represents a completely different kind of political ideology than Reagan did; Reagan appealed to many Democrats but he was, in essence, a far-right politician, who strongly favored free enterprise, capitalism, and who emphasized America’s current greatness.
Obama, on the other hand, is one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate, he wants to raise taxes (on some), spread the wealth around, and adopt a dovish foreign policy. This while Reagan was a true hawk. At the same time, Obama seems to be able to convince many moderates and independents to vote for him, just like Reagan.
There are some significant differences, however. First, Obama does not run on a liberal platform as such. It has moved to the center and stopped talking about truly liberal issues months ago. Reagan, on the other hand, was pretty clear about his intentions for the United States: he wanted to move the country to the right.
Second, in order for Obama to win, he has to move to the center. That is precisely because of the Reagan Era. If this era had come to an end, Obama would not have moved to the center at all; he simply would have ran on a platform similar to his record in the Illinois and U.S. Senate.
In short: no, the Reagan Era has not come to an end. And the only way for Democrats to win elections, is to realize that, and to use Reaganite expressions and beliefs to their own advantage.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I would suggest it may be the end of the Reagan era meaning the end of the era when the “T” word couldn’t be mentioned. In that sense its good IMHO. Having said that I’m not convinced that the Democratic Party will not revert to the old “tax and spend” ways especially since they’ve been successful (so far) in pushing the line that “its just the richest 5%”. And I don’t seeing Sen. Obama moving to the center. His language has become broader and therefore more acceptable to the center but I’m struggling to see how his essential messages are centrist. The “spreading the wealth around” comment certainly doesn’t reassure
Obama? Dovish foreign policy? Cough.
So tell me, Kaspar. How will Obama pursue defense foreign policy in your view. He’s vowed to go after bin Laden, to be sure, but how else is he a hawk?
Hm, he has fully committed himself to not letting go of Afghanistan or Pakistan and despite what some people say he is not on the fringe when it comes to no-condition diplomacy or the Iraq troop level question – his views here are common. What Obama might not do is sponsor right-wing thugs, harm the economy with ridiculous surges of military expenditure, lie about not raising taxes, approve breaches against international law and basic human decency and not break US law in order to fund all this (Iran-Contra broke the Bolan agreement). But then again he does eat arugula.