Would Ronald Reagan Be Too Liberal For Today's Republicant Party?

That's what Michael Steele said on "Morning Joe".

I haven't given it much thought but if Steele is correct our politics have moved frighteningly far to the right.

That would be a complete, absolute non-starter for all of the current crop of Republicants.

Further, his administration negotiated with Iran (behind the scenes) and the USSR (publicly), two of our biggest foes at the time.

These days, we just wage war without too much fuss.

He had to compromise, he never would have raised taxes on his own. He never wanted to have a MLK holiday, but only signed it because it was veto-proof. None of the Tea Baggers running today would oppose the MLK openly like Reagan did. He is much to the right of anyone running.

astounding how the right wing has turned him into a saint who was so beloved and had strong approval ratings every day of his presidency. No one even questions it any more - I've had young people who weren't even born then telling me how great he was.

You have to give the right wing credit for one thing - they know how to do propaganda.

In order to promote his policies (more money for rich people, let working folks and impoverished die) you have to lionize the king of trickle-down assholes. That's happened, and continues to this day.

Former Democrat and Union Leader.
Raised taxes several times. Yes, he gave the
largest tax cut in history but when he saw
it would do harm, he raised taxes to make
correction. Republicans never never repeat this.

Today, Orin Hatch is getting challenger because
he worked in the past with Ted Kennedy. OMG
what a taint. That goes years back, no matter
he tainted his Conservative Credentials.

Reagan would not be acceptable.

the thing is; we don't have to accept no-Democrat Democrats. We keep waiting for someone in power to DO SOMETHING. They won't; they'll keep moving the Nation to off-the-cliff Right Wing fascism. We need a massive grassroots movement to take our Nation back. It could begin right here.

At least with the conservatives. Remember, his signature tax cutting legislation was the Rostenkowski written bill. David Stockman wrote the "golden asterisk". Remember the dead marines in Lebanon? All of these things and more were abhorrent to the right wing.

Only the mythical RR is popular with the right wing. The actual presidency, not so much.

Just like Michael Steele.

He had no real conviction or center. He started out as a labor union supporting Democrat. Then he married into the arch conservative family of nancy.

He read lines. He emoted. He didn't have any idea what he was saying. He was an actor.

He and Nancy were actually tolerant types. They had a wide range of friends.

n/t

Yes and no. Reagan would have taken far more right-wing positions today.

He was a pragmatist and worked with congress to get the most right-wing crap he could get away with.
Given congress at the time, that meant some tax hikes. But were he president today, with today's congress, he would not stand for tax increases.

...Also, Congress increased the debt limit under Reagan over 199%, which is more than the past three Democratic presidents combined.

He would be ecstatic. In his time, he felt he had to compromise with the Democrats. These days he could actually accomplish his "government is the problem" "vision."

The rightwing of the Republican party (secretly, including his own VP, GHW Bush) opposed him on many issues. His meetings with Gorbachev were very controversial with the far right. Especially in Reykjavik when Reagan and Gorby came oh so close to signing a deal to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

I also happen to be one who believes Reagan really never did know about Iran-Contra until Meese told him. I'm convinced that whole deal was run by George Bush out of the basement of the White House with Ollie North and John Poindexter and other neoconservatives. Reagan was never one of the neoconservatives and, for me, that alone makes him different than many of the far right today.

He did many, many, many things I disagreed with. But I never questioned his leadership ability as I do today with Obama. (Never thought I'd say that - but it's true.)

Go on Freak Repuklic and post that. Ask any conservative right winger who they prefer. None will ever say Poppy. Also, many one the far, far right (not far right like Michelle Bachmann, the really far right paleo-cons) think he is one of the heads of the New World Order, and had a part in Reagan's shooting. Hell, they're probably right.

While that sounds like hyperbole,
in many respects it is true.

Ronald Reagan NEVER could have turned Social Security into a Bargaining Chip.

He also had the good sense to Pull American Troops OUT of Middle Eastern Countries where they weren't wanted.
Ronnie Cut & Ran after the Marine Barracks was bombed in 1983.
God Bless Him.
I wish Obama would imitate him in this respect.

This is what Reagan actually accomplished. But, if you want to discuss what Reagan was actually trying to accomplish, Ronald Reagan should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Barack Obama, since Reagan wanted to privitize Social Security. Dubya tried to carry out Reagan's dream in 2006. So, please do not try to suggest that Reagan is more liberal than today's Democrats.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Social_Security.htm

Obama has said he admires Reagan. :puke:

I'll agree with you that Reagan wouldn't be considered too liberal for today's Democratic party - but he would fit right in. I'm sure he'd like the way Obama put Social Security & Medicare on the table during his latest "negotiations" with the Republiclans.

I laid out what Ronald Reagan did, and what he was trying to do. Go ahead. Make the case that the Democratic Party wants to privitize social security.

You were misinformed, and now we get to enjoy you dodge trying to defend your claim that Ronald Reagan is more liberal than Democrats today. Just to remind you, here is where Reagan stood on social security:

(read my post) I said he'd fit right in with the "new" Democrats of today.

Reagan may have talked about privatizing Social Security, but it was Obama who put it on the table as a bargaining chip.

...and the great tax cutter actually imposed a huge tax increase on the middle class by increasing social security payroll taxes on the middle class. So, Reagan did not merely put bargain with social security, he cut it, and worse, he did not cut social security as much as he proposed to do.

The post you are defending claimed that, "Ronald Reagan would be too Liberal for today's Democratic Party." It is nice that you are not taking this position, and notable that the person who made this post is no where to be found.

Let me put it this way. Social Security exposes the Reagan myth on multiple levels.

First, people talk about Reagan getting what he wanted through a Democratic Congress. Well, the fact of the matter is Reagan never achieved the roll back of the New Deal that he so loudly demanded as a candidate. Yet, despite falling far short of his stated aims, he is hailed as god by the right wing.

Second, Obama merely participated in bargaining with Republicans over social security without ever proposing to privitize it as Reagan did, and as Dubya tried to do in 2006. Reagan advocated getting rid of social security, and instead cut benefits and increased taxes on the middle class, but placed an upper income limit on those payroll taxes, which means that the rich are protected. Contrary to Reagan, President Obama has expressly endored one idea that many liberals support, which is to increase the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes, thus the rich have to pay payroll taxes on more of their income, not just the first $107,000. I don't think their should be a cap on payroll taxes. Why should the rich be protected?

Third, liberals and conservatives alike now both dismiss compromise as a dirty word. But, Reagan ended up eating humble pie when he first proposed to cut social security benefits outright immediately. So, instead, he ended up tweaking social security and the solvency of social security was strengthened for a couple of generations. Thus, Reagan's cuts and tax increases ended up strengthening the balance sheet of a program that he had repeatedly attacked. Explain this to a Tea Partier, and they will go crazy.

So, in terms of proposals, Reagan was right there with Dubya in terms of proposing to privitize social security and, failing that, he capped the income that subject to payroll taxes, but Reagan was also a failure from a modern day Republican perspective, since he broadly increased taxes.

Yet, Republicans revere him while liberals suggest that he was not that extreme. Reagan was that extreme. He had a record of scorning Social Security as an involuntary, quasi-socialistic example of government running amok. He argued that Social Security should become a "voluntary" program. But, thankfully, Reagan was also a failure in getting his right wing agenda fully implemented.

I guess one thing President Obama could do, and perhaps should do, to emulate Reagan is to demand New Deal II even though it has no chance of getting passed by this Congress. However, unlike the right wing, neither liberals nor the corporate media will give him a free pass for failing to achieve a New Deal II the way Reagan is given a free pass for failing to achieve his stated vision on social security.

the moral depravity of his message which the great communicator brought to America and the whole world was far more harmful than all of his wretched policies.

But on policy matters, hell George W. Bush was to liberal for today's Republican Party - to say nothing of Ronald Reagan.

The real Reagan wouldn't have a chance in today's Republican myth-based environment.

Funny how the times have changed.