Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?
Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent.
What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century.
The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent.
Krauthammer goes on to say that the current field of candidates is adequate.
He concludes:
So no more gnashing of teeth. Republicans have 4 1/2 good presidential candidates. All five would make fine Cabinet members: Romney at Treasury, Thompson at Justice, McCain at Defense, Giuliani at Homeland Security, Huckabee at Interior. All the team needs now is to pick a captain who can beat Hillary.
Mark Levin disagrees with Krauthammer's assessment of Reagan. He counters Krauthammer's shots, point by point.
He also suggests that now is the time to carefully examine the '08 candidates. That's what the primary process is about.
Levin's column is worth reading.
He concludes:
Krauthammer never worked for Reagan; I did. That's not a prerequisite for understanding Reagan, but when an opinion-maker is wrong about him, my personal experience of Reagan obliges me to defend him. Krauthammer suggests to me that he still doesn't understand why Reagan was a great leader or the public's love for him. The public had confidence that when Reagan spoke, he meant what he said; He left no room for question about what he believed in, and that he would try to implement policies consistent with his long-held positions.
It's not so much that we long for Reagan, as some dismissively contend (although I note that the candidates themselves invoke his name endlessly as a substitute for their own conservative shortcomings, perceived or otherwise). It is rather that we long for someone who can lead as he did. We don't seek perfection (even if we could define it), and we don't claim Reagan was perfect.
Krauthammer says he's not putting Reagan down. If that is the case, then he nonetheless has a funny way of describing him. But even if Reagan never existed, surely there is some standard by which we judge the candidates. For some of us, that standard is the same standard we used to judge prior candidates, including Reagan. To say all the candidates are fine is to say nothing. To say that major aspects of their records don't square with recent campaign statements is more than nitpicking. Now is the time to be inquisitive, engaged, and discerning. That's what primaries are all about. That's not to say that there aren't worthy candidates in the field. But simply saying they’re worthy is unpersuasive.
This isn't the first election in which a war hero is running for president. We've had war heroes who have made lousy presidents. This isn't the first election involving a successful governor. But they, too, have had mixed presidential records. I would encourage more scrutiny, not less.
No comments:
Post a Comment