News Flash: Obama is not Reagan
It’s been a week since President Obama’s “State of the Union” address. Minutes after the speech’s conclusion, enthusiastic supporters of the president (disguised as mainstream “journalists”) were quick to compare him to President Reagan.
Reagan, nicknamed “the great communicator,” used to give amazing speeches. Former actor, he had great charisma and the cameras loved him. Of course, those behind the cameras, the mainstream media, didn’t want it. Having already largely sold its journalistic values of objectivity and truth in favor of liberal ideology, the media of the 1970s and 1980s cared little for Reagan, champion of a new conservative movement whose benefits are still reaped in the United States. United today. .
So Reagan was largely described as a “mild lout,” loved by the masses for his ability to charm them, but lacking in “substance.” He was too old. He didn’t understand social programs, or the need for government regulation and control. He didn’t have a degree in public administration, he didn’t “get” the intellectual attraction of collectivism and statism, and he hadn’t earned a ticket to the cocktail party inside the beltway that is the federal government. In reality, he wanted to shrink government, not expand it, as every other president in modern times had tried to do. He was a cowboy with his finger on the “launch” button. Sure, he had ruled California briefly, with the same bizarre public executive office approach… but does that “experience” really count?
How was this buffoon elected (by a landslide), let alone re-elected (by a larger landslide)?
The exhausted media’s idea of ”substance” was, in fact, very different from that of the new conservatives. Putting aside his legacy of foreign policy victories that ended the Cold War (and the Soviet Union) without firing a shot, and focusing solely on his victories in economic policy, President Reagan brought much new “substance” and Fresh to Washington. He convinced a Congress dominated by his political rivals to execute the biggest tax cut in American history, primarily by taking his case directly to the American people (who loved Reagan far more than journalists). Those tax cuts ushered in the greatest and longest era of prosperity any of us has ever known, and changed America into the economic ruin left behind by the Carter administration. Are you old enough to remember the iconic terms of the Carter era – “misery index”… “stagflation”… “oil crisis”…? If so, remember that it took a lot of effort, and a lot of a different kind of “substance”, on the part of Reagan and conservatives to turn it around.
So it’s ironic, especially for those of us old enough to remember all of that, that today’s media wants to paint President Obama with the same brush. He gives brilliant speeches…just like Reagan! He charms and inspires people… just like Reagan! He sounds super smart when he says something (unless he can’t see his teleprompter, but let’s ignore that for now)…very different from his predecessor, goofy George W. Bush, and much more like . ..Reagan!
I have said several times that the biggest problem facing conservatives today is that the illustrious of the Republican Party (the only option for conservatives) are normal people, not “great communicators.” From former President Bush to the wildly popular (and media-demonized) Sarah Palin, conservative leaders tend to speak like normal people rather than trained orators. I’ve said before that President Bush used to sound stupid when he said smart things, and President Obama used to sound smart when he said stupid things. And last week’s speech was a perfect example.
As for the observation that they both have (or had) the ability to make great speeches, I concede that Presidents Reagan and Obama are similar. But the similarities end there. In terms of actual substance, Barack Obama is definitely not Ronald Reagan.
Obama outlined “investment” (the new code word for “spending”) and a partial spending freeze, announcing that these measures would reduce the national deficit by $400 billion over ten years. Wow, that sounds like a lot, but thanks to Obama and the liberals, our deficit is in the trillions (with a “T”). If he cut taxes by 25%, as Reagan did, the economy would come back strong, as it did under Reagan. Nonpartisan federal accountants have documented that a one percent increase in Gross Domestic Product growth would actually reduce the deficit by $2.9 trillion over ten years. But Obama doesn’t really want to cut the deficit. Socialist colleagues of his, like Professors Cloward and Piven (look them up), have long sought to “collapse the system” under the weight of public spending on entitlements, paving the way for a conversion of our free-market republic to collectivist statism. . No, President Obama would prefer to “freeze” federal spending, by far the highest level in history.
A look at the content (the “substance”) of any of their speeches would reveal that style is the only thing these two presidents have had in common. Reagan believed in personal responsibility; Obama boosts trust in government. Obama believes that government is the solution to all of our problems. Reagan, in his first inaugural address, made it clear that government is not the answer to our problems, but “government IS the problem.”
It takes wealth in a free society to have real investment, which is needed to create real jobs. Obama thinks “the rich” have had a free ride, and he seeks to do whatever he can to beat them up at tax time; but that’s okay, he says, because the government is going to invest in “green jobs” for everyone! Reagan, by contrast, told the nation in one of his Saturday morning broadcasts that government doesn’t create wealth, it destroys it. Reagan also told us that the government doesn’t solve problems, it subsidizes them…and sure enough, Obama seeks subsidies for everything from unemployment (let’s give him government benefits for a staggering 99 weeks, so he actually forget how to work) to failed companies (bail out banks and auto companies, so union bosses can get rich while certain executives, many of them big Democratic donors, are released from any performance responsibilities).
Reagan cut regulations, inspiring the private sector to take over “businesses” previously controlled by the government; Obama is taking as much territory as he can from the private sector, as fast as he can, from cars to banks to the entire national health system.
And foreign policy? Reagan: “peace through strength.” Obama: The only area where we can really afford to cut spending is defense. Obama thinks we don’t need to be strong, we just need to please our enemies. Take a look at Europe, Asia, or the Middle East (Egypt, for example) to see how well it’s working. I even wonder if our biggest rival, China, sent President Hu Jintao to Washington to help President Obama put the finishing touches on his teleprompter for last week’s speech, or even write the speech himself.
No, President Obama is not Ronald Reagan. In terms of substance, it’s the exact opposite (Reagan had something). In just two years, look at how far President Obama and his colleagues in Congress, the media, the entertainment industry, and academia have pushed us to the brink of socialism.
A big accident is coming. The time has come to guard against crashes. Earn and save extra money. Learn how to invest your wealth in a way that protects it. Start a side business, so you have something to fall back on when your regular job disappears. And stay healthy, you’re going to need your strength.
It took an ultra-liberal Jimmy Carter to make way for a Ronald Reagan, just when the nation (and the world) needed him most. President Obama makes Carter look like Barry Goldwater. Who will rise up, after Obama’s setback, to provide the inspiring leadership we will need to get through the next crisis? It may be that no single leader can save us all from what is looming on our horizon today. So each of us, in our own life, in our own sphere, must take personal responsibility for being that inspiring leader. He works on yourself. Make yourself a better person. The best people, not the media or the academically baptized elite, will survive and thrive in the post-crisis era.
by Michael D. Hume, M.S.
