Reagan Advisers See A Bit Of Their Former Boss In Obama

Barack Obama found himself under fire on Thursday for having compared his candidacy to Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential run.

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure," he told the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board earlier this week. "I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."

The remark did not go over well in progressive circles. On Thursday, Sen. John Edwards, Obama's opponent for the Democratic nomination, ripped into him for the analogy, saying, "I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

But while Obama has felt the heat from within his own party, several former Reagan officials and even his son suggest that there are elements of historical truth to the comparison.

"If I understand what he was saying I can't entirely disagree with it. They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change," Ron Reagan told the Huffington Post. "As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he's right. We are overdue for a cultural shift."

Other Reagan aides grabbed onto the comparison, drawing historical similarities between the end of the Carter administration and the contemporary political landscape. The economic malaise and hangover from Vietnam of the late 1970s, they argued, are analogous in some ways to the middle class unrest and backlash to neo-conservatism today. And yet, for several Reaganites, it was the tone and tenor of Obama that best echoed the image of their former boss.

"Ronald Reagan was an inspirational leader who also was a uniter. There was never any vindictive stuff to the other side," said Lawrence Korb, a former Reagan aide and current Obama supporter who serves as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "In 1983, when you had the commission to fix Social Security, which basically gave us 20 more years with the program, after it was over Reagan would not campaign against any [Democrat] who supported that. And the harshest thing he said against [Walter] Mondale was that he was too young. There was never any of this vindictiveness... I think Obama is trying to get us back to that pleasantness."

Added Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institute and a speechwriter for Reagan's White House: "I do believe Obama is right in looking back at the election of 1980 and saying that was a historical inflection point. Of course there is a certain amount of self-flattery involved in that statement, but he might be right." Robinson added: "I do think Ronald Reagan would have found Barack Obama appealing."

Story continues below

Others former Reagan officials said they saw aspects of Reagan in Obama's attempt to present himself as the candidate outside the status quo.

"A lot of people of different persuasions see him as the only candidate in the race who has much chance of creating any change. My friends don't see much difference between Hillary Clinton and McCain and George Bush for that matter. Whether it is justified or not, I don't know. But there has been some sort of feeling that among people in the running, that Obama might actually change the status quo," said Paul Craig Roberts, the man tasked with overseeing Reaganomics. "I think that's the way Reagan came across, that he was not the status quo president. And of course whenever someone comes into office they turn into the status quo, but it takes a little longer to get that way when you don't start out there."

Of course, with any historical analysis there are multiple interpretations. And some former Reagan advisers, even those who see a bit of the 1980 Gipper in Obama's current candidacy, point to sharp contrasts between the two.

"The dynamics are entirely different," said Bruce Fein, Reagan's deputy attorney general. "Reagan's campaign was built on expanding and strengthening the confidence of the United States at a time when it was at its lowest depth, and we had a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union... We have an opposite problem today. We have an arrogance. We have a government that feels it is too superior... We have an executive branch that is bloated and ballooned suggesting that Osama bin Laden is the equivalent of the Soviet Union... I think [Obama's] comparison shows he is living in a different mental universe than people who know history... It seems to me [Obama] is the same old thing other than the mindless statement of change. What does that even mean?"

Added Charlie Black, an senior adviser to Reagan and George H.W. Bush: "[Obama] is a charismatic man, is very articulate and makes a great speech, but I think the similarities with Reagan stop there. He is a very doctrinaire liberal and Reagan was the father of the conservative movement, so the differences are quite vast."

Finally, there are those Reagan advisers who say: who cares? The whole Obama-Gipper comparison, they note, is nothing more than a red meat for the political pundits.

"I think Senator Obama's statement is happy fodder for columnists and commentators," remarked Reagan's speechwriter Peggy Noonan. "They can draw a measured comparison, assert the obvious as an insight, make a few jokes, and play to their bases. ("Obama makes a mistake in comparing himself to the ancient reactionary in whose thrall the right remains"; "I knew Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine, and Senator Obama...") So this is all good for commenters, and as a member of that guild I say: thank you. But to break into reality for a second: If Barack Obama is a great man it will become apparent with time, and if he is not, that will become apparent too."

Comments

[janmB]

Obama is smart, good speaker and has good intentions but it stops there. We don't need to experiment again with no real experience in a leader. He is a lot like Reagan where he is ALL TALK and a good showman and those who haven't a clue will support a dreamer.

[vbond]

It is no more reasonable to expect that the many incompatible factions that constitute today's American population will find meaningful and actionable common political ground than it is that Sunnis, Shia and Kurds will do so in that other benighted "democracy": Iraq.

The critical differences between the U.S. and Iraq, however are that:
1) Partition is not an option in the U.S.;
2) Political unification (across and among diverse interests and attitudes) is absolutely necessary to confront the massive problems facing us; and
3) Americans have an historical knack for doing the impossible when it's necessary, much less the unreasonable.

Obama is the only candidate of either party who has the skills and political and cultural positioning to provide the unconventional leadership that is required to assemble and motivate the "New Majority" of Democrats, Republicans and Independents that will be necessary to govern and lead through the multiple watershed challenges that we face, from the threat of WMD-enabled terrorism to the threat of global warming to the morass that is Iraq.

Some have misunderstood Obama's reference to Reagan as an ideological affinity. It is not.

It is rather a recognition that Reagan was able to mine some of the fissures in the American body politic for the glue which bound together the Reagan Majority, of which Reagan Democrats were a part.

What other President would you reference in the process of reaching out to the legions of disaffected Republicans? Eisenhower? Nixon? Bush I?

Are "Obama Republicans" necessary to forge this new governing coalition? I think so.

The very fact that he is consciously putting his growing partisan advantage at risk by even allowing the name "Reagan" to pass his lips in a non-pejorative way is a profound indication of the depth - and the peril - of Obama's vision.

In the deepest sense, he is preparing us to give up some of our partisan self-interest for the good of our nation.

This is why he needs many of us to be as involved as he is in political change.

And it is why we need him.

[scout77]

Obama was always my last choice. I am sure he is smart and has good intentions. BUT there doesn't appear to be any there there. Which makes him a lot like reagan. He is a good showman. Possibly very naive. As evedienced by his health care plan and does he really believe that the election and any changes made won't be hard fought. Anyone that thinks the repubs will give up their power without the dirtiest fight yet is sadly mistaken. Yes, we must have some major changes but we aren't going to get it by holding hands and proclaiming we are all one. Not to insult anyone, however, when I hear him speak his supporters appear to react like cult followers.

[Alessan]

I can tell Obama will never be great, even if loses the election and he will, he will go back to Senate and never vote. He is lazy, he doesn't like to talk, only makes good speeches when someone else writes them. I've heard people say he's good on delivery. Yes, that
2.00 will get him on the NYC subway. Obama is
an ass just like Reagan and the rest of the neo cons. If you mean Reagan was a con artist you are right, he conned the people of the US to get elected, he was a lousy actor and a lousy President. Look at history and stop bringing up the old propaganda about him being a great manipulator, except he never fooled me
for one minute. You idiots.

[rblackbird]

Obama is right. Reagan did make a transition unlike Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon transitioned the presidency into criminality. Clinton transitioned the presidency towards rationality, good economic policy, and balanced-budget prosperity. Reagan transitioned the GOP into greed, mendacity, and bigotry. Reagan began his 1980 campaign, praising "states rights" in Neshoba County, Mississippi where the three civil rights workers had been murdered, clearly appealing to segregationists.The Klu Klux Klan endorsed Reagan during the 1984 election (Reagan took two weeks to repudiate the endorsement). Reagan opposed the creation of the MLK Jr. national holiday, and peddled the lie about welfare recipients driving Cadillacs. Unsurprisingly, Tom Delay claimed Reagan as his inspiration for getting into politics. Praising Reagan as a unifier of America is like praising Mussolini for unifying Italy. Obama is fool.

[cartach]

Not to worry,just more shuckin' and jivin'. He'll compare himself to God tomorrow. And only God knows why he compared himself to an asshole like Reagan.

[VivaZapata]

Man, talk about a kiss of death!

[truthyguy]

Reagan - is he still dead?

[caqforever]

empty suit obama sure has a sense of grandiosity ...
will be so fun to see the bubble burst.... and for him to land on his bony ass.

[dam1r]

He's sweet! If McCarthy was still popular amongst the Republicans, I fear to even imagine what Obama would try to say...

You don't need to trash Reagan, but buttlicking is as /if not more/ disgusting IMO

[ajax2]

I believe a Huckabee / Lieberman Republican ticket would make better sense as we approach the Rapture.

[dax49]

if any one ever compared me to that senile criminal reagan, i would sue them til they sqealed like a republican being interviewed by the IRS

[chamberslee]

People have their own recollection of Reagan dependent on their situation. If you were white and wealthy, you probably have good memories. If you wanted social programs cut, you have fond memories. If you were (or still are) a racist, he was a good man. Conversely, if you were poor, you felt neglected. If you were a person of color, you were invisible or in jail (or probably still in jail). If you, or a love one, had AIDS, you are probably dead.

I was a teenager at the time, and I remember how things were. Reagan would not invest in AIDS research; he believed it was a disease that affected gays and the poor only. When told about the millions of children in America that went to bed hungry, he joked that they were on a diet. When told that school lunches needed to be more nutritional, he said ketchup was a vegetable: he wanted to serve them ketchup, because he did not want to spend good money on poor children. He viewed public school as a social program adding to big government. He made up the story about the "Welfare Queen." nearly 30 years later, not one reporter has been able to validate this story. But white America did not need facts: Ronnie told them, so it must be true. He also gave us trickle down economics. How is that working out? Give more to the wealthy, and you will benefit by getting the crumbs. The result, the middle class pays more in taxes than the wealthy or corporations do.

I am not shocked that Obama would look up to Reagan; his mentor is Joe Lieberman. But Obama supporters have to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. What Obama calls progressive is actually a return to Reaganism.

Example: he voted in favor of making it nearly impossible for citizens to sue corporations, and he voted against restricting interest rates to 30 percent. Both votes support corporations at the expense of the average person. His vote against restricting the interest rate is a vote in favor predatory lending.

[TheScarletPimpernel]

Ronald Regan did more to divide the african american family and drive black men from the home than can be imagined.His poicies were a major reason for the disintergration of african american familes.This is a major mistake by Obama and his standing with the black community will fall to pieces.

All the Obama posters here were not alive when Regan was running the show and have no idea the effect his social policies had on African American families.

Hell Obama does not know....

[zreeb]

OBAMA iz OFF da CHAIN!