Has Obama begun recreating the Reagan Coalition?

posted at 2:19 pm on September 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

With Barack Obama’s polling numbers dropping rapidly as his policies get exposed as radical and expensive changes to the US, some have begun wondering if Obama can perform a miracle by resuscitating the moribund Reagan coalition of conservatives and independents.  Gregg Mueller, a former senior aide to Steve Forbes and Pat Buchanan and now president CRC Public Relations, argues that Obama’s slide towards Carterism at home and abroad will do just that.  However, Mueller forgets that one key piece is missing:

His approval ratings have tanked in a very short period of time. The trillions in spending he has proposed, and his plans for a government takeover of health care have backfired and the administration is clearly shell shocked. Their recourse has been to attack protesters, launch verbal attacks on those that disagree with them and ignore the hundreds of thousands, many new to politics, who marched on Washington this past Saturday.  This has also led to a growing number of Independents who supported or “leaned-Obama Democrat” to move away from support and questioning what is happening — this was not what they had in mind when they voted for change.

Many conservatives have started to invoke President Carter when describing Obama’s domestic agenda.  Then he appeared to come to Obama’s aid suggesting that the “you lie” comments made by Representative Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) were race based, igniting a national debate over racism after the country just elected the first African American president.  Not so presidential from a former President.  On the heels of Carter’s Obama defense, President Obama seems to be headed more and more in a Jimmy Carter direction.  The President’s announcement that he will walk back support for a defense shield in Europe for Poland and Czechoslovakia has shocked the world.  Reports suggest that the President is weaning the free world’s defenses to appease Russia so that they can help pressure Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  I do not understand the logic — appease Russia because the administration’s appeasement of Iran is not working?  Is President Obama becoming Jimmy Carter on steroids?  Is the President’s foreign policy amounting to an Obama Appeasement Doctrine?

After this massive collapse of will in eastern Europe, I’d call Obama a Carter who desperately needs steroids, but Mueller’s point is clear.  For those of us who lived through the Carter presidency, it looks depressingly familiar.  High spending, government control of the economy (especially on energy), and clear signs of retreat abroad — it looks much more like Jimmy Carter won his second term of office 28 years after getting booted by the American electorate.  The entire decade turned into a morass of malaise, a cesspool of economic stagnation, and with Carter’s election, a season of American humiliation abroad.

Mueller correctly notes that this left America hungering mightily for change and hope, and Ronald Reagan delivered both in his election campaign in 1980.  The conservative movement had the opportunity to be given a chance to lead for the first time in decades, at least in the executive branch.  Reagan’s sunny optimism and his years-long application of conservative principles in California — hardly a conservative state even at that time — allowed Reagan to form a coalition that only broke down twelve years later.

But could there have been a Reagan coalition without Reagan?  As bad as Carter was, few other Republicans at the time could have unseated him, even with the anger and desperation felt in the US.  Reagan himself beat Carter by nine points in the popular vote, although he carried 44 states to Carter’s 6 and DC.  Reagan built himself into a formidable candidate by spending years on the speaking circuit discussing politics and philosophy, and then eight years as governor adhering to conservative values.  Reagan was no unknown quantity when he led his coalition to power in 1980; people knew exactly what Reagan would do as President.

Do we have a Reagan now, someone who led philosophically as well as reliably in office as a conservative?  Do we have a potential candidate of that stature who can not only bring together a coalition but discipline it to focus on a few core values, primarily fiscal discipline and national security, which will expand that coalition to its largest possible volume?  It took a Carter to put a Reagan in office, but we had to have Reagan ready to go.

In 2010 and 2012, we will have a big opportunity to have that kind of coalition ride to the rescue, but we had better have a candidate with the experience and credibility in office and activism to give it that kind of strength.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

But…you do.

MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM

You hadn’t heard of Kristol as the “godfather of neoconservatism”? I also singled out David Frum and Karl Rove in another post just today.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:37 PM

So you advocate violating international law and use a method that has been abandoned and condemned. The last time I checked congress voted for the war in Iraq and and authorized the war in Afghanistan. I am sure that on the prison planet that is deemed unconstitutional.

jdkchem on September 17, 2009 at 7:50 PM

I also singled out David Frum and Karl Rove in another post just today.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM

Shall I go through and re-post the number of times you’ve referenced Kristol, as opposed to the others?

Or should I even bother, since you can just as easily claim those were “typos”?

MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Shall I go through and re-post the number of times you’ve referenced Kristol, as opposed to the others?

Or should I even bother, since you can just as easily claim those were “typos”?

MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Would you argue that Kristol is the most influential? That’s like if someone references WWF, and they mention Hulk Hogan more than Doink the Clown. I mean, come on.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM

jdkchem on September 17, 2009 at 7:50 PM

We are not a party to the Declaration of Paris.

Holger on September 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM

MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM

and you can’t prove it otherwise!

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:55 PM

jdkchem on September 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Look up the Airship Resolute which was used to patrol against Submarines, 2nd World War.

Holger on September 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Would you argue that Kristol is the most influential? That’s like if someone references WWF, and they mention Hulk Hogan more than Doink the Clown. I mean, come on.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM

Yes, but if you only ever mention Doink, are we not to logically conclude you have a prejudice toward clowns?

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Yes, but if you only ever mention Doink, are we not to logically conclude you have a prejudice toward clowns?

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM

OOPS! I meant to type

I agree with the Dean.

Spilled something on my keyboard, I guess.

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Would you argue that Kristol is the most influential?

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM

In terms of policy? No. Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Fred Barnes…all equal or greater in terms of influence.

The difference? They’re not Jewish, and hence you don’t “detest their behavior”.

Own up to your anti-semitism, or I’m done with you.

MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Yes, but if you only ever mention Doink, are we not to logically conclude you have a prejudice toward clowns?

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM

I’m not prejudiced against anyone. That’s the essence of being a libertarian or free spirit.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM

In terms of policy? No. Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Fred Barnes…all equal or greater in terms of influence.

The difference? They’re not Jewish, and hence you don’t “detest their behavior”.

Own up to your anti-semitism, or I’m done with you.

MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM

I’ve posted on Cheney’s torture and sadism a lot of times. I wouldn’t approve of his behavior whether hes Jewish or not. Same with Gingrich as just another welfare/warfare pusher.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 8:05 PM

I’m not prejudiced against anyone. That’s the essence of being a libertarian or free spirit.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Non responsive.

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Back on this thread’s topic of the Reagan/Paul similarities, here are some good videos

Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul on foreign policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y46xgPUokrg

Reagan, Goldwater and Paul – the traditional conservative platform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flJvKPM_Nf4

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Non responsive.

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM

I’ve responded to everything the smear artists have thrown.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM

I asked a question about a point of logic. You didn’t respond. I called you out. (to borrow a phrase.)
You answer by claiming you responded.

Nah.

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Back on this thread’s topic of the Reagan/Paul similarities,

1. Reagan and Paul had the same number of legs.
2. Both their first names contain vowels

Did I miss any?

massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Who is this from Madison? anybody else what to give it a crack. Those in the know keep quit.

“The Constitution of the United States was created by the people of the United States composing the respective states, who alone had the right.” – James Madison

Today marks the 222nd anniversary of the formation and signing of our Constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the greatest founding documents in history because it charted a bold new path in the realm of political theory. Not only does the Constitution establish checks and balances within the federal government, it also divides power among the federal government, the states, and the people. The Founders understood that it is the nature of government to grow at the expense of the people’s liberty; and with that in mind, they established a form of government that would be limited in scope and power in order to maximize power to the people.

Today, let’s also take the opportunity to thank our armed forces. The weight of defending our liberty rests on their shoulders, and because of their efforts and sacrifice, we can celebrate the 222nd anniversary of the formation of our Constitution.

If this was posted already sorry

Clyde5445 on September 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Dammit to Hel. The next person who mentions anyone who ran for the top dog spot last year gets it. Those people will not win.

Holger on September 17, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Do you realize that Ronald Regan ran for President in 1976 and then ran again in 1980?

Just because someone ran before doesn’t mean they can’t run again.

Not quite.
ObamaCare is merely RomneyCare applied to all 50 states and it’s been a disaster in the state of MA.
Romney’s an empty suit who’s flip-flopped on major issues like gun control, homosexual marriage and abortion.

Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Romney’s health care as originally planned was pretty good. However, once it pass through the state democratically controlled legislature…it turned to crap.

So RomneyCare actually works in Romney’s favor because it proves that democrats ruin any bill, program, project or any other government program they touch. Had Massachusetts state democrats not touched or defiled Romney’s plan, the state wouldn’t be in the mess they are today.

As for Mitt being a flip flopper on guns, abortion and other issues…lets not forget that Reagan was also a flip flopper too.

Conservative Samizdat on September 17, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Sarah Palin…and I don’t care what any of ya say!

SouthernGent on September 17, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Right on!

No she doesn’t have as much experience as Reagan, especially the priceless movie/TV skills that are so important in this day and age.

But she believes much the same: limited government, strong defense, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

She has charisma, convictions, and courage.

That and our strong support should be enough to run the Marxists out in 2010/2012.

Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Look, if you dorks sit around and wait for the Messiah, you will lose again and again because Reagan was unique.

Sarah is our best shot at the moment and we will win IF we unite under one candidate and platform along the lines of the Reagan coalition.

I like Jindal but he is a nerd and hunches his shoulders. He is a wonk not a fierce and spirited leader.

Sapwolf on September 17, 2009 at 9:13 PM

Sarah is our best shot at the moment and we will win IF we unite under one candidate and platform along the lines of the Reagan coalition.

But she has been incredibly weakened due to liberal atrocities. Yes, she has all that but her image has been smeared to such a degree that it needs a crap load of rehabilitation before she entertains the idea.

Holger on September 17, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Based upon the latest Rasmussen Poll:

Being “Like Ronald Reagan” The Only Positive Political Description

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/being-like-ronald-reagan-the-only-positive-political-description/

gary4205 on September 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM

But she has been incredibly weakened due to liberal atrocities. Yes, she has all that but her image has been smeared to such a degree that it needs a crap load of rehabilitation before she entertains the idea.

Holger on September 17, 2009 at 9:18 PM

You haven’t been paying attention. Other than the fringes, Sarah Palin has become the most popular leader in America. Certainly the most important.

Name me one other politician who has the moral clarity that Sarah Palin has.

She looked at Obamacare and saw “death panels.” She called Obamacare “downright evil.”

All of the rest of the idiot GOP have been looking at Obama and saying “slow down.”

Sarah wrote and has said “Not no, but HELL no!”

Sarah Palin is Ronald Reagan in a skirt.

You know, every time Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire, his critics, in both parties lost it. When he was to give his famous speech at the Berlin Wall, his own people told him to be careful, to not start nothing. He promptly went out and said: “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Moral clarity is what a leader, a true leader, needs. Sarah Palin has that moral clarity that few others will ever have.

gary4205 on September 17, 2009 at 10:12 PM

JohnJ @ 2:58

Great link to Reagan. Was that taped during the Korean Conflict?

maverick muse on September

1964 Republican National Convention. The speech is titled “A Time For Choosing.” but most call it simply “The Speech.”

Reagan was speaking on behalf of Barry Goldwater, but it was all Reagan, vintage Reagan. Awesome Reagan.

It may be one of the greatest political speeches ever given. It should be taught to every school kid, and a full coarse in it required to graduate high school!

The entire Amazing speech can be found here.

gary4205 on September 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM

Paul Ryan?

cpaulus on September 17, 2009 at 11:23 PM

I just hope that onece ACORN is killed off it doesn’t come alive in a different form. I don’t trust the Democrats to give that group up easily! ACORN plus the Secretary of States = stolenwon elections

CCRWM on September 17, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Sarah Palin exudes confidence, intelligence and command at every venue.
Her acceptance speech at the GOP Convention was only her national debut: there are numerous examples of her speaking at rallies all over the country.
One of her best appearances was when she made Joe Biden into a mop to wipe the floor with in the VP debate…
Even her appearance on SNL was confident and commanding!

Speaking of SNL and Sarah, their producer said Sarah Palin was the most confident person she had ever met!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/05/10/snl-producer-sarah-palin-most-confident-person-ive-ever-met

Loren Michaels also had nothing but high praise for her. Of course, the highest show ratings in 17 years probably helped that out!

gary4205 on September 17, 2009 at 11:39 PM

There won’t be another Reagan. Another Reagan would be “nice guy, bad national candidate”, especially after the media got finished with him. Or her.

You must not remember the time between 1976 and 1980. Both the democrats and the blue blood, country club, Rockefeller Republicans were ripping into him every single day.

We didn’t have the internet, of course, but they hit Reagan with everything they had, just like they are hitting Sarah now. In fact, to show you just how little imagination these people had, they pretty much used the same exact talking points!

Like Sarah, the only people on Ronnie’s side was the American people.

I’ll submit that today Sarah will have a much easier go of it that Reagan did. Yes, there a plenty more outlets that can attack Sarah, but unlike Reagan’s time, there are an equal amount of places for Sarah to get her real story out and reach 10′s if not 100′s of millions.

Also, with the fringe, Obama run media losing all favor with Americans, by 2012 they may have little or no influence at all. They have went all in for Obama, and are paying dearly.

It won’t be a cakewalk, but Sarah Palin will absolutely be our next president. (unless Obama gets impeached first, but she’ll still win in 2012.)

gary4205 on September 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Why am I the first to point out that this article makes a reference to a country that no longer exists? I’m having a hard time taking this point seriously, since there’s been no such thing as Czechoslovakia for 17 years now. If you can’t figure out that’s it’s the Czech Republic, I’m not sure you can figure out the Reagan Coalition.

MyDaroga on September 18, 2009 at 12:26 AM

Reagan had about as much stature as Palin to begin with. Maybe less.

starboardhelm on September 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM

The President’s announcement that he will walk back support for a defense shield in Europe for Poland and Czechoslovakia has shocked the world. Reports suggest that the President is weaning the free world’s defenses to appease Russia so that they can help pressure Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Connect the dots. Venezuela buys weapons from Russia and is a strong Ally of Cuba, which in turn is a Strong Allie of Russia. Russia is a strong Allie of Iran and has helped them develop the ability to process urainum to build a nuclear bomb, which is denied, but for some reason they learned how to do it as well. Iran supports the enemies of Israel. Obama has withdrawn as much support as possible from Israel and supports the Palestinians efforts to obtain their goals. When Honduras arrested and exciled their president for violation of their constitution and attempting to set up a socialist dictatorship with the help of Chavez, Obama backs the dictator and Chavez and continues to try and get the socialist ex president back into office. What do all these have in common? They are dictators or supporters of dictators, which unfortunatly includes us now.

Obama has pushed away our European Allies, he did nothing when Russian invaded Georgia and accepted the outcome afterwards. He has now removed the protection that Europed needed from Iran. In Afganistan he is facing the problem of needing to send more troops. Expect him to break us away from NATO and pull out. NATO is part of the European Allies that he does not need. He is nieve enough to think that his being Muslim is going to save us. (calling that as I see it).

It is not comforting to note that he has an intrest in Chavez socilist government. His media Czar had publicly expressed praise for the way he handles the radio and news stations that opposed him. It is not comforting that he sat silent, watching how the Iranians handled an obviously stolen election and the protest that followed. It is not comforting that he gave comfort and support to the constitutionally removed president of Honduras who was attenpting to set up Honduras as a socilist country in the same way that his friend Chavez did with Venezuela. It is very concerning that Obama declared the removal was a coop, totally ignoring the Honduran constitutional rule of law or hat it was not a military coop. Connect the dots and have a long look. Obama is looking to move us into the same socialism dictatorship that exist in the countries he has forged friendships with. He paid attention to how Iran handled the removal of the right to a fair vote from the Iranian people. He paid attentio to the situtation in Honduras, not to support a constitutional government but on how to remove it and put a socialist government in its place. Chavez went to Russia to buy more tanks that he only needs of he is planning to invade the countries around him and expand his power. Not long after Chavez returns, Obama backs away from building interceptors and radar in Europe to protect us from Iranian missiles, but would also be effective at protecting Europe from Russia, who had already tested its ability to reinvade the countries it once held in its grip, and take what it was denied before, the rest of Europe. Obama’ borrowing and spending, his polices, especially the cap and trade, are crippling the United States ability to respond to threats or to pose a threat to our enemies. Russia will become the new superpower free of debt or crippling trade agreements. Obama will join with Chavez and we will have to see where that leaves our children and grand children.

Franklyn on September 18, 2009 at 4:46 AM

Again:

Socialists (=”liberals”): 30%
Real/classical liberals, libertarians, independents: 40%
Conservatives: 30%

The Reagan coalition was a coalition of 2 and 3. Reagan himself was a former Democrat, just as many of his urban supporters – Reagan Democrats, later neo-conservatives.

The Republican party can win if it manages to reframe the political debate from “conservative vs liberal” to “liberty vs socialism”.

As long as conservatives continue to set the tone and believe that everybody else has to dance to their tune, the Republican party will go nowhere. Obamacrats will still win whereever the choice is “liberal” vs conservative.

modifiedcontent on September 18, 2009 at 8:49 AM

And BTW, Palin seems to understand this. That’s why she is going solo.

modifiedcontent on September 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM

[Strange. Comment did not 'take'. Attempt to repost got a 'Duplicate' message. But still hasn't shown up. So here 'tis again. Sorry if it really does duplicate:]

No time to read this huge thread, but here’s a scenario for you:

Obambi pulls the plug on Afghanistan after pussyfooting around for more than a year. General David Petraeus resigns in disgust, and begins a speaking tour, denouncing the policies of the Obamunists.

In 2012 the general agrees to run for President, buoyed by a wave of anti-Obambi sentiment.

MrLynn on September 18, 2009 at 9:19 AM

I ended up disliking Mr. Carter and thought he was weak once in office. I voted for him the first time and only time because I thought he was honest and would clean up government after Nixon/Ford; I’m not even sure he achieved that expectation of mine. I still believe he was honest as a president, but not today, and was just in over his head then.

I did not and still do not consider Mr. Obama honest or of the proper character to be our president. Mr. Obama is not just incompetent and inexperienced, he is antiAmerican in the sense that he does not value our culture and traditions. And why should we expect him to when he did not have the American experience until he was 10 years of age; his formative years were within a family and country that did not have American traditional values.

He is apparenty so used to twisting words to rally the “community”, that he cannot keep his facts straight even when it is on the TelePrompTer.

amr on September 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM

“But she has been incredibly weakened due to liberal atrocities. Yes, she has all that but her image has been smeared to such a degree that it needs a crap load of rehabilitation before she entertains the idea.”
Never underestimate this Lady, she is workin’ on the weak spots and when she comes out next it will make a Grizzly mother look like a house cat.She, unlike o does, not have the acorn baggage to drag around.
Sarah can kill with a lo
ok!

Col.John Wm. Reed on September 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM

It feels more like we’re heading for a Goldwater moment, especially if Sarah gets the nod. Her nomination would be a glorious moment for conservatism, but she’ll be devoured unless she’s undergoing major training. I would love to be wrong. She is so right in her core and can be electrifying. But then there are those disquieting deer-in-the-headlights moments that will scare off the moderates we’ll need to win. Of course, Reagan and Carter were neck-and-neck until that debate when Ronnie eased the country’s fears with his grasp of facts and leadership.

We are in uncharted territory.

PA Guy on September 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Another factor in Sarah’s favor: Reagan (like Goldwater) ran against Republican moderation (Ford, Nixon, yawn). Our candidate will need to carry the same banner.

Is there anyone more capable of that than her? I don’t see them.

PA Guy on September 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Palin has two years to get ready.. I hope she is up to the task. And yes, I *am* rooting for her.

itzWicks on September 18, 2009 at 11:59 AM

As it stands, the GOP may as well get behind Palin. If she wants it she’s going to win the GOP nomination hands down. If Republicans really want to beat Zero in the general they will have no choice but to get on board.

alwaysfiredup on September 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Ron Paul is a real conservative, like Reagan, so he could certainly be the best choice for the movement. Paul and Reagan actually were close friends, as well.

The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is just as deranged as Obama’s. No way.

atheling on September 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Rush articulates correctly that Conservatism is a 3-legged stool (to change the metaphor from your umbrella): Fiscal convervatism, strong national defense and muscular foreign policy and social conservatism.

Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Throw in boot stompin’ reform and some charisma and you’ve got Sarah Palin.

She’s the only one I trust.

atheling on September 18, 2009 at 1:21 PM

I didn’t demand: I asked politely.
Anyone with taste and manners would know the difference.
But then you wouldn’t have made the remark in the first place if you had taste, manners and a considerate respect for the faith of others.

Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Yes, you did. And what he said was disgusting and offensive. He has no moral authority to go after anyone for what they say after that. But watch, the Captain of the Shut Up Squad will do it anyway.

atheling on September 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM

modifiedcontent on September 18, 2009 at 8:49 AM

You missed something there. Ronnie didn’t end up with a big tent and support from ‘indies’ because he reached out to everybody. NO, NO, NO. Ronnie made his case and sold it all over the country. The tent grew BECAUSE of what was sold – CONSERVATISM. All day every day Ronnie was selling this country back to her citizens. And we all just loved him the more for it. Reaching out to every little me, me, me group or demographic is the death of conservatism. Take a stand. Declare your purpose. Fight for your FREEDOM!

Blacksmith8 on September 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Throw in boot stompin’ reform and some charisma and you’ve got Sarah Palin.

She’s the only one I trust.

atheling on September 18, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Me too.

Blacksmith8 on September 18, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6