The liberal Reagan?
In essence, this means a president who not only wins elections (as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did), but one who ideologically shifts the nation in his direction. …
Whether or not he ultimately wins the argument ultimately depend on a several factors discussed below.
– The economy. Obama survived reelection in 2012 not because the economy was great, but because it was relatively better then the one he inherited. Despite their concerns, enough Americans bought his argument that the economy was slowly but surely improving and that more time was needed. However, if what they end up with is another four years of a middling recovery — let alone another dip — big government policies are going to be associated in the public mind with economic stagnation, which will make it harder for Obama to win the broader argument. If there’s a boom in the next few years, then Obama will obviously be in a stronger position to make his case for a more muscular federal government, just as Reagan’s ideological arguments were helped by the economic boom of the 1980s.
– Obamacare. In a sense, if Obama does nothing for the next four years besides implement his signature legislative achievement, his second term could be seen as a rousing success for liberals, because it cemented in place one of the biggest expansions of the welfare state ever. But it’ll also be important to see how implementation goes. If critics are right and we’ll see some combination of bureaucratic chaos, long lines, higher costs, and soaring premiums, it’ll make things a lot harder for Obama. But if the law’s proponents are right and it delivers benefits to millions without disrupting the health care experiences of those who are already happy with the care they have, then Obama will be emboldened.
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
What world do you live in? IF things get better, IF the economy improves, IF the healthcare system manages to be awesome? Look around, it’s all falling apart and only blind ignorance would have people believe that everything is going to be fine.
Bishop on January 22, 2013 at 9:21 AM
why the endless comparisons? maraniss’ recent piece name dropped five or six prezzys. and it was supposedly on the ‘real’ identity. i don’t see that much historical stuff here. maybe it’s my bias.
Steven McGregor on January 22, 2013 at 9:27 AM
More like the more liberal Carter.
rich801 on January 22, 2013 at 9:28 AM
i had a friend who said they’d stop supporting obama by the summer if things didn’t change. that was in early 09 after the first election. he voted for him again.
Steven McGregor on January 22, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Reagan was explicit and open about what he intended to do and where he intended to take the nation. There was no mask, no weasel words, no camouflage about his vision.
Not so with this man. He’s been deeply misleading about his views on the role of government and the private sector. And a lot of people – more than half of Americans – have fallen for it.
He won’t even come out and say he’s a liberal.
SteveMG on January 22, 2013 at 9:29 AM
He lost me on his delusional economy section. People voted because of the color of his skin and that was it. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise. It was a racist election and it continues to be a racist wet dream and I don’t mean racist in the KKK sense. It’s racist in the slobbering he can do no wrong because he is half black which is more acceptable to the average liberal racist. A white president would have not been elected to another term and most likely impeached in his first if he had done what BO has. A white republican would have been removed from office if he did even half of what BO has done. Compare his admin to the last where the firing of DOJ lawyers and the outing of a non-covert CIA worker was a national crisis.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 22, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Yeah, it would really be a shame if “the public mind” grasped economic reality.
JDF123 on January 22, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Reagan won in landslides. Obama? Not so much.
John the Libertarian on January 22, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Where Obama has been brilliant – or very successful – has been in his ability to portray or characterize the state as part of a sort of American family, as provider and unifier and organizer of the people. In this view, the government doesn’t simply provide services or enforce the law or protect the borders.
No, it’s something far more. President as community organizer writ large.
This is where the liberal Reagan comparison has merit.
SteveMG on January 22, 2013 at 9:41 AM
Short version: “IF Communism actually works this time around….”
When liberalism finally dies, that epitaph should be on the headstone.
logis on January 22, 2013 at 9:47 AM
He’s waiting for “Government” to fix everything, as if government is some perfect, sentient machine rather than a herd of biased people.
Bishop on January 22, 2013 at 9:53 AM
You mean like right now or are we still dealing with Bush aftershock?
roy_batty on January 22, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Obama’s failed presidency only highlights how successful Reagan was for our country. Obama is only cementing Reagan’s legacy as one of our greatest presidents. I’m not sure that is what he intended, but I think he is so blinded by his own narcissism he doesn’t even realize it. I see Obama’s second term as an empty waste of four years. Until he decides to take the right steps to fix this economy, and he will not, all of his others goals stand no chance. Perhaps he gets another court seat at best.
Ellis on January 22, 2013 at 9:55 AM
You gotta love the way they still stick to the “how does this affect Obama” meme even after all the years of Obama affecting us.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM
The next four hurricane seasons are far more likely to strike Red or Purple (Florida) territory than Blue. Sandy only helped 0bama because where Sandy struck was so dark blue that locals were on board with covering up the worst of government incompetence for their mess-iah. The governors and locals of Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas will be far less forgiving of an inadequate federal response.
“Smart Diplomacy” has only emboldened terrorists and grabby foreign powers. As with Clinton, this is likely to result in a terrorist attack or foreign crisis that could have obviously been avoided.
As for the economy, liberals have painted themselves into a corner: Clinton benefited from the internet revolution that undergirded the dotcom boom. There was no real liberal opposition to the internet business or its underlying technologies. This is not the case with the shale oil boom. If 0bama lets them drill, his successor faces a serious challenge from the Green Party in 2016, or having gentry liberals and college students rearrange their sock drawers on Election Day. If he squelches drilling, the slow-burn of the economy will negatively affect the freebies available to the Free Shiz Army, who could also rearrange their sock drawers in 2016. It seems 0bama is hoping the burn will be slow enough that the pain won’t hit the FSA until after 2016.
Sekhmet on January 22, 2013 at 10:22 AM
The land of if and not so much. 49 states involved?
Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM
OK let us assume that Obama is the liberal Reagan… How long did the Reagan revolution last in term of electoral victories? 12 years…
mnjg on January 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM