Is Reagan conservatism dead?

[BlackDragon24]

With the eventual election of John McCain as the republican nominee for the presidency, it has made me ask this question. It is very clear from the repubs on this board that they are pretty unhappy with McCain in general. His policies seem to be the most liberal of any of the republicans who were running. The only candidate who really fit the Reagan mold was Thompson, and he was never really a threat to anyone.

So what do you guys think? Is Reagan conservatism dead?

Personally, I think it died a long time ago...Those of you who are regulars know my stance on Bush....a wolf in sheep's clothing who played to the conservative masses but in the end spent more than thee worse liberal you could think of. His only real conservative stances were on cutting taxes for businesses and wealthy Americans....his big government programs (NCLB, Medicare prescription drugs, etc.) smell more like liberal policies to me...so in my eyes, he was never really a "conservative."

What say you?

[AMDScooter]

^^^ I'd say things would probably be much different if "independents" were not allowed to vote in Repug primaries. Makes no sense to me as I think it's safe to say most "independents" lean heavily liberal which explains McCains success. I do not think Reagan conservatism is dead.

[myv65]

I prefer to think it's on hiatus. And I wouldn't portray Reagan as perfect by any stretch, but he was clearly the last guy who could (a) speak in public and (b) believed in a smaller federal government.

[jimzinsocal]

Im about there.^^

[kbohip]

As an independent voter myself Scooter I totally disagree with you on not being allowed to vote in the primaries. As far as Reagan conservatism being dead? All you have to do is take a look at the absolute mess the Republican party has become to know that's true. Republican voters don't even know what to do when a true conservative Republican comes along like Ron Paul, so they brand his ideas as "crazy" and vote for Democrats in Republican clothing like McCain.

Republican is the new Democrat.

[bk94si]

Reagan conservatism is NOT dead as evidenced by the way his name is still invoked and ALL the candidates claiming to be conservatives even when they are not.

[tucker]

If not dead it’s on the critical list. It started disappearing the day Regan left office. The party is controlled by RINOs and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

The republican party has been moving left since the '60s and so has the democratic party. The republicans only seem conservative because the whole system moves more and more left each year.

What we have is far left democratic liberals and left of center RINOs in control.

[bk94si]

As an independent voter myself Scooter I totally disagree with you on not being allowed to vote in the primaries. As far as Reagan conservatism being dead? All you have to do is take a look at the absolute mess the Republican party has become to know that's true. Republican voters don't even know what to do when a true conservative Republican comes along like Ron Paul, so they brand his ideas as "crazy" and vote for Democrats in Republican clothing like McCain.

Republican is the new Democrat.

Ron Paul is not a "true" Republican conservative. He is a libertarian and an isolationist.

[AMDScooter]

As an independent voter myself Scooter I totally disagree with you on not being allowed to vote in the primaries. As far as Reagan conservatism being dead? All you have to do is take a look at the absolute mess the Republican party has become to know that's true. Republican voters don't even know what to do when a true conservative Republican comes along like Ron Paul, so they brand his ideas as "crazy" and vote for Democrats in Republican clothing like McCain.

Republican is the new Democrat.

It's not meant to be an insult... but the fact you saw RP as a "conservative" simply illustrates my point. RP was no "true conservative"... libertarian and an isolationist are probably the closest accurate description. many of his ideas were "crazy" IMHO and he had a well deserved "nut" label.

[Dutchcedar]

Reagan conservatism is an ideology that can't disappear when it loses a popularity contest. It wasn't adopted by Dubbya Bush, dragon. Nor was it adopted by the most recent Republican led congress. Its safe to say that not any of the remaining candidates for the presidency hold a strong grip on Reagan's style of conservatism. That hardly means its dead. Hibernating... maybe...

McCain may seem to be the inevitable choice for the Republicans at the moment, (I would strongly disagree) and if he ultimately is the choice, true Reagan conservatism won't be leading the Republican party for awhile. But it'll be back. He wouldn't have a prayer in hell at winning the oval office with his cut and paste speaking style and overly-repeated bull dung... despite what you may hear from earlier than ready polls. So, that leaves us with one round of Hillary care or an Obama defense blunder and good ole' conservatism might well be back to play another day very quickly.

One thing going against it in the popularity contest is the growing number of voting people who rely on the government teet to get through life. Individualism and reliance on government simply don't go hand-in-hand. Eventually, like we've seen in Europe, our people may soon be more reliant on the government than the government is reliant on the populace. Then and only then can we call Reagan conservatism toast.

That's my two cents.

Put a check next to Mitt tomorrow... or be a sucker to lies and mistruths from an outstanding war hero that has no business representing the conservatives in America.

[jimzinsocal]

If not dead it’s on the critical list. It started disappearing the day Regan left office. The party is controlled by RINOs and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

The republican party has been moving left since the '60s and so has the democratic party. The republicans only seem conservative because the whole system moves more and more left each year.

What we have is far left democratic liberals and left of center RINOs in control.

agree. there has been a distinct shift to the left in both parties.

[BlackDragon24]

On the wway to work this morning I was listening to soem guy on a local talk radio show being interviewed. He claimed to be a "Reagan Conservative." One who believes in lower taxes, smaller government, etc.

His beef with the republican party is that the neo-cons of the 90's (i.e. the Newt Gingrich's and his ilk) took Reagan conservatism and completely perverted it. His claim was that while the neo-cons are claiming to be founded in the tradition of Reagan conservatism, the truth is/was that the whole motive behind playing the "smaller government" card was really rooted in just the desire to get rid of the liberals who had controlled congress for so many years. Once they got into control, big government wasn't so much of a problem because THEY were the ones running the government, so as long as their pals were getting the kickbacks (rather than the liberals pals getting the kickbacks) big government isn't such a bad thing.

I think it might be an overstatement of the truth but the idea doesn't sound too far fetched.

[BlackDragon24]

^^^And I think that it might be the main reason why I despise the republican party these days....they claim to be something that they are not (conservatives), whereas the dems at least admit they are going to raise taxes, go for socialized medicine, pull out of Iraq, etc.

[AMDScooter]

^^^And I think that it might be the main reason why I despise the republican party these days....they claim to be something that they are not (conservatives), whereas the dems at least admit they are going to raise taxes, go for socialized medicine, pull out of Iraq, etc.

Cannot say I disagree with you much there. But admitting they are going to rape our wallets does not make me any happier about the thought of a (D) in the WH. Open borders.. surrender in Iraq.. and having socialized medicine forced down my throat keeps my anger at the (D)'s well over the non-conservative habits of the current slew of (R) candidates.

Candidates want more of what is in your wallet

Candidates want more of what is in your wallet
Posted by: mcq on Monday, February 04, 2008

The Bush budget has been submitted and for the first time it crosses the 3 trillion dollar mark - and people wonder why we're feeling a bit pinched? It's not just the economy folks.

That being said, perhaps this is a good time to review what the presidential nominees are promising in terms of spending, if they get the nod to occupy the Oval Office. As you can imagine, none of the major tier candidates are talking about less spending although, there are stark differences:

“The eight candidates proposed a combined total of 189 items that would increase federal spending, 24 items that would decrease it, and 238 items whose budgetary impacts are unknown — in addition to dozens of sub-items further detailing program components. The four respective frontrunners in the two parties (John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama), proposed overall fiscal policy agendas whose net effect would raise annual federal outlays between $6.9 billion and $287.0 billion.

“The top-tier GOP candidates often portrayed as "conservative" (Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee) actually called for significantly larger spending hikes ($19.5 billion and $54.2 billion, respectively), than the so-called "moderate conservative" (John McCain, $6.9 billion).

“Among Democrats, Barack Obama, often described as ideologically more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton, actually has the larger agenda of the two ($287.0 billion vs. $218.2 billion).

“Defense-related spending items received the highest proposed spending increases among Republican candidates. Huckabee and Romney, for example, offered $67.2 billion and $40.6 billion, respectively. Among Democrats, Clinton's biggest boost goes toward health care ($113.6 billion) and Obama's for economy, transportation, and infrastructure ($105.0 billion).

A couple of points - I don't believe John McCain would limit himself to $6.9 billion any more than I believe the estimate of $113.6 billion by Clinton for health care spending. They're estimates, and you can bank on them being sunny estimates which will be found later be gross underestimates.

What I'm instead interested in is the fact that not one of them proposed spending less money (in fact, the only candidates that have are Rudy Giulaini and Ron Paul). Oh sure, some proposed spending less money than others, but every single one of them has proposed a spending increase (even John McCain who claims that he wants to see spending cuts).

While they all talk a good game about fiscal responsibility, their spending plans certainly hint that such an issue isn't really that high on their priority list.

I guess, going back to the previous Clinton era, that all depends on how you define "fiscal responsibility" doesn't it? And "change". And many other words and phrases being tossed around by the political class these days. It would be nice if someone would pin them down on some of these catch phrases, wouldn't it?

As Steve Adcock says:

Washington downsizing is not a priority. The idea that throwing money at a problem and hoping that it magically goes away remains alive and well in America. Clearly, none of the front runners feel much personal responsibility related to spending the taxpayer's money wisely, and none of them deserve the opportunity to lead the free world.

Grab your wallets.

[/\/\adGamer]

I think its bad that either party would let independents vote in their respective primaries. I say if they wish to vote for a republican or democrat let them register in that party then or wait till November to vote. The primaries are NOT the general elections.