| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Fouad Ajami: Reagan vs. Obama |
| 2009-08-25 |
| Wall Street Journal ...In one of the revealing moments of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama rightly observed that the Reagan presidency was a transformational presidency in a way Clinton's wasn't. And by that Reagan precedent, that Reagan standard, the faults of the Obama presidency are laid bare. Ronald Reagan, it should be recalled, had been swept into office by a wave of dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter and his failures. At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation's esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was "morning in America" he meant it; he believed in America's miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power. The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan's view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come. In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path. Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn't underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama. American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics. Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #5 President Reagan's first term was rough economically, but there was public confidence and incremental growth. In the last term there was an entrepreneurial dynamo at work. Low-tax schemes - vs Keynesian money burning - take time to work, but there is enough data to afford a claim that they work. This Fall, there will be a bi-partisan effort for low-tax public administration. BHO will have to follow. |
| Posted by: Sheger McGurque5408 2009-08-25 13:31 |
| #4 Jimmy on the brain, huh? |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2009-08-25 13:12 |
| #3 Magna Carta DOH! |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-08-25 11:50 |
| #2 > American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. Maybe not American Democracy, but your constitution was done in exactly this way. Luckily by people that understood The Common Law and the Magna Carter otherwise it could have gone HORRIBLY wrong (see the EU "constitution"). |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-08-25 11:49 |
| #1 That is a debate throwdown I would have loved to have seen. Better than Kirk vs Picard. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2009-08-25 11:14 |