By Gary P Jackson
One of the most blasphemous things a Conservative could ever say is “The Era of Reagan is Over.” Of course no Conservative would ever utter those words. The thought that the time to maintain the values and lessons of Ronald Reagan has passed on, would never occur to a Conservative.
In the past we’ve hammered Jeb Bush for talking that nonsense on his ill fated, and sparsely attended “listening tour with Mitt Romney and Eric Cantor.
A whole lot of fail sitting in one spot
It seems Newt Gingrich beat those jackasses to the punch. Declaring Reagan, and the common sense ideals that saved the nation …. dead…. a full year and a half before the three amigos above.
I found some interesting commentary from Rush Limbaugh, a long time admirer of Newt’s, from January of 2008, when a presidential run/book tour was being considered. Rush really hits to the heart of the matter, as only he can.
In his commentary, Rush explains perfectly why Newt was wrong for America then, and is wrong for America now.
Rush points out that Newt is a Big Government Statist. A “progressive” a liberal. He also mentions the “ Third Way” a Marxist ideal that Newt subscribes to, and even wrote the foreword to a book bearing the same name. A book that says our Constitution is outdated and must be replaced with a more progressive document thus creating a Marxist utopia.: [emphasis mine]
I don’t know this. It’s just a wild guess, but based on this comment, “The Reagan era is over. The George W. Bush era is over. We’re at a point in time we’re about to start redefining, as a number of people have started talking…” Yes, they are. Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now.
If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.
One of the things that Newt said is “redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.” Something about that rubs me wrong. Something about that sort of grates on me. The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?
That’s not who we are! Now, it may be who populists are. In fact, it is exactly who populists are. Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been. It’s what the Democrat Party had been.
“Figure out what the country needs” and then do it? We know what the country needs already! That’s our ace-in-the-hole. One of the things Newt said in this interview was, “Far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil? And there are dramatic things we can do in that conversation.” Now, “How do I…?” He means a president, running a campaign, not him.“How do I subsidize your heating oil?” We Republicans are going to talk about subsidizing people’s heating oil now, and we’re going to call that conservatism?
If you want to talk about that, fine! If that’s what you want the Republican Party to be, then be that and go ahead and say that’s what you want, but don’t call it conservatism.
“There are dramatic things we can do in that conversation. I want to make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil“? Now, conservation is great, folks. Conservation is great, but conservation does not equal growth.
To sit out there and say people need to buy less and less heating oil, okay. Buy natural gas furnace, or any number of things, but if this country has always been about: “You need heating oil? It’s going to be there. You need gasoline? It’s going to be there.“
The burden is not on you to conserve so that it’s always there! It’s economic. Capitalism is the greatest force for change in the world!
Mark Steyn has a brilliant piece today on this very subject. It’s how capitalism forces major innovation and change, not politicians, not Washington, not government. They don’t force any kind of change other than in primaries with perception and attitudes and make people think that they’re going to be better off, but it is capitalism that forces genuine change throughout culture and throughout society.
Newt could have just as easily said here that conservative principles don’t change, that the Reagan coalition is simply looking for leadership and that we need to bring more creative policy alternatives to the table than we have in the recent past.
But that’s not what he said. He said, “The era of Reagan is over. … It’s the end of the Reagan era.” It is not.
If the Reagan era is over, if the Reagan coalition is dead, what replaced it? Could somebody tell me? Precisely nothing has replaced it, and that’s why so many people are scratching their heads, why so many people are a little nervous, because there isn’t any real leadership out there that causes people and inspires people to get behind it and go rah-rah and make certain things happen.
I mean, is there a Gingrich coalition that has replaced the Reagan coalition? For that matter, what is the McCain coalition? If we’re going to have a new era, what is the McCain era? What is the Huckabee era? What is their winning coalition? They don’t have one.
You know, all this sounds like Third Way kind of talk, the triangulation of the Clinton years in the nineties. But I don’t know what the McCain era would be, and I don’t know what the Huckabee coalition is. They don’t have a coalition. They’re out trying to get votes of independents and Democrats. They’re pandering to moderates and independents.
Folks, I just want you to think about this: What happens if either of these two guys happen to win, attracting the votes of independents, moderates, the Jell-Os, and Democrats? Does that not equal the demise of the Republican Party? Do you think McCain’s out there actually trying to get Republican votes? Is Huckabee trying to get Republican votes? Romney is. Giuliani is. Fred Thompson certainly is. But if we have a nominee that is a nominee on the basis of moderate and independent and Democrat voters, then what happens to the Republican Party?
Nothing I could add would improve on this!
Read more here.