Liberal Anthropology and Ronald Reagan

During his presidency, Ronald Reagan was derided by the left as a dangerous warmonger intent on starting World War III, a callous, heartless fiend who cared nothing for the less fortunate. I should know, regrettably, I was one of them.

It is ironic that, on the occasion of Reagan's 100th birthday, some of those same lefties and their ideological heirs are attempting to rehabilitate Reagan as much more moderate than they portrayed him at the time. This is merely part of the continuing effort to demonize the current crop of conservatives and Tea Partiers.

The Las Vegas Sun got into the act with yesterday's editorial, Reagan, reconsidered, making the absurd claim that Reagan would not be conservative enough for today's Republican Party. As usual when trying to explain conservatives, the Sun appears as an anthropologist studying a far-off culture with the benefit only of hieroglyphics he is unable to decode.

That’s because the Republican Party, steeped in tea, has veered far to the right. Reagan couldn’t pass a litmus test on many issues. For example:

• Taxes: Many Republicans now demand a “no new taxes” pledge, and although Reagan slashed taxes after he took office, he wasn’t “pure.” When he saw the size of the deficit increase, fueled by the cuts, he agreed to raise taxes — even as the unemployment rate neared 10 percent. And he didn’t raise taxes just once. Overall, Reagan raised taxes 11 times, including on Social Security.

The overall impact of Reagan's tax policy was a drastic reduction in the tax burden on individuals and businesses. Marginal rates were reduced, the top rate fell from 70% to 28% during his tenure. It was raised to nearly 40% during Bill Clinton's presidency.

His reforms in 1986 simplified the tax code, lowering rates and closing loopholes but expanding the base. This is considered a tax increase by those looking to paint Reagan as a tax raiser, rather than a tax cutter. As a proud member of the "no new taxes" brigade, even I would endorse a plan for Nevada such as that presented by NPRI, which would lower the state sales tax but apply it to both goods and services (provided it were coupled with strong anti-spending measures to ensure that the lower rate couldn't simply be raised at a whim in the future). Could this be considered by some to be a tax increase in an attempt to portray me as a "no new taxes" apostate? Since the sales tax on services under this plan would necessarily increase, it certainly could.

• Spending: Today’s Republicans bash government spending, and they have decried the size of the deficit. Under Reagan, government grew and budgets ballooned. And the federal deficit hit new records. Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney once said that Reagan “taught us that deficits don’t matter.”

The difference in attitude toward deficits during the Reagan years and under the current administration are due entirely to degree. During the Reagan administration deficits averaged 4.3% of GDP. Deficits under the current administration are around 10%. This is the difference between the guest at your party who has 2 drinks and the one who has 12.

In addition, virtually all of the spending increases during Reagan's presidency were due to the military build-up that eventually bankrupted the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. Spending under Reagan increased an average of 1.1 percentage points in relation to GDP. Defense spending during those years increased an average of 1.1 percentage points in relation to GDP.

The fact that spending was not reduced during Reagan's term in office was in spite of, not because of, his efforts. For instance, Reagan tried unsuccessfully to abolish the newly-created Department of Education. We are all the worse off for his inability to do so as the department is a $1.5 trillion sinkhole that has done far more to reward adult bureaucrats than it has to improve the education of children. Reagan had to deal with overwhelming Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives, who insisted on spending increases as a price to pay for his military build-up, during his entire term.

Reagan himself was aware of the difficulty of cutting spending. As he famously said in 1964, "A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

• Immigration: Reagan supported a major immigration bill that included amnesty for people here illegally, something that is anathema to the Tea Party. “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Reagan said during the 1984 campaign. Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming told NPR that Reagan “knew that it was not right for people to be abused. Anybody who’s here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially (or) physically. They have no rights.” So Reagan provided them.

The law also contained strict border control provisions and severe employer sanctions that were supposed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants but were never enforced. While the 1986 law granted amnesty to less than 3 million, possibly as many as 20 million people have streamed across our borders illegally since then.

Much of the opposition to granting amnesty to current illegal immigrants is due to the failure of the original legislation to stem the tide. If we are merely going to grant amnesty to all who've entered the country illegally every couple of decades it will simply encourage more to do so, believing that they too will be one day be awarded amnesty. At that point we may as well do away with the border altogether.

Although it's impossible to know where Reagan would stand on illegal immigration today, considering the failure of the law that he signed, one of his former aides believes that Reagan "would have demanded for that [1986] law to be fixed first before instituting a new overhaul."

• Compromise: Republicans and Tea Party acolytes have, in many ways, embarked on a take-no-prisoners approach to politics, viciously bashing opponents. Reagan certainly was a partisan and engaged in tough political battles, especially with Democratic leaders in Congress, but he was never characterized by demonizing his opponents. Although strongly principled, he engaged his opponents and often worked to find common ground. James Baker, a former chief of staff, told USA Today when he and the president talked about issues Reagan was “so pragmatic” and often told him, “I would rather get 80 percent of what I want than go over the cliff with my flag flying.” On the campaign trail, Reagan was a strong advocate for his party. But Walter Mondale, who ran on the Democratic ticket in both 1980 and 1984, told McClatchy Newspapers that Reagan “never got mean, he never got bitter, he never got personal.”

As I have extensively covered previously, the Sun has no problem with the demonization of political opponents when it is Republicans who are being demonized. In fact, it is a quite willing participant in such instances.

The Sun has consistently praised and supported Harry Reid, for whom demonization of opponents is a consistent feature, and President Obama even as they resisted compromise and demonized their political opponents while pushing through legislation such as the stimulus and health care bills. One could easily be led to believe the Sun's definition of compromise is when Republicans do what Democrats want.

Many on the left, including the Sun, have not reacted well to the continuing popularity of the Tea Party, a right-leaning grassroots movement. Rather than address the movement's legitimate concerns, they have attempted to marginalize them, by dismissing them as racists and/or extremists. Cherry-picking examples from the career of one of the politicians the Tea Partiers generally most admire is simply another attempt at this.

But, regarding what Ronald Reagan would have really thought of the Tea Party, don't take my word for it. Listen to one of the closest living people to the 40th President, his son, Michael Reagan.