Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?That's about how I feel. I think that people have been submitting Reagan to a hagiographic redefinition that ignores all the quibbles conservatives had about him at the time. He is much stronger in retrospect than was thought at the time, even by those who agreed with him ideologically.
Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the last quarter-century.
The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent. And to argue that in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican
field: One of the great big-city mayors of the last century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.
Since we don't have the advantage of a retrospective judgment of the current crop, we must judge them on their possibilities. Yes, each has flaws, but none so terrible that it is a disqualifier. Certainly, I feel better about this field than I did for the 1996 campaign. And I remain optimistic that most Republicans will rally around the eventual nominee when the match-up is settled between the Republican nominee and the Democratic one, especially if the Democrats field another Clinton.
0 comments:
Post a Comment