Connect with us

News

BOOK EXCERPT: Were Trump and Reagan That Different?

Published

on

This is an excerpt from Reagan: The American President, which is being released by Post Hill Press in May 2019.

Old line Republicans (and phony newscasters) frequently harken back to the “good old days” of Ronald Reagan and his shrug-it-off demeanor and superb sense of humor. There were few insults that Reagan wouldn’t sweep aside with a joke or a story. Most of the time, activists didn’t bother him: once when confronted with a large crowd of student agitators in California—all standing in dead silent protest—Reagan calmly walked through the crowd and then turned, putting his finger to his lips, and said “Shhhhh!” They all laughed.

Dutch’s dismissal of Jimmy Carter with a “Well, there you go again” or of Walter Mondale with a “I won’t hold my opponent’s youth or inexperience against him” seems to contrast sharply with Donald Trump’s tweets and clever nicknames. But it only seems to.

Trending: HMM: Michelle Obama was Desperate Not to be Photographed in a Bikini as First Lady

Reagan and Trump had a world of things in common. Each was the oldest man to ever hold the office at the time of his inauguration. Each was divorced. Each had adult children while in the White House. Each spent the large majority of his life outside of politics, and each had a full career before entering office. Both men had Screen Actor’s Guild union cards—the only presidents ever to hold such cards for regular work (not cameo appearances). Each had a somewhat wandering political past, with Reagan only becoming a Republican during Richard Nixon’s 1960 campaign and Trump flirting with the Reform Party. Each was disliked by a significant part of the GOP, although Trump by far exceeds Reagan in the sheer opposition and hatred of elements of the Republican Party.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In terms of policy, both were accused of putting out “rosy” economic forecasts—only to meet or exceed their predictions. Reagan’s team—as newly uncovered evidence in my book Reagan: The American President shows—deliberately understated their internal projections thinking that they would appear “too rosy.” In reality, the economy performed exactly as they had predicted. The same is largely true with Trump: his “magic wand” on manufacturing jobs in particular and on jobs overall has been Harry Potter-esque!

But there were genuine, and often towering, differences. Reagan, having worked as California governor, had eight years to learn the ropes of political compromise. When the Gipper entered office, he had the full weight of the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups behind him with a fully outlined agenda, complete with research. No one supported Trump in that way. He entered office with his own program, and had to assemble the parts along the way. Reagan benefitted from a cadre of “good old boys” who staffed his cabinet and agencies immediately. Trump is still waiting on Mitch McConnell to deliver many of his nominees.

The area in which most people see a contrast, though, is style. Trump is brash, aggressive, impetuous, and unyielding. Reagan was subtle, funny, and as much as possible, cooperative.

Yet the key to each man is the age in which he came into office. Just as Abraham Lincoln—who was, let’s face it, not handsome and who had a high screechy voice—would never have gotten elected in the 1980s, it’s unlikely that for all his strengths Reagan would have gotten elected today. Our age is a much more immediate time, the time of the tweet and the sound bite. Trump learned in “Celebrity Apprentice” the value of celebrity and immediacy. Whereas Reagan could ensure his message would get through in an age or relatively fair news coverage and in which the “big three” television networks were beholden to carry his televised speeches, Trump can count on no such coverage. Indeed, all but Fox have decided that his rallies are “political” and therefore refuse to cover them at length.

No matter: just as Reagan went around the media by appealing directly to the people on television, so too Trump has gone around the media through Twitter and his rallies. (The genius of the rallies is still not appreciated: Trump gets largely unfiltered local coverage in each region.)

Our age demands a message cut through the noise in a way Reagan’s never did. Just as Abraham Lincoln’s slow, deliberate, rambling stories would not fit 1980s television, neither today would Reagan’s folksy approach. His enemies would viciously mock and discredit him. But for the 1980s, no one was better. And for our current times, Trump is the new Reagan—certainly not as refined or amiable, but not nearly as vulnerable either.

Indeed, for the first year Trump kept the media completely off balance for the most part by tossing “cheese into the maze,” wherein he allowed meaningless and often ridiculous stories to circulate and occupy the media’s time while he focused on ending horrible trade pacts, rebuilding the military, crushing ISIS, and pushing through a record number of Circuit Court judges. Even as he was achieving these things, the media was obsessed with “Javanka,” or Steve Bannon’s comments, or any multitude of baseless, irrelevant topics. Trump learned to play his media every bit as well as the Gipper knew how to play his (or Lincoln knew how to play his). In this, the three were immensely successful, to America’s great benefit.

 

Larry Schweikart is the author of Reagan: The American President (May 2019, Post Hill Press) and is the co-author with Michael Allen of the New York Times #1 bestseller A Patriot’s History of the United States, now in its fourth edition.

 

 

 

Big League National Security

Will Josh Hawley be the Next Champion for an America First Foreign Policy?

America First May Have its Next Leader to End Wars Abroad

Published

on

Does America First have a new non-interventionist champion?

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley has been viewed by many as one of the figures who could potentially lead a Trumpist movement after Trump, should Joe Biden end up being installed as president on January 2021.

Hawley has made a name for himself as a champion of Middle America and questioning the neoliberal orthodoxy on immigration and trade. Lately, Hawley has made a pivot towards  questioning the interventionist conventional wisdom on foreign policy. 

In early October of this year, the Missouri Senator called for the American government to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Hawley tweeted, “Almost 20 years now in Afghanistan. Long past time to draw this war to an end.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Hawley’s foreign policy has been a work progress over the past two years. During a 2019 speech Hawley gave at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), he questioned the nation-building policy prescriptions of previous administrations, demonstrating some degree of skepticism towards non-stop interventionism abroad on the part of the Senator.

That said, it remains to be seen if Hawley’s legislative record will fully match his rhetoric.

Hawley is a staunch China hawk, who fears the rise of China and is a strong voice against China’s expansionist efforts. Hawley’s track record shows that his foreign policy views are rough around the edges. Daniel Larison of The American Conservative is not as optimistic about Hawley judging by his votes on the Yemeni Civil War. Larison cited several of Hawley’s votes that may be cause for concern:

Sen. Hawley voted against the Senate’s resolution of disapproval that opposed the president’s effort to circumvent Congress with a bogus “emergency” to expedite arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. More important, he voted with the president and most Senate Republicans against the antiwar Yemen resolution that would have cut off all U.S. support to the Saudi coalition.”

Nevertheless, Hawley’s comments on Afghanistan are a good sign that Hawley is catching on to the fact that Americans are tired of foreign wars. Politicians can change their views and behaviors. Hawley is likely recognizing that the America First movement is exhausted by the endless wars and wants candidates and elected officials who offer withdrawal plans. 

After looking at the list of people who have been tapped to join the Biden administration, Hawley tweeted, “What a group of corporatists and war enthusiasts – and #BigTech sellouts.”

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, a fierce interventionist skeptic, maintained cautious optimism about Hawley. In a tweet, he commented, “All kinds of reasons to be skeptical of the authenticity here, but — purely as a matter of rhetoric — just imagine any national Republican speaking this way about a Dem administration even 10 years ago. The framework of politics is radically shifting.”

The jury is still out on Hawley. Regardless of flaws in his voting record, America First advocates should continue to push him and other America First leaning Republicans in the right direction. We should never forget that politicians are still receptive to political pressure and the grassroots holds the keys to political change. 

Young senators like Hawley are the future of American politics and it makes sense for foreign policy restrainers to lobby them and push them in a direction that favors non-interventionism.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending