The Republicans are still surprised about how the 2006 midterm election panned out, so because of this they are structuring the 2008 elections so that does not happen again. Most candidates who want to receive the GOP nomination for the 2008 election have tried to remind voters of Ronald Reagan. They believe that by having being “the model small-government Republican” (Voegeli) they will get more votes. However, the author makes the point that being compared to Reagan would not be a good thing because “what they fail to understand is that Reagan himself was not a terribly effective Reaganite, and despite his rhetoric, his success at limiting government was itself pretty limited” (Voegeli). Instead of making the government small, as Reagan said he wanted to do, Reagan expanded the government. “The GOP candidates who suggest that they will succeed where Reagan failed are implying that the Gipper spent too much time on the sidelines during the contest against big government. The problem with this is not that it flunks the piety test but that it flunks the laugh test – Ronald Reagan was not just pretending to be a Reagan Republican” (Voegeli).
I think that the author of this editorial makes a great point about the GOP candidates and Ronald Reagan. Why would the GOP candidates try to compare themselves to Reagan when he failed at what he wanted to do? This reinforces the idea that maybe Reagan’s thought was wrong or too big and that the candidates should start smaller. I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this Voegeli’s idea because I did not see what happened in the Reagan administration nor have I seen the comparisons the GOPs have made. However, this editorial has forced me to think hard about what the candidates are trying to do and if it is worth it or not. By just reading the facts, I have realized that this decision to try to follow in Reagan’s footsteps will not work, for the fact that Reagan did not even follow what he wanted to do. I also think that if they try to out-do Reagan the government might just fall apart because I believe that Reagan realized that it would not work, which is why he did not do it.
For more information read William Voegeli's editorial from the Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-voegeli28oct28,1,3832529.story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I feel like everyone loves Reagan Rachael. You always hear about him; the people just responded well to him. But like you, i don't know much about his success. This article seems to say that it wasn't that grand of a success. So if Republicans are looking to Reagan for this election, I would hope that they are looking to connect with the people on the same kind of level that Reagan did and not to his moves regarding policy. I wouldn't mind having a peoples' president in all honesty.
I agree with your post, and Sarah's comment. I also admit to not knowing the specifics of Reagan's presidency. However, I guess he really wasn't everything everybody built him up to be. If Reagen was able to please the people and appeal to the general public, although not doing everything perfectly, than I think we should look at his presidency as a good thing. We defintely need to elect a president that can RELATE to us.
Post a Comment