A poll in 1976 found that 90 percent of Republican state chairmen judged Reagan guilty of “simplistic approaches,” with “no depth in federal government administration” and “no experience in foreign affairs.” It was little different in January 1980, when a U.S. News and World Report survey of 475 national and state Republican chairmen found they preferred George H.W. Bush to Reagan. One state chairman presumably spoke for many when he told the magazine that Reagan’s intellect was “thinner than spit on a slate rock.” As Rick Perlstein writes in The Invisible Bridge, the third and latest volume of his epic chronicle of the rise of the conservative movement, both Nixon and Ford dismissed Reagan as a lightweight. Barry Goldwater endorsed Ford over Reagan in 1976 despite the fact that Reagan’s legendary speech on behalf of Goldwater’s presidential campaign in October 1964, “A Time for Choosing,” was the biggest boost that his kamikaze candidacy received. Only a single Republican senator, Paul Laxalt of Nevada, signed on to Reagan’s presidential quest from the start, a solitary role that has been played in the Trump campaign by Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
14 thoughts on “Ronald Reagan Was Once Donald Trump — New York”
Comments are closed.
The parallels are, I’m sure you can imagine, quite a popular mention with the Trumpers.Report
And quite unpopular with the anti-Trump GOP.Report
More of an eyeroll than anything else. If he wins, though, he will certainly redefine the party. Maybe even if he loses, too. Hard to say.Report
He already has.Report
I was never a fan of Reagan but he had several abilities Trump lacks, including a positive vision of the country that didn’t rest, in large part, on denigrating minorities. I never voted for him. Still, I could understand why people found him appealing. Plus, he was no political neophyte having been governor of the largest state in the country for two terms. He also wasn’t a crude, misogynistic bastard. He had class. Trump, for all his money, has none.Report
The even more risible comparison is the one Rich makes at the very end between Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton.Report
They’re both Satan, aren’t they?
Actually the better comparison, in terms of how Republicans see them, is Carter and Obama. Both weak presidents, disbelievers in American exceptionalism, betrayers of Israel, unable to stand up to America’s enemies.Report
#content is king.Report
“no depth in federal government administration”
Emphasis added. That is a very specific claim that basically applies to every governor or general that ended up president. It’s true of Ike, Clinton, Carter, Bush II, etc. And it’s pretty weak sauce. Especially because of the size and complexity* of California, it’s pretty much the best dress rehearsal at the state level for the White House. It’s a lot better than being one of 100 in the Senate. There’s a difference between never worked in DC, but was governor of a big state vs. no experience in government at all.
* The economy is a mix of ag, manufacturing, media, high tech, a number of military bases, biotech, etc.Report
This is true, and a big difference as far as I’m concerned. However, I could see party leaders from the Cold War era seeing it differently.Report
Ah, I see that the “They laughed at Newton, therefore my highly detailed conspiracy theory about the lizard people should be taken seriously” school of logic has been embraced by New York magazine.Report
I took it more as “The Republican party loses its mind every so often, and here it is happening again.”Report
Senator, I knew Paul Laxalt. Paul Laxalt was a friend of mine. You, Senator Sessions, are no Paul Laxalt.Report
I’m imagining Luke Wilson’s character going to sleep in 1976 and waking up 40 years later to discover that Ronald Reagan has become the august statesman, the deep profound intellectual by whom all others are judged.Report