Bargaining Like the Gipper: Reagan in Retrospect

In this retrospective, I’d like to compare Reagan to the current crop of Republican leaders.  My belief—not surprisingly—is that Boehner and company have quite a bit of growing to do before they’ll fill the shoes of Ronaldus Magnus.  Consider the following diary entry penned by Reagan in the midst of a budget fight with Congressional Democrats:

April 28, 1982

The big thing today was a meeting…the result of my call to Tip.  The “gang of 17” had come fairly close together on the budget and revenue package.

Their combination of cuts and revenue increases came to $60 billion on the Republican side to $35 billion on the Democrat side.  It should have been straight haggling especially since our original budget package called for $10 billion.  I didn’t try to start bargaining from that figure but started at the $60 billion.  Three hours later we’d gotten nowhere.  Finally I said I’ll split the difference with you and they refused that.  Meeting over.

Notwithstanding some fine freshman legislators (e.g., Rand Paul, Allen West, et al.) can you imagine anyone currently in the upper echelons of the Republican apparatus having the stones to actually walk away from the negotiating table?  America just handed the Republicans the most resounding mid-term victory sweep in generations, and we’re still running like we’re scared.  I’ve always liked Speaker Boehner, but I’m concerned that someone has gotten to him.  He seems to have bought into the line that in order to win (and maintain) public support, Republicans have to be more “nuanced” and “pragmatic.” 

The “need to appeal to independent voters” is an old canard, indeed.  Many of the same folks who are arguing for pragmatism today were lambasting Reagan for his supposed lack of it.  The real irony is that, aside from George W. Bush, all of our “pragmatic” Republican presidential candidates have either been defeated or served only one term.    

This is not to suggest, however, that sticking to one’s ideological guns is an easy thing.  It certainly was not easy for President Reagan.  Indeed, in the spring of 1982, it seemed as if he was taking a tremendous political risk by refusing to roll over for O’Neill.  Consider these words from The Milwaukee Journal:

Reagan says he is willing to “walk the extra mile”…but he warns in the same breath that the 1983 income tax cut is untouchable…He told the country it would lead to a noninflationary boom and that the positive impact would be noticeable by mid-1981.  Instead he got a sharp recession…

As I mentioned in a previous post, Reagan knew it’s always worth it to make a good faith effort; But having done that—if your opponent still wants to play hardball—you’ve got to sharpen your elbows and fight. 

As the diary proves, Reagan set out to get the maximum he possibly could.  But isn’t that what you want in a negotiator?  Does anyone think O’Neill didn’t come into the meeting pressing for the maximum he thought he could get?  The real difference between President Reagan’s negotiating style and that being exhibited by current Hill Leadership is that when Democrats proved intransigent, Reagan took to the airwaves to make his appeal directly to the voters. 

Yet despite Reagan’s appeal to the country, he lost in the short term.   

The media gleefully reported on the 1982 expansion of the Democratic House, and predicted an all-stop and reversal by President Reagan.  Fortunately, Reagan had more stones than the Roman Colosseum.  Eventually his tax cuts did work, and my entire generation benefitted from the prosperity that his policies unleashed. 

RINO Hunting, Then and Now

Much like their animal namesake, RINOs are terribly near-sighted creatures. As the giant land mammal can barely see beyond 30 feet in front of it, the political animals seem incapable of comprehending the consequences of actions beyond the next thirty days—particularly if they are threatened with things like Leftists and Sunday shows saying nasty things about them, or not being invited to the D.C. cocktail circuit.

As a government shutdown seems quite likely to occur, one has to wonder how some Republicans will respond. Will they be able to see beyond the immediacy of the moment? Will they be able to bear up under relentless castigation from the lamestream media? Will they fold like a house of cards under the hypocritical lecturing from the likes of the “extreme” Chuck Schumer and His Senatorialness Harry Reid, the patron saint of cowboy poets?

We all know how frequently some in the GOP (I won’t call any names, but they rhyme with Mohn McMain, Brindsey Braham, Glolympia Glow, et al.) talk tough in sound bites and campaigns, but bail out when the real legislative fighting starts. While it’s frustrating, it’s nothing new. In fact, President Reagan found himself dealing with just such fair-weather friends. Twenty-eight years ago today, he wrote in his journal:

Interrupted to make a call to Sen. Pete Domenici. Budget committee is debating defense budget. I asked them to hold off voting til Monday so we could discuss a reasonable proposal. He refused and I got mad. These supposed to be Republicans went ahead and cut in half the increase we’d asked for. The Russians must be very happy tonite [sic].

Domenici went on to serve several more years in the Senate. I don’t know enough about his long-term Senate record to say whether he deserves the pejorative “RINO,” but as we approach high noon in the budget showdown, I’d like to remind my fellow conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Party types that—ultimately—we aren’t the type of folks who look to politicians to save us. Yes, we look for leadership; But if it isn’t provided, we provide it ourselves. As Milton Friedman famously observed:

Reagan in Retrospect: March 18, 1983

A wise person once said, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”  Few places prove the truth of this proverb more than Washington D.C.  As the budget battle continues over the next few weeks, and the Democrats decry the “draconian” cuts proposed by Republicans, it’s worth recalling that these guys really haven’t changed all that much.  Democratic economic proposals have nothing to do with whether the economy is up, down, or flat—they are pure expressions of political ideology…one might actually call it “political religion.”  No set of circumstances—not even +10% unemployment and $5 a gallon gasoline will convince the Left that their policies have not worked and that free market alternatives need to be embraced.  Just consider this diary excerpt from twenty-eight years ago:

Met with House Republicans regarding the Democratic budget that came out of committee on a party line vote.  Our guys were all gung ho and ready to do battle.  The Democrats...know they can’t get their budget but [Speaker] Tip [O’Neill] said it was a moral statement of Democratic beliefs.  I think they’ve handed us an issue.  They would reduce or repeal everything we have done.  They’d cut defense more than $100 billion over 5 years, but they’d increase social spending $181 billion and increase taxes $315 billion.  On Monday, Commerce will announce G.N.P. growth for the 1^st Quarter of 1983 as 4%--highest since the 1^st Quarter of 1981.  Our program is working…

The upshot of realizing you’re dealing with fanatics is the realization that there will be no “compromise” unless it means you rolling over and giving them everything they want.  Fanatics cannot be reasoned with…they have to be defeated.