From the American Spectator: The GOP: Rabbits or tigers?

Jeffrey Lord's piece today on the Establishment Republicans' weak-kneed abandoning of Sen. Mike Lee's proposal to defund Obamacare, includes some insightful historical commentary on President Reagan's (sadly failed) attempt to buck up his own party's congressional leadership during the 1984 battle with Democrats over the Clean Water Bill.

Though the post-as-a-whole is rather long (classic Lord), nonetheless I recommend it to readers of the RSS Ronald Reagan both for its overall message, and for its pleasant reminder of what principled, conservative leadership looks like.

Republican Circular Firing Squad c. 1966

Much has been written about the fractured state of the California Republican party during Ronald Reagan's initial run for governor.  One aspect of this was the patchwork of feuding volunteer organizations, the result of electoral reforms pushed through by Progressive Republican governor Hiram Johnson at the beginning of the 20th century. Through the 1966 primary, Reagan and his chief rival George Christopher would wage battle for the support of these organizations.  Perhaps most challenging of all, both men knew (or, should have known) that they would have to campaign in such a way that the victor in the June primary could effectively unite all the Republican faction to himself, if he was to have any chance of overcoming the Democrats who, even then, could lay claim to three of every five voters in California. (Campaign in California bitter fight)

Christopher drew first blood when the Republican Council of California, an invitation-only organization, made him their top pick for governor.(Conservative group in California gives support to Reagan)   This victory was rather meaningless, however, since the organization was so small (only 75 members) and elitist.

Reagan scored his own victory on April 3rd, when the 11,500 member conservative-leaning California Republican Assembly endorsed him.(Conservative group in California gives support to Reagan)  There was no particular surprise that the far more conservative CRA would select Reagan.  One suspects, however, that Christopher needlessly poisoned the well by announcing that he "would not be seeking" a CRA endorsement.

Perhaps in an attempt to reach out the CRA crowd, Christopher had appeared at the convention the day before to call for the rejection of “the radical right as well as the radical left.”(Reagan is endorsed)  Either it didn't occur to the mayor that it might sound just a little hubristic to stand before the people you've already said you won't seek an endorsement from and lecture them in verbiage suggesting that you, personally represent the golden mean of political virtue, and all lesser beings fall to your left or right; Or else it did occur to him...and he simply didn't care.  Christopher was booed off the stage and left without a single vote.


Fifteen days later, the political seesaw again shifted in Christopher's favor when the California Republican League chose to back him, while "snubbing" the Gipper.  According to the Toledo Blade, the CRL convention had refused Reagan's request to:

...make a brief, unscheduled talk on the grounds that he passed up his chance the day before, when other candidates spoke.  Mr. Reagon [sic] said he had previous commitments. 

“Well, that’s big of them,” he said when told he could appear for a moment, if he didn’t say anything.  “If they don’t know what I look like now, it’s a little late.”  Mr. Regan’s [sic] name wasn’t placed before the convention and he received no votes. (Reagan rival wins support) 

Given the rather catty treatment doled out to a former state co-chairman of Goldwater for President, it is not too surprising that May saw Reagan win the endorsement of the United Republicans of California (UROC), a group originally founded for the specific purpose of promoting Barry Goldwater for President.(History of UROC ; UROC sweepingly votes to back Reagan)  As if the CRL's treatment of Reagan were not reason enough to raise the ire of UROC members, tensions were ratcheted up when a former paid UROC director, Russ Walton predicted, "a group of extremists are going to attempt to take over and move UROC even further to the right."  Choosing to disregard the common sense that would suggest one keep one's nose out of others' business, the CRL chose to issue a warning about John Birch Society infiltration of UROC.

Michael Kahl issued a press statement from the CRL president William P. Gray expressing ‘dismay’ at the reports JBS support was ‘significant’ in the election of Crosby…(UROC sweeping votes to back Reagan)

In the end, Reagan not only won the UROC endorsement...he ran away with it.  Reagan received 761 votes.  The only other candidate to secure votes, William Penn Patrick, got a measly 28.  Again, Christopher received a goose egg.

The story of the volunteer organizations serves as an illustration of what Gaylord Parkinson said of California GOP politics:

You have every candidate running on his own.  He can run as long as he can get in the primary; then he turns to the party and says, "Okay, help me.  Well, he looks around and there's no party.  He's alienated half of them to begin with and there isn't any party--no Republican finance--no nothing...It's the most screwed-up system I ever saw in my life." (2004). The Right Moment, p. 178.

The very presence of this many different groups representing (primarily) the bitter divide between conservative and moderate Republicans perhaps help give one a sense of just how divided Republicans were, and just how big a deal it was that Reagan was able to unite them. In the midst of one of the most contested (and increasingly vicious) presidential primaries in decades, Republican candidates need to learn from the example of Reagan.  It was not a fait accompli that Ronald Reagan would win the governorship.  Before he was able to do so, he had to unite the warring Republican tribes.  The fact that he was so successful in doing so is an indication of just how remarkable his political skills and personal integrity were.

CA Democrats to reality: We will never, never, NEVER give in!

Recently, I posted a brief piece on Pat Brown’s early responses toward his competitors in the 1966 CA governor’s race, making note of Brown’s complaint that his opponents were, “[running] around the state telling people what a bad governor I've been…Wait until I start telling them what a good governor I've been..."

In light of Brown’s own words, I found Brown-backer Marianne Means’ comments in The Tuscaloosa News, April 1, 1966 rather ironic:

As it always is during the Governor’s campaigns, all the interest this time is focused on the other fellows—on his primary opponent Los Angeles Mayor Samuel Yorty and the GOP contenders, Actor Ronald Reagan and former San Francisco Mayor George Christopher.  Nobody seems to be talking up Gov. Brown, except Gov. Brown.

But, like it says in the ad, he must be doing something right.  He has been an effective and honest governor and he has moved the state dramatically forward in education, welfare and conservation.  And the only ones who seem to notice these things are the people who vote.  

The narcissism of those in power is truly breathtaking.  Means acknowledges that no one was boosting Brown except Brown himself…yet never seems to entertain the possibility that this was because most Californians didn’t think there was much to praise. 

In grasping for specifics to validate her celebration of the eight-year reign of Pat Brown, Means pointed to the “dramatic forward movement” Brown had effectuated in the areas of welfare and education.  Conveniently, however, these forward movements were left remarkably vague (hope and change, anyone?).  One wonders, which was more forward-thinking of Brown:  his ineffectual handling of radicals on the Berkley campus, or his triumphant expansion of the welfare rolls?  Perhaps more to the point, why would anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex conclude that putting more people on the government dole for subsistence equates to “progress”?  

 

Remember When There Was Such a Thing as Presidential "Leadership"?

  

Remember when our President didn't go overseas to apologize for being American?

Reagan on Defying the Annual Blackmail

Given the incredibly high stakes in the current debate over the debt ceiling—and the regrettably lackluster performance of the Republican House in its recent budgetary confrontation with the White House—I thought it might be apropos to remind ourselves of how Reagan handled a similar situation as Governor of California. 

Back in the summer of ’69, Bryan Adams got his first real six-string, which he played until his fingers bled.  

As the Demophiliac media of the day would’ve had it, had poor little Bryan had the misfortune to be playing guitar in California, the evil Governor Reagan would’ve confiscated his guitar, chopped off young Bryan’s fingers, and denied him access to a state-supplied band-aid.   Take for example, this bit of “even-handed” reporting by the Associated Press (w/ just a bit of commentary)

Republican Go. Ronald Reagan’s refusal to accept an emergency bill to keep the state running solvently for the next 30 days plunged California into unprecedented fiscal chaos. 

Ah ha!  I just knew Darth Reagan was single-handedly responsible for the fiscal chaos. 

Salaries for employes [sic] of the nation’s most populous state were cut off and Reagan asked them to work for free.  State officials no longer had authority to pay wages or bills.
The governor blamed Assembly Democrats led by his political rival, Assemblyman Jesse M. Unruh, for the crisis.

And we all know jolly ole’ St. Jesse never attempted to blame Governor Reagan for the budget deadlock.  Why good King Unruh was…was…so apolitically focused that his own caucus went around him to negotiate a deal with Governor Reagan the next day.

Reagan refused to accept a stopgap emergency measure continuing state appropriations for 30 days, until the dispute is settled.  He said to do so “would be to establish a precedent for annual blackmail.”

The bottom line is, Reagan was right.  Californians knew Reagan was right.  The Democrats in the state house knew the people knew Reagan was right.  So, in the end, slanted media coverage didn’t have nearly the impact that many assumed it would. 


For all our presidential candidates and Congressional republicans tempted to believe that if they just give the President this debt extension, then the press will see what nice guys they are and treat them fairly, here’s a spoiler alert:  The Democrats are going to call you “heartless,” “racist,” accuse you of shoving grandma off a cliff, etc.  It doesn’t matter how many delightful stories you swapped over cocktails, the minute the cameras come on, you will instantly metamorphosize into Satan.  Just accept that this is the way the game is played.  If you’re not willing to deal with this, get out of politics—or at least get out of the GOP so we can make room for somebody who can't be blackmailed.   

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’s Confrontation with PATCO as a Model for Governors in 2011 (Part 2): The Lessons for Today

Lesson #1:  A real attempt at negotiation is always worth it.  Thanks to Reagan's first two offers--which even the New York Times called "more than reasonable"--the media was uncharacteristically supportive of President Reagan.  Thus far, the efforts of Governor Walker in this regard have been admirable.  Though, to be honest, he really doesn't have that much room to maneuver.  WI is fundamentally broke, so the options are (A) scale back benefits, or (B) lay people off.  Governor Daniels, represented the opposite extreme by simply rolling over and advocating that Indiana Republicans drop their right to work bill.  Negotiation is a good thing...but giving away the store is not.  I fear that all Daniels has done is signal weakness to the IN Democrats and torpedo any chance he had of becoming the GOP presidential nominee.

Lesson #2:  When you're backed into a corner, you've only got two choices:  come out swinging, or get pummeled.  Nixon, Ford, and Carter all buckled under threats from PATCO.  It reached the point with Carter that even the courts criticized him for not taking a strong stand.  The intransigence of PATCO--much like what's being put on display in WI and IN today--left Reagan with no real choice.  He could either roll over for PATCO, thus eliminating his ability to function as a Chief Executive, or he could let PATCO know there was a "new sheriff" in town.  Republican governors, and in a sense even Republican legislators, throughout the country need to internalize this lesson.  The Left has been emboldened by over twenty years of relatively weak-willed domestic leadership.  In the post-Reagan era, GOP standard bearers have proven all too willing to "go along to get along" or "work together to get things done."  What this ultimately means is, we self-limit our own political powers (e.g., George H.W. Bush going along with tax increases, sharing chairmanships with Democrats during the early days of G.W. Bush's presidency, dropping judicial nominees that Bush had every right to appoint simply because a handful of Democratic senators on the judiciary committee refused to allow a vote, etc.) and work together to get the Democrats' agenda passed.  All too frequently, the reward for this magnanimity is increasingly irrational demands in the future, followed by charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.  The Left today draws roots and inspiration from true radicals: Mao, Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground...you can't negotiate with such people, you have to defeat them.  It's time for conservatives to start playing to win.

Lesson #3:  Doing the right thing often has unpredicted serendipities.   Reagan's tough stand against PATCO disabused other public sector unions of the delusion that they were irreplaceable, and could therefore dictate their own work terms.  Reagan put other public workers on notice that unreasonable demands would not be tolerated.  Indeed, after the PATCO firings the postal workers union cancelled the strike it had scheduled for the following Saturday.

When business leaders saw that Reagan wasn't afraid to stand up to union strong-arm tactics, they too were emboldened to take stands.  While many on the radical Left continue to try and characterize this as a "war on labor," others contend that a reining in of the power of Big Labor was necessary to help create a more flexible and decentralized American economy--an economy which later took off like a rocket ship.

The effects of breaking the PATCO strike extended even beyond the borders of the U.S.  "Haynes Johnson of the Washington Post pointed to international financiers who...claimed their confidence in Reagan's seriousness about controlling inflation dated from 'when Reagan broke the controllers' strike."  Additionally, numerous rumors and anecdotes have related how Reagan's handling of the strike caused the Soviets to sit up and take notice.  Sovietologist Richard Pipes is reported to have said, "They way the PATCO strike was handled impressed the Russians and gave them respect for Reagan.  It showed them a man who, when aroused, will go to the limit to back up his principles."

Today's conservative leaders need to stick to their guns and have a little faith.  Learn from the history of Ronald Reagan...there's certainly worse people to take political advice from.  For example, those who tell us it's time to move beyond Ronald Reagan.

Voices of Moderation (i.e., Surrender)

The incomparable Thomas Sowell writes:

History shows that muffling your message can mean forfeiting many a battle to extremists…No one has had more of a mixed and muffled message than Sen. John McCain, which is why Barack Obama is president of the United States…Republican moderates warn their fellow Republicans that they need to move away from the Ronald Reagan approach, in order to attract a wider range of voters. But Ronald Reagan won two consecutive landslide elections — and he couldn’t have done that if the only people who voted for him were dedicated conservatives…Apparently some moderate Republicans don’t realize that you can’t buy your opponents’ assumptions and then try to oppose the conclusions that follow.

In the face of the predictable calls for Republicans to "moderate" their views, language, political beliefs (translation: roll over like submissive dogs and give the Democrats whatever they want), it would do us well to remember Reagan's advice in a similar situation.