« All you need to know: 14th January 2008 | Main | Mitt Romney's Michigan victory »



I think McCain will squeak MI in an upset. I hope so, anyway, as Romney is not a solid pro-lifer.


Because values and ideals have been implemented in the past doesn't mean they are 'outdated' for the present and even foreseeable future. Frum here seems to me to be into a feel-good/modern perspective as if image has more to do with realities. Most who are 20-something I talk with, read about or watch on TV know pretty much nothing but pop headline and cultural trendiness. They'd vote for Oprah, Obama and anyone who says and makes them feel good. Most but definitely not all. I wonder how serious they even are to vote other than the prospect of taking the time to go to the ballot box having the immediacy of accomplishment. Does that mean they're right and they understand the realities at hand? Nope.

Reagan basically stood for traditional family values, lower taxes, less gov regulation and reliance on the marketplace, and denounced libs for their justifying and/or appeasing attitudes toward communism. He built our military to be strong.

Newt clarifies: "I want to explain my statement because it seems to have caused some confusion.

"The fact is that if Governor Reagan was faced with the world of 2008, he would be trying to develop new solutions and be an advocate of real change. He wouldn’t be suggesting that we could go back 28 years and adopt a program that was totally appropriate for a world that had the Soviet Union, hyperinflation, Jimmy Carter’s policies of weakness and the challenges of 1980. He would say we need to face the challenges of 2008.

"That means America has to find solutions that will work in a world in which China is much bigger, the world market is much more competitive, our dangerous reliance on foreign oil owned by dictators is much greater, and the challenges to America whether from immigration, from the secular Left seeking to drive God out of public life, or from those who would undermine English as the language of America is a different set of dangers than the those of 1980. Today’s challenges require new solutions and new approaches."


Policy, will always change to adapt - but there is distinction here. I think Republican candidates should be more careful when using Reagan's name to appease the conservative base. Lower taxes, family values, English only etc. are good and applicable, China and Russia should not be underestimated, but we have a changing military strategy and the threat of Islamofascism, and a global market place is where we compete


Thank you very much.

Reagan is dead and the Reagan era is over. Reagan was a great leader and there are important lessons we can learn from Reagan. However, the rush by Republicans to potray themselves as "successors of Reagan" smacks of intellectual laziness.

My generation does not know Reagan. You cannot win over my generation by talking about "distant" historical figures. You cannot win over the young by talking endlessly about the past.

The young are interested in the future.

The Democrats are talking about the future - and the Republicans (any time they invoke Reagan) are subconsciously talking about the past.

The appeal of Obama is similar to the appeal to Reagan ("morning in America").


Republicans (especially Neocons) are unconsciously saying -"Be afraid, be very afraid!". We care about terrorism, we understand challenge of China - but we refuse to live in fear.

The Republican party will make inroads on the youth vote when it stops peddling fear.

Margaret on the Guillotine

"Some UK Tories probably need to learn that the Thatcher era is over, too."

My God, Montgomerie! Must one say anything?

So long as you realise that the post-Thatcherite era is not one of Duncan-Smithery... :)

Tony Makara

The Reagan/Thatcher era was very important in relation to foreign policy. Some younger readers might find this hard to believe but Soviet communism was a far bigger threat to democracy than Islamic fundamentalism today. History will recognize the very important stance that Mr Reagan in particular took against the Soviets. When Reagan assumed office its fair to say that the Soviets were as strong as they ever were and by the time he left office the Soviets were in turmoil and riddled with self-doubt. Politicians who start wars get more space in the history books which is quite unfair because it is the skilled operators like Reagan who make this world a safer place. Young people of today can look to leaders of the past for inspiration and guidance.


What are the Democrats saying? Change. What does this mean for the present and future? We all need to get along and for them it has and only will mean according to their liberal/leftist views. They have absolutely no tolerance to the slightest compromise unless forced. Getting along means bigger government with authoritarian empowerment national and international to enforce rules upon all of us, or else. Republicans invoking Reagan for family values, tax cuts, strong military and English only is good for the party. His name is not a threat nor dismissed for conservatives at large as most of the voting populace will be over 20-something. Some distinction of application and changes to his policy from past to present is in order, as well as being clear to explain direct relevance for younger voters for their present and future.

Maduka you're with the Dems and want more taxes. And you don't want a strong military it seems to me. I don't know where you stand on family values. I really don't know what you believe in as you're still not very specific. Are you willing to answer these so it can be much clearer where you finally stand? Don't generalize, be specific. And, state your specific views with policy and persons running for office. Which party at present do you want in power for the Senate and Congress, and who running for the presidency will you vote for? Deal with realities here and what we have, not some airy qualifications seeming to say something without being specific.



I don't want more taxes, I want a strong military and I have strong family values.

I respect Reagan. He was a great man.

Please understand this, saying that you are the next incarnation of Reagan is not a substitute for a lack of policy. Newt Gingrich understands this. The World we live in is vastly different from the World that Reagan lived in.

The Republican (Conservative) philosophy is built on a reduction in the size of government, tax cuts, family values and personal liberty. It is an excellent platform to run on - but how well does it stand up to close scrutiny?

Can a nation with $9 trillion in debt (heavily indebted to China) - afford tax cuts. Can we afford Social Security (baby boomers and all) with infinite tax cuts. If yes - how?

China is not Japan.

It sounds rather disingenious talking about reducing the size of government when a Republican administration has presided over significant expansion of the size of government.

What will you do and how will you avoid making the same mistakes that George Bush made? So far, nobody in the Republican Party seems to be answering that question.

How well does warrantless wiretapping measure up to American standards of personal liberty? How come McCain is the only Republican candidate bold enough to condemn torture (water boarding)?

Unlike your generation, in my generation many workers competes with his/her counterpart in China/India. I am an Engineer and I compete with Engineers from India and China (paid a fraction of my wages). Competition is great, I welcome it. But I need to know how my government will help me be more competitive.

In the past, one could say that "what is good for Walmart is great for America". However, in the age of multinationals this is not strictly true.

There are other lingering issues like inner city violence and "the war on drugs" that seriously need to be addressed. The Democrats have no real solutions and the Republicans are not faring much better.

I hope you agree with me there is a realisation that the Conservative movement is at crossroads. David Brooks, Jonah Golberg and Newt Gingrich are echoing this sentiment.

Nothing shows this better than the present Republican line-up. In my opinion, the constant (and frankly annoying) allusion to Reagan is an attempt by insecure men to compensate for their short-comings.

Tony Makara

"Can a nation with $9 trillion in debt (heavily indebted to China)"

Interestingly, the Chinese in their domestic press talk openly about their hoarding of dollars as being an 'economic nuclear option' the Chinese also like to talk about ending 'western economic pre-eminence' and 'US economic hegemony' etc. Those who advocate greater dependence on Chinese imports are playing a dangerous game. I for one want peaceful positive relations with China, but I feel we must proportion such good relations by keeping a steady eye on the long-term geoeconomic objectives of Beijing.



Reagan REDEFINED the conservative movement. The conservative movement needs another leader to REDEFINE it.

Churchill was his own man, Thatcher was her own woman and even Sarkozy is his own man.

Understand my frustration, in the Republican line-up. I don't see anyone with new ideas. I see Romney, a very capable man but uncomfortable in his own skin. I see Huckabee, geniune but uninformed. I see Thompson, uninterested in the job. I see McCain, the best of a rather bad bunch.

Is this the best we have on offer?


Tony Makara,

China presents us with a serious geopolitical challenge. We have never faced this type of challenge.

It is simply unprofitable to manufacture most items in the Western World and the Chinese know this. An ethernet cable can be made for $2 in China and sold for $20 in the US.

Even Mexico cannot compete with that!

You are not going to get those margins ANYWHERE in the Western World. And China knows this. You could move production to Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines but these countries do not have the economies of scale that China offers.

Once again, China is aware of that fact.

The only potential competitor to China is India, but India is light years behind China in basic infrastructure. China is also aware of that.

In simple english, they have us by the b*lls.

What can we do? Our best bet is India. We may need to help India develop its infrastructure, but India's messy democracy makes it near impossible to put one stone on top of another.

I don't think the Chinese government is fundamentally evil in the same way as say, Andropov's Soviet Union. At worst, it is a blown up version of Suharto's Indonesia - but with much bigger toys.

The Chinese are definitely not going back to the days of Mao, we have to find ways of moving them towards greater liberalisation.

This is not Reagan and Gorbachev. The West realy needs new leadership.

Tony Makara

Maduka, I believe a targeted policy of protectionism will become political currency in the future. Those that support completely open free-trade do not take into account the effects of currency differentials and the ability of states like China and India to employ sweatshop labour. I am a person who supports free-trade and an economic environment that lets business operate without restriction. However allowing China to overrun western markets just because of an ideological commitment to free-trade would be suicidal. If targeted tariffs were introduced and western nations produced their own wares for their own domestic markets, internal economies would soon find equilibrium price-levels. Economic self-sufficency is the key. Import what we cannot produce ourselves and supply our home market ourselves.


The current US debt vs. GNP ratio is the same as when the USA was founded.

The conservative movement was there before Reagan. What the conservative movement needed at that time was a champion. A likable person that share their core values. When the conservative found Reagan they made every effort to win the Presidency for him.

The core value is the same today as when Reagan came into power. It has not change. It has grown stronger in fact. With that said some of the things that Reagan did would not be acceptable for conservatives like granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

Reagan was a ideal leader just like Washington. Strong with stronger principles. He was willing to sacrifice everything for his ideology, for the conservatives movement.

No Republican have gotten the nomination without the support of the conservatives since Reagan.


Tony Makara,

Are our markets being flooded with Chinese goods or our markets being flooded with Chinese made American goods?

Our markets are being flooded with Chinese made American goods.

This is not Japan and Toyota. This is Walmart telling its Chinese suppliers to produce at rock bottom prices. This is Walmart importing Chinese made products en mass. This is Mattel, Nike and Adidas seeking the cheapest sweatshops to increase their margins.

Targeted tariffs would hurt Walmart, Mattel, Nike and Adidas. These companies control Washington. Politicians can make the right noises - but will they change anything, I doubt it.

The problem is, Western (and even Anglo-Saxon) economies are losing their competitive edge. Multinationals are not sentimental do-gooders, they want maximum return on their investment. Most multinationals would rather manufacture in even Germany or Spain than in Britain (not to talk about China).

We should cede production of low-cost goods to Asia and concentrate on the production of high technology products.(e.g Finland and Nokia, Ireland and Intel).

To do this, we need to skill up. Anglo-Saxon countries have a serious problem here. Traditionally, science and technology graduates are looked down on (this is acute in England). A BA in Medieval History from Oxford is held in higher regard than a PhD in Chemical Engineering from Birmingham. The result is that most of our young people shy away from science.

In my MSc class there were 0 British Students. The class was dominated by Chinese, Indians and then Pakistanis. My Postgraduate supervisor was a Mainland Chinese and most of the research students were Chinese. These students will be employed by Intel at Dalian (at half the cost of American Engineers).

Western economies are set on "medium" while Asian economies are set on "high-speed". It can't be business as usual. History shows that America thrives on economic competition but Britain's record is mixed.


Maduka you don't want more taxes yet you made it clear in a previous post you are against the conservative position that tax cuts are good for the economy. So what is it? Its either a philosophy based on increase or cut. This was part of your argument to turn against Reagan's policies for the present, don't presume Newt agrees with you on this. He does not. Here's a direct experience of my own: we were recently recipients of an estate, if the "death tax" implemented by Democrats was still in effect we would have lost over $40,000. That is money that has since been invested. Tax cuts, generally, have greater inducement for individuals and business to invest - meaning more jobs, productivity etc. This means less government funding toward unemployment and welfare benefits, and maybe because more are producing and, spending, more take-in with sales tax. And so it goes, now, even to the point the annual rate of debt has leveled off. Granted, credit and spending over one's budget has created problems.

It seems to me most experts agree with this philosophy unless you go over to the Left and that means the party of tax and welfare-state authoritarianism: big, big program-and-control Democrats. But you claim you're for smaller government control.

Now government cuts in programs is also part of conservative philosophy and Bush has failed. Government should cut spending but in spite of Bush's record, our economy has grown, to a point where national debt has to be defined in terms of how significant it really is to ever changing realities. It looks ominous, but it has, going back decades. Our economy has continued to grow and the debt's effects have been offset. Anyway this is an argument debated for a long time, you've tried to give the impression tax cuts as a legitimate stimulus for our nation's economic health is outdated and that's either an intentional manipulation on your part or just ignorance of current events. I have to say I'm inclined to believe the former, its hard to imagine anyone who reads and listens enough to be so ill informed. I am curious too... if you are in favor of a strong military, what programs do you propose to cut? I'm not at all against cuts but you've brought the subject up so I'd like to know what you would do.

Do you mean by strong family values the typical conservative definition which is usually implied? You have smeared with very ugly prejudice the Christian Right comparing them to Muslim jihadis, but they are at the core in advocating family values. Do you believe abortion should be made illegal? Do you believe the traditional definition of marriage going back millenia should remain: man and woman? Do you believe in school choice and home schooling as opposed to government-taxed and union-controlled public education? Do you believe in tax breaks for parents who send their children to private schools or home school?

Yes Newt does understand we have to move forward just as Reagan understood then. I don't see candidates for the Republican party stating the same emphasis on containment of communism. I don't see them hearkening back to policy/perception outdated as a symptom of Reagan idolatry. That doesn't mean I agree with all their positions either, but the fact that Reagan's name is brought up and many 20-somethings don't know him - big deal. As long as candidates explain why.

Easy accusation time. Warrantless wiretapping; explain in detail. I know what took place. Even the NY Times who broke the story against the advice of the Bush administration for national security reasons has since stated their 'concerns' were not validated. How many cases have the ACLU brought to court, do you know? Your statement is a typical left-wing mantra smear. Its like Cheney wanted us to go into Iraq for oil. Only because of old-time mass media anti-Bush/American headlines can you hope to get away with the simplicity of such an accusation.

McCain "bold enough". How about to many if not most conservatives, stupid enough. Waterboarding has already prevented mass death. It doesn't even compare with real torture, and techniques the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong employed. Not to mention those of Islamofascits. I look at it as the others are bold enough in spite of mass liberal media to claim it is a necessary method in getting VERY sick evil people intent on murdering as many innocents as possible, to talk.

As far as global competition and low wage earners on the other side of the world or even south of our boarder, how do you know my generation is not directly affected? Of course we are. I am although as a accountant at local level; hardly anyone can escape international forces. Don't presume a greater authority by claiming to speak for "your generation". You choose the work you chose, just like me. And you don't shop at Walmart? like the majority of those giving them their business who are your age, to have more, save more and build better lives? There's usually the other way of looking at things, in all fairness - how keen are you? I'm a conservative for the most part but not a purist ideologue. I agree with Tony's post on protectionism vs free trade and fair and proper balance. I suspect its not nearly so simple. I think you're rather conspiratorial and little-guy vs big-guy. There is truth with multinational corporations only concerned with the bottom line but don't forget, they are obligated to share holders. Its pie in the sky to suggest with any realism they should stop production of low-cost goods from Asia and primarily concentrate on high-tech with certain countries. If one company stops, another will take over. It is today's global competition and you can't moralize it away. Most Americans rely on lower cost goods to have their piece of the pie. You're an idealist and very presumptive. Like I said before there's the other side to this.

Well the war on drugs. Ah yeah, well. What are you doing about it? It may always be I mean we're talking about human nature. I was into the lifestyle for a long time. How do you prevent poverty? How do you prevent guys balling and leaving the mother and child because it ain't no fun? How do you instill honesty, loyalty, faithfulness, commitment? Those qualities are needed to even begin to make judgment. Usually those who lack them advocate pouring more tax money into government programs, and with a small return it seems to me.

Now, you have avoided the most obvious in defining yourself in this discussion. What party do you want to control our Senate and House? Who currently running for office for the presidency will you vote for?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker