There are some conservatives who believe that Donald Trump is taking conservatism in the wrong direction. They would like to get back to the model of conservatism for which Ronald Reagan stood. Is conservatism shaped differently by the realities of 2020, or should we as conservatives be embracing something similar to Reagan’s 1980 platform?
Adam L. Fuller: Hello, Brad. There are some conservatives who believe that Donald Trump is taking conservatism in the wrong direction. They would like to get back to the model of conservatism that Ronald Reagan stood for. A good example of such a person is Marcus Witcher in his recent article in The Washington Post. He argued that conservatism is properly and universally “a belief in the rule of law, free trade, civil society, decentralization and working though international organizations abroad.”
Brad, do you agree with Professor Witcher, or do you think as I do that conservatism is shaped differently by the realities of 2020, or do you think we as conservatives should be embracing something more similar to Reagan’s 1980 platform?
Bradley J. Birzer: Hello again, Adam. It’s great to be talking with you. I think I read Professor Witcher (whom I admire very much) in a more “meta” way. That is, as much as policy is involved, there’s also something critical about character that matters here. When Ronald Reagan spoke, he spoke eloquently and with conviction. As the “great communicator,” especially, he always brought his opponents—whether Tip O’Neill or the Soviet premier—into the conversation. He treated every opponent as a person with some dignity. Mr. Trump, however (and again, without necessarily referring to his policies), seems to revel in divisiveness. And, frankly, many of Mr. Trump’s more extreme critics are disgusting people, in terms of character, intent, and policy. I’m sure that more people like Mr. Trump because of his enemies than they actually like Mr. Trump.
Yet, policy matters as well. Reagan, at least in his rhetoric, always carefully balanced his desire for minimal government at home with his desire for an end of communism (maximum government!) abroad. Reagan openly called himself both a libertarian and an anti-communist. In the late 1960s, in his excellent book, The Creative Society, he tried to meld these positions into something coherent. Recognizing fundamental human and natural rights, Reagan argued that society worked best when the individual genius was unleashed, ready to promote excellence within the common good. Communism, he noted correctly, dampened genius and the human spirit, and thus was extraordinarily unnatural. In a sense, then, Reagan wanted to unleash the human potential here and abroad.
While Mr. Trump has done a number of good things as president—especially in his judicial appointments, his pro-life stance, and his deregulation of certain industries—he has failed to build a coherent community based on hope. Reagan told us it’s always morning in America. While this might be cynically seen as sentimental goop, it did rally people at home and abroad to fight for their dignity and their rights. Mr. Trump, rather, spends so much of his public time denigrating his opponents and bragging about his successes.
I’m also reminded of Reagan’s May 17, 1981 speech at the University of Notre Dame, in which he stated the three most important words for a conservative (for the West) were compassion, endurance, and sacrifice. This is the America, I prefer.
And how about you? Do you think I’m being too utopian and nostalgic regarding Reagan and too pessimistic regarding Mr. Trump? Do you think that Professor Witcher makes a coherent argument, one way or the other?
AF: Respectfully, Brad, I do think you’re being too nostalgic regarding Reagan. There are two particular reasons I have for saying this. And while I do think Professor Witcher’s argument is coherent, it is anachronistic to see Reaganism as a suitable model for us today.
But to first address the problem with the nostalgia for Reagan, I don’t think he was nearly as optimistic about America’s path forward as you’re saying. His “Time for Choosing” speech at the 1964 RNC had a tone and message of dire worry for America’s future. His acceptance speech at the 1980 RNC was equally dire. He said that America was boiling in “economic stew.” And while he certainly believed in universal human dignity, Reagan had no regard for the likes of Tip O’Neill or communists abroad. He certainly did not see the Democrats as partners in the rebuilding of America, but as nefarious enemies to be defeated. When Sam Donaldson asked him if he accepts any blame for the recession, Reagan famously answered, “Yes, because for many years I was a Democrat.”
It is true, of course, that despite all of America’s challenges and the progressive ruling elite driving our country into a chasm, Reagan did assert hope and possibility for America’s future if only we do things differently. But I would argue that Mr. Trump does this too. Hope and possibility are indeed implicit in his slogan, “Make America Great Again.” I think it’s clear that, like Reagan, Mr. Trump still has enormous faith in the American people.
The second reason I think the nostalgia is misplaced is that 1980 is not 2020. With the rise of identity politics and the stronghold the Left has on almost every institution that matters in this country including the corporate sector, the U.S. is afflicted with even greater dangers than Reagan dealt with in his era. And this brings me to the main problem I have with Professor Witcher. While “the rule of law, free trade, civil society, decentralization and working though international organizations abroad” are things that in normal times should be embraced by conservatives, almost all of them are working against all the things that conservatives hold sacred, namely American sovereignty, protection of American interests, family values, law and order, and a rejection of statism.
BB: Adam, excellent response.
Let me, for a moment though, speak in mythic terms. If we look at the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980, America was a disaster. The Soviets or their proxies had expanded into Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Cambodia, etc. Our policy in Vietnam ended not just in loss, but in monumental inhumanity. Containment, as a policy, was not just failed, but actually quite miserable.
Domestically, we had scandals galore, not least of which was Watergate. Economically, we had high unemployment rates and high inflation.
Yet, throughout all of this, ordinary Americans persevered in their faith that America meant something exceptional. I remember very well the summer of 1976. In my little hometown of Hutchinson, Kansas, we kids painted all the fire hydrants in town as our favorite American Revolutionaries, neighbors read out loud copies of the Declaration of Independence, and we celebrated the bicentennial with absolute gusto. That year, Reagan came so close to getting the Republican presidential nomination. Yet, when he lost, he did so with dignity.
Four years later, Reagan—representing all that was grand in the American experiment—came to power. His hope—his optimism—became American hope and American optimism. After two years of brutal struggle, he got the economy back on track, and, even more importantly, he—along with some very important allies—defeated the Soviet empire.
If you and I had been around to speak our minds in 1967, 1977, or early 1980, we might very well have thought that America had run its course. The Reagan years, 1981-1989, not only proved otherwise, but they proved that America had the ability to dare to be excellent. Our economy, our foreign policy, our very soul became right again.
Then, of course, we blew it. Becoming the only superpower, we prided ourselves too much on our empire and thought we could remake the world in our own image. Growing economically, we forgot the source of that growth and became titillated by our own wealth. Then, 2008.
In other words, Reagan embodied the American spirit and gave us hope.
AF: Thank you for your thoughtful insight, Brad.
There is absolutely no disagreement between us that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents and quite clearly the best that we as conservatives have ever had, or probably ever will have. And if I might even give a rare nod to his acting career, I have to confess that I enjoy Bedtime for Bonzo. But his absolutely best serious movie was Storm Warning, in which he plays an FBI agent battling white supremacists. Whereas I don’t know why anyone in his right mind would waste time watching The Apprentice. Even as a showman, Reagan did vastly superior work.
But turning back to politics, I admire that he put his country above all else. He embodied all that was great about America. His hope and optimism shined through. And most of all, he was the best public spokesman for conservatism that we have ever had in America.
My point, however, is that we are comparing apples and oranges. These are frightening times. The Left is routinely pitting people against each other, with their Critical Race Theory, their “Defund the Police” movement, the chaos in the streets that their own leaders won’t even criticize, the rising number broken families and a chronic dependence on government, and their blather about “privilege” and “toxic masculinity.” Almost all institutions—even much of the corporate and religious sectors—are under the spell of the Left’s powerful and enticing narratives that are destroying our country. Do you really think that if we had Reagan here today, even he would be capable of uniting us? These problems are not comparable to the political scandals of the 1970s or the threat of communism. Both of those helped our country unite.
And even if he could unite us, he isn’t here. As William Rusher once said, “Reagans don’t grow on trees.” The choice is not Mr. Trump or Reagan resurrected. Rather, the choice is between milquetoast accommodationists who refuse to stray outside the guardrails that the Left sets, or a man who despite having a very flawed character at least understands what is at stake. He responds to the voice of quiet desperation that millions of Americans have been feeling for a long time. You and I both live in the Rust Belt—you, Michigan and me, Ohio—so we both see the hope Mr. Trump is bringing to so many Americans who are tired of our country being ruled by the Left and the Republicans who accommodate them.
To conclude, I want to thank you for a spirited discussion.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is a combination of Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. Both images are in the public domain and appear here courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Excellent discussion to you both. Good points on both sides but I tend to agree with Adam that these are different times and Trump seems to be the only one who is strong enough to overthrow the Elites. I knew the Media was biased but Trump has shown how every paper and media outlet of the MSM (save Fox at times) is in the tank for the Democratic Party, how the MSM and the Demoncrats despise Trump and would do anything to overthrow him and a Constitutional Government. It’s all coming out now.
You’ve raised some very important points. One in particular worth expanding on is that whenever we hear the name “Reagan” and a grudging admittance of his success in bringing optimism and prosperity to the country we always–always!–hear the name “Tip O’Neill” not long afterward. But when we hear about Clinton bringing prosperity (sans optimism and morality) we never ever hear the name “Newt Gingrich”. Ever. That speaks volumes.
Secondly, Adam touched slightly on something else important: The values Mr. Witcher enumerated in his article are not de facto de humanizing but they are materialistic and tend to be thought of by people as having no–and implemented by those who champion them–with no concern for individuals.
The real difference between 1980 and 2020 is this: everybody used to care about individual human beings. Liberals (cf. Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, 1619 Project, et. al.) now view humanity as a mass reducible only the groups with which they identify. Conservatives who aren’t liberterian still think of individual human beings. (Think “I love mankind but hate people” vs. “Mankind is fallen but we still love each person”). That is the battle we’re now in and it’s far more elemental than big vs. small government: it’s mankind vs. man.
To understand this on any other terms is to “fall beneath the level of events”, to quote Churchill.
Bravo, Mr. Fuller.
I started college in 1982, 2 years after I graduated from HS. It was exiting. My college, Macalester College in St. Paul (“the Harvard of the midwest”), had awesome professors and was open to liberal and conservative views. But even then the long march through the institutions had begun. Macalester today is a dying stew of toxic globalism and indoctrination that turns out “graduates” who cannot reason or deal with any opposition and are larded with student debt. The “media” are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party. Not the one I grew up with. It has spent from 1980 to today turning any institution we relied on schools, churches, courts and voluntary associations into cesspools of immorality.
The “conservative” elites have spent their time enriching themselves and their donors at the expense of the middle class and blue color workers. They have destroyed our vocational education, manufacturing, banking and allowed wholesale theft of all this and our intellectual property to China for their own enrichment. If Reagan were alive today he would BE Donald Trump in every way except Twitter
. I voted for him twice and he was first and foremost a champion of Americans. I remember him imposing economic tariffs against the Japanese for unfair trade practices. He pioneered the practice of making them build cars here in the US. He did not expend the lives of our soldiers in untenable forever wars–he brought them home after the bombing in Lebanon. He built up the military credibly enough that he got the Russians to treaty talks and walked away when he could not enforce verification protocols. He always said he didn’t leave the democrat party, it left him.
Voters today support Donald Trump because he fights for us as Reagan did. The conservative elites have frittered any support they had by allowing the culture war to be lost and and all their whining about the “vulgarity” of President Trump hides their obvious teeth grinding at being left out of sinecure power positions. They have so fetishized style over substance that they cannot see what hollow men they’ve become. Voters know and will hang on to Trump and his fighting spirit. He is the Reagan needed for today.
BRAVO! Ms. Stafford. I echo every word.
I think there needs to be a more concrete discussion about specific policies rather than comparing simply comparing different ideological stances.
The US has virtually no high speed rail systems. Countries in Asia are moving to maglev rail systems and nuclear power which will qualitatively transform the ability of these nations to develop and create a high skilled labor force.
Even the discussion of job creation is not good enough. What kind of jobs? High technology jobs, jobs in speculation? Whether it is left or right, the speculative activities of Wall Street and Americans’ footing the bill for bailouts has been popular on both sides of the aisle. A discussion of more or less regulation does not address that. The question is “what kind of regulation.”
What is your stance on nuclear power, fusion development for the United States?
Do you envision the major population centres in the US being developing maglev rail systems and new advanced infrastructure?
The US has a 40 year infrastructure deficit. The collapse of infrastructure is also not a linear process. As things decay and start to break down, the collapse of industry and society accelerates.
What is your stance on banking re-organization? Should the US go back to a Glass-Steagall standard of banking where commercial banks are separated from speculative activity such that tax payers do not have foot the bill for more quantitative easing and so that credit can be directed to productive industries? Do we treat speculation on Wall Street the same way we treat investment in nuclear power, public transport, farming, education? Is money invested in gambling the same as money invested in farming. An income statement or balance sheet do not make a distinction in those numbers. GDP goes up regardless of whether the growth is in productive high skill industries or simply speculation and gambling?
I can’t help but feel that a nuanced approach is necessary to solve the current economic crisis.
The federal reserve was already in a panicked flight forward with new bailouts and emergency repo loans before the corona crisis. Arguably, the largest speculative bubble has yet to burst. This is seldom discussed even though Federal Reserve actions and other activity by related central banks point to the fact that such a crisis does exist.
I think a real policy discussion has to be premised on the idea that the real American system is not based on a right vs. Left, liberal vs. Conservative system of thought. Lincoln launched the transcontinental railway system while Roosevelt put in place Glass-Steagall and ended Wall Streets reign over the physical economy. Will be go back to these kinds of orientations which transcend left/right debates.
I believe that as long as discussions are simply framed according to left/right policy stances, there will always be a higher perspective lacking.
Addressing questions like Glass-Steagall, Nuclear Energy and Fusion development, maglev technology, Industrializing the moon, humanity’s role in space, these issues define a future orientated outlook. What policies will allow the United States to development the needed industries, technologies and credit systems to make such a recovery possible?
Shouldn’t these kind of concrete questions shape the debate rather than “should we be more like Reagan or more like Trump? Or at least, should we not have a more nuanced approach?
Three quick things: First, unlike Trump, Reagan was not mean-spirited, vindictive, and/or petty. Second, his “Morning in America” approach to patriotism promoted the kind of national pride that could even move the hearts of many people who strongly disagreed with his particular public policies. And third, maybe Reagans don’t “grow on trees,” but many better-than-Trump Republicans have and continue to do so.
That was an outstanding discussion, gentlemen. You both had excellent points and in the end find that I agree more with Adam’s final points. I was around for the 80’s and it was Communism and the Soviets creating a common enemy. Today is more of an internal struggle with the opponent being far more radicalized (antifa). AND I find myself truly believing in the ‘swamp’ which I dont believe Reagan had to face. I would love to see a discussion on that topic sometime.