Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Wednesday, January 17, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Obama Is Not Reagan By: Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard | Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Barack Obama made quite a splash with his comment last week likening himself to Ronald Reagan. Who'd have guessed such a thought had crossed his mind? "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way Richard Nixon did not and a way that Bill Clinton did not," Obama said. Then he suggested he leads an optimistic, dynamic political movement just as Reagan did.

Obama was right about Reagan as a leader who changed America but wrong about the way in which he's like the former president. He flatters himself to think he heads a movement. In truth, he's an extraordinarily self-disciplined insurgent candidate who's like Reagan in personality.

Okay, he lacks Reagan's sense of humor. But here's how the Las Vegas Sun described Obama during an interview last week: "Looking poised and relatively fresh given the grueling schedule of a presidential campaign, [he] spoke in his customary manner--cool, measured, deliberate." Obama was unruffled by anything the paper threw at him. Reagan was always unruffled.

Insurgent candidates are often combative and inclined to exaggerate wildly. They're hot rather than cool. Think John Edwards or Howard Dean or Jesse Jackson. But that wasn't Reagan's style and it's not Obama's. Whenever Obama has been criticized in televised debates, he's reacted calmly. I half-expect him to tell Hillary Clinton, "There you go again."

The key to being calm and composed is self-discipline. Reagan had plenty of it and so does Obama. Their likability comes into play here, too. You can't fake likability but you can will it. But it takes the self-discipline of a Reagan or Obama.

The Reagan-Obama analogy is but one of the notable features of the 2008 presidential race. Here are some others:

* The prissiness of the press. When the press uses the word "attack"--as it does regularly--you might think a mugging or some other act of violence had taken place. Nope. All it means is that one presidential candidate has criticized another, usually by favorably contrasting his or her record with that of an opponent. If this is done in a speech, the candidate is "going negative." A TV ad that criticizes or contrasts is an "attack ad."

The media effort to sanitize presidential campaigns has an adverse effect on candidates and on meaningful discussion of issues. Candidates pay a price for airing perfectly honest ads that inform voters about an opponent's record. So there are fewer of them. Televised debates turn into uninformative lovefests with only fleeting moments of serious disagreement.

As you may have guessed, the press has a vested interest in campaigns in which candidates only tout themselves and never zing their rivals. That leaves a bigger role for journalists to pick apart the record and rhetoric of each candidate. And win prizes.

* The overrated impact of TV debates. Many journalists figured Mitt Romney would win the New Hampshire primary after he dominated a debate two nights before. I did. But it turned out to have no effect. Nor did John Edwards's strong performance in the final Iowa debate help him in the caucuses. The only beneficiary of the unprecedented number of televised debates has been Mike Huckabee, whose humor in what has seemed like an endless series of debates made him a viable candidate for the Republican nomination.

* The sameness of the Democratic candidates. Obama may be different from Clinton and Edwards in style and personality, but the three are ideological peas in a pod. They basically agree on health care (more government involvement), taxes (higher), immigration (amnesty in one form or another), and Iraq (get out as fast as possible, regardless of the state of play in the war).

This has left very little of significance to discuss. So each has picked a vague topic to emphasize. Obama will bring us together, Clinton is a change agent, and Edwards will drive the unholy lobbyists out of the temples of government in Washington. Now race has slipped in the back door of the campaign to become an issue.

* The absence of momentum. The idea of momentum is that you generate support in subsequent primaries when you win one. Not this year. Fox News anchor Brit Hume now refers to "no-mentum." Obama won Iowa, then lost New Hampshire. John McCain won New Hampshire, then lost Michigan. And so on.

* The insecurity of Mitt Romney. The man is a smart, tough-minded corporate turnaround artist who would bring skill in fixing things and decision-making to the White House. That's who he is. But he's been afraid to center his campaign on that. Instead, he was chiefly a social conservative in Iowa, a change agent in New Hampshire, and an economic revivalist in Michigan. Now he's the anti-Washington candidate. This is not the way to win the presidency.

* The contrariness of John McCain. It's been widely noted that McCain goes out of his way to offend conservatives, despite the political cost to his presidential aspirations. What hasn't been noted is the struggle inside the McCain campaign over whether he should try the opposite tack.

Some McCain advisers--the smarter ones--believe he should stress the conservative goals he'd like to achieve as president, tone down his contrariness, and appeal directly to conservative voters. McCain, however, is more comfortable with concentrating on national security, his experience as a POW and war hero, and patriotism.

Change does not come easy to McCain. But when it does, when he lightens up and stops poking conservatives in the eye, it will be noticed. And the result will be that conservatives warming to McCain won't be driven away by a statement by the candidate that alienates them once again.

Or maybe not. The defining feature of the 2008 primaries is that they have defeated every pundit who tried to see more than 24 hours into the future.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com