In the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby promotes the candidacy of Sen. John McCain by running down the legacy of Ronald Reagan:
Conservatives bristle at the thought of a Republican president who might raise income and payroll taxes. Or enlarge the federal government instead of shrinking it. Or appoint Supreme Court justices who are anything but strict constructionists. Or grant a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Now, I don’t believe that a President McCain would do any of those things. But President Reagan did all of them. Reagan also provided arms to the Khomeini theocracy in Iran, presided over skyrocketing budget deficits, and ordered US troops to cut and run in the face of Islamist terror in the Middle East. McCain would be unlikely to commit any of those sins, either.
Cliff May thinks Jacoby has a point.  But Jacoby is not the first McCain apologist to make this argument; Victor Davis Hanson wrote a similar piece last month.
Mark R. Levin has already explained that this argument is flawed in both its premise and in its specifics:
Painting Reagan as a tax-and-spend Republican, who basically went along with Washington and appointed a bunch of moderates to the Supreme Court, in an apparent attempt to build up McCain’s conservative and leadership credentials and mollify his critics, has the opposite effect mostly because it is inaccurate. It reminds me of Bill Clinton’s supporters using Thomas Jefferson’s alleged adultery to explain the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Reagan challenged his party from the Right. He sought the Republican nomination in 1968 against Richard Nixon and lost. He sought the nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976 and lost. He fought the Republican establishment in 1980 as well, including Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and George H. W. Bush, and won. McCain has challenged his party from the Left. I don’t know how many more times I and others have to lay out his record to prove the point. To put a fine point on it, when he had to, Reagan sought compromise from a different set of beliefs and principles than McCain. It does a great disservice to historical accuracy and the current debate to continue to urge otherwise.
Levin then retraces the history of Reagan on taxes, the free market, political speech, judicial appointments, granting legal protection to terrorists and immigration to demonstrate how disingenuous the denigration of the Reagan record is, so RTWT.
As Levin’s piece does not address Reagan leaving Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing or Iran-Contra, it is worth noting theat the Reagan Administration scored its first victory against the Iranian theocracy on Reagan’s first day in office. And Reagan learned from the lessons of Beirut and Iran-Contra. In Reagan’s final years as president, terrorism was on the decline, due in no small part to the aggressive efforts of the Reagan Administration on all fronts, from international cooperation and intelligence sharing to the April 1986 American air strike on Libya, in retaliation for Tripoli’s role in the bombing of a Berlin discotheque.
However, I think Levin picked the wrong Jefferson analogy.  Hanson’s argument is this:
In short, Ronald Reagan has been beatified into some sort of saint, as if he were above the petty lapses and contradictions of today’s candidates. The result is that conservatives are losing sight of Reagan the man while placing unrealistic requirements of perfection on his would-be successors.
This is the modern version of the “Jefferson owned slaves” argument. All people fall short of the ideal. Politicians probably fall short more than most. That is not an argument against the validity of the ideals espoused by either Jefferson or Reagan. Nor is it an argument for ignoring the significant ways in which McCain’s ideals may differ from those of Reagan.
It is telling that people defending McCain think that one way to win over conservatives is to kick Reagan’s corpse. It parallels the way McCain has increasingly tended to treat conservatives for the last dozen years. And both involve a fair amount of distorting the record.
Update: BTW, if the Reagan record is so half-baked, why is McCain casting himself as Reagan’s heir and calling himself a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution? I happen to hold a high enough opinion of McCain to believe that he would recognize the Hanson-Jacoby gambit as counter-productive to his campaign.
Karl that’s nothing but McCain Derangement Syndrome you’re spouting there. Too bad you can have your magical unity pony. Look, Jackalope! Here, have some pie.
There, I think that pretty much sums up the responses to all the McCain criticisms. And quite frankly, I find that compendium of slightly altered left wing blog comment snark tropes to be a very convincing case in favor of electing McCain.
[…] Karl at Protein Wisdom is incensed that anyone would dare to put some lipstick on the pig also known as McCain by pointing out that Reagan was less than perfectly Reaganic. Downright Clintonian. This thing is starting to go in circles. Face it, there’s no one in the race without warts. […]
I don’t agree that it is bashing Reagan to point out that no conservative is perfect, even our beloved Reagan.
When will this McCain bashing stop? Will it continue when he is the nominee? Or will we begin to fight the real enemy of Hillary/Obama?
I can’t visit my favorite sites. I hear the same arguments over and over against McCain. Yeah, I get it. But it looks like Republicans are going to nominate him anyway, despite the rightwing blogosphere (except my site, where I have supported McCain for over a year)and rightwing radio.
Frankly, it’s time to climb aboard the McCain train or just go back to your life. It was a good effort to try and boost Romney, but the fat lady is about to sing. McCain is it. Be unhappy about it if you wish, but maybe when you think about the alternative, you might feel differently.
http://rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com/2008/02/conservatives-case-for-mccain.html
It’s not bashing Reagan to point out he’s not perfect. It is bashing to completely misrepresent the historical record about him to make McCain look better. But I guess jumping on the bandwagon is more important to some.
And I should add my theme of the day has sorta been that McCain’s supporters are generally making arguments that only further tick off they people whose support they are going to want if McCain is the nominee. Not that any of them will pay any attention.
First, you quote, at length, the nutty Mark Levin, which automatically places your assertions in question. But, to be more explicit, did Reagan raise taxes? Did he nominate moderates to the bench? Did he invade Grenada so everyone would forget 200 dead Marines (and sensibly cut and run)? Did spending increase exponentially?
Fact is, professional liar, Mark Levin knows he did and I know it too. This Jesus-ification of Reagan is strange and dizzying. Neither of these chumps is Reagan, but both are pragmatic in the same sense Reagan was when he needed to be.
Lastly, it’s good to the authoritarian Republican types, Rightwingsparkle, come back and demand everyone vote for Dole….errr, McCain. 1996 never seemed so close.
I’ve been pissed off about that since 1983, and I’ve never really gotten over it. That said, a post under the handle of “I’m Just saying” places all of those assertions in question, what with him being a professional dipshit and all…
IJS,
Rather than ad hominem, why don’t you point out where Levin is factually incorrect? Would actually reading his post be so shattering of your lefty cocoon?
Pablo,
Beirut was a wrong call, but as I noted, Reagan & Co. got their act together on terrorism afterward. For Hanson, Jacoby or IJS to flag one without the other is a bit disingenuous.
The Iran/Contra arms sales followed Beirut by quite a margin. And I was saddled up in 1983 only to be told to stand down the night before we were to deploy. I respect a lot of what Reagan did, but I also recognize some grievous errors that he made. I’ll not be worshiping in the Church of St. Ronald.
Pablo,
Agreed on all points. And I wouldn’t call myself a Reagan-worshipper either. I merely object to McCainiacs leaving out the parts of the Reagan record that don’t serve their interest at the moment. Because those articles will be on the Internet long past the nomination or election.
Nishi and RWS sound exactly alike. Up is down.
Reagan was happy. He was like a Partridge Family song. McCain is scary and mean and haughty. Yes. Haughty. Like one of those bitches that used to be on Dynasty, except a lot older. His wife sounds like a first-rate bitch too. No wonder everyone hates him really. What a douche.
McCain’s legendary nastiness would not bother me as much if I felt like he would brandish it against the country’s enemies which he no doubt would. The problem lies in the very much established fact that McCain appears to think conservatives are the enemy. How is that any different than either of the two Dem candidates? Does anyone really think bad old John, should he be the nominee, will be willing to take the gloves off against either of his Senate confreres once we are in the general election?
Yes, Reagan was happy. 242 dead Marines, unavenged, notwithstanding.
Ok who would be surly now?
Pablo,
McCain is on the record as accepting the consequences of withdrawing from Lebanon.
Incidentally, McCain’s opposition to sending the Marines there in the first place was one of his first Maverick media moments.
The big difference is, Reagan never campaigned on those issues, nor was there anything in his voting/governing history that would allude to him going that way.
McCain on the other hand, has been a proponent of all of those things, and has voted for them.
For “Maverick” read “Loose Cannon”…
Did he invade Grenada so everyone would forget 200 dead Marines (and sensibly cut and run)? Did spending increase exponentially?
IJS, I guess it didn’t have anything to do with stopping Sov (and client state Cuban) expansionism in the Carribean, did it…
And he only funded the Contras to distract everybody from Nancy’s disastrous relationship with various WH staffers…
Since they seem convinced the nomination is wrapped up already and everyone else (the 2/3 of the GOP so far who have not voted for him) just refuses to see it, imagine how surly the McCain supporters will be should Romney do well tomorrow…
Just what I needed: yet another reason to get up in the morning.
[…] a “happy warrior” instead of “Senator Hothead,” and a Jeff Jacoby column distorting Ronald Reagan’s record in support of McCain.  Now Dole trots out the same talking points […]
Sparkle, I love you and all, but pointing McCain’s serious problems on ISSUES is not bashing.
And McCain’s train is still at the terminal.
I’ll hold my nose and vote for him IF he is the nominee. But deary, in McCain’s BEST month he raised 7 million dollars… Obama raised 32 million.
The short, balding, cranky white guy is going to get rolled up wet and put away by the first black Kennedy.
Sparkle has been unapologetic in her McCain crush for a long time. I like RWS, but could not disagree with her more on this one.
Oh no Mr. McCain you cannot have Happyfeet’s moneys. Fred got somes but not for you cause we just don’t have that kind of relationship. This is largely because you are a douche but also you arouse me to great heights of apathy. Or actually I think it’s disgust to where I’d rather read the trades cover to cover and pay lots less attention to your douchey politics.
: Now, I don’t believe that a President McCain would do any of those things. But President Reagan did all of them. Reagan also provided arms to the Khomeini theocracy in Iran, presided over skyrocketing budget deficits, and ordered US troops to cut and run in the face of Islamist terror in the Middle East. McCain would be unlikely to commit any of those sins, either.
I think people have the reason to kick his corpse “RIP” to him.
I believed in Pres Reagan. i have lots of respect for him for I think he was able to somehow make American lives better during his time. McCain is no match for him.
It is Wednesday afternoon as I land at Narita airport, some 13. 5 hours of flight- time from my departure city of Dallas, yet an entire day later as I cross the International Date Line. This is my 46 th flight to Tokyo, but I approach it with a new sense of energy and wonder. The purpose of this Asia tour is to meet with our alumni, companies, other universities and friends to strengthen the bond uniting our university and graduate school to a dynamic and important group of people and institutions. …
The tool apparently makes new and existing payroll installations more stable, less expensive to operate, and easier to configure. It simplifies payroll configuration, speeds up error diagnostics, and improves efficiency of payroll maintenance and operations. The tool keeps track of configuration changes, eliminates transport conflicts that can potentially bring down production instances, pinpoints errors that are tricky and time consuming to fix, and speeds up verification of payroll runs to confirm changes…