News flash: Obama is not Reagan

It’s been a week since President Obama’s “State of the Union” speech. Within minutes of the speech’s conclusion, enthusiastic supporters of the president (disguised as mainstream “journalists”) were quick to compare him to President Reagan.

Nicknamed “the great communicator,” Reagan used to give amazing speeches. Former actor, he had great charisma and the cameras adored him. Of course, those behind the scenes, the mainstream media, didn’t love him. Having already largely sold their journalistic values ​​of objectivity and truth in favor of liberal ideology, the media of the 1970s and 1980s took no interest in Reagan, champion of a new conservative movement whose benefits are still enjoyed in the United States. United today. .

So Reagan was largely painted as a “good natured jerk”, loved by the masses for his ability to charm them, but lacking in “substance.” He was too old. He did not understand social programs or the need for government regulation and control. He did not have a degree in public administration, he did not “get” the intellectual appeal of collectivism and statism, and he had not won a ticket to the cocktail party on the federal ring road. In reality, he wanted to shrink the government, not expand it, as all the other presidents of modern times had tried to do. It was a cowboy with his finger on the “throw” button. Sure, he had ruled California briefly, with the same odd approach to the public executive office … but does that “experience” really count?

How was this buffoon chosen (for a landslide), much less re-elected (for a major landslide)?

In fact, the idea of ​​”substance” of the sold media was very different from that of the new conservatives. Putting aside his legacy of foreign policy triumphs that ended the Cold War (and the Soviet Union) without firing a shot, and focusing only on his economic policy victories, President Reagan brought a lot of fresh and new “substance.” to Washington. He convinced a Congress dominated by his political rivals to execute the largest tax cut in American history, primarily taking his case directly to the American people (who loved Reagan far more than journalists). Those tax cuts led to the longest and largest era of prosperity that any of us have ever known, and turned an America upside down in the grim economic disaster left by the Carter administration. Are you old enough to remember the iconic Carter-era terms: “misery index” … “stagflation” … “oil crisis” …? If so, remember that it took a lot of effort – and a lot of different “substance” – on the part of Reagan and the Conservatives to turn the tables.

So it’s ironic, especially for those of us old enough to remember all of that, that today’s media wants to paint President Obama with the same brush. Give brilliant speeches … like Reagan! Enchant and inspire people … just like Reagan! He sounds super smart when he says anything (unless he can’t see his teleprompter, but let’s ignore that for now) … very different from his predecessor, silly George W. Bush, and much more like … Reagan!

I have said several times that the biggest problem conservatives face today is that the enlightened GOP (the conservatives’ only option) are normal people, not “great communicators.” From former President Bush to the wildly popular (and demonized by the media) Sarah Palin, conservative leaders tend to speak like normal people and not like people trained to deliver speeches. I’ve said before that President Bush used to sound stupid when he said smart things, and that President Obama sounds smart when he says stupid things. And last week’s speech was a perfect example.

As for the observation that they both have (or had) the ability to make great speeches, I will concede that Presidents Reagan and Obama are similar. But the similarities end there. In terms of actual substance, Barack Obama is definitely not Ronald Reagan.

Obama outlined “investments” (the new keyword for “spending”) and a partial spending freeze, and announced that these measures would reduce the national deficit by $ 400 billion over ten years. Wow, that sounds like a lot, but thanks to Obama and the Liberals, our deficit is in the trillions (with a “T”). If he cut taxes by 25%, as Reagan did, the economy would roar back, as it did with Reagan. Nonpartisan federal accountants have documented that a one percent increase in GDP growth would actually reduce the deficit by $ 2.9 trillion in ten years. But Obama really doesn’t want to cut the deficit. Your socialist colleagues, like Professors Cloward and Piven (look them up), have long sought to “collapse the system” under the weight of public spending, paving the way for a conversion of our free-market republic to collectivist statism. No, President Obama would rather “freeze” federal spending, by far the highest level in history.

A look at the content (the “substance”) of any of his speeches would reveal that style is the only thing these two presidents have had in common. Reagan believed in personal responsibility; Obama promotes dependence on the government. Obama believes that the government is the solution to all our problems. Reagan, in his first inaugural address, made it clear that government is not the answer to our problems, but that “government IS the problem.”

You need wealth in a free society to have a real investment, which you need to create real jobs. Obama believes that “the rich” have had a free trip, and seeks to do everything possible to hit them at tax time; but that’s okay, he says, because the government is going to invest in “green jobs” for everyone! Reagan, by contrast, told the nation in one of his broadcasts Saturday morning that the government doesn’t create wealth, it destroys it. Reagan also told us that the government doesn’t solve problems, it subsidizes them … and indeed, Obama seeks subsidies for all kinds of problems, from unemployment (let’s give him government benefits for a staggering 99 weeks, so that he really forget how to work ) to failed companies (let’s bail out the banks and auto companies, so union bosses can get rich while certain executives, many of them big Democratic donors, free themselves of any performance responsibility).

Reagan slashed regulations, inspiring the private sector to take over “businesses” previously controlled by the government; Obama is snatching all the territory he can from the private sector, as fast as he can, from cars to banks to the entire national healthcare system.

What about foreign policy? Reagan: “peace through force”. Obama: The only area where we can really afford to cut spending is defense. Obama thinks we don’t need to be strong, we just need to please our enemies. Take a look at Europe, Asia, or the Middle East (Egypt, for example) to see how well it’s working. I even wonder if our biggest rival, China, sent President Hu Jintao to Washington to help President Obama put the finishing touches on his teleprompter for last week’s speech, or even write the speech himself.

No, President Obama is not Ronald Reagan. In terms of substance, it’s the exact opposite (Reagan had a few). In just two years, look at how far President Obama and his colleagues in Congress, the media, the entertainment industry, and academia have pushed us to the brink of socialism.

A great fall is coming. Now is the time to crash-proof yourself. Earn and save extra money. Learn how to invest your wealth in a way that protects you. Start a business in parallel, so you have something to fall back on when your conventional job wears off. And stay healthy, you will need your strength.

It took an ultra-liberal Jimmy Carter to make way for a Ronald Reagan, just when the nation (and the world) needed him most. President Obama makes Carter look like Barry Goldwater. Who will rise up, after Obama’s setback, to provide the inspiring leadership we will need to overcome the next crisis? It may be that no one leader can save us all from what lies ahead today on our horizon. So each of us, in his own life, in his own sphere, must take personal responsibility to be that inspiring leader. Work on yourself. Become a better person. The best people, not the media or academically baptized elite people, will survive and prosper in the post-crash era.

by Michael D. Hume, MS