Is the Reagan Revolution Over?

The widespread consensus in mainstream media circles is that the modern conservative era ushered in with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 has effectively come to an end. A combination of factors and issues has arisen since Bush's re-election in 2004, the logic goes, all discrediting long-standing conservative dogma. Much as I'd like to stick a fork in the "Reagan Revolution" once and for all, color me a skeptic.

I remember similar rhetoric ensuing regarding the swan song of the Religious Right back in 1996 and 1998, when evangelicals failed to generate the political bounty needed to take down Bill Clinton in '96 or even trigger voter backlash regarding Monicagate in '98. The Religious Right, we were told, was losing influence with each passing day. The next three elections, particularly the 2004 "moral values" election, debunked that thesis, and actually showed us that the evangelical conservative movement was growing stronger and numerically larger.

George Bush has soured independent voters (and many Republicans) on the GOP, but he won't be on the ballot ever again. Similarly, the increasing prevalence of traditionally conservative business groups coming out in favor of anti-global warming measures and universal health care initiatives also seems unlikely to have staying power. Favoring generic legislation to help curb global warming and to establish universal health care is fairly easy. Settling on a specific policy is another thing. Even with a President and the majority of Congress favoring a "comprehensive immigration reform" policy, the legislation still seems poised to flounder until its death this year (and in this case, thank goodness) due to a lack of consensus on the eventual compromise legislation. Certainly the same would be the case when business leaders, currently joining hands with SEIU Union President Andy Stern on the need for universal health care, see the eventual universal health care plan that comes up for a vote. Business basically wants to pass on its health care costs onto taxpayers without an appreciable increase in tax burden. That's their horse in this race....and it's almost certain that any actual universal health care plan that comes forward will "raise taxes on business more than what business leader expected when they first endorsed the plan".

Ditto for global warming. Business leaders asking the Bush administration to "do something about climate change" are merely making a pre-emptive strike so that any potential legislation that does emerge will hold them as harmless as possible. It does not mean that energy companies are suddenly cool with the prospect of a conservation-promoting carbon tax.

Ultimately, no action will be taken on either universal health care or climate change in the foreseeable future because, like immigration, there will never emerge a large enough consensus to deliver the legislation through both Houses and the President's desk.

That unravels the argument that "the Reagan Revolution is dead" based on the issues, but the conflicting messages coming from voters in public opinion polls adds to my doubt. Conventional wisdom suggests that Democrats have as close to a sure thing as possible in the 2008 Presidential contest, but every shred of circumstantial evidence I'm seeing suggests that the Republicans have the advantage in the 2008 Presidential contest. Aside from the fact that the Democratic frontrunner is the almost certainly unelectable Hillary Clinton, the remainder of the top-tier and second-tier Democratic candidates just don't seem capable of scoring that all-important "cultural connection" with independent voters the way that the Republican candidates do.

If I were to pick the five candidates in the 2008 field who I believe would be the strongest nominees for their respective parties, the list would read as follows in descending order of electability: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani. Not a single Democrat in the top-five. While most of these GOP nominees have problems with the party's base, it's the Democratic candidates who will have problems with the national electorate. There are so many problems with a Hillary candidacy that I won't even bother starting the list; but Obama's inexperience (and let's be honest, his race) will ultimately lose him would-be voters; Edwards' pretty-boy image and, more specifically, his $400 haircut, strike me as comparable to the "Dean scream" in terms of viable electability; Biden couldn't get himself any coverage unless he lit himself on fire; and Richardson is losing credibility after a litany of unimpressive debate and talk show performances.

And even though I usually don't put much stock in these early polls, head-to-head candidate faceoffs indicate that despite a 13-point "generic advantage" for Democrats going into the 2008 Presidential election, individual Republican challengers are besting all of the top tier of Democrats running. As specific evidence of how much a candidate's "personal connection" with voters plays (and how little actual issues play), independent voters most inclined to oppose the war in Iraq are also most inclined to favor John McCain, primary cheerleader for a war that virtually nobody else is publicly defending, for President.

Another overarching theme of these Republicans running for President (and dispatching Democratic rivals) is that they all dole out an unending stream of Messiah-like adulation for Ronald Reagan at every possible opportunity. And this is the man whose "era" in American politics is allegedly over?