Once more into the breach. (My last Reagan/Obama post)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Assuming that Senator Obama was referring only to Reagan's political ability to build a winning coalition, then Obama is not endorsing the malignancy that was Reagan. If that is the case, however, then Senator Obama is utterly clueless about American political history.

The thing is, "Reagan coalition" is an oxymoron. A coalition has more than one group in it. The pre-Reagan Democratic party was an actual coalition, made up of whites. blacks and other folks. Reagan broke a lot of white Democrats out of the Democratic party by ginning up resentment toward blacks... convincing some white Democrats that their interests were more aligned with race than party, and that he stood for white people. (This was the standard Republican lie we all know and love. In actuality, Reagan stood for rich people, and used working class whites like political draft horses.)

It is IMPOSSIBLE to employ Reagan's political methods to accomplish any good end because Reagan's only political method was division. He destroyed bonds between disparate groups and never unified anything, except in the bluntest mathematical sense.

Here is how you unify all Americans: Draw a line through the country and tell everyone to pick a side. Then see which side is larger, and announce that the people on the minority side are not "real Americans." You have now unified all "Americans."

It's a simple matter to demonstrate that Reagan's majority was not unified by hope or optimism. Black people like hope and optimism, yet they were nowhere to be found in the coalition. Were black people just a bunch of Debbie Downers, or was the Reagan "coalition" a racially homogeneous mass unified by nurtured paranoia toward and resentment of everyone outside the coalition?

During the Reagan era anglo whites were a HUGE majority, so it was possible to craft a large majority simply by scape-goating black people. By 1980 white America was pretty burned out on generosity of spirit toward the formerly excluded and, in terrible economic times, ready for a scapegoat to explain their failings and frustrations. Economic anxiety is the great driver of racism--as with Mexicans today--and the environment was right for white Americans to lapse into self-pity, thinking, "haven't we done enough for those people. How about me?"

The Reagan coalition was no more impressive, nor deserving of emulation, than the gerrymandered perpetual white majorities in 60-40 white/black southern states that were the rough draft of Reagan's national strategy.

Using wedge issues to unify an ethnic majority against ethnic minorities is not novel, clever, smart, or hopeful. And it has no implications for governing a pluralistic 21st century nation. So Senator Obama is just off base.

(I have a theory as to how an intelligent man like Barack could form such a weird, distorted useless idea of the Reagan era. Barack is a charming man, and he knows it. He knows it like Brad Pitt knows he's good looking. So it is in his interest to over-estimate the power of charm. Reagan was the most successful politician of Barack's lifetime, and it was said Reagan accomplished miracles through charm. He didn't, but if I were preternaturally charming, maybe I'd want to believe that Reagan worked miracles through charm, rather than fomenting nightmares through ugly division.)

[Unsane]

1. Solid post. Who do you support, btw?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Gore. Biden. Hillary by default. I would have no trouble whatsoever voting for Obama

if he is the nominee

[Unsane]

4. Thanks

Your posts are honest, and you're not one of those who wants to take their ball and go home if "their guy" doesn't get in. I support Obama btw.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. He's talented and doubtless a really good guy. I have problems with him, but nothing grave.

[thunder rising]

3. Get a clue

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. A rare insight. Thank you.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. .

[theredpen]

5. I was old enough to vote against Reagan and I think you're oversimplying this

Reagan had the Moral Majority behind him, but also the Teamsters. That right there was a coalition that the Democrats didn't have until 1996. It doesn't matter how little the real Reagan actually resembled the mythical Reagan, people voted for the mythical Reagan.

We're all bitter about it, but that's the way it was.

On Edit: Full disclosure, I support Edwards and will happily vote for Clinton or Obama (or Kucinich!) if they are the nominee.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. In 1972 Nixon had the bible belters and the teamsters also.

The Reagan coalition was the same as Nixon's 1972 majority.

The teamsters are an historically atypical union... perhaps they sided with Republicans because they had been persecuted by Bobby Kennedy.

The fact that white union members voted for the most ruthlessly anti-labor President since Hoover is a potent clue that the appeal was racial in character, rather than an expression of any coalition building. Reagan did nothing to gain labor support, and I guarantee you few black union members voted for him.

Reagan was not elected in 1980 because people supported anything about him. He won the general election almost by default.

But he won the Republican nomination through shear racism and bible-belt reaction... real Confederate Flag stuff and Curtis Le May style irresponsible blather. (Versus a perfectly normal moderate in GHW Bush.)

By 1984 the economy was a lot better, and people were pretty jazzed with putting intellectuals and blacks in their place, so that was an easy election.

[theredpen]

11. Good points...

I was in the Northeast (as I mentioned) and witnessed many "Reagan Democrats." Your analysis of Reagan's appeal in the South rings sadly true, but in Massachusetts, it was his bullshit "Morning in America" and "win one for the Gypper" upbeat spin that seemed to have them entranced.

Maybe I'm just projecting my personal experience farther than warranted.

[robbedvoter]

7. What's the difference between Reagan and Bush"? (Bush also has the teamsters, BTW)

other than acting skills that is Jimmy Hoffa Jr surely played in that :coalition". They both sound like "Coalitions of the willing to me"

,

[jackson_dem]

12. Obama endorsed some of what Reagan did

From his book:

Pages 156-157

"The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie--contained a good deal of truth."

He makes the argument the DLC made about the size, role of government. When people talk of expanding the pie rather than slicing it they are using smokescreens for talking about cutting back on social programs.