Before the GOP became the Party of Reagan, it was the Party of Lincoln. But you wouldn\u2019t expect a Republican politician to spend a lot of time promising to free the slaves or preserve the Union. Trying to see today\u2019s economic problems through Reagan-colored glasses isn\u2019t impossible \u2014 we\u2019re still over-regulated by a too-large government \u2014 but it can be distorting.<\/p>\n
Similarly, casting the war on terrorism as a replay of the long battle against communism (which Reagan won) can be done, but it requires bending reality to theory. Marxism was a relatively brief and modern imposition on ancient cultures. Islam is an ancient religion, and radical Islam is an effort to fight off the imposition of modernity. Different threats and different contexts require different thinking.<\/p>\n
All of these criticisms still stand. What\u2019s different these days is the desperate effort to insist that Donald Trump is a new Reagan \u2014 not by Trump himself, but by a kind of conservative priesthood eager to prove by analogy what it can\u2019t prove with facts or logic.<\/p>\n
Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and Rudy Giuliani are just a few of the prominent conservatives miraculously finding Reaganism in the outbursts of a loutish and crude real-estate developer the way the high lamas of Buddhism try to identify a new dalai lama based on a baby\u2019s gurgling.<\/p>\n
Most of their arguments are shockingly spurious given the intellects involved. Among the most common: \u201cThey said Reagan couldn\u2019t win, too.\u201d Logically, this has nothing to do with Trump\u2019s alleged resemblance to Reagan (or Trump\u2019s general-election chances). \u201cThey\u201d \u2014 whoever they are \u2014 also claimed Kermit the Frog couldn\u2019t win 270 electoral votes. That doesn\u2019t mean they were wrong, or that Kermit is an amphibious Reaganite.<\/p>\n
Indeed, all of the \u201cThey said X about Reagan, too\u201d arguments are preposterous, but one stands out: \u201cThey said Reagan was a dunce, too.\u201d<\/p>\n
Of course, \u201cthey\u201d were wrong about Reagan. But the \u201cthey\u201d in 1980 were overwhelmingly liberal. Trump\u2019s most important critics are overwhelmingly conservative. The claim that conservatives in 2016 are wrong about Trump because liberals 36 years ago were wrong about Reagan is a hard one to diagram on a grease board. And getting to the conclusion that these combined errors mean Trump is Reagan-like is the logical equivalent of crossing a canyon in three leaps.<\/p>\n
In terms of personal character and ideological seriousness, Trump and Reagan could not be more different. Reagan was one of the most dignified politicians of the 20th century, one who turned his cheek to vicious attacks, refused to use profanity, and rarely showed an angry side. Meanwhile, Trump\u2019s crude and vengeful streaks virtually define the man.<\/p>\n
Reagan\u2019s ideological principles were derived from decades of reading, speaking, and debating. Trump, meanwhile, is winging it.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think he has an ideology,\u201d Pat Buchanan told the Washington Post. \u201cHe very much is responding to the realities that he has encountered and his natural reactions to them. It\u2019s not some intellectual construct.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here lies both the irony and farce of the cult-like effort to anoint Trump as the second coming of Reagan. The one meaningful similarity between the two men is that they can both be seen as authentic responses to their times. The difference? Reagan was the right response.<\/p>\n