Obama or Reagan.
In the end, that's the choice.
As the country enters the final week of what may be the most important election in a lifetime, these two presidents and their starkly differing visions of America are at the center of what has become a political earthquake.
Barack Obama, of course, would seem to have the advantage. He is the flesh-and-blood sitting president of the moment, with actual, real-time command of the White House and all the accompanying assets that includes. Air Force One responds to his beck and call, along with the helicopters, shiny limousines, the staff and the entire executive branch of the United States government. Not to mention the total control his party has had over the House and Senate. The seal may have fallen off his podium the other week, but no matter. As he accurately pointed out, everyone does indeed know exactly who he is.
A bit late, some would say. Amid all the exuberance about electing a man because of his skin color was a deliberate refusal to understand that this particular man was a hard-core radical leftist. For some, the knowledge of just what then-Senator Obama intended to do if elected president was apparently hard to discern. For others, electing a man who had sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years and launched his first campaign from the living room of Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers was an appallingly dangerous mistake.
What else, they now ask, could America possibly have expected?
The unexpected answer?
An infinitely better understanding of both Ronald Reagan and the conservative principles he championed. An understanding borne of new experience for this latest generation as it struggles to grasp the hard reality of what Reagan himself learned the hard way: if socialism, statism, and government planning had the necessary answers to America's problems, those problems would have been resolved long ago.
And Ronald Reagan, passed into death and history six years earlier, vanished from any active public life by Alzheimer's a full decade before that, would not be on the cusp of a mammoth centennial birthday celebration three months and four days from this election.
Obama and Reagan have become the face of each side's arguments in 2010, the personification of the now furious struggle between statism -- the supremacy of the state, as Mark Levin succinctly describes the goal of the left in Liberty and Tyranny -- and individual freedom and liberty.
The New York Times says that "Washington is on the brink of a substantial shift in the balance of power." Poll after poll after poll indicates the GOP is in some fashion on the edge of a tidal wave sweeping the country.
Which is to say Reagan is poised to beat Obama.
But if this turns out to be true -- if Republicans do in fact re-take the House and fire Nancy Pelosi, if they upend Harry Reid and begin flooding the Senate with conservatives -- why? Why will this have happened? And is that the end of this ferocious battle? Can we all just go home now?
The answers are as predictable as they were easy to reject by all manner of self-proclaimed political savants who really did think America had parted ways with both Reagan and conservatives.
Ronald Reagan saw America as a "shining city upon a hill." It was beyond foolish for Obama and Democrats to dismiss this as some sort of old news -- irrelevant, hokey, out of date. To dismiss Reagan and his vision is to totally misread America, its culture, and exactly how Americans see both their country and themselves. And more to the point, how Americans have seen themselves right from the moment the first Pilgrims stepped off the boat at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620.
Read More: AS
No comments:
Post a Comment