It's generally a mistake to evaluate comments by today's Republican politicians about Ronald Reagan's legacy at face value. This isn't just because some of them are profoundly ignorant of foreign and national security affairs today, let alone of America's history in this policy area. It's also because the substantive record is not what matters in Republican politics.

The lowest common denominator in Republican politics is twofold: a good Republican is one who appears as a strong leader and stands up to liberals and the media. Reagan qualified, in spades. So did Richard Nixon. So did George W. Bush. The reason these three very dissimilar men were all regarded as heroes by the core of the Republican Party -- in other words, by the Republicans who always vote in every election -- has everything to do with how they conducted themselves in domestic politics. Republican voters cared that Nixon resisted Communist aggression, that Reagan called for the Wall to come down, and that Bush sent the military everywhere, but what really excited them was that they confounded liberals.

Republicans who were seen as weak in this essential department (the elder Bush) or as too cooperative with liberals in Congress (Dole) or the media (McCain) had great difficulty retaining any enthusiasm among zealous conservative Republicans. This remains true today. The problem Republicans face is that Nixon and the younger Bush both left office under a very dark cloud, Nixon because of Watergate and Bush because he was a lousy President. Even in off-year, low-turnout elections, it's difficult to win if you're seen to model yourself after a President who left office with 25% public approval.

That leaves Reagan, who was popular when he left office and has remained so. Every now and then, during the last twenty years and probably during the next twenty, some commentator will score points for himself among other commentators with a "debunking" piece: "Ah ha! Reagan wasn't really so conservative (tough on terrorists, opposed to all taxes, aggressive about asserting American power). Take that, Sarah Palin!" Like Beinart's column, such commentary will consist of piling up points from the policy record, ignoring the reasons Reagan was so popular with conservatives in the first place and remains popular with them today.

It's fascinating that a president who was derided during his tenure by the left as a moron and a warmonger and the most dangerous man on the planet has a legacy so big and is seen as so positive by so many Americans that the left are trying to claim him for themselves.

This says a lot I guess about something, but the essay was pretty uninteresting...

One problem is comparing hawks with doves during the cold war versus in today's post-9/11 world. Using typically "hawkish" policies to deter a conventional actor is one thing, but the same policies don't have much relevance to deterring terrorists (i.e. building up armaments, etc.)

Which dovetails (no pun intended) into another point: Beinart's article illustrates a common problem when one group (i.e. 'hawks') tries to communicate with another (i.e. 'doves'). Analysis of hawkish or dovish policies should be based on the effectiveness of the policy, not on whether you "like" or "dislike" it. Beinart's definition for hawkish policy is sending troops into battle. That is silly. Hawks (at least during the cold war) advocated robust defense spending in order to PREVENT sending troops into war. Sending soldiers into battle is by definition a failure of diplomatic policy. Some dovish policies had the same goals (such as realist ones of ratcheting down tension by cutting outsized nuclear armaments not being used for deterrence but for overkill).

But hawks and doves aren't (or at least should not be) hawks and doves simply because they like warfare or they don't. They are such because they believe the specific dovish or hawkish policy will be more effective in avoiding war.

Beinart's article is typical half-cocked wannabe historical revisionism. His definition of hawk vs. dove is useless, and the comparison between the two eras is not much better. Although, at least we can all agree that modern-day conservatives have NO IDEA what they are talking about when they take up the mantle of Reagan.

Beinart's misunderstanding of why hawks are hawks (or doves are doves) reminds me of a story I heard in grad school. Constructivist par excellence Alex Wendt asks Neorealist godfather Ken Waltz, "What's the point of Realism?" Wendt is as dumbfounded by Waltz's answer when Waltz says (as if it is patently obvious): "Why, for peace of course."

Raegan was one of the worst presidents we've had, not one of the best. That he has a good reputation shows the depravity of the people, nothing more.

Reagan always took the easy way out. He never made a tough decision. Further, what he had his staff do was far worse than Watergate. His budget policies were ruinous. His was the prototype for the Bush 43 Administration.

Walt

"These men were running the government," these men being the so-called Troika of Baker, Meese, and Deaver. This was Al Haig's opinion of Reagan.

Haig's estimation of Reagan should be taken with a grain of salt, considering that the latter fired the former. Though I am no Reagan expert, I never took this characterization seriously, until I read an Op Ed piece in the NY Times, the link for which I will include at the bottom of this post. The editorial was written by Richard Allen, one Reagan's National Security Advisers, in which he related how he had informed Reagan of Israel's destruction of Saddam's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Reagan's reaction was to ask Allen, "Why do you suppose they did that?" Allen then had to explain Israel's motive for this attack to the president.

At least to me, this would appear to be the most stupid question one could have possibly answered to such a report, one which would demonstrate a lack of understanding of foreign policy, or at least of the politics of the Middle East. I recognize that this was the era of the Cold War and not the GWOT, during which one could expect America's leadership to be more familiar with the politics of Moscow or Berlin than with those of Tel Aviv or Cairo, but still, what could be the possible reason ANY country would use its Air Force to destroy the nuclear reactor of another country?

"These men were running the government." "Zathras" mentioned the parallels between Bush and Reagan, though he neglected to mention the fact that Bush essentially let Cheney and Rumsfeld determine his administration's foreign policy for the first few years of his presidency, which to me is the most striking similarity between the two presidents. That said, I think that his post goes a long way in explaining the appeal both of these politicians had to a specific demographic of the population, which he calls conservative Republicans, who are overwhelmingly white men, may or may not have a college degree, and are working in business or the private sector. These men saw Regan and W. as being "one of them," a guy they could go out and drink a beer with, who shared their values, and if you will forgive my cynicism, was not condescending to them. They were beloved because they were perceived as being tough on America's enemies and for standing up to the media and those "liberal smart-asses." The candidate who fits the bill today is the Sarah Palin, who rails against the "lamestream" media and opines that America "needs a commander-in-chief, not a law professor," yet would appear to know very little about foreign policy or governance in general. If Sarah Palin were ever elected to the presidency, which seems unlikely, she would doubtlessly be another cipher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/opinion/07allen.html?scp=1&sq=osirak&st=cse

These men were running the government." "Zathras" mentioned the parallels between Bush and Reagan, though he neglected to mention the fact that Bush essentially let Cheney and Rumsfeld determine his administration's foreign policy for the first few years of his presidency, which to me is the most striking similarity between the two presidents. That said, I think that his post goes a long way in explaining the appeal both of these politicians had to a specific demographic of the population, which he calls conservative Republicans, who are overwhelmingly white men, may or may not have a college degree, and are working in business or the private sector. These men saw Regan and W. as being "one of them," a guy they could go out and drink a beer with, who shared their values, and if you will forgive my cynicism, was not condescending to them. They were beloved because they were perceived as being tough on America's enemies and for standing up to the media replica omega and those "liberal smart-asses." The candidate who fits the bill today is the Sarah Palin, who rails against the "lamestream" media and opines that America "needs a commander-in-chief, not a law professor," yet would appear to know very little about foreign policy or governance in general. If Sarah Palin were ever elected to the presidency, which seems unlikely, she would doubtlessly be another cipher.