Senator, You're No Ronald Reagan
The differences between Reagan and McCain? Let me count the ways.
By Lee Edwards
Mr. Edwards is the author, most recently, of — The Conservative Movement That Remade America
ecause
so many political analysts dispense their opinions on short notice and without
much reflection, we tend to excuse them and dismiss their more obvious howlers
as not very important. (Like Bill Kristol claiming in the Washington Post,
but not his own Weekly Standard, that "the conservative movement . . . is
finished.")
But when usually sensible commentators like Charles Krauthammer and William Safire equate John McCain’s 2000 try for the Republican presidential nomination with Ronald Reagan’s near victory in 1976 and then suggest that Senator McCain could emerge as the leading Republican candidate in 2004 if George W. Bush loses this November, one is obliged to speak out, and forcefully.
What are the differences between Reagan and McCain? Let me count the ways.
To begin with, Reagan was a serious contender in 1976 right up to the July convention. He narrowly lost the nomination to President Gerald Ford, winning 1,070 delegates to Ford’s 1,187. He would have been the first candidate in 92 years to wrest the nomination from an incumbent president. McCain "suspended" his campaign in March.
Second, although Reagan and Ford fiercely debated their positions on the major issues of the day (especially foreign policy), they did not get personal, honoring the famous 11th Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Other Republican." Reagan would never have used the "guilt by association" tactics of McCain: Bush=Robertson=Farrakhan=extremism.
Third, Reagan handled his narrow defeat with amazing grace, not tight-lipped sarcasm. His brief remarks in Kansas City were the rhetorical highlight of the 1976 convention and led more than one Ford delegate to wonder if he had made the right decision. No such second thoughts have been expressed, at least so far, by Bush delegates in 2000.
Fourth, Reagan was the conservative outsider in 1976 running against the establishment’s candidate, Ford. After nearly two decades in Washington, McCain is hardly a new face. Although it is true that Bush is the establishment’s choice, the establishment in 2000 is conservative.
Fifth, and importantly, Reagan had a sound, consistent political philosophy he had forged through the years, and from which he refused to deviate. McCain is an admirable man in many ways, whose commitment to duty, honor, and country is unmistakable. But he does not appear to have a fixed set of conservative beliefs. There was never any doubt, for example, where Ronald Reagan stood on the question of life--it was sacred from the moment of conception to the last breath.
We can see, therefore, why Ronald Reagan emerged as the leading Republican candidate in 1980. He had come so close four years earlier, he had campaigned hard for Ford in 1976, he had not divided the party or personally attacked his opponent in the primaries. But the main reason is philosophical not political — Reagan had a shining vision of America and her future that captured the minds, the hearts, and the votes of the people. John McCain cannot expect to be a serious contender in 2004 if the only words on his banner are "Campaign Finance Reform."