A Brief History for the future written today

I won't post the whole article, but this is one of the most comprehensive, well-written summaries of the recent progressive movement that I have seen. If Obama does not win re-election, I think it will stand as the common thought historical standard. If he wins, there's time to change it, but most likely it will be the same story, just longer.

www.freebeacon.com/a-brief-history-of-obama/

Rendezvous with Destiny

I just completed Craig Shirley's Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America.  Excellent book, especially when one views the events with 20/20 hindsight of history.  The similarities to today are remarkable.   Although Reagan and Carter are not Romney and Obama, there are numerous places one could replace their names and the sentences and paragraphs would read without hiccup.   Most interesting was the account of the race not just beginning sometime in August 1980, but back to the beginning of the primaries.  The race Reagan endured against Bush, Connelly and Anderson for the GOP nomination, and the race Carter endured against Kennedy.   This book wasn't a wonky book, but an interesting narrative of a race between two very different candidates.

Although I was only 10, I remember the Reagan/Carter campaign well.  However, what struck me the most was the recount of events with the benefit of that 20/20 hindsight especially when opponents are characterizing each other.   Reagan was a vapid, warmonger who hated women.  I supported Reagan in 1980 (and to some degree Anderson because I thought that this 3rd party thing was pretty cool), and vivdly recall my neighbor friends saying similar things.  With the benefit of time and political awareness beyond a 10-yr old, can comprehend that those friends' parents were (are) extreme Massachusetts liberals and echoing the language of the day. 

Unable to tout the incumbent President's policies and achievements, the Democrat machine turned the campaign into turning Ronald Reagan into the Devil.

"Carter's union supporters began to plan their own attacks on Reagan - largely because they had almost nothing positive to say about the President... Jim Mahoney of the AFL-CIO's political committee said frankly, 'let's face it, Carter is a tough job to sell... We have to do a hatchet job on Reagan.'  Another said, 'I can't tell Joe Worker that Jimmy Carter is great.  He knows he is worse off today than he was four years ago... What I have to do is make Reagan a devil."

"Aaron Henry of the DNC charged, "When you say Reagan to the black community, you might as well say Hitler in terms of the turn-off you get."

"The Democrats began to crank up the anti-Reagan rhetoric... Pat Brown [Reagan's gubernatorial opponent] said a Reagan presidency would be 'tragic' for America.  Brown called Reagan 'a very poor governor,' stating that he 'hurt' people and his policies were 'cold-blooded.'"

"Reagan's opponents stepped up their attacks.  A heckler in New Jersey called him a 'pig.'  The National Organization for Women (NOW) said he was 'medieval.'"

Reagan was flat out labeled a racist by Carter and those around him.  He was accused of using "Code Words" in the south to talk to segregationists by very influential people.  His Code Words?  "State's Rights."   He was hounded throughout his campaign over his deemed code words.   Yet somehow today, we talk about State's Rights regularly and often, and not once is it deemed racial.

He was hammered for not having specifics about his proposals, and how his numbers didn't add up, and he couldn't do what he said he could.   He was lambasted for not understanding foreign policy enough, and not having a real world answer to Soviet expansion and arms race.

However, this story and this race was more than that.  It was a struggle between those that wanted government smaller with a greater focus on the individual, and those that wanted government bigger and more involved in the fabric of America.

Heard any of this before?  Recently?

The characterizations of not only Reagan, but George H. W. Bush, Howard Baker, Jack Kemp and even Teddy Kennedy, who were all highlighted in the book, during the day, look foolish 30 years later.    People say things to scare voters and get elected when they can't run on facts.   Additionally, people's biases and hidden (or outward) motivations cause them to make statements that have no bearing on reality.

When you have 30 years of historical fact in front of you and re-read how people of the day discussed the issues, it can only lead to the notion that a bit of cynicism is warranted when listening to the pundits of the day.  Most are biased.  Many are slanderous.  Few turn out to be accurate.

Despite the obvious result, the story remains gripping, even if kind of long.   The book is named after one of Reagan's favorite lines that he had a "rendezvous with destiny."  A line he stole from an FDR speech.  The story vividly details Reagan's thoughts and motivations that turned the once Democrat to the person who changed the Republican party.