Sarah Palin Is No Ronald Reagan

Sarah Palin Is No Ronald Reagan

by Mark Luedtke

So many conservative writers and pundits have compared Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan lately, I wonder if they actually remember Reagan. More likely, conservatives, like the rest of the country, are so disgusted with the Bush/McCain/liberal wing of the Republican party, they're overwhelmed to see a true conservative in anticipation of 2012.

Who can blame them? For 8 years George Bush has pretended to support limited government while expanding the size of government so brazenly he made LBJ blush. Bush has pretended to support free markets while doing more damage to US markets than any president since FDR. In the tradition of Hoover and Nixon, Bush is a stealth liberal who grabbed unprecedented power over our economy and ran it into the ground, all the while pretending he didn't want to do so and finally blaming the markets themselves instead of government interference in them.

John McCain isn't a stealth liberal – he's outright liberal. He supports the same government intervention in our economy Bush and Obama do. When McCain used the word maverick during his campaign, he really meant liberal. Like Bush and Obama, McCain wants to reward illegal aliens with citizenship. McCain sponsored McCain-Feingold, the most egregious attack on the First Amendment on the books today. McCain drank Al Gore's man-made global warming kool-aid and wants to force the same cap and trade restrictions on our economy Obama supports. Like Obama, McCain never supported drilling in ANWR. McCain's so-called maverick positions are really mainstream liberal positions. McCain, like Democrats, most Republicans today, and Bush, doesn't respect the Constitution and has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the federal government.

By contrast, in Alaska, Sarah Palin cut spending. And by cut, I don't mean slowing down the rate of increase of spending like McCain and Washington Republicans mean. Twice Sarah Palin cut over 10 percent out of the Alaska state budget. She fought corruption in her own party and won, putting several corrupt Republicans in prison. The last president to govern with that kind of integrity and effectiveness was Reagan. She was the only limited government candidate on either major ticket this year. She sparked a tremendous grassroots movement. So, yeah, conservatives are understandably excited about Sarah Palin because she's a true maverick and a proven reformer in US politics, something that's been absent in Washington for far too long.

But the differences between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan are striking. The starkest contrast is their visions of America. Reagan saw all of America as a shining city on the hill. He comfortably won reelection twice in California when Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 2 to 1. Reagan reached out to every American. In contrast, at Palin's campaign speeches, she called small town America real America, as if Americans in blue states and big cities didn't matter. Reagan was a uniter. Palin is a divider.

Reagan had a natural intelligence and education that was on display constantly. He read voraciously. He wrote nightly. He could intelligently engage anybody on any subject at any time. Gov. Palin has shown no such ability. In every interview I saw, friendly or not, she seemed unable to intelligently discuss subjects she should have understood. Sarah Palin must educate herself, and not just on issues, to be a force in 2012.

According to anybody who met him, Reagan was one of the most charming men they ever met. Even Reagan's fiercest political enemies loved him personally and wanted to be around him. While the media savaged Reagan in the press, calling him a cowboy, a useful idiot, and warning that Reagan would start a nuclear war, they had tremendous affection for him. Reagan was warm to everybody, and everybody responded in kind. While conservatives report that Sarah Palin is warm and charming, she clearly charmed few others, which isn't surprising for a self-described pit bull with lipstick.

In fact, Sarah Palin reminds me much more of Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan. Both President-elect Obama and Gov. Palin are inherently divisive. Obama divides the country into rich and not rich, and he plans to punish the rich to help the poor. Palin divides the country into real Americans, whom she identifies with, and everybody else.

Obama appeals to the extremist wing of his party. Despite the Democrat establishment and the press embracing him, Obama barely defeated Hillary Clinton because moderate Democrat voters rejected his extremism. In his Illinois state races, he was a member of, sought and received endorsements of socialist parties. He spent at least 3 years of his life partnering with an unrepentant terrorist and avowed Marxist. While not extreme like Obama (can you imagine if she had spent 3 years partnering with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber?), Sarah Palin appeals primarily to the right wing of her party.

Ronald Reagan never talked about his
faith in God. He considered faith a private matter, but both Obama and
Palin openly discuss their religion. That turns off many Americans. It
wasn't a problem for Obama because the press attacked anybody who
criticized him about his church, protecting him, but the press will
continuously attack Palin over her church.

Obama overcame his weaknesses by
mastering the rhetoric of moderation, running a flawless campaign,
having the media cover up who he really is, and riding the wave of
anti-Bushism. To win in 2012, Gov. Palin
must learn those lessons plus overcome a hostile media and the hostile
liberal establishment of her own party.

She has tremendous potential, but Sarah Palin has a lot of weaknesses to overcome to win in 2012.