Peggy Noonan makes a great point in her column today. She is discussing the Republican debate held yesterday at the Reagan Library. She points out something that is pervasive – comparisons to Reagan.
They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Reagan gazed up at them with courteous interest. But behind the hopeful candidates, a dwarfing shadow loomed, a shadow almost palpable in its power to remind Republicans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only increased by his absence. But enough about Fred Thompson.
This is a piece about Thursday night's Republican presidential debates, but first I would like to note that the media's fixation with which Republican is the most like Reagan, and who is the next Reagan, and who parts his hair like Reagan, is absurd, and subtly undermining of Republicans, which is why they do it. Reagan was Reagan, a particular man at a particular point in history. What is to be desired now is a new greatness. Another way of saying this is that in 1960, John F. Kennedy wasn't trying to be the next FDR, and didn't feel forced to be. FDR was the great, looming president of Democratic Party history, and there hadn't been anyone as big or successful since 1945, but JFK thought it was good enough to be the best JFK. And the press wasn't always sitting around saying he was no FDR. Oddly enough, they didn't consider that an interesting theme.
They should stop it already, and Republicans should stop playing along. They should try instead a pleasant. "You know I don't think I'm Reagan, but I do think John Edwards may be Jimmy Carter, and I'm fairly certain Hillary is Walter Mondale."
She's right. Comparing the current candidates endlessly to Reagan does, in fact, act as a subtle undermining of these people. Each should be judged on their own merits, not in comparison to Reagan. But the media is using this as a way to slip the knife into the Republican candidates. Sneaky. We really should refuse to cooperate with this kind of thing, shouldn't we? I know some comparisons are hard not to make but we should do so very cautiously, shouldn't we?
I agree with Noonan take on the debate. Her opening was exactly what I was thiking last night.
I almost laughed out loud when I read her comparision of Trancredo to Gravel….I gave Trancredo the “Mike Gravel Award”. But I think she was wrong on some of the others.
I saw the highlights on the news last night and it really pissed me off that they had the debate in the library with Nancy sitting right there. More time was spent trying to impress her than speaking to the issues.