Why We Miss Reagan

After witnessing the unfortunate, albeit not unexpected, defeat of the Republican Party on Election Day, I began to question the trajectory that my party has taken in the past decade. I couldn’t help but reflect on the Ronald Reagan presidency and the core conservative ideals that he represented, and recognize greatness. I thought it over, and tried to imagine the implications of more of his type of conservatism on the Columbia campus. But the question is, does that kind of conservatism have a place at Columbia or in the rest of the country? Is it necessary for conservative students like myself to drift away from our foundations in order to be “relevant” to today’s political discussion, or is it possible to return to the philosophy of Reagan Republicans and still have a meaningful voice?

Although I was not yet born during the Gipper’s presidency, I do know what he stood for and what his actions did for the country as a whole. It was the combination of conservative values with his mastery of connecting with the public that provoked nearly two-thirds of the American population to cast a ballot in his name in 1984. We need to do some soul-searching—it’s time for a re-calibration in the Grand Old Party and the conservative movement as a whole, and maybe it should take its cues from both Reagan and the Columbia College Republicans.

But which of Reagan’s ideals should be awoken and adopted once again? The most distinguishing part of his philosophy was his conviction that government as a whole needs to be small, and that its spending needs to not only be curbed, but constantly checked to ensure that it is never ineffectively implemented. As effective as this economic philosophy was in acting responsibly with the taxpayers’ money, and as beneficial as it was to the consumer economy, for some reason today’s Republican Party has forgotten it. Just look at President Bush—he did not veto a single spending bill that either the Democratic or the spending-happy Republican Congress sent to his desk until last year. Consequently, the size of the federal government increased by about 20 percent during his two terms. Clearly, both branches of the government have been seeing strange mutations of “conservatives” in their halls. With Republican losses ranging from coast to coast in every type of public position in the recent election, it’s time to look back in order to strive forward successfully. From my experiences thus far with the College Republicans, I have seen that despite the greatly progressive atmosphere of Columbia, many campus conservatives have held on to these values and thrived—why not the conservatives of the rest of the country?

The policy of limiting government spending is definitely not the only Reagan ideal that has been abandoned by today’s Republicans. Another Reaganesque attribute that has been missing, especially in our current president, has been the strength to stand up to serious problems. The 1980s brought issues with Social Security and Medicare, but Reagan passed bills that aimed to begin significant reform in order to prevent catastrophic problems in the future, instead of postponing real solutions, like Bush Republicans have been doing recently. With Reagan Republicans in power, there was very little head-burying—a strength that is sorely needed right now, as we face the serious challenges of paying for the Baby Boomer retirement falling on our generation.

Perhaps the most noticeable change in the GOP during the past 10 years has been its surprisingly close attachment to the evangelical Christian community around the nation. This is a complete disconnect from the Republican Party led by Reagan. The major difference does not lie with the policies that come about from this relationship, but rather with the amount of power that this non-political group has over the party. Reagan did fight for some principles of social conservatism, but for the most part he did not involve the government in social issues. When he did, it did not originate from one specific voting base. On this campus, the College Republicans do not have official associations with any religious groups, which has served to include more students who have conservative social or economic viewpoints, regardless of their religious affiliation.

But does a return to this type of conservatism have a place in the future of the Republican Party? To answer this question, we only need to look as far as the last election. Senator McCain did not garner any new voters, he didn’t get many independents, and he didn’t stick to Reagan conservatism. Sure, he was closer to Reagan than Bush with his anti-pork spending rhetoric, but he lacked many of the principles that Reagan stood for. The sad combination of barely-concealed government expansion of spending and polarizing evangelical political lobbying makes for a party that alienates more than it unifies.

I don’t see any incompatibility between Reagan’s conservatism and our generation. In fact, the Republicans I’ve met here have mostly been of Reagan’s sort—conservatives who would be thrilled with a party that stopped being a mouthpiece for evangelicals, and started being actually politically and economically conservative. Far from being incompatible with our generation, the Reagan brand of conservatism is being sought after by our peers. The time is ripe to declare Bush conservatism dead and connect the GOP with its roots in time for the 21st century, belated though it may be.

The author is a first-year in Columbia College. He is the deputy director of communications for the Columbia College Republicans.