Where's the Left Wing Reagan?

[LBJ Revivalist]

One thing I can never fault Reagan on is his passionate to his cause and his incredible charm and oratory skills. He wasn't a good President (IMO), but he was a terrific speaker, a persuasive and calming presence. The only left wing Presidents who matched him in such effortless oratory skill and grace IMO FDR and JFK.

His rhetoric, his powerful voice, his speeches, they swayed independents to his side. He convinced Americans that Government was a problem. But where can we find the Left Wing equivalent to him? I thought at one time that Obama might be it, but he's not the best speaker; not the most persuasive of leaders. He's been successful in his legislative goals, but he doesn't have the populist message and presence that FDR or Reagan had. And most importantly, he has capitulated more to the right wing than Reagan would've ever done to the Left, and FDR would've done to the right.

I listen to other men as well, like Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower. These men would be considered left wing, or center left today. Yet their message was persuasive, their words powerful, somewhat populist, carrying weight not just in the halls of Congress but across the nation. And they struck a chord with the people, and brought people to their side.

Now more than ever such a leader is needed; a leader who can combine the intellect of Wilson, with the charm of Reagan and FDR; Who can argue successfully why government isn't an enemy to be feared, but neither the end all, be all of all rights.

Ronald Reagan once said that government is not the solution to our problems, but that it is the problem. I disagree. The government is a flawed entity, yes, but then so are corporations, which right wingers place so much trust in, and so are individuals. None of these working alone can solve all of our nations problems, but all of them working together in a fashion, I believe, can.

I believe that the right's appealing  to this radical sense of individualism is going to harm our country in the long run, because while this is a Republic composed of individual states, we are one nation, and as such, we all have common interests, and common investments that should be worked on together--And I believe such interests can be met, and such investments can be made, best at the federal level.

Individualism is important, but should not utterly triumph over unity, otherwise we will know no further progress. Appealing to the individual's greed will only divide this nation further in two; along the lines of those who have, and those who have not. It's a dangerous path, and I only hope that an effective, charismatic, unabashedly Liberal leader can come forth who will be like an FDR, or a Reagan.

As Democrats, the era of compromising and kowtowing to the GOP and allowing them to push our party to the right along with them is over. We must stand up. What has bipartisanship and reaching our hand across the aisle done for us in the last two years?

[RI]

Great leaders don't exactly grow on trees, you know.

[LBJ Revivalist]

Great leaders don't exactly grow on trees, you know.

I know, it just seems an awful long time since the Left has had a "great leader."
Obama and Clinton did/are doing Okay, but they're not on the same level as FDR, Woodrow Wilson, TR or JFK were in terms of being leaders, inspiring figures whose words and rhetoric moved the nation in support of their message. I mention JFK in this because while his term of office was sadly abbreviated, he was a strong leader with incredible oratory skill and his visions and ideals seemed to inspire and motivate the American people.

[King]

By the TEA test, Reagan was the left wing Reagan.

[opebo]

Left appeals to reason, not base emotions (hatred, fear, racism, xenophobia, etc.), thus no left-wing Reagan.

[LBJ Revivalist]

Left appeals to reason, not base emotions (hatred, fear, racism, xenophobia, etc.), thus no left-wing Reagan.

Yeah but an argument could be made that FDR was in many ways a left wing Reagan. While he didn't appeal to people's base emotions and circumvented their intellect the way Reagan did, he was able to capture the nation's spirit in a way that no President except Reagan really has since. His message was powerful; His messaged was obviously agreed with by the masses (given his repeated re-elections); He had a bit of populist rhetoric to his speech. Both of them had immeasurable charm, which even allowed for their detractors to at least RESPECT them, even if they vehemently disagreed with them.

JFK had the potential to be like an FDR given his own sense of magnetism and charm, but he didn't seem to be effective in getting his legislative wants through in his brief term. Maybe that would've changed had he lived...But he also seems to have been more center-left than a full on Liberal.

Same thing with Clinton. An effective speaker...But he often did the Republicans' bidding, and pushed his party and the nation in general further to the right in the long run.

[cinyc]

Left appeals to reason, not base emotions (hatred, fear, racism, xenophobia, etc.), thus no left-wing Reagan.

President hope and change's campaign was all about appeals to reason, not appeals to base emotions.  After all, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

[RI]

Left appeals to reason, not base emotions (hatred, fear, racism, xenophobia, etc.), thus no left-wing Reagan.

President hope and change's campaign was all about appeals to reason, not appeals to base emotions.  After all, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

It's opebo. Obviously all politicians appeal to emotion; they probably couldn't win otherwise.

[opebo]

Left appeals to reason, not base emotions (hatred, fear, racism, xenophobia, etc.), thus no left-wing Reagan.

President hope and change's campaign was all about appeals to reason, not appeals to base emotions.  After all, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

It's opebo. Obviously all politicians appeal to emotion; they probably couldn't win otherwise.

You fellows are forgetting that Obama is not a left-leaning candidate.

[cinyc]

Left appeals to reason, not base emotions (hatred, fear, racism, xenophobia, etc.), thus no left-wing Reagan.

President hope and change's campaign was all about appeals to reason, not appeals to base emotions.  After all, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

It's opebo. Obviously all politicians appeal to emotion; they probably couldn't win otherwise.

You fellows are forgetting that Obama is not a left-leaning candidate.

Of course.  One of the most liberal members of the Senate was not a left-leaning candidate.  Left means right.  Stop means go.  Community organizers are not liberals.

[opebo]

You fellows are forgetting that Obama is not a left-leaning candidate.

Of course.  One of the most liberal members of the Senate was not a left-leaning candidate.  Left means right.  Stop means go.  Community organizers are not liberals.

Yes, he's a liberal - in the European sense.  He's not leftist in any way.

[cinyc]

You fellows are forgetting that Obama is not a left-leaning candidate.

Of course.  One of the most liberal members of the Senate was not a left-leaning candidate.  Left means right.  Stop means go.  Community organizers are not liberals.

Yes, he's a liberal - in the European sense.  He's not leftist in any way.

Obama is liberal and leftist in the American sense, which is all that matters.   He ran to the LEFT of Hillary Clinton in the primaries because he is one of the most leftist politicians in this country.  He was a leftist in the US Senate.  He was a leftist in the Illinois State Senate.  He was a leftist when he was "community organizing" in Chicago.  Old "community organizer" habits die very hard.

[Horus]

Obama was a leftist pre-presidency and is now a center-leftist. By European standards, I think Obama would be considered a centrist. If reelected, he will definitely move much further back to the left.

[redcommander]

You would have had one had Hillary been the nominee in 2008.

[You kip if you want to...]

You would have had one had Hillary been the nominee in 2008.

The Tea Party/GOP would've hated her and destroyed any hope for bi-partisanship for Hillary as well.

[opebo]

Obama is liberal and leftist in the American sense, which is all that matters.   He ran to the LEFT of Hillary Clinton in the primaries because he is one of the most leftist politicians in this country.  He was a leftist in the US Senate.  He was a leftist in the Illinois State Senate.  He was a leftist when he was "community organizing" in Chicago.  Old "community organizer" habits die very hard.

No, he's a thoroughly pro-capitalist.  He's never proposed any leftist policy in his life.  You just think he's a 'leftist' because he's a centrist and you've never seen a leftist.

[tpfkaw]

You would have had one had Hillary been the nominee in 2008.

The Tea Party/GOP would've hated her and destroyed any hope for bi-partisanship for Hillary as well.

Does that mean that the Tea Party/GOP is in fact not primarily motivated by racism, or does it mean that Hillary Clinton is actually black?

[DrScholl]

The left hasn't found an actor who can say absolutely nothing and make it appear to be significant. Reagan faked his way through his terms, leaving a huge deficit and nothing of real substance.

[memphis]

Obama is currently more popular than Reagan was at the same point in his presidency. I don't desire him to have a cult of personality that bears no reality to actual history but will nonetheless last three decades (and counting), but it's a real possibility. He's a transformative president for a number of reasons.

[tpfkaw]

The left hasn't found an actor who can say absolutely nothing and make it appear to be significant.

Oh, but they have.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Obama was a leftist pre-presidency and is now a center-leftist. By European standards, I think Obama would be considered a centrist. If reelected, he will definitely move much further back to the left.

If he manages to take the House and hold the Senate, then yes, he'll be much less of a moderate hero.  At that point, he has close to nothing left to lose (well in a personal sense, the party might obviously).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I see term "left" is seriously abused here.

[President Mitt]

You would have had one had Hillary been the nominee in 2008.

The Tea Party/GOP would've hated her and destroyed any hope for bi-partisanship for Hillary as well.

Does that mean that the Tea Party/GOP is in fact not primarily motivated by racism, or does it mean that Hillary Clinton is actually black?

She married a black man.

[You kip if you want to...]

You would have had one had Hillary been the nominee in 2008.

The Tea Party/GOP would've hated her and destroyed any hope for bi-partisanship for Hillary as well.

Does that mean that the Tea Party/GOP is in fact not primarily motivated by racism, or does it mean that Hillary Clinton is actually black?

Well, a hack would call them sexist as well.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

He ran as a LEFTIST PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL DEMOCRAT, He's trying to lead this country in a LEFTIST PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC MANNER, with a twist of NEOCONSERVATISM borrowed from Wilson.

So yep he's a Leftist.