4 Things Conservatives Hate To Admit About Ronald Reagan

Image via Politically Preposterous on Facebook.

Meme via Politically Preposterous on Facebook.

It is almost inevitable in any debate with a conservative that they will bring up Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you go to almost any conservative or far-right Facebook page like Being Conservative or website, you could almost swear they put him up there with Jesus (the one that looks like a Texas college quarterback, not the Semitic looking one).

Still not convinced? Try turning on Fox News and taking a shot of whiskey every time someone invokes Reagan’s name as part of their argument. You’ll be comatose within a very short period of time, I guarantee it.

Now here’s a list of four of the reasons modern, self-proclaimed “conservatives” would crucify President Reagan if he were alive and politically active today:

4. Ronald Reagan negotiated with terrorists: During the recent hoopla over the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, you couldn’t go 5 minutes without someone screaming about how Obama was “negotiating with terrorists.” Well, Reagan actually negotiated with Iranian terrorists in exchange for hostages, and he was really, really bad at it.

In all, there were eight arms shipments to Iran from Aug. 12, 1985 through Oct. 28, 1986. The first two came from Israel, with the promise that the U.S. would replenish them, but thereafter the U.S. sent them directly — and began skimming the profits to send to the Nicaraguan contras, who were themselves something of a terrorist organization, responsible for a pattern “including rape, torture, kidnappings, mutilation and other abuses” against the civilian population. In all, 2,512 TOW anti-tank missiles were sent to Iran, along with 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles and more than 240 Hawk spare parts. These were all vital weapons in Iran’s ongoing war with Iraq. (Source)

3. Ronald Reagan supported gun control: Mention this to anyone, especially the “Obama is trying to take all mah guns” folks over at Open Carry Texas, and they’ll stick their fingers in their ears and go “la la la, I can’t hear you” like a 5-year-old child. Not only did Reagan sign the Mulford Act when he was the governor of California, he also supported the Brady Bill.

In a 1991 New York Times op-ed titled “Why I’m For the Brady Bill,” Reagan detailed his support of a seven-day waiting period for gun buyers. “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics,” Reagan said in the op-ed. “… If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” (Source)

2. Ronald Reagan was not a fiscal conservative: As much as Republicans like to complain about the national debt and the deficit (two things they often can’t tell the difference between) under President Obama, the national debt rose by by 186% while Reagan was in office. While they also like to complain about spending under Obama (something they’re not surprisingly quiet about when a Republican is in the White House), many Republicans tend to overlook the fact that Congress writes the budget, not the President.

1. Ronald Reagan would have been hated by today’s ultra-right GOP: Sure, every time you turn on Fox, everyone is praying at the altar of St. Ronnie and opining on how he would have dealt with the ginned up crisis du jour. But just like Jesus, they would absolutely crucify him if he were alive today for not being conservative enough. By today’s standards, Ronald Reagan would be a “liberal RINO” and he wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell in a Republican presidential primary. As much as the likes of the “Caribou Barbie” Palin or Mike Huckabee like to toss his name out there as they angle for more time on Fox and more donations, they would be the first to attack Reagan for being too liberal were he alive today.

In a refreshing turn of events while reading conservative media, I found this column by Daniel Larson over at The American Conservative in which he takes modern Republicans to task for using Ronald Reagan for every single argument.

Harmful Reagan nostalgia among Republicans isn’t limited to foreign policy, but it may be where it does some of its greatest harm. For the most part, the Republicans most invested in claiming the mantle of Reagan are among the successors of those most likely to have denounced Reagan while he was in office as a sell-out, appeaser, or something equally unpleasant. As a result, the caricatured Reagan that they invoke takes the worst, most aggressive aspects of his record–exorbitant military spending, rhetorical excess, arming foreign insurgencies–and treats them as confirmation of the wisdom of their latter-day support for similarly foolish and unnecessary policies. When confronted with objections that their proposals are dangerous, wasteful, and unnecessary, they then declare their fidelity to Reagan in order to halt the debate. (Source)

It would be a great improvement in our political dialogue if more conservatives listened to Mr. Larson. Conservatives would do everyone a favor by not trying to resurrect the ghost of Ronald Reagan every time they want to win an argument with each other, or anyone else who doesn’t agree with them.

Meme via Politically Preposterous


Facebook comments

  • Stephen Barlow

    Like Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, Batman, Spiderman and The Green Lantern, Ronald Reagan is an imaginary folk/cartoon hero to many. They believe in his aura and try not to hear about his criminal behavior (Gun Dealing To KNOWN Terrorist Enemies of the US) or anti social policies (making a homelwss population of mmental patients and doubling the prison population by criminalizing the smoking of a much healthier natural product than tobacco) and ESPECIALLY his upward redistribution of American wealth sold as “trickleDown Economics”.

    America is forever (cough cough) grateful (snicker snicker) for deregulation and the BOON it has been to CEO salaries and the demise of pensions for the 99%.

  • Pipercat

    People forget, or have no idea, how much time has passed since his administration. Different times with different priorities and challenges.

    • Charles Vincent

      The gif also forgets that the barrel and ammo are metal and so are all the springs…

      • Pipercat

        Remember, big picture. Didn’t even look at the meme. You know I’m meme adverse!

      • Charles Vincent

        I was lol I just commented on the irony there. and the Irony here in general is kind of Humorous.

  • William Fite

    You claim we would crucify Reagan for those four reasons.

    4. Yes Reagan negotiated with terrorists, but did he give up terrorists during a time frame in our history when terrorism is running rampant. As your article states it was weapons. I was not really happy about either one. But that would not stop me from liking Reagan.

    3. Reagan supported gun control when he was not president and apparently we conservatives forgave him for his law he signed while governor. He also did not support the limiting of what kind of guns we want during his presidency.

    2. You just crushed the liberals argument and your own argument with this one. You claim the debt went up during Reagan’s term but then claim it is congress that writes the budget. Guess who was in control of the House during Reagan? Tip O’Neill. The democrats held the senate for the majority of time during Reagan’s term. Let’s take this further, who was in charge of Congress when we balanced the budget and had a surplus? The Republicans. Yes we had a spending problem in the early 2000’s, but starting in 2006 thru 2010 who was in charge of writing the budget? The democrats. The deficit went from $8.6 trillion to $14 trillion at that time. Are you getting the picture?

    1. That is your opinion and one mans opinion. It does not represent all conservatives.

    Don’t you hate it when you work so hard on an article and try to re-write history and get slammed on it.

    • felipe63

      Let’s not forget that Reagan did a cut & run that left the deaths of 240+ Marines in the Beirut Barracks bombing unanswered, and before he went into politics he was a Hollywood Union Boss.

      • William Fite

        Don’t you hate being a liberal fag?

      • Destinee

        Wow. Very mature, Mr. Fite.

      • William Fite

        Wasn’t me. I don’t need to make those comments when I have facts.

      • TodoInTX

        Clearly a sign that felipe63 won that argument when you result to name calling.

      • William Fite

        Wasn’t me who made that comment.

      • felipe63

        Scientist who study human sexuality have this test to measure stimulation in men. The device loops around a man’s penis (extra small in your case), then the researchers show the man a variety of images and measure how erect he gets as a reaction to the images.

        Here is the interesting part; the men who are the most vehement in the use of the homosexual slurs, or projecting baseless accusations of homosexuality onto others like saying thing, like I dunno ‘Don’t you hate being a liberal fag?’ are the same men who get the stiffest erections while watching homosexual porn. In short, the guy who calls other guys a ‘fag’ is the same guy who gets the biggest boner while watching 2 men fuck, indicating that the reality is that the person calling others ‘fags’ is actually a conflicted closet case.

        So when you called me a ‘fag’ in your reply, all that did was un-consciencely let me know that what you really want is for me to fuck you up the ass after you get done sucking my cock.

        The internal rage you display here is the result of your unsatisfactory sex life you are forced to live because you don’t have the courage to be the flaming queen you know you really are deep down inside. Dude, man up, go find yourself a nice boyfriend to pound your butt like you really want. Maybe you’ll stop being an ignorant jackass on the internet then.

      • William Fite

        Who ever you are, you take fun in using someone’s name. By the way Felipe63, that was not me. Someone using my name. Don’t know who and don’t care who other they are a complete ignorant ass.

      • felipe63

        I will take you at your word, and knowing that, please understand that my reply is directed at the person who mis-appropriated your good name and not the legitimate william fite.

      • williamfite

        Thank you. I don’t like it when people attack other people personally. Unfortunately when you post as a guest on this site anyone can use your name.

      • Canuckledragger

        I believe you are a liar and can’t handle having your argument torn to shreds.

        So like the uninformed coward you are, instead of engaging in rational, respectful debate with facts and sources you resort to name calling and running away.

        Of course it was someone else writing under your name. Coward.

      • Canuckledragger

        Who wrote this post?

      • geez

        If you didn’t hide your profile maybe we might believe you.

      • William Fite

        I am commenting as a guest. Not hiding anything.

      • Nick Wride

        Liberal fag???? What’s the matter, sweetknees, did your priest fuck you in the ass more times than you asked for? Did your daddy tounge kiss you more than you liked? Does your boyfriend make you swallow when you blow him? You’re a sick little punk.

      • William Fite

        Really? Who is being the sick one. Not me. I did not write the post you are responding too. By what you just wrote makes me believe you used my name and made the post.

      • Nick Wride

        No, it wasn’t me and I saw the followup posts. If you were indeed not the person making the original post, then I apologize. If you’re bullshitting us, then my post stands.

      • Michael Keville

        don’t you hate being a duche bag?

      • redhood

        Sweet 8lb 6oz baby Jesus, what grade are you people in?

      • William Fite

        As for No. 2 you are wrong felipe63. It was equal. But don’t forget the budget process starts in the House, which was 100% Dems through Reagan’s presidency.


        1980-82 Dems

        1982-84 Reps

        1984-86 Reps

        1986-1988 Dems

        Are you trying to re-write History. I will admit I was wrong that they held the Senate a majority, it was equal.

        As to the charge on the cut and run. Following the collapse of the government of President Amin Gemayel and intensified fighting between the Lebanese army and Moslem militiamen in Beirut, President Reagan announced Feb. 7 that the U.S. Marine contingent in Beirut would be withdrawn to ships offshore. At the same time, Reagan authorized military commanders to launch air strikes and artillery bombardments against Syrian-controlled positions that fired on Beirut. On Feb. 8, American warships mounted a nine-hour artillery barrage against pro-Syrian militia positions, in what was described as the largest U.S. naval action since the Vietnam War. Sounds like an answer to me.

        Again are you trying to re-write history?

      • felipe63

        No but it appears you are. Here you are since you like facts, the make up of the senate following the elections of the following years was:
        1980 – R 53 – D 46
        1982 – R 54 – D 46
        1984 – R 53 – D 47
        1986 – R 45 – D 55

        As you can see the FACTS you dearly love clearly state that the Repubs had a majority of the Senate for 6 out of Reagan’s 8 years in office, with the dems achieving majority status in 1986.

        So no it wasn’t equal, R held the Senate 75% of the time Reagan was in office, i.e. “most” of the time. Maybe in republican land 75% vs 25% is equal, but that is not so here on planet reality, so quit trying to rewrite the rules of math.

        And throwing a couple of bombs into Syria doesn’t really qualify as a response does it? Especially when you consider it was Reagan’s buddies, the Iranians (you know, the folks he illegally sold military hardware to) who were responsible for the bombing.

        Try again.

      • William Fite

        9 hours of bombing is not a couple of bombs. That would be many bombs, so yes it was an answer.

        I admit I was wrong on the times the Reps were in charge of the Senate. But you are forgetting one important detail, who starts the budget and who makes the budget? The House. Who was in charge during The 1980’s? The democrats.

      • felipe63

        Ask the 240 dead Marines if that was enough of a response. Personally I don’t think so.

        Your point about the origination of the budget is totally irrelevant when it comes to this discussion. The Senate is under no obligation to pass a budget passed in the house, and Reagan, as president, could have VETOED any budget he liked, including the ones that were RUNNING UP THE NATIONAL DEBT (if he was truly a fiscal conservative, which he clearly was not).

        For somebody who claims to like facts, you certainly don’t let these facts stop you from rationalizing a way to solely blame D’s for a situation that the R’s had a much bigger part in creating. They held the Senate and the WhiteHouse, while the Dems only held the HoR. That’s 1/3 for the Dems vs 2/3 for the R’s. So as a simple math problem, which is larger 1/3 or 2/3? Which side is more responsible? The numbers don’t lie.

      • Shones

        Supports Obama, complains about Presidents doing illegal things. Lol

      • felipe63

        who said anything about supporting Obama? I didn’t vote for him if that is what you’re tying to imply.

      • naryaquid

        Name ONE “illegal” thing Obama has done.

      • betterfredthandead

        1000 extra thumbs up “felipe63″…

        Now let US Run these scurvy republicon knaves from the sacred halls of our Government…just like our Grandparents HAD to 84 years ago…

        Copyright: FHN 2014

    • betterfredthandead

      ya’ll slammed nothing butt yer tea-billy sucking points…after 2006 the bill for yer illegal and immoral wars came due…SHEESH!

      US American’s are going to run these FILTHY scurvy republicon knaves from the sacred halls of our Government…just like our Grandparents HAD to 84 years ago…


  • Rikk

    Not to mention that he was a homphobic asshole who allowed millions of people – not just gay men – to become infected with HIV and an all-round jerk. Conservatives can rewrite as much history as they would like, doesn’t alter the fact that the current sad state of affairs started with Reagan

    • Mike McConnell

      Don’t forget he also supported Apartheid too.

    • Chris

      Actually, he supported gay rights as much as any conservative could in the 1980s. It was Congress and the Courts that fucked up, not Reagan. Look it up.

  • Gentil Aquitaine

    He will always be a hero to the right because he was the first to sign off on Milton Friedman’s economic agenda: tax cuts, busting unions, economic liberalization, monetarism, etc.

  • Noxious1

    So much asshattery ITT.
    Most of you weren’t even born yet, nevermind old enough to vote.

    • ænəræk

      I voted for him both times…..I’m not proud of it

  • wheldon rumproast

    Reagan sold out the middle class in the US, bowing to the wealthy and corporations. GOP lackeys point out the 80’s under Reagan as a time of great prosperity, after the tepid 70’s, but the truth is that politicians handed over control of the country to the wealthy elite. And it’s been a race to the bottom ever since, for all but the privileged few. Without even considering the points addressed in the article, this one issue makes Reagan the worst president in modern times, IMO.

  • Sunnysmom

    Bu..bu..bu…BUT he stopped Communism..(winks:-). I especially love how their purported “hero” didn’t respond to the 1983 KAL shooting for 4 days as he was on vacation (although he opted to cut it short after pressure from James Baker). But Obama’s an asshole because he didn’t change his schedule that day. I don’t fault Reagan or Obama for not changing their schedules, nothing they could do in the moment until everything was sorted out. If we want to be mad at response, GWB sat for 7 minutes and listened to The Pet Goat story while we were DIRECTLY under attack. Just sayin’

    • Doy Bowers

      Yes, But in all fairness to “The DECIDER” he really, really, really wanted to know how “My Pet Goat” turned out!!! No reason to interrupt Jr’s “Bedtime Story” just because the Terrorist St. I-Ronnie Raygun had Armed/Trained were crashing planes into buildings in America!!!

  • Ted

    Two things: This guy is absolutely right, Reagan would be a RINO today. And why do Republicans have to go back thirty years to find a role model for their party?

    • John Patterson

      Let’s also remember how he turned the GOP over to a bunch of TV Preachers and their”Sheeple”-aka-The Religious Right!!
      Also,although he served in WWII,he never served overseas!!
      He spent his whole tour of duty at the studios of Warner Brothers;Paramount;MGM/UA;Universal;20th Century Fox and Columbia making training films!!
      Now Bush the Elder;Bob Dole and Daniel Inouye not to mention Jimmy Stewart and Hank Fonda all served and saw combat!!

  • AndrewNY

    Conservatives don’t romanticize Reagan because of his policy expertise. They romanticize about him because he made them feel better.

  • John Simpson

    OK, so you may not agree with his ideas, intentions, actions, results or anything about the man. But one thing you cannot question was his love of country. He truly loved America. And I think every President you can name did as well. Right now, the saddest and most worrisome thing of all is that the current occupant of the White House does not love his country. He has very little or no American experience to draw from, not even much of an African-American experience. His viewpoints have been shaped by what most would term as un-American, even anti-American. It makes all this time and energy being wasted commenting on the past seem like a colossal waste of time, energy and brain damage.

    • Julie Wickstrom

      Do you know either president personally? Obama has actually shown much support for people of our nation. He has pulled troops out the middle east. He has pushed for benefits for our vets. Obama is the first president to publicly support gay marriage. He has also pushed for a bill that would provide equal rights for women. If you add it up, he has supported most the people of the nation. I’m sure he also supports men as he is one. I have seen no indication that he hates our country. Reagan, I would like to believe (I was a child when he was president) loved his country. I think all our presidents loved the U.S. Why would someone run for such a hard stressful job if they didn’t love this country?

      • John Simpson

        The Middle East is on fire because we left a vacuum for evil to flow into. The help for Vets is because he didn’t do anything until we had yet another crisis. He flip flopped on this issue, right or wrong, and it is about votes. This, like other issues, should be a states rights issue. Women already had equal rights. He is trying to change it to fit an agenda that is his, Valerie Jarret’s and George Soros. No candidate/President has promised so much to so many, and told so many lies doing it. The border issue is a catastrophy and, again, it is going to be about votes. He has apologized for what we were, the most benevolent country on earth, and is trying to remake the country. We are more divided than anytime since the Civil war. He had no resume for this job. His support, even from his own camp, is dwindling.

    • betterfredthandead

      As usuall…ya’ll right=trash insist on being delusional ! reegon was
      nothing more than an actor and ya’ll believed it!

      Not since Eisenhower has there appeared a man, let alone a politician, that exudes the sincere concern for the American People as BARACK OBAMA…ya’ll cannot name one…especially ronnie

      Thank You ronnie!

      Thank you ronnie! By illegally supplying Saadam Hussein with
      arms and equipment to fight his war against Iran and also the Ayatollah is grateful for the military spare parts you promised for the release of our embassy hostages. Of, course, once the Iraq-Iran conflict was over, Saadam invaded Kuwait.

      Thank you ronnie! For looking the other way while your pals
      raped the Savings and Loan Industry; that only cost US a $200 Billion bailout.

      Thank you ronnie! For deepening the deregulation of the
      airline industry. All the major US air carriers failed & went bankrupt
      with the sole exception of American Airlines. More Americans died in domestic plane crashes during your presidency than 20 years prior. Now we can support the Airlines with loans and grants every time they claim to lose money.

      Thank you ronnie! For decontrol of the oil industry. Now we
      get to enjoy outrageously higher prices for every thing made from petroleum.

      Thank You ronnie! For running up the world’s first trillion-dollar government debt and further inflating our money with your record 100 Billion-dollar budget deficits AND RAISING THE DEBT CEILING 17 TIMES!
      Now both parents must work just to buy the bare necessities and never mind the resulting higher crime rate, we now have more prisons. In fact, more American citizens are incarcerated than are the citizens of any country on the planet!


  • Shones

    First off Im an independent, but whenever I see one side attempting to mislead the masses(honestly its usually the left, I rarely see any rebublicans on MSNBC for example, its like watching straight propaganda.. no opposing viewpoint for discussion)… I feel the need to step in.

    4. Giving 2,500 missiles to a country to release 52 Americans with Congress’ approval is not nearly as bad as giving up 5 Hitlers for 1 deserter(Thats what he is, his squad would know him better than anyone, and his letters are very suspicious) without even getting Congress’ approval on it. It may be because Congress would have turned it down.. but they should, thats a horrible trade. And before you jump on me with the “You must be anti-troop” BS, I served my time with the Marines, joined in 09, served until a few months ago. I have no sympathy for probable deserters.

    3. Gun control isnt the same as a gun ban that most liberals want.

    2. Meh. He was also in the middle of the Cold War and increased the military’s size by a ton which caused the Russians to try and compete with us and ultimately contributed to the collapse of the USSR. So that may explain a little spending.

    Were winding down our wars(horribly btw) and Obama has raised the debt by $13 trillion.. I know somehow youll find a way to put that on Bush(who I wasnt a fan of either, but I did like his military policies)

    1. Debatable, it seems like the only people who do the “RINO” calling are the far right tea party, hardly the majority of republicans.

    • Shones

      Oh and another point about #4.. What happened to Sgt. Tahmoorisi(Sp?)? We have a Marine in Mexican prison and I havent heard one word from Obama about him, kinda irks me.

      • Pete Watson

        He was freed November1, you don’t hear about it because the right limp-ducks definitely won’t thank Obama for securing his release. Typically, as a right limp-dick you’re under informed

    • GL

      And yet, had President Obama given Iran 2500 missiles, you would be calling for his head.

      Also, 5 Hitlers? Wow, nice to hear we sent five blindly-ideological idiots whose only real threat is the competent underlings they hire back to their old lack of competent underlings.

  • John Simpson

    Although there are good points made by all concerned here, some accurate, some BS, the bottom line is this: right now, given current conditions and issues, I would rather live in Reagan’s America and World than any place under the control and influence of barack hussein obama, eric holder, harry reid and nancy pelosi.

  • nynetguy

    Regarding that idiotic meme picture about the plastic gun and the mental midget who came up with it.

    The “metal weight” is the bullet. Without bullets the gun is kind of useless.

    Now, on to the idiocy of this blog post.

    “It would be a great improvement in our political dialogue if more conservatives listened to Mr. Larson.”

    Hysterical. Some tree-hugging libbies think the cons should only listen to those cons who only barely seem to agree with the tree-huggers. Cute.

    “Conservatives would do everyone a favor by not trying to resurrect the ghost of Ronald Reagan every time they want to win an argument with each other, or anyone else who doesn’t agree with them.”

    Myt experiences has been the exact opposite. More often than not it’s some limp-dicked liberal attempting to argue that the latest gross overreach by Emperor Obama was totally legit because Ronnie did something just like it. Of course, more often than not the retard libbie get’s one or 12 salient points wrong which makes the analogy so laughingly wrong but why, if leftard liberals hate St. Ronni so much, do the continually attempt to draw paralleles to what their might Emperor is doing? Is that how far “Hope & Change” as fallen these days?

  • John Andersen

    Of course the article is about Reagan being time warped to the beginning of the 21st Century; His views would be different so we are dealing with counterfactuals. Someone mentioned above that he would not be the same person today… I figure that a given here. So many variables have changed in our laws, politics and world. Reagan was not a born again Christian and he was NO TeaParty type. And we do see the past differently… Today… All else the same I’d say he was a moderate.

  • bob

    Let’s not forget the Iran Contra affair.