Reagan vs. the Neoconservative movement

To backup my postulates in the previous post (1st of March 2008), Jacob Heilbrunn, ostensibly another neocon-basher, has an interesting little piece in the New York Times, that in my opinion illustrates some of the differences between the neoconservative mindset and Reagan’s views. In this presidential election campaign, it seems that it has become a competition among conservatives and democrats alike, about who can be more Reagan-esque. Even Obama praises him. The author’s points are from a new book by Lou and Carl Cannon called “Reagan’s Disciple”. Some of the main points:

“The Cannons contend that far from being a militant crusader, Reagan was a prudent leader — prepared to compromise with Congressional Democrats, hesitant to embroil the United States in foreign wars, eager to maintain America’s alliances and acutely aware of the limits of American power.”

“Misunderstandings about Reagan were endemic among the conservatives in his own administration, the Cannons demonstrate, beginning with his truculent secretary of state Alexander Haig, who confused Reagan’s hard-line rhetoric with his actual intentions.”

“As president, Bush reverentially invoked Reagan’s name on behalf of the war on terror and became, the Cannons write, “a de facto neocon.” Where Reagan had wisely kept his own counsel, “Bush had surrounded himself with dreamers telling him what they hoped would happen.”

The debate over the legacy of Reagan most likely will not stop here, since neoconservatives will insist to the bitter end that Reagan was one of them. Anyone who has studied Reagan even remotely, knows that the man’s actions and intentions remained somewhat a conundrum, even to his contemporaries (especially because of the difference in strategy between his two terms). But in my opinion his actions speak for themselves – in retrospect his presidency looks like a consistent attempt to negotiate from strength, using his fierce ideological fervor mainly as a strategic means to force the Soviets into compliance. The fact that he got rid of many of his most aggresive and militant advisors early on and balanced his aides with more pragmatic personalities like the labor-economist George Schultz, is evidence that he was no ideological zealot.