Last sentence should read:

"In addition,, politics aside, is there anything good we can take from the Ronald Reagan of 1980, who for the official start of his campaign, went over to Philadelphia, Mississippi and spoke about state rights"?

Well, at the very least, they could have mentioned Reagan last!

=D

Reagan is remembered affectionately by most Americans, I remember well his funeral and the seemingly endless lines of people patiently waiting to pay their respects. I don't agree he was a saint, I remember when he closed down the mental homes in California, it was heartless and spoke of things to come.

However, I can't help but respect Obama for respecting the feelings of many Americans for Reagan, and acting accordingly. It fits in very well with his platform of inclusion and compromise. I don't like it much, but I can and do respect it.

I think you misunderstand the term "inspire," bslev. It is not a synonym for "reference."

Obviously Obama is not going to propose the same stupid rightwing policies that Reagan did in the speech that left you cold. I certainly do not even expect to hear that "the era of big government is over" or some such nonsense ;) Optimism and can-do spirit are the overarching themes of all three of those speeches.

Not to rehash the ridiculous argument from the primaries, but as cube3u points out also, Reagan was able to get enough people on board to fundamentally transform America. Obama is trying the same, just the other way around.

Think "Obama Republicans."

I have to believe Axelrod is referring to tenor or tone, and not substance.

Well, the other thought that comes to mind, I guess, is another attempt (a pretty oblique one, to be sure) to broaden Obama's appeal, in this case to Reagan Democrats, and indies and others who have favorable thoughts of Reagan.

I suggest you think of Reagan in terms of how many Republicans think of FDR. Despite the politics represented on this board, FDR had a dark side, which including the pack-the-Supreme-Court plan. There was also little bravery shown regarding the reports of the treatment of Jews in Europe.

Does this make FDR a terrible figure? No.

I loathe Reagan's policy of dismantling Carter's energy policy (which Americans -- yes, us! -- were eager to do) and his shadow government activities in the Iran-Contra affair, and the presumed (and highly illegal) activities involving the Iranians before the 1980 election.

However, Reagan did bring a sense of optimism back to America after the Vietnam-Watergate-Oil Crisis experience.

And let's not forget, much of the working class went to Reagan in droves because the Democratic Party wasn't speaking to them. In addition to fiscal policy, people, especially working class people, are concerned about the culture of the country. And the GOP was able to hit the Democrats so hard a blow here that it still reverberates (e.g. "family values") -- even if they don't practice what they preach.

Reagan was a speaker that moved people and what many here at TPM forget is sometimes attitude is the difference between passing policy and merely having an academic debate. I heard people last night praise Clinton for doing the exact same thing -- paring down issues to simple-to-understand memes.

When your guy does it, it's clever marketing.

When the other guy does it, it's dumbing down.

Sometimes I tire of the black and white views expressed on these boards. All Dems aren't good, all GOPers aren't bad. At the risk of a shameless plug, I have posted here:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/looking-back-judiciously.php

some remarks on LBJ and most people can't get around Vietnam. Sorry, the Great Society was born under this guy... you can't cherry pick history. LBJ should be more significant to the Dems than he is today.

JFK wasn't that significant a president in the end. He was very good at reacting to events: George Wallace and the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he developed no long term policy thrust. Indeed, Johnson is more significant in this arena. Yet we love JFK as the forever youthful president.

Similarly, Reagan is now (like it or not) an icon of the optimism and promise of America (complete with cowboy images). Like Clinton, he was popular to the end and could have possibly won a 3rd term. You may not have voted for him, and I didn't, but a lot of the country did -- and he is still held in high esteem by many working class and middle class people I know.

Obama has been very smart to tie into this feeling -- he needs to redefine the political map for the Dems if they are ever to move forward again as a party. TPM editorial board recognizes that.

I think it's a good lesson for those here: this is politics and short of holding a gun to everyone's head, you have to persuade people with the coin of the realm.

Besides, the more you co-opt the other guy's symbols, the more you universal your appeal. Let the GOP have to deal with GWB, we grab the Reagan icon, thank you very much.

I think the inspiration from the Reagan speech is likely to come more in the form of understanding the speech as a piece of successful political rhetoric, not from its policy ideas. Obama has reputedly studied convention acceptance speeches from nominees of both parties, and not just the ones from Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton. This is a good idea.

The reasons that Axelrod referred to the Kennedy 1960, Reagan 1980 and Clinton 1992 acceptance speeches are probably that (i) those three candidates won their races, and he wants to associate Obama with the idea of winners, and (ii) each of them won a race in which he was running against the incumbent party: Kennedy replaced Eisenhower; Reagan replaced Carter; and Clinton replaced Bush I. So each was ultimately successful in convincing the country it was time for a change.

Reagan's theme was that it was time to "recapture our destiny"; Clinton's that it was time for a "New Covenant", and Kennedy of course spoke of the "New Frontier". I expect Obama will also try to develop a simple thematic point that combines notions of rebirth, renewal and newness.

In certain ways, the Kennedy speech seems the most apt. Kennedy, like Obama, had to counter suggestions that he was too young and too untested. He also, like Obama, had to acknowledge the anxieties raised by the fact that he was a "risky" candidate - Obama is black and Kennedy was Catholic. Kennedy said:

I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk -- new, at least since 1928. The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free and fair judgment and in my ability to render a free and fair judgment.

Obama might make a similar statement, and given the fact that the speech falls on the anniversary of King's great speech, he might refer to that by saying something like, "the Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to judge a person based on the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin.

Kennedy tried to turn his youth to an advantage, by pressing the idea that we were in a new era, perhaps understood best by a rising generation, and that the tried and true weren't good enough. He said:

Perhaps he could carry on the party policies, the policies of Nixon and Benson and Dirksen and Goldwater. But this Nation cannot afford such a luxury. Perhaps we could afford a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But after Buchanan this nation needed Lincoln; after Taft we needed Wilson; and after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt.

But we're not merely running against Mr. Nixon. Our task is not merely one of itemizing Republican failures. Nor is that wholly necessary. For the families forced from the farm do not need to tell us of their plight. The unemployed miners and textile workers know that the decision is before them in November. The old people without medical care, the families without a decent home, the parents of children without a decent school: They all know that it's time for a change.

We are not here to curse the darkness; we are here to light a candle. As Winston Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: If we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.

Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.

and

The New Frontier is here whether we seek it or not.

and later

That is the question of the New Frontier.

That is the choice our nation must make -- a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort, between national greatness and national decline, between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of "normalcy," between dedication of mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we shall do. And we cannot fail that trust. And we cannot fail to try.

From the Clinton speech, one thing that Obama can draw on is Clinton's call for a unified restoration of American values, and his criticism of Republican complacency, and of the Republican's criticism of the Democratic candidate for his reliance on airy themes of hope and inspiration:

We offer our people a new choice based on old values. We offer opportunity. We demand responsibility. We will build an American community again. The choice we offer is not conservative or liberal. In many ways, it's not even Republican or Democratic. It's different. It's new. And it will work. It will work because it is rooted in the vision and the values of the American people.

Of all the things George Bush has ever said that I disagree with, perhaps the thing that bothers me most, is how he derides and degrades the American tradition of seeing and seeking a better future. He mocks it as the “vision thing.”

But just remember what the Scripture says: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

I hope -- I hope nobody in this great hall tonight, or in our beloved country has to go through tomorrow without a vision. I hope no one ever tries to raise a child without a vision. I hope nobody ever starts a business or plants a crop in the ground without a vision. For where there is no vision, the people perish.

From Reagan, Obama could draw on Reagan's call for a renewal of national commitment, devotion and service:

Isn't it once again time to renew our compact of freedom; to pledge to each other -- to pledge to each other all that is best in our lives; all that gives meaning to them -- for the sake of this, our beloved and blessed land?

Together, let us make this a new beginning. Let us make a commitment to care for the needy; to teach our children the virtues handed down to us by our families; to have the courage to defend those values and virtues, and the the willingness to sacrifice for them.

Let us pledge to restore, in our time, the American spirit of voluntary service, of cooperation, of private and community initiative; a spirit that flows like a deep and mighty river through the history of our nation.

Reagan was rhetorically countering what (he portrayed as) a period of decadence and flagging spirit, commitment and courage. This fits quite well with Obama's message as well. He could make a similar point while mocking George Bush's instruction to go shopping after 9/11. But I would expect Obama to turn this to a more Democratic purpose of "making government work again."

Obama can also draw on Reagan's appeal to the unease American's felt about the US's declining stature in the world:

Who does not feel a growing sense of unease as our allies, facing repeated instances of an amateurish and -- and confused Administration, reluctantly conclude that America is unwilling or unable to fulfill its obligations as leader of the free world?

Who does not feel rising alarm when the question in any discussion of foreign policy is no longer, "Should we do something?" But, "Do we have the capacity to do anything?"

Interestingly, in attempting to build his new, broad American coalition, Reagan was not afraid to invoke an Democratic president:

Nearly -- Nearly 150 years after Tom Paine wrote those words, an American President told the generation of the Great Depression that it had a "rendezvous with destiny." I believe this generation of Americans today also has a rendezvous with destiny.

Tonight -- Tonight, let us dedicate ourselves to renewing the American compact. I ask you not simply to "trust me," but to trust your values -- our values -- and to hold me responsible for living up to them. I ask you to trust that American spirit which knows no ethnic, religious, social, political, regional, or economic boundaries; the spirit that burned with zeal in the hearts of millions of immigrants from every corner of the earth who came here in search of freedom.

Some say that spirit no longer exists. But I've seen it. I've felt it -- all across this land; in the big cities, the small towns and in rural America. It's still there ready to blaze into life if you and I are willing to do what has to be done.

And he did it again in the closing passages. As much as it hurts us Democrats to endure these things, Obama may try to reach out to Republicans ready to cross over by invoking some fondly remebered Reaganesque line.

Fianlly, it will be interesting to see what Obama draws on from the "I Have Dream Speech". But remember, the King line about the "fierce urgency of Now", which Obama has frequently used, comes from that speech. So we might hear something that uses that line, and builds it, like King did, into a series of "now is the time to..." refrains.

To all:

Please excuse me for not responding to some excellent comments, some of which deserve their own blog space. I promise to respond later. I can't even blame work for having no time. I am off to my wife's first cousin's wedding that will involve just about every component of the broad coalition that will hopefully elect Senator Obama in November. Check this out; a half-jewish, half latino marrying a part African American, part Native American muslim.
Should be a blast, and I'm also hoping to chat with the Green Party's VP nominee, who I understand will be one of the guests. Now that could be a post too.

Ciao,

Bruce

P.S. In the meantime, discuss amongst yourselves. Is Ronald Reagan this generation's FDR?? Yikes!

In the meantime, discuss amongst yourselves. Is Ronald Reagan this generation's FDR??

More and more consensus is forming that FDR and RWR bookend the rise and peak of America's influence in the world.

The transition from an manufacturing economy to a financial economy occurs here.

The transition from being a prime lender to the world to being a prime creditor to the world occurs here.

The bookends become iconic for reflecting the maturing of America as a world power and what the citizen's wanted from their government.

Never, never forget that the Presidents we elect *reflect us*. Especially in the case of these two popular leaders.

I think McCain will dig up the corpse of Reagan and nominate him veep. They said they're going for historic. That would be historic.

Obama's just trying to blunt that move.

There is a deep and superficial meaning behind Axelrod name-dropping Reagan. There are many cogent analyses in this blog about the deep meaning, and I will contribute a little (such as I am able) further down... but the superficial reason, suprisingly, is lacking.

Axelrod name-dropped Reagan in order to get the media's attention. The media will therefore draw comparisons and force the media to contend with the speech. Rush Limbaugh will be forced to skewer the speech and repeat Reagan's speech, which will reveal contextual similiarities. The name Reagan will bring out the talking heads and will place Obama's name in lights next to the major players in modern American mythology.

Reagan's legacy is primarily awful. The rise in homelessness, the atrocities in South America, teh tribulations in the Middle East, supply side economics, racism... the list of problems exceed my capacity to name them all. However, he was a notoriously good orator... and his best speeches rarely (if ever) reflected the reality of his administration's policies. Reagan (as noted by others in this blog) championed public service and civic virtue, arguing that the public controls the government, not vice versa. If anything, that vision is PRECISELY what Obama is making real. Whereas Reagan was merely dispensing bromides, Obama is seriously promoting volunteer civic service as a reclamation of democracy from the grip of special interests. And Obama is 100% right.

I think fear is the base emotion of conservatives and optimism is the base emotion of liberals. Reagan incorporated optimism into his uber-masculine image and brought over many democrats in the process. I think Obama is just trying to bring them back home by studying how Reagan took them away. He may be also studying how to elucidate a fear of what McCain represents.

Because it's politics, we have to go down a lower road for a minute. Another reason to incorporate St. Reagan (the worst prez till W.) is it preempts some of the latest Republican attacks on Obama's campaign themes. I think it's something like this that Zipperupus was referring to. How can Rush and the other fartbags fight Obama when Ronnie said the same thing?

The 'we can do better' and 'fight for America as it should be, not as it is' themes have already come under attack:

That line from the Michelle speech has been bothering me all night. The world isn't perfect, of course, but it doesn't have to be fundamentally remade. It suggests to me roots in something a lot more radical than anything I'd — and most people? — would subscribe to. We've got a lot right, a lot to conserve. We don't have to remake the world in some idealistic professor's construct or anything ...

But here is what Reagan said:

I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation's highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.

Also, the wing nuts repeat over and over that we don't know what Obama has accomplished and tonight is the night he needs to tell us. However, nowhere did Ronnie go into his previous accomplishments in this speech. Just sayin'.

The Code Of The West: What Barack Obama can learn from Bill Ritter by Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, Sept. 1

Read it, you'll enjoy it, it's on the changing party.

Obama said it's not about him but about us, together, accomplishing things. Ronald Reagan argued its not about big government, but about the greatness of Americans trusted with their own money and productivity: they'd drive revenue up by investing in their own increased productivity. JFK said don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. These are common themes from good leaders who know they can't do it alone and must mobilize googles of people.

Ross Perot said, "United We Stand". Obama said "Yes We Can." Perot said that there are lots of great ideas...its just that no one could or would implement them and execute them. "Old Washington partisan politics," or "Gridlock"! Obama says we need to drop the old partisan conflict and get together to solve problems in unity.

I almost didn't get to see the speech live because I was at a wedding, but the baby was falling asleep and so I left early enough to catch the whole thing. I was very pleased with Senator Obama's speech and I think he did what he had to do (which is exactly what my son predicted I would say when he called me immediately after the speech). In short, if Senator Obama's speech is a guide to where and how he will campaign this fall, I feel good about things.

I listened for but heard no Ronald Reagan last night, unless of course talking about prudent spending or that Americans can do things without government is necessarily Reaganesque. My simple conclusion is that Axelrod mentioned Ronald Reagan yesterday because Ronald Reagan appeals to lots of Americans, whether they are Reagan Democrats or Obama Republicans. So, from my political hack perspective, if using the Gipper's name sells, then use his name.

What I would not want to see is Ronald Reagan becoming this generation's FDR. Ronald Reagan wasn't just about reminding Americans that we can love being Americans. And he wasn't just about prudent spending policy. Ronald Reagan, rest in peace, was the ultimate fist in the velvet glove. With loving kindness he spoke of mythical welfare queens driving cadillacs, mocked tree-hugging environmentalists, broke unions, and made government an enemy by definition. On the latter point, Ronald Reagan went beyond warning of the evils of overspending or the dangers of over-reliance on government. Ronald Reagan fostered an unhealthy and enduring dislike of government, which I submit is different than espousing the kind of prudent but vibrant government that I heard Senator Obama speak about last night.

I used to detest Ronald Reagan, rest in peace. When Rosalyn Carter said in or about 1984 that Ronald Reagan makes us feel comfortable with our prejudices, she expressed just what I was feeling at the time. I don't detest Ronald Reagan anymore. He's dead and I wish his family well. But he was never my hero and he is not my hero now and, G-d willing, he will never be the hero of my kids or their kids. But I ain't a political strategist; I just play one at the Cafe. If David Axelrod thinks that invoking Ronald Reagan's name is going to win Senator Obama some votes, I can live with that. But I'd by lying if I wrote that using Ronald Reagan in a Democratic campaign doesn't bother me.

I don't know if this is relevant to what you or even Axelrod was thinking or simply coincidental, but I heard one pundit say after the speech (sorry can't remember who or provide a link) that he thought Obama's appeal to move beyond partisanship and polarization was like Reagan's exhortation to "tear down this wall", so that East and West Germany could unite to become one great nation. Just FYI.
I can't stand Ronny Dearest. (spit, double spit) The Republicans won't rest, though, until the profile of FDR on the dime is replaced by RR, his head is chisled into Mt. Rushmore, and that future grade-school children learn that he once chopped down a flight control tower. (triple noogie spit with a 3.5 level difficulty) RR is one of many bricks in that partisan wall I just won't be able to budge.