A Different Type of Republican?

What made Ronald Reagan different? Acccording to Associated Press accounts, "Californians converged by the tens of thousands to pay their respects to former President Reagan, choking freeway traffic, shuffling in long lines and forcing surprised organizers to extend Tuesday's viewing period." The viewing hours at the Reagan library had to be extended well into the late evening.

Those interviewed for the AP article say that Reagan was a different type of Republican; one who attracted Republicans and Democrats alike. But ironically, the Republican Party of today is largely molded in Reagan's image. It's his agenda that dominates: tax cuts, democracy promotion, deregulation. Perhaps what's different is that when Reagan said it, everybody knew he meant it.

Reagan had nothing to lose if he lost the California gubernatorial race in 1966 or the presidential race in 1980. Unlike Bill Clinton who sought the presidency from the day he came out of the womb, Reagan had lived a full life prior to making a play in politics. He entered politics because he believed in the power of his ideas, not in power alone.

In many respects current President Bush is the same, but for precisely the opposite reasons. Bush lived a full life prior to becoming Governor of Texas, but it was full of nothing much. He wasn't much of a businessman, he wasn't much of a baseball team owner -- he owned less than 2% at one point (which later escalated to about 12%) -- he was nothing but a son of a President. But this son of a President had something that the Father didn't -- a backbone. Reared in the gritty dustbowl that is Midland, Texas, George's values were rooted in the heartland so deep that Andover and Yale made little impression. Therefore, George W. Bush is polarizing; George W. Bush is firm; George W. Bush's world won't end with a loss in November.

And if I were a betting man, this is exactly why Bush, like Reagan, will be a two-term President.