The closer parallel for Democrats would be Franklin D. Roosevelt; I can imagine that his policies set the course for the modern Democratic Party far more than JFK did.

And, of course, where the GOP asks What Would Reagan Do? they don't actually emulate him.

Reagan raised taxes, cut and run from Lebenon, borrowed and spent (ok, they still follow that), and negotiated with terrorists.

And still sucked as a president.

I do remember some talk about rebuilding the FDR coalition quite some time ago, but nothing about putting FDR on a pedestal.

Considering Ramesh thinks the RW is a "Culture of life", it's not a surprising grasping of straws. RW talking points these days are more of a window into the minds of RWers. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a more pleasant sight.

The GOP Reagan obsession looks from the outside like a form of Cargo Cult Science.

Wow. Good post, Steve. Or, that is to say, I agree with you 100% (for once).

Let them keep Reagan. Every group has to have its hero. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Reagan economic policies are on the wrong side of history.

No, Steve, this is exactly wrong. The policy attributed to Reagan wasn't actually Reagan policy. He cut and ran (properly) in Lebanon. He negotiated an end to theatre nukes in Europe. He raised taxes. He compromised on a myriad of issues

The Reagan the wingnuts talk about didn't exist. See Will Bunch's Tear Down This Myth.

"The Reagan the wingnuts talk about didn't exist."

That's true, but completely beside the point. The point is that the GOP have put Reagan on a pedestal as a sort of iconic god, and the democrats have nobody comparable.

The fact that the GOP is utterly re-inventing Reagan's history and agenda in the process is merely an ironic side-note.

What Mustang Bobby said. William Leuchtenberg actually once wrote a book about post-World War II Democrats called *In the Shadow of FDR.* As with Reagan, the memory of FDR was frequently at variance with his actual record, and different factions of the party vied with each other to claim that their policies were the true Rooseveltian ones. Major realignments frequently center on a charismatic figure, and partisans cling to the legacy of that figure because he provided what seemed to be the sure-fire formula for success. Sooner or later that formula stops working, but it takes a long time for partisans to recognize that the problem is in fact with the formula, not with contingent circumstances. And then redoing the formula is a long, drawn out process--as we Democrats should know from the experience of the last quarter century.

What does it say about Ramesh Ponnuru's intellectual abilities if he thinks that Reagan was a philosopher par excellence whose ideas must be followed by the Republicans for generations to come?

In other words, the GOP has been following the Cult of Personality for decades, while constantly claiming to adhere to "philosophical content."

On the other hand, make it Bobby Kennedy, and allow for the fact that we only have his campaign speeches rather than any implemented policies, and there's a glimmer of truth in it. Note that MSNBC said "Kennedy", not "JFK".

Democrats were obsessed with a rightfully-righteous political dynasty. We still are, and shall always be.

Republicans, on the other hand, are obsessed with a B-actor who spent a lot of time playing with his monkey.

That's not to say his memory isn't widely revered; it is.

Why? The man didn't do shit. He proposed a lot of things, but didn't lift a finger to push them through Congress. LBJ had to do it. Civil rights, voting rights, Medicare — I could go on all day. Johnson's Great Society transformed domestic American life in a way not seen since the New Deal. Had it not been for his disastrous conduct of the Vietnam war, he'd be the president we'd be revering today, not JFK. Aside from the Peace Corps, the average American would be hard pressed to name even one of JFK's achievements while in office.

What did JFK do? Mainly, he got assassinated. Martyrdom looks good on an eternal résumé; but it shouldn't overshadow what a president did (or didn't do) during his lifetime.

And, you know, look who are successful candidates have been: Clinton and Obama... both young and inspiring candidates. Compare that to the Republicans, who tend to be older and only occasionally good speakers... so maybe the aura of Kennedy still hangs over the party in some subconscious way.

And can someone explain to me where the Democratic party went wrong, and how we went right again? I was born in the early 70's, so I didn't come of age politically until Reagan... but "'big government' type solutions" is, afaic, still what the Democratic party is about. Maybe the "war on poverty" is what tripped us up, or maybe it was just a bad economy and one bad president... or lingering McArthyism / imperialism / chauvinism... Hmmm....

Maybe the real reason for the Democratic resurgence is the end of the cold war; now the public doesn't associate government programs with the godless communism of our mortal enemy.

"It's painful to think it "may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over" this, but given what we've seen of late, it may take even longer than that."
—Steve Benen 10:50 AM

And exactly what this country needs to allow competence to assert itself and do the necessary work if this country is to survive as a republic. The true drawback to our little passion play is the wanton destruction of so much of the rest of the world and its peoples. I hope American 'conservatism' dies a long, unrepentant, lingering death. The world needs it.

I think the comparison is more adopt with FDR (i.e. look at how often Open Left faults Obama in comparison) but even at OL there's debate: I believe it was bowers who pointed out FDR's myriad failures or political compromises (like race) that would be abhorrent to us now as Obama's pathetic obeisance to financial titans.

The fact that Reagan was an intellectual lightweight who could not distinguish between his actual life and movies he had appeared in make him a great figurehead for the dimwittedness that is the GOP's primary characteristic these days.

...when was the last time a leading Democrat said, "Let's just do what JFK would do if he were here"?

When was the last time someone said, "We need another Apollo program for X technical challenge"?

the problem with most republicans is that they have a reactionary, fearful temperament. Every republican I've ever known with the exception of one has been backward-looking and fearful. Most of them have also been racist. Racism has always struck me as a reaction of fear. Xenophobia. And these are people who like to have people to revere. Hence the Reagan reverence. Which has always struck me as so strange. It's as though they've been living in a different world from the rest of us.

And, of course, where the GOP asks What Would Reagan Do? they don't actually emulate him.

Exactly.

Reagan followed the biggest tax cut in history (at that point in time) of 1981 with the biggest tax hike in history in 1982, and then tax hikes again in 1983, 1984, and 1986. He was flexible in his tax ideology; his acolytes aren't.

And foreign policy? Reagan followed the tough talk against the "evil empire" with five summit meetings with Gorbachev in less than two years' time -- a series of meetings that his disciples would now denounce as "appeasement" and "laughing with dictators."

It's not just that they're blindly following a former leader; they're following a myth that never existed. If Reagan were president today, they'd denounce him for not being enough like Reagan.

A lot of us Bears fans had a Ditka obsession for quite a while, too.

The Kennedy legacy for me is all the past Kennedys including Ted not just JFK. However, when I longed for JFK was the last eight years, which made me long for a President, who could speak the English language not only well but poetically. Bush was such an embarrassment as President with his lawbreaking, shredding of the Constitution, constant bad manners, and a mutilation of the English language.

I too agree that the analogy is better with FDR. Heck, take Vietnam out of the equation -- something begun by JFK -- and Lyndon Johnson was a far more activist president than Kennedy, if comparatively lacking in charisma.

Inkadu requests:
"...can someone explain to me where the Democratic party went wrong, and how we went right again?"

I can start. Post Nixon, the Democrats did not recognize the slow takeover of traditional media by the Republicans. The first major victory the R's got was the takeover of the House in 1994. The stumble of the Clintons on healthcare reform combined with minor (in comparison to the recent Republican antics) corruption were major factors. Add the complete takeover of talk radio, inspired framing & language by the "conservatives" (i.e "partial birth abortion" and the demonization of "Liberal") and pro-active projection (the Left's intense hatred). Here you have a toxic brew of tribalism propaganda custom made by and for the wealthiest of our nation.

Also, consider the rise in population (and House members) in the south and the Southern Strategy, and the Republicans become the foxes watching the hen house. Their greed brought them (and the rest of us) down.

Have the Democrats done anything right? I'll let another commenter take that one on.

Ya sure, but Reagan appropriated the Kennedy mantle all the time. Because Kennedy did that tax cut in the sixties, which was totally relevant to the 1980 economy or something. That's what all conservatives are at heart: appropriators of other peoples' productivity.

"The Kennedy legacy for me is all the past Kennedys including Ted not just JFK. However, when I longed for JFK was the last eight years, which made me long for a President, who could speak the English language not only well but poetically. Bush was such an embarrassment as President with his lawbreaking, shredding of the Constitution, constant bad manners, and a mutilation of the English language."

What the post is all about. Iconography. This poster doesn't care that JFK was a shitty president and an unprincipled individual. He was good looking, spoke proper English and was a cool dude. That's all that counts.

No Kennedy other than Ted—for whom we should have great respect—has ever done anything meaningful for the nation.

Reagan was the same as JFK.

George W. Bush was elected to the office of president twice because many Americans thought they'd rather have a beer with a cool dude like him than with those prissy guys named Gore and Kerry.

Good thing Americans aren't shallow.

Say "with regard". 'Regards' is a salutation.

"Philosophical content" on the right? They believe in magic (specifically the magic of the free market), how do you build policy around that?

I think the problem with the Democrats over the last few decades is that they forgot their economic base. They began courting the corporations because of their donations. In return they went soft on support for blue collar bread and butter issues. They hoped they could get money from the corporations and still get the vote of the traditional dems by being socially liberal. In doing so they lost a lot of their identity.

It's painful to think it "may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over" this, but given what we've seen of late, it may take even longer than that.

Republicans will never get over Reagan because Democrats steered clear of hard analysis which would have to include the fact that Reagan had Alzheimer's while in office. Democrats, saps that we are, won't do what Republicans have no problem doing. If the situation were reversed, if it was a Democratic president who was diagnosed Alzheimer's shortly after leaving the White House, Republicans would be all over it.

For those who don't know, the onset of Alzheimer's can be as long as thirty years before it is formally diagnosed. The person's thinking is usually disordered for many years, but can generally keep it together on the surface so that most people don't know that anything is wrong. Stress and illness can exacerbate the symptoms and speed the person's decline.

During his first term, particularly after he was shot by John Hinckley, Reagan showed signs of Alzheimer's that were obvious to people experienced with the disease. By the second term, his own staff was concerned and called in James Baker (then Treasury Secretary, but Reagan's first CoS) to observe him because they thought something was wrong. Reagan, as Alzheimer's patients are wont to do, knew he was being observed and tested and kept it together long enough for Baker to tell the staff that nothing needed to be done, "The Boss is fine."

When did Jim Baker get a medical degree? And when are we going to start including mental status exams on presidents and candidates running for the presidency?

P.S.

Well worth reading (should be required reading) is:

Cheney Learned Iran-Contra Lessons
By Jonathan Schwarz
May 9, 2009

Editor’s Note: The Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980s was the “missing link� connecting Watergate and the national security scandals of the 1970s to the restoration of the imperial presidency under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney this decade.

Other dangerous patterns also were established during Iran-Contra, including a bullying Republican Party aided by right-wing attack groups, a timid Democratic opposition, and a feckless Washington news media unwilling to do the hard work of accountability.

Interestingly, one key person who “got� this bigger picture was Cheney, who was White House chief of staff during the collapse of the imperial presidency in the 1970s; was a chief congressional defender of the Iran-Contra criminals; and then oversaw the restoration of the imperial presidency after 9/11.

From that experience, Cheney also gained an understanding of how important cover-ups could be in this process, as Jonathan Schwarz notes in this guest essay:

In a new article by Stephen "W.W. Beauchamp" Hayes, former Vice President Cheney gripes extensively about the Obama administration. It's exactly what you'd expect.

But what you might not expect is that Cheney (seemingly inadvertently) confirms that there was a massive cover-up of the Iran-Contra scandal by the Reagan administration:

"I went through the Iran-Contra hearings and watched the way administration officials ran for cover and left the little guys out to dry. And I was bound and determined that wasn't going to happen this time."

Considering that two national security advisers (Robert McFarlane and John Poindexter) and the Secretary of Defense (Caspar Weinberger) were some of the "little guys" who were prosecuted for Iran-Contra, it's obvious who Cheney is talking about as hanging them out to dry: President Reagan and Vice President Bush.

read more at:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/050909b.html

I'm reminded of Mao's Little Red Book. And also the "Sayings of Chairman Mao."

"It is not, and really never has been, common for Democrats to argue that a certain course of action is wise simply because a Kennedy once advocated it. But Republicans have been doing so with regard to Reagan for twenty years now."

I'm not sure I quite agree with this. It's not all about JFK. It's about a whole FAMILY of progressive, thoughtful public servants, including one married to the Republican governor of California.

The Reagan family -- not so much. He was a one-off, as they say. An actor with the role of a lifetime and a party that cares not a whit for substance (as we saw for the past eight years) but is all smoke and mirrors. Do not look at the man behind the curtain.

Do not look at him trading arms for hostages. Do not look at him raising taxes. Do not look at him taking advice from an astrologer.

"I think the problem with the Democrats over the last few decades is that they forgot their economic base. They began courting the corporations because of their donations. In return they went soft on support for blue collar bread and butter issues. They hoped they could get money from the corporations and still get the vote of the traditional dems by being socially liberal. In doing so they lost a lot of their identity."

Word, John K.

Although the Republicans revere Reagan, they revere a made-up Reagan, a fictional man who was far more of a purist than the real man was. After all, the real Reagan raised taxes. The real Reagan talked peace with the Soviet Union and called for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Doesn't mean I have much sympathy for him; the real Reagan did major damage to the country. But when the Republican right says "follow Reagan" they don't mean it.

Kennedy's reputation has fallen so far among liberals (especially historians) that I would consider the notion that he was a failure as a progressive to be the conventional wisdom. He's like the indie band that everyone claims is overhyped, but nobody seems to actually admit to liking.

Everyone seems to see him as a coward on civil rights, for instance. However, the eventual passage of civil rights owed a lot to the fact that he was *seen* as a strong supporter of it. It would have been better if the Civil Rights Act had been passed in 62 (or earlier, of course) but the votes just weren't there. Casting Kennedy as the enemy on civil rights makes about as much since as casting FDR as a capitalist stooge for giving up on parts of the New Deal, or Clinton as a homophobe for the don't ask don't tell compromise. (both defensible positions, representative of critiques from the left, but they are clearly never going to be the dominant historical narrative). He had the bad luck to be shot before he could claim a civil rights victory. And Johnson's progressive agenda owes a lot to the fact that (a) there was a lot of sympathy for JFK and (b) the Republicans made a horrible bet with Goldwater. It's possible JFK would have had similar accomplishment if equally favorable circumstances had arisen in his second term.