It was the best of times. It became the worst of times. Our Republican Presidents and Congress failed to follow the economic principles of Ronald Reagan. They did not have the courage and common sense of President Reagan.Yes, you read that right. Both Bushes were too bipartisan, which is why America's been shitsville since 1989. And all that stuff about Republicans accusing Clinton of being a Soviet spy and impeaching him was just a dream. And all those memories of Republicans cutting taxes and accusing us of being traitorous Muslim-lovers who hate America was all fantasy. Never happened. Instead, Republicans were compromising with us the whole time, in the spirit of bipartisanship. Of course. I hate to think what they'd have done to Clinton if they were being mean.
The Republicans worked more closely with the Democrats, thinking cooperation in a bipartisan spirit was what their constituents wanted. The Republicans lacked courage, they compromised their principles, and they voted on bills that took the government of the United States of America ever farther to the Left.
And geez, I know these guys have rewritten history by pretending as if they hadn't aided and abetted Bush for nine straight years, but come on! Even Stalin's photoshoppers would have been embarrassed at this level of revisionism. If only the two Bushes had waged wars, supported Big Business unwaveringly, and savaged Democrats; our country would still be a great nation. If only they had been more like Reagan...
But that's the other delusional part of his post: Ronald Reagan most certainly did work with Democrats. He fricking helped save Social Security, for christ's sake! And he raised taxes multiple times, including income, business, gas, and payroll taxes. If anyone wasn't following the example Reagan set, it was Reagan!
And screw Democrats, Reagan worked closely with the Soviets, at least in terms of negotiating arms reductions and ridding the world of nukes. That's right, not imagined socialists, or actual socialists, but actual communists. Reagan befriended full-on communists and worked with them to weaken America's defenses. And let's not forget when a terrorist attack killed the most Marines in a single day since Iwo Jima, and Reagan resolutely pledged to keep our troops there as a show of our strength...and then pulled them all out four months later.
And that's the funniest part, Reagan was much more of a compromising pragmatist than the Bushes ever were. After all, Reagan raised taxes when faced with deficits and Bush didn't. For as much as conservatives insist that Bush Sr. lost because he compromised, the reality is that he lost because he wasn't Reagan. Just as Bush Jr. was the last Republican who could woo conservatives without going full crazy, Reagan was the last Republican who could compromise without making them go crazy. These days, the only people the wingnuts are willing to accept is another full-blown wingnut; which is why Sarah Palin remains their top choice.
For as much as I think Reagan had more courage and common sense than the Bushes (a low bar, indeed), I doubt Dr. May even remembers any of the reasons why that was. That's not to suggest that Reagan was a closet liberal or anything, but only to show how far off the deep-end modern conservatives are. Had Reagan been as unwaveringly conservative as Bush, he would have been just as unpopular.
The Tale of One Crisis
And so the entire premise of Dr. May's post was complete poppycock. Reagan did work with Democrats; Bush didn't. And none of this had anything to do with Dr. May's "two crises" theme. Literally, nothing. I have no idea why he mentioned it. The first two-thirds of his post have nothing to do with his point. It's as if he came up with his Dickens theme and kept writing until something popped up.
From the beginning, I assumed the two crises would be one involving Reagan and one Obama; and how each of them dealt with them differently. But no, both are Obama crises. Not crises that Obama needs to deal with, but the crises that are President Obama.
And yes, you read that right: Both crises are Obama. I quote:
We now have two competing crises. The first is the crisis that is building for Barack Obama and his supporters. If the people keep Socialized health care from becoming law, Obama may have lost his credibility and the trust of the people.And yes, he's actually referring to ONE "crisis." If Obama reforms healthcare, he wins and "the people" lose. If he doesn't reform healthcare, he loses and "the people" win. These are the "two" crises he's referring to in the title of his post.
The second crisis is the rising fear and distrust of government by the people.
And yes, he's still insisting that "the people" oppose Obama, all evidence to the contrary, and yes, he wrote that if "the people" stop Obama, he may have lost the trust of "the people." If these are the same "people" he later says are pushing back against Obama because they know he's a Marxist and have had enough of his tyranny, I'd say they're very, very stupid for still holding out trust in him.
But the truth is that, for as much as May insists that "the people" are against Obama, he basically acknowledged here that there are other "people" who still like him. After all, if "the people" already hate Obama, then he can't possibly save his reputation. Yet May is clearly too oblivious to notice this. And so he writes a post about the crisis Obama faces if "the people" lose confidence in him after they've already rejected him. I sure hope this guy is a better eye doctor than he is a thinker.