A recent interview with former Republican standard-bearer Bob Dole has rekindled a debate I’ve had in the past with some of my Republican friends (Know your enemy – Sun Tzu).  Today’s conservatives speak with breathless reverence about former President Ronald Reagan when they’re looking to score easy political points, but would their hero have a chance to be President in today’s Republican party?  Upon a rational analysis, the answer is that it would be highly unlikely, if not impossible.  Let’s examine some of the reasons why:

Rational Republicans Agree

If YOU woke up one morning and realized these idiots were running your party, you would have trouble getting excited about anything, too

In the interview cited above, Dole says the Republican Party should be “closed for repairs” because current party members are more interested in obstructing than governing.  As for Ronald Reagan’s chances of becoming President today, Dole asserts, “Reagan wouldn’t have made it . . . because he had ideas.”  Jeb Bush, Florida Governor and son of Reagan’s Vice-President, created a bit of a stir last year when he said Reagan “would have a hard time” co-existing with a Republican Party so intent on getting nothing done and “would be criticized” for his willingness to work together with Democrats.

Abortion Rights

It’s no secret that the Tea Party and religious extremist groups which now dominate the Republican Party have little tolerance for any candidate without a strong anti-abortion profile.  In a Delaware Republican primary for Joe Biden’s old Senate seat in 2010, the Tea Party backed an embarrassing candidate (Christine O’Donnell, who was so wacky she aired a television commercial assuring us that she was “not a witch”) over extremely popular former Governor and long-time Republican Congressman Mike Castle, because Castle was pro-choice and favored stem cell research, among other centrist sins.  John McCain ended up with unknown and apparently unvetted Sarah Palin as a running mate largely because his preferred options, Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, were pro-choice and the modern Republican party would not support them.  Even the well-respected Kay Bailey Hutchison was derailed in her bid to be Governor of Texas by her allegedly pro-choice views.  When Condoleezza Rice was floated as a potential running mate for Mitt Romney, her pro-choice beliefs overshadowed her qualifications for the job and the idea was quickly scrapped.

So, what if California Governor Ronald Reagan had been one of the contenders for the nomination in 2012?  Likely, he would have been savaged by his competitors (like Rick Perry, who skewered Hutchison for her views on abortion in the Texas Governor’s race) and the Tea Party/Religious Right as evidenced by the examples in the previous paragraph.  In 1967, then Governor Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act which allowed millions of abortions to be legally performed in California.  Although he later supported many pro-life causes as President and said he regretted signing the bill, it seems highly unlikely that a candidate with the “blood on his hands of millions of unborn children” (can’t you imagine Perry or Michelle Bachmann saying something like that?) would have any shot of securing the nomination today.

Gay Rights

These days, Reagan would  probably be denied the Republican nomination just for the pink shirt

Another big issue for the forces that now control the Republican party is the restriction of rights for homosexual Americans.  The official Republican party platform included an endorsement of traditional marriage.  Despite an overall population that has warmed up to the idea of gay marriage, the groups who control the GOP these days have made opposing it one of their biggest issues, especially after it worked so well for George W. Bush in 2004.  Michelle Bachmann famously worried that having a gay elementary school teacher could cause students to become gay (for the full quote, read my farewell post to Bachmann).

Well, what would the Religious Right think about Governor Reagan today?  Reagan’s daughter, Patti Davis, recently stated in an interview that her father wouldn’t have thought gay marriage was a big deal.  After all, Reagan hired a lesbian couple to serve as nannies for his children.  Reagan also obviously had the opposite opinion from Mrs. Bachmann as to the ability of gay adults to somehow convert children to homosexuality.  In 1978, there was a bill on the ballot in California known as the Briggs Initiative (technically, California Proposition 6) which would have banned gays and lesbians from working as public school teachers.  Even though Reagan was considering a run for President and knew it would displease conservative Republicans, Reagan chose to side with Jimmy Carter and Harvey Milk, among others, in opposing this measure.  In an editorial in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Reagan asked citizens to vote against the Briggs Initiative, saying “homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles” and “a child’s teachers do not really influence this.”  Would such a gay-tolerant candidate have a snowball’s chance in Hell of surviving the Iowa Caucus?  I think not.

Unions

As unions are considered to be bastions of liberalism, presumably for their annoying insistence on fairness, it’s no shock that Tea Partiers can’t stand organized labor.  The most obvious example was the Tea Party’s strong support of Minnesota Governor Scott Walker, who ignited furious protests after proposing to restrict the collective bargaining rights of state employees.  Although Ronald Reagan was not necessarily considered a friend of organized workers during his Presidency (ask an old air traffic controller), I wonder what today’s ultra-conservatives would think of a Presidential candidate who had served six terms as a union president, was a member of the AFL-CIO, and who believed that the right to join a union was “one of the most elemental human rights.”

Conclusion

Once Reagan became President, he was responsible for approving massive deficit spending, almost tripling the national debt, numerous tax increases, and amnestying millions of illegal immigrants, so it’s pretty impressive how today’s conservatives can praise him with a straight face in such a hypocritical attempt to win the votes of citizens wistful about the 1980’s.  Following his time as Governor of California, he would have no doubt generated far less praise from his party as a presidential candidate today (a queer-loving, baby-murdering, union-backing candidate!) than what he has routinely received posthumously.  I suppose he could have returned to making bad movies like another former California Governor who is tolerant on social issues, but a Presidential run would have likely never gotten off the ground.  He would have been like Jon Huntsman at the end of the debate row wondering why nobody was asking him any questions.

I just added this picture to make Tea Partiers’ heads explode