Eleanor Clift: On the Republican Hagiography of Ronald Reagan

[From USA Today "Et Cetera"]

Sometimes, the enemy without does a better job of indicting the enemy within.

Form George Will's critique in early 2007, to the American Conservative's recent article on David Hume (and even Capital "L" Libertarian John Stossel's piece "What We Don't Know about History Can Hurt Us", ), have all questioned the canonization of Ronald Reagan as the Conservative scion who ushered in sweeping reform of the federal government, cutting taxes, preserving the middle class, and making America a great nation again.

Rand Paul, junior senator from Kentucky, laid out with grace that President Reagan definitely changed the debate about government. No longer should we be asking, "May I have some more?" but be should be shouting, "Enough, already!"

Yet Reagan's rhetoric hardly matched his recourse, as Columnist Eleanor Clift persuasively outlines.

A saint who sinned against the very canon many claim that he defines, Ronald Reagan mostly deservedly would not win a Tea Party primary, nor should anyone following in in his steps win the Presidency. Yet contrary to the conniving and carping of the left, the current repudiation of the Gipper does not cast the Tea Party as extremist, but rather exposes the immoderate moderation, hypocrisy, and delusion of "hate-government" masquerading as constitutional government, the real demand of the Tea Party Movement.