Could Cain Be the Second Coming of Reagan?

Could Cain Be the Second Coming of Reagan?

Bernard Goldberg
Fox News
October 13, 2011

There was bad news on the doorstep for Mitt Romney Thursday. The headline at the top of page one in the Wall Street Journal shouted what Mitt Romney didn't want to hear: “Cain Vaults to Lead in Poll.” Once again, Yogi got it right: It ain’t over til it’s over.

Twenty-seven percent of GOP primary voters picked Herman Cain as their first choice for the Republican nomination while Mitt Romney held firm at 23 percent, according to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll.

We should have seen this coming.

Conservatives never took a liking to Mitt Romney. Rush Limbaugh says he’s not a “principled conservative.” A caller on his show said that Romney was “the white Obama.” Another was hoping Sarah Palin would re-consider and run against President Obama. Never mind all those polls that polls showed most Republicans didn’t want her to run. This kind of thing means nothing to the most passionate conservatives who won’t be happy until Ronald Reagan rises from the dead and hits the campaign trail. Anything is possible, but I’m guessing it’s not going to happen.

That’s where Herman Cain comes in. He’s no Reagan but to conservatives he comes a lot closer than anybody else, especially Mitt Romney.

Rush and his callers are right about one thing: Romney isn’t a principled conservative. In fact, you could make the case that he’s not a principled politician at all. He was pro-choice. Now he’s pro-life. He was for gay rights. Now he defends marriage between a man and a woman as “critical for the well-being of civilization.” He was for gun control. Now he’s a member of the National Rifle Association.

Yes, running in liberal Massachusetts is one thing; running in Republican primaries for president is something else altogether.

And the other night at the debate, Newt Gingrich asked Romney why his capital gains tax cuts only benefit Americans whose incomes are below $200,000. Romney replied that the “rich can take care of themselves,” and that he’s concerned about “the middle class.” Barack Obama couldn’t have said it any better.

Conservatives bristle when they hear liberal journalists say there’s a civil war raging in the Republican Party. But there is, or at least there’s a great big schism between the “realists” and the “purists.”

The realists say Romney is the only Republican who can beat Obama because he’s the one who can win the crucial independent vote.

The purists say McCain was a moderate, like Romney, and how did that turn out. Besides – and this is their go-to point – Reagan, a real conservative who never apologized for his conservatism, carried 49 states in one election, and that includes a lot of really, really blue states where liberals almost always win. There’s the proof, they say, that a real conservative can win. So why settle for Romney?

It’s a fair question, but what Rush and the other purists don’t get is that Ronald Reagan didn’t win simply because he was a real conservative. He won because he was Ronald Reagan. His personality, as much as his politics, won over blue collar Democrats and other lower-income voters who normally don’t vote for Republicans. And there’s no Ronald Reagan out there today. Not Palin. Not Bachmann. Not Perry. Not Santorum. But Herman Cain, the plain speaking guy who grew up poor and made something of himself because he believes in personal responsibility? Maybe.

Here’s a question for my purist friends: Name a second conservative American president in the last 80 years? You can’t. Reagan’s the only one.

If conservatives were so popular with the general electorate you’d think they’d have won a few more elections. Sure, all the Republican presidents since FDR were more conservative than their Democratic opponents, but that doesn’t make Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush the Elder or Bush the Younger real conservatives. And if the GOP had nominated more conservative candidates than the ones they did, the Democrat might very well have won.

The fat lady hasn’t sung yet. And that fat guy from New Jersey’s endorsement of Romney before the debate the other night may not put him over the top. Not a single real vote has been cast. It ain’t over til it’s over.

I disagee with the premise. I think Americans want a REAL conservative as president. Look at the sheer number of Tea Party candidates that swept the Democrats out of office last year - something the author overlooked.

Thanks to the rise of the alternative media, more and more Americans are learning just what liberalism actually is and they are finding out that MSM has been lying to them for decades.

Couple that with the horrific failures of Obama and his administration, and there has never been a better time for a true conservative to run for president.

Sidestepping the subject of whether Cain is Reagan II, I'd like to suggest that if he (or any other GOP candidate) is, the time is ripe for his/her ascension.

In 1976, Democratic president Jimmy Carter swept into power after Vietnam and Nixon/Watergate had pretty much soured the electorate on the incumbent and his party. It wasn't that the Republicans or Nixon himself had begun the war in SE Asia or that Watergate alone might have been enough to bring down his presidency. But it was the moment combined with the ongoing situation that worked to boost an obscure southern governor into the highest office.

In 2008, Barack Obama road the wave of change after 9.11, Iraq/Afghanistan and a looming economic crisis. It wasn't that the Republicans or Bush himself were directly responsible for 9.11 or its aftermath. He did what he had to do as president. But it was the moment combined with the ongoing situation that worked to usher in a young and wholly inexperienced senator from Illinois.

In 1980, after four years of poor economic practices, an overbearing administration, high fuel prices and the Iran hostage crisis, an energetic Republican came in to rescue the nation from Carter's 'malaise'.

In 2012, after four years of poor economic practices, an overbearing administration, high fuel prices and the ongoing threat of nuclear confrontation with Iran, an energetic Republican COULD now take the stage to rescue the nation from endless 'hoping' and give it something of substance.

In politics, especially in an election year, perception is everything. The electorate is often fickle, waltzing between various plans and candidates like a teenage prom queen between dance partners. It will take a really good plan for economic recovery, reestablishment of American pride, if not swagger, and no small sum of personal charisma to regain the White House. But the parallels between 1980 and 2012 are enough to suggest history repeating itself at the polls... and if we're both smart and lucky, another national renaissance.

There are a few other things I could roll into... like the loss of our nation's industrial plant, which was the host to what was once termed the great American middle class. Short of either reclaiming or rebuilding that base of employment, I have doubts that a long term recovery can be established that would return our country to where it once was. But we have to start somewhere and right now, it looks like a deja vu moment.

Very well put my friend. You have a real talent for observation and erudition.

I would add that the fact that the unemployment rate has been at 9%+ for the last 3 years is also going to be a significant detriment to the Democratic Party in 2012.

The fact is, turning the economy around is about the simplist task facing the new president - especially for one not enthralled with Keynesian economics. The solution is as simple as slashing corporate tax rates and the regulatory burdens on the private sector and then standing aside and letting Americans do what they do best.

Cain 9-9-9 plan exemplifies this approach. As does his promise to repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.

While Cain is certainly no Reagan, he's the closest we have in the Republican field when it comes to charisma and boldness of vision.

Even if we get a great president next year, the one thing that would stymie him/her will be a Dem controlled congress. At this point, I don't see that happening. The House was turned over heavily to the GOP and it'll take quite a bit to change that. The Senate is another story. As long as they stay where they are as far as seats go, then things could be okay.

That's why I say Obama was a total dumb ass from 2009 to to 2011. He had the control he ended and instead of doing something great, he pissed it all away on a health care bill that most people didn't like. He had a chance and blew it big time. Maybe he can give back his peace prize.

Fortunately, the Democrats have more than twice as many senators up for re-election next year - 23 Democrats to 10 Republicans (with 2 independents in the mix.

The mood the country is in right now, it looks pretty good for a Republican hat trick in 2012.

I remain hopeful.