Bush vs. Reagan

Taegan Goddard's PoliticalWire today highlights a poll of likely Iowa caucus voters about the presidential candidates. But I was fascinated by a batch of questions and answers that had nothing to do (or maybe everything to do) with the 2008 elections. Here are the questions and the results (from 600 likely Republican caucus voters):

2. Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)

Yes 7%

No 74%

Undecided 19%

3. How important is it for the Republican presidential candidate to be a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan: very important, somewhat important, not very important, not important, or undecided? (Republicans Only)

Very Important 51%

Somewhat Important 16%

Not Very Important 6%

Not Important 14%

Undecided 13%

Ronald Reagan is the closest thing to a Saint the modern GOP has, and so he's held up as the standard against which everyone else is measured. In this survey, 67% believe it's important to a GOP presidential candidate to be like Reagan. So, it's bad news for Bush that 74% of Republicans do not think Bush is a true Reaganaut.

Allow me, however, to offer a contrarian view, damning Bush with faint praise. I think Bush is more of a Reaganaut (Reaganut?) than Reagan was. Reagan described the USA as a "city on a hill," shining the beacon of liberty and democracy on the rest of the world, but Bush has been more aggressive in meddling in other countries' business in the name of democracy. (Of course, the old hypocrisies still assert themselves: we condemn and harass Hugo Chavez, who for all his faults -- and there are many -- is apparently freely-elected and popular, and can barely manage a "tsk, tsk" at Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf.)

Reagan rattled his saber relentlessly against the Red Menace -- and invaded Grenada. Bush followed through on his promise to strangle terrorism in its crib -- then missed it by a couple countries when he invaded Iraq. Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, justified by what one observer called "voodoo economics," were dwarfed by Bush's, as has the consequent damage to the budget and the balance of payments been dwarfed by the trillion dollar debt we've amassed in six years.

Reagan ran in 1980 as an ideologue, but governed in a more moderate fashion. Bush, whose 2000 campaign was notable for its "compassionate conservatism" and rejection of nation-building and international adventurism, ran as a moderate but has been the most ideological president of modern times (perhaps ever).

When GOPers sign their hosannas to Saint Ronald, are they admiring his hard-right ideological campaigning or his center-right pragmatic governing?