Ronald Reagan

In the issue of Bipartisanship, there is a name Republicans and Democrats alike trot out every election: Ronald Reagan.

Each party tries to paint themselves with the Reagan brush. Every Republican tries to convince conservatives that they are like him, with Reagan's values and leadership abilities. Every Democrat praises Reagan's ability to "get things done" and claims to admire his willingness to compromise.

They're all mostly wrong.

Reagan was the last President who was elected in a landslide. (All the talk of a landslide in this last election is foolish. Nobody who wins the popular vote by barely 1 percentage point wins in a landslide.) Landslides are good for this country. At least they were at one time. A landslide shows that the winner is doing a good job, and that the electorate believes in the job he's doing. It lends a certain amount of legitimacy to the winner. Something we haven't seen in a long time.

Reagan did that, in 1984. And there was a reason for it, but not the one that you hear about on most news outlets today. What you hear from most people today, and even from politicians who try to invoke Reagan's name as a measure of their own abilities (usually inaccurately, I might add) is that Reagan was the best at "working with the other side." He did no such thing. That's the myth that most talking heads want you to believe today.

This much is true: Reagan famously brought the country together in a way that hadn't been seen for decades previously, and certainly hasn't been seen since. He not only reinvigorated the economy, it could be argued he reinvented it. He drastically reduced the unemployment lines. He strengthened our country, both economically and militarily -- so much so that the Communists eventually just gave up.

But he didn't do it by "working with the other side." He did it by convincing the other side they were wrong, and that his own ideas were better. And that was no small task.

There's no question that he made compromises at times when he thought it prudent to do so, but what he did primarily was make the other side believe that their ideas weren't as good as his own, and they'd all be better off giving Reagan's policies a chance. He was usually right.

And he did it in two distinct ways. First, he truly loved America, and he made people feel good about being Americans. Unlike our current administration, Reagan championed America at every turn and made people proud to be from United States. He didn't blame all the world's problems on us. He showed no fear in speeches all over the world proclaiming that America was not only the greatest country in the world, but the model by which everyone else should fashion there's. Wouldn't you like to hear a little of that today?

Secondly, he eliminated class warfare. Now I know there are many who disagree with that sentiment, primarily because today's media likes to portray the 80's as a time of the "Have's" vs. the "Have-Not's." But that simply isn't the case.

See, there are truly people in this country who need help. There really are people who are down on their luck, and need a helping hand getting back on their feet. They're not freeloaders, or slackers, and they're not trying to take advantage of the system or get a free handout. Through no fault of their own, save a few bad breaks and honest mistakes, they just need a little help from someone else.

Reagan understood this. And he had an honest compassion to help those people, not because he wanted to be their savior, but rather because he just wanted to help those who needed help. But he understood you couldn't give handouts without a little personal responsibility in return.

But he also believed in the American dream. That if you worked hard and became successful, you should be rewarded for it, not penalized. You never heard Reagan say something stupid like, "the rich should pay a little more than the rest of us." Because he understood they already were. And he understood that if you reward people for success, they will try harder to be successful.

Additionally, he knew that if you didn't punish people for being successful, they would gladly want to help others who are less fortunate. People don't run from taxation. They run from penalizing taxation. Most people aren't opposed to doing their fare share, and they're certainly not opposed to helping a neighbor, as long as its not a punishment for hard work, and the neighbor is willing to pitch in and help himself.

Reagan understood all this. He understood that a true democracy really can champion capitalism while at the same time helping those who need it. Reagan is known for his tax cuts and his "trickle-down" economic theory, but he also signed 11 bills into law that raised taxes during his terms. The bottom line is that, all combined, the economy rebounded, jobs were created, inflation reduced and the Gross National Product increased every year during is Presidency.

At the same time, he cut federal spending to several social programs, including Medicaid and food stamps, and increased military spending. The "less government" philosophy is true to the original federalist idea that the states should have more power and the federal government should focus on national security. These Reagan cuts did indeed put the burden of funding of these social programs more on the states. In turn, at the federal level, his policies created jobs. Rather than give them welfare, Reagan believed you should give them a job. "Teach a man to fish..." as it were.

Social programs, Reagan believed -- as did Mitt Romney, I might add, -- should be the job of the states. To be sure, some states did a better job of it than others, but one thing is certain: whether we liked it or not, these policies worked. During Reagan's two terms, less people received government assistance than at any time since.

Today's politicians -- and media, for that matter -- want us to believe it was because Reagan was a master of bipartisanship. That simply is not true. Most officials from that era will tell you that Reagan rarely, if ever, compromised his ideals and beliefs. A read of his own diaries bear that out. He is not known as the "Great Compromiser." He's known as the "Great Communicator."

That's because he was perhaps the best at explaining his ideas, communicating his values and establishing his standards. And then a master at convincing others that those ideas were best. Democrats and Republicans alike had a very difficult time refuting Reagan's ideas, especially as each time one was implemented, good things came of it.

No, Reagan was no master at Bipartisanship. I don't think he even liked the idea. He was a master at convincing others that his way was better.

And he was mostly right.