The Most Consequential Elections in History: Ronald Reagan and the Election of 1980
Reagan gave conservatism a pleasant face and an appealing voice
The stakes in this year's presidential campaign are high. But that's nothing new. There have been many other pivotal presidential elections in our history, some that set an entirely new course for the United States and a few that were crucial to the very survival of the republic. To put the current campaign in perspective, U.S. News's White House Correspondent Kenneth T. Walsh, author of four books on the presidency, examines the 10 most consequential elections in American history--the races that produced the biggest change and had the most lasting impact. An installment of this 10-part series will run on the U.S. News website through September. This is the 10th in the series.
Dangerous cowboy. B-movie actor. Intellectual lightweight. Heartless right-winger. The epithets thrown at Ronald Reagan over the years were sometimes insulting, but he never seemed to mind. Instead of getting bitter or frustrated, he pursued the presidency with a special brand of good cheer and optimism that impressed the American people, if not the liberal intelligentsia.
Reagan fell just short of the Republican nomination in 1976, when President Gerald Ford narrowly beat him. But Ford went on to lose to Democrat Jimmy Carter in the general election that November, opening the way for Reagan to try again four years later.
By the time the 1980 campaign had begun, the country was increasingly dissatisfied with liberal, Democratic big government. As the months rolled by, the nation was wracked by high inflation and unemployment, gasoline shortages, and a hostage crisis in Iran in which more than 50 Americans were held captive by radical Muslims. Carter seemed weak and powerless, and voters felt down on their luck and deeply worried about the future.
Reagan proved to be the antidote. He urged Americans to believe in themselves again and declared that the United States was a "shining city on a hill" whose best days were still ahead. Many people thought that he was too extreme and simplistic, but opposition to the status quo ran so deep that the electorate decided to give the former movie star a chance in the White House. He defeated Carter in a landslide, winning 44 million votes, or 50.7 percent, and 489 electoral votes to Carter's 35.5 million votes, or 41 percent, and only 44 electoral votes. It marked a historic departure from the path that Franklin Roosevelt set toward ever-bigger government and shattered FDR's political coalition that had dominated American politics for most of the previous half-century.
The irony was that Reagan had been a Democrat and a fan of Roosevelt in his younger days. But as he studied politics and government, Reagan grew more conservative and eventually became a Republican.
Despite his political shift, he never forgot his middle-class roots. On Election Day, as his huge victory was becoming clear, a journalist asked Reagan what Americans saw in him. "Would you laugh if I told you that I think, maybe, they see themselves and that I'm one of them?" he replied. "I've never been able to detach myself or think that I, somehow, am apart from them."
Many Americans were familiar with the actor from his frequent appearances in the movies and on television. He also honed his speaking skills as a spokesman for General Electric. Most important, Reagan gave conservatism a pleasant face and an appealing voice. This was central to his success.
His critics never gave him enough credit for his pragmatic skills as a two-term Republican governor of California, but he was more conciliatory than his adversaries supposed. He also was constantly underestimated by his critics, who never understood that his mellifluous voice, his reassuring manner, and the skills he learned as an actor would make him an unparalleled success as a communicator on TV, the dominant medium of the age.
At 68, he was the oldest person ever elected president for a first term, but in the end Americans didn't seem to mind because he was in such good health and looked much younger. In any case, his political approach seemed fresh and new. From the start, President Reagan set a clear direction for the country—roll back communism where possible, strengthen national defense, cut taxes, and stop or slow the growth of government. Even though many disagreed with the specifics of his policies, they accepted the direction he was setting and liked his brand of sunny, decisive leadership. He rose to near-heroic status, at least briefly, when he showed grace and strength of character after a would-be assassin nearly killed him in early 1981.
Overall, says Frank Donatelli, Reagan's political director at the White House, "It was the first serious effort to rein in the welfare state. And President Reagan engaged the Soviet Union and communism successfully." On the political front, Donatelli adds, Reagan's ascent "coincided with the rise of the religious right"—the millions of Christian voters who held the balance of power in many states and who, under Reagan, became much more active in politics.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Why Gov. Reagan was not recalled--from an insider
I worked hard to Recall Reagan, so my name was in the papers as I sought people to circulate petitions for signatures. I did it because RR, as a Regent, began tuition at our Land Grant colleges for the first time. He closed many public health agencies & his pals built their own. They benefited from govt. paid medical bills. Notaries by law had to notarize free the petitions. Many carriers told me notaries refused to notarize or charged as much as $10 a page. Some county clerks closed offices at odd times to prevent presentation of completed petitions. At that time, each signature had to have the precinct number with it. Many signers omitted that, invalidating their signature. In the last weeks, I went to LA County courthouse with others and used heavy registration books to fill in precinct numbers. The Recall failed. A student borrowed my notes & files for a doctoral dissertation. I'm told his work led to a change in the law so it's OK to omit precinct numbers. RR said his presidency was guided by the Vatican. As a Ban-Abortionist, RR increased Big Government by having so many people enforce church law banning abortion. Bush son did the same.
Not an Explanation of the Financial Crisis
Ah, Daniel, a well-written piece, but not an explanation of the financial crisis of today. My point is not all government is bad. Some government in the form of regulation and oversight is necessary, especially in the financial sector. Regulation and oversight are necessary, or unrestrained greed and corruption will take over, as they have today. Greed is what drives Wall Street, but it must be regulated, or unbridled speculation will be our downfall. Research the combined effect of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the 2000 Commodities Act (put in at last minute by Phil Gramm)--I was wrong about the dates-- and laws written by lobbyists for special interest groups, and see what effect that had. You cannot-- as Phil Gramm did-- put out into the public arena those off-the-books "credit default swaps" with no oversight from either the SEC (Securities exchange Commission) or the CTFC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission) without an eventual disastrous result. John McCain, Phil Gramm, and Allen Greenspan caused the majority of this mess by installing deregulation and no oversight under the guise of less government. REPUBLICANS REMOVED THE SAFETY NET FROM THE CIRCUS SWING THAT IS THE GAMBLE OF WALL STREET. I am just an average citizen who can read and research for myself --then hopefully --in a way the average person can understand-- set forth the main reasons for the incredible financial mess we are in today. Facts tell me deregulation and no oversight caused most of this financial crisis. Facts also tell me John McCain played a big part in it, and as President he will be just "more of the same." As I said before, at your own peril, vote Republican.
Limited Government, Not Less Government
Dorothy, you are mistaken. Its not totally your fault, though, the Republican Party has lacked the ability to eloquently explain and defend its views for a very, very long time. Perhaps they've forgotten their foundations all-together. As I understand it, what true conservatives value and strive for is Limited government. We believe that government is not bad, on the contrary, it is necessary, but only within the very specific limits of the Constitution. In this day in age, the federal government has overstepped its lawful bounds in so many ways, it is easy to understand how a conservative can sound like an anarchist.
Take the Department of Education: The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to administer a national public education system. This is a role better left to individual states and local communities. It would give you more of a say in the specific educational needs felt in your hometown, in your family. As it now stands, the federal government, far removed from you in Texas, dictates your local curriculum. A very unflexible system.
Another example is the financial industry. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to regulate (let me explain) the markets. It does give Congress the authority to regulate the value of your currency (and your dollar has been steadily losing purchasing power through monetary inflation since 1913) and international trade and administer justice in federal courts of law. Giving people individual freedom and responsibility naturally results in free marketplaces, where people can buy and sell goods and services with other willing parties. Of course, contracts must be upheld, theivery punished, unsafe products proclaimed. This is justice, and these your safeguards. But regulation infringes on individual freedom and opens the door to a flood of inintended consequences.
On the other hand, the Federal Government has some very important roles, which should be administered efficiently, skillfully, and strongly. These include foreign diplomacy, national defense, Federal courts, the coining/printing of money, the regulation of international and interstate commerce, and several others (see Article 1, Section 8). The Constitution is clear that those powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved for the States and the People. This is why conservatives strive for limited government. It preserves freedom, by putting most power in the hands of the states and local communities.
If you disagree with those powers, then the Constitution needs to be amended.
advertisement
