Chris Matthews' Warped History: Ronald Reagan 'Wasn't a Social Conservative'
MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Wednesday offered up bizarre, revisionist history, insisting that Ronald Reagan "wasn't a social conservative." In an attempt to denigrate the goals of the Tea Party movement, the Hardball host inaccurately asserted that the 40th president "accepted Roe V. Wade."
Matthews, who fancies himself a presidential historian, appeared on the Martin Bashir show and asserted that Reagan wouldn't be comfortable in the "church tent" of today's GOP. He spun, "Although [Reagan] would address the pro-life rallies every year in Washington, for example, he would do so through public address. He never showed up." Matthews added, "He accepted Roe V. Wade under the Constitution."
[See video below. MP3 audio here.]
Actually, he didn't. Writing in the Spring 1983 Human Life Review, Reagan endorsed efforts to overturn the ruling that legalized abortion:
The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.
...
I believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again.
[Emphasis added.] Trying to moderate Reagan's beliefs, Matthews sanitized, "...But he wasn't a social conservative. He was basically a guy who believed that the best thing about America was freedom."
Of course, this is the same President who appointed Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, elevated William Rehnquist to Chief Justice and tried to get Robert Bork approved.
(Yes, he did appoint Sandra Day O'Connor, but that was after assurances of her conservative stature.) Additionally, Matthews tried to portray Reagan not just as a moderate, but as some sort of general social liberal: " He understood gay people and their existence and their rights to be and lovability, if you will. I mean, he didn't have any problem with that."
Prompted by Bashir, the Hardball host then proceeded to trash Rick Perry as the opposite of Abraham Lincoln. He derided, "I think the Republican Party believed in the union. It is what Lincoln fought for. He fought against people like Rick Perry. Teddy Roosevelt fought for conservation. This party dumps all over, pees all over, you might say the EPA."
Excoriating the Tea Party in general, Matthews critiqued, "I think that the Tea Party has, unfortunately, made the Republican Party somewhat of a confederate party, a secessionist, anti-Washington party, a party that doesn't believe in our unity as a country under the Constitution."
A transcript of the September 07 segment follows:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓3:10
MARTIN BASHIR: Do you think that the Ronald Reagan of genuine and accurate history would really fit in the present incarnation of the Republican Party?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, I think Ronald Reagan, despite his personal Christianity, was a secular politician. Although he would address the pro-life rallies every year in Washington, for example, he would do so through public address. He never showed up. He never showed up at the rallies. He never really tried to change the abortion laws. He accepted Roe V. Wade under the Constitution. He paid, you know, respect to the concerns of those who wanted to value life for the unborn, but he didn't push it as some sort of denial of rights of a woman to make a decision. He never really did that. He wasn't really noticeably in any way intolerant of gay people that I remembered. He wasn't out front, and this is a strike against him on AIDS, and certainly he could have been much faster at that, but he was a bit older and not very quick on that one, but he wasn't a social conservative. He was basically a guy who believed that the best thing about America was freedom. Freedom across the board. Americans' freedom to do what you want to do, in your economy or bedroom or whatever, and I think he had respect from other people. He's a Hollywood guy, of course. He understood gay people and their existence and their rights to be and lovability, if you will. I mean, he didn't have any problem with that.
BASHIR: Indeed.
MATTHEWS: I mean, so, I don't think he was a social conservative in that sense. And I think, in a sense, to answer your question, he would not feel very comfortable in today's, kind of, church tent Republican Party.
BASHIR: Just a final question, Chris and I'd love to talk-
MATTHEWS: was that too strong? Maybe that was too strong.
BASHIR: No, no, no. I don't think so.
MATTHEWS: But there's a lot of that in the party.
BASHIR: I thought that was accurate. Just a final question. Do you think that the Tea Party is losing its influence, the closer we get to this election? Even as the electorate loses its appetite for anger and starts reaching for solutions?
MATTHEWS: No- Well, I do think this is about the Republican Party. I was just out to see Mount Rushmore. I keep talking about it because I'm so overwhelmed. You gotta get to see it. I never seen it before. My daughter and I went out there, our daughter, and I spent two hours looking up at it and wondered at it and trying to understand it, what it says about our country, those four great presidents, and I- I think that the Tea Party has, unfortunately, made the Republican Party somewhat of a confederate party, a secessionist, anti-Washington party, a party that doesn't believe in our unity as a country under the Constitution. They say they like the Constitution but they really are against any kind of common action. I think that's not very Republican. I think the Republican Party believed in the union. It is what Lincoln fought for. He fought against people like Rick Perry. Teddy Roosevelt fought for conservation. This party dumps all over, pees all over, you might say the EPA. It's terrible what they talk about environmental protection, so I don't think they are consistent through conservatism which is to protect what's valuable in our country, hold on to it and make sure that the country stays united. Those are conservative principles, holding on to what's valuable and keeping the country united. That's conservatism as I understand it. I know it's the British sense of conservatism, and it's mine.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Revisionism at its best
Submitted by octavioj on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 5:45pm.
I was not born in this country but all the history I have learned, all that I have read, contradicts what these people say. Was everything that I read and was taught wrong? Somehow I do not think so.
octavioj
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 12:21am.
My roots in America predate Franklin's mark on history. From Prussia with love... my Surname is Africa.
Weird, I know.
Anyways... over the years... I've met a few immigrants ( as a kid, local churches took in boat folk from Vietnam... Marcy was a cutie) 3 from the Soviet Bloc n a few home grown red diaper babies from coal country that, through their experiences rejected the notion of the infallibility of state dictates in favor of limited govt.
What's your story?
Tingles looking up at Mount Rushmore?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 6:02pm.
Gee, I can't imagine what was going through his feeble mind.
→ SOL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 6:07pm.
Perhaps he was viewing Rushmore from the Canadian side?
That might get him a little excited.
LOL, Cool!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 6:50pm.
Never saw that one before.
Now who didn't see that coming?
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 8:40am.
Didn't have to click the link to know where this was going, eh?
But I guess the humour (that's huMOUR) would have had more zing if only South Dakota was a border state! Unfortunately, as it is now, that's the view that's more likely to be experienced in NORTH Dakota, or, depending on the orientation, Wyoming!
Still, I guess the oil has to come from somewhere. Until Obamster gets thrown out on his hiney, looks like Canada is all you got, unless you prefer the sheiks from Saudi-Arabia.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
SoL...
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 6:50pm.
I bumped into the following a few years ago. It was first posted on youtube Nov.1, 2008...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DwN-zt-24
Matthews and Bashir?
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 6:03pm.
That's a lot of stupid for a small screen.
Reagan granted amnesty to 3
Submitted by goldbar on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 6:45pm.
Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals. Something you don't hear the right wing touting today. He also championed social security, setting it up to be solvent for years in the future. He also taxed social security, but only on the wealthy. He was more of a progressive than the right will ever give him credit for.
Reagan granted amnesty to 3
Submitted by Maestroh on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 7:46pm.
Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals
REPLY:
In exchange for that fence that was never built by the Democratic House.
GOLDBAR:
. Something you don't hear the right wing touting today.
REPLY:
There's over 12 million now; it was obviously a mistake. If you think illegal immigration is such a good idea then hire them to run your business.
GOLDBAR:
He also championed social security,
REPLY:
He accepted it's reality in political discourse.
GOLDBAR:
setting it up to be solvent for years in the future.
REPLY:
By appointing a bipartisan commission right after the Democrats took 26 House seats accusing him of trying to destroy it. If he was such a champion of it do you really think that would have worked?
GOLDBAR:
He also taxed social security, but only on the wealthy.
REPLY:
Presidents don't levy taxes, Congress does.
GOLDBAR:
He was more of a progressive than the right will ever give him credit for.
REPLY:
He was more progressive than Stone Age caricature he is labeled with by the libs.
well done
Submitted by kata on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 9:41pm.
although I was rather hoping someone was going to give him some homework.
Reagan also . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 8:14pm.
These were the actions that drew the utter from leftists like Matthews and the Democrats who now hold him out to be the kind of Republican they prefer. They love to bring liberal Ronald Reagan Jr. to embellish and endorse their revisionist image of President Reagan.
Where the media is involved, facts tend to disappear in the background.
15 posts in three years, hit
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 12:11am.
15 posts in three years, hit the road troll.
From The Reagan-Mondale Debate on October 7, 1984
Submitted by Maestroh on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 7:49pm.
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-7-1984-debate-transcript
(Under abortion)
I have believed that in the appointment of judges that all that was specified in the party platform was that they respect the sanctity of human life. Now, that I would want to see in any judge and with regard to any issue having to do with human life. But with regard to abortion, and I have a feeling that this is -- there's been some reference without naming it here in the remarks of Mr. Mondale tied to injecting religion into government. With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution.
I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child is not a living human being, then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us. And I think that this is what we should concentrate on, is trying -- I know there were weeks and weeks of testimony before a Senate committee, there were medical authorities, there were religious -- there were clerics there -- everyone talking about this matter of prolife. And at the end of all of that, not one shred of evidence was introduced that the unborn child was not alive. We have seen premature births that are now grown-up, happy people going around.
Now note Mondale's reply:
The constitutional amendment proposed by President Reagan would make it a crime for a woman to have an abortion if she had been raped or suffered from incest.
That hardly sounds to me like a social liberal.
One more question for Tingles.....if Reagan was REALLY such a social non-conservative then why did you people make up every lie in the book to keep Robert Bork off the Supreme Court?
Two posts in a row, by Maestroh---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 8:00pm.
that show why liberals and lib trolls don't do too well here at NB's.
Nice work.
MD
Reagan
Submitted by grammajane on Wed, 09/07/2011 - 8:05pm.
Think Reagan would be more uncomfortable today, listening to Tingles flap his jaws trying to get his false and bias reporting across the airways.
Matthews is a proponent of
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 9:36am.
Matthews is a proponent of the "tell a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as fact" mentality promoted by Joseph Goebbels. This latest example from Tingles the Clown illustrates it well.