Newsweek: Barack Obama Is ‘The Democrats’ Ronald Reagan’
President Barack Obama will be the Democrats’ Ronald Reagan, if he wins re-election, writes Newsweek’s Andrew Sullivan — a well-respected conservative. Acknowledging that the comparison seems “absurd—even blasphemous,” Sullivan explains that Barack Obama, “will emerge as an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al -Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery.” He adds, “Obama’s potential for Reagan status (maybe minus the airport-naming) is real.”
Obama has been playing a long, strategic game from the very start—a long game that will only truly pay off if he gets eight full years to see it through. That game is not only changing America. It may also bring his opposition, the GOP, back to the center, just as Reagan indelibly moved the Democrats away from the far left.
…
Reagan won 48 Democratic House and 37 Democratic Senate votes for his first signature policy, the tax cuts; Obama got zero and three Republican votes, respectively, for a stimulus in the worst recession since the 1930s. Those are the fruits of polarization. Nonetheless, the administration has soldiered on since 2010, and the tally of achievements is formidable: the near-obliteration of al Qaeda, democratic revolutions in the Arab world that George Bush could only have dreamed of, the re-regulation of Wall Street after the 2008 crash, stimulus investments in infrastructure and clean energy, powerful new fuel-emission standards along with a record level of independence from foreign oil, and, most critically, health-care reform. Now look at what Obama’s second term could do for all of these achievements. It would mean, first of all, that universal health care in America—government subsidies to people so they can afford to purchase private insurance and a ban on denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions—becomes irreversible. Yes, many details of the law would benefit from reform, experimentation, and fixes—especially if Republicans help to make them. But it’s still the biggest change in American health care since the passage of Medicare in 1965.
An Obama victory would also resolve the three-decade-long battle between taxes and spending initiated by Reagan and intensified by the orgy of spending under George W. Bush and the collapse of revenue during the Great Recession. By Dec. 31 of this year, a deal must be struck or the crudest form of government cuts—sequestration of defense and entitlements—will unfold alongside the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts.
Sullivan, who almost humorously acknowledges he “wore a Reagan ’80 button in high school for the same reason I wore an Obama T-shirt in ’08—not because their politics were the same, but because they were both right about the different challenges each faced, and both dreamed bigger than their rivals in times of real crisis,” concludes:
What I’m describing here is a potential, not a prediction. But imagine a two-term presidency that prevented a second Great Depression, killed bin Laden, decimated al Qaeda, reformed immigration, ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, got a bipartisan deal on taxes and spending, and maybe—just maybe—presided over the democratic revolutions in the Arab world with the skill that the first President Bush showed as new democracies were emerging in Eastern Europe. Much of the groundwork for this has already been laid: health-care reform and Wall Street regulation just need time to be implemented fully. The Arab revolutions are in early formative stages. The economic growth that will only accelerate if Taxmageddon is averted will redound to Obama’s popularity the way it did with Reagan. The potential for a huge payoff if Obama is reelected—from the debt to Iran to jihadism to -immigration—is enormous.
Â
Defeat is the only thing fanatics understand.Â
Â
The main stumbling block remains the current Republican Party. If the GOP responds to a defeat by lurching even further to the right, Obama will likely fail to match Reagan’s achievements. He needs to persuade a sufficient number of Republicans in the House and Senate that their refusal to compromise on tax revenue at all is partly why they lost, that opposing immigration reform could doom them forever, and that tax reform can be a common and popular bipartisan cause. The GOP has purged so many of its moderates that this may be difficult. But already, as they sense the way the political winds are blowing, some Republican candidates have discovered that a promise to compromise is helping them in their campaigns. When Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party favorite who knocked off Richard Lugar in a primary, says he will “work with anyone†once he is elected, you know the tides may be shifting. Even Tea Party Senate leader, Jim DeMint, has said that if Obama wins, the GOP will have to give some ground on taxes: “We’re not going to save our defense unless we go along with the president’s wishes to raise taxes.†We cannot know what will happen, but there must remain somewhere in the GOP a residual instinct to prefer playing a part in a solution to intensifying the problem for partisan gain—especially with a president they cannot defeat again. But this last gasp of civic responsibility will most likely revive only if the current GOP loses decisively this November. Defeat is the only thing fanatics understand. And defeat is something the remaining Republican moderates can build on. If you are a Republican who wants to see your party return to the center, reelecting Obama is the single most effective thing you can do. Look what Reagan’s success did to the Democrats: it gave us the centrist Bill Clinton. A future centrist Republican president is out there somewhere—but electing Romney-Ryan would strand him or her further out in the wilderness.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said on Monday that she is “done supporting” her former party—but don’t expect her to join the Democratic party anytime soon.
Greene announced her disillusionment with the GOP on Monday afternoon in a tweet.
“Tucker is not the only one who is done supporting the Republican Party. There is A LOT of us that are absolutely fed up and will not support a party that betrays its voters and country. That does not mean we are turning into Democrats either. But we are DONE with the America LAST Republican Party,” Greene wrote.
Tucker is not the only one who is done supporting the Republican Party.
There is A LOT of us that are absolutely fed up and will not support a party that betrays its voters and country.
That does not mean we are turning into Democrats either.
But we are DONE with the America…
— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) June 22, 2026
She referred to comments made last week by pundit Tucker Carlson. Carlson appeared on the Can’t Be Censored podcast Thursday, saying he would refrain from supporting either major party, and admitted “I’m not sure what I’m going to do.”
READ MORE: ‘Gaslight America’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasts Trump Ahead of His Trip to Georgia
“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States. That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens. It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to,” Carlson said, according to Mediaite, referring to America’s long-time ally Israel.
Greene famously broke with President Donald Trump earlier this year when she called for the release of the FBI files relating to disgraced financier and sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. A former staunch ally of Trump, the two started trading barbs. Greene resigned from the House this January. Greene has long called for an isolationist foreign policy, criticizing America’s involvement in Ukraine as well as the current conflict with Iran.
Given that Greene said she has no plans on moving leftward in her politics, it’s unclear if she will refrain from voting or if she’ll throw her lot in with a third party. While American politics are primarily driven by the two major parties, a number of smaller parties also exist.
Greene may find a home in the Libertarian party, the third-largest party by voter registration. The Libertarian party has drifted rightward since its founding in 1971. While initially economically conservative but politically liberal, after 2022, the paleolibertarian Mises Caucus gained control of the party. Paleolibertarianism was developed by anarcho-capitalists, and embraces cultural conservatism. Some of the most widely known paleolibertarians include former Representative Ron Paul and the current president of Argentina, Javier Milei.
Third parties struggle to gain traction in the United States. The closest a third party has come to widespread support was the Reform Party, founded by H. Ross Perot during the 1996 presidential election after he won 18.9% of the popular vote in the 1992 presidential election as an independent candidate. Reform won 8.4% of the popular vote in the 1996 election, but no third-party or independent candidate has been as successful as Perot since.
However, the electoral college makes it difficult for a third-party presidential candidate to be elected at all. Third-party presidential candidates are often seen as spoilers for the major candidates. Perot is often believed to have won votes away from President George H.W. Bush in 1992, giving the election to President Bill Clinton. In 2000, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader was similarly accused of acting as a spoiler for Vice President Al Gore, leading to the election of President George W. Bush.
Third parties, however, have a better track record in down-ballot races. For example, Kshama Sawant won election to the Seattle City Council in 2014 as a member of the Socialist Alternative party. She held office until 2024, when she declined to seek reelection. She is currently running for a seat in the House of Representatives as an independent.
Image via Shutterstock
President Donald Trump announced on Monday that Iran “will agree” to allow weapon inspectors into the country in a slightly confusing social media post.
“Everybody is fully aware that Iran will agree to have Major Weapons Inspections in order to ensure ‘Nuclear Honesty’ long into the future,” the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.
Vice President JD Vance has been handling the negotiations with Iran to end the military conflict started by the United States and Israel at the end of February. Vance said earlier today that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency would be allowed to enter Iran. The inspectors could be in the country as soon as Monday, according to the Washington Post.
READ MORE: Large Majority of Americans Say Iran Conflict Should End, Hasn’t Met Any of Trump’s Goals
Trump’s wording, however, is somewhat hard to parse. When he says “everyone is fully aware,” is Trump referring to Vance’s Monday announcement that had been widely reported? Or is Trump attempting to cast doubt, suggesting Iran may somehow be pulling a fast one, allowing inspections to provide cover for a weapons program?
Either way, the allowing of weapons inspectors into Iran is similar to what former President Barack Obama’s administration negotiated for in 2015. The Obama-era deal called for IAEA inspectors to make sure Iran was complying with the deal, and was not developing nuclear weapons. But in 2018, after Trump ended the agreement, Iran started to block IAEA inspectors from parts of their nuclear program. Since then, IAEA inspectors do not know the status of Iran’s enriched uranium, according to the Washington Post.
One year ago from Monday, the U.S. struck Iranian sites believed to hold stockpiles of enriched uranium. Since then, Trump has claimed that the strike “completely and totally obliterated” the country’s nuclear enrichment facilities, however, this has never been verified. Even at the time, the Pentagon said that Iran’s nuclear program had only been “degraded…by two years.” Trump’s national intelligence director testified prior to the strike that there was no evidence that Iran’s existing nuclear program was meant to build weapons, according to the Military Times.
Iran has long promised not to build or obtain nuclear weapons. In 1970, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which deemed the country a non-nuclear state.
While Trump has warned that Iran could have a nuclear bomb “within six months,” the first report from the International Atomic Energy Agency since the Iran conflict started says that there has been no major change to the country’s nuclear program, according to Reuters.
Image via Reuters
Six grand jury subpoenas were quashed by a federal judge Wednesday, when it was decided that the subpoenas were filed to retaliate against Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s administration and the city governments of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the District of Minnesota made his ruling public on Monday, granting the motion requested by the Minnesota officials to quash grand jury subpoenas related to Minnesota declaring itself to be a “sanctuary” state.
Last December, the Department of Homeland Security deployed over 3,000 agents to Minnesota as part of the largest immigration-related operation in the department’s history, Operation Metro Surge. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by DHS agents, the state of Minnesota as well as the twin cities challenged Operation Metro Surge in court, prompting President Donald Trump to rail against the local officials on social media.
READ MORE: Trump Dangles Another Insurrection Act Threat for Minnesota
Days after Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul filed suit, news reports revealed that the Department of Justice had begun to investigate Walz and Minnesota Mayor Jacob Frey. Trump administration officials said that by not supporting the actions of DHS, Walz and Frey were breaking the law.
The Minnesotan officials argued that the subpoenas were “issued as part of an unconstitutional effort to coerce” them into working with DHS and ICE.
Judge Schiltz found that though grand juries traditionally “have broad investigatory powers,” the subpoenas had exceeded those powers. Schiltz agreed that the subpoenas were in violation of the Tenth Amendment, allowing states some degree of autonomy from the federal government.
Schiltz wrote that he had “no doubt” the subpoenas were issued for the “forbidden purposes” of attempting to “harass” or “coerce” Walz and Frey “into taking official action…. a blatantly unlawful and unethical use the grand-jury process.”
“On the one hand, the evidence that the challenged subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming. On the other hand, the Department has struggled-without success-to identify a single plausible investigatory justification for the subpoenas,” Schiltz wrote, pointing out that the “public record… is replete with direct evidence of the Trump administration—including the highest-ranking officials of the Department—threatening and attempting to punish states and localities that have adopted ‘sanctuary’ policies.”
“To be clear, the Court agrees with the Department that a grand-jury subpoena need not be supported by probable cause. At the same time, a grand-jury subpoena cannot be issued for an improper purpose. The fact that connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation range from extremely weak to nonexistent only adds to the overwhelming evidence that these subpoenas were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate,” Schiltz added.
Image via Shutterstock
Marjorie Taylor Greene Says She’s ‘Done Supporting’ The GOP: ‘Party Betrays Its Voters’
Donald Trump Says Iran ‘Will Agree to Major Weapons Inspections’ to Ensure ‘Nuclear Honesty’
Federal Judge Quashes ‘Retaliatory’ Subpoenas Against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz
GOP Rep Demands Biden’s Pardons to Be ‘Declared Null and Void’
Large Majority of Americans Say Iran Conflict Should End, Hasn’t Met Any of Trump’s Goals
News2 days agoMarjorie Taylor Greene Says She’s ‘Done Supporting’ The GOP: ‘Party Betrays Its Voters’
IDIOCY2 days agoGOP Rep Demands Biden’s Pardons to Be ‘Declared Null and Void’
News2 days agoFederal Judge Quashes ‘Retaliatory’ Subpoenas Against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz
BAD PRESIDENT2 days agoLarge Majority of Americans Say Iran Conflict Should End, Hasn’t Met Any of Trump’s Goals
News2 days agoDonald Trump Says Iran ‘Will Agree to Major Weapons Inspections’ to Ensure ‘Nuclear Honesty’
