Bushian or Reaganite?

Like FDR or JFK in the Democratic Party, Reagan has achieved sainthood in the Republican Party, specifically in conservatism. McCain and Palin are all the time invoking his name. Even Democrats join in the Hail Marys (being attuned to the phenomenon of Reagan Democrats).

So, we have to be careful when reading about Reaganomics and Reagan foreign policy. People remember only the good and not the bad. The comparison below holds some of that bias, but I think its still helpful. It explains why so many Republicans, especially those who aren't just voting with their upbringing but those that are also political junkies, are dissappointed with the Bush presidency. It's how they say Bush is not a true conservative.

Peggy Noonan articulates (in this editorial) the reason she is increasingly doubtful that Sarah Palin is equipped or even interested in carrying the mantle of Ronald Reagan. She's not sure if she's a Bushian or a Reaganite. Here's her helpful definition:

For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.