The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic. It recurs whenever a young, stylish presidential candidate makes people feel inspired. It is not, and really never has been, common for Democrats to argue that a certain course of action is wise simply because a Kennedy once advocated it...And thank God that Democrats don't actually try to implement Kennedy's ideas--from Cuba to Berlin, no man brought us to the brink of nuclear war so often. The truth is that Kennedy is mostly a symbol for progressives of hope and optimism. In reality, he was an average to above-average president, certainly not one of the greats, though he certainly had his successes. JFK wasn't especially progressive, truth be told, but I have heard the argument from some Republicans that JFK would be a Republican if he were alive today, which is absurd, unless offering tax cuts and being hawkish is all that being a Republican is these days...wait, I take it back.
When conservatives debate the Reagan legacy, it is not to dispute its merits but to lay competing claims to its mantle. Witness this year's intraconservative debate over expanding trade with China. Proponents of permanent normal trading relations pointed to Reagan's support for free trade; opponents invoked his anti-communism. Had someone dug up a forgotten diary entry laying out Reagan's position for such a future contingency, it might have settled the argument then and there. The premise underlying such debates was explicated by Reagan hagiographer Dinesh D'Souza, who wrote that "the right simply needs to approach public policy questions by asking: What would Reagan have done?"
So, liberal worship of Kennedy doesn't really make much sense as a matter of policy. He wasn't an advocate of what Democrats want these days. But the Reagan influence in the GOP seems largely self-serving to the politicians who invoke him for their own reasons but ignore him for the ones where they don't match up. The surreal moment during the Republican debates last year was when one of the hopefuls (I forget which) said that he knew that Reagan had signed the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, but that if Reagan were alive today he'd be anti-immigration. Actually, one sees that quite a bit, especially in foreign policy. Reagan stood tall, and so should we. In reality, of course, Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon after our barracks were bombed there, and engaged in aggressive diplomacy with the Soviets. Both were, to my way of thinking, good moves. But that's not what the neocons want to remember. Basically, Reagan has become all things to all conservatives--everyone from Paulites to Huckabeans claims him as their own, interpretations differ and facts are ignored.
Fundamentally, this strikes me as very, very weird. I mean, I think Franklin Roosevelt was a pretty good president, one of the best in fact, but I would be extremely unimpressed if a politician were to say that we should have strict price controls because, "That's what F.D.R. did", even more so if they were advocating something that Roosevelt never actually advocated, like trade barriers. I guess I take an evenhanded approach to viewing Franklin Roosevelt--his heart was always in the right place, and his vision proved to be good, but he made lots of mistakes during his time in office. He did, of course, learn from them and kept trying new things if something failed, but he was a human being who wasn't perfect. I generally think that Reagan is overrated and wasn't a terribly great president--he wasn't a great manager and tolerated an awful lot of corruption in his higher ranks--but he was pretty good on things like foreign policy. But even if I were a conservative I would be forced to admit that he made mistakes--Iran-Contra comes to mind--and that since he wasn't actually Jesus it's probably not a good idea to act as though he was. Then again, I tend to think there's a strange sort of cult of popularity that takes root among conservatives that doesn't really happen with liberals--Barack Obama being something of an exception that proves the rule--it was so noteworthy because it almost never happens. It certainly didn't with Bill Clinton or John Kerry.
