We all have a tendency to fall back in our thoughts and memories to what we consider the “good old days” of our lives, and how far back you fall depends on your age.  We boomers, and those a little older, harken back to the 1950s when things seemed so much simpler and the pace less frenetic.

How we fall back, however, not how far, is where the problems begin.  In politics, as in life, it’s often revisionist in nature, and comes to support our political points of view rather than reflect actuality.  Memories become convenient, and labels become more simplistic.

Take, for example, the insistence by “conservatives” and right wing commentators who supplicate to the days and the policies of Ronald Reagan.  Convenience might be something of an undestatement.

President Reagan did sign the 1981 tax act that lowered marginal tax rates.  However, it was only one year later that he signed what today would represent a $100 billion tax hike to cover the then-growing national budget.  It was at the time the largest tax hike since the end of World War II, and undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut.

Let’s remember, too, that he signed into law social security reforms that increased payroll taxes, as well as a measure that increased the federal gas tax.  During the Reagan years, federal spending rose from $590.6 billion in 1980 to $1.14 trillion in 1989.

On national defense, memories are as equally selective.  It was Reagan’s predecessor, Jimmy Carter, not he, who sent cruise missiles and IRBMs to Europe.  In fact, during the course of Reagan’s presidency, he came to support the outright abolition of nuclear weapons, and not merely the reduction of them.

Limbaugh the Entertainer and others rail against Barack Obama when he proposes direct discussions with George Bush’s “Axis of Evil” members Iran and North Korea.  Yet, it was Reagan who, at the height of the Cold War, established direct and what appeared to be a genuinely cordial relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Great good came of that relationship, too.  It lead to the signing of the INF Treaty which eliminated nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges.

The right has railed against Obama most recently over his supreme court nominee, even labeling her a racist, preaching for only strict constructionist conservatives to the highest bench.  Yet, Reagan’s appointees Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor are considered judicial moderates.  The latter’s nomination was vigorously opposed by those who criticized her stand on abortion, including Rev. Jerry Falwell.

There are other instances of Reagan politics in actuality that would not pass the litmus tests of today’s political right, such as immigration and gun control.  Memories become short in politics, and clouded in the convenience of shrill rants.

There’s one other aspect of this nostalgia that should not be ignored.  The American public allows itself to be spoon fed with convenient memories, and shame on us for doing so.  When someone pays homage to “Reagan conservatism,” we just nod and smile and say yes, things were so much better then.

We forget the details, and we overlook the inconsistencies in the arguments.  We all want to travel back to times that we “see” as less trying than today’s, when the answers seemed so clear and concise.

The truth of the matter is those times never existed, and presidents were never that simple and uncomplicated and dogmatic in their approaches to world issues.  Neither is President Obama today.

We get intellectually lazy, and we let others do our thinking for us, and in doing so we fail to hold them accountable for their words and deeds and accuracy.  Frankly, it is unlikely President Reagan could pass today’s test of “Reagan Conservatism.”

Assuming that is the case, what is the merit and worth of the argument that “he” or “she” is not a true “Reagan Conservative”?  Or the value of claiming, in fact, to be one?

It’s politics, of course, to say what one thinks people want to hear. That doesn’t make what is said true, or even close.  Heck, look at Dick Cheney.