- Ronald Reagan, 1975I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
There was no "Reagan Revolution." Any "revolution" in the direction of liberty (in Ronnie’s words "to get government off our backs") would reduce the total level of government spending. And that means reduce in absolute terms, not as proportion of the gross national product, or corrected for inflation, or anything else. There is no divine commandment that the federal government must always be at least as great a proportion of the national product as it was in 1980. If the government was a monstrous swollen Leviathan in 1980, as libertarians were surely convinced, as the inchoate American masses were apparently convinced and as Reagan and his cadre claimed to believe, then cutting government spending was in order. At the very least, federal government spending should have been frozen, in absolute terms, so that the rest of the economy would be allowed to grow in contrast. Instead, Ronald Reagan cut nothing, even in the heady first year, 1981.
At first, the only "cut" was in Carter’s last-minute loony-tunes estimates for the future. But in a few short years, Reagan’s spending surpassed even Carter’s irresponsible estimates. Instead, Reagan not only increased government spending by an enormous amount – so enormous that it would take a 40 percent cut to bring us back to Carter’s wild spending totals of 1980 – he even substantially increased the percentage of government spending to GNP. That’s a "revolution"?
Was he a fantastic spokesman for libertarianism? Hell yeah.
Whoops, you're right - I didn't bother checking which part of "A Time for Choosing" it was. He does a great job earlier on in the speech, when he's attacking the welfare state. As you correctly point out, he was terrible on the warfare side of the equation.That's really a pretty awful speech, in the sense that it does not attack the root and branch of the State's expansion during the 1960s: the Cold War, and its resultant military-industrial complex. Goldwater wasn't much better in that respect, but simply painting over the issue actively set libertarianism back.
By the way, when you speak of Murray Rothbard being the dean of American liberalism - I would have to disagree. Even the classical liberals were too statist for him (and myself).- Ronald Reagan, 1975
When one discusses the Reagan-era deficit spending with conservative apologists, the usual excuse given is that they were "the fault of the Democratic Congress", or remnants of the Carter Administration. Murray Rothbard, often considered the dean of American liberalism, disagreed with that assessment, and while I have my own issues with Rothbard (his tendency to ally with labor protectionists like Pat Buchanan), I admire what he wrote of Reagan:
Of course, nobody today takes seriously the argument that Reagan actually put a dent in the government's rate of expansion, and any honest assessment of his Presidency will admit that he did not even propose to do so after his election. However, most libertarian critiques of Reagan end here: many cannot bring themselves to admit that Reagan was a bad President, from a libertarian perspective, even outside concerns of economic Statism. But that's a discussion I feel it's important to have - hence the thread.
Thomas S. Power said:Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win.
I have to disagree on Reagan being what we needed. He was the exact opposite. We didn't need to spend like a hot war to fight a cold war. Massive and often ill conceived spending sprees expanded our debt to what was then unthinkable levels. To counter the Soviet threat is one thing. To send Marines to die in Lebanon, another. We went from a flexible containment to fight even three guys we think MIGHT not want our 'guidance'. From helping hand to warped Hollywood version of a High Noon Sheriff in a B movie.
What wasn't mentioned anywhere was for all Ronnie railed against taxes he increased them almost every year he was in office. He signed executive orders and bills to limit the 2nd amendment. he shrugged off the mounting, unprecedented debt as something every family in America has. :shock:
Ronnie was a lot of things but he seemed far more like a neo-con, big government, spend our children's future soft soap salesman than anything we would call responsible.
Reagen signed into law the requirement that ALL hospitals MUST treat anyone, regardless of their ability to pay for care. This was hardly a Libertarian legislation.
My Bad, my bias is showing.
Way I see it, no way in HAIL will we ever have a libertarian President. The Imperialists won't stand the military cuts from a libertarian anymore than they would a liberal. The Socialists won't abide drastic cuts in the social safety net. If the libertarian President is a strong invisible hand lassez faire man then the economy will roller coaster to the point most citizens barf during the ride.
To me there is a reason the most libertarian theory gets is lip service in this nation.
Bingo! He was a great leader!Despite their covering ideological cloud of a socially permissive Big Tent, the only thing Libertarians really care about is unrestricted cheating, looting, hoarding, and blowing bubbles while soaking the rest of us in their bubble bath. Reagan made them feel good about themselves as he rang their bells and blew their whistles at their wild party, after which the rest of us were the only ones suffering a hangover.
OOO! Really sharp stuff!In speeches he was a great libertarian. In office he was a puppet of the banking class.
Hey while we're at it, is Obama a liberal?
Libertarians are puppets of the banking class too. So are Liberals. They are the children of the rich who don't have minds of their own. Lying to themselves about the class supremacy that really motivates their anti-majoritian ideas is the worst form of insincerity. Anyone born with a silver spoon in his mouth will always speak with a forked tongue.In speeches he was a great libertarian. In office he was a puppet of the banking class.
Hey while we're at it, is Obama a liberal?
Libertarians are puppets of the banking class too. So are Liberals. They are the children of the rich who don't have minds of their own. Lying to themselves about the class supremacy that really motivates their anti-majoritian ideas is the worst form of insincerity. Anyone born with a silver spoon in his mouth will always speak with a forked tongue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?