Hey everybody. I am curious to hear what everbody thinks of Ronald Regan. I know he was not great president by any means. He increased government spending on defense and launched the disastorous war on drugs, and sent troops over seas many times. However, he did have some pros also. He praised the Coolidge/Harding free enterprise system, and his initial goal as president was to dismantle the welfare state and shrink government (Unfortatetly, he was relatively unsuccesful in both).
So, do you guys think Ronald Regan was really that bad?
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Good:
He knew that ideas matter.
Really did believe in free enterprise.
Hated the commies.
Hated labor unions.
Drastically simplified the tax code and slashed marginal rates.
Bad:
War on Drugs
Deficits don't matter--the Laffer Curve will bail us out
Invented crack cocaine as part of conspiracy to thwart African-American achievement
(Just kidding with that last one)
The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton
Byzantine: Invented crack cocaine as part of conspiracy to thwart African-American achievement
Well even Milton Friedman said it was a byproduct of a war on drugs.
Mostly good, but when his policies were bad they were extremely bad. The worst attack on liberty since the Wilson administration was the "war on drugs" statute that allows the IRS to inspect bank accounts without a warrant.
He was pretty bad. He contributed heavily to the discrediting of free market ideas and the co-opting of the libertarian movement in my opinion. I'd dig over at Lewrockwell.com for Rothbard's scathing criticisms of the gipper but I don't have the time at the moment.
I'm with Brainpolice here; he hurt the free-market brand.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
*boinks the Teflon Man*
I think he was REALLY, REALLY bad. It's not because of what he did, but a combination of what he said and what he did with how the public perceived the issues.
Reagan was supposed to be THE conservative right -> limited government, reduce government, etc. He talked that game and rallied lots of supporters. He went up against the group that used to be the "neo-conservaties" - the liberal right aligned with Nelson Rockefeller and the other welfare state, big-government, internationalists.
But when his actions in office didn't own up to what he was saying, nobody even blinked. People actually believed that Reagan was shrinking government as he expanded it.
Thus, the conservative, small-government wing of the Republican Party quickly became practically indecipherable from the liberal, big-government wing. Non-interventionism vs. interventionism became Republican intervention vs. Democratic intervention. Balanced Budgets became 'harmful' to the economy (which apparently required military-keynsian pump priming). Tax cuts became desirable only as a means to increase government revenue. Sound money was abandoned and inflation was whole-heartedly embraced. Protecting the fruits of your labor became tax evasion. Welfare statism became a debate about tinkering with the details, not about liberty or justice... And I don't think we had one argument about constitutional limitations of power, even after the '79 commitee to determine the constitutionality of emergency war powers.
Basically, the Reagan presidency served to confuse the American public. Corporatism is believed to be capitalism, with its private gains, unregulated fraud, and state cronyism. Once again, the "robber barrons" leaching off of state privilege are called capitalists. We created a partisan issue out of debt. We turned a single economic philosophy that liberty despises (Keynesianism) into slightly varied flavors for each party. We created a partisan issue of non-intervention, with non-intervention seen as complicity with dictators, racism, and genocide, while interventions in the middle eastern world are called a profit-driven "oil empire".
Reagan set the stage for Americans to debate meaningless about the merits of two incredibly flawed big government systems, by aligning his version of big government with all his small government rhetoric.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Reagan's rhetoric was great, until he stopped attacking Bush and accepted him as the VP. I'm not making excuses. But until that time, Reagan had been talking about investigating the Trilateral Commission and whatnot. He was never the same after the attempt on his life.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
liberty student: Reagan's rhetoric was great, until he stopped attacking Bush and accepted him as the VP. I'm not making excuses. But until that time, Reagan had been talking about investigating the Trilateral Commission and whatnot. He was never the same after the attempt on his life.
If I were still a RP supporter, I would've agreed. Interesting nonetheless, though; stranger things have happened.I would say the proverbial really began to hit the fan earlier in the late 1800's, after The Civil War, was formalized & furthered with FDR in the 1930's, and yeah, Regan did not help at all... Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" :talking to the brick wall of a McDonald's:Ronald Reagan: "Tear it down! Reagan smash!" :Reagan starts punching the wall:One Employee (inside the McDonalds): "What is that?"Another Employee: "Oh, that's just Reagan. Don't worry about it, he tires himself out."Ronald Reagan: "Reagan sleepy." :Reagan gets on the ground to fall asleep:~ FG
meambobbo: I think he was REALLY, REALLY bad. It's not because of what he did, but a combination of what he said and what he did with how the public perceived the issues. Reagan was supposed to be THE conservative right -> limited government, reduce government, etc. He talked that game and rallied lots of supporters. He went up against the group that used to be the "neo-conservaties" - the liberal right aligned with Nelson Rockefeller and the other welfare state, big-government, internationalists. But when his actions in office didn't own up to what he was saying, nobody even blinked. People actually believed that Reagan was shrinking government as he expanded it. Thus, the conservative, small-government wing of the Republican Party quickly became practically indecipherable from the liberal, big-government wing. Non-interventionism vs. interventionism became Republican intervention vs. Democratic intervention. Balanced Budgets became 'harmful' to the economy (which apparently required military-keynsian pump priming). Tax cuts became desirable only as a means to increase government revenue. Sound money was abandoned and inflation was whole-heartedly embraced. Protecting the fruits of your labor became tax evasion. Welfare statism became a debate about tinkering with the details, not about liberty or justice... And I don't think we had one argument about constitutional limitations of power, even after the '79 commitee to determine the constitutionality of emergency war powers. Basically, the Reagan presidency served to confuse the American public. Corporatism is believed to be capitalism, with its private gains, unregulated fraud, and state cronyism. Once again, the "robber barrons" leaching off of state privilege are called capitalists. We created a partisan issue out of debt. We turned a single economic philosophy that liberty despises (Keynesianism) into slightly varied flavors for each party. We created a partisan issue of non-intervention, with non-intervention seen as complicity with dictators, racism, and genocide, while interventions in the middle eastern world are called a profit-driven "oil empire". Reagan set the stage for Americans to debate meaningless about the merits of two incredibly flawed big government systems, by aligning his version of big government with all his small government rhetoric.
Great post.
...but what do I know.
meambobbo: Reagan was supposed to be THE conservative right -> limited government, reduce government, etc. He talked that game and rallied lots of supporters. He went up against the group that used to be the "neo-conservaties" - the liberal right aligned with Nelson Rockefeller and the other welfare state, big-government, internationalists. But when his actions in office didn't own up to what he was saying, nobody even blinked. People actually believed that Reagan was shrinking government as he expanded it.
Yep. And I couldn't count the times I've argued the free-market position against socialists who believe from the outset (and insist, even after I've shown otherwise) that libertarians are just die-hard Republicans.
Actually, that was mostly with a partcular socialist who goes by the name "Socialist", a friend of one "Nathyn" (lately of these forums), and is absolutely delusional. But I think that Reagan's pseudo-free marketeerism helped to create that syndrome among state socialists in general.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!