PDA

View Full Version : Ronald Reagan on Today's Problems




TNforPaul45
06-20-2010, 10:07 PM
At the 1980 Republican National Convention, Ronald Reagan had the following to say about the issues, both then and now:

Replace "Mr. Carter" with "Mr. Obama" and whoever the Republicans nominate in two years, and you'll get the point.




We need a rebirth of the American tradition of leadership at every level of government and in private life as well. The United States of America is unique in world history because it has a genius for leaders -- many leaders -- on many levels. But, back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, "Trust me." And a lot of people did. And now many of those people are out of work. Many have seen their savings eaten away by inflation. Many others on fixed incomes, especially the elderly, have watched helplessly as the cruel tax of inflation wasted away their purchasing power. And today a great many who trusted Mr. Carter wonder if we can survive the Carter policies of national defense.

"Trust me" government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. Well my view of government places trust not in one person or one Party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The -- The trust is where it belongs -- in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders. That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact.

. . .

Isn't it once again time to renew our compact of freedom; to pledge to each other -- to pledge to each other all that is best in our lives; all that gives meaning to them -- for the sake of this, our beloved and blessed land?

Together, let us make this a new beginning. Let us make a commitment to care for the needy; to teach our children the virtues handed down to us by our families; to have the courage to defend those values and virtues, and the the willingness to sacrifice for them.

Let us pledge to restore, in our time, the American spirit of voluntary service, of cooperation, of private and community initiative; a spirit that flows like a deep and mighty river through the history of our nation.

As your nominee I pledge to you to restore to the Federal government the capacity to do the people's work, without dominating their lives. I pledge to you -- I pledge to you a government that will not only work well but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence and its willingness to do good balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to it’s great power to harm us.

TNforPaul45
06-20-2010, 10:13 PM
In fact, just go listen to that whole dang speech.

Despite the controversies and contraries over Reagan and his actions, that whole dang speech needs to be orated word for word on primetime television today.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreagan1980rnc.htm

Icymudpuppy
06-20-2010, 10:26 PM
Too bad Reagan couldn't live up to his own words.

TNforPaul45
06-20-2010, 10:33 PM
Too bad Reagan couldn't live up to his own words.

I agree Icymudpuppy. It takes more than just saying these words, the intended actions inferred by them must be carried out.

cajuncocoa
06-20-2010, 10:35 PM
I agree Icymudpuppy. It takes more than just saying these words, the intended actions inferred by them must be carried out.

In his defense, he had quite an uncooperative legislative branch with which to contend.

low preference guy
06-20-2010, 10:44 PM
In his defense, he had quite an uncooperative legislative branch with which to contend.

That's not good enough defense for being proud of the war on drugs.

The only plausible defense for Reagan is insanity. Maybe Alzheimer disease already consumed his brain while he was president.

TNforPaul45
06-20-2010, 10:54 PM
I hope that by starting this thread, I don't sound too "Hannity/Heritage Institute"-ish. I always get sick when Hannity plays a little Reagan clip on his show, then talks about the Heritage Group like he even believes anything close to what Reagan expounded on (whether he succeeded or made mistakes, nonetheless).

I guess that I am just starting to feel a bit hopeless that our Republic is screwed and that there is little we can do but fluff our pillows as the plane goes down. Maybe I will be surprised at a shocking explosion of liberty. We will see.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-20-2010, 10:54 PM
That's not good enough defense for being proud of the war on drugs.

The only plausible defense for Reagan is insanity. Maybe Alzheimer disease already consumed his brain while he was president.

Or its much more likely true that Reagan did not believe in what he said. For instance, while Governor of California, under his reign, California had the single largest tax increase in its history.

This myth that Reagan was Jeffersonian, Nozickian, "limited Government", pro-Natural Law, anti-Socialism, etc. is farcical. Reagan was the complete opposite of these ideals.

Stop defending the guy. It's bad mojo all around.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-20-2010, 11:00 PM
I hope that by starting this thread, I don't sound too "Hannity/Heritage Institute"-ish. I always get sick when Hannity plays a little Reagan clip on his show, then talks about the Heritage Group like he even believes anything close to what Reagan expounded on (whether he succeeded or made mistakes, nonetheless).

I guess that I am just starting to feel a bit hopeless that our Republic is screwed and that there is little we can do but fluff our pillows as the plane goes down. Maybe I will be surprised at a shocking explosion of liberty. We will see.

Nationalism is posh. I would recommend less caring about other areas of the country, and more caring about your area, or where best liberty may be obtained (MT, WY, NH, etc.). More geographic organization, and less national balogne. My perspective anyways. Lets get at least one area where we outnumber the statists, please.

low preference guy
06-20-2010, 11:09 PM
This myth that Reagan was Jeffersonian, Nozickian, "limited Government", pro-Natural Law, anti-Socialism, etc. is farcical. Reagan was the complete opposite of these ideals.

I wasn't aware there is a myth that Reagan was a Nozickian. Who described Reagan as such?

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-20-2010, 11:13 PM
I wasn't aware there is a myth that Reagan was a Nozickian. Who described Reagan as such?

In less words, my description was supposed to say that the myth that Reagan was pro-liberty, was farcical. It's sort of like saying that Milton Friedman, is a free-marketeer, when he is the opposite. There is a reason for Mises calling him a socialist, when the so called classical-liberals were arguing how to make the income tax more efficient at the Mont Pelerin Society. Let's have a little reality here, shall we?

White Knight
06-20-2010, 11:21 PM
Too bad Reagan couldn't live up to his own words.

He had no choice if you believe that Bush was in on his shooting (the shooter's brother was Neil Bush's friend). After that, he toned down his rhetoric considerably. The Shadow Government proved too powerful.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-20-2010, 11:25 PM
He had no choice if you believe that Bush was in on his shooting (the shooter's brother was Neil Bush's friend). After that, he toned down his rhetoric considerably. The Shadow Government proved too powerful.

All that means is he didn't believe in what he said enough to die for it. That to me means he never meant what he said in the first place, especially coupled with how he actually governed (The complete opposite of what his so-called views were).

low preference guy
06-20-2010, 11:29 PM
In less words, my description was supposed to say that the myth that Reagan was pro-liberty, was farcical. It's sort of like saying that Milton Friedman, is a free-marketeer, when he is the opposite. There is a reason for Mises calling him a socialist, when the so called classical-liberals were arguing how to make the income tax more efficient at the Mont Pelerin Society. Let's have a little reality here, shall we?

It's false to say that there is a myth that Rand was a Nozickian. When you invoke his name, you invoke a specific set of justifications for a small government (drawing from Locke and Kant), and no one believes that Reagan argued for limited government the way Nozick did. You let your imagination fly way too much and very often state outright lies as truth.

low preference guy
06-20-2010, 11:33 PM
All that means is he didn't believe in what he said enough to die for it. That to me means he never meant what he said in the first place, especially coupled with how he actually governed (The complete opposite of what his so-called views were).

Again, false. Reagan was a horrible President, I agree. But when you say he was the completely opposite of what he claimed he was, you're wildly exaggerating.. If he indeed was the complete opposite, he wouldn't let the recession under his watch run its course. If he was the completely opposite of what he claimed he was, he would've intervened and turned that recession into another great depression. Reagan wasn't a limited government guy, but neither was he the consistent statist that you are trying to portray.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-20-2010, 11:34 PM
It's false to say that there is a myth that Rand was a Nozickian. When you invoke his name, you invoke a specific set of justifications for a small government (drawing for Locke and Kant), and no one believes that Reagan argued for limited government the way Nozick did. You let your imagination fly way too much and very often state outright lies as truth.

The only one perpetuating a myth here is you. Reagan was never, and will have never been any part limited-Government whatsoever, unless you mean to say he was more limited-Government than the USSR. That isn't to say much at all. It's quite like saying I don't want to be dead, just a little less dead would be nice. Well no shit, its better to be parapalegic than dead, but not by much.

Perhaps when arguing for your minarchism, you might want to actually invoke people who actually believed in what they preached. Just a thought.

low preference guy
06-20-2010, 11:43 PM
The only one perpetuating a myth here is you. Reagan was never, and will have never been any part limited-Government whatsoever.

1. Where have I argued that?
2. So you actually believe that there is a myth that Reagan was a Nozickian? Dude, what the hell are you smoking?

White Knight
06-20-2010, 11:45 PM
All that means is he didn't believe in what he said enough to die for it. That to me means he never meant what he said in the first place, especially coupled with how he actually governed (The complete opposite of what his so-called views were).

Yeah, ok. Easy for someone to say how tough they are, blah blah when the Shadow Government threatens to kill you, then shows you pics of JFK, RFK, MLK, and others and says "You're next if you don't tone down."

They also could have said to him that his wife was next, and she was more important to him than anyone.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-20-2010, 11:45 PM
Again, false. Reagan was a horrible President, I agree. But when you say he was the completely opposite of what he claimed he was, you're wildly exaggerating.. If he indeed was the complete opposite, he wouldn't let the recession under his watch run its course. If he was the completely opposite of what he claimed he was, he would've intervened and turned that recession into another great depression. Reagan wasn't a limited government guy, but neither was he the consistent statist that you are trying to portray.

There is no exaggeration. If you campaign on libertarian rhetoric, and govern, fight for and institute the exact opposite policies, it is no lie to say he was the complete opposite of what he preached. That is to say, if I were to say I am pro-liberty, but go ahead and institute socialist, and menshevik policy, would you say that I am therefore not contradicting myself? Any contradiction, must logically, be a sign of incompatibility -- therefore opposites.

The complete opposite of liberty, is slavery. What the hell is the War on Drugs? What the hell is a massive expansion of the Federal Budget? What the hell are massive civil liberty abuses under Reagan? Something is not jiving here.

low preference guy
06-20-2010, 11:46 PM
Perhaps when arguing for your minarchism, you might want to actually invoke people who actually believed in what they preached. Just a thought.

I have not been arguing for minianarchism in this thread. Are you sure you're responding to my posts?

low preference guy
06-20-2010, 11:48 PM
There is no exaggeration. If you campaign on libertarian rhetoric, and govern, fight for and institute the exact opposite policies, it is no lie to say he was the complete opposite of what he preached. That is to say, if I were to say I am pro-liberty, but go ahead and institute socialist, and menshevik policy, would you say that I am therefore not contradicting myself? Any contradiction, must logically, be a sign of incompatibility -- therefore opposites.

Right, just like Thomas Jefferson -whose foreign policy was not purely Jeffersonian- was equivalent to Stalin, David Frum, and McCain combined.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-20-2010, 11:51 PM
Edited -- The site is running horrendously slow right now.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-20-2010, 11:52 PM
Yeah, ok. Easy for someone to say how tough they are, blah blah when the Shadow Government threatens to kill you, then shows you pics of JFK, RFK, MLK, and others and says "You're next if you don't tone down."

They also could have said to him that his wife was next, and she was more important to him than anyone.

I'm prepared to die at any time in the defense of liberty. So was William Wallace and Patrick Henry. Those men meant what they said. Can hardly say the same for someone like Reagan. I've been on the opposite end of the State gun, and I'm sure I'll be one of the first to go if they ever try to throw me in the gulag.

Besides, you might have some merit if he actually governed his rhetoric while Governor of California, but he didn't.

TNforPaul45
06-21-2010, 12:11 AM
I have always thought that Reagan failed on his freedom-oriented ideals for several reasons:

1. Focus on the Cold War.
2. "Message" sent to him by Bush and Co. via Hinkley assassination attempt.
3. Increasing ravages of Alzheimers.
4. He got caught up in his own "nice guy" image.
5. Nancy's astrologer kept giving bad advice.