Ronald Reagan's opinion on Libertarianism (Video Interview)

[TaftFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg0Axyvlkm0&feature=share

That is GRADE A material that can be used for television and internet ads!!!!

Edit: Also of interest, which many of you have read, is Reagan's 1975 interview with Reason magazine. http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

My blog write up(includes video, Reason excerpts, and 1981 CPAC speech excerpt): http://libertycircle.blogspot.com/2013/05/ronald-reagan-on-libertarianism.html

[Lucille]

Great find!

[TaftFan]

Great find!

Thank Don Volaric for sharing it on facebook. (Ran for Congress in Michigan in 2012 and 2010, big liberty guy)

[cajuncocoa]

Reagan talked the libertarian talk, and he got me with that rhetoric. Unfortunately, he didn't walk the walk.

[gwax23]

Reagan talked the libertarian talk, and he got me with that rhetoric. Unfortunately, he didn't walk the walk.

It was reagans staff and the events following the shooting that lead to his administration not being as libertarian as he was. he was a friend of liberty and a good man, but the behind the scenes power brokers are the ones that are in control.

[cajuncocoa]

It was reagans staff and the events following the shooting that lead to his administration not being as libertarian as he was. he was a friend of liberty and a good man, but the behind the scenes power brokers are the ones that are in control.
We could have an 80-page discussion on the conspiracy behind the shooting and the change in Reagan that we saw after that! Suffice to say, I agree with you on this.

[RockEnds]

We could have an 80-page discussion on the conspiracy behind the shooting and the change in Reagan that we saw after that! Suffice to say, I agree with you on this.

Me, too.

The problem with the clip is two-fold. First, many of today's active Republicans who were old enough to remember this without a youtube were out campaigning for Carter in 1980. Second, a good number of the ones who weren't changed when the Reagan Administration changed.

It is a good clip, though, especially for those who were too young to remember.

[Christian Liberty]

Ron Paul would never have sold out...

[dillo]

Reagan talked the libertarian talk, and he got me with that rhetoric. Unfortunately, he didn't walk the walk.

HW bush scared him back to neo conism when he tried to kill him

[Zippyjuan]

It was reagans staff and the events following the shooting that lead to his administration not being as libertarian as he was. he was a friend of liberty and a good man, but the behind the scenes power brokers are the ones that are in control.

The attempt on his life occured just 69 days into his first term. That would mean he was basically never Libertarian as president. Truth is he was more moderate than people realized and he was also willing to make compromises to get things done so he often ended up in the middle of the political spectrum. People saw what they wanted to in him because he was a nice guy and a good speaker. They assumed he agreed with what they thought. By today's conservative standards, Reagan was a liberal.

[lib3rtarian]

lol@ the people arguing how Reagan was not libertarian. That's not the point here. For the GOP sheep out there, anything which comes out of Reagan's mouth is God's word and we need to capitalize on that. If you show them a clip of Reagan saying "Now strip off your clothes and write an '8' in the sand with your ass", the centenarians will immediately go "Oh, OK." and get to do that.

[Lucille]

lol@ the people arguing how Reagan was not libertarian. That's not the point here. For the GOP sheep out there, anything which comes out of Reagan's mouth is God's word and we need to capitalize on that. If you show them a clip of Reagan saying "Now strip off your clothes and write an '8' in the sand with your ass", the centenarians will immediately go "Oh, OK." and get to do that.

Exactly. It's a great clip. I embedded it on a local blog in a post about the county GOP (which the neo-Trots and teaocons in charge read), and said Reagan would get nowhere in today's GOP.

[noneedtoaggress]

It was reagans staff and the events following the shooting that lead to his administration not being as libertarian as he was. he was a friend of liberty and a good man, but the behind the scenes power brokers are the ones that are in control.

Didn't he ban open carry as governor of california?

[cajuncocoa]

lol@ the people arguing how Reagan was not libertarian. That's not the point here. For the GOP sheep out there, anything which comes out of Reagan's mouth is God's word and we need to capitalize on that. If you show them a clip of Reagan saying "Now strip off your clothes and write an '8' in the sand with your ass", the centenarians will immediately go "Oh, OK." and get to do that.
Thing is, until and unless you educate the electorate, any gains you think you make by trying to coerce them with empty rhetoric is fleeting. The next time some nice-looking guy or gal comes along with a fancy message to undo everything you did, it will fall down like a house of cards.

[Zippyjuan]

Ronald Reagan on the Brady Bill: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html (as a registered member of the NRA):

Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.

Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.


Open carry? http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/12/more-concealed-guns-for-the-golden-state.html


The open-carry issue in California has an odd history. In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited anyone from carrying a loaded gun in public. Yep, Ronald Reagan.

Assault weapons? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/20/1172314/-Ronald-Reagan-Assault-weapons-ban-must-be-passed#

May 3, 1994
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

[RockEnds]

lol@ the people arguing how Reagan was not libertarian. That's not the point here. For the GOP sheep out there, anything which comes out of Reagan's mouth is God's word and we need to capitalize on that. If you show them a clip of Reagan saying "Now strip off your clothes and write an '8' in the sand with your ass", the centenarians will immediately go "Oh, OK." and get to do that.

I disagree. Reagan gets a lot of GOP lip service, but when I talk to the socons about Reagan, I get blank looks and mentions of voting for Carter. There really isn't any sentimentality there at all. They clap at rallies, but when it comes down to it, the Reagan era preceded their involvement in the GOP, and many of them couldn't care less. And the socons aren't exactly a small force in the GOP.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It was reagans staff and the events following the shooting that lead to his administration not being as libertarian as he was. he was a friend of liberty and a good man, but the behind the scenes power brokers are the ones that are in control.

Why did he suck as governor, if he was such a friend of liberty?

[jkr]

BUMP!
4 RONNIE RAYGUN "REPUBLICANS" LIKE SANITORIUM AND PICKLE NOSE GRAHAM

[Zippyjuan]

As both President and as Governor of California, he signed what were at the times the largest tax increases in history. (As president he did sign tax cuts but when he saw what was happening with the growing deficit he agreed to tax increases- Ron Paul has said that while tax cuts are desirable, a budget should be blanaced and debt taken care of first so I think he would have agreed on this one).

[RockEnds]

As both President and as Governor of California, he signed what were at the times the largest tax increases in history. (As president he did sign tax cuts but when he saw what was happening with the growing deficit he agreed to tax increases- Ron Paul has said that while tax cuts are desirable, a budget should be blanaced and debt taken care of first so I think he would have agreed on this one).

If he'd made good on a few campaign promises such as abolishing the Dept of Education, he might not have had to sign those tax increases. The war on drugs took on a whole new life under Reagan also. He said one thing, and did another. That much is certain. The real question is whether he was lying through his teeth during his campaign or whether he changed his mind when he took the bullet.

[Zippyjuan]

A president needs Congress to end any department. Congress fought him but he did get them to trim its budget by 18%. But their budget was only about $15 billion which would not have been enough to offset the tax hikes. http://federaleducationpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/department-of-education-spending-1980-to-2010-2/ The tax hikes were worth $98 billion. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/05/reagan-s-deal-with-democrats-for-tax-increases-paired-with-spending-cuts-is-a-myth.html



The deficit promptly soared—indeed, the national debt would ultimately triple in Reagan’s eight years in office But the economy tanked and unemployment headed toward double digits. In early 1982, concerned by this exploding deficit and convinced that the tax cuts had gone too far, Congress on a bipartisan basis moved to limit the damage. Despite outcries on the right that one could not raise taxes in a recession, advocates said that bringing down the deficit was more important.


In August 1982, the unemployment rate hit 10.1 percent, while mortgage rates hovered near their all-time high at 15 percent. Reagan's tax cuts had had a year to stimulate the economy, but they had not done so.


So Republicans in Congress and some members of his own administration convinced Reagan to agree to a $98.3 billion tax increase, the largest peacetime increase in history. Despite current Republican claims, however, Congress did not make a “deal” to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in tax increases, although—to quiet criticism from the right—the White House began saying that there was. As Bob Dole told then–house budget chair Bill Gray, there was a deal but it was between Reagan and his speechwriters.

[TaftFan]

I think the gold commission came as a result of his reading of the Austrian economists.

[RockEnds]

A president needs Congress to end any department. Congress fought him but he did get them to trim its budget by 18%. But their budget was only about $15 billion which would not have been enough to offset the tax hikes. http://federaleducationpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/department-of-education-spending-1980-to-2010-2/ The tax hikes were worth $98 billion. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/05/reagan-s-deal-with-democrats-for-tax-increases-paired-with-spending-cuts-is-a-myth.html

He tried so hard that his administration came up with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nation_at_Risk

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Reagan talked the libertarian talk, and he got me with that rhetoric. Unfortunately, he didn't walk the walk.

well after trying to kill him he played the game according to the rules unfortunately

[Antischism]

Reagan was an actor.

Rothbard had a lot to say about Reagan, and he's dead-on about everything.


As the Gipper, at bloody long last, goes riding off into the sunset, he leaves us with a hideous legacy. He has succeeded in destroying the libertarian public mood of the late 1970’s, and replaced it with fatuous and menacing patriotic symbols of the Nation-State, especially The Flag, which he first whooped up in his vacuous reelection campaign in 1984, aided by the unfortunate coincidence of the Olympics being held at Los Angeles. (Who will soon forget the raucous baying of the chauvinist mobs: "USA! USA!" every time some American came in third in some petty event?) He has succeeded in corrupting libertarian and free-market intellectuals and institutions, although in Ronnie’s defense it must be noted that the fault lies with the corrupted and not with the corrupter.

It is generally agreed by political analysts that the ideological mood of the public, after eight years of Reaganism, is in support of economic liberalism (that is, an expanded welfare state), and social conservatism (that is, the suppression of civil liberties and the theocratic outlawing of immoral behavior). And, on foreign policy, of course, they stand for militaristic chauvinism. After eight years of Ronnie, the mood of the American masses is to expand the goodies of the welfare-warfare state (though not to increase taxes to pay for these goodies), to swagger abroad and be very tough with nations that can’t fight back, and to crack down on the liberties of groups they don’t like or whose values or culture they disagree with.

It is a decidedly unlovely and unlibertarian wasteland, this picture of America 1989, and who do we have to thank for it? Several groups: the neocons who organized it; the vested interests and the Power Elite who run it; the libertarians and free marketeers who sold out for it; and above all, the universally beloved Ronald Wilson Reagan, Who Made It Possible.

As he rides off into retirement, glowing with the love of the American public, leaving his odious legacy behind, one wonders what this hallowed dimwit might possibly do in retirement that could be at all worthy of the rest of his political career. What very last triumph are we supposed to "win for the Gipper"?

He has tipped his hand: I have just read that as soon as he retires, the Gipper will go on a banquet tour on behalf of the repeal of the 22nd ("Anti-Third Term") Amendment – the one decent thing the Republicans have accomplished. In the last four decades. The 22nd Amendment was a well-deserved retrospective slap at FDR. It is typical of the depths to which the GOP has fallen in the last few years that Republicans have been actually muttering about joining the effort to repeal this amendment. If they are successful, then Ronald Reagan might be elected again, and reelected well into the 21st century.

In our age of High Tech, I’m sure that his mere physical death could easily have been overcome by his handlers and media mavens. Ronald Reagan will be suitably mummified, trotted out in front of a giant American flag, and some puppet master would have gotten him to give his winsome headshake and some ventriloquist would have imitated the golden tones: "We-e-ell..." (Why not? After all, the living reality of the last four years has not been a helluva lot different.)

Perhaps, after all, Ronald Reagan and almost all the rest of us will finally get our fondest wish: the election forever and ever of the mummified con King Ronnie.

Now there is a legacy for our descendants!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

[mz10]

Until and unless you educate the electorate

And how do you propose we do that?

If you think there's any chance of turning millions of simple-minded people into liberty scholars, you're fooling yourself.

[Wooden Indian]

Ron talked a good game, but in truth he was as Libertarian as Glenn Beck.

See, folks love to drop the Libertarian label to impress the "freedom loving hippies" then drop a boot on their hippie necks to impress the collectionist neo-cons. It's a win/win for politicians like Ol' Ronnie. The man was no dummy, and knew how win hearts and minds while pissing on hopes and dreams.

It's nothing I would want associated with the freedom movement... then again, who the hell am I? lol

[robert68]

..

[emazur]

I think the gold commission came as a result of his reading of the Austrian economists.

The gold commission was created under Jimmy Carter in 1980 and started work in 1982 under Reagan according to what I read

[Feeding the Abscess]

If he'd made good on a few campaign promises such as abolishing the Dept of Education, he might not have had to sign those tax increases. The war on drugs took on a whole new life under Reagan also. He said one thing, and did another. That much is certain. The real question is whether he was lying through his teeth during his campaign or whether he changed his mind when he took the bullet.

His awful record as governor is more than enough to tell you that he was a fraud. Being a lobbyist for GE before he was governor should be another alarm.

[RockEnds]

His awful record as governor is more than enough to tell you that he was a fraud. Being a lobbyist for GE before he was governor should be another alarm.

You know, in all these years, I've never looked up his record as governor. I wasn't old enough to vote in 1980. It was my first Iowa Caucus, but I was just an observer. The first presidential election in which I voted was 1984. The video gives the impression that Reagan billed himself as a libertarian. He didn't. He played to that, but he campaigned on small government. It was a point in history when the government was really getting its fingers into a whole lot more than it should, and he said he was against that. The federal Dept of Education was an example. He campaigned on getting rid of it. In reality, he grew government in a really, really bad way. His own administration, without the help of Congress, helped to increase the power of the Dept of Education. I don't remember anyone expecting any miracles outside of Iran, but he really did the exact opposite of what he claimed was his goal.

I think Reagan is one of the big reasons some are so distrustful of the politicians who use the small government rhetoric yet have associations that might lend themselves to other agendas. There are a couple rising stars now who talk a good talk but have some questionable ties. I love the small government talk. I did then, and I do now. But hindsight is 20/20. In 1980, it sounded like he might be serious. We didn't have the internet. We had the evening news and the rumor mill. I seem to remember the rumor mill was pretty busy with dire, prophetic predictions for 1984. Reagan did take a bullet just a couple months after he took office. Who knows? Frankly, it wasn't looking good when he chose Bush as his running mate, but maybe that really was just to pick up a voting block that didn't care for the small government message. Or maybe not.

Whatever happened, his legacy is certainly not one of small government. His rhetoric is, though.