I don't recall making you the issue, so please refrain from making me the issue. What I believe about my intelligence is irrelevant to the discussion. Somehow I doubt that Reagan would have put a flag amendment over the affairs of state at a time when nothing was getting done. But that's just me. I have already admitted I'm in the minority here.
One thing about Ronald Reagan that few care to talk about: With all of his resolve, he had a tremendous ability to recognize when compromise was the best approach, something this Congress refuses to consider.
Well, why didn't you say so to begin with?
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
--Ronald Reagan