Posted on 10/02/2009 1:12:54 PM PDT by presidio9
The Libertarian Party’s chairman said that the Republican Party’s hero “was not serious about cutting the size of government.”
I receive the Libertarian Party’s “Monday message” each week, as a byproduct of the brief period before the 2008 election when I wasn’t sure if I could bring myself to vote for John McCain…until I realized that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” (That must be what McCain meant when he began every other sentence with “My friends…”)
I couldn’t let Virginia turn blue and asphyxiate (though of course, it did anyway,) so I gave up on the Libertarians for that particular election cycle. But I never bothered to unsubscribe to their newsletter, so I wound up with this interesting e-mail a few days ago.
It certainly provoked some thought.
During an interview with Reason.tv, Libertarian Party Chairman William Redpath denounced Ronald Reagan’s spending. The newsletter by Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict elaborates on this topic.
The criticisms have some validity–Reagan was human and therefore not perfect–but they’re ignoring the historical context.
Benedict writes, “For example, during Reagan’s eight years in office, the federal government spent a total of about 22% of GDP. (That’s the biggest-spending eight years since World War II.) Spending grew from $678 billion to $1.14 trillion. So much for cutting government.”
I admit, during the 1980s, I was more concerned with Kermit the Frog’s management of “The Muppet Show” than I was with Reagan’s handling of governmental affairs. So I don’t profess to know all the exact facts and figures, though I’ve been trying to educate myself in recent months. As far as I know, Benedict’s assertion sounds about right.
But he fails to mention this little thing called “The Cold War,” which Reagan was working to end. Since I grew up without the fear of nuclear annihilation, it seems his administration succeeded in that objective.
“Peace through strength” was the motto. If the federal government is going to ramp up spending, then defense is the best area to do it, especially when there’s a hostile super-power like the Soviet Union to worry about.
Granted, there was more going on than the Cold War, but Reagan shouldn’t take the blame for every cent spent during his two terms. The Democrats controlled Congress. I doubt Reagan and the Democratic Congressmen were in lock-step too often.
Benedict goes on: “Reagan also escalated the War on Drugs, heightened trade barriers, and increased farm subsidies. And of course, he sent the federal debt through the roof.”
Fair point on the War on Drugs. Nice idea, good intentions, but not the government’s job. I loathe drugs, but I’d rather see parents teaching their kids to say no. It’s not something for which you should need a government program.
Another major criticism springs to mind. In his speeches and interviews, Reagan spoke of returning certain responsibilities from the federal to the state level. But that didn’t happen. We still need to do that, as there remain such agencies as the federal Department of Education.
Despite his faults, I consider him the best 20th century president. He was absolutely correct to make the Cold War his top priority, and again, he succeeded in bringing about a peaceful resolution. Before that, shortly after stepping into office, he helped resolve the energy crisis by deregulating oil.
But no, he was not perfect, and today’s Republicans need to accept that. There’s nothing to gain by deifying Reagan and molding him into some model of conservative perfection. Certainly, any party would love to replicate the electoral successes of Reagan, but it would be a mistake for anyone to strive to become “the next Ronald Reagan.”
Reagan was the right guy at the right time. He was who we needed in the 1980s.
It’s not the 1980s anymore, however. I know this because I’m not spending my mornings watching Jim Henson shows and the USA Cartoon Express.
In terms of enemies, the Soviets and the Taliban are further apart than Lex Luthor and the Joker. Spending a trillion dollars is far different from owing multiple trillions. The growing senior population makes Social Security and Medicare far less sustainable than it might have looked 25 years ago.
The next president needs to be someone better than Reagan, and he or she needs a better Congress to work with.
Respect Reagan’s accomplishments, acknowledge his faults, remember it all, and move forward.
And with that, I’ve probably offended people from all across the spectrum. So allow me to shift gears slightly…
More from the Libertarian’s newsletter: “Republicans and Democrats sometimes make good promises, but they never deliver. By supporting Libertarians, you send a clear message that you want more freedom and less government, and you’re not buying the hypocrisy of the Rs and Ds.”
This reminds me of a “South Park” episode about Wal-Mart.
The Wal-Mart store had taken on a life of its own and was supernaturally compelling people to shop there. The town eventually defeats the evil store, and they celebrate by shopping at a small, local business. But because everyone’s shopping at this place, it grows and grows, until it becomes the next major chain of super-stores. And the town again must defeat a malignant, gigantic retail establishment.
True, today, the Libertarian Party leaders may hold stronger convictions than the leaders of the Republicans or Democrats. But bolstering a third party does not fix the inherent flaw in the party system. When a party grows large enough to compete for real power, that power’s likely to corrupt it.
Is there any way we can dissolve all of these political parties and just have individuals run for office?
Wouldn’t Congress have to cut the size of government? Isn’t it illegal for a Prez not to spend appropriated monies?
Libertarian Party throws Reagan under the bus
The Libertarian Party’s chairman said that the Republican Party’s hero “was not serious about cutting the size of government.”
_________________________________________________
For the life of me... I swear I don’t understand how so many FReepers can defend the Liberaltarian Party.
Sheesh!
His tax cuts tripled the revenue to the federal govt. So the increase inspending is a misleading without reference to monies to the fed.
Hopefully never. Take heart in the fact that "seriousness" and subscribing to liberatarian political philosophy are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Reagan operated without control of Congress. Makes a big difference. Also consider the struggle Obama is having enacting his far left agenda even with both Houses of Congress firmly under the control of his party, and with full support of the legacy media...
The LP is a bunch of anti-semites, racists, and loners. And those are the good ones. Avoid them like the Obamist plague that they are.
Cheers!
Didn’t Bush form the DHS?
Not all of us. I just want the federal government to keep their damn hands off of my rights, my pocketbook, and my family, and go back to doing what they’re supposed to, based on their Constitutional powers.
Yes, Homeland Security was done after 9/11/2001
Its the nature of the internet. Everyone feels like his opinion is valid. A lot of people here don't get this one: There is the political "right," and then there are Libertarians, Republicans, and Conservatives. Three very distinct groups, with many things in common. All are on the political right, but have different viewpoints. Libertarians are too flaky to grasp that one. Then, we have a webpage started by a one-time Conservative for Conservatives. Since libertarians already failed to make the distinction once, here they are. The webpage was intended to be for Conservatives as opposed to Republicans, but libertarians never leared their place either. It doesn't help that our founder is on record being pretty sympathetic to libertarians in the past. He never retracted that stuff, and libertarians are only to happy to bring it up whenever they are told to go find their own website.
Earth to Libertarians...please learn how our government operates before making anymore statements. Your friend, Debs
The Libertarian Party, like other parties, is only there to be a spoiler. They have a serious movement to discredit the Republicans even though they have more in common with than the Democrats. The reason. I don’t know.
Being Libertarian or Declined to State or Independent is just “feel good” measures with no substance.
Interesting argument. I would say that Reagan did good and bad things economically w government growth.
The good news: He won the cold war and gave us a peace divident under Clinton
The bad news: His legacy promoted the myth that everyone’s tax cut pays for itself, that government doesnt cost anything (Bush Sr got the blame) and no one must pay. This myth allowed GWB to destroy the republican party and capitalism without even a peace dividend to pay the debt. Bush used printed money, Reagan borrowed.
“His tax cuts tripled the revenue to the federal govt.”
The Libertarianistas are being intellectually dishonest here (most people say cuts when in fact everybody knows that it means slowing the rate of growth of government spending)...The tax cuts as you said were half the equation.
The other half was impeded by Dem majorities in Congress who refused to cut spending. So the Dems and media refuse to cut spending, blame the budget deficit on Reagan for 6 of the 8 years. That mantra was all they had on Reagan.
Now of course, Lord Obama runs up an annual deficit of 1.8 Trillion compared to Reagan’s 150-225 billion and Bush’s 450 billion...and now the Leftists love deficits.
At 4:20
“I just want the federal government to keep their damn hands off of my rights, my pocketbook, and my family, and go back to doing what they’re supposed to, based on their Constitutional powers.”
Every budget Reagan sent up to congress was (quote) “Dead on arrival” by Tip O’Neil,etal.
That was 13 minutes ago. Better set a new deadline. Remember: 5% of the vote!
As Jim has another FReepathon underway... and as I always do, I call on him to make a public statement either for or against FR Libertarians and what they post here on his website.
If he would only post a definitive statement either way, I would send $100 to the Freepathon.
He never does, and so I never do.
I suspect Jim cannot afford to pi$$ off the Libs who contribute here.
So nothing is ever officially said.
That was 13 minutes ago. Better set a new deadline. Remember: 5% of the vote!
Noble ideals, but you've still grouped yourself in with a confused lot with collectively limited intelligence.
Noble ideals, but you've still grouped yourself in with a confused lot with collectively limited intelligence.
Honestly, I haven’t, most of the time. Since this is realistically a 2 party system, I have voted Republican most of the time. I tried going with Perot, and we got Clinton because of it. I voted for Bush, twice. I saw no hope of beating Obama in Kentucky, so I voted Libertarian in the last election. In 2010, and in 2012, I’ll probably vote Republican again, in the hope that people will be so sick of O by then, that they’ll vote the other way. I have my personal wishes and ideals, but I’m a realist.
That statement is quite true. The size of government GREW under Reagan...& don't blame the Dim Congress that The Gipper had to deal w/, 'cuz (& to answer your question, GeronL), Reagan had the constitutional authority to veto bills by Congress but DIDN'T for the most part. The simple fact that he signed those bills into law proves he was no friend to the Constitution or limited government.
I'll double that, if he also says something about anti-catholic bigotry on this website, and gives us a more detailed accounting of where these "donations" are going. I can name 20 people who would get in line right behind me.
4:20 is like beer-thirty for dopers
When are so-called "conservatives" going to get serious about electing candidates who are sincere about cutting the size of government...& stop insulting the few Members of Congress who are working night & day to do just that?
Aren’t any of y’all capable of distinguishing between libertarianism and the Libertarian party?
“Libertarian Party throws Reagan under the bus.”
That’s just not possible.
President Ronald Reagan was too great of man to be thrown under ANY bus.
That was true then, it is true now and it will forever be true.
I forgot to add that my experience has told me that the typical incentive for a person becoming a libertarian is that his or her own life would be less complicated if marijuana was legalized. The rest of the window dressing is there only to lend credibility to the argument. Sure, there are some confused idealists out there and here on FR. But when 99% of the libertarians I’ve come across (and it numbers in the thousands at this point) are honest, it started with pot, and it went from there. Nice legacy.
Hey, I’m half libertarian. The half the doesn’t go along with liberalism.
Thanks for saying what may others think.
How is it that Libertarians who post on FR call it boogie man thinking to be concerned abut Ahmadinejad and his nuclear weapons, that Israel is the problem, that Obama is better than an 80% conservative.
Their talking points can be seen at DU, KOS and FR
“Thrown under the bus.” Is a sports term. I roughly translates to “stabbed him in the back.” But the essential thing is that it can only be done to a member of your own team, one who rides the bus with you.
Ronald Reagan was many things in his life, but the only one we put on a pedastel was the President. As president, he actively opposed liberatarian ideas and ideals. In other words, he was never on their “team,” so they can’t throw him under the bus.
The LIBERALtarian Party will never amount to anything.
No one is going to vote for a party that is open borders, pro-illegal alien, weak on national security, and so ate-up on Free Trade that they praise Chairman Mao over George Washington.
Blaming Reagan for Big Government can be added now to that list. Great work, LIBS
We will drink no wine before it’s time....it’s time!
That's very simple:
1. Did the size of government increase under Reagan, or did it decrease?
2. What about the national debt: did it increase or decrease under Reagan?
3. Did Reagan abolish any federal departments, bueaus, etc. during his time in office?
How can you, as a "conservative", defend a President who did little to limit the "few & defined" powers of the federal government to only those that were granted to it by the Constitution?
Soooo....
Do you want to legalize only HALF the dope in this country?
Oops, the speaker's true colors are exposed here.
Excellent clarification.
I see where you are coming from, & what you said makes sense to me. It just angers me that Reagan didn’t stand up to Congress & “JUST SAY NO!” to government growth & dare Congress to override his non-existent vetoes....or that his vetoes were few & far between if they existed at all.
A slur against libertarians everywhere. But the LP isn’t going to go anywhere if they think campaigning against the drug war or even current drug laws is going to get them elected to major offices or make the Republicans nervous. Voters care more about what congress is currently battling over, and it isn’t drugs. It’s the economy and health care “reform” that’s being shoved down our throats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.