Lessons from Reagan: A Wish List for the State of the Union (Conservative Themes)Cornell Review

This week, President George W. Bush will deliver his State of the Union address, outlining his plans for the nation over the next two years. Political pundits are speculating on the content of his speech—Will he unveil some sort of “smoking gun” with regard to Iraq? Will he compromise on his tax cut package? Will there be prescription drugs for seniors? Will he introduce tort reform legislation? Ronald Reagan energized millions of conservatives over the years with State of the Union addresses that emphasized (i) enhancing personal liberty, (ii) reducing the size of the federal government, and (iii) rebuilding the military so as to bring the Soviets to their knees. In speaking eloquently and courageously about the menace of socialism at home and abroad, the Great Communicator rallied the nation around his agenda. Consequently, Reagan became one of the greatest presidents America has ever seen.

Will President Bush earn that same admiration? Some conservatives believe that he already has achieved Reaganesque stature due to his leadership in the wake of September 11. Others (like me) think he has a long way to go.

Bush’s domestic policies have been all over the place during the last two years—he has advocated tax cuts, domestic spending hikes, new trade restrictions, and more regulation. There is no consistent philosophical view of government that has guided the White House’s judgment on these matters. Instead, these policies have arisen out of pure political calculus.

Moreover, Bush’s foreign policy has been quite wobbly in the last year. Do we stand squarely behind the Israelis or are we a “neutral broker” between Arafat and Sharon? Do we need the approval of the United Nations to declare war on Iraq? And what is the final goal in Iraq—regime change, disarmament, or both? Will North Korea face harsh consequences for its nuclear buildup? And, perhaps most importantly, what is the overarching philosophy that will guide each of these judgments?

Agree of disagree with him, President Reagan was clear about what his goals were—slashing taxes, increasing defense spending, and annihilating communism. Can anyone state, without significant strain, what three policies define President Bush? With the battle in Afghanistan won, President Bush’s policies seem clouded, and recent poll numbers reflect that he is losing his grip on the American imagination. The State of the Union address gives him the opportunity to regain his voice.

So for the slightly disgruntled conservatives, what is our wish list for Bush’s State of the Union speech? Here are the three items at the top of my list:

The United States has given the so-called “international community” the opportunity to do the right thing and they have chosen to cower to evil, as is their custom. We have learned that Germany and France want to appease tyrants because they are scared of the consequences of confrontation. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hit the nail squarely on the head when he referred to Germany and France as “Old Europe” and suggested that the balance of sanity on that continent had shifted toward the former Eastern Bloc.

“Iraq must be disarmed, Saddam Hussein must leave the region, and free elections must be held by [Date X]. If this does not occur, the United States military will wipe Baghdad off the map. If any other nation wishes to aid Iraq in this war, we will wipe that nation off the map too. We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons if necessary. We welcome the support of our NATO allies. If our allies do not help, they will be held accountable for their choices. And, by the way, we withdraw from the United Nations. Kofi Annan sounds like something you order at Starbucks.”

Going it alone in the world is difficult, but the great leaders have done it. Ronald Reagan’s aggressive anti-Communist policies in the 1980s—against the USSR, East Germany and Poland, in particular—earned him the ire of the European elite. Greece, Italy, Norway, and France routinely criticized Reagan for “escalating” crises with the Soviets. But Reagan did not care about the opinions of the Europeans. He knew that his cause was moral and just.

Whatever Bush chooses to say about Iraq, there must be (i) clear demands, (ii) a final deadline and (iii) a statement of consequences that will follow. There must also be a clear statement that United States’ policy is not determined in the UN or by Old Europe. He should remind the American people that our political leaders are beholden only to the U.S. Constitution.

Ronald Reagan did not contain communism. He did not seek détente with evil empires that developed nuclear arsenals to threaten the United States. Reagan abandoned the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” and refused to embrace a foreign policy based on fear. Rather, he spoke repeatedly and bluntly about the evils of Soviet communism and took steps to defeat it.

President Bush was courageous in including North Korea as part of the "axis of evil," but he must now follow it up with tough policy. The enemies of freedom took Reagan seriously when, in his first press conference, he stated:

[The Kremlin’s goal] is the promotion of world revolution and a one-word Socialist or Communist state. The only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that [end].”

The Communists knew that there was a new sheriff in town. He followed this press conference up with the famous Westminster speech, the “Evil Empire” speech, and countless others. And, critically, his policies reflected his rhetoric. He escalated the arms race, knowing that the Communists could not keep up and that their economy would collapse. He refused to abandon missile defense because he knew that it was a powerful weapon against the fear peddled by the Communists. He enacted embargoes against Poland and the Soviet Union when marital law was declared in Poland and members of Solidarity were arrested. He funded anti-Communists in Poland, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and many other nations. And all the while, Old Europe—save Thatcher’s government—criticized Reagan for being an extremist and a warmonger. But he got his message across to the enemy.

In Peter Schweizer’s bestseller Reagan’s War, former Soviet ambassador to the United States Anatoly Dobrynin is quoted as saying:

”No matter what diplomatic tack Moscow examined or actually took, the Reagan administration proved impervious to it. We came to realize that in contrast to most presidents who shift from their electoral rhetoric to more centrist, pragmatic positions by the middle of their presidential term, Reagan displayed an active immunity to the traditional forces, both internal and external, that normally produce a classic adjustment.”

President Bush must resist the forces that are pushing him to the center on the North Korea question. America should not peacefully co-exist with a communist country that has violated international treaties and secretly developed nuclear weapons. The North Koreans cannot be trusted. Without a regime change, diplomatic talks are useless. Once again, we are faced with a choice. Will we adopt a containment policy—based in fear—that relies on mutually assured destruction to ensure our safety? Or will we choose a path that seeks the transformation of the Korean system and a liberation of its people?

The president must unveil a clear plan that reflects the principles set forth in the Reagan Doctrine. Our policy should consist of economic sanctions toward North Korea, funding of North Korean dissidents, and a military buildup that undermines the communists’ weapon of choice—fear. We must wage a total ideological war on these psychotic monsters.

President Reagan’s 1980 and 1984 campaign rhetoric matched his policy. To this point, President Bush’s pledges on domestic policy does not match is actions. In 2000, Bush pledged to reduce the size of government, enhance state and local control over education and return tax money to the people. To this point, the president has enacted a puny tax cut-—most of which has not yet been realized and is still set to expire—and signed into law domestic spending increases that are leading us toward one of the largest deficits in the history of the republic. Should we be flipping out over deficits? No, of course not. As a percentage of GDP, deficits are smaller than they have been in years. But we should be concerned about the size of the federal government, which has grown more dramatically than at any point since the Great Society.

Unlike Reagan, Bush has not educated the American people on the linkage between low domestic spending levels, tax cuts, and personal liberty. Currently, he cannot even credibly sell a pro-liberty message because much of his domestic policy is inconsistent with this end. Bush’s success on his first tax cut was due mostly to the groundwork laid by Ronald Reagan and the 104th Congress.

In this State of the Union Address, the president must put forth a coherent economic package that rewards individuals for wealth creation and limits the role of the federal government in private voluntary exchanges. He needs to scrap his latest wimpy tax cut proposal and revisit Reagan’s 1981 tax reform package, which reduced marginal tax rates by 25% over three years and reduced dozens of business taxes. He must also examine Reagan’s 1986 tax reform, which moved our nation toward a flat tax.

In short, President Bush must propose significant tax reform, including indexing and cutting the capital gains tax, abolishing the corporate income tax, and giving individuals control over their payroll taxes. He must also put a stake through the heart of the Marxist ideology reflected in our progressive income tax. Achievement must be rewarded, not punished. If we are going to fight socialism and oppression abroad, individuals ought to be free at home.

The State of the Union speech will be a big moment for the president. He should seize the moment and begin to enunciate the conservative themes that will define his 2004 re-election campaign. And maybe, just maybe, he’ll win one for the Gipper.

My wish list:

Eliminate Income Tax Withholding.
Restaff the Judiciary with Conservative Judges.
Appoint two new Supreme Court Judges.
Then, Pull an FDR and Increase the size of the Supreme Court to 24 Judges. (After all, our Countries Population is so much larger now then then.) And, place and additional 12 ultra-Conservate Judges in there. (Better do it. You know the Liberals want to do it, and will do it first if a Conservate doesn't preempt them.)
Get rid of the current Income Tax System.
Abolish all Legislational amendments made during 1910 and 1925. (Think about it)
Tie "General Welfare" spending to a STATE Responsibility. And, Tie "National Defense" to a FEDERAl Responsibility.
Force all Federal Programs to have Yearly goals and five year goals. And they have to have measurables that can be quantified and used to determine if the program is worth keeping.
All programs should "sunset" within 6 years unless their viability is measurably justified.
Only Americans should vote in elections.
No parole for anyone convicted of life imprisonment.
Death row inmates have to be financially responsible for any of their additional legal costs after conviction.
Instigate investigations of a number of politically prominent Political figures including Jessie Jackson; Kennedy; Hillery; Dashole.
Manditory firearm training in highschools.
Manditory CIVICS in highschools.
Abolish NPR and fundings (by the Federal Government) for the Arts (yea, as if urine in a jar is art).
"Civic Knowledge" Certification of all political candidates...like an SAT test. With the grades always available.

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.