Right on Gipper....we'll take you back ANYTIME....
Posted on 04/01/2007 1:45:19 PM PDT by quidnunc
There is an argument floating around Republican circles that in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states’ rights.
This is folly. It’s the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the wrong prescription for the future.
Back in the 1970s, when Reaganism became popular, top tax rates were in the 70s, growth was stagnant and inflation was high. Federal regulation stifled competition. Government welfare policies enabled a culture of dependency. Socialism was still a coherent creed, and many believed the capitalist world was headed toward a Swedish welfare model.
In short, in the 1970s, normal, nonideological people were right to think that their future prospects might be dimmed by a stultifying state. People were right to believe that government was undermining personal responsibility. People were right to have what Tyler Cowen, in a brilliant essay in Cato Unbound, calls the “liberty vs. power” paradigm burned into their minds — the idea that big government means less personal liberty.
But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people’s future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation.
Normal, nonideological people are less concerned about the threat to their freedom from an overweening state than from the threats posed by these amorphous yet pervasive phenomena. The “liberty vs. power” paradigm is less germane. …
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nwanews.com ...
Nothing has changed there, it is still correct.
Disgusting but inevitable ideological slide by Brooks after buying into "compassionate conservatism.' Sorry. I'll take liberty over big government any day.
We always need someone who is authentic, like Mr. Reagan was, and Mr. Bush is. We also always need the leader who can cope with the tough challenges of the time. Going backward is not a particularly helpful idea.
What we need is someone who knows who he is, who understands what we are up against, who is tough, smart with a human touch, a straight arrow who is honest as the day is long, (hopefully with one wife) and who understands why America is worth fighting for.
And don't forget these:
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"War is Peace"
Partially agree.
Reagan's legacy of minimalist government (more of an aspiration than a policy under his administration) is still a model for the future.
However, the author is correct that voters today are less concerned about government power than they were 25 years ago.
This doesn't mean conservative policies are less neccesary than they were, but it does mean they are less popular. The electorate is going through one of its pendulum swings, partly due to the absence of an articulate leader on the conservative side.
Yeah, Brooks blew it when he mentioned "global warming". It's tough to respect the opinion of anybody who falls for the latest chic political craze.
I think he's probably wrong about this. Goldwater and Reagan are good models, though not perhaps the models of the moment. But Goldwater tends to be associated too much with sectional hostilities, and the GOP definitely has to get beyond that and become or remain a national party.
What we need is a Reagan adapted to the issues of today. However, Reagan's belief in America, democracy, and the future was timeless.
I guess you're right, so much has changed in fundamental human nature. That archaic Constitution is hardly applicable to today's "modern" world.
Right on Gipper....we'll take you back ANYTIME....
There is a WORLD of difference. The problem with the Dems going back to their glory days is that their principles were destructive. If one believes that the principles of personal liberty and limited government are timeless, it is not a question of going "back", but of rediscovering timeless principles. This article reminds me of a college student who attended one of our property rights seminars and proceeded to proclaim that the notion of property rights were an outdated product of the 18th Agrarian Age. I asked him if he felt the same way about such constitutional principles as freedom of speech and pointed out that the these principles were timeless.
No more Reagans or Goldwaters! Republicans need their own Dick Durbin!
Having become the Left's most dependable "useful idiot", I predict he will become a MSM celebrity.
Wow, this is so true! And hey, why stop there...you know Lincoln had a great idea abolishing slavery and all, and he was a good role model for his day, but that idea just doesn't suit me anymore...you know, I think I might like to own a slave or two!
Why, if jihadis come around, I could send them out to fight on my behalf....
And if it gets too hot from global warming, I could order them to fan me....
And with globalism appraoching on my current economic situation, I could use the extra help....
This is a brilliant idea! /s off
CORRECTION: I predict he = I predict he Brooks
Bump
"But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed."
Nonsense, they are as prevalent as ever. In fact, in some ways they are more so. With the advent of "Big Government Conservatism", we have both side of the political divide seeking to expand the role of the federal leviathan.
Oh yeah? Tell that to a moonbat! That is if you can get them to stop screaming about theocracy and dictatorships...
peh....
"David Brooks" = RINO!!!
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.