Reagan Interview, July 1975, using "libertarian" to describe his political philosophy (GREAT)

REAGAN: 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.

Reagan On Federal Education Funding:

"At first, there was a great opposition to most of the Federal revenues that are going to education on the part of many educators. Once the money was there, however, it was like the farmer who went into the woods and came back with the wagon loads of wild pigs. When they asked him how he had done it–they’d been wild for a hundred years–he said, "I built a fence and I put corn down and fed them, and they got used to eating the corn there, so l extended the fences’s sides and finally I had an enclosure and I corralled them." He said, "If I can get them to take food from me, I’ll own them." And this is what really happened with Federal aid to education. You know, the Federal Government could have done it differently if the Federal Government did not at the same time want control."

The same good analogy can be used for the current move to nationalize health care. I think this is the single most important upcoming fight. We can undo most of the incoming damage later, but social programs never get undone.

More Reagan:

“... No. Nor am I in favor of socialized medicine. But, there’s bound to be a grey area, an area in there in which you ask is this government protecting us from ourselves or is this government protecting us from each other.

I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves...

...So, I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government’s involvement in things that are not government’s proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.”

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The Health of the Parties [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Michael Cannon and James Pethokoukis have each recently written that the enactment of "universal health care" could strengthen the Democrats for a very long time. I have made the same point in the past, and it seems to be a point that is easily misunderstood. I tried to clarify matters in a recent article for NR:

As James Capretta has pointed out in these pages (September 1), Obama’s health-care plan is designed to evolve into a national health-insurance program along the lines of Canada’s. The resulting government monopoly or near-monopoly on health insurance would stifle innovation, require bureaucratic rationing, and infringe on freedom. But it would also move American politics permanently leftward.

When I have made this point before, left-wing writers — for example, Paul Krugman — have misunderstood it. They take me to be saying that national health care would be so successful that a grateful populace would give up its prejudices against big government. Not exactly. I have three other dynamics in mind.

First, the inevitable disappointments and failures of a nationalized system would just as inevitably be blamed on underfunding, creating a bidding war that liberals would usually win. On those occasions when voters understood that spending had to be controlled, they would prefer that liberals control it, so as to do the bare minimum necessary.

Second, the creation of a new health-care regime would alter the incentives for all the interest groups involved. In the short run, at least, squeezing money out of the government system would be more advantageous than abolishing it.

Third, the creation of a new system would make free-market alternatives look more radical to the public than they do now, because they would be more radical. The public’s aversion to risk, which now hurts advocates of liberal policies as much as it helps them, would only help them.

So national health insurance could be a lasting political success for liberals even if it is a colossal policy failure; it could, indeed, succeed politically because of its failures.

11/22 09:57 AM

Well, I'm going to don my flameproof suit, but I will say this; there is a big difference in "libertarianism" and being a "Libertarian" in today's termonology.

Today's Libertarian is basically a social liberal, while being fairly "conservative" on fiscal issues. Then, like their closest kin - liberals - they throw in a few "earmarks", like legalizing drugs.

They don't talk too much about the drug thing, bacause like the reasons for hiding pork in a Congressional bill, it wouldn't "sell" if too much was known about their ulterior motives.

To now use Reagan to try and promote Libertarianism is not going to fly. The problem now with Conservatism is the party is too fragmented to win elections, and along comes this stuff to try and attract the Ross Perot leftovers to the Libertarian party...which got how many votes last time? Two percent, was it?

Actually, they really don't have to worry...by the time obama and the Pelosi trio get underway in the next four years they'll probably legalize your drugs for you. Of course, you won't have a job to afford any...but that's another story.

Ronald Reagan was NOT a Libertarian and did not promote libertarianism (little L).

I'm very socially conservative, and very supportive of Libertarianism. Matter of fact, almost every gun owning, property rights, free business, stay married conservative I know is more towards the Libertarians than the RINO, sucker the voters, GOP ‘try again next’ election party.

I see the GOP as 1. Half speed Democrats and 2. As worse liars because the Democrats are fairly upfront with the growth of government, unlike the GOP that says the opposite but follows along like the fat kid in the kid gang that doesn't want to be left out.

And that is my best interpretation.

I actually believe that the HW Bush, GW Bush, Ford, Nixon, Romney, McCain are partners, ‘Friends’ and that the elections are choice rigged to keep out anyone that will disturb the hog feeding fence building.

"I'm very socially conservative, and very supportive of Libertarianism. Matter of fact, almost every gun owning, property rights, free business, stay married conservative I know is more towards the Libertarians than the RINO, sucker the voters, GOP ‘try again next’ election party."

Of course who know some "conservatives" which are more "towards Libertarians than the RINO...". The dirty little secret is that RINO's are neither socially or fiscally conservative.

That doesn't mean that - at this time - the libertarian party has an ice cube's chance in hell of getting elected.

People are just as fed up with liberal social policies as they are the fiscal policies.

And finally, there are a number of RINO's in the GOP, but the vast majority of the GOP rank and file are not RINO's. Or would you like me to state that "ALL libertarians are druggies"? Same difference. The misbehavior of some does not set the stage for the whole.

Now, I've said about all I have to say about libertarianism, it's what I believe, and I'm not going to get into a debate about it. The Libertarians I have met remind me of Jehovah witness, handing out phamplets and trying to "convert" me. No Deal.

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.