Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans Rethinking the Reagan Mystique
New York Times ^ | June 13, 2009 | John Harwood

Posted on 06/14/2009 12:56:05 PM PDT by reaganaut1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: FlingWingFlyer

Reagan was special. A real leader.


41 posted on 06/14/2009 2:29:18 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Why can't they just leave the children alone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GlennBeck08
I was thumbing through my copy of "The Reagan Diaries" this morning and came across this great quote from his first few days in office.

"Intelligence reports say Castro is very worried about me. I'm very worried that we can't come up with something to justify his worrying".

And some Bozo's in the party think we don't need that type of thinking again - Reagan knew playing patty-cake with enemies and terrorists is never profitable. Obama will soon demonstrate the truth of that beyond doubt - much to our regret.

42 posted on 06/14/2009 2:30:28 PM PDT by HardStarboard ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule - Mencken knew Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Reaganism worked.

Strong Defense.
Limited Government
Lower Taxes.

It’s the formula for success.


43 posted on 06/14/2009 2:30:47 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

It’s a way of pretending to be moderate and bipartisan; although in no sense other than the symbolic, since Reagan is not around to defend himself or to criticize Zero. It’s not incredibly different than some modern republican’s praise for FDR - a concession which costs them nothing.


44 posted on 06/14/2009 2:34:15 PM PDT by eclecticEel (The Most High rules in the kingdom of men ... and sets over it the basest of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
The Dems still "babble" about FDR along with JFK. They have firmly placed them into the American pantheon of great leaders--at least that's what the liberal historians have written and brainwashed our youth.

Reagan was President just 20 years ago. His principles still obtain.

FYI: The Dems controlled the House in the 70s and 80s. In fact they controlled it for 60 out of 64 years up to 1995, including a 40 years straight dominance, and they were almost as dominant in the Senate. The FDR legacy was very powerful and Obama is trying to go one better by making the Dems the permanent majority party.

45 posted on 06/14/2009 2:38:52 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Let Them Go Their Way
March 1, 1975
2nd Annual CPAC Convention

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority. And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals — and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans — Republicans, Democrats and independents — classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”

In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business — including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues — to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state — that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.

A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.

Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions — the leaders of the parties.

They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.

Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The “lab test” of my theory – California — was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”

For more than two decades governments — federal, state, local — have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over — for the first time in almost a quarter of a century — a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation — a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.

I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged — in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners — to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” — when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.


46 posted on 06/14/2009 2:43:29 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
New York Times?


47 posted on 06/14/2009 2:44:54 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Thanks for the great post. I can not agree more. Let them go their way. Too often conservatives stomp off at the bellow of a Rhino in their presence but the Republican party is not the party of Rhinos. More than 60% of the GOP identify themselves as conservative. We are not a small core we are the party and we should not let ourselves be pushed out. We should show up to state conventions and local party functions and make our presence known.


48 posted on 06/14/2009 2:48:51 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Why can't they just leave the children alone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
WE need to get back to the constituton, and reign in the courts (this includes overturning such rulings as Roe v. Wade, and “marriage” activism on the part of gays/lesbians.

You aren't going to reign in the courts with Obama in office. This is what I told people in the Republican Primary. I told them that if the Democrats win (either Obama or Hillary at the time) we wil get horrible Supreme Court Justices. Well (re Sotomayer) was I right or wrong. This is why we MUST find a way to fight the abortion war as a culture war. It MUST be independent of who is in office. We are stuck with Obama until at least 2013 and let's pray not beyond that. We are GOING TO GET HORRIBLE SUPREME COURT justices. There aren't many things that I would bet my life on but this is one that I would.
49 posted on 06/14/2009 2:52:16 PM PDT by truthguy (Good intentions are not enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: truthguy
Great post, thanks. I really wish that more Republicans/Conservatives would understand this.

No two people, let alone an entire party, agree 100% of the time.

50 posted on 06/14/2009 3:17:44 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Very many like statements were made about Reagan leading up to the 1984 election. If my memory is correct Reagan squeaked that one out.

In this article, if the NYT is to believed, Daniels is talking in circles and Frum is, well, just being himself.

51 posted on 06/14/2009 3:22:17 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
another moderate RINO drinking the Obama Koolaid.
52 posted on 06/14/2009 3:32:19 PM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
This is retarded. When we talk about Reagan, yes it's core conservative principles. But mostly-- IT'S HAVING BALLS. Or as Reagan put it:

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Now I want Mike Murphy, David Frum, David Brooks, Newt Gingrich-- and the rest of these bums to explain to me what about the above they have issue with? What about the above would they like us to abandon??

53 posted on 06/14/2009 3:32:53 PM PDT by exist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The New York Times shows concern for conservatives the same way Hamas shows concern for Israelis.


54 posted on 06/14/2009 3:33:53 PM PDT by paulycy (Liberal DOUBLE-STANDARDS are HATE speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Okay, fine. If the leftwing media doesn’t like referring to the GOP as the party of Reagan, how about calling it the party of Palin? Would that give them comfort?


55 posted on 06/14/2009 3:33:58 PM PDT by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Republicans might be, the conservatives are not.


56 posted on 06/14/2009 3:34:10 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Awwwwww. It's so nice for the New Obama Times to sing praises of Ronald Reagan.

Too bad nobody reads The Times.

57 posted on 06/14/2009 3:35:46 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
I love Ronald Reagan, but it has been a long time since he was president.

Reagan's principles are enduring.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

People do better when they keep their money and make decisions for themselves, not some central bureaucrat.

Peace through strength.

Trust but verify.

I can go on, and on, and on. The fact is if we'd have simply stuck with the above - and nothing else - this country wouldn't be in the mess it's in today run by a third-world despot's half-brother (aka Barack Hussein Obama.)

58 posted on 06/14/2009 3:36:50 PM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

This story is PURE GARBAGE! Intended to sway the stupid and easily spineless further down the road to destruction! JUST DO THE OPPOSITE! EMBRACE EVERYTHING REAGAN ENDORSED AND LIVE AND PROSPER!!!!!!


59 posted on 06/14/2009 3:39:06 PM PDT by MrDem (Monthly Special: Will write OPUS's for Whiners and Crybabies for no charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
To be sure, Mr. Reagan’s failure to curb the cost of government reflected the enduring difficulty all presidents face in balancing the government services Americans want with the taxes they’re willing to pay. But today it seems, increasingly, that it was Mr. Reagan and his admirer, George W. Bush, who contributed most to the problem of runaway spending, at least among recent presidents.

Allow me to set the record straight, New Obama Times.

President Reagan fought the RATS tooth-and-nail when it came to spending and growing government.

So much so that the weak-stream media of Reagan's day coined a new phrase to describe the plethora of vetoes President Reagan handed down.

They called it "gridlock".

As for President Bush. Guilty as charged.

60 posted on 06/14/2009 3:41:18 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson