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?
Why would anyone be surprised that one political party isn’t necessarily impressed by another political party’s icon?
“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 is a strawman.
Most tax cuts help *grow the economy* for the simple reason that income and investment taxes punish economic activity. As such, certain tax cuts pay for themselves. All tax cuts that have been passed have been beneficial, and those arguing against them have INVARIABLY supported higher taxes AND spending that are worse for our fiscal situation both for taxpayers and the Govt.
As such, the important thing for Reagan’s tax cuts was that the bubble that we could or should have high punitive tax rates was burst. Well ... guess what ... they are back. Obama administration is sending us back to rates higher by far than what Reagan left us with. They are pushing rates back over the laffer curve to the point where the rates only punish and hurt the economy while raising no money. Ans what is worse is that Obama is fine with that, for ‘fairness’ reasons.
“This myth allowed GWB to destroy the republican party and capitalism without even a peace dividend to pay the debt.”
More BS. Capitalism is a concept. It cannot be ‘destroyed’ just because an R was fiscally irresponsible. Further, the problem was NEVER tax cuts, but was the spending that was out of control. Bush pursued ‘guns and butter’ ramping up spending as fast almost as LBJ. To be fair to Bush, its tough to have a ‘peace dividend’ after 9/11 and the necessary actions after that.
“Bush used printed money, Reagan borrowed.”
The deficit that the end of Reagan’s term was the same % of GDP as when he came to office.
“Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict”
This man was PERSONALLY responsible for destroying a fiscally responsible conservative Republican and electing a liberal Democrat in central Texas. He did it deliberately.
Bashing our best president is par for the course for this guy.
Horsepuckey.
Reagan had libertarian (and maybe Libertarian) speech writers. His 1980 campaign rhetoric contained many libertarian and some Libertarian ideas.
After being elected, a lot of those went away.
Libertarians are 6 year olds.
IF they can’t play the game, no one plays.
One reason we got Bill Clinton and the coming war on terror un checked by these loons voting for Perot
Can you point out just where the Constitution allows itself to be raped and shredded in the name of prohibiting the possession and usage of ANYTHING? Read the Tenth Amendment carefully, then look through the remainder of the Constitution and let me know. Then, I would guess, if you mean what you imply about wanting to conserve the Constitution, you’ll be championing the end of the war on some drugs, right? If you are intellectually and morally honest, that is.
He destroyed that too. At least temporarily/
RE :”All tax cuts that have been passed have been beneficial, and those arguing against them have INVARIABLY supported higher taxes AND spending that are worse for our fiscal situation both for taxpayers and the Govt.:”
This is just more of the same dribble. that The government can hire more employees AND you get a tax cut at the same and it all works out. Not so. It always leads to deficits or inflation. That is the conservative Santa Claus. Just like Obamas health reform will pay for itself because we wont get sick. Libs repeat this dribble over and over, just like you repeat “My tax cut paid for more government spending”
"War on some drugs".... "If you are intellectually and morally honest, that is."Go ahead and legalize pot. That'll sure learn them sorry cartels, huh? Not that they are already into cocaine and meth. But they wouldn't move on to legalizing that, would they? That would not be part next in your surrender on the WOD, would it?
And what is moral about enslaving millions more Americans to the ravages of drugs? And why are you in favor of GROWING the state as we tax and subsidize drugs? Are you prepared to fund the new prisons and hospitals that we will need as a result of your WOD surrender? Oh. I forgot. Using drugs is a "victimless crime", Huh?
Sheesh!
I already know your answer to these legitimate questions: I eagerly await your calling me a nanny-state prohibitionist.
Feel free.
The Libertarian Party is just another ACLU. The talk is the opposite of what it achieves and wants to achieve.
Not everyone involved in the LP has tumbled to this despite decades of the party accomplishing nothing it claims it wants.
Reagan ran in 1976 in part on a platform including a “$90 billion” budget cut (that was big money back then.
That stand cost him Florida in the primaries, and therefore the nomination.
Another poster pointed out that he didn’t have Congress. In that climate, besides recent changes under Carter that were forcing spending (Dept. of Ed. and Energy, for instance), Reagan probably kept the spending lower than it would have been by getting the Kemp-Roth 25% tax cuts done. Since the deficits did go up, it put a brake on how much the libs could spend.
Bush the Elder bloinked and raised taxes when the Dem Congress didn’t pass a budget.
I agree w/ you wholeheartedly. Like I have said before, one of the things I respect the most about Reagan was that he was a LEADER. He respected our flag & history as a free country. I loved listening to him speak because he was a positive person (IMO) & had a great sense of humor. I voted for him in 1980, about 5 months after I turned 18.
The use of drugs such as pot or alcohol or whatever is neither moral nor immoral. Yes, such things can be misused and abused. That does NOT make it the business of government in any way, shape or form, whether to prohibit usage or to bail out the users.
What is moral about bankrupting the nation and shredding the Constitution pursuing something that has NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS to begin with? I asked you a specific question: Where is the specific authority granted to government to conduct a “war on (some) drugs” in the first place. Your non-answer is sufficient. If you HAD something to point to, you would. That you do not certainly indicates that you realize you CANNOT. So I will take it that you will recognize the error of your ways and correct it. Right?
(Oh, and, yes, at the LOCAL level, certainly cities and counties may properly regulate PUBLIC behaviors under the influence or, outside one’s home, say just where someone may ingest intoxicants. That’s it and all, though!)
Must I remind you:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
(I'm gonna get banned or suspended, huh?
No, you're this week's comic relief...
I’m not a Libertarian...I’m an independent who voted for Pastor Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for POTUS in the 2008 election.
Please remember that the Republocratic Party had rigged the election system against 3rd Party candidates. Their candidates refuse to allow 3rd Party candidates into the Presidential Debtes, refuse to debate them when given the opportunity, & make the rules for their being able to participate so difficult that it’s nearly impossible for them to do so. The MSM aren’t giving them much of a stage to air their opinions, either.
Regan tried to abolish the Dept. of Education. COngress nixed it. He had other ideas to decrease the size of the Federal government, but his proposals were not endorsed by Congress.
Donald Regan tried to abolish the Department of Education, who knew?
Make that “hot-air and marijuana smoke.”
Wow... thanks Freepers for eating your own. Factionalism will never get us anywhere. We should all support reducing the size of the government and increasing individual liberty.
There are plenty of big government targets we can all agree on here. We can commence destroying one another once we start making headway with this primary goal.
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.