Posted on 11/07/2012 5:38:24 AM PST by Rob in Arizona
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
...
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain.
(Excerpt) Read more at reagan.utexas.edu ...
Last night was a tough pill for us to swallow, and I have already heard the pundits and commentators ready the requiem for the Republican party and the conservative movement. I'd like to take a step back from the moment and offer some hope and perspective.
In 1964, Ronald Reagan became a national figure with the speech I linked above, which he delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater, the father of modern of conservatism, during the 1964 election season. Goldwater lost that election in a landslide, after the left demonized him as a warmonger who was unsympathetic to the plight of the the poor (this was the same strategy that was used against Governor Romney with the same unfortunate good effect). Despite this result, 16 years later, Reagan was elected to the first of his two terms and made America great again.
I read this speech during the last 2 days and saw so many parallels to today--the size of the national debt, the tax burden, the federal government and its programs, threats to our security from abroad. Substitute the names and figures, and he could have delivered these words about Obama instead of LBJ. In pertinent part, future President Reagan said:
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
...
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."
Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
...
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
...
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits—not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
Things looked as hopeless for Republicans in 1964 as they seem today (I remind you that the only Republican President between 1932 and 1964 was Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose election was attributable to his WWII stature and would have been elected as a Democrat, had he accepted their overtures).
In 4 years, the people will no longer buy the mantra that the national plight is Bush's fault. We will have added to our debt by at least $5 trillion more, our government programs will fail for lack of funds, and the economy will slow because of crushing tax rates and regulations. Unfortunately, we have elected a path that will bring us to rock bottom, but the silver lining is that it will be excesses of liberalism that will be responsible.
There will be another Reagan. Maybe that successor is Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, or someone who is completely unknown today. But let's retain the optimism and faith in America and God that President Reagan had during his lifetime. Let that part of his legacy endure.
May God bless us and our nation today.
Personally I think Romney may have been a better Reagan, than Reagan.
Energy independence, regulations, and an over haul entitlements are pillars Reagan didn’t broach.
Reagan played the middle like a true politician, but he felt strong because of SDI and his rhetoric. And face it Jimmy and Walter were not as dishonest and mean as Obama, nor was the media as compliant.
I’ll probably get skewered here but it’s only an opinion.
Let's ignore the so-called wisdom coming from those who depend on making life seem overly complex - those who are wise by their own estimation versus their actions. We'll know what to do and when to do it if we rely on our own good common sense.
Frre contraceptives, Free phones, Free food is hard to win against.
The only free missing is Free-dom.
My greatest concern right now is that we Republicans will form their firing lines in a circle, with Tea Party activists being blamed for losing winnable Senate seats during the 2010 and 2012 elections, social conservatives for their stances on abortion and traditional marriage, Beltway pundits for claiming we need to be pro-amnesty to win the Hispanic demographic, etc.
Romney was not a pure conservative, as Romneycare showed. But he is a capable businessman who could have taken steps to get our fiscal house in order and who would have repealed Obamacare and appointed two or more S.Ct. justices that will be far better than Obama’s future choices.
In any event, I don’t see how Cain, Santorum, or Gingrich would have fared better.
What I do see is that we Republicans have some structural issues to address:
(1) the predominance of liberals in entertainment, education, and the media;
(2) the decline of orthodox Christianity/Judaism and the rise of a society that is increasingly agnostic and secular;
(3) the decline of the family as the unit of society;
(4) the fact we have been unable to make inroads with Hispanics because of the illegal immigration issue, and blacks, despite 60 years of progressive policies not helping generations of poor become middle class Americans.
Let’s hope we figure out how to deal with these fundamentals.
I remember very well the "energy crisis" under Carter, record interest rates, high inflation and unemployment, sagging personal income and tax revenues, and military morale in the ditch. All of these, and more, were tackled when Reagan had to work with entrenched democRat majorities in the House and Senate.
By election time in his first term, every important, seemingly intractable issue that plagued the Johnson administration through the Carter administration, was on the mend and gaining steam. These are tangible accomplishments versus campaign speeches.
Clinton is the democRat hero because of Reagan - inheriting a huge "peace dividend" and able to show a balanced budget on paper. George HW Bush had the same problem as Romney - he was a good family man and manager / executive, but he was perceived as an out-of-touch rich white guy who waffles on issues and doesn't inspire.
You are correct... I remember now as well.
Reagan was inspiring to the press, and admired by Hollywood & California - those are a couple of big advantages.
And I certainly am not “knocking” Reagan, because he was perfect for the time. But I don’t remember him dealing with the bigger economic fundamental problems we have today, which I think Romney was/is perfect for.
In the absence of leadership nothing will change... enjoy the roller coaster of the next 4 years. I’m turning off my TV and cancelling my paper.
Very wise indeed. The die has been cast and our house of cards will not stand the coming hurricane. It's even more obvious than the collapse of either the dot-com or the housing bubbles.
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.