Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He didn't abandon his original beliefs in policy. Much of his conservativism was merely rhetoric. I again say that I don't hate Reagan but revisionism of his polcy was being done by the right while he was still in office. Politics is an ugly business and noone gets to the top by being honest.
I firmly disagree but that's what opinions create.
Let me say that I do not support communism or socialism and find the use of the term by conservatives not honest. I have a friend from Cambodia that had his whole family killed by the government because his brother spoke out. I apologize for this post but his situation came to mind while reading through the Cambodian tragedies on Big johns link.
Why do you folks continue to try and take away from his intelligence when even his most staunch critics had to quit with the rhetoric and admit he was right all along?
I won't question his intelligence. We've probably had dumber Presidents. We've certainly had brighter ones. But what is this thing that everyone is supposedly agreeing that he was right about all along??? Has some new consensus emerged over the proper classification of ketchup? What is it, then?
I too have heard the horror stories. I worked in a company that employed over 110 different nationalities. 49 in the building I was in alone. 6 buildings just like it all around. When the dot-com bubble burst lay off's were in the 10,000's. The company eventually fell from the very top spot to not existing and filing bankrupcy. Although you don't in general get real in depth with people you work with about politics. You could tell the tragedy of communism by talking to them and the immidiate emotions it invoked.
It would be interesting to read about his or any other presidents thoughts when they arrived in the white house and learned all the dirty secrets going on in the country and the world.
I won't question his intelligence. We've probably had dumber Presidents. We've certainly had brighter ones. But what is this thing that everyone is supposedly agreeing that he was right about all along??? Has some new consensus emerged over the proper classification of ketchup? What is it, then?
Well looking back at that it was a very general statement and probably wrong to write it in that context. I don't really expect everyone to agree. What I had going through my mind when I spoke that: All the people that came and pointed out their favorite talking point and when replied to they say nothing. Later I will see those same comments on other threads, which is why I made this thread just as a reminder. How people take it or if they believe any of it is obviously their right.
I agree too he wasn't the smartest around. I might give that to Wilson although I think Obama is probably way up there. Sometimes that doesn't invoke as much confidence as a person with seemingly unbreakable confidence.
Murray Rothbard stated in his critique of Reaganism.
The Conservative Movement of modern times has had three basic, and mutually contradictory, tenets: (1) "Getting Big Government Off Our Backs" by rolling back statism and establishing a free market economy; (2) crushing civil liberties whenever crime, "national security," or "morality" are threatened, i.e. whenever civil liberties become important; and (3) seeking an all-out political and military confrontation with "atheistic world Communism," in particular its satanic headquarters in the Kremlin, up to and including a nuclear showdown.
It is starkly evident that (2) and (3) are, at the very least, inconsistent with (1). For one thing, how does one "Get Big Government Off Our Economic Backs," while at the same time spreading "Big Government" into our bedrooms, and into our private letters and phone calls? How does one secure the right to free trade and free enterprise while outlawing pornography and all commerce with the Soviet bloc? And how does one preserve the right to personal life and property while engaging in the mass murder of civilians required by modern warfare? Whenever the Conservative Movement has become aware of such inconsistencies (e.g. over free trade with sinners, or foreign aid for our "allies," or ever-greater military budgets), it has opted unhesitatingly for (2) and (3) over (1). For conservatives, the State as Theocrat and Moral Enforcer and the State as Mass Murderer have always taken precedence over the feeble goals of freedom and free markets.
Reaganomics, as enunciated by Reagan himself before the convention and by conservatives generally, promised the following program: a sharp cut in the federal budget, a drastic cut in income taxes, a balanced budget by 1984, deregulation of the economy, and return to a gold standard. Reagan had managed to convince both conservatives and liberals, and the American public, that he did accomplish the first and second points of this list. For a year or two, it was hardly possible to watch news on TV without watching some bozo wailing about how he and the rest of the world were about to come to an end because the federal Scrooge had cut his budget or his grant. Conservatives bought this myth because they wanted to see Reagan accomplish what he had said he would; liberals were happy to adopt it so that they could wail about how Reagan was causing untold misery and starvation by his drastic cuts. Actually, the budget was never cut; it had always skyrocketed under Reagan. Reagan is by far the biggest spender in American history. He was also the biggest taxer to that date. Taxes were never cut. The piddling and, much publicized income tax cut was always, from the very beginning, more than compensated by the programmed Social Security tax increases, aided by "bracket creep," that sinister system by which the federal government prints more money, thereby causing inflation, and also thereby wafting everyone into a higher tax bracket, whereupon the government completes the one-two punch by taxing away a greater proportion of his income.
How could Reagan get away with the systematic betrayal of the conservative agenda on domestic policy? Or, how could conservatives swallow the free-market rhetoric while ignoring Reagan's anti-free market actions? One answer is that conservatives cared more about foreign policy, and the macho invasion of little Grenada had probably won all the dissident conservatives back into Reagan's camp. Just before the invasion, the conservative weekly, Human Events, was piteously begging Reagan to "please, Mr. President, give us something in your policy that we can cheer about." Well, they got Grenada.
Hey even I cheered him on when he exclaimed 'Mr Gorbechev, tear down this wall'.
It would be interesting to read about his or any other presidents thoughts when they arrived in the white house and learned all the dirty secrets going on in the country and the world.
What saganista was referring to around the beginning of the thread with the declassified documents will probably reveal quite a bit. But we will see if that's just rhetoric from the admin or if he wants to air out all our dirty laundry. We will see. If he can gain politically from it it will most certainly happen.
Murray Rothbard stated in his critique of Reaganism.
The Conservative Movement of modern times has had three basic, and mutually contradictory, tenets: (1) "Getting Big Government Off Our Backs" by rolling back statism and establishing a free market economy; (2) crushing civil liberties whenever crime, "national security," or "morality" are threatened, i.e. whenever civil liberties become important; and (3) seeking an all-out political and military confrontation with "atheistic world Communism," in particular its satanic headquarters in the Kremlin, up to and including a nuclear showdown.
It is starkly evident that (2) and (3) are, at the very least, inconsistent with (1). For one thing, how does one "Get Big Government Off Our Economic Backs," while at the same time spreading "Big Government" into our bedrooms, and into our private letters and phone calls? How does one secure the right to free trade and free enterprise while outlawing pornography and all commerce with the Soviet bloc? And how does one preserve the right to personal life and property while engaging in the mass murder of civilians required by modern warfare? Whenever the Conservative Movement has become aware of such inconsistencies (e.g. over free trade with sinners, or foreign aid for our "allies," or ever-greater military budgets), it has opted unhesitatingly for (2) and (3) over (1). For conservatives, the State as Theocrat and Moral Enforcer and the State as Mass Murderer have always taken precedence over the feeble goals of freedom and free markets.
Reaganomics, as enunciated by Reagan himself before the convention and by conservatives generally, promised the following program: a sharp cut in the federal budget, a drastic cut in income taxes, a balanced budget by 1984, deregulation of the economy, and return to a gold standard. Reagan had managed to convince both conservatives and liberals, and the American public, that he did accomplish the first and second points of this list. For a year or two, it was hardly possible to watch news on TV without watching some bozo wailing about how he and the rest of the world were about to come to an end because the federal Scrooge had cut his budget or his grant. Conservatives bought this myth because they wanted to see Reagan accomplish what he had said he would; liberals were happy to adopt it so that they could wail about how Reagan was causing untold misery and starvation by his drastic cuts. Actually, the budget was never cut; it had always skyrocketed under Reagan. Reagan is by far the biggest spender in American history. He was also the biggest taxer to that date. Taxes were never cut. The piddling and, much publicized income tax cut was always, from the very beginning, more than compensated by the programmed Social Security tax increases, aided by "bracket creep," that sinister system by which the federal government prints more money, thereby causing inflation, and also thereby wafting everyone into a higher tax bracket, whereupon the government completes the one-two punch by taxing away a greater proportion of his income.
How could Reagan get away with the systematic betrayal of the conservative agenda on domestic policy? Or, how could conservatives swallow the free-market rhetoric while ignoring Reagan's anti-free market actions? One answer is that conservatives cared more about foreign policy, and the macho invasion of little Grenada had probably won all the dissident conservatives back into Reagan's camp. Just before the invasion, the conservative weekly, Human Events, was piteously begging Reagan to "please, Mr. President, give us something in your policy that we can cheer about." Well, they got Grenada.
Hey even I cheered him on when he exclaimed 'Mr Gorbechev, tear down this wall'.
Good to here from you mcmaster steve its been a while. I agree that the reagan legacy is not what has been packaged and sold to us, however I think you might want to do a fact check on your points. Reagan did cut taxes and he also raised them. I give reagan credit for one thing and that is not putting ideology over country. I disagree with most of conservative policy, not because I think its wrong or bad, but because I think its as unrealistic as any other absolute policy. That is why I'm a liberal and feel the best american policy is a balance somewhere in between socialism and pure capitalism. I think to far down either road leads to a dead end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
