Read the quote. He never said he was a libertarian. On Feb 15, 12:47 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... 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." -- > Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan Was No Libertarianby Gene Healy > Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The > Cult of the Presidency. > Added tocato.orgon February 8, 2011This article appeared inThe DC Examineron > February 8, 2011.Everybody loves former President Reagan. That's clear from > the celebration surrounding our 40th president's 100th birthday, complete > with a JumboTron Superbowl tribute and aUSA Todayop-ed from President Obama > praising Reagan's "unique ability to inspire others to greatness." Last week > in this space, I took aim at one faction's attempt to claim the Reagan > legacy, in a column entitled "Reagan was no neocon," I argued that, despite > their retrospective affection for Reagan, neoconservatives in the 1980s were > bitterly disappointed by his foreign policy. > But turnabout is fair play, so I should acknowledge that you could pull the > same trick on libertarians like myself. By the end of Reagan's tenure, many > of my ideological brethren considered "Reaganite" an epithet. > "Eight dreary, miserable years" of "egregiously statist policies," Murray > Rothbard snarled inLibertymagazine in 1989. My colleague David Boaz was less > dyspeptic, but nearly as disappointed, in his introduction to the 1988 Cato > Institute volume "Assessing the Reagan Years": "The Reagan Revolution turned > out to be a paper tiger," he wrote.[W]e shouldn't make any president into a > plaster saint.True enough: Reagan was no libertarian. Instead of wrapping > ourselves in his mantle, those of us who support deep reductions in > government's size and power should take a clear-eyed look at the Reagan > record. > The Cato Institute did just that in "Assessing the Reagan Years," which > showed that under Reagan, federal spending actually increased from 23 percent > to 24 percent of gross national product, while payroll tax increases resulted > in a net tax increase for most Americans. > Not only did Reagan renege on his promise to abolish President Carter's new > Cabinet departments, Education and Energy, he appointed secretaries dedicated > to their preservation. > Carter did more than Reagan to deregulate the economy, the authors explained, > and while farm subsidies tripled under Reagan's watch, Reagan eliminated only > one (one!) major federal program, the Comprehensive Employment and Training > Act (which was almost immediately reborn under another name). > "On so many issues," Boaz lamented, the Reagan administration "never even > showed up for battle." > Worse, on one key issue where the president actually showed up, his efforts > left the country demonstrably less free. > President Nixon popularized the phrase "the war on drugs," but Reagan was the > first chief executive who really took that metaphor seriously. Via executive > order, he declared drug trafficking a "national security threat," and in a > 1986 televised address he invoked World War II, calling drug abuse "a form of > tyranny" and imploring Americans to "join us in this great, new national > crusade." > As a result of that failed crusade, the United States now has the highest > incarceration rate in the developed world. > Why, then, do most libertarians today remember our 40th president fondly? > Edmund Morris captured Reagan's appeal nicely in a passage from his > much-maligned biography, Dutch:"Across America and Europe, in huge areas of > the world where commerce was once state-controlled, Reagan's philosophy of > hard work and earned reward has made Marxism a memory. If [upon signing the > '81 tax cuts] he had laid down his last pen ... and said to the press, 'Ten > years from now, you fellows, there are going to be stock markets in Moscow > and Shanghai,' guffaws would have filled the valley. But who can doubt that > somewhere deep down (as he leaned back in his chair, put one high-heeled boot > on the table, and mugged for the cameras), Dutch believed?"Few at the time > showed that kind of vision, and Reagan deserves enormous credit for it. > Still, we shouldn't make any president into a plaster saint. There's an > unhealthy touch of idolatry in the question, "What would Reagan do?" > Moreover, WWRD? is the wrong question to ask if you're looking to cut > government back to its proper constitutional size. The hero who can > accomplish that task has yet to > emerge.http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12763
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
