Yes Gene, and Michael, as much as you try to redefine history, Ronald Reagan was the epitome of a conservative libertarian.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:47 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 Reagan > > **Ronald Reagan Was No Libertarian > *by Gene Healy > > Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The > Cult of the Presidency. > Added to *cato.org* on February 8, 2011 > *This article appeared in *The DC Examiner<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/> > * on 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 a *USA Today* op-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 in *Liberty* magazine 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/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- 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.
