Credo
Spirit
Sense
of
Life
Objectivists Headquarters
War
People
Store
Forum



Forum
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 6:29amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Linz:
 
You did a great job of summarizing with Reagan's own words his impact upon history.  He was a great man, though I didn't initially appreciate that.  I was eligible to vote for president the first time when Reagan ran in 1980.  I didn't vote for him in the Republican primary, because as a freshly minted know-it-all libertarian I knew that a conservative like Reagan could not possibly advance the cause of liberty in this world.  Fortunately when it came to the general election, I had enough sense (and patriotism) to figure out that Reagan, and not Carter, was where the future of America lay.  Serving in Air Force intelligence during the height of the Cold War, I came to understand how important Reagan was in defeating the Soviet Union.  Only with his leadership, the wall almost all of us thought would still be standing fell.
 
Regards,
Bill




Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 7:59amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
A most fitting salute Lindsay.

And don't you just love this:-

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040605/photos_wl/mdf588215




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 11:05amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Fine reading, Linz and Tibor!

I often get annoyed with those who had a knee-jerk reaction to his "anti-abortion" views; or those who had a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that his policies weren't purely "libertarian." HE CHANGED THE TERMS OF DEBATE IN AMERICAN POLITICS!  That's enough of an achievement!  I said something about this today, at Liberty & Power Group Blog:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/5513.html




Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Beautiful article, Lindsay. Thank you.

I remember so clearly the evening in 1964 that I first heard Ronald Reagan on television, advocating that we elect Goldwater.It was the greatest political speech I ever heard, up to and including this day. When it was over, I said to my friends: "When do I get to vote for him for President?"

I had to wait sixteen years. But it was worth it. I remember walking out of the polling place, after I had proudly cast my ballot for Ronald Reagan, feeling as if I were floating six feet off the ground. Reagan's candidacy was the verification of what had originally brought me from Canada to the United States: the vision of a noble country dedicated to the highest ideals of freedom and individualism. And Reagan did not let me down -- and not because he made no mistakes; of course he made mistakes. But I had long ago graduated from the view that perfection is the price of admiration. He did not let me down because he remained true to his vision of"the shining city on the hill," and did more than can be expected of one man to bring that vision into reality.

I never thought it would be possible for me to love an American president. But love is what I felt -- and feel -- for this 20th Century "magnanimous man."

Barbara Branden



Post 4

Monday, June 7, 2004 - 3:12amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Being a youth at the time, I was not politically conscious during the 1980's with regard to US politics. Still, by what I have read since adulthood of Reagan’s speeches, I am now aware of the greatness of the man.

 

Here is what Margaret Thatcher wrote in her autobiography about Reagan, who was surely the intellectual and political love of her life.

 

"I had net Governor Reagan shortly after becoming Conservative Leader in 1975. Even before then, I knew something about him because Denis [her husband] had returned home one evening in the late 1960s full of praise for a remarkable speech Ronald Reagan had just delivered at the Institute of Directors. I read the text myself and quickly saw what Denis meant. When we met in person I was immediately won over by his charm, sense of humour and directness. In the succeeding years I read his speeches, advocating tax cuts as the root to wealth creation and stronger defences as an alternative to detente. I also read many of his fortnightly speeches to the people of California, which his Press secretary sent over regularly for me. I agreed with them all. In November 1978 we met again in my room in the House of Commons. In the early years Ronald Reagan had been dismissed by much of the American political elite, though not by the American electorate, as a right-wing maverick who could not be taken seriously. (I had heard that before somewhere.) Now he was seen by many thoughtful republicans as their best ticket to the White House. Whatever Ronald Reagan had gained in experience, he had not done so at the expense of his beliefs. I found them stronger than ever. When he left my study I reflected on how different things might look if such a man were President of the United States. But in November 1978 such a prospect seemed a long way off."




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, June 7, 2004 - 5:07amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
You all forget that it was Reagan that brought us the apalling war on drugs with the consequent powers of government agents to arrest people on flimsy evidence and seize private property willy-nilly. Under Reagan both the federal and state prison populations began to grow rapidly! The real Reagan legacy is that the US Government has become a bigger threat to life, property and liberty.



Post 6

Monday, June 7, 2004 - 12:25pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Reagan was the first step to regaining our liberties.

No bad there was no second step but a continual retreat by both political parties.



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, June 7, 2004 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I must respectfully dissent from some of the comments of Miss Branden and others.

Reagan greatly increased the enforcement of the "war on drugs" with the result that thousands of innocent people are rotting away in jail cells throughout this country. Perhaps Miss Branden would like to explain Reagan's great legacy to these people. I think it is time to check your premises when you "love" someone who is responsible for unjustly taking away the liberty of numerous people. This was more than a "mistake." It was evil, pure and simple.

Sure, Reagan's rhetoric was often good, and he was a likeable man in person, but the objective fact is that government increased every year he was in office, and he increased taxes 6 times. He also chose the horrible Bush 41 as his Vice President, with very bad long-term consequences for the country.

I suppose if you compare Reagan to various other politicians he does come across as better than average. However, we are dealing with a pretty low average standard here.

(Edited by Mark D. Fulwiler on 6/07, 12:56pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, June 7, 2004 - 2:25pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I don't understand the complaints on Regan's tax record. I've seen this said on many libertarian boards. I remember the maximum tax rate of 70% when Reagan became president and around 30% when he left. That and his continual support for a less inflationary Fed (via the support of Volker and appointment of Greenspan) made the structural changes that supported the economic expansion for the next two decades.

I fully agree about the harm of the drug laws. These laws preceeded him and were embraced by all parties to a significant degree. Sadly, he didn't stand alone and change this. He was weak on personal liberties in that he didn't change the bad laws and gave lip-service to social conservatism.

But given his strength on foreign policy and his economic changes, he has two big achievements. Moreover, I emphaticaly agree with Chris: "HE CHANGED THE TERMS OF DEBATE IN AMERICAN POLITICS!" And he focused on the right principles.

I like how Barbara Branden expressed it on Atlas II: "To those who are defending Ronald Reagan: It seems futile to expect to be heard by those who are determined to attack him. If he had walked on water, they would put out their eyes in order not to see it. But let them bluster and fume. It will not change the verdict of the American people, nor the verdict of history. And it will not change our verdict. I shudder when I think of where this country would be were it not for Reagan. His detractors do not appear to care that he won the Cold War, as Margaret Thatcher said, "without a shot being fired;" since he did not win it on their terms-- whatever their terms might
be -- it is without value.

I wonder from what lofty moral and intellectual height they dare to gaze down on a man like Ronald Reagan. I shall not inquire into their psychology. I shall only say that their contempt does not become them; it merely stresses their
distance from reality."


What words! Churchillian!

Rick




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 12:48pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ronald Reagan may well have had a Libertarian outlook on life, coupled with ambitions to reduce the size & scope of Federal Government, but sadly he clearly failed to achieve his aims. Consider the following (from a Ludwig von Mises Institute article):



  • How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the fed­eral government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%.

  • The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down com­fortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be perma­nent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions. This is by far the largest budget deficit in American his­tory.

  • But the bottom line on the tax question: is what hap­pened in the Reagan era to government tax revenues overall? Did the amount of taxes extracted from the American people by the federal government go up or down during the Reagan years? The facts are that federal tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%.

  • Overall, in fact, there has probably been not deregulation, but an increase in regulation. Thus, Christopher De Muth, head of the American Enterprise Institute and a former top official of Reagan's Office of Management and the Budget, concludes that "the President has not mounted a broad offen­sive against regulation. There hasn't been much total change since 1981. There has been more balanced administration of regulatory agencies than we had become used to in the 1970s, but many regulatory rules have been strengthened."

  • If the Reagan administration has botched the domestic economy, even in terms of its own goals, how has it done in foreign economic affairs? As we might expect, its foreign economic policy has been the exact opposite of its proclaimed devotion to free trade and free markets. In the first place, Adam Smith ties and Bastiat to the contrary notwithstanding, the Reagan administration has been the most belligerent and nationalistic since Herbert Hoover. Tariffs and import quotas have been repeatedly raised, and Japan has been treated as a leper and repeatedly de­nounced for the crime of selling high quality products at low prices to the delighted American consumer.



I can see three possible explanations for the above. Firstly, Reagan might have genuinely held his claimed political convictions, but couldn't implement them due to opposition from supporters of maximum Government. Or, he may have held those convictions, but simply botched the execution - not the first time for a politician, nor likely the last. Thirdly, he may have simply lied about his political convictions in order to expedite his election & obfuscate his real policies.






Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Perhaps I am missing something here but didn't Reagan support and fund Saddam Hussein in the 1980s (while he actually had and used WMD's)? That makes him a bigger 'saddamite' than those on this list who opposed the war in Iraq but never voluntarily gave the bloody bastard a dime of support.

He also funded another Objectivist hero -- the Afghani Resistance -- i.e. Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and other Howard Roak types in that region.

Funding death squads in central america wasn't so bright either.

Whether any of this stuff had anything to do with the USSR falling is far from being based in reality.

Its easy to praise Reagan when you didn't have to live under his rule or be on the receiving end of his foreign aid.



Post 11

Friday, June 11, 2004 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Gorby had to surrender because the soviet union was falling apart internally -- sure, pressure from the US helped but the USSR would have collapsed one way or the other in very short order reguardless of hwat reagan did -- to believe otherwise is to believe central planning doesn't lead to ruin and collapse.

If you look at the cost of human livess murdered by reagan and fellow hawkish anti-communist leaders, was it really worth the price? a couple million viet namese folks we killed would diagree -- the chaos reagan's policies created after the end of the cold war -- is that worth it? osama bin laden, saddam hussein, etc. etc.

I personally don't care whether as a % of GDP he shrank government or not -- if thats the pissing contest we are talking about -- Clinton was much more free-market -- % of gdp spent by government, number of federal employees and average growth of government by year were the best under clinton from a libertarian view than under reagan, or the two bushes but I doubt Lindsey will write a weepy obit about the guy when he goes.

What is a priority is human lives -- we killed an awful lot of innocent people in far away places either directly or through proxy support of brutal dictators -- sure the soviets killed more and the US overall kicks ass but thats not the point -- did we have to support some wacko in Angola (UNITA), to name just one small example, to defeat the evil empire? Are innocent lives expendable in a war against communism, even if they are not directly involved in the fight? Is there objectivist justification for what we did in central america in the 80s in the name of fighting communism? If so I'd like to hear an objectivist defense of salvadoran death squads we trained and the contras.

Call me a commie but I'll take higher taxes and less unnecessry and illegal death as government policy any day of the week over more murder and lower taxes



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Friday, June 11, 2004 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
But Reagann didn't cut spending:

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

The size of the bureaucracy had also grown. By the end of his presidency there were 230,000 more civilian government workers than in 1980, bringing the total to almost three million. Reagan even promoted the creation of a new federal Department of Veterans' Affairs to join the Departments of Education and Energy, which his administration was supposed to eliminate.

The Reagan administration was the most protectionist since Herbert Hoover's. The portion of imports under restriction  doubled from  1980 to 88.

This is the Reagan legacy. He was to be the man who would turn things around. But he didn't even try.




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, July 12, 2004 - 12:31amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
To me this is usually the way objectivists are... sorry. I consider myself an Objectivist but I find many of them brilliant with the philosophy, but ignorant of history. Same with the "Michael Moore" thing...I can't stand him either... but many Objectivists put everyone in the nuts catagory who opposes the war. I respect Mr. Perigo but this is flawed. Just like his Saddamite yelling.

This is my take on things...in a world so full of political scum...we are so full of hope, that maybe one day...one will not be. Now, I don't consider Mr. Reagan scum, I consider him a part of a dishonest party, and no matter how much he wanted to change things, he's tied to a party that is full of it, and to change it... he would be gone. Good bye career politician.




Post to this thread
User ID Password or create a free account.