Posted on 10/02/2009 1:12:54 PM PDT by presidio9
The Libertarian Partys chairman said that the Republican Partys hero was not serious about cutting the size of government.
I receive the Libertarian Partys Monday message each week, as a byproduct of the brief period before the 2008 election when I wasnt sure if I could bring myself to vote for John McCain until I realized that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. (That must be what McCain meant when he began every other sentence with My friends )
I couldnt let Virginia turn blue and asphyxiate (though of course, it did anyway,) so I gave up on the Libertarians for that particular election cycle. But I never bothered to unsubscribe to their newsletter, so I wound up with this interesting e-mail a few days ago.
It certainly provoked some thought.
During an interview with Reason.tv, Libertarian Party Chairman William Redpath denounced Ronald Reagans spending. The newsletter by Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict elaborates on this topic.
The criticisms have some validityReagan was human and therefore not perfectbut theyre ignoring the historical context.
Benedict writes, For example, during Reagans eight years in office, the federal government spent a total of about 22% of GDP. (Thats the biggest-spending eight years since World War II.) Spending grew from $678 billion to $1.14 trillion. So much for cutting government.
I admit, during the 1980s, I was more concerned with Kermit the Frogs management of The Muppet Show than I was with Reagans handling of governmental affairs. So I dont profess to know all the exact facts and figures, though Ive been trying to educate myself in recent months. As far as I know, Benedicts assertion sounds about right.
But he fails to mention this little thing called The Cold War, which Reagan was working to end. Since I grew up without the fear of nuclear annihilation, it seems his administration succeeded in that objective.
Peace through strength was the motto. If the federal government is going to ramp up spending, then defense is the best area to do it, especially when theres a hostile super-power like the Soviet Union to worry about.
Granted, there was more going on than the Cold War, but Reagan shouldnt take the blame for every cent spent during his two terms. The Democrats controlled Congress. I doubt Reagan and the Democratic Congressmen were in lock-step too often.
Benedict goes on: Reagan also escalated the War on Drugs, heightened trade barriers, and increased farm subsidies. And of course, he sent the federal debt through the roof.
Fair point on the War on Drugs. Nice idea, good intentions, but not the governments job. I loathe drugs, but Id rather see parents teaching their kids to say no. Its not something for which you should need a government program.
Another major criticism springs to mind. In his speeches and interviews, Reagan spoke of returning certain responsibilities from the federal to the state level. But that didnt happen. We still need to do that, as there remain such agencies as the federal Department of Education.
Despite his faults, I consider him the best 20th century president. He was absolutely correct to make the Cold War his top priority, and again, he succeeded in bringing about a peaceful resolution. Before that, shortly after stepping into office, he helped resolve the energy crisis by deregulating oil.
But no, he was not perfect, and todays Republicans need to accept that. Theres nothing to gain by deifying Reagan and molding him into some model of conservative perfection. Certainly, any party would love to replicate the electoral successes of Reagan, but it would be a mistake for anyone to strive to become the next Ronald Reagan.
Reagan was the right guy at the right time. He was who we needed in the 1980s.
Its not the 1980s anymore, however. I know this because Im not spending my mornings watching Jim Henson shows and the USA Cartoon Express.
In terms of enemies, the Soviets and the Taliban are further apart than Lex Luthor and the Joker. Spending a trillion dollars is far different from owing multiple trillions. The growing senior population makes Social Security and Medicare far less sustainable than it might have looked 25 years ago.
The next president needs to be someone better than Reagan, and he or she needs a better Congress to work with.
Respect Reagans accomplishments, acknowledge his faults, remember it all, and move forward.
And with that, Ive probably offended people from all across the spectrum. So allow me to shift gears slightly
More from the Libertarians newsletter: Republicans and Democrats sometimes make good promises, but they never deliver. By supporting Libertarians, you send a clear message that you want more freedom and less government, and youre not buying the hypocrisy of the Rs and Ds.
This reminds me of a South Park episode about Wal-Mart.
The Wal-Mart store had taken on a life of its own and was supernaturally compelling people to shop there. The town eventually defeats the evil store, and they celebrate by shopping at a small, local business. But because everyones shopping at this place, it grows and grows, until it becomes the next major chain of super-stores. And the town again must defeat a malignant, gigantic retail establishment.
True, today, the Libertarian Party leaders may hold stronger convictions than the leaders of the Republicans or Democrats. But bolstering a third party does not fix the inherent flaw in the party system. When a party grows large enough to compete for real power, that powers likely to corrupt it.
Is there any way we can dissolve all of these political parties and just have individuals run for office?
That's very simple:
1. Did the size of government increase under Reagan, or did it decrease?
2. What about the national debt: did it increase or decrease under Reagan?
3. Did Reagan abolish any federal departments, bueaus, etc. during his time in office?
How can you, as a "conservative", defend a President who did little to limit the "few & defined" powers of the federal government to only those that were granted to it by the Constitution?
Soooo....
Do you want to legalize only HALF the dope in this country?
Oops, the speaker's true colors are exposed here.
Excellent clarification.
I see where you are coming from, & what you said makes sense to me. It just angers me that Reagan didn’t stand up to Congress & “JUST SAY NO!” to government growth & dare Congress to override his non-existent vetoes....or that his vetoes were few & far between if they existed at all.
A slur against libertarians everywhere. But the LP isn’t going to go anywhere if they think campaigning against the drug war or even current drug laws is going to get them elected to major offices or make the Republicans nervous. Voters care more about what congress is currently battling over, and it isn’t drugs. It’s the economy and health care “reform” that’s being shoved down our throats.
I think the author of this piece dislikes Libertarians far more than Libertarians dislike Reagan.
You are pontificating in podunk.
You sound like a person who didn’t live during the Cold War.
(I did)
Who never was in a communist country.
(I was, East Germany)
I like small gov. but I also like a president who will defend America. Give respect for its history, people and military.
President Reagan did this.
Only in the half of the states that would.
Reagan’s focus was the War with the USSR. He could not focus on domestic cleanup and win the war at the same time. He won that war. AND he removed much government hindrance of the economy by removing a lot of the stifl8ing regulation of the Nixon/Carter years. He shrank government regulation a LOT.
Happily, the Libertarian-filled bus was so full of hot air that it merely floated over Reagan, who was unscathed by the attack.
The Libertarian Party has become the Democrats best friend: They split the vote of small-Government liberty lovers and they bash Republicans.
We see this time an again.
This only makes it easier for tax-and-spend Democrats to win.
95% of Libertarians are not clued in to this simple fact, and 5% *are* but have an absurd idea that letting Democrats get elected and burning down the USA in the process is a *good* thing. Sort of a marxist destroy-it-so-we-can-rebuild-it attitude.
In reality, small l-libertarians could have far more clout if they just became active in the Republican party and forced out big-Govt advocates.
Whooaaa there fellas. The problem isn’t the Libertarians anymore than you can say the answer is the Republicans.
Let’s back up and decide who we’re after here. I’m not Libertarian by choice, I’m Libertarian due to lack of options.
I am so far from the Democrat party, I can’t even see them in the distance. The Republican party left me, I didn’t leave them.
I by no means will try to speak for all Libertarians and really I can’t say I believe in their entire platform. I most certainly don’t believe in all the Republican platform and platform be damned... Republicans haven’t done a good job of sticking with their own.
At this point I’m hard pressed to think I can ever trust another Republican after what Bush jammed down our throats.
Libertarian is more about making a statement than it is about voting for candidates. The closest thing to states rights is the Libertarian party. It sure isn’t the Donkephant.
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.