Libertarian Party throws Reagan under the bus

North Star National ^ | October 2nd, 2009

[presidio9]

The Libertarian Party’s chairman said that the Republican Party’s hero “was not serious about cutting the size of government.”

I receive the Libertarian Party’s “Monday message” each week, as a byproduct of the brief period before the 2008 election when I wasn’t 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 couldn’t 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 Reagan’s spending. The newsletter by Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict elaborates on this topic.

The criticisms have some validity–Reagan was human and therefore not perfect–but they’re ignoring the historical context.

Benedict writes, “For example, during Reagan’s eight years in office, the federal government spent a total of about 22% of GDP. (That’s 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 Frog’s management of “The Muppet Show” than I was with Reagan’s handling of governmental affairs. So I don’t profess to know all the exact facts and figures, though I’ve been trying to educate myself in recent months. As far as I know, Benedict’s 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 there’s a hostile super-power like the Soviet Union to worry about.

Granted, there was more going on than the Cold War, but Reagan shouldn’t 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 government’s job. I loathe drugs, but I’d rather see parents teaching their kids to say no. It’s 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 didn’t 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 today’s Republicans need to accept that. There’s 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.

It’s not the 1980s anymore, however. I know this because I’m 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 Reagan’s accomplishments, acknowledge his faults, remember it all, and move forward.

And with that, I’ve probably offended people from all across the spectrum. So allow me to shift gears slightly…

More from the Libertarian’s 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 you’re 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 everyone’s 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 power’s likely to corrupt it.

Is there any way we can dissolve all of these political parties and just have individuals run for office?

[sticker]

Is this still one of their signs?

[bamahead]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4181

Reagan's 1981 tax cut is often blamed for deficits in the 1980s. But as the chart shows, the effect of the tax cut appears modest, essentially freezing revenue for just two years. As the economy began to boom in the mid-1980s, revenues rose rapidly. By 1989, revenues were up 65 percent from 1981. Part of the increase was due to tax laws in 1982, 1984, and 1987 that increased revenues, partly reversing the 1981 cuts.

It is true that Reagan did not control federal spending growth. By 1989, federal spending was up 69 percent from 1981. The deficit widened, then narrowed again by the end of the decade.

When the budget is looked at as a share of the economy, Reagan's legacy looks a bit better from a small-government perspective. Federal revenues as a share of gross domestic product fell from 19.6 percent in 1981 to 18.3 percent by 1989. Spending fell from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent. Thus, Ronald Reagan shrank the federal government by about 5 percent — a less radical change than supporters or detractors often claim.

To Reagan's credit, he had numerous fiscal policy successes — such as cutting the top individual tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent and the corporate rate from 46 percent to 34 percent. On spending, Reagan's original February 1981 plan proposed enough cuts to bring outlays down to 19.3 percent of gross domestic product by 1984 and balance the budget. With a Congress unwilling to make serious cuts, the deficit remained high and spending was stuck at over 22 percent until the late 1980s.

With federal spending rising more rapidly than it has in decades, Ronald Reagan's small-government vision is sorely missed in Washington today.

The way I always look at it, is that Reagan championed some dramatic changes to the tax structure that were sorely needed to allow the economy to recover from almost 3 decades of Big Gov't. And they were VERY dramatic changes, that took almost all of his 8 years to enact.

The seeds were then sown for the next President/Congress to take the reigns and further trim the scope of Government and spending to coincide with the bureaucratic shrinking of Gov't. The GOP proceeded to drop the ball, and then handed the reigns over to Clinton.

Reagan did try to do what he could, but he was also a politician. He was constrained by the 'art of the possible' and time.

[bamahead]

Hey, I’m half libertarian. The half the doesn’t go along with liberalism.

Ditto here Jim!!!

[ChrisInAR]

For the life of me... I swear I don’t understand how so many FReepers can defend the Liberaltarian Party.

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?

[Responsibility2nd]

When is the Libertarian Party going to get serious about becoming a viable political party?

 

When are so-called "conservatives" going to get serious about electing candidates who are sincere about cutting the size of government...& stop insulting the few Members of Congress who are working night & day to do just that?

 

___________________________________

 

 

Thanks for restating the question. So when are you so-called "conservatives" (Libertarians) going to get serious?

 

[Responsibility2nd]

Soooo....

Do you want to legalize only HALF the dope in this country?

[facedown]

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.”

Oops, the speaker's true colors are exposed here.

[Gator113]

Excellent clarification.

[ChrisInAR]

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.

[dr_who]

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.

[GSWarrior]

Shhhh. Did you hear that? The sound of grinding axes.

I think the author of this piece dislikes Libertarians far more than Libertarians dislike Reagan.

[SoCalPol]

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.

[Jim Robinson]

Only in the half of the states that would.

[bamahead]

But when 99% of the libertarians I’ve come across (and it numbers in the thousands at this point) are honest, it started with pot, and it went from there. Nice legacy.

Maybe you're mistaken. Maybe it actually started with dismay against the insane, assinine failure known as the 'War On Drugs', which for the last 30 years has been one of the most commonly used excuses for the FedGov to violate and trample due process and the rights of millions of Americans, thousands of them ultimately innocent.

Maybe some are just more adept at seeing that the slippery slope starts with using the FedGov to criminalize behaviors that certain groups don't like.

[Responsibility2nd]

I half-way love your half-assed answers...

 

 

(I'm gonna get banned or suspended, huh? 

 

[arthurus]

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.

[r9etb]

Happily, the Libertarian-filled bus was so full of hot air that it merely floated over Reagan, who was unscathed by the attack.

[bamahead]

It just angers me that Reagan didn’t stand up to Congress & “JUST SAY NO!”

Again, Reagan was a very adept politician. You don't think he could've gotten a 42% reduction in the highest income tax rate through a Tip O'Neill house without knowing how to play the game, do you?

[WOSG]

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.

[CSA Rebel]

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.