Reagan Would Define Conservatism Today

First Read asks: "Would Reagan have passed today’s conservative litmus test?" and goes on to cover the tired lefty Reagan-as-moderate list: raised taxes, increased deficit, picked G.W. Bush as running mate etc.

This is just another lame lefty attempt to try and paint the modern GOP as crazy wingers. The idea that Reagan was some sort of Charlie Christ-moderate is absurd. Watch Reagan's 1964 A Time for Choosing again and follow below for some highlighted quotes that could come out of any Tea Party rally today:

 

From A Time for Choosing:

No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

 

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations.

For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize.

They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Facts are such annoying things...

and goes on to cover the tired lefty Reagan-as-moderate list: raised taxes, increased deficit, picked G.W. Bush as running mate etc.

It astounds me that conservatives can point out some of the legitimately disturbing behaviors on the left of putting obama and Clinton on pedastals while completely ignoring how ridiculously they themselves deify a mediocre president like Reagan.

The frequency with which the right invokes reagan is nothing short of ridiculous.  And that's not even getting intothe "ronaldus magnus" creepiness (which long predates the RNC's recent goof). 

For the record Reagan was a mediocre president and presided over one of the worst presidential scandals ever (Iran-Contra) in which his administration illegally sold weapons to Iran, you know those people conservatives usually freak out about, in order to finance central american death squads best known for their propensity to rape nuns.

Now it is very possible that Reagan didn't know this was happening, but that makes him incompetent.  If a dem had done this the right would be calling it treason and howling for their blood.  But Reagan gets a pass because he has become (despite his record) the sum and totality of the right's dreams.

It is frankly pathetic.

You can say that again

For the record Reagan was a mediocre president and presided over one of the worst presidential scandals ever (Iran-Contra) in which his administration illegally sold weapons to Iran, you know those people conservatives usually freak out about, in order to finance central american death squads best known for their propensity to rape nuns.

Yes, the events of the late Bush administration makes the deification of Reagan (Limbaugh has said his face should be added to Mt. Rushmore) particularly bizarre. Bush, of course, tried to make Iran the center of all evil. He pressed for congress to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization." That's the very group to whom Reagan was selling sophisticated missiles. The proceeds from those sales were being diverted to a terrorist army in Central America.

People forget that's what the "contras" were. The contras had no political program. They didn't wage any sort of "civil war" in Nicaragua. All they did was sit behind Reagan-provided U.S. military protection in bordering countries and launch cross-border terrorist attacks on the civilian population in Nicaragua, then retreat to the safety of those U.S. guns.

The contras were made up of former officers of the (fascist) Somoza national guard and secret police, plus a gaggle of mercenaries, drug lords, and whoever the lot of them could shanghai. They'd started as a small group (one the Pentagon flatly labeled a terrorist group), then Reagan adopted them as his own, poured in huge amounts of money and weaponry, imported, as trainers, the murderous Argentine generals responsible for that countries' "dirty war" against its own population, and unleashed them on Nicaragua. Meanwhile, the Marxist Sandinistas, demonized by Reagan as would-be dictators, built a modern liberal democracy in the country, one that has continued to this day. Iran-contra was only one part of this.

And that's only one example. Reagan was, during his administration, the major terrorist in the world. The contras holed up in Honduras, where other Reagan-backed goons maintained power via a reign of terror. In El Savlador and Guatmala, it was much worse; the Reagan-supported governments waged a terrorist war on their own people, murdering by the tens of thousands, while Reagan kept the money and the weaponry flowing, telling whatever lies were required to do so.

The U.S. is up to its neck in a quagmire in Iraq. Left out of the veneration of Reagan is the fact that Saddam Hussein was, to a significant degree, his invention, and his administration supported Saddam through all the atrocities with which the political right loves to assail us today. When Saddam Hussein first employed chemical weapons, the world recoiled in horror. The Reagan response was to send Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to re-open formal diplomatic relations, to take Iraq off the list of terrorist sponsors, at a time when Iraq harbored some of the worst terrorists in the world, and to begin transferring large amounts of WMD tech and materials to Iraq. U.S. military advisors aided Saddam in his war against Iran, including sharing large amoutns of inel, helping him plan WMD attacks, and even offering naval support. When Saddam launched his campaign against the Kurds in the late '80s, he employed chemical weapons (some of the cyanide came from the U.S.), and Reagan, Bush, and the Republicans beat back an effort, in congress, to sanction Iraq. When a Commerce employee discovered that Iraq was using U.S. agricultural credits for weapons purchases, he excitedly informed his superiors. Of course, they already knew it, and Bush's response was to transfer the employee to a different department and ask congress for another $2.5 billion in ag credits for Iraq. And so on.

The same is true with Afghanistan. There were seven major factions of mujahadeen fighting the Soviets. Reagan adopted, as the recipient of over 95% of U.S. aid, the Hekmatyar faction, a Muslim fundamentalist group notorious for throwing acid in the face of women who didn't wear the veil and peeling religious dissenters alive, and who spent more time killing other Afghanis than killing Soviets. Out of this faction--support for which became, under Reagan, the largest operation in the history of the CIA--came, among other great humanitarians, Mullah Omar, later leader of the Taliban, Omar Abedel Rahman, later the mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of the group, who is, today, still waging war against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and the paymaster Osama bin Laden, who needs no introduction.

This list is almost endless. This is what the Reagan administration was all about, and the already-creepy conservative deification of Reagan--and "deification" is the right word--is rendered even more bizarre in a "War On Terror" world, where we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars picking up the mess he made.