Ronald Reagan, Party Animal

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
As an icon of American conservatives, it's interesting to reflect on what Reagan taught the Republican party and to examine the effect he's still having on the party today.

Ronald Reagan, Party Animal
The man who taught Republicans to be irresponsible.

By Timothy Noah
Posted Saturday, June 5, 2004, at 4:33 PM PT

I've registered as a Republican exactly once in my life. The year was 1980, and Ronald Reagan, who died today at the age of 93, was seeking the GOP nomination for president. Teddy Kennedy was challenging President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination, and in Massachusetts, where I then lived, Kennedy was certain to win the primary. Better to cast my vote where it could do some good?in favor of John Anderson, who at that point was running as a Republican, and who seemed the only candidate capable of denying Reagan the nomination. Reagan was dangerous. He wanted to eliminate vast portions of the government indiscriminately, and he wanted to commit the military to ill-considered interventions abroad.

I couldn't have been more wrong. As an antigovernment crusader and as a warmonger, Reagan turned out to be all bark and no bite. In his first inaugural address, Reagan said:

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people.

But that didn't happen. As Michael Kinsley has observed, after Reagan's two terms spending by the federal government was one quarter higher, factoring out inflation, than when he got there; the federal civilian workforce had increased from 2.8 million to 3 million; and federal spending, as a share of Gross Domestic Product, had decreased by one percentage point to 21.2 percent. "If Ronald Reagan and his 'Reaganauts' could only slow down the growth of government spending, not reverse it or eliminate wasteful programs, what hope is there for any other conservative president?," complained the conservative Heritage Foundation soon after Reagan left office. The only major government agency Reagan managed to eliminate was the Civil Aeronautics Board, which didn't have much to do after the Carter administration deregulated the airline industry. Fittingly, the Ronald Reagan Building on Pennsylvania Ave., completed ten years after Reagan left office, today houses 5,000 government employees and is the largest government building in Washington.

In the saber-rattling department, here's what Reagan said in his first inaugural address:

As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it--now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.

But the only hot war waged during the Reagan administration was to remove a comic-opera Marxist government from the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada. The United States retreated from Lebanon after a suicide bomber killed more than 200 American soldiers. It is seldom observed that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, which George W. Bush rightly denounced prior to the Iraq war, occurred on Reagan's watch. In 1984, when the Reagan administration got its first inkling that Iraq was engaged in chemical warfare, it chose not to make a fuss. The most ambitious foreign intervention during the Reagan administration--the funnelling of aid to the Nicaraguan contras--was done illegally, and, after it was discovered, embroiled Reagan's second term in a scandal from which it never recovered.

Reagan can probably claim some credit for ending the Cold War, but his principal weapon, characteristically, was spending?the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the Pentagon's weapons-buying binge through the 1980s. Reagan's greatest achievement in foreign affairs was therefore linked to his greatest achievement in domestic affairs. He taught Republicans that they could be even less responsible than Democrats.

Government spending is not (at least in my view) inherently irresponsible. What is irresponsible is spending money you don't have. Perhaps the most poignant passage in Reagan's first inaugural address is the one expressing what today seems a very old-fashioned Republican concern about deficit spending:

For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?


You know the rest of the story. The deficit, which stood at $74 billion in Carter's final year, ballooned to $155 billion in Reagan's final year. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

Today, what does it mean to be a Republican? It means you can cut taxes indiscriminately and needn't worry about the debt you're piling up. It certainly doesn't mean that you want to shrink the federal government. Indeed, government spending under George W. Bush has increased faster than it did under Bill Clinton. Before Reagan, pandering was principally a Democratic vice. Today, it's principally a Republican vice. Ronald Reagan performed that transformation, and it remains his most enduring legacy.

Slate.com
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Reagan mad me feel good being a pig. I was so much better than the people who didn't have money.
 

Originally posted by: etech
Can you let the man be buried before you assholes spit on his grave.

Its P&N. Civility was tossed out the window, along with the so called "no personal flames" rule when it was created. Here, 8th grade logic and sensibility rule!
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
etech, personally flaming people is against the rules. I'm not sure if you've seen all the people that have been given vacations today. You should hope they don't see your post.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: etech
Can you let the man be buried before you assholes spit on his grave.

Its P&N. Civility was tossed out the window, along with the so called "no personal flames" rule when it was created. Here, 8th grade logic and sensibility rule!

Civility is in the eye of typist. ;)

We can make it civil or we can continue to spew hatred such as what etech just did.
 

Originally posted by: Infohawk
etech, personally flaming people is against the rules. I'm not sure if you've seen all the people that have been given vacations today. You should hope they don't see your post.

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Its a flame fest in almost every thread I read.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
etech, personally flaming people is against the rules. I'm not sure if you've seen all the people that have been given vacations today. You should hope they don't see your post.

No, I hope they do. If the kick me for calling people that are showing disrespect for a former president who has died and before he can be buried than so be it.

Perhaps they are just trolling and I was foolish to take their bait. Perhaps they just don't care and want to get their shot in on a former president. Doesn't matter. I called it as I saw it and will suffer any consequences the anyomous admins wish to dish out in their infinite wisdom. Though if they are wise, if I go, the assholes go with me.

Have a nice day.

BTW
It's obvious what you are doing infohawk, you aren't as smart and clever as you think you are.
 

Runner20

Senior member
May 31, 2004
478
0
0
The man is not even buried yet and these partisan idiots are already throwing dirt at the man. Reagan was one of the best presidents of all time, lets give the man his respect. Slate.com should be ashamed, INHO for publishing this.

This is just as bad when Paul Wellstone died and the republicans/conservatives were throwing dirt at him.

Partisan dumbnuts.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: Infohawk
etech, personally flaming people is against the rules. I'm not sure if you've seen all the people that have been given vacations today. You should hope they don't see your post.

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Its a flame fest in almost every thread I read.

Well it does seem like people get away with flaming in some cases but not in others so who am I to say you an etech shouldn't go for it.

What etech doesn't understand is that criticism is not hate. That's what Republicans think or want people to believe, but it's possible to criticize someone without "pissing in someone's grave" and such.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Can you let the man be buried before you assholes spit on his grave.

So you're content not to address the issues surrounding Reagan's public record and just call people names? Gotcha. :roll:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Infohawk
etech, personally flaming people is against the rules. I'm not sure if you've seen all the people that have been given vacations today. You should hope they don't see your post.

BTW
It's obvious what you are doing infohawk, you aren't as smart and clever as you think you are.

What am I doing? Warning you about the rules? I think it's a shame when people flame in posts. So I point out the rules in the hopes they stop. And criticism isn't disrespect. We are in a democracy.

"you aren't as smart and clever as you think you are"
That's another example from you of irrelevant insults that aren't constructive. What's the point?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Best or worst, people ought to at least wait until he is in the ground. Of course, paying respect and treating others with honor requires a foundation of morals, not whatever you cherry-picked up along the way before determining that faith was for idiots. The liberals have been itching for a new target since all that pent up steam when they couldn't smear Tillman.
 

Brian48

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
3,410
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Can you let the man be buried before you assholes spit on his grave.

That would imply that these twits know something about decency. You should know better than to expect that.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Brian48
Originally posted by: etech
Can you let the man be buried before you assholes spit on his grave.

That would imply that these twits know something about decency. You should know better than to expect that.

Who are these people you're calling twits? Is it just DealMonkey or are you including me in that category for some reason I should be aware of?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Best or worst, people ought to at least wait until he is in the ground. Of course, paying respect and treating others with honor requires a foundation of morals, not whatever you cherry-picked up along the way before determining that faith was for idiots. The liberals have been itching for a new target since all that pent up steam when they couldn't smear Tillman.


By your definition, Brian48 and Etech don't have a foundation of morals since they don't pay respect and treat others with honor (e.g., calling people twit; assh*le).
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I certainly didn't mean any disrespect by posting this. I simply thought it was an interesting piece and helped explain the basis for the current Republican penchant for borrowing and spending.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: etech
Can you let the man be buried before you assholes spit on his grave.

So you're content not to address the issues surrounding Reagan's public record and just call people names? Gotcha. :roll:

So Kennedy and LBJ have good records? HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Of the presidents since 1960. Reagan was the best of the lot.

And Frankly FDR and LBJ are the ones responsible for selling future generations down the road. They started and continued the major expansion of the federal government. Reagan tried to cut spending, congress didnt exactly help him to much, increasing spending.

There needs to be massive wide spread cuts at the federal level. Period. There is no arguing it.
 

Runner20

Senior member
May 31, 2004
478
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: etech
Can you let the man be buried before you assholes spit on his grave.

So you're content not to address the issues surrounding Reagan's public record and just call people names? Gotcha. :roll:

So Kennedy and LBJ have good records? HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Of the presidents since 1960. Reagan was the best of the lot.

And Frankly FDR and LBJ are the ones responsible for selling future generations down the road. Reagan just made matter worse.

There needs to be wide spread cuts at the federal level. Period. There is no arguing it.

Clinton was good too, although he didn't do a damn thing about terrorism
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: alchemize
Best or worst, people ought to at least wait until he is in the ground. Of course, paying respect and treating others with honor requires a foundation of morals, not whatever you cherry-picked up along the way before determining that faith was for idiots. The liberals have been itching for a new target since all that pent up steam when they couldn't smear Tillman.


By your definition, Brian48 and Etech don't have a foundation of morals since they don't pay respect and treat others with honor (e.g., calling people twit; assh*le).

I wasn't aware that DealMonkey had passed away. Shame on your Brian48 and Etech, for dishonoring DealMonkey. May he rest in peace.
rose.gif
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
I wasn't aware that DealMonkey had passed away. Shame on your Brian48 and Etech, for dishonoring DealMonkey. May he rest in peace.
rose.gif
Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. ;)
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Best or worst, people ought to at least wait until he is in the ground. Of course, paying respect and treating others with honor requires a foundation of morals, not whatever you cherry-picked up along the way before determining that faith was for idiots. The liberals have been itching for a new target since all that pent up steam when they couldn't smear Tillman.

There's a difference between not being respectful of public figures (alive or dead), and personally flaming members of this board. One should get you booted off here, the other is giving your opinion of newsmakers, no matter how tactless others may view it (this IS Politics and News for crying out loud).
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Runner20
The man is not even buried yet and these partisan idiots are already throwing dirt at the man. Reagan was one of the best presidents of all time, lets give the man his respect. Slate.com should be ashamed, INHO for publishing this.

This is just as bad when Paul Wellstone died and the republicans/conservatives were throwing dirt at him.

Partisan dumbnuts.
Here's the problem . . . Reagan tossed a lot of dirt during his long and eventful political career. For every person (globally) that lauds Reagan's life and achievements there may very well be two (or more) that have a far lower opinion of the man and his Presidency.

IMHO, Reagan was a decent man and a mediocre President (actual achievements directly or indirectly associated with his leadership). I didn't know the man personally so I have little real insight into the quality of his character but there's an extensive record of political activity from Sacramento to DC.

Those that believe in Reagan will wrap him in every anecdote that portrays a positive (if not Homeric) impression. Those that do not have ample evidence to support their perspective as well.

While my personal opinion is that civility REQUIRES we extend reasonable respect to the dead, I'm not so delusional that I cannot notice many who embrace that perspective likely do not extend such courtesy to geopolitical figures they abhor.

In the final analysis, another human being that clearly has had a profound positive effect on the lives of many people has died. If that's your perspective . . . tip your hat, give accolades, pray, or do whatever . . . but don't be surprised that others take offense and/or give an opposing point of view.

(steps off soap box)
IMHO, this article could have waited a week or so. Then again it's not my opinion so who am I to decide for someone else?!