Ronald Reagan... the original Neocon?

[cwjerome]

I've been reading some good stuff on Thomas Jefferson, and it's got me thinking about foreign policy today.

Before Reagan, most Republicans were generally Realist in foreign policy matters. They looked to stability over freedom, and figured simple goals (like 'containment' with the USSR) was the most that reasonable policy could accomplish. Before Reagan, most Republicans were semi-isolationist, and dubious of the US imposing its way on the world... prudency, avoiding risks, and basically accepting the "reality" of the world (like Soviet power) was the common theme.

Reagan fundamentally changed this political landscape by reinventing the conservative base as Jeffersonian idealists within an international setting. He believed in America and most importantly, our concepts, principles, and ideals-- what we stood for... and he knew the power of those ideas and how it could change the world for the better. At a time when many conservatives were preaching detente, appeasement, and "playing the game," Reagan gambled on America.

Today, the Michael Moore style Leftwing has destroyed the Democratic Party's heart and soul. Their outlook consists almost entirely of a greedy, cunning US engaging in devious acts for the selfish benefit of a few elites. The electorate can see past the sissy relativism and partisan shallowness. Many people still know -at least implictly- that the US is good and our intentions are noble. Many still hold that Jeffersonian ideal that the US is special and our principles and beliefs will triumph... that we have a dream and a destiny that cannot be denied.

Bush Jr is a continuation of this, and is also a magnifier. No president has risked so much and placed a bet on this idea more than Bush. History will decide: Bush will either end up as a magnificent visionary or Iraq will be his Vietnam. Personally and honestly, I have no idea which will happen, although I hope it's the former... for the sake of this country and the world. I will say I believe Bush is incredibly principled (he has very strong beliefs and follows them) and he has a serious set of balls. (it's too bad the execution of his ideas have been less than spectacular). Just as Jefferson believed, the American system's worldwide triumph is assured, promoted "by the force of right and reason", as Kennedy stated.

Well, this is convoluted enough, so let's see where this topic goes... if anywhere.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I think that I will respond after I can actually form a coherent thought again. You have left me totally speechless in your take on history and the current world.

 

[M00T]

Nice conclusion, but without an intro paragraph and body with supporting evidence... your paper is pure drivel. Go finish your homework.

Goodbye.

 

[Genx87]

I am getting visions of JFK, I dont know why

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that I will respond after I can actually form a coherent thought again. You have left me totally speechless in your take on history and the current world.

Ok....I've recouped. Let's break down your hypothesis.


Point one: Reagan believed and followed Jeffersonian principles. Yes and no. He cherry-picked them just as every other president has done. Let's look at some of Jefferson's statements/beliefs and see how "The Gipper" stacks up to them.

Yet the Jeffersonian philosophy is clearly one of reason, individualism, liberty, and limited government?all of which are, in different ways, anathema to modern liberals and conservatives.

Ok, let's look at this one first. Reagan was responsible for the largest increase in the federal government since the New Deal. Hardly falls under the "limited government" philosophy of Jefferson.

Next, let's examine a quote from Jefferson's first inagural speech:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances with none."

Let's see, honest friendship....like supporting BOTH SIDES during the Iran/Iraq war? That sounds pretty honest. Selling arms to the Contras. Pretty honest there. Ohhh, I know, what about taking us to the brink of a nuclear war with Russia?

Here's another Jefferson doozy:

Peace is our most important interest, and a recovery from debt.

Let's see....which presidents rank 1, 2 in public debt increases again?

NOW....for the REALLY BIG one.....(I almost can't type the two names together) Jefferson and Bush.

Obviously, the same points above still relate to Bush (only on a grander scale). Let's look at some others:

I hope that you are aware of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? You probably aren't from your post so I will let you know about it. It basically said that religion should not be, in any way, a ruler with which to judge a man's ability to serve the people. Doesn't quite sound like your measuring stick nor that of the religious right. Certainly not Bush's. How many times has the man helped out any organization that hasn't declared their devotion to God (any God)?

What about that Jeffersonian trait of protecting the rights and freedoms of the people? Does that sound like it should be done through warrantless wiretaps and searches? What about imprisoning US citizens without charges or trial?

What about Jefferson's call to a "wise and frugal" government? Nope. 404 error. Surplus not found.

How about this quote from Jefferson? How does W stand up to it?

"To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

Let's see, I think that I have a vague recollection of Bush trying to subvert the powers of Congress once or a dozen times. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong on that.

Face it, Bush and Reagan are as far from Jeffersonian philosophy as Clinton is. Each president can be made to follow any former president's tracks (good or bad) if you try hard enough. You were just led to believe that Jefferson, being a "Republican" (actually he was a Democrat-Republican but just shortened the party title) meant that he was the basis for the beliefs of the current crop sharing the same name. And NOTHING could be farther from the truth.

 

[fitzov]

You have a good heart son, but your brain needs some educating. Plenty of Democrats, and even Michael Moore, believe in America, they see it's function differently than neoconservatives. There is nothing wrong with that and it is part of living in a country that respects its peoples liberties. The closest things to an active political party that is Jeffersonian in this country are a minority of Libertarians who believe, not in a completely sparse federal budget, but one that minimally protects our liberties. From my own perspective, I don't think neoconservative economics makes sense. Spending more and taxing less in the hope that growth will artificially reduce the debt (by increasing GDP) can work, but it tends to leave us with a top-heavy economy (unless you believe in trickle-down economics). The more direct approach, and one that I and Alan Greenspan favor, is simply to reduce the debt by cutting spending.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Just as Jefferson believed, the American system's worldwide triumph is assured, promoted "by the force of right and reason", as Kennedy stated.

Under Bush, this quote would need to be changed:

"... the American system's worldwide triumph is assured, promoted by the force of might and treason." Seriously, installing democracy at the barrel of a gun is hardly Jeffersonian. Neither are the sort of civil rights abuses we've endured as a country. Besides if democracy was so great (and I do think it is), the citizens of the world would flock to it voluntarily. I mean look at how riled up the Muslims were over the cartoon depictions of Mohammed. Why aren't they that up in arms over the corrupt, dictatorial regimes they live under in virtually all of the Middle East Region?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Point one: Reagan believed and followed Jeffersonian principles. Yes and no. He cherry-picked them just as every other president has done. Let's look at some of Jefferson's statements/beliefs and see how "The Gipper" stacks up to them.

I would say Reagan believed in many Jeffersonian principles, and tried to follow many of them in the best way that he could. The point in my OP was that they both shared a sense of life about America, the ideas that America is truly exceptional, an optimistic love for the American system and the unwavering belief that our "experiment" would some day spread to the whole world. They both truly believed that all people were born with Rights and to rule themselves in freedom.

It was Reagan who kicked off the modern change with conservative foreign policy, touching on the idealistic Jeffersonian outlook that the Left had long since lost. Nobody is saying that Reagan and Jefferson were completely alike... they lived in different times and there are fundamental differences. But it's cynical of you to say that he "cherry-picked" Jeffersons's ideas as if his core beliefs about America were a political calculation.

Reagan re-started it, and Bush has kicked it up a notch... the idea that liberty was every person's birthright and a willingness to tackle foriegn policy issues with that in mind is a switch from the way the Right generally thought pre-1980.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Besides if democracy was so great, the citizens of the world would flock to it voluntarily. Why aren't they that up in arms over the corrupt, dictatorial regimes they live under in virtually all of the Middle East Region?

Because they live under corrupt, dictorial regimes?

Don't get me wrong though. I believe in the long run, our ideals, principles, and beliefs will win in the marketplace of ideas, because they are better than anything else out there... especially than the ideals in many Middle Eastern systems/cultures.

But sometimes many people are too ignorant, or want to hang onto their power, or whatever other reasons, and they will fight -violently- to preserve and promote the inferior and the destructive in the face of modernity and advancement. Sometimes conflict might be unavoidable. As Kennedy said, "reason does not always appeal to the unreasonable men."

 

[Rainsford]

As a conservative, I'm surprised you (cwjerome) don't see the problem with what you just posted. You used the words "belief" "ideals" and other similar expressions of theoretical ideas several times. Which is fine, and I'm not in any position to debate what Thomas Jefferson thought about America and our world views, or Ronald Reagan's thoughts for that matter. I'm not a mind reader, and while it has become incredibly passe to compare your favorite politician to our mythical concept of the various founding fathers, I won't say you're wrong. I won't even say you are wrong in your judgement of Bush's values, motives and vision of America.

But here's the thing, it makes no difference what those guys THINK, it matters what they DO. There is nothing wrong with thinking America is a pretty good idea, lots of people of all political stripes would agree (your elitist nonsense aside). And there is nothing wrong with thinking a lot of other countries would benefit from those same ideals, or that we should do what we can to help those people in less appealing circumstances. But simply holding those views doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever stupid thing pops into your head, and be free from criticism if it doesn't work out.

Thomas Jefferson might share Bush's and Reagan's beliefs in the power of the American ideal, but I doubt he'd share Bush's attraction to using the Marines as the well armed ambassadors of freedom and democracy. Hell, I doubt REAGAN would agree with Bush's approach, he is often given credit for defeating the Soviet Union, and while I think that's an oversimplification, the Soviets were defeated through superior ideas, not raw force. The raw application of force, while a necessary evil in some situations, is not an efficient way to spread the American ideals, especially not on a global scale. All the blood and treasure we've spent on Iraq is undone 100 times over by cozying up to China, a far worse threat to global freedom and democracy than Iraq ever was.

This isn't the first grade, you don't get points for effort. I think our ideas are worth sharing, but you can't, almost by definition, bring freedom to the world through the liberal application of the democracy bat. The neocons have set us back a long way in the effort to help make the world a better place to live, and even if Iraq is a success, it's not worth the price...the Iraqis will be better off, but it will be worse for a lot more people.

If you don't believe me, and I know you won't, consider this. Reagan, like every president since WWII, was considered by a lot of people as the leader of the free world. This was a point of pride for our country, and really symbolized the role we were taking in helping the world move away from the ideals of the Soviets. Could ANYONE, even the most rabid Bush supporter, seriously refer to him in the same capacity? I think we know the answer to that one...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Besides if democracy was so great, the citizens of the world would flock to it voluntarily. Why aren't they that up in arms over the corrupt, dictatorial regimes they live under in virtually all of the Middle East Region?

Because they live under corrupt, dictorial regimes?

Don't get me wrong though. I believe in the long run, our ideals, principles, and beliefs will win in the marketplace of ideas, because they are better than anything else out there... especially than the ideals in many Middle Eastern systems/cultures.

But sometimes many people are too ignorant, or want to hang onto their power, or whatever other reasons, and they will fight -violently- to preserve and promote the inferior and the destructive in the face of modernity and advancement. Sometimes conflict might be unavoidable. As Kennedy said, "reason does not always appeal to the unreasonable men."

You can't force people to embrace democracy and freedom. The very definition of those words prevents it.

 

[stinkz]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You can't force people to embrace democracy and freedom. The very definition of those words prevents it.

But you can force people to embrace (or at least accept) dictatorial power, as Saddam has done for a long period of time. Force can and should be used to remove such dictators to facilitate the creation of democratic governments.

 

[compuwiz1]

How dare you!

 

[MadRat]

I knew Ronald Reagan, and you sir are no(t getting the full picture of) Ronald Reagan.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I've been reading some good stuff on Thomas Jefferson, and it's got me thinking about foreign policy today.

Before Reagan, most Republicans were generally Realist in foreign policy matters. They looked to stability over freedom, and figured simple goals (like 'containment' with the USSR) was the most that reasonable policy could accomplish. Before Reagan, most Republicans were semi-isolationist, and dubious of the US imposing its way on the world... prudency, avoiding risks, and basically accepting the "reality" of the world (like Soviet power) was the common theme.

Reagan fundamentally changed this political landscape by reinventing the conservative base as Jeffersonian idealists within an international setting. He believed in America and most importantly, our concepts, principles, and ideals-- what we stood for... and he knew the power of those ideas and how it could change the world for the better. At a time when many conservatives were preaching detente, appeasement, and "playing the game," Reagan gambled on America.

Today, the Michael Moore style Leftwing has destroyed the Democratic Party's heart and soul. Their outlook consists almost entirely of a greedy, cunning US engaging in devious acts for the selfish benefit of a few elites. The electorate can see past the sissy relativism and partisan shallowness. Many people still know -at least implictly- that the US is good and our intentions are noble. Many still hold that Jeffersonian ideal that the US is special and our principles and beliefs will triumph... that we have a dream and a destiny that cannot be denied.

Bush Jr is a continuation of this, and is also a magnifier. No president has risked so much and placed a bet on this idea more than Bush. History will decide: Bush will either end up as a magnificent visionary or Iraq will be his Vietnam. Personally and honestly, I have no idea which will happen, although I hope it's the former... for the sake of this country and the world. I will say I believe Bush is incredibly principled (he has very strong beliefs and follows them) and he has a serious set of balls. (it's too bad the execution of his ideas have been less than spectacular). Just as Jefferson believed, the American system's worldwide triumph is assured, promoted "by the force of right and reason", as Kennedy stated.

Well, this is convoluted enough, so let's see where this topic goes... if anywhere.

You know what I'd suggest? Less drama and delusions, more facts and reality. Of course, proud idealogues like you have little use for these things, so I'll keep my reply brief.

1. Reagan did not defeat the USSR, it an incredibly simplistic and naive view (perhaps why its so popular with connies).
2. You (the US) are not good and your intentions are not noble. They are the same as any other power that has ever come before you - power, influence and riches.
3. Iraq isn't going bad because of bad execution, it is going bad due to bad idea. Many people tried to get this point across before the war started, unfortunately, saying things like "You can't force democracy" was met with accusations of racism, since us evil racist elitist liberals supposedly did not believe non-whites could have a democracy.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Cwjerome,

Please help out the un-indoctrinated- Who exactly is an 'elitist' and what?s to convince me you don?t have an inferiority complex?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But here's the thing, it makes no difference what those guys THINK, it matters what they DO. There is nothing wrong with thinking America is a pretty good idea, lots of people of all political stripes would agree (your elitist nonsense aside). And there is nothing wrong with thinking a lot of other countries would benefit from those same ideals, or that we should do what we can to help those people in less appealing circumstances. But simply holding those views doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever stupid thing pops into your head, and be free from criticism if it doesn't work out.

I agree... although it's not really the basis for this topic. Jefferson was a slave owning lodestar of liberty. It's impossible to think of any prominent figure and fully unwrap the contradictions of their lives. American freedom itself is a study of hopes and failures. I'll be the first in line to lash Bush over wasted opportunities, failed strategies, and weakness. But that's not the discussion, although a lot of people would like more than anything to take it there.

You should know I like discussing broad ideas, analyzing beliefs and principles, and looking at the bigger picture over a longer time. This topic is no different... I'm looking at general commonalities between some people regarding certain concepts. People who like history and political philosophy might find it interesting. People whose sole purpose is to take concrete-bound partisan shots at singular issues might find it difficult to discuss.

 

[Todd33]

Is this a parody thread or was the OP serious?

LOL.

 

[fitzov]

It's curious that the OP is large on accolades to the present administration, but short on examples.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I can agree with the OP's statement that Reagan's was the original NeoCon administration, but it's not the positive thing that he seems to think.

Reagan was a Dogmatist rather than an idealist. He wasn't really Conservative (i.e. Barry Goldwater), he was an anti-Communist forged in the fire of McCarthyism. He didn't so much believe that freedom was good as he did that Communism was evil. This is what allowed him to embrace the most repressive regimes in the world as friends just because they called themselves Anti-Communist. This is why he was able to support drug-running terrorists in Nicaragua and Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the name of Anti-Communism. Communism is evil => anything Anti-Communist is good. Add in the dogmatist's credo that the end justifies the means, and you set the stage for arms sales to Iran, financial aid to the Contras in direct violation of U.S. law, and aid to alQaeda's and the Taliban's origins.

R.W. Reagan is credited with the downfall of the Soviet Union, but that was an accident of timing. The end of the USSR was already inevitable by the late 1970's, when even the finest hotels in the largest cities couldn't maintain a reliable supply of toilet paper or hot water. Gorbachev was the death knell of Soviet communism, with his attempts to reform the USSR to save it. Read your history - repressive regimes fall apart not from external pressures (short of actual conquest) but from internal pressures during a period of reform. The French Revolution didn't start until Louis XVI's reforms.

Back OT, Bush is another Dogmatist. Saddam Hussein was evil, terrorism is evil, therefore anything done in fighting them is good. The ends justify the means, rule of law be damned. Reagan's dogmatism and deification by the right laid the ground work for George III's reign.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Reagan was a Dogmatist rather than an idealist. He wasn't really Conservative (i.e. Barry Goldwater), he was an anti-Communist forged in the fire of McCarthyism.

It sounds like you believe there is only one type of conservatism, as if anyone who isn't 100% Goldwater is not a conservative. That's the naive part. The ignorant part is not knowing that Reagan admired and was inspired by Goldwater, and was in fact, similar to him in several ways.

He didn't so much believe that freedom was good as he did that Communism was evil. This is what allowed him to embrace the most repressive regimes in the world as friends just because they called themselves Anti-Communist.

I disagree of course. I wonder if you've ever heard some of his speeches. His belief IN AMERICA, our values, our principles, etc is astounding... his whole "city on a hill" thing... he was all about freedom. I would agree he had a pragmatic streak when dealing with the major issue of the time -the Soviets- and he yielded some to face the bigger threat to worldwide freedom. There a many good, objective biographies out there on Reagan.

Back OT, Bush is another Dogmatist. Saddam Hussein was evil, terrorism is evil, therefore anything done in fighting them is good. The ends justify the means, rule of law be damned. Reagan's dogmatism and deification by the right laid the ground work for George III's reign.

I don't see how you can say that with any seriousness. The US has exhibited so much restraint and caution in OIF it makes me sick. Our efforts in the worldwide battle against terrorism are embarrasingly feeble. I think Bush's overriding themes and rhetoric are ok, but the devil is in the details... and the execution.

 

[theeedude]

Reagan also funded the terrorists in Afghanistan and funneled money from Iran arms sales to Nicaragua to defeat the Soviets, and saddled this country with trillions in debt. So if you credit him with defeating the Soviets, you need to acknowledge all the damage he did to the US to get there. And yes, he is the original neocon, everything for the ideology, consequences be damned.

 

[fitzov]

Still no examples. Just a bunch of rhetoric.

 

[Fox5]

The world needs less men who think war is a good thing.
The world needs less men who will attack the easiest target rather than the most corrupt. Iraq was one of the better and more modernized Middle Eastern nations, so if we were truly out to do 'good' (and the notions of good and evil are such a fundamentally flawed way to look at the world that I can only look at anyone as crazy who points to them as reason) then Iraq shouldn't have been one of our first targets. Especially since Iraq was far more likely to cede to our will diplomatically than many of the other Middle Eastern powers.

Also, so Saddam gassed his own people. Besides that other dictators in the region have done far worse, they weren't really his people. They were tied to anti-Iraq revolutionaries who wished to turn Iraq into a radical Islamic state. Saddam's response was extreme, kill anyone who may even be related to someone who was involved, but Israel is almost as extreme when they bulldoze entire settlements because the family of a suicide bomber lived there. America is likely killing many of the same people now, just bit by bit as they attack and kill Americans.

The current Republican party may consist of people fooled into believing in absolute morality (and who knows what the leaders believe), but I'd much rather see a realist Republican party versus an idealist Democratic party than the narrow-minded realigious Repub party against the just narrow-minded and unfocused Democratic party. It'd be nice if both parties could actually be focused on the future of America, rather than wagging the dog. Politicians of today disgust me, I almost think we need a labor style revolt ala Russia, except let it be the engineers and the scientists that lead the charge.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Reagan also funded the terrorists in Afghanistan and funneled money from Iran arms sales to Nicaragua to defeat the Soviets, and saddled this country with trillions in debt. So if you credit him with defeating the Soviets, you need to acknowledge all the damage he did to the US to get there. And yes, he is the original neocon, everything for the ideology, consequences be damned.

Yeah, you people keep repeating this stuff about Afghanistan and Nicaragua, but I thought I addressed it. So let this be the last time.

Nobody here is saying Reagan was flawless. What I have said is Reagan (properly)prioritized the Soviet/communist problem as the greatest threat to worldwide peace and freedom. Unfortunately he did pragmatically deal with the devil on occasion and was involved in questionable actions to serve his highest priority. I'm not making excuses, I'm simply saying he was idealistic about America and our principles, and he did what he thought was feasible to "battle" with what he thought was the biggest issue: Soviet communism.

As I stated, just as Jefferson forwarded revolutionary pronouncements on liberty and government while owning human beings, Reagan also had his contradictions and shortfalls. They are similar in that respect, but we look at the overall good they accomplished, even though elements around that good are tainted. The Jeffersonian notions have been successful. Reagan was successful in his principled goal of facing down the Soviets.

The bottom line is, there has been a large change in attitudes in American politics. At one time, liberal-ish Democrats were generally the custodians of the Jefferson idealism that democracy and freedom should be exported to the world. Reagan was the man who reversed this politically.