Back in May 2007, Paul Kengor reminded us all of a landmark TV debate:
"On May 15, 1967, there was a fascinating debate between California’s new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, and New York’s new Democratic senator, Robert F. Kennedy. The subject: the Vietnam War... billed by CBS as a "Town Meeting of the World." [and including participating students from various countries] ...The debate was watched by a huge audience: 15 million Americans. There was total agreement, including among media sources who revered Bobby Kennedy, from the San Francisco Chronicle to Newsweek, that Reagan overwhelmingly won the debate...."
Which even a casual reading of the dry transcript, without any of Reagan's other personal skills factored in, will confirm. Then, too, there's Kennedy's orders to his aides not to put him on stage with Reagan again, after asking them "Who the f--- got me into this?" In an unrehearsed free for all, Ronald Reagan demonstrated model command of both debating skills and factual points while thinking on his feet - far more so than Bobby Kennedy, another intelligent man I happen to respect.
This shouldn't surprise you. Back in March 2007, Tom Evans explained...
Personally, I'm contemptuous of efforts to classify such debate performances as having been "won" or "lost". It's not only simple-minded, it does a great disservice to the statements and positions that are expressed by candidates during the debates which are swept away by those who wish to measure campaigns by checking box-scores rather than ideas.
Having said that, I find it interesting to be reminded of the rhetoric Reagan introduced into the Republican political lingo and discourse that is still to this day being repeated, verbatim, in many cases. It's the hammer wielded as if every problem is a nail....thankfully sounding shopworn and anachronistic at this moment in history.
Ah, nostalgia...while I understand you are tearing up here, at the last Great Republican President, perhaps a focus on the current crop of candidates for president would be a better use of your time.
Or, perhaps this post IS your implicit comment on the current crop. In that they don't even rate a mention, but are banished to not even be mentioned in the same post as the Great Reagan.
Myself, I'm always of two minds when it comes to Reagan. There is no denying his politicals skills, they were phenomenal. Also no denying, that there needed to be a corrective to the 70's liberal mentality (continued through the 80's), of a type of stultifying, fixed, liberalism, based on status quo.
However, I also blame Reagan for initiating the current Republican con, of breaking all of the unions (one of working man's only sources of political strength), and economic irresponsibity (in making it acceptable to run a HUGE debt), and increasing the economic inequality of the country to problematic proportions.
Big Business conservatism, taken to it's extremes, leads to Banana Republicanism. Which is a betrayal of ACTUAL American conservatism, which I see as protection of a limited government where the "normal" working man has an opportunity to get ahead, in business and in life, by working hard and following the rules, being moral, and otherwise being left alone.
But Big Business Consverativism, taken to extremes, kills the american conservatism I sketch above by:
a. Wealth flows upwards, into the elite oligarchies. Leaving less options for a regular guy to come up with a big idea. (It's no accident that only in NEW fields, such as the internet, are new companies formed. We don't see newer companies rising and flourishing in OLDER fields).
b. Cronyism becomes rampant, as the spoils of government are doled out to the elites in business, with the revolving door of lobbyists/politicians actually calling the shots, and the endemic corruption.
c. Elites become more entrenched (you think it's an accident that we've got Bush/Clinton/Bush/maybe another Clinton??)
d. Big Business in the form of Big Security (Military-Industrial complex), exaggerates threats, and legislates more and more to the Surveillance State in the form of ever intrusiveness. (the U.S. is now of the most surveilled nations in the world). Department of Homeland Security, fear those words.
e. The hollowing out of government continues apace as, Big Business thinks in 6 month cycles, pursuing it's own profits, at the expense of the long-term, so you get disasters (example, the current mortgage issues) that come from lack of honest accounting and regulation. So of course, larger debt for the country, as again, the treasury is bled off for short term profits in Big Business.
Since we get a lot of conservatives here, a question: Don't any of you guys recognize the dangers of the marriage of Big Business and Government, to the conservative values of freedom for the average american? How this marriage actually can damage the american dream?
Now, of course, the ultimate example is straight out faciscm - "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes."
The big light of the american revolution, is a rejection of the state's ultimate power, in favor or greater power and freedom to the individual. If, in the name of "security", the government has the ability to:
a. Jail you indefinitely.
b. Torture you.
c. Spy on you in any way, shape, or form.
Isn't this a betrayal of the conservative american ideal?
I don't get it, really...
Similarly - don't the conservatives here believe, that - AT SOME POINT - increasing economic inequality is problematic for the american conservative ideal?
To a large extent, economic power translates to political power. (Don't ask me the exact formula). Surely you don't want all economic power in King George's and his sycophants hands (that's what the american revolution was rejecting), so at what point do large and powerful oligarchies in this country engender the same concern?
5 Big Media Conglomerates, remember, who often don't allow things to be published if they interfere with their economic concerns. The reason why the below is in the Bill of Rights as the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — U.S. Const. Amend."
is because King George would often seize the printing presses of publishers.
At some point, I hope the conservatives here will resort back to basic principles, enshrined in our constitution. And remember that Business, while ABSOLUTELY necessary it is to have free and unfettered businesses for progess, growth, and political freedom (economic freedom is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for political freedom), when taken to extremes, can also IMPEDE political freedom, and the opportunities of the majority of men to have the freedom available, to succeed.
I think the above paragraph is acceptable to all liberals and conservatives.
"economic irresponsibity (in making it acceptable to run a HUGE debt),"
Hmm. Who ran congress all those years? Dont spending bills come out of Congress? Oh, yeh. They do.
" and increasing the economic inequality of the country to problematic proportions."
I have yet to see the problem, I just keep hearing about how there is one. Is Bill Gates money all tucked in his Scrooge McDuck Vault? Or it is invested in the most successful company on earth, employing thousands, creating jobs for millions, creating wealth through undreamed of efficiency, oh.. and through the biggest philanthropic donations ever seen? Class warfare's great idea is that we all get poor together.
Lurker,
Well, "the Left" doesn't include, for example, Bill Clinton. Who kept federal spending as a percentage of GDP, than either Reagan or either of the Bushes. (Some of this is explainable by military spending, but that only illustrates my point. How much money in corruption and no-bid contracting has gone down the drain?)
And actually, I'm wondering where YOU, would see a problem. How much concentration of wealth in too few hands, is too much, for you, as a conservative? When does that concentration start limiting the regular man's options?
Mark,
A bit more clarity.
"Class warfare's great idea is that we all get poor together."
I'm sure King George would say the same thing, and you wouldn't agree, and the founders of the United States would also disagree vociferously. That's not much of an argument.
Still, I'm wondering where YOU see an issue - how much concentration is too much? Surely you see that too much inequality can have problems? If Bill Gates, George Bush, and his 10 best friends, had 99 percent of the wealth, leaving 1% to the rest of the 99.9999 percent of the population, would THAT be a problem? Surely there is a point where it is a problem for you, right?
But you miss the point that, for every Bill Gates, who contributes a heck of a lot to the economy, I can list a number of CEO;s who drive their company into the ground, and STILL get a retirement payoff running into the multiple millions. In fact, you'll find more of those!
But that argument is a false argument anyway. From a single individual, generalized to the whole. That is a fallacy of generalization argument. We can look at the effects, by a much better researched comparison.
On the GINI coefficient, the U.S. has a 45. (A number of 0 being perfect equality, a number of 100 being perfect inequality.)
If you take a look at the list of countries ranked by income inequality, you can see the U.S. is pretty far down. In fact, in all countries with more inequality, you really start to see the "Banana Republicanism" at work, in terms of the reputation for corruption, the differences between the haves and have-nots, etc.
The last "admirable" country on the list, really, is Israel, with a GINI of 38.5. Every country, outside the U.S. below this,
You surely wouldn't want the U.S. to have, say the characteristics of ANY of the countries below a GINI of 50, would you?
Mark,
You know, I'm not presenting anything controversial.
Look at Richard A. Viguerie's statements (he's a conservative if anyone is) on Ron Paul being denied from participation in Fox News debate
“While Fox has ended the Democratic monopoly in TV news, it is becoming disturbingly clear that it is perpetuating the pro-Big Government monopoly in TV news. A Republican presidential debate without Ron Paul is a ‘debate’ between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. All the other Republican candidates would continue the Big Government policies of President George W. Bush, and the differences between them are mostly minor and cosmetic.
“Fox News itself apparently wants to limit the GOP discussion to variations on a Neocon theme of perpetual war for perpetual big government.”
So, here we have it all together - A partisan Big Media squelching an opposition viewpoint, working hand in hand with Big Government and (the part that Viguerie doesn't recognize) Big Business.
Thus, as Vigueries writes in his book, "Conservatives Betrayed".
I'm not sure if he recognizes the economic motivations of that betryal. Again, I say, freedom in and for businesses is essential, but going TOO FAR with Big Business, with accumulation of economic power into ever smaller elites and hands, the marriage of Big Business and Big Government, BETRAYS conservatives. And betrays the values that this nation is founded on.
HR,
Can we mark you down as a libertarian with a strong streak of fiscal conservatism? You do realize that apart of the Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 strategy was to starve the government of tax revenue thereby making it less able to meddle in folks' lives. And Clinton actually signed off on welfare reform, you approve right?
Now, let's get the Dems on board and actually cut some more spending! Are you in? No more advocating for nationalized health care my conservative friend!
"""
Are you sure that the correlation between corruption and income inequality is stronger than its correlation with arbitrary government power? Cuba, for example, is a totalitarian, corrupt basket case, whose poor economic performance has compressed income disparity there.
If it's really true that such governmental corruption depresses economic performance, then wouldn't we expect to see increasingly compressed income distributions and therefore correspondingly lower income disparities as governmental corruption increases?
Perhaps you have confused your effects with your causes.
I think hr's problem is indicated when he refers to "the wealth" of the nation. It's not a constant amount, so whether Gates and his ten friends have 99.% of the wealth tomorrow or a hundred years from now matters quite a lot. Note further that hr doesn't care whether, on an absolute scale, poor people get wealthier. That, apparently, is of no consequence and is the elephant hr tries to avoid addressing. Here's the question hr should answer:
Which do you prefer, a society in which a small clique has 99.9% of the wealth, but is so rich the rest of the citizens live as well as middle class Americans today, or a subsistence society where people have barely enough to eat but no one has more wealth than any one else?
FWIW, I've always found Bush2, to be too cosy with big business.
I'm glad you are joining us in finally acknowledging the gatekeeper role that giant media has always played, suppressing and/or misrepresenting unpopular views. Welcome to the club!
Lurker,
Well, again, I'd like an answer to MY question, as you keep asking me questions - when is concentration too much?
But to continue - I've gotten more libertarian, I think, since the GW came into office. The ever-expanding security state will have that effect on a person.
Philosophically, I love the libertarian ideal - but I'm the type of libertarian who doesn't hate poor people, which most other libertarians seem to do. (I think not hating poor people disqualifies me from being a true Libertarian).
As far as health care goes, I say this. Not every national problem is a nail, that needs a hammer.
Health has some characteristics which argue for a collective approach to solving the issue, not an individual approach, the same as firemen or policeman:
a. A person's health is an "absolute" good, not a good that can really be qualified by economic factors (a person will pay anything to be healthy). The economic value of health, doesn't translate into terms of the economic good of a product. This is similar to the fact that the economic good of "safe streets", doesn't really translate into something that can be "given up" for a civil society.
b. As a "risk premium", the economics of health work out better, when the risk is borne by the group, rather than an individual (same as fireman and policeman).
c. Even as a conservative, you have to admit, there are literally 1000 years of proof, data, and experience, backing up the fact that a collective health insurance policy purchased by the nation as a group, works better than doing it individually, in the OUTCOMES of health. (As a practical conservative, you care about WHAT WORKS right? About practical outcomes?)
But it's all there. Amount per person spent - all other nations beat the U.S. Least infant mortality, is the U.S. #1? NO! Not at all. The nations with universal health care beat us. Longest living, is U.S. #1? No! Far down the list.
Surely you see that, if the nations that HAVE universal health care, beat us across the board on all health care related matrices (or most all, I'm sure you can find one or two outliers. But then you are back to the generalization fallacy, then guess what? A practical guy DROPS his commitment AGAINST government universal health care, the same way he drops giving government the power for police and fireman.
d. As someone who believes that free trade seems to open up possibilities for progress, in this further advancing technological world, a universal health plan is one of the ways that we buffer the loss of jobs, the economic disruption that happens to people. People are finding they will have more and more jobs in a life, and having universal health care is a way to make the free trade option, a less threatening option for people's lives. (Not to mention, sometimes people don't risk as much, in terms of new businesses, if they need to worry about health care for their family. I think it will help the entrepeneurial spirit in this country.)
e. As a liberal with libertarian leanings, it's also useful to reduce an "absolute" risk for all individuals, as it's easier to tell an idiot boss to eff off, if he doesn't control your access to health care.
The Cuba example isn't a good one, of course. There isn't some one to one iron economic law that says income inequality is the ONLY factor that causes corruption. You are, again, generalizing from an outlier, when you have a much larger data set with which to make competent assessments, if you so choose.
Didn't realize I did a double post. If someone can take the 1st away, as the 2nd has a bit more in it. Thanks.
Annoying Old Guy,
I actually didn't address the issues you've raised, re:
"Note further that hr doesn't care whether, on an absolute scale, poor people get wealthier. That, apparently, is of no consequence and is the elephant hr tries to avoid addressing."
This discussion was never had. We can have it though. For what it's worth, yes, I want all people to get wealthier. OK?
"Which do you prefer, a society in which a small clique has 99.9% of the wealth, but is so rich the rest of the citizens live as well as middle class Americans today, or a subsistence society where people have barely enough to eat but no one has more wealth than any one else?"
Well, which do I prefer, to be punched in the face, or knifed in the gut?
I don't think that's a good question, as again, if you look at the inequality index, there are MANY MANY countries in which you see huge economic growth, less inequality (and correspondingly less corruption issues), more economic freedom BECAUSE Big Business isn't pushing it's weight around (and that's what I care about, freedom). So that's what I prefer.
Like the Greek ideal of "The Golden Mean", we've gone here in the U.S., too far. Too much oligarchy, too much concentration of wealth, with lots of bad consequences on the working man's FREEDOM, both economic and political.
"You do realize that apart of the Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 strategy was to starve the government of tax revenue thereby making it less able to meddle in folks' lives. And Clinton actually signed off on welfare reform, you approve right?"
I don't think at all that the statement above is true for Bush 2. And for Bush 2, this is OBVIOUSLY so. He increases government power, in every way possible.
Reagan/Bush1, I still believe ended up being "freedom for my people to raid the government", but that is debatable. I can respect your position if you disagree.
But I find it hard to believe you think that Bush 2 is in that category.
"welcome to the club!"
Sure, glad to be here! Where's the liquor cabinet? I need a Scotch!
Ahh, get your own blog.
If you value a comment you made here, save it to disk very soon.
I'm going to second Celebrim's sentiment. None of this has anything to do with the subject of the post.
I'm going to go away and consider next options... but be warned, one of the options under consideration is wholesale deletion of comments per Winds' comments policy.
Why is that?
Was the thread simply a paean to Reagan, with no other commentary allowed?
Tonight, in the votes, we are SEEING the crackup of the House That Reagan Built. My whole commentary here, traces one of the reasons why that is, why the Reagan message doesn't carry, is because of going TOO FAR in one direction - Big Business - and how that can be seen as a betrayal of the "Conservatism" that Reagan personified. That was the message of post #2.
Every other comment of mine, is a DIRECT RESPONSE to others, who responded to my number 2 comment.
I'm not double-posting (intentionally), I'm not attacking.
To say this isn't within the bounds of the posting rules, is simply untrue.
Do what ya gotta do, but I recommend engaging on the substance.
I've been busy tonight so I didn't really want to get into these page long comments, it seems like HR has been mostly reasonable in this thread, even if he did drift way off topic.
FWIW, I think this is an improvement over his usual drive-bys and I actually detected some sincerity.
I'm going to deal with the principles of this first. From Winds' comments policy, which hasn't been changed in a long time:
That's the key, and my subsequent post on the general principle addresses that.
The practical question is then how the comments here fit with the intent and spirit of that guideline. #1 clearly does. #2 is less than honest, and does attempt to hijack the thread. while it's only fair to give warning as I did, I've thought about it and decided to treat this as an extension of the 1967 debate's lessons, and address it accordingly.
I don't know what you're looking at that causes you to SEE the future in bulgy-eyed capital letters, but if you're looking at the Iowa Caucus, you might as well tell the future by watching your cat clean its ass.
Because the Iowa Caucus has as much relation to political reality as your cat's ass does. Probably less, in fact.
Since Iowa Caucus became the premier primary in 1972, only one person has ever won it and gone on to become president - George W. Bush. (Excluding uncontested caucuses.) In other words, given a choice, Iowans have a distinct talent for picking losers almost every single time.
Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton all lost the Iowa Caucus the year they were elected president. Bill Clinton got three percent of the vote. George H. W. Bush was unopposed in the 1992 Caucus.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second (after "undecided") in the Iowa Caucus. Because no named candidate beat him, his campaign claimed that he "won" the caucus. Since then, Democratic strategists have harbored the delusion that the Iowa Caucus is the royal road to the White House, when in fact it's the Kiss of Death.
So unless you're George W. Bush and you have some kind of oblivious immunity to everything that goes on around you, you want to do everything possible to LOSE the Iowa Caucus. Figure out the worst possible answers to those Iowa town meeting questions (Like "What was the biggest UFO you ever saw?" and "How come you have to be a farmer to get farm subsidies?", etc.) Threaten to hit Des Moines with a Tomahawk missile - I think that was Bill Clinton's winning strategy.
Keep an eye on the cat.
Addendum - I erroneously understated my point in the above. George H. W. Bush was the unopposed incumbent in the 1992 caucus. He was elected president in 1988, after coming in third in the Iowa Caucus, after Bob Dole and Pat Robertson.
Interestingly, Jimmy Carter - the only president in modern times to be opposed for reelection in his own party - managed to really and truly win the Iowa Caucus (over Ted Kennedy) in 1980. At that point he should have known he was doomed and resigned.
Getting back to the topic at hand, how would Huckabee debate Obama? Would there be any similarity (other than Dem Senator against Rep Governor) to the Reagan Kennedy debate? I believe the debating could be up to very high standards, as both are excellent speakers, if the media only let them debate and stopped trying to sex it up.
HR,
If you want to clean up/enhance comment #11 and begin with "Health has some characteristics which argue for a collective approach to solving the issue..." and turn it into a Guest Blog post, we can throw it up there and folks can have a topical discussion that focuses on it.
Let's agree to disagree then. This post was fairly brief, seemed more in the spirit of an open thread. The attraction of Reagan is powerful, but how is that appeal NOW? Also, on the substance of the conservative message, how is it right, how is it wrong?
FWIW, I truly felt, still feel, that the 2nd comment is pertinent to the post.
Wolf,
My opinion is that Obama is a masterful, incredible orator, but only a good debater. Huckbee's folksiness would get the better of that debate from the appearance perspective, even if Obama destroys him on substance.
Substitute any two politicians in that question and the answer is the same: you don't debate the other guy, you just wait for an opportunity to get in the lines your writers have crafted, even if it means blatantly ignoring the question you were just asked.
What set Ronald Reagan apart was not that he was a great debater. He was a fair hand at it, in an age when debate is almost dead. What set Ronald Reagan apart was that he expressed ideas that preceded and existed apart from any sort of crafted political image. The Ronald Reagan that ran for president was the same man that ran for governor of California, and that spent years on the GE talk circuit. He didn't need to be invented. He didn't have the fake, gimmicky, brand-name quality.
It's harder to assess Robert Kennedy as a politician. Like every Kennedy except JFK, he never won an election that he had to work for. He was accustomed to telling people things, not debating them.
Even if you have an ideological identity that wasn't custom-built by a campaign committee, it's hard to avoid turning into a fake. Witness Ron Paul, who actually believes many of the things he says, but has become a catch-all for every Idiotarian notion in the country.
Reading through that debate, I was struck by three things - how right-wing both Reagan and Kennedy sounded, how civil they were to each other, and how hostile the college kids were to them. Reagan offhandedly claims that some of the anti-war protests would be illegal if war had been formally declared, and no one contests the point. Kennedy rejects the characterization of America's involvement in Vietnam as either immoral or illegal. That may have accounted for some of the civility; they didn't seem to be debating each other so much as defending US policy against the college kids. That in turn was a good reminder, after years of hearing the unique damage Bush has done to the world's opinion of the US, that little America-hating punks have been around for much longer.
Lesson #1 from the debate: dare to question hostile premises.
I'll be the judge of what best uses my time, thank you.
I'll add that saying Reagan needed to lance the 1970s liberal mentality, while regurgitating just about every false shibboleth that mentality threw at him in defense of its idiotic ideology, is at best a response that bespeaks confusion.
A type which has shown few signs of recession, and every sign of recent resurgence. However, Reagan's performance in the debate also illustrates the necessity of refocusing the issue correctly. In that spirit...
Reagan's disagreements went far beyond whether liberalism was fixed or status quo. That wasn't his issue. His issue was that it was wrong: morally, factually, and in its basic conceptions of human nature. This was the core of his argument, and the core behind his final words in the debate:
"I believe the highest aspiration of man should be individual freedom and the development of the--of the individual, that there is a sacredness to individual rights. And I would like to say to all of the young people as they pursue their way, and this has been very stimulating, I think you should weigh everything that is proposed to you, everything in the line of government and law and economic theory, everything of that kind and weigh it on this one scale--that it should at all times not offer you some kind of sanctuary or security in exchange for your right to fly as high and as far as your own strength and ability will take you as an individual, with no ceiling put on that effort. Plenty of room for a floor underneath so that no one in this world should live in degradation, beneath that floor, but you reserve the right for yourself to be free."
The conservative response to many of the issues our liberal friend hypocrisyrules brings up are heavily informed by Reagan's statement, which has its roots in works like Hayek's as well as the lessons of the Enlightenment and the 20th century. In truth, Reagan's background in this thinking, which Tom Evans described and explained, is a big part of what made him a new kind of conservative.
As others have pointed out, your premise was wrong. Unions are weaker in the USA for two reasons. One is that Reagan did revolt against the 1960s/70s liberal notion that public-sector unions had an untrammeled right to disrupt vital public services at will, for any reason the leadership decreed, without consequence - a notion that was crippling many states in Europe, and still holds in places like France.
To call this stupid notion economically stultifying and unjust is to understate the case, and brings to mind Churchill's description of people who were "no longer servants, and no longer civil." It is no accident that both Reagan and Thatcher had their showdowns in this area early. It is also no accident that both were very popular for it, though the left did, and does, hate them for this.
The GOP under Reagan also worked to weaken measures that forced workers to join unions against their consent. It is also telling that without coercive measures backed by the state, union membership has not done so well. If their services were so amazingly useful, they'd have more members. If they make their services more useful, they'll get more.
That's justice, to me.
That concept long predated Reagan - you might check into a guy named FDR for more.
Reagan himself would almost certainly agree that there is a point where income inequality becomes a problem, especially if it is structural. He would likely add that every Marxist socialist regime, with its villas and cars for the leadership and wretched poverty for the rest, illustrates this well. So do many third world countries, and also ancient examples like the decline of Sparta.
Still, one has to wonder what your statement means - if anything. What point is "problematic," and why? What is the evidence that America has reached it, and how should it change the situation? Is this an argument, or just a verbal tic?
See Reagan's quote earlier for his philosophy, which pointedly removed the left's focus on equality in favour of an ethic of reward and advancement for those willing to provide a needed service that others would willingly pay for in full. His focus was on making everyone richer, rather than trying to make some people poorer so things would be "even." It was a seismic shift - and it is not a coincidence that America went on to lead an information technology revolution, and others who didn't have that focus fell behind.
In terms of real income, many European states would now place in the bottom 25% among US states. That isn't a coincidence, either.
America is not a radical outlier in this area, and continues to lead the world in innovation precisely because it offers far more in the way of opportunity to become a big success - rather than focusing on blocking success, as 1960s/70s liberalism did (and many European countries et. al. still do), and thereby strangling a legion of smaller successes in the process.
If you truly believe that 1970s liberalism was stultifying and problematic, you're going to need to do better than simply repeating a mantra of 1970s liberalism as if it meant something.
In the spirit of Reagan's approach to this debate - and of Bill Whittle, who reminds us of Carl Sagan's belief that responding to Velikovsky’s WORLDS IN COLLISION thesis “sharpened the mind for useful work"....
My formulation would be closer to:
"ACTUAL American conservatism, which protects a tradition and founding ideal of limited government where people have an opportunity to get ahead, in business and in life, by working hard, being moral, and being free to excel and to change the competitive environment with innovation. They should pay fair value for what they receive, but should otherwise being left alone."
Sorry, this is just factually wrong. This would be news to, say, Nucor in the steel industry. We don't see it as often, because it's more attention getting to grow with a well-covered new field than to slowly rise within an existing one that reporters outside the trade press ignore. But it happens.
Also, if you look at the FORTUNE 500 over time, the most salient thing about it is the rate of churn within it as older companies fall out of the rankings.
Your characterization is a far better description of Europe, with its protected "state champions" and regional welfare corporations, discouragement of risk-taking, and elite universities one must attend to become a senior executive or government official.
To the extent that America moves away from the current state of affairs, and toward emulating any of this, she is making a mistake. Meanwhile, one big step that would help improve this situation in America would be a public school system that serves its students first, rather than serving the teacher unions like the NEA whose agenda is one of the prime factors helping to destroy upward mobility for Americas poorer students, black population, et. al.
You seem to be confusing this state of affairs with liberalism/socialism, and the very big government Reagan fought against. I would agree that this kind of behaviour is something conservatives should oppose, precisely because it's the very soul of socialism.
As an incidental reference point, note how quickly the Democratic Congress moved to remove most of the earmark reforms that had been enacted by the previous Congress, in order to make this very process easier on behalf of John "Abscam" Murtha et. al. Really, they couldn't do anything else by their very nature - and unlike the GOP base, the Democrats' base has less than no interest in calling them on it.
As opposed, of course, to the disasters that come from poor regulation that has no accounting inherent to reveal its honesty or (usually) lack thereof. Market failure can happen. So can government failure, often.
Recognizing this, one ceases to see government as a benign or neutral entity, and begins to treat it as an actor NO DIFFERENT THAN BUSINESS - but less accountable. This is the insight behind the important social science domain of public choice economics.
And of many of Reagan's policies.
To add to Joe's comment about Reagan and "the unions", I note that in the Democratic imagination Reagan's policing of the PATCO union (in accordance with the law that it was his job to enforce) has turned into a general destruction of all unions. It's as if their entire sense of history derives from a single deranged grade school teacher.
What is so laughable about it is that the Democratic Party had begun to turn its back on the unions long before Reagan came along, and today has no use for them whatsoever except to mine them for cash and endorsements. Since the 60s the party has abandoned working class politics in favor of race and gender manias. They still talk the rhetoric of labor heroes, but they aren't talking to the socially conservative working class (who they reviled in the 60s as racists and "hard-hats") but to the unemployed, the recipients of entitlements, students, public sectors employees, and anybody with a grievance against his fellow Americans.
Fortunately the Democrats can still count on the big union oligarchs to shear their hapless members for cash, which the Democrats can use to destroy the evil corporations that give union members their jobs.
I don't know much about comment policies, and given my general streak of antiauthoritainism I tend to ignore them, but after 20 years on the internet, I do know this both from observation and personal experience.
If someone posts three or four consecutive long posts in a thread, they've vested far to much of thier passion and indentity in the discussion than is healthy. I would advice hr to consider why the mention of Reagan triggered him to produce long rambling rants of the sort he produced.
There are any number of points which hr makes that I could address individually and which could be the starting point of a discussion and in other circumstances I might, but addressing the whole collective rant point by point would prove me to be a fool with too much time on my hands, and addressing any one point by replying to someone who is so obviously gone all emo is less than pointless.
Anyway, my suspicion is that this comment violates the aforementioned comment policies, and I apologize to the moderators for it, but in my defence I'd like to say that this used to be a good community and its sort of a place with alot of broken windows now.
Anyway, one point so that this won't be entirely about a troll, anyone with practical experience with unions in the last 30-40 years knows that Reagan didn't kill the unions, they committed institutional suicide. There is no American institution more conservative the in unadorned sense of the word, than labor unions. They make Pat Buchanon and Ron Paul look positively radical.
Just saw the responses. Will comment back, later today or tomorrow, when I have time.
@ hypocrisyrules
Here is some feedback on income inequality in Europe versus the United States. Europe averages 396 square feet of dwelling per person. Poor households in the US average 439 square feet of dwelling per person, compared with the US average of 721 square feet per person. More income, more inequality, but still the US poor do not suffer by comparison with the European poor, as shown by this housing statistic.(page 23)
Joe,
Most of your responses here are based on outliers, and myths.
"One is that Reagan did revolt against the 1960s/70s liberal notion that public-sector unions had an untrammeled right to disrupt vital public services at will, for any reason the leadership decreed, without consequence - a notion that was crippling many states in Europe, and still holds in places like France"
That's one way to look at the outlier consequences of unions. While ignoring the outlier consequAnother is to look at how companies NOW, actually hire top level union breaker corporations. Remember those stories of people kept locked in by Walmart?
A huge host of myths regarding Europe, and Democrats:
"In terms of real income, many European states would now place in the bottom 25% among US states. That isn't a coincidence, either.
America is not a radical outlier in this area, and continues to lead the world in innovation precisely because it offers far more in the way of opportunity to become a big success - rather than focusing on blocking success, as 1960s/70s liberalism did (and many European countries et. al. still do), and thereby strangling a legion of smaller successes in the process."
Well, the UK looks to have just passed the US in real income (look it up).
And if you want to look at participation of people in the Labor Force, this Krugman post is instructive
Bottom line - jobs have increase more in nearly EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION over Republican ones. (Especially instructive is the Clinton comparison.)
What labor unions pushed forward, is that when the economy is good (and for the last three years, there has been an amazing amount of CORPORATE profits), then usually, this ends up also pushing up wages.
This recovery and expansion has changed the normal cycle of recoveries, in that wages, indexed to inflation, have remained stagnant.
While of course, executive pay has skyrocketed into the stratosphere.
The reality of "tax cuts to the wealthy" is the only thing that Republicans seem united on.
But as Krugman has said:
"The point of these charts is not to say that Clinton deserves credit for all good things and Bush deserves blame for everything bad. The point is, instead, to show how crazy it is when Republicans claim that a return to Clinton-era levels of taxes will destroy the economy. The fact is that the economy did a lot better in an era when we had a 39.6% tax rate on dividends and a 28% rate on capital gains than it has in an era with both rates down to 15%."
Do you DENY this? If so, you'd have to do so by relying on myths, not based on much actual research.
Reagan was a true conservative, in a sense that none of the 2008 Rep candidates can match; although the big business M-I complex remains an issue.
HR -- Joe offered you the chance to create a guest post, and I wish you had accepted it. The thread has truly been hijacked, but into an interesting place.
It's a fact since Nixon that Presidents can most often succeed in one area by doing things the other party wants in other areas; tho LBJ & Kennedy both supported Big Business pretty thoroughly, too.
The Clinton economy of the '90s included the dot.com boom & bust of 2000 -- which could have been followed by a Depression type response. The '20s under the Reps were a heck of a lot better than the '30s under the FDR Dems. The Bush tax cuts saved the US from much recession, and 5% unemployment is really quite low.