Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Even Ronald Reagan is too Far Left for Today's Right

All the right wing talking heads who blather on and on about how much they love Ronald Reagan and how we need a new Reagan and how they are Reagan Republicans are completely full of shit! If Ronald Reagan tried to run on his record today, he'd never get elected. And I'm not talking about his 1960's racist record - I'm talking about the things he did while in office in the 1980's.

I can hear the right wingers shudder and gasp collectively in a Limbaugh-esque voice "What? You must be crazy!" But I'm not... consider:

Ronald Reagan helped to raise taxes in the early 1980's. Don't remember that or don't believe me? Check out TEFRA, described in 1988 by Sheldon Richman as "the largest tax increase in American history". Could a tax and spend Reagan get elected in 2008?

What about his position on illegals? Reagan was one of the first to call for amnesty! He signed the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986, which granted an unprecedented amnesty to aliens who had resided in the United States since before 1982. How could the soft-on-illegals Reagan get elected in 2008?

This country has gone so far right that positions which only a few years ago would have been regarded as bat-shit crazy are now viewed by many as not only sane, but the majority position of one of our two parties.

Well, maybe the right wing war lovers can still embrace Ronnie... after all, he did want to declare Russia illegal...



In many ways I find this post somewhat unfair. When I was in my liberal/utopian world phase in my early twenties I wrote a song with a reggae rhythm called "Ronald Raygun"(I will kill...kill for Ronald Raygun)and have never held the man in high esteem. Later I gave him credit for me becoming a Libertarian because I had a major distrust of Democrats(you have to remember all of my thinking life to that point was with a Democratic Congress)but the elitism of the Republicans turned me off. Reagan was just the icing on the cake(Iran Contra Hearings- "I don't remember." "I don't recall." was his answer to everything(and if you think about it with what transpired later, maybe he wasn't lying). I was "forced" into libertarianism because of my distaste of both parties and my growing love of the Founding Fathers dream.

That said, the link designed to illustrate his '60's racism mentioned nothing about anything he did in the '60's and the link used to illustrate "his" tax increase was bogus too. Congress can raise or lower taxes; the President cannot. The Wiki link mentioned a bargain he made with Congress to lower government spending in exchange for his support for the tax increase. You did not mention this.

Your major thesis for the post may be correct; he might not be the darling he has become in memory to the right, but your use of some of the links to support your thesis was a bit unfair.

csm said...

Well, Bawdy, reasonable people can disagree.

I was never a fan of Reagan during his presidency, but he was a glowing example of sanity compared to the mongrel in office now.

I have a MAJOR distrust of Republicans that started with Ronald Reagan (basted with the memory of Richard Nixon). That does not mean that I think Democrats can do no wrong, but given a choice between a Rep and a Dem, 9 times out of 10 the Dem has higher integrity and less scary people s/he is beholden to IMHO.

Your regular cop out - that the president can not raise taxes - is bogus. If you disagree, then my regular cop out will become Congress can not raise taxes either. In actuality, it takes both. And Reagan could have vetoed the tax bill. He didn't, so he must get credit for supporting it. Can't have it both ways.

And still I s'pose you can disagree with my particular links. At least I gave some instead of ranting without anything to back it up (like some folks do regularly).

Anyway, I think the thesis is still a sound one. The right wingers have memories of Reagan that do not hold true to fact nor to the current far right ridiculousness.


Well, at least you think I am reasonable, I think(it is alright, many don't).

As far as my "regular cop-out", I believe this was the first time I have ever posted the President doesn't raise taxes. I have posted before the President doesn't spend the money(though he agrees/disagrees to the spending)and that the President has little to do with the performance of the economy, good or bad. Maybe this is just semantics, but agreeing to raise or lower taxes is not the same as raising or lowering taxes, IMHO. The last word in TEFRA is the word ACT. The President can suggest legislation(as a side note, I would like to see this made illegal, he is the enforcer, not the enacter and this could go some way to clipping the power of the Presidency), but he cannot enact legislation(or he is not supposed to).

I don't disagree with your links, I think your use of them was imprecise.

"President of the United States Ronald Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes."

Right wingers may not like the latter, but they sure would love to have the former. The early eighties, with double digit interest rates and stagflation, needed tough medicine(Carl Volker)and raising taxes just was part of the deal. So taken at face value, some of what you say is true, but it wasn't the whole story. And by the way I did give you credit for my perceived correctness of your main thesis.

As far as my ranting and not producing links...

1. I feel(and of course, maybe incorrectly) most of my rants shouldn't need links as they are ideas from my own head. The Internet as the Great Democratizer. My opinion Bill Clinton was just a lucky politician and not a great President. My dislike for both parties in power. My ideas about life force energy and that spiritual life should be kept personal. On and on. These are just my ideas for which I do not have "links". What I will do for you is call me on something I say which could possibly have a link and I will do my utmost to find one, because...

2. I will be the first to admit I am probably the least Internet savvy person posting here. I generally do not get my information from the Internet and I do not "surf" the Net to any great degree(Freethinkers was suggested to me, I did not search it out). The linking instructions derF provided(if I remember correctly) at the beginning of this site, though I have them favorited somewhere, I have not seriously looked at let alone mastered. Many functions of the computer may be second-hand to others, but are Greek to me. I do not text, I do not have a Blackberry, I do not have an Ipod or MP3 player, I have never burned a CD, I have a Gen2 cell phone which sits in my car's console and is always turned off(strictly for emergencies). Again, if you want a link for something I post, ask me for one, tell me I am full of shit, tell me I am daft and I will do my best to get you my references.

csm said...

Bawdy, I never meant to imply that YOU did not provide links. Sorry if it came off that way. After re-reading what I wrote I can see how it could be interpreted that way.

Of course people don't need to provide links for their opinions... but I do like to see links provided to back up statements of fact (or even for clarification and/or additional fleshing out of an idea).

And yes, I find you very reasonable. I just don't always agree with you 100%.

coreydbarbarian said...

can't we all just get along? ;)

mad props 2 peter boyle on this one.

bawdy, myfriend,
if you want to run, ya gotta learn to walk first, right?

play around with simple things, like making a word bold or italicized.

all ya gotta do is this: put a less-then sign < and a greater-then sign > in front of and behind the word you want to modify.

ex: <>yippee!<>

but there is ONE catch: you MUST put a b in the first box and a /b in the second box. (b makes the word bold, i will make it italicized). the / tells the computer to end the modification of text.

so, <>yippee!<>, plus b in the first box and /b in the 2nd box ends up as yippee!

<>yippee!<>, plus i in the first box and /i in the 2nd box ends up as yippee!

once you're accustomed to that relatively simple format, adding a link to a post will be much easier to tackle. :)

derF said...


Anonymous said...

"And Reagan could have vetoed the tax bill. He didn't, so he must get credit for supporting it. Can't have it both ways."

That goes for wars as well. No warmongering Clinton for president nor racist America hater for president.

csm said...

I didn't realize that McCain was a racist America hater, but okay.

Ceroill said...

Personally I'd hope any presidential candidate would hate a racist america...

csm said...


csm said...

Actually, John McCain has shown that he is a racist. Click here for evidence.

Anonymous said...

Figures, a Korean women would somehow find a way to describe a hero as a racist. (sigh indeed)Just another way of diverting attention from the racist Clinton vs. Obama cage match.

csm said...

So, Anonymous coward, are you saying that you do not find the word "gook" to be racist?