Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General "Reagan Principles"

Bob Herbert on Reagan? Give me a break! His has a deep seated hatred of Republicans, Conservatives and anything Ronald W. Reagan did! He has misinterpreted the phrase "state's rights" as it was used by Reagan and Republicans. To support state's rights as it is used by Republicans and Conservatives means they wish to see the IX & X Amendments to our Constitution be enforced as they should be. Is anyone here against the IX & X Amendments of our Constitution?

The tax cuts Reagan pushed through Congress have fueled the economic boom that went on for years. Reagan study communism one hell of a lot more than you have studied Reagan, NW. He knew the system was moving towards bankruptcy and began pushing it that way before Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR. Again I challenge you, NW, to do some research on Ronald W. Reagan and to look at sources outside of the ones that you have used to form your opinion of Reagan.

Actually, Senator, Reagan's tax cuts bankrupted this country at the same time as the military policy propelled USSR to its own crisis. It just happens that the effects of those cuts, trillions in debt, are just now beginning to show up in our economy as well.

The constant debting of this nation is an addiction that is out of control and enslaving future generations to foreign domination.

It is all smoke and mirrors.

Good posts, Senator. They cut right to the heart of the "Reagan Principles".


If you read the Herbert article, you will find that he offered no opposition to the 9th and 10th Amendments. What he offered was an observation that candidate Reagan's choice of the place where he begin his 1980 campaign carried with it an unspoken message.

Similarly, there has been an ongoing debate among historians of various stripes as to whether (and to what extent) the War Between the States was inflamed by States' Rights or by Slavery. But some have argued, and I agree, that it is a red herring. The War was about both. I offer as a similar argument the current debate about Gay Marriage. The Constitution mandates that each State must respect a contract entered into by individuals in any other State. But the State of MA under Gov Mitt Romney decreed that a Marriage Contract entered into by two persons of the same gender in the State of MA could be exempted from that Constitutional mandate.

Did the State have a Constitutional right to do that?

Let us recall too that when George Wallace was inaugurated to his first term as Gov of AL, he chose as the location to stand upon the "gold star where, 102 years prior, Jefferson Davis was sworn in as President of the Confederate States of America." In his inaugural speech, Wikipedia reminds us, he used the line for which he is best known: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Eighteen years later, it was no longer fashionable to use the "S" word, and no longer permissible for a politician to use the "N" word. Why then was it acceptable for candidate Reagan to stand upon the spot where segregation was still being practiced, and people of color had in recent memory been excluded from the political process to the point of being murdered in cold blood? Why should we assume that his message was solely about "States' Rights" any more than was the Lost Cause of the Confederacy?

There is no evidence from competent economists to demonstrate that the Reagan tax cuts did anything to spur the economy. Quite the opposite, actually. As Phil points out above, he increased the debt and deficit exponentially and it took years to recover from that (and we are still feeling the effects of that). NOTHING he did stimulated the economy, and it was not successful under his administration. Do you forget the recession that ended his term?

I have read about Reagan from a variety of sources, including ardent supporters. And yes, I do find some sources more credible than others. From the apologists I get fluff and demonstrably false history. There are a number of anecdotes about his early life, and stories that he personally told, that are as truthful and accurate as his "welfare queen" parable. He lived in a fantasy world of his own creation. Unfortunately, the rest of us had to live in the real world that he created, and it was pretty ugly.

Bill Bennett
was for the freedom fighters
before he was against them


Bennett presently carries Claremont Institute credentials, and is listed as a "senior advisor" on their Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT) Project. It's 2nd statement of purpose says:

Bennett has difficulty understanding cause and effect. This became evident with the news that he was considered to be a good repeat playing customer at Atlantic City and Las Vegas Casinos, along with his 1st choice in Games of "chance", $5 video poker, or as it is known affectionately by Vegas locals, "video crack". Bennett's rationalisations were the punch-lines from two of the oldest Las Vegas lounge jokes ever told:

"I'm about even"
and
"But I've got gambling money".

Proving once again that contemporary conservatives really don't believe in accepting personal responsibility; that's just a rhetorical fallacy they use to flog single mothers with.

In about 1986, I had a client tell me that she voted for Reagan in 1984 because he would keep blacks in their place. Obviously, Reagan didn't have to say this. People understood it from his words and actions.

And this is a principle that Republicans want to emulate?

Nowhere in the media can one find reports, stories or profiles supportive of the second greatest president this country has ever had: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Everywhere one turns is naught but distortion, slander and outright lies.

It is utterly amazing.

Well, yes, actually it is. The white, redneck, racist, voters invariably flock to the right. Being a Republican wont make you a racist but being a racist will make you a Republican.

I think it's important to reiterate, and elucidate, this line of thought. In the early 60's, when LBJ was breaking away from the "traditional" (read: racist) Southern Democrats and formulating his "Great Society" plans, Ronald Reagan switched parties, claiming that he had not shifted in his ideology, but the Democrats had. By the end of the 1960's, LBJ's Great Society had been implemented, and the exodus of "Dixiecrats" from the Democratic Party began, following in Reagan's footsteps.

By 1980, there had already been a great shift in party balance in the South. Reagan began his campaign by standing on the spot where three Freedom Riders had been brutally murdered 18 years before. At the end of the election, Reagan carried every Southern State except Carter's home State of Georgia. I think it's reasonable to argue that the Oil Crisis and the Hostage Crisis played a much larger role in the election than did racism, but in many Southern States, Reagan's margin of victory was very slim. A few thousand votes for a "States' Rights" candidate could arguably have been the difference.

It has often been said that the Democratic Party is a "big tent". But it has been noted that the Dem's "Big Tent" doesn't have room for everyone. Those who are not comfortable being a small part of a big tent are not welcome. Why should they be?