Happy 100th Ronald

Ronald Reagan, were he still alive, would be celebrating his 100th birthday today (Sunday). As time passes his legacy grows. Both sides of US politics routinely pay homage to him these days. However during his presidency he was a controversial figure. Both his domestic and international policies could stir strong emotions. They were bold.

Congress passed very large reductions in income tax rates in Ronald Reagan’s name. This puts him in the company of other tax cutting presidents of the 20th century such as Calvin Coolidge and John F Kennedy.

Below is a speech made by Reagan in 1964. It is a long piece but well worth watching. Even if you merely watch the first few minutes of the speech it will give you a sense of his passion, conviction and clarity.

11 thoughts on “Happy 100th Ronald

  1. I thought of using that clip, but at the best part of half an hour I felt that few would see it right through. As you say, it is well worth doing so.

    Having been raised during the Cold War,I kind of grew used to, but resented the reality that some day I would watch the mushroom clouds roll by, and know that this time it was for real.Ronnie put an end to that.

    For a truly touching indication of the humanity of the man himself you can do no better than to read the post on the personal recollection of Dr. Sanity.

  2. Most of that is bullshit Jarrah. “I want a world free of nuclear weapons”…all that indicates is that he was a sane human being.

    A lot of guff has been written about Reagan being anti gay and anti pro choice. Mostly bollocks.

    Tell me what you think Reagan should have done about the actions of the Fed?

    If you have continued your studies, you would know the only thing that could have been done was to cut spending and taxes to counteract such a significant hike in the cash rate.

    You have studied the IS/LM interactions with the AS/AD model yes?

    Clearly he should have cut tax rates more and cut spending much more aggressively.

    Iran Contra was simply woeful.

    That said, I don’t know any US politician has laid out such an clear, appealing or rational basis for their policies (and true liberalism) – ever.

  3. Rothbard was a congenital f#$@wit:

    “His failed attempt – lauded by Reaganites ever since – to murder Colonel Khadafy by an air strike – and succeeding instead in slaying his baby daughter, after which our media sneered at Khadafy for looking haggard, and commented that the baby was “only adopted.””

    Reagan did the right thing. Gaddafi should be strung up from a lamppost. Having a family and putting them in harm’s way merely compounded Gadaffi’s moral turpitude.

    Why was Rothbard so pro terrorist?

    We cannot have pro terrorist and pro murder advocates in out movement.

  4. “I would agree dot, though I would have a different idea of who the real terrorists and murderers are.”

    Are you seriously saying light of the Lockerbie bombing and retaliation against Gadaffi, that Reagan was the terrorist and Gadaffi was the victim?

  5. Possibly not in this particular instance, I don’t know the specifics. I mean in the broader sense.

    You seem to naively assume, correct me if I’m wrong, that interventionist governments do what they do because they care about the suffering and oppression of people. Why wouldn’t the government be using interventionism as a way to expand their rule and power? If the US is very un-libertarian domestically, what makes you think that they will be more libertarian when it comes to foreigners who have even less clout than the American people?

    If it is in the US government’s interest to kill a tyrant, they will, but many more times, the US installs and props up murderous dictators. US interventionism is thusly responsible for countless crimes and oppressions and the deaths of millions of people due to their sanctioning of bloody and tyrannical dictators. Surely you do not support this?

    Furthermore, stealing from people to prevent other crimes is self-defeating, and is a form of government welfare. Is this a better form of welfare than other forms of welfare?

    It would seem that to support foreign intervention as a libertarian, one must make some very significant distinctions between what is good intervention and what can only be criminal. As it comes off, you seem to support foreign interventionism in all its sense. Please tell me I am wrong.

  6. A rotten apple is still rotten when it is the best of a rotten box of apples. In real terms, the US is very far from libertarianism and I would expect foreign intervention to be even further afar.

Comments are closed.