REASON: Would you allow anything to go by way of hard core pornography as long as there are willing and consensual buyers?
REAGAN: I didn’t want the picture industry doing it. I just think it’s bad business. But I’m opposed to outside censorship.
REASON: Now that you’re in the minority party, how do you feel about other prospects for minor parties or third party activities?
REAGAN: Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind–the side we’re out to defeat wins. I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph. Lately, we find that of the 26 percent of the people who didn’t vote, more than half of them now say they didn’t vote because they don’t see any difference between the parties. I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.
REASON: Do you have any views as to the effectiveness of the Libertarian Party?
REAGAN: I’d like to see the Libertarian Party–I don’t say they should quit being a party–I’d like to see them, I’d like to see the conservatives, I’d like to see some of these other parties maybe come to this remnant of the Republican Party which is basically conservative in its thinking and, I think, akin to the philosophy I’m talking–I’d like to see them all come in (and this would include a large segment of the Democratic Party in this country, that certainly proved in 1972 that they do not follow the leadership of the Democratic Party any longer) and be able to say to them, OK we’re not saying to you give up what you’re doing, but, can’t we find a common meeting ground in order at least to defeat first of all those who are doing what they’re doing to us (and this present Congress is an example)? I think this is the most irresponsible and most dangerous Congress, in my experience, that this country has ever had. I think we’re seeing it in the crumbling now of our position worldwide, their attitude in Indochina. Maybe many of the young people that you write for, with their hatred of war and disillusionment with what went on, don’t feel this way and any thought of Indochina is going to be a red flag to them; but, for the first time in 200 years, the United States has violated its word, has abandoned an ally that it pledged to help and we’re seeing the result. Mr. Kissinger came home from the Middle East empty handed because even the Israelis said, "What? Give up the passes on the basis of your word that you will help us? We now see evidence that maybe you won’t help us. You can’t guarantee your promise." So the dominos fall. To me this is what’s most important–if we could all make a change in that Congress that now has a two-thirds majority.
I think the Republican Party should take the lead and, as I say, raise that banner and say this is what we stand for. And what we stand for would be fiscal responsibility. I know that you can’t get a balanced budget instantly, but at least an end to deficit spending. Then the goal, established as quickly as possible, of a balanced budget, and begin the retirement of the national debt, or the reduction of it certainly. I think that it should be a government, or a party, that has a position that makes it plain that even though there are social faults that may lead to people turning to crime the individual must be held accountable for his misdeeds. That on the world scene we’re going to do whatever is necessary to insure that we can retain this free system of ours; in other words, we will maintain a defensive posture that is sufficient to deter aggression.
REASON: Are you thinking in terms of a Fortress America approach or a world policeman approach?
REAGAN: No. Fortress America is just what Lenin wanted us to have–whether it is world policeman or not. You know, Lenin said the Communists will take Eastern Europe, they will organize the hordes of Asia, he said they will then move into Latin America, and he said the United States, the last bastion of capitalism, will fall into their outstretched hands like overripe fruit. And that’s all that Fortress America is. Now, you don’t have to come through someone’s beachhead–you just go over them with missiles; and one of these days, under the present policies of the Congress, the United States will stand alone as Lenin envisioned it and then face the ultimatum from the enemy.
REASON: Do you think that the war in Indochina represents any real military threat to the security of the United States?
REAGAN: Not in the sense that the North Vietnamese are going to attack the United States. But if anyone keeps asking why we are involved in Vietnam, they also should ask the question, why is Russia involved in Vietnam. Why is Russia sponsoring the aggression of the North Vietnamese?
REASON: Well, to the extent that you may have wrongdoers or criminals elsewhere in the world, is that a justification for the American government to use conscripts and tax funds to send American boys half-way around the world?
REAGAN: Well, of course, we never should have sent them halfway around the world. You see, the Eisenhower policy had always been one of logistical support–help the South Vietnamese to be able to resist and take care of themselves, maintain themselves as a nation. It was John Kennedy who sent the first division in there. And he had to do it and when he did it he had to know that they were going to be followed by hundreds of thousands of men, that you couldn’t do it with just one division. I’m not privy nor is anyone else privy to the information that a President has when he makes such a decision, but, then came the mistake. Once you are going to commit yourself to a combat role and you’re going to ask young men to fight and die for your country, then you have a moral obligation as a nation to throw the full resources of the nation behind them and to win that war as quickly as possible and get it over with, and this is where we made the mistake: to pour half a million men in there, to kill 54,000 young men in a cause that Washington, that the government was unable or unwilling to win. And don’t tell me that we couldn’t have licked the North Vietnamese–my God! their gross national product is the equivalent of that of Cleveland, Ohio!
REASON: Let me ask you do you believe in conscription?
REAGAN: Only in time of war.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
Pingback| 10.7.09 @ 7:36AM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Pinkerton Redefines Conservatism links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.7.09 @ 4:48PM
My Kids Deserve Better | My Kids Deserve Better links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.10.09 @ 12:54PM
Modlitba s médii, 10.10.2009 « Bolkův blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|10.25.09 @ 11:01PM|#
I like Reagan, but I wonder sometimes how different and how better the world might be had he read Atlas Shrugged. Oh if only!
|11.2.09 @ 7:11PM|#
I have a feeling he did. Google Reagan and "Red Hen" - he had his own mini-fable version of Atlas Shrugged that he told many times.
Pingback| 11.2.09 @ 8:01AM
Big Government » Blog Archive » The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the GOP’s Soul links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 3:41PM
When Falls the Coliseum » To my fellow conservatives and libertarians: A third party links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 12:59AM
Eunomia » An Empty Suit For A Bankrupt Movement links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 10:23PM
Socially Conservative Libertarianism « The musings of an Australian classical liberal links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 11:14PM
Freedom Line Blog » Huckabee to Conservative Movement: “Drop Dead” links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 8:00PM
Libertarianism and Christianity - Page 6 - Cameldog Mixed Martial Arts Forums links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.1.10 @ 10:26AM
So Many Taxes, So Little Time « Another Man's Opinion links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.28.10 @ 1:48AM
Carolina Politics Online » B.J. Lawson Answers Questionnaire links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
mtb shoes|7.7.10 @ 9:19PM|#
This kind of shoes are very especial and beautiful. I recommend it to you. Hope you like it!
outletnike|9.1.10 @ 4:23AM|#
Hope everyone like it!
nfl jerseys|11.26.10 @ 8:33PM|#
xjyhx
|2.6.11 @ 2:51PM|#
Remember kids, all right thinking people in the 1970s thought Reagan was stupid. Just a senile old man and a dumb actor. People said as bad or worse things about Reagan than they say today about Sarah Palin. He was absolutely demonized.
You read that interview and you may not agree with everything. But it is remarkable how smart the guy was and how well thoughtout his views were. And moreover how much higher of a level he spoke at than politicians of today. Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi or McCAin or our alledged Willie Coyote super genius in the Whitehouse giving an interview that plain spoken and well thought out? I can't.
|2.6.11 @ 5:39PM|#
I was just thinking along these precise lines while reading this.
While I'm not a huge Reagan fan, there is simply no comparison between him and Sarah Palin. It's laughable to consider her giving an off-the-cuff interview half this intelligent, knowledgeable, and clear.
Yeah, a formidable individual whatever your opinion of his politics or policies.
DDavis|2.7.11 @ 5:42PM|#
That's what occurred to me too.
Seeing Reagan refer to the views of Lenin was an eye opener. Seeing the references to Von Mises and Hayek and Bastiat were less surprising in terms of content, but a little surprising in terms of intellectualism.
I had always considered Reagan smart, but thought that he had just worked out a decent political philosophy on his own over a period of years.
Dickhead|2.7.11 @ 8:27PM|#
I know all are too lazy to question what doesn't agree with us. But what of the Spanish American War? Did you know a powerful politician overruled an army leader (who wanted to just kill local animals for protein as armies had always done) to direct business to hometown Chicago meat companies? So did the free market cause that problem or large government cronyism? I always ask persons who think the government FDA protects us (actually it protects the producers) why would a private company, that has no leverage but the quality of its product, intentionally harm its customers? In a real free market, a company harming its customers no longer has customers. Instead the FDA promotes shoddy quality.
|10.26.11 @ 11:22AM|#
We have a core problem in United States the Withholding /Compliance / Lobbying System as it effectively runs our country. A repeal of the 16th must happen and the Fair Tax Act is a painless way of doing that.
Glenn