Our Last Respects

A sample of Reason's Reagan coverage over the years is available on the home page.

Comments

[plunge]

Everytime I am forced to pee in a cup by my employer, I'll think fondly of him.

[chthus]

Perhaps you can organize a worker's revolt and rise up against your employer for oppressing you so. Or just look for another job.

[TWC]

In a free society an employer would have the right to ask for a piss test as a condition of employment. And you, Plunge, would have the right to find other, more suitable employment if you didn't want to piss in the cup.

Of course, a lot of people who post on this blog have little regard for an actual free society, it would seem that would include you.

[matt]

Judging by the amount of Reagan worshipping going on around here you're right TWC, a lot of people do have little regard for a free society.

I'm not gonna bash the guy right now, but I'm not gonna go nuts praising him either.

[Les]

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."

Sure, he did. What a silly thing to say.

[Les]

But I hasten to add, it was the silly things that made him so cute.

I certainly take no joy in his passing, though I wouldn't wish his type of Alheimer's on anyone and I hope he wasn't suffering. I don't respect him anymore or less than I do your average human being, who usually is deeply flawed with good intentions.

[Gary Gunnels]

TWC,

That sounds strange coming from an objectivist; they tend to reject utilitarian and situational notions of morality and the like after all. Indeed, their emphasis on one-standard of moral, etc. behavior would eschew such a notion I think.

[Jim Walsh]

"...counseled against giving up our civil liberties..."

Two words: Ed Meese...

[Les]

John,

In 1984, Nicaragua held elections in which 90% of the populace voted and that were described by over 100 international observers as "free and fair." I'm no fan of the Sandinistas, but they were elected in free and fair elections. In order to overthrow this democratically elected government, we funded terrorists who tortured and killed innocent men, women, and children.

In order to support unelected dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador, we funded death squads that routinely tortured and killed innocent men, women, and children.

If you think it was necessary to do these things to defeat communism in Central America or anywhere else (a worthy goal, I should note), then I can only conclude you have a low opinion of our problem-solving abilities.

[M. Simon]

You would think you could find at least one respectful picture to post on your front page.

The man is not even buried.

When he was Governor of CA I didn't like him.

As a President I thought he did a pretty good job.

Either way I would have chosen at least one image that made him look good. The monkey boy picture was most widely used by people who didn't like him. Fine.

At least wait until he was buried.

You guys got no class.

[Mark Bahner]

"The fact that most libertarians don?t understand that and are still whining about his methods in some cases points to how libertarianism is a fundamentally immature ideology that most people leave behind with age."

1) We have to understand that it's alright to have a president selling arms to Iran, and taking the money to give to rebels in Nicaragua?

2) We have to understand that it's OK to massively violate the Constitution by having a federal War on Some Drugs?

3) We have to understand that it's OK to be elected having (correctly) identified the Department of Education to be unconstitutional, but then not to make any attempt to dismantle it?

In short, we have to accept a president who massively violates his oath of office, because actually following his oath of office might not let him do what he wants, or might be inconvenient for him?

Well, I guess I must have grown immature with age. I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. But I voted Libertarian in 1984. And I'm definitely voting for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2004. As Mr. Badnarik says,

"The Constitution: It's not just a good idea, it's *The Law.*"

[Les]

His legacy was complex. I just think the good things he did must be weighed against the bad things in order to get more than an idealized image of the man and what he accomplished. While I know that he inspired people and had great qualities, I also know about his policies in Central America, including the active and enthusiastic support of terrorists and death squads. I don't think he was an evil man and I think he did try to do what was right; he wasn't a typical politician by any means and he should be saluted for that. But if we let his Central America policies become a footnote, then we do history and the families of the tortured and murdered innocents there, a disservice.

[Rick Barton]

At Reagan's behest; congress cut tax rates and federal regulations, (the Federal Registry, the list of all Fed. regulations actually shrunk under Reagan's watch!) and slowed the rate of growth of total federal spending. During the Reagan years, discretionary spending fell two or three percent!

These actions produced an unprecedented economic boom. (see: Seven Fat Years: And How to Do It Again by Robert L. Bartley) Remember at the end of the Carter regime, things were very bad, and the American people had been told that they needed to lower their expectations.

But, Reagan's vision of how dynamic capitalism can be if we can make progress at getting the government out of the way came to fruition.

Reagan confronted the monstrosity of Soviet communism and its missiles aimed at America. He insisted on the moral superiority of capitalism and warned against giving up any of our civil liberties in this fight.

Reagan conspired with the Pope to jettison Soviet control of Poland and the rest of the occupied nations. (for a fascinating account of the story of his forty year struggle and final triumph over communism, including his reasons for stressing why we should not compromise our own liberty see: Reagan's War by Peter Schweizer)

[Les]

Gary, good parting shot. The rest of your shots were illuminating as well. Thanks.

[Mark Bahner]

Gary Gunnels wrote, "Hmm, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, etc. all do not compare all that favorably to Cuba;..."

Can anyone who wants LEAVE Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, etc.? My understanding is that people who want to can't leave Cuba. Am I wrong? (And if I AM wrong, why in the world are any Cuban baseball players who have a shot at the U.S. Major Leagues still in Cuba?)

Is the freedom to leave not a very important difference?

[M. Simon]

Les,

The problem with communist regimes of that era was "one man, one vote, one time".

We supported men who wanted to fight the communists. This was not a bad thing considering what communists were doing to the people they controlled in other places.

The military pressure finally forced another election in which the Sandanistas lost. Not a bad outcome.

Sometimes the only way to face violent men is with violence. It is why we have police.

Was every thing done in the best possible way? Of course not. Nothing in human affairs ever is. People get killed without reason. The ideal of course is to get that number to zero. It never will be. That would demand better than one part in 10E9 reliability. Never true of any human much less humans in violent political struggles. We are doing good if fewer than 10% of our decisions are bad ones.

So we ought to be smarter than that? Fine.

What is your answer to the people currently bringing their religion at the point of a sword? Surely you are smart enough to come up with an answer that say 60% of Americans would agree with.

What is it?

And if you are not smart enough who is?

So far Bush comes close. About 50%+ support his war policy.

You say you want a revolution? Well, we'd all like to see the plan.

[Mark Bahner]

"We supported men who wanted to fight the communists."

Who is this, "we?" The Congress of the United States passed a law that fairly clearly *prohibited* U.S. taxpayer money going to people "fighting the communists" in Nicaragua.

A small group of criminals (and Ronald Reagan apparently knew what they were doing, meaning that he was also a criminal) ignored that law and *secretly* funded people "fighting the communists." (Using money from *secret* sales of arms to a government that definitely should not have been considered a friend of ours!)

Please don't include me in your "we." I don't support U.S. government employees breaking The Law. And especially not the President of the United States.

[M. Simon]

Mark,

The people in America get the government they want. It is why the Dems are so much like the Republicans. Because that is where the votes are.

American do not care much about the Constitutional violations you mention. Sad. But true.

Your first job is to change the attitude of the American people. Then you will get the government you want.

Voting Libertarian is probably one of the least useful things you could do in that respect. No one will notice. Especially if true to form he gets the usual .25%. Given the fact that the party has declined by about 40% due to its attitude on the war I'd say your likely vote total will be well below the spoiled ballot range. About .15% This will impress who?

People like a strong horse.

The Libs keep getting weaker.

If the party had a program to attract disaffected pro-war Democrats it could be at least 4X its current size. However since the Libs are anti-war the pro War Dems are going to the Republicans.

The anti-war Dems have the Dems, the Libs, and the Greens to choose from. Who do you think they will vote for? Especially given the Green's anti-drug war stance.

It would be really nice if the Libs understood political practice and had some idea of how to change the party from losers to winners.

The problem is not candidates, platforms, the farm team or any other thing the libs continually complain about.

The problem for the libs is that they do not understand the alpha male problem. Or marketing.

[M. Simon]

Mark,

Hate to burst your bubble but all that was hashed out in the Iran/Contra hearings and Ollie North came out a hero.

Evidently the "we" (not you) approved. Personally I thought Ollie was despicable. None the less the American people do not share my judgement.

Please do not let your vision of utopia be disturbed by reality. It would be unLibertarian.

People get the government they deserve. Always. Everywhere.

When you contact that reality you will know what to do.

BTW purity is not an option. Absolute faithfullness to the law is not an option. It is one of the reasons we have trials. Sometimes breaking the law is justified.

If you go by the Iran/Contra hearing results the American jury was not too dissatisfied with what the government did.

I do understand that Libertarianism is a religion. Was a long time member of the congregation. Held a position of trust in my local group.

Reality hardly interferes with belief. This is good - for a religion. It may not be so useful in politics.

[Eric II]

Gary, are you an alter ego for Jean Bart? The style and rhetoric are eerily similar.

Regardless as to whether you're one or two people, you're making a common error when you treat the right-wing dictatorship as a homogenous entity. Comparing Chile with Bolivia is as inane as comparing the US with Costa Rica. Chile's dictatorship had a basic, if flawed, respect for capitalism and the development of the middle class, and Bolivia's didn't.

The result is that Chile today is one of the most prosperous and stable democracies in Latin America, and Bolivia is a third-world populist democracy in which the masses constantly vote to screw themselves over. Just like India. Most recently, the Bolivian masses held major protests to prevent the export of natural gas from their country. That the people of Chile were willing to elect a Marxist like Allende suggests that they weren't much different 30 years ago.

Also, while it may be conjecture to posit that Allende would've created a Castro-like dictatorship, claiming that he would've been removed by a democratic process is equally so. We simply don't know, and there's plenty of evidence to fuel both arguments. And while Eastern Europe didn't fall through violence, it sure as hell didn't fall through a democratic process either. If Allende was to create a Communist dictatorship, how long would've we had to wait for Chile to fall in a similar manner, and how poor would the country be today as a result?

[Mark Bahner]

"The people in America get the government they want."

I don't know about you, but I'm not getting the government I want. 🙁

"American do not care much about the Constitutional violations you mention. Sad. But true."

They need to be educated. I've never heard Michael Badnarik speak/debate, but I hope he's good. And I hope he'll make it into at least one 2004 Presidential debate. (And if he doesn't, I hope he'll engage in civil disobedience outside the debate locales, as I understand Aaron Russo promised to do. I think the sight of a Presidential candidate being taken away in handcuffs would do wonders for jogging the thought processes of the electorate!)

"Your first job is to change the attitude of the American people."

Why do you think I'm posting here? (Hint: I would be absolutely ecstatic if I knew that every single reader of Reason voted Libertarian in 2004. And I would be quite happy if merely more people who voted Republican--or Democrat or Green--in 2000 voted Liberatarian in 2004.)

"Then you will get the government you want."

I have already reconciled myself to the fact that I will never get the government I want in my lifetime. I want a federal government that follows the Constitution. I will be reasonably content with a federal government that makes more-or-less continuous progress towards that goal. (Since 90%+ of what the federal government does violates the Constitution, there's plenty of room for improvement.)

"People like a strong horse."

"People" are uninformed or misinformed if they think that elections are horse races. Elections are polls. While at the polls, people should indicate what they ***want.*** They should not engage in some sort of bizarre attempt to indicate what they *don't* want. (The polls don't allow that.)

"The anti-war Dems have the Dems, the Libs, and the Greens to choose from. Who do you think they will vote for? Especially given the Green's anti-drug war stance."

I want them to vote Libertarian. If they don't vote Libertarian, I neither know nor care who they'll vote for.

"It would be really nice if the Libs understood political practice and had some idea of how to change the party from losers to winners."

No, it would be really nice if misinformed/uninformed people like you understood that "winning" can consist of ALL politicians taking one's positions. One's own "horse" (oy vey!) need not win.

"The problem for the libs is that..."

The problem for Libertarian candidates is that every person who claims to be a "libertarian" doesn't vote Libertarian (or for Ron Paul, which is close enough for engineers like me to being the same thing).

The Libertarian Party: no true libertarian should accept anything else (except Ron Paul).

[Jean Gunnels]

Eric II,

To be blunt, your pathetic attempt to point out that I'm both Jean Bart and Gary Gunnels is historically inaccurate and insulting. Until you provide any evidence for your bigoted statement, I will assume that you are nothing more than a troll.

I enjoyed watching myself skewer you. *chuckle*

[Mark Bahner]

"Hate to burst your bubble but all that was hashed out in the Iran/Contra hearings and Ollie North came out a hero."

Not to me. Not to Berke Breathed (Bloom County comic strip writer). You can't fool all the people all the time.

"Personally I thought Ollie was despicable."

There you go. That's at least 3 of us.

"None the less the American people do not share my judgement."

I'M an American! I assume you're an American. Berke Breathed is an American (as far as I know...with his sense of humor, I can't imagine what other country he could be from).

"People get the government they deserve. Always. Everywhere."

Interesting. So the people of Iraq (especially Kurds and Shia) deserved Saddam Hussein? And the people in North Korea deserve Kim Jong Il? What sin(s) do you think those people have committed, such that they deserve such men?

"Absolute faithfullness to the law is not an option."

It's in the ***oath of office*** for every President (and member of Congress and judge of the Supreme Court). If absolute faithfullness to their oaths is not an option, why have them say oaths at all?

"Sometimes breaking the law is justified."

No, there is NEVER an excuse for a President, member of Congress, or Supreme Court judge to violate their oath of office. If they aren't going to follow their oaths of office, they should not take the oaths in the first place. And if they DO violate their oaths, they have absolutely no excuse not to resign immediately.

"I do understand that Libertarianism is a religion."

No it isn't. I don't "believe" in anything. I merely THINK very strongly that citizens should zealously guard their liberty by *demanding* that their elected officials follow The Law.

[Eric II]

JeanGaryWhatever,

I didn't state that you were the same person. I asked whether you were. Enormous difference.

But like your Jean Bart, you demonstrated the reading comprehension skills of a dyslexic 9-year-old, and used your ignorance as an excuse for building a magnificent strawman. One more similarity.

[J]

Eric II,

I imagine someone was having a little fun at Gary Gunnel's expense. They packed about half a dozen of his more common phrases into four lines, combined the names, and as insulting as he often is, Jean Gunnel's post was a bit much even for him.
Others have asked Gary if he's the same person as Jean Bart; I don't know if he's answered. I think a lot of people here just assume that they are the same, due to the many similarities in vocabulary and temperament that led you to ask in the first place.

[Idiot libertarain]

He wasn't 100% libertarian, so fuck him. I am glad he is dead. Anyone who disagrees is a Freeper and a hypocrite since I know for a fact they wished clinton dead. If you say otherwise, you are just a neocon liar (like Bush).

[Gadfly]

Watch Venezuela if you want to test GG's argument. So far, Chavez has totally pissed off the oil barons by relying on the Democratic process, the constitution and the judiciary to advance the interests of the less-than-affluent. He has NOT turned to military oppression. Venezuela is sitting on a bunch of oil, though, so the US will soon intervene as it has in the past.

Gary Gunnells, I will hold your coat.

[The TRUTH]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/5/171258/8003

http://www.epenthesis.org/archives/003383.php

[Iguana]

Regardless of the problems of Central America, no just person is bound by the election of an oppresive regime whether done democratically or not.

In short, just as the electorate doesn't have a right to vote to execute me and take my property the electorate has no right to enslave anyone..........

To be a bit more clear, I don't care that the Sandinistas were elected fair and square. Same as I don't care that the drug laws were enacted fair and square. Same as I don't care that the Brady Act was enacted fair and square. Same as...

Well, you might get the picture.

[Mark Bahner]

Iguana writes, "To be a bit more clear, I don't care that the Sandinistas were elected fair and square."

Well, if you're a citizen of the U.S. (aren't all good Iguanas? :-)) you ought to care when a President has members of government get involved in a civil war in another country...especially when the Congress has passed a law expressly attempting to prevent that action.

[Iguana]

Mark,

I very well might care about a president involving a country in a foreign civil war in direct opposition to what the congress might desire.

However, I reiterate that the Sandinistas were thugs and deserving of no such consideration.

Those who base their entire argument on the fact that these boys were freely elected need to realize that it is about as relevant to the question of intervention as whether Clinton wore boxers or briefs.

That was my point.

Since I tend toward isolationism......

[Mark Bahner]

"I very well might care about a president involving a country in a foreign civil war in direct opposition to what the congress might desire."

I don't much care about *a* president involving *a* country in a foreign civil war. But I do care about a *U.S.* president involving the *U.S.* in a foreign civil war.

"Those who base their entire argument on the fact that these boys were freely elected need to realize that it is about as relevant to the question of intervention as whether..."

...as whether the Sandinistas were thugs or outstanding gentlemen.

The *only* relevant question for the U.S. government is whether *Congress* decides they are sufficiently dangerous to the United States to warrant a declaration of war.

[John Kluge]

First, history has proven Reagan absolutely right about Central America. The Sadinistas were vicious Stalinist killers who never represented the majority of Nicaraguans and were thrown out the first time they were subject to free elections. I will never forget that leftist totalitarian lover Jimmy Carter practically crying over their defeat while acting as the UN observer of the elections. As far as his support for the right wing governments of Central America, sometimes you have to face the hard choices when confronting violent thugs who use democratic freedoms to undercut you. Yes, those governments were brutal, but the alternative was allowing the communists to take over turning all of Latin America into a giant Cuba. Pinochet was brutal but only a truly deluded leftist would argue that Chile is not better off today than Cuba or what the prison state that it would have become had the communists taken over. You have to be realistic when confronting murders that have no regard for anything above their own power. Reagan was realistic when confronting communism and did as much for freedom as any person in the 20th Century. The fact that most libertarians don?t understand that and are still whining about his methods in some cases points to how libertarianism is a fundamentally immature ideology that most people leave behind with age. It?s a nice idea to think of a perfect government that doesn?t interfere with your liberties until you realize that there are people out there like Communists, Fascists, and now Islamists who are going to use that freedom to take over your society. Unfortunately, libertarians are generally the useful idiots who prevent the rest of us from defending ourselves in the name of liberty and principle, which explains why Libertarians were never friends of people like Reagan and Thatcher and Pope John Paul II who did the actual heavy lifting of freeing nearly half the world from communism.

[Les]

"In short, just as the electorate doesn't have a right to vote to execute me and take my property the electorate has no right to enslave anyone.........."

That's an excellent point. There are many valid arguments for opposing the Sandinistas and even attempting to destroy them. I don't think it was necessary (seeing as how when they were voted out, they stepped down like any law-abiding government would), but I respect arguments to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the problem goes beyond whether or not to overthrow a democratically elected government that poses no threat to us (seeing as how when they were voted out, they stepped down like any law-abiding government would).

In order to achieve the goal of defeating the Sandinistas, of defeating communism in Central America, we hired thugs and murderers of the worst kind. We rewarded them with more payments and supplies and after they'd killed innocent men, women, and children.

To have a good and just goal is one thing. But to be unable to achieve that goal without employing rapists, torturers, and murderers is, in my mind, absolutely and inarguably unacceptable (and, to be quite frank, pathetically incompetent).

"To be a bit more clear, I don't care that the Sandinistas were elected fair and square. Same as I don't care that the drug laws were enacted fair and square. Same as I don't care that the Brady Act was enacted fair and square. Same as..."

So, in order to oppose the inarguable injustice of the drug war, would you find it acceptable to engage in torture and murder and terrorism?

Now, I don't believe in moral absolutes. I know there are times when one must lie, steal, and even murder. Everything is a situation and some situations call for certain actions so as to attain the most positive and moral result. But, personally, I can't think of a goal or really any set of circumstances that would require me to hire and work with rapists and murderers and reward them for their atrocities.

I believe that the Cold War, any war really, is winnable without deliberately killing civilians. I believe in America so much, in its history and its potential, that I think we could win any just about any war without dishonesty or willful negligence, with a profound respect for ALL innocent people. And I don't think that's a radical notion. Actually, it's utterly pro-American.

[Gary Gunnels]

John Kluge,

"The Sadinistas were vicious Stalinist killers who never represented the majority of Nicaraguans and were thrown out the first time they were subject to free elections."

Given that they remain a significant force in the political life of that country, and they have yet to try to forcibly overthrow that country, your argument doesn't measure up; that they did not represent a majority of the country is hardly a knock against them, since no party in Nicaragua does and hasn't since the murderous regime of Somoza was toppled in 1979.

"As far as his support for the right wing governments of Central America, sometimes you have to face the hard choices when confronting violent thugs who use democratic freedoms to undercut you."

In other words, the vicious right-wing killers are alright; and a really hard and decent choice would have been to of course accept neither type of despotism.

"Yes, those governments were brutal, but the alternative was allowing the communists to take over turning all of Latin America into a giant Cuba."

It ought to be noted that most Central America countries remain the poverty-striken shitholes they were before Reagan came into office; that the right-wing governments did not bring improvements to the lives of their people in other words.

"Pinochet was brutal but only a truly deluded leftist would argue that Chile is not better off today than Cuba or what the prison state that it would have become had the communists taken over."

Well, the question is, is Chile better off because of Pinochet? Indeed, it could be argued that the natural democratic processes that would have ousted Allende would have been a better path than a brutal coup; furthermore, it would have saved Chile from the cronyism that so harmed the Chilean economy over Pinochet's reign.

"You have to be realistic when confronting murders that have no regard for anything above their own power."

This of course includes murderers who happen to be of right-wing sensibilities.

"The fact that most libertarians don?t understand that and are still whining about his methods in some cases points to how libertarianism is a fundamentally immature ideology that most people leave behind with age."

Your main argument is an insult?

"It?s a nice idea to think of a perfect government that doesn?t interfere with your liberties until you realize that there are people out there like Communists, Fascists, and now Islamists who are going to use that freedom to take over your society."

In other words, freedom is great, but people can't be trusted with it. To be blunt, your notions are completely contrary to Reagan's thoughts - for an example of such see his comments during the Congressional hearings on communism and Hollywood. Indeed, what you've just written is an insult to the man.

"Unfortunately, libertarians are generally the useful idiots who prevent the rest of us from defending ourselves in the name of liberty and principle, which explains why Libertarians were never friends of people like Reagan and Thatcher and Pope John Paul II who did the actual heavy lifting of freeing nearly half the world from communism."

Given the number of libertarians here who have very high notions of all three, this statement strikes me as untruthful and trollish.

[John Kluge]

Chile is absolutely better off because of Pinochet. Had he not stopped the communists, it would have been Havana south. The only way to stop the communists was through violence. If you think that Allende and his communists would have quietly submitted to the democratic process and gone quietly, I have a bridge to sell you.

The communists were there to take power violently, nothing short of violence would have stopped them. To aruge that Chile is not better off without Pinichet is same as arueing that Germany would not have been better off if France had invaded when Hitler remilitarized the Rheinland. Yes, it would have been a harsh and brutal measure and probably illegal, but we saw the results of the alternative. Some people cannot be reasoned with.

Yes, the rest of Latin America is not rich, but there is not one country, other than perhaps Hati, that is not better off that Cuba. Any alternative was better than communism and the right wing governments were the only feasible alternative.

Reading the comments on this blog, I see very few postings that have much positive to say about Reagan.

[Rick Barton]

Reagan had ideas and ideals of less government and more freedom for America, and he also saw the Soviet Union for the evil empire that it was, but counseled against giving up our civil liberties in the struggle to overcome it. At the behest of his leadership, many of Reagan's ideas came to fruition, and the people of America and much of the rest of the world are hugely better for it. (I'll list specifics in a subsequent post.)

That Reagan was indeed an "idea guy" is for sure. One time John Hospers, the first LP candidate for president and USC philosophy prof. was on a radio talk show in Cal. and a call came in from the governors mansion; it was Reagan jumping into the conversation.

In 1976 when he was trying to wrest the GOP nomination from Ford he came to Colorado to give a speech in Ft. Collins. I drove up from Denver to hear him and after the speech when he and Nancy got to me in the receiving line, they found a wide eyed kid who was jazzed that he cited The Road to Serfdom by Hayek in his talk. He told me he also really liked Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. This, of course, put me in orbit.

I then mentioned that I enjoyed the points he made in an interview with Reason ( July 1975.) http://reason.com/7507/int_reagan.shtml (it was in this interview where he made the, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" quote.) I remember he then said, I swear, "Well, I'll have to look at that again". (remember when the "Well" was the stock in trade of a Reagan imitation?) As I shook their hands in an enthusiastic "fare well", Nancy assured me that; "Ronnie loves that little magazine".

The best way I can think of to thank President Reagan is to say that; I would never want to risk rerunning history with out him. Beyond that, I can find no words that adequately express my gratitude to him.

[TWC]

An objectivist friend of mine in Texas is fond of noting that "context is everything".

When judging Reagan in the context of American governors and American presidents holding office during the last half of the twentieth century he looks pretty good.

But even when judged by hard core libertarian standards he is still better than any president we have been saddled with in my lifetime.

Perhaps after the next libertarian president is elected we may have a somewhat better basis for comparison and Ronnie may even come up a bit short. In the meantime, however, he is running way ahead of whoever is in second place.

[Les]

Stephen,

I've only argued against the wisdom and morality of overthrowing democratically and legally elected governments. That and the obvious problems of working with terrorists in order to win wars. I think Africa's problems are a lot more complex than their electoral systems. But I admit to a great deal of ignorance in that area.

[John]

I suppose it would have been possible to win the cold war by sitting around praying that the communists were going to come to their senses. Not likely but possible. I am not defending the killing of civilians. No doubt if I could waive a magic wand and put in perfect governments in Latin America I would do so. I am not, however, aware of any such wand. While those governments were not perfect, they were the only ones available. The fact still remains that if Reagan had followed the advice of the people posting on this page, Latin America would be a communist prison right now. It was a tough choice and by necessity imperfect, but that is the nature of the world. Libertarians never understand that. Its easy to Monday morning quarterback and say that we never should back anyone who would kill civilians, but what about when the failure to do so results in the deaths and enslavement of even more civilians? That is a tough choice. The world is better of for Reagan having done what he did in Latin America. If he hadn't, it would be communist. The rest of you can live in Libertarian la la land and choose to believe that there were all of these wonderful alternatives to the choices that were made. You can believe this the same way that you believe that we can deal with the problem of drugs destroying innocent people's lives by just legalizing everything and pretending that drugs and every other social problems aren't really problems the government can deal with at any level. The rest of us have to live in the real world and make the best choices of the often bad choices available.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Les,

I appreciate your dedication to the libertarian ideal - of the inalienable right of one man, to cast one vote, one time. The entire continent of Africa is a stellar testament to the efficacy of this philosophy.

[dead_elvis]

In my opinion, our proxy war in Central America was not right. I think despite the nobility of the ends, the means were not morally right. Others disagree, but I find it hard not to be critical of US interference not just in the hot spots like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, but also countries like Costa Rica and Honduras. I think it could be argued that encouraging mild reforms earlier, in the 50s, might have eased the pressures that made the populations there look to communism as a possible solution. Hard to say.
However, back on topic...
I like very much the interview from '75. Comparing and contrasting his thoughts there to what he actually did as President makes for a more interesting reflection than most retrospectives.

[Les]

"I suppose it would have been possible to win the cold war by sitting around praying that the communists were going to come to their senses."

It's ironic that a person who talks about living in the "real world" would build such a flimsy strawman. I have never argued against fighting the communists. I have been arguing against employing terrorists and terrorist techniques in order to fight it. Let's imagine the burned and dismembered corpse of a child. Don't tell me the "real world" requires it to win a war. It's a weak and cowardly philosophy.