Reagan as Skim Milk, Cream in America's Coffee
Politech's Declan McCullagh points to this mondo negatory 1987 summation of Reagan's legacy by Murray Rothbard, which has been posted by MR's posse over at The Mises Institute. Rothbard, in his own words, comes to "bury Reaganomics, not to praise it." He does a pretty good job, though anybody who closes with a Gilbert and Sullivan line (rather than a Gilbert O'Sullivan line) is suspect:
This, along with the universal misperception of Reaganomics, illustrates once more the wisdom of those incisive political philosophers, Gilbert and Sullivan: "Things are not always what they seem; skim milk masquerades as cream."
Whole thing here. (As a side note, I much prefer the way the late, lamented band The Godfathers rewrote that G&S line in their great song, "If I Only Had Time": "Things ain't what they used to be/Cary Grant's on L.S.D.")
Former Reason editor Virginia Postrel has written an insightful obit for Reagan, one that focuses less on economics and more on the role RWR played in shaking off those lazy, hazy, malaise-y days of the '70s. She also helps to explain how Reagan--a Republican, fer chrissakes, and an ancient, old man, to boot!--attracted young people.
Whatever impressions nostalgic TV shows may leave with those too young to remember the real decade, the late 1960s and 1970s were a scary time to grow up. The world just kept getting worse and worse, and nobody seemed to know why….
The policies Nixon and Ford tried didn't work, and Carter told us that was just the way the world was. We should get over our selfishness, our materialism, and make do with less. The problems of the world were our fault, a sign of our fallen nature, as individuals and a nation. Oh yes, and while we were addressing our crisis of meaning, we needed oil import quotas and a SynFuels Corporation.
No wonder Reagan attracted the young….
The president took a bullet and lived and told jokes on the way to the hospital.
In some ways, surviving that assassination attempt in good health was the most important thing Reagan did. It robbed history of its inevitable tragic ending. (Remember, too, that the pope similarly survived a bullet, and Margaret Thatcher made it through an IRA bombing.) Reagan became living proof that things do not have to end badly.
Many of his conservative allies, taught by the terrors of the 20th century, firmly believed that history is a tragedy, that the best we can do is to fight a long, twilight struggle. They believed that evil is as strong as, perhaps stronger, than good, and that tyranny is more powerful than freedom. At the time, I believed them too.
Reagan believed in the triumph of good and the strength of freedom. He acted on those convictions, and he was right.
Whole thing here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe it's just me, but I think the most humorous thing to come from Reagan's passing is the confusion among the Libertarian world. Do we praise him? Do we criticize him? Agh, HELP!
Methinks The Balko has the best line: "I'm of the "Reagan talked the talk but rarely walked the walk" line of thought when it comes to limited government."
Along Postrel's lines, The American Prospect has an article describing Republican ideas as a Hollywood movie, with good guys vs. bad guys, happy endings, and simple plots, while Democratic ideas are a novel, with complex characters, ambiguity, and lots of twists and turns. The author recommends that Democrats act more Hollywood-y.
Personally, I think liberals are stuck with our ambiguity, doubt, and shades of grey. Maybe the best we can do is film noir.
Did I just use a French word?
joe:
Surely you aren't making the novel assertion that R's are stupid and simplistic, while tortured genious D's are doomed by their incredible sophistication. I don't know that I buy Chuck Schumer as Dostoyevski.
The terrible complexity of taking from people who don't vote for you to pay people who will must truly be a burden.
"The American Prospect has an article describing Republican ideas as a Hollywood movie, with good guys vs. bad guys, happy endings, and simple plots, while Democratic ideas are a novel, with complex characters, ambiguity, and lots of twists and turns."
But this is an absurd simplification by a presumed Democrat. I'm all confused now.
Maybe Ford could croak so we could talk about his administration. 🙂
Any truth to the story that a likeness of Reagan is going to be carved out of the Redwood Forest so that it can be seen from Earth orbit?
JL,
No, I'm not making that assertion. That would be one particularly ungenerous way to describe the dynamic. I myself do it for fun on occasion, but in all serious, I don't think that's what's going on. The posters at National Review's blog are 100% on board for the black and white, anti-ambiguity, anti-self doubt cruise, and each and every one of them is at least half again too smart for their own good. Except maybe Goldberg, and he's probably just playing dumb.
As for your second snark, the author of the TAP article specifically held up the New Deal era, in which redistributive policies were the central plank of the Democratic system, as an example of when the Democrats got the Hollywood thing right.
Reagan did a lot more for freedom, both within the U.S. and outside, than you guys are giving him credit for.
Early in his presidency he fired the air traffic controllers. This one act was very important to free markets and liberty. In Europe, Unions held tremendous amounts of power, with the willing hand of government giving them the power of a state (closed shops, ignoring of union violence, etc). The result was an increasingly regulated and stifling business environment. Reagan put an early kibosh on that in the U.S.
Reducing the marginal rate from 70% to 28% should not be underestimated. The psychological signal that 70% tax rates send is that successful people need to have 'excess' income confiscated. Flatter tax rates send a message of egalitarianism.
Then there was his work in toppling the Soviet Union, and his constant rhetoric against the dangers of big government. Even if he didn't act on that message as forcefully as he would have liked (hard to blame him for that failure with a Democratically controlled Congress), the message still permeated public life. Clinton could never have said, "The era of big government is over" without a Ronald Reagan leading the way.
So while he didn't accomplish much in the way of rolling back big government, he left behind a political landscape more accepting of those ideas.
And of course, hundreds of millions of people live in freedom today because of him. He may not have rolled back government much in the U.S., but he sure as hell had a hand in rolling it back elsewhere.
Dan H.,
"In Europe, Unions held tremendous amounts of power..."
It probably should be noted that Unions haven't been all that powerful in most European states over the past two decades, and that the air controllers strike didn't break Unions in America either (which is what you seem to imply) - they were retrenching when Reagan acted and had been for quite some time.
"...Democratically controlled Congress..."
The Senate was Republican from 1981-1987; and of course one of the reasons why the House was so overwhelmingly Democratic was due to the crap economic performance the U.S. underwent in the early 1980s - ergo the 1982 election disaster.
"Clinton could never have said, 'The era of big government is over' without a Ronald Reagan leading the way."
And it has now forthwith returned with Bush II.
"And of course, hundreds of millions of people live in freedom today because of him."
I give credit largely to the folks who brought freedom to themselves; casting Reagan in this light is almost Soviet in nature.
The posters at National Review's blog are 100% on board for the black and white, anti-ambiguity, anti-self doubt cruise, and each and every one of them is at least half again too smart for their own good.
The posters at National Review's blog are split on drug legalization, the Abu Ghraib abuses, the legality and morality of homosexual activity, amnesty for illegal immigrants, whether Bush is doing a good job in Iraq, the proper role of federalism in the American legal system, and numerous other topics. In other words, you're wrong.
Basically, "The Corner" is the right-wing "Tapped". Both blogs have some variation in opinion, but you'd be a fool to expect anything like balance, reasoned argument, or political moderation from either one.
Anyway, the notion that Democrats are nuanced and Republicans aren't is, of course, silly. Democratic politics consists of exactly one idea: favored treatment for people who support them. It looks "nuanced" only inasmuch as it takes an awful lot of spinning, hand-waving and rationalizing to hold together a coalition of people whose only unifying philosophy is "gimme gimme gimme".
BTW, I've been thinking about it, and I can think of at least one area where the Reagan administration created a whole new area of regulation - that is when they applied ? 111 of the Clean Air Act to woodstoves. There's a great article by a guy named Funk that skewers the notion that the CAA was ever meant to apply to domestic appliances like woodstoves (cars and trucks are another matter of course). Anyway, the EPA under Reagan went ahead with the creation of this wholly new regulatory scheme by relying on the "spirit" of the CAA, even though they could have very reasonably argued that the law at the time didn't cover products like woodstoves.
"Early in his presidency he fired the air traffic controllers. This one act was very important to free markets and liberty." He did nothing to allow a free market in air traffic control - he maintained the government's (or rather, that segment controlled by the airline cartel's) monopoly on hiring controllers, but broke the union's monopoly on selling controllers' labor. What was it Dan said about providing favored treatment to one's supporters?
And Dan? In your reading of The Corner and its mother site, have you not noticed that my point about conservatives avoiding nuance and believing strongly in sharp moral distinctions and confident assertion of our superior values is how the NROers describe themselves? How many "Thank God We Didn't Have a President Who Thought Too Hard About Things on 9/11" articles have appeared on that site in the past two years?