"There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
That was the money quote in Ronald Reagan's farewell address nine days before he left the White House in January 1989. It crystallized his philosophy. I call it Reagan's Law.
This is what Reagan did best: He clarified the clash of ideas. He forced people to take sides. If you agreed with him, you were conservative. If you didn't, you weren't.
Do you buy Reagan's Law? That depends on two related questions. First, do you define liberty as the right to do things, or the ability to take advantage of that right? If liberty is the right to make a decent living or attend a good school, then getting government out of the way will suffice. But if liberty is the ability to make a decent living or attend a good school, then getting government out of the way isn't enough. In fact, government expansion, in the form of student loans or job training, may be necessary.
Second, do you view private institutions—businesses, churches, communities, families—more as guardians of liberty or as threats to it? To the extent these institutions serve the individual, getting government out of the workplace (through deregulation) and out of the community (say, by permitting collective school prayer) serves liberty. But to the extent these institutions threaten the individual, liberty may be better served by government expansion, in the form of workplace regulation or injunctions against school prayer.
Reagan saw freedom as a set of legal rights. In his farewell speech, he recalled the unwelcome trend that had drawn him into politics: "Through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom."
Reagan also saw private institutions as guardians of freedom. "Between the government and the individual, there are a great number of natural, voluntary organizations which people form for themselves--like the family, the church, the neighborhood, and the workplace, where people learn, grow, help, and prosper," he opined in one speech. In another, he argued, "We must remove government's smothering hand ... to reinvigorate those social and economic institutions which serve as a buffer and a bridge between the individual and the state."
In the years since Reagan left office, I've become more hawkish and more libertarian. But I still can't accept his narrow understanding of freedom. For too many Americans, captivity is the inability to pay bills, save money, or go to college. For too many, the local tyrant is a company or religious majority. Government can impose worse captivity or become a greater tyrant, but not with the predictability of a law of physics. Liberty doesn't necessarily contract as government expands. Sometimes, you need more government to get more liberty.
So Reagan was wrong. In clarifying his own views, he clarified mine: I'm not a conservative. If he has done the same for you, this would be a good day to thank him.
Remarks from the Fray:
While I agree with Saletan's political philosophy, he demonstrates confusion about "Reagan's Law" and the purpose it served.
When Reagan came to office, there was woefully little scrutiny given to the cost/benefit tradeoff when it came to government. Further, the top tax rate was astonishingly high. Reagan's political purpose, which he explained clearly and frequently, was to reduce the size of government to increase liberty.
And he did so. Surely not as much as he would have preferred. But he did so.
Saletan ascribes ambitions to Reagan that do not hold up to scrutiny. Reagan was not an anarchist, which is what a literal reading of his words would suggest. He did not intend to invent grand or subtle political philosophies. He intended, simply, to decrease non-military spending.
Politicians speak in clipped language. They have precious few seconds to convey intentions and a general policy direction. It is unfair, and unreasonable, to use the words intended as vectors instead as complete philosophical thoughts or, indeed, fully conceived political programs.
The fact that Reagan never ran as an anarchist, never recommended that Congress abolish the federal government, demonstrates that, despite what Saletan would have us believe, Reagan believed that some government was necessary.
So, this is a strawman argument. Reagan was not an anarchist; it's absurd to imagine he could be.
--VitaminTommy
(To reply, click here)
…I think the lasting legacy of Reagan is our desire to have things painted in shades of black and white. Some of this is the consequence of Reagan's view that the Democratic Party had shifted to positions that he could not reconcile with his notions of common sense right and wrong and were the consequence of his conversion to the conservative movement; some of it is the honest belief that people have that things really ARE black and white and simple.
This is the legacy that I regret—I am always skeptical of those who view issues as 'simple', as lacking nuance—particularly when cast in the infallible light of right and wrong. M experience is that most things in life are far more complex than that and require far more thought. Evil—real evil, not the sort of simplistic stuff we talk about in these debates over liberals vs. conservatives or policy differences—but genuine evil is subtle… and attractive… and anything but simple. That's why I'm always so skeptical when I see arguments on serious subjects reduced to simple sound bites or cast in terms of blame and guilt or right and wrong. It lacks the ring of truth that comes with careful consideration. Reagan, I think, did some things that may have had very bad consequences but I don't believe he ever strove for such effects purposefully…
It is said that Reagan was able to bridge the gap and create "Reagan Democrats"; perhaps that should give us a moment to reflect upon what there is in common long enough to cease bickering at the funeral, and maybe we can begin a dialogue on how we stop reducing everything to simplicity… and start addressing the complexities of the world we live in…
I think the 'great communicator' might have, in the end, been glad if we did that.
--Demosthenes2
(To reply, click here)
For reason of good philosophy, we should look to a definition of liberty that is the 'ability to do what is good unopposed and unconstrained.' This does, fairly clearly, beg the question of who defines what is good. At the same time, it really does point to what needs to be protected. People need to be able to do what they think is good - good for society, good for each other, productive of good things - and there really isn't any debate about whether people should be allowed to do things that they know, understand, and recognize as evil.
Though certain types of people will suggest that evil people rationalize _everything_ it seems that at least in current society, many things are self-evidently evil and the people who do them recognize themselves as doing something wrong, even while they will zealously pursue loopholes to avoid punishment.
Then the question is whether people can be 'forced' to do 'good.' Is an action good if it was forced, or does it merely have 'good consequences?'
In short, is liberty - the ability to do good and evil, but not freedom from the consequences of these actions - required for people to do _anything_ good?
This is fairly revolutionary. It suggests that 'government charity' is indeed not charity, nor good. It deprives the citizen of the opportunity to do good and have good character, that exact liberty the government should most zealously protect. The mere movement of money from the greedy to the needy, when done by force, does not solve anything.
Which, of course, does not dispute that such a flow, is a good end product... but the means are not by it justified.
--BenK
(To reply, click here)
(6/6)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Remarks from the Fray:
While I agree with Saletan's political philosophy, he demonstrates confusion about "Reagan's Law" and the purpose it served.
When Reagan came to office, there was woefully little scrutiny given to the cost/benefit tradeoff when it came to government. Further, the top tax rate was astonishingly high. Reagan's political purpose, which he explained clearly and frequently, was to reduce the size of government to increase liberty.
And he did so. Surely not as much as he would have preferred. But he did so.
Saletan ascribes ambitions to Reagan that do not hold up to scrutiny. Reagan was not an anarchist, which is what a literal reading of his words would suggest. He did not intend to invent grand or subtle political philosophies. He intended, simply, to decrease non-military spending.
Politicians speak in clipped language. They have precious few seconds to convey intentions and a general policy direction. It is unfair, and unreasonable, to use the words intended as vectors instead as complete philosophical thoughts or, indeed, fully conceived political programs.
The fact that Reagan never ran as an anarchist, never recommended that Congress abolish the federal government, demonstrates that, despite what Saletan would have us believe, Reagan believed that some government was necessary.
So, this is a strawman argument. Reagan was not an anarchist; it's absurd to imagine he could be.
--VitaminTommy
(To reply, click here)
…I think the lasting legacy of Reagan is our desire to have things painted in shades of black and white. Some of this is the consequence of Reagan's view that the Democratic Party had shifted to positions that he could not reconcile with his notions of common sense right and wrong and were the consequence of his conversion to the conservative movement; some of it is the honest belief that people have that things really ARE black and white and simple.
This is the legacy that I regret—I am always skeptical of those who view issues as 'simple', as lacking nuance—particularly when cast in the infallible light of right and wrong. M experience is that most things in life are far more complex than that and require far more thought. Evil—real evil, not the sort of simplistic stuff we talk about in these debates over liberals vs. conservatives or policy differences—but genuine evil is subtle… and attractive… and anything but simple. That's why I'm always so skeptical when I see arguments on serious subjects reduced to simple sound bites or cast in terms of blame and guilt or right and wrong. It lacks the ring of truth that comes with careful consideration. Reagan, I think, did some things that may have had very bad consequences but I don't believe he ever strove for such effects purposefully…
It is said that Reagan was able to bridge the gap and create "Reagan Democrats"; perhaps that should give us a moment to reflect upon what there is in common long enough to cease bickering at the funeral, and maybe we can begin a dialogue on how we stop reducing everything to simplicity… and start addressing the complexities of the world we live in…
I think the 'great communicator' might have, in the end, been glad if we did that.
--Demosthenes2
(To reply, click here)
For reason of good philosophy, we should look to a definition of liberty that is the 'ability to do what is good unopposed and unconstrained.' This does, fairly clearly, beg the question of who defines what is good. At the same time, it really does point to what needs to be protected. People need to be able to do what they think is good - good for society, good for each other, productive of good things - and there really isn't any debate about whether people should be allowed to do things that they know, understand, and recognize as evil.
Though certain types of people will suggest that evil people rationalize _everything_ it seems that at least in current society, many things are self-evidently evil and the people who do them recognize themselves as doing something wrong, even while they will zealously pursue loopholes to avoid punishment.
Then the question is whether people can be 'forced' to do 'good.' Is an action good if it was forced, or does it merely have 'good consequences?'
In short, is liberty - the ability to do good and evil, but not freedom from the consequences of these actions - required for people to do _anything_ good?
This is fairly revolutionary. It suggests that 'government charity' is indeed not charity, nor good. It deprives the citizen of the opportunity to do good and have good character, that exact liberty the government should most zealously protect. The mere movement of money from the greedy to the needy, when done by force, does not solve anything.
Which, of course, does not dispute that such a flow, is a good end product... but the means are not by it justified.
--BenK
(To reply, click here)
(6/6)