Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, August 11, 2014 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply

Most stunning to consider is the date of this speech, April 9, 2003.  Even in wake of 9/11, it seemed that we would continue what had been the longest period of continuous economic growth.  In the immediate years that followed, the United States government invaded Iraq and Afghanistgan, and bailed out several investment firms and several banks, and also two automobile manufacturers, and then continued those policies under a rubric of "Hope" and "Change."  Here we are.


I point out, also, that while we all know well Alan Greenspan's essay on gold in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, his tract, "The Assault on Integrity" is the deeper and more compelling of the two.  He echoed those statesments in this when he spoke of trust in the marketplace. 


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 9:02amSanction this postReply

Reagan was a charismatic and lovable president.  Like Obama in that sense, as a performer of modern political art.     But for all his devotion to limited government, his track record was not consistent with that as a goal.   I can't resolve his 'grand compromise' with O'Neill--a little -more- guns in exchange for a lot -more- butter; there is no 'limited' government to be found anywhere in that grand compromise. there is nothing but 'more' as far as the eye can see.


His 'a little more guns' was quickly leveled off.  His goal of a '600 ship navy' didn't make it past the early 90s and Clinton's roll back.  And yet...the 'alot more butter' remains.   Reagan paid the price for his 600 ship navy and a little more guns, but didn't realize the payoff.    O'Neill and the Democrats, in the long run, totally out maneuvered him.   He was taken to the cleaners.


I accept that he believed he had to make that compromise and that he had access to way better information than any of us.   And he was shaped by his assessment of the Cold War period.     It is only in retrospect that we in the peanut gallery look back and wonder, was the piling on via a defense spending race necessary at that point in the 80s, or was their system already self-imploding largely on its own?   Because that 'piling on' came at a heavy cost to America -- his compromise with O'Neill-- one we are living with today.   It has set a demographic 'wreck on rails.'   Towards what end?   Because what has leaked out of our always seems to be slightly at odds with popular reality intelligence comminity since then is that 'they knew the Soviets were farming with ox carts in the 80's and it was only a matter of time.'   (This according to Sen Bob Kerrey, who was then on the Senate Intelligence Committee, as divulged in March 2003 at a talk at the JFK Library Foundation, starting with "I could go to jail for saying this, but...")  


So did Reagan, the POTUS, know this then?   Or were the usual weasels in suits standing around quietly whispering in his ear "Oh yeah, they are a huge threat, and we need a bigger budget; go get 'em Ronnie..."


Did we win the Cold War?  Or did we catch the Cold?   Because ever since, "It's the economy, stupid!" is driving our national politics.   We didn't look at the failure of centrally planned command and control 'the economy' running and shudder, saying 'there but for the grace of Ronnie Reagan go us.'   America embraced that shitty idea and said "We can do it better."    I don't find anything the least bit Reaganesque in America's current -- since Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama -- love affair with the national government 'running the economy.'


Forget Fusion: if we can harness Reagan spinning in his grave, America's energy future is bright.




Post to this thread

User ID Password or create a free account.