Happy 99th birthday Ronald Reagan! You were one of the greatest presidents this nation has seen and we can only hope to someday have someone leading this nation with the same conviction and principles as you. You left office 22 years ago but your words, wisdom, & leadership continue to inspire a new generation of conservatives. Many people forget that Reagan was a democrat who switched parties in 1962. What was it that Reagan saw in the democratic party that made him switch to the republican party? What would have been the history of Reagan if he had remained a deomcrat? We conservatives are forever thankful that he made the right choice and switched parties. Reagan gave us the “Reagan Revolution” which inspired people to be proud of their country and it’s history and most importantly to reduce the “nanny state” mentality of so many people. The Reagan revolution is quite different than the hope and change that Obama is bringing the american people. Obama is bringing back the the “nanny state” mentality and taking it to an extreme that surely would cause Reagan to turn over in his grave. Obama should take some lessons from Reagan’s “Reagonomics” Reagan stimulated the economy with (LISTEN TO THIS NEXT LINE LIBERALS) large across the board tax cuts, the lowering of federal income tax rates & revising the tax code. Reagan knew that lowering the tax rates would spur investment and lead to higher employment. What would Reagan think of Biden’s belief that paying more taxes is patriotic and the liberal belief that more taxes and bigger government is the direction our country needs to go. Obama should also look at Reagan’s “peace through stre
Related posts:
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
I wanted to address this comment to your discussion of US support of South Africa during Apartheid. The best explanation is that support for the Apartheid regime was a necessary evil given the higher level tactical and theater concerns of the late Cold War and had nothing to do with approval, or disapproval of the nations internal policies.
Consider the situation in the late Cold War period, specifically in the Indian Ocean region. The Soviet Union was already, through both diplomacy and military trade agreements, closely aligned with Iran and India, as well as Madagascar. They were also, in pressing farther southward by their intervention in 1978, and invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The securing of that country would have placed the Soviets in position to do two things. One, to consolidate and strike farther south into Pakistan, a wholly unstable and fractured country, the occupation of which would give the Soviet Navy access to a warm water port and free access to the Indian Ocean making them the dominant force in the region. Two, the consolidation of Afghanistan, along with their relations with Iran and India would have placed them in a position to leverage the supply of oil to the west I. e. trading oil for advanced technology as well as giving them access to ports on the Persian Gulf and access to the Indian Ocean. Either of these scenarios would have allowed the Soviets to become the dominant force in the region. The need existed for the U.S. to project its power into the region to check the Soviets. This was accomplished in several ways. One by diplomacy, though the only truly secure friendly state in the region was Australia. Two was by a Naval presence of both surface warships and Submarines.
It is the need to keep a submarine force present in the Indian Ocean that brings me back to South Africa. The United States Navy was then, as it is now, deploying two types of submarine. Large Ballistic Missile Submarines, and smaller Attack Submarines. Both classes have an almost unlimited range their nuclear reactors taking years to deplete their fuel supplies. The only thing that limited the deployments of these ships was supplies, specifically food. The much smaller attack subs, that tracked and shadowed Soviet missile subs around the world, were particularly vulnerable to small food supplies. In short, the longer the trip to their patrol area the less time that can be spent on station countering Soviet subs. This is where South Africa plays a key role. Since Subs cannot traverse seaways like the Suez Canal, since they would have to surface and give away their position and the closest Pacific base was Pearl Harbor, the sea lanes south of South Africa were vital. If the soviets were allowed to gain influence in South Africa they would have been able to place sonar buoys and deploy surveillance aircraft and ships to make traversing those waterways impossible meaning U.S. subs would have to deploy from Pearl Harbor, a much longer trip meaning shorter times on station, and possibly forcing resupply stops in the nearest friendly ports in Australia.
I don’t believe Ronald Reagan approved of Apartheid anymore than the rest of us. I do however think that he swallowed hard and made the decision to maintain relations with that regime and serve the higher level tactical and strategic needs. It may not have been the moral choice, but it was the correct one.
DF,
I was in Seattle during the recession of the Carter administration. Billboards were posted at all interstate exits stating, “Will the last person who leaves remember to turn the lights off”. This was typical throughout the nation.
President Reagan oversaw “The longest and greatest peace time recovery in US history”. Even the most liberal eco historians reluctantly agree.
By the year 2000 we were rapidly approaching a balanced budget (I insert here reluctantly, in measure thanks to Clinton giving into pressure by the Republican House, but part of the credit still is his).
How in the world can you Lib’s still say with a straight face Reagan’s policies were a mistake?
Smell the coffee and thank the voter’s for two of the greatest terms our Whitehouse has ever seen.
J;
On the issue of the budget deficits– Reagan was warned by his budget chief David Stockman that the Reagan’s policies would produce record deficits!! His Vice President, George HW Bush, when a candidate against Reagan in the !980 primary, warned that Reagan’s economic polices were Voodoo economics! Reagan can not blame the Democrats for the deficits that his policies guaranteed.
dfunzy´s last blog ..machines and technology
J,
Reagan supported the apartheid regime. He gave aid and comfort to the forces of evil, at a time when most Americans were strongly against the apartheid regime and supported a boycott of South African goods. To say that what he did was out of his anti-communists policy won’t fly. Many who were anti-communists supported one-man-one-vote in apartheid era South Africa. And though there were communists elements in the ANC, the ANC was never a communist organization. See how easily, the ANC supported a market economy the moment they came to power.
dfunzy´s last blog ..machines and technology
DF,
A little knowledge………
President Reagan was NEVER against black self determination, he was not pro apartheid. He was anti-communist. The ANC was exactly that.
Just a note, Winnie Mandela was well known and unprosecuted for her well known habit of filling tires with gasoline, putting them around the necks of those blacks who wanted a capitalist system and setting them ablaze. To his credit President Mandela divorced her soon after his release.
The economy immediately went into free fall, until bailed out by other countries in order to save established investment and infrastructure, and crime went crazy and stays that way, making it today one of the most dangerous places on Earth.
Under apartheid order was kept, and South Africa was the jewel of Africa. Workers from most every other nation tried to immigrate there for a better life, free from the wars, genocides and poverty of most of Africa.
Whites have been slaughtered, much of their lands and property taken and most capitalistic talent has fled.
Since 1994, when the Socialist ANC took power, legitimate elections are a farce. Intimidation rules.
There was a Black democratic capitalist movement prior to 1994, but the ANC killed or terrorized them into obscurity.
President Reagan was keenly aware of this and responded wisely. He neither supported Apartheid, nor the ANC as led by Mandela from prison, and Winnie on the streets of Georgetown.
The world held a microscope to the apartheid leadership, the ANC has run amuck in corruption and savagery allowed and yet the world turns a blind eye. Reagan a heartless bigot, or maybe just a little smarter than the crowd.
As to the deficient. He lowered taxes, raised revenues, and the Dems spent it faster than it came in.
Because Reagan felt a President should not veto the will of the People, he let the House have their Toga Party. A principle I wish he had let slide.
There’s no Democrat alive or dead worthy of standing next to President Reagan.
Am I missing something here? Didn’t Reagan give us eight years of then record deficits? Didn’t Reagan support the South African apartheid regime? Wasn’t he on the wrong side of history?
Thank You PR,
Our current President couldn’t invoke the name of Reagan enough while running, and could can not desecrate it enough now that he’s in office.
Reagan was a man of principle, a man who could stand shoulder to shoulder with our great founders.
Till this day I thank God for the time we were blessed to have him as President.
Happy 99th Mr. President!