2004-06-08 WUSB 90.1 FM
						Long Island Liberty, with BAM
			Ronald Reagan
			(Retrospective)


RR dared to speak.

RR dared to express thoughts & ideas
	in such a way that people listened
	and thought about them seriously.
Thoughts that many people had thought - but which they feared to speak.

There were many thoughts that the people had,
	some which they mulled over in isolation or discussed only in private 
	- most of which they were reluctant to discuss in front of strangers.

Wondering (just a wee, little bit) about the size of the Federal government,
	- the number of Federal Departments,
	- the number of laws on the books,
	- the acres of Federal real-estate and height of Federal buildings,
	- the percentage of the poulation that was on the Federal payroll, 
	- the percentage of the poulation that was on the Federal dole, 
starting to, maybe, wonder why it was simply INEVITABLE
that all of these things just had to keep growing larger and larger and larger (w/o bound).

Wondering why the Federal government deserved more and more of the gross national product.

Wondering why the American people seemed to need more and more regulations:
	- regulating their life, their health, their diet,
	- regulating their liberty, their livelihoods, their commerce,
	- regulating how they could define their own "happiness",
	- and regulating how they were allowed to pursue it.

Thinking about, but maybe not saying out loud, that there is something a bit strange
when a nation whose birth was embodied in rejecting the yoke of hereditary rulers,
and vehemently discarding all forms of nobility and ruling classes,
a government that was said to be "of the people" and "by the people",
how a country founded upon the principles of equality under the law, 
	separation of powers, rotation in office, participatory democracy, 
	etc., etc., etc.
somehow has evolved into a powerful central government,
	dominated by political families & dynasties, 
with voluminous laws written by legislatures largely populated by lawyers,
	legislators whose individual sinecures extend for decade after decade,
	legislators beholden to rich corporations, unions, and tax-exempt foundations,
voting away our national treasure to fund an incessant stream
	of new "programs" that never die,
	but whose budget next year is based upon what they were given to spend last year
		- regardless of what they accomplished
		(by any sort of "bottom line" or cost/benefit analysis).


And, where the rubber meets the road, a government operated by 
	faceless bureacrats & uncivil "civil servants" (so-called)("servants"),
	most of whose qualifications are that they bought more tickets,
	attended more dinners, worked more storefronts, or raised more money
	than those who competed for their political appointments.
Yet, that automatically qualifies them to rule their fiefdom,
	and to disdain the citizens forced to plead to them for succor.  ("sucker"?)

Since the depression era
	(and since the Federal Reserve system and other expansions of powere,
	which many now realize made it inevitable),
	the Federal government has seen fit to involve itself 
	in a never-ending parade of new "initiatives" (and "investments")
	[and, I would say, "intrusions"] into areas of human activity
	never 

Some older citizens, who remembered "Civics" classes
	may have wondered how "elastic" the elastic clause really was,
	and whatever happened to the "chains" that were supposed to be in the Constitution.
Younger citizens, more often, may have been a bit confused by the term "unconstitutional",
	(especially when courts used it to order MORE government)
	and a few of them wondered whether there was any limit to the powers
	that the Congress could give to itself.


-----------------

Many of these thoughts, these unvoiced thoughts,
	these thoughts that awaited a communicator to voice them,
	were thoughts that dared to QUESTION authority.

Aye, there's the rub!


Thoughts that many people had thought - but which they feared to speak in public,
	and which rarely were published in the established media
	(except, perhaps, in an occasional letter to the editor,
	more often than not set up for scorn by the publication).

WHY????

Because the ESTABLISHMENT had established certain norms
	and branded certain ideas as taboo or "POLITICALLY INCORRECT"
	(or some other contemporary pejorative, e.g.
	"selfish", or "insensitive", or "uncaring", or "insufficiently altruistic", "egotistical", etc.)

Many people (not just the "silent majority") sorta thought that it was "common sense" 
	- that people should keep most of what they earn
	- that government shouldn't spend tax money 
		doing what people could do for themselves
	- that people didn't need a government to decide 
		what they eat, what to pay, whether to smoke,
+++

Many people, in isolation, had such "common sense", logical thoughts.

Thoughts which may have seemed 

had brainwashed them 
	into thinking these thoughts were 
Thoughts that were 




Yes, RR dared to express thoughts & ideas 
	in such a way that people listened and allowed themselves to
	(re)consider them seriously.
But these were not new thoughts - he did not invent them
	(any more than Jefferson, his),

These were thoughts that many people had thought - but which they feared to speak.
Common thoughts, often unspoken for fear of being viewed as "weird" or "out of touch"
	... or somehow 'different" and not part of the accepted "social fabric".


------------------

In the 1960s & 1970s, many, many, many people avoided speaking their mind in public
	because they ...

Intimidation ...


I don't care how much of a "Great Communicator" Ronald reagan was!
(And I don't care how dumb/intelligent/senile/perceptive u may think him to have been, either.)
	There's just no way that the former actor cud also have been the great philosopher,
	bringing his brand-new wisdom to America
	in some kind of political epiphany!

Not to diminish his persuasive abilities,
	the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan did nothing more that to state the 
	"common sense of the issue, in terms ... plain and firm".
He spoke in plain terms (perhaps embroiderd now and then with images, such as the shining city).
He also spoke firmly.  Kindly, yes.  But firm in his conviction.
And let's not forget:  sincerity.  Above all else, he conveyed sincereity.
	(No sane critic would ever suggest that RR did not believe what he said.)


N.B.
I deliberately used Jefferson's words describing his own work, but I left out the end of it.
	After explaining that the purpose of the Declaration,
	"to put before mankind, the common sense of the issue, in terms so plain and firm
	AS TO COMMAND THEIR ASSENT".

Jefferson might be described as somwhat "arrogant".
So might Adams.  Or Franklin.  Or Hancock.
(But then, 'twas a different time, 
	when dissent against the divine right of kings was considered treason.
	And when Independency could only be purchased with blood.)


RR was not so immodest as to expect his words to "command assent".
Nor is there evidence that he felt he could somehow predict the history of future.
The only explanation for the [strongly-]apparent confidence that RR exuded,
	was a simple "faith" - NO, not a faith in his own religious dogma,
	but a FAITH in the masses of free individuals who make up the nation itself!
RR was very content to leave the final decisions about the future in the hands of
	what one might call [but at the risk of sounding "hokey"] "the American sprit".

A more-explicit way of putting this (which he did in later speeches) - is that he put his trust in
He put his trust in "We The People".
He was content and confidence to trust the people.

Like most libertarians, at his very roots, Ronald Reagan trusted "We The People".
If anything, Reagan put the future of the nation he was entrusted to preserve & protect
	in hands of "We The People".

-------------------

Some of us remember Mario Savio & others at Berkeley & Columbia,
	the so-called "free-speech" movement,
	which morphed 
		(more quickly than Robspierre's coups, tho not always as violently)
	into new forms of anti-establishment conformity,
	censorship by the avant-garde,
	and other moronic oxys.

----

Jimmy Carter defined the "Misery Index".
(He added together the Unemployment % under Gerald Ford.)
+ inflation rate under Gerald Ford.)

Ford won in 26 states, but Carter won in the Electoral College.
(Carter was actually a minority President, if you count the write-ins.)

After 4 years, Jimmy Carter was presiding over 
	double-digit unemployment in NY & elsewhere in the country, 
	22% interest rates,
	& runaway inflation with no end in sight.


Jimmy Carter did little or nothing in response to an act of war.
The territory of the United States was attacked by a foreign government,
and Jimmy Carter did little more than whine about it!

(Oh, he complained to the United Nations, 
and he pleaded with various kings and dictators for help,
but he took no action for over a year.
Then, he botched it by ordering an inadequate response 
	which ended even more disastrously ((and irrelevantly)) 
	than the last-minute modifications to the fiasco known as the Bay of Pigs .)
BUT I DIGRESS.

toward the end of his term,
Jimmy Carter diagnosed the nation's spirit as one of "MALAISE",
and he had the nerve to blame the PEOPLE for it!  
Jimmy Carter tried to teach us to "lower our expectations".

Jimmy Carter was an easy act to follow!