2004-06-08,15 WUSB 90.1 FM
							Long Island Liberty, with BAM

			"Remembering"
			(Ronald Reagan)

I remember the 60s. (And the 70s)    (OK, I remember the 50s, too.  But not much happened back then. )
Everything was up for grabs, in the 60s!  It was supposed to be a "revolutionary" decade!
Some of that was good.	/ Some of that was bad.	/ Some of that was TBD.
	Everything was questioned -- that was good.
	Certain things were rejected, mere because they had been accepted for years.
	Whatever was believed by someone over 30 was automatically deemed "wrong";
		the opposite was deemed "truth", without question.  
		(Proof by contradiction, run amok.)

The order of the day was the tyrannical tautologies of the "avant garde",
	which dictated not only the challenging of any established dogma,
	but also the sanctification of the opposite as new & unquestied dogma.
	The new dogmas were fiercely defended.

Altho the superficial fads and fashions 
	changed more rapidly than the seasons (or even the weather),
there was no flip-flop in the fundamentals:
	The FLIP to anti-establishment views, regardless of merit or principle,
	never did FLOP back to questioning whether the new orthodoxies
	were any more supportable than what they had displaced.


Interestingly enuf, the Inquisition of the 60s, wide-ranging as it was,
	avoided and left unscathed certain other dogmatic beliefs (held by those over 30).
Among those protected dogmas were:
	- The belief that government was benevolent.
	- The belief that government was impartial.
	- The belief that government was the appropriate solution to all social problems.
	- That the more difficult the problem was, the more govt was needed.
	- In short:   an abiding FAITH in government.	
		(i.e. the religion known as "statism".)

	- That there were no limits to what govt could decide it shud do.
		-- No limits to the # of agencies, size of pgms, $ spent, (no sunset!)


	- no fields of endeavor where indiv judgement trumped that of the govt.



ASIDE:
Much of this stemmed from ideas drilled into the heads of children
sent to schools run by the government
taught by government-employed teachers
...

Much was the residue of the "great depression",
and the notion that it was solved by Roosevelt's "New Deal"  (massive govt),
(ignoring the fact that the depression continued until it was solved by WWII,
and ignoring its roots in the Federal Reserve System, created in 1913 - manip ...


Civil rights became a cause celebre.
	Lost in the ruckus was the fact that some rights were less equal than others.
	(There was no concern for property rights, RKBA, ...)
Minorities were a great cause for concern.
	Well, at least some minorities:  specified minorities.  
	Other minorities, those not on the list, were OK for govt discrim.
	The tiniest minority of all, the indiv, had no civil rts at all - only collectv gps.






Then, came the 1980 election campaign.
We Libertarians thought Ed Clark would be the only candidate
	speaking out for freedom, defending liberty against futher encroachment,
	fighting for the individual, for self-govenment, rolling back regulation,
	viewing confiscatory tax rates not only as THEFT 
		but also as crippling capital formation and economic growth,
	cutting out the Cancer that was metastasizing from within the Beltway
		and perhaps even dreaming of remission,
	Recognizing the CHAINS of the Const, rather than trying to use the 14th Amdt & ...
		to make the Fed Govt larger & more powerful.
		(cherrypicking the clauses)

In fairness, Ed Clark spoke of these things equally well,
	but, as exepcted, he got no attention in the media, 
	and certainly no credit for setting the agenda.

It was RR who finally forced the issues of liberty into the public discourse.
	We're still not sure HOW he did it - but he did!

All of a sudden, 
	... talk about ...
	... Didn't have to go to some obscure journal (like Reason, or ....)
		to find discussions of 
			Laffer Curve
			ewtc.
		Questioning ... statism







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 +++


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.)


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),


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 "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".