Freedom Watch
Fragile Freedom
What would Mr. Reagan think now?
In creating “freedom watch,” the editors planned to keep examining a theme that deeply concerned Ronald Reagan throughout his life. He expressed it often — in the 1967 speech that inspired the column, in a 1981 address as he assumed the presidency — and I even heard him repeat the same words in 1985, to just a few top officials in the cabinet room.
What would Mr. Reagan think now? Even at that long-ago cabinet meeting, he warned that no nation had been able to come back to freedom that had gone as far toward statism as had the U.S.
Today, it is trillions of dollars of government programs, bailouts, and regulations covering every area of social life, and new Democratic proposals to extend ever further into health care, education, and welfare — to the very air we breathe, to how we may speak correctly, and to how many calories we may consume. Recession, bloated entitlements, and loose money literally threaten America’s survival. And most of this started its upward trajectory under Republican presidents and congresses.
Ronald Reagan was clear as to what freedom required: “The balance of power intended in the Constitution is the guarantor of the greatest measure of individual freedom any people have ever known. Our task today, this year, this decade, must be to reaffirm those ideas. Our Founding Fathers designed a system of government that was unique in all the world — a federation of sovereign states with as much law and decision-making authority as possible kept at the local level. They knew that man’s very need for government meant no government should function unchecked.”
Easy words about freedom were insufficient. Referring to his favorite philosopher of individual freedom, he noted: “It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.”
Freedom was not just low taxes, free markets, and light regulation; it was also the Constitution, law, and tradition, which, he said, Meyer “in his writing fashioned [into] a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought — a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.”
Following these fusionist principles, President Reagan kept the beast at bay for a little while. From 20 percent interest and double-digit unemployment and inflation, he cut discretionary domestic national government by 9.7 percent over his terms and even reduced all non-defense spending, including entitlements from 17.9 to 16.4 percent of gross domestic product. He capped this by reducing the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 33 percent, unleashing the private sector in a surge of growth that lasted decades, while also increasing the relative role of state and local governments, especially in advancing new approaches — and society revived.
Is it hopeless today? After telling the cabinet that no nation had gone as far as the U.S. had towards statism and returned, the president smiled and declared, “But I want us to be the first!” He overcame similar challenges — following him, why can’t we complete the job?
Letter to the Editor View all comments (49) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles From Freedom Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/03/fragile-freedom
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Self-Righteous Republic
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Hannah and Her Friends
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 12.3.09 @ 7:36AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Fragile Freedom [spectator.org] on T links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Deborah D| 12.3.09 @ 8:52AM
Mr. Devine -- you have a willing public out here. We need to kick these radicals out of Washington and finally get term limits established. Then, maybe, just maybe we can pull our country from the brink. The radicals are moving so fast it makes one's head spin.
I still think we should move the Capital of the country to the middle of fly-over country...perhaps only those actually interested in contributing to the country instead of those caught up in the trappings of the NY-DC axis and taking from the country would then apply. It's a happy thought anyway.
God bless Ronald Reagan. I keep wondering if there are any statesmen anymore. It seems we're left with crooks, liars, thieves and haters of the Constitution, and they're running the country into the ground.
Bill Slavin| 12.3.09 @ 9:24AM
Dear Dr Devine,
I was a student in your Political Science class at the University of Md in the mid-70s. Back then I was a long haired left wing anti-war radical, absolutely convinced of the incontestible truth of my beliefs as well as my moral superority to those Neanderthal racists who were conservatives, although I had never actually met one. I'm sure you remember us.
The first time I raised my hand to challenge you with some inane leftist cliche I was skewered and roasted to the humiliating laughter of the class. After a few more such attempts with the same red faced result, I gave up and began to actually listen.
I cannot say that I completed your course transformed, but doubt had definitely taken hold. A mind was opening. The PBS TV series "Freedom to Choose" with Milton Friedman moved me further along the road to enlightenment. Then after graduation my first real job and real paycheck- I was shocked, (outraged!), at the amount of taxes withheld. This wasn't academic any more, it was personal!
I voted for RR in 1980 and never looked back. I made sure that my three kids, good little Republicans all, have had the tools to challenge their radical leftist college professors.
You were one of my most memorable teachers. You had a real and lasting influence on my life.
Thank you, Dr. Devine.
S.L. Toddard| 12.3.09 @ 9:42AM
"The balance of power intended in the Constitution is the guarantor of the greatest measure of individual freedom any people have ever known. Our task today, this year, this decade, must be to reaffirm those ideas. Our Founding Fathers designed a system of government that was unique in all the world -- a federation of sovereign states with as much law and decision-making authority as possible kept at the local level. They knew that man's very need for government meant no government should function unchecked."
Magnificent.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.3.09 @ 10:49AM
Yep, magnificent distillation.
Alan Brooks| 12.7.09 @ 11:22PM
Distilled?
you mean ma white lightin' from San Antone? hiccup
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.3.09 @ 12:02PM
Holy Moley, people
Check this out over at National Review:
http://article.nationalreview......amp;w=MA==
S.L. Toddard| 12.3.09 @ 12:16PM
"The Islamists are fighting for control of the world"
Which demonstrated the ridiculousness of their goals, and the absurdity of those who are frightened that they might accomplish them.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.3.09 @ 1:42PM
SL,
You obviously...OBVIOUSLY...have not read the article I pasted. (see time-stamps)
Please hush until you read the darnwed article.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.3.09 @ 12:24PM
SL, I'm sorry. I must fight you to the last ditch here.
Sir, with all due respect, it is quite obvious to me that you have managed to avoid a "killin' fight", either here at home, and certainly not abroad.
I have...both places...and I survived, (heh, plus a couple of buttons and zippers.)
I would be honored if you would go ahead and admit it. You have kept yourself out of harm's way.
If I am mistaken, you have my deepest apologies.
Tony in Central PA| 12.3.09 @ 12:32PM
I wonder if it has occurred to anybody around here that our financial situation, namely exponentially increasing debt, is putting our liberty at risk in ways it never was previously ?
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.3.09 @ 1:02PM
Well hell yes! Tony.
I have to make payroll in 44 States...
So far, no layoffs, no salary cuts, great people!
...I just don't know, though. Pretty tough.
...and no reason for it to be that way except for the, (pardon the shorthand), communists, trying to dismantle our country.
Tony in Central PA| 12.3.09 @ 2:50PM
So am I correct in assuming you disagree with the Administration's belief that income redistribution actually creates wealth ?
You probably also think its a bad idea to have a job summit hosted by people who never worked outside of government or academia ?
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.3.09 @ 5:11PM
Tony,
Needest thou ask?
One problem...they have included some co-opted big company brass there.
NAZIS did that well in Germany. (Ruhr vally manufacturers)
Peter| 12.3.09 @ 7:37PM
I often wish I could have been a speech writer. I have become an avid reader of Presidential history. I strongly encourage any and all conservatives to read Andrew Jackson's Farewell Address 1837. It just stirs my spirit evrytime I read it. Go to http://
millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches
How were these men able to see a future better than any Nosturdamas?
Pingback| 12.4.09 @ 1:39AM
No Obama Birth Certificate, No NBC, No Jobs: Morning Intell | DBKP - Death By 1000 Pa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.4.09 @ 1:49AM
No Jobs, No Obama Birth Certificate, No NBC: Morning Intell « DBKP at WordPress links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alan Brooks| 12.4.09 @ 3:42AM
America is like ancient Rome: great agriculture (not comparable to today, yet Rome had agricultural commodities shipped all over the Empire), but no virtue.
Our skools are worse that Rome's in terms of cost-benefit. No progress has been made since Reagan's era almost a generation ago.
You are, most of you, as proudly optimistic as Gingrich; with his doubleminded Tofflerism-- one step forward, two steps nowhere. However, during the next decade you will get your comeuppance.
Pride before a fall.
Alan Brooks| 12.4.09 @ 3:54AM
Alvin and Heidi Toffler, though they are the most abstract of Newt's authors, are very grounded indeed. Before advising a don or a saint, they would want to know what wave of history he or she belonged to. In the Foreword to Creating a New Civilization, Gingrich says the Tofflers have been "writing about the future for a quarter century." Does the futurism of 1970 hold up better than the lava lamp?
The Tofflers make a number of specific predictions and analyses. They see the leaner, meaner organizations discussed by Miss Boone and Mr. Drucker as prototypes for all social units, which can be decentralized, "de-massified," and "deliberately hollowed out." They apply this model to government and to the family, which has gotten them some bad ink during the Republican takeover. Gingrich was echoing the Tofflers when he speculated that majority rule might be passe and social conservatives have noticed that the Tofflers take shots at "the values and morality of the 1950s, a time before universal television, before the birth-control pill." This book qualifies these pugnaciousopinions somewhat: demassified government could lead to devolution along the lines of the Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. as well as to balkanization along the lines of Lani Guinier, and the Tofflers call for a revival of extended families, and family autonomy: "forget peripheral issues, accept the diversity, and return important tasks to the household. Oh yes, and make sure the parent keeps control of the remote." Such backing and filling also explains the Tofflers' success as seers : big bull's-eyes make good marksmen.
Everything the Tofflers say is trivialized by their theory of history. Humanity has gone through three waves: agriculture, industrialism, and the wave that's happening now, the information age. I first heard the big theory in my interview with Gingrich ten years ago and that was the best way to be exposed to it. It's the kind of thought you come up with at a dinner party when you've had a few drinks and you're on a roll. It's sweeping, plausible, partly true; in that context, the holes don't matter. But the Tofflers have built an entire world view on it.
It looks like history, but it is really trendology, or the game of threes: posit two eras, and predict a third. If you win, you not only foresee the future, you own it. This is why the witches played the game on Macbeth, hailing him as . of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor, and "King hereafter." In the hands of the Tofflers, the game of threes will probably have less drastic results, issuing only in verbiage verbiage - When the context involves a software or hardware system, this refers to documentation. This term borrows the connotations of mainstream "verbiage" to suggest that the documentation is of marginal utility and that the motives behind its production have little to do with and confusion.
Trendology ignores the persistence of previous eras into their successors. The Tofflers acknowledge that the clash of one wave and the next causes turbulence, but they don't see that the turbulence lasts for millennia. The era before the first wave, the era of hunting and gathering, still shapes our notions of warfare and masculinity, so that nearly half the men elected President in second-wave America had fought in battle. Dying and reviving gods, the myths of agriculture, haunt Christmas trees and The Waste Land. This is a criticism of trendology on its own terms. The more serious criticism is that trendology's terms ignore the question of truth, whether framed by philosophers, prophets, or poets. Plato, St. Paul, and Shakespeare would all be baffled by the Tofflers. So would the authors on Gingrich's first team, who cared passionately that the United States be not just the coming thing, but the right thing. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. . ."
The lacuna of The Indispensable Man is pertinent here. Although Washington had only the equivalent of a grade-school education, he read all his life, and most of what he read was first rate. He kept up with the political literature of North America for over thirty years, when it was of the highest order. When he needed elaboration he turned to George Mason, Madison, Hamilton. He did not read the prophecies of Condorcet, or Nostradamus.
Why do the critical faculties that guide Gingrich in judging men who lived before 1840 desert him when he comes to the Tofflers? One reason is curiosity. Considering Gingrich's love of dinosaurs, make that boyish curiosity. Boyish curiosity is a good thing; it precedes all inquiry. Washington, D.C., the most timid and status-conscious of cities, starves for lack of it. Tip O'Neill never read the Tofflers, not because he was too wise, but because he was too busy robbing civilians.
Another reason is Gingrich's rise through the ranks since 1978, and the Republicans he had to supplant and outflank. Before Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, the congressional GOP was a party of inertia and self-defeat. I remember once hearing former Minority Leader Bob Michel reminisce
. about his first political experience: passing out sunflower buttons for Alf Landon. No wonder he expects to get kicked in the head, I thought. In the long years of fretting as the minority of the minority, Gingrich had to sustain himself with the hope that he was the wave of the future - and there were the Tofflers, to tell him that it was so.
Curiosity and hope explain Newt Gingrich's strange weakness for trendology, but they do not excuse it. Statesmanship is hard. The more we tell politicians there is an easy way, the more we trap them. If the Speaker wants to fulfill the mission he has set himself, he and his followers will have to bring the second half of their reading list up to the level of the first.
Alan Brooks| 12.4.09 @ 3:47AM
Alvin and Heidi Toffler, though they are the most abstract of Newt's authors, are very grounded indeed. Before advising a don or a saint, they would want to know what wave of history he or she belonged to. In the Foreword to Creating a New Civilization, Gingrich says the Tofflers have been "writing about the future for a quarter century." Does the futurism futurism, Italian school of painting, sculpture, and literature that flourished from 1909, when Filippo Tommaso Marinetti's first manifesto of futurism appeared, until the end of World War I. of 1970 hold up better than the lava lamp?
The Tofflers make a number of specific predictions and analyses. They see the leaner, meaner organizations discussed by Miss Boone and Mr. Drucker as prototypes for all social units, which can be decentralized de·cen·tral·ize
v. de·cen·tral·ized, de·cen·tral·iz·ing, de·cen·tral·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To distribute the administrative functions or powers of (a central authority) among several local authorities. , "de-massified," and "deliberately hollowed out." They apply this model to government and to the family, which has gotten them some bad ink during the Republican takeover. Gingrich was echoing the Tofflers when he speculated that majority rule might be passe pas·sé
adj.
1. No longer current or in fashion; out-of-date.
2. Past the prime; faded or aged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French, past participle of passer, to pass, from Old French; see , and social conservatives have noticed that the Tofflers take shots at "the values and morality of the 1950s, a time before universal television, before the birth-control pill." This book qualifies these pugnacious pug·na·cious
adj.
Combative in nature; belligerent. See Synonyms at belligerent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Latin pugn opinions somewhat: demassified government could lead to devolution along the lines of the Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. as well as to balkanization along the lines of Lani Guinier, and the Tofflers call for a revival of extended families, and family autonomy: "forget peripheral issues, accept the diversity, and return important tasks to the household. Oh yes, and make sure the parent keeps control of the remote." Such backing and filling also explains the Tofflers' success as seers Seers is the plural of Seer
Seers may refer to:
Dudley Seers (1920-1983), formerly a British economist
: big bull's-eyes make good marksmen.
Everything the Tofflers say is trivialized by their theory of history. Humanity has gone through three waves: agriculture, industrialism in·dus·tri·al·ism
n.
An economic and social system based on the development of large-scale industries and marked by the production of large quantities of inexpensive manufactured goods and the concentration of employment in urban factories. , and the wave that's happening now, the information age. I first heard the big theory in my interview with Gingrich ten years ago and that was the best way to be exposed to it. It's the kind of thought you come up with at a dinner party when you've had a few drinks and you're on a roll. It's sweeping, plausible, partly true; in that context, the holes don't matter. But the Tofflers have built an entire world view on it.
It looks like history, but it is really trendology, or the game of threes: posit two eras, and predict a third. If you win, you not only foresee the future, you own it. This is why the witches played the game on Macbeth, hailing him as Thanethane
n.
1.
a. A freeman granted land by the king in return for military service in Anglo-Saxon England.
b. A man ranking above an ordinary freeman and below a nobleman in Anglo-Saxon England.
2.
..... Click the link for more information. of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor, and "King hereafter." In the hands of the Tofflers, the game of threes will probably have less drastic results, issuing only in verbiage verbiage - When the context involves a software or hardware system, this refers to documentation. This term borrows the connotations of mainstream "verbiage" to suggest that the documentation is of marginal utility and that the motives behind its production have little to do with and confusion.
Trendology ignores the persistence of previous eras into their successors. The Tofflers acknowledge that the clash of one wave and the next causes turbulence, but they don't see that the turbulence lasts for millennia. The era before the first wave, the era of hunting and gathering, still shapes our notions of warfare and masculinity, so that nearly half the men elected President in second-wave America had fought in battle. Dying and reviving gods, the myths of agriculture, haunt Christmas trees and The Waste Land. This is a criticism of trendology on its own terms. The more serious criticism is that trendology's terms ignore the question of truth, whether framed by philosophers, prophets, or poets. Plato, St. Paul, and Shakespeare would all be baffled by the Tofflers. So would the authors on Gingrich's first team, who cared passionately that the United States be not just the coming thing, but the right thing. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. . ."
The lacuna lacuna /la·cu·na/ (lah-ku´nah) pl. lacu´nae [L.]
1. a small pit or hollow cavity.
2. a defect or gap, as in the field of vision (scotoma). of The Indispensable Man is pertinent here. Although Washington had only the equivalent of a grade-school education, he read all his life, and most of what he read was first rate. He kept up with the political literature of North America for over thirty years, when it was of the highest order. When he needed elaboration he turned to George Mason, Madison, Hamilton. He did not read the prophecies of Condorcet, or Nostradamus.
Why do the critical faculties that guide Gingrich in judging men who lived before 1840 desert him when he comes to the Tofflers? One reason is curiosity. Considering Gingrich's love of dinosaurs, make that boyish curiosity. Boyish curiosity is a good thing; it precedes all inquiry. Washington, D.C., the most timid and status-conscious of cities, starves for lack of it. Tip O'Neill never read the Tofflers, not because he was too wise, but because he was too busy robbing civilians.
Another reason is Gingrich's rise through the ranks since 1978, and the Republicans he had to supplant and outflank. Before Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, the congressional GOP was a party of inertia and self-defeat. I remember once hearing former Minority Leader Bob Michel reminisce rem·i·nisce
intr.v. rem·i·nisced, rem·i·nisc·ing, rem·i·nisc·es
To recollect and tell of past experiences or events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Back-formation from reminiscence. about his first political experience: passing out sunflower buttons for Alf Landon. No wonder he expects to get kicked in the head, I thought. In the long years of fretting as the minority of the minority, Gingrich had to sustain himself with the hope that he was the wave of the future - and there were the Tofflers, to tell him that it was so.
Curiosity and hope explain Newt Gingrich's strange weakness for trendology, but they do not excuse it. Statesmanship is hard. The more we tell politicians there is an easy way, the more we trap them. If the Speaker wants to fulfill the mission he has set himself, he and his followers will have to bring the second half of their reading list up to the level of the first.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.4.09 @ 10:56AM
Alan, you are simply incorrigible.
Your slimy little mis-directs have been doped out here by those of us with character and a good education though.
Go on back to daily kos and wallow with the birds with your feathers.
Margie| 12.4.09 @ 12:04PM
Agreed. And even by some of us who've had a lesser "edumacation."
LAw29| 12.5.09 @ 12:36AM
Bill Slavin. You resorted to left-wing cliches in university for the same reason you sported long hair. You were trying to be follow a herd and trendy without thinking why or bothering to read up much on anything. I won't be forcing my beliefs down my kids' throats and will allow them the FREEDOM to discover the world for themselves. But I'm confident the legacy of fools and actors like Dubya and Ronny will doubtless warn any sensible person away from such a self-destructive folly. How's the hair now? Still fashionably acceptable I hope. Keep on Rockin' in the 11 Trillion in the Hole USA.
BEL| 12.5.09 @ 10:41AM
I concur with the contention of the Great Communicator. As hopeless as it seems today, as foreigners buy our elected and appointed representatives with debt that our corrupt politicos readily accrued to feed an economic engine hollowed out by divestiture of our industrial base, we can still turn this around simply by electing those who will ignore the faux legal requirements and say, “NO!” to further deterioration of our national heritage and economy. To whom do we owe this massive debt? To our enemies; those who would see the U.S. dissolved, or at least rendered prostrate. We can waive or reschedule that debt at our discretion. More importantly, new leaders can restore the economic vitality of our nation by adopting a rationale energy policy minimizing dependence on foreign oil, providing tax incentives to produce tangible goods domestically, repeal self-destructive laws that prevent economic development (while at the same time preserving RATIONAL environmental and labor protections, not self-destructive giveaways to politically-motivated special interest groups), and enacting and enforcing laws that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. It can be done; just not with either Democrats or Republicans. They’ve all been bought lock, stock, and barrel.
utyu| 1.4.10 @ 10:04PM
AVCHD Player,
AVCHD Player for Mac
hgjhg| 1.4.10 @ 10:08PM
TS Player,
MTS Player
ds| 1.16.10 @ 11:02AM
i like:
Adobe Flash Tutorials
New Entertainment
ron| 1.24.10 @ 6:29PM
Great post.
cheap auto insurance quote
William Wan| 3.25.10 @ 7:27PM
Well Obama administration is facing a tough time in giving bailout plans, health bill etc., there are many questions from experts on these steps. If we compare this situation with President Reagan's time, what he did. He reduced the defense budget and many govt. spending. But here we find bailout plans but no review for defense budget. Thanks sailboat model
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 9:10PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
www.sunglass-mall.com | 4.5.10 @ 8:46PM
You won't have to worry about having your sunglass merchandise to gather dust on its display racks waiting for the summer season to commence www.sunglass-mall.com