I was using a sweeping generalization because that is how I felt when the president stated a problem and then stated how the government is here to solve it for you. I feel that in order to be a leader you have to use ideas and the idea that Reagan stated in that quote is what I am behind.
The ideal expressed by saying that "government is the problem not the solution" does excite certain people, but 235 years ago "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" excited a lot of people too, I think some other people when they read or heard it may have thought "These words show that even now, the most successful politicians are adept at riling up their base supporters by using ambiguous, sweeping generalizations which fail to address any particular issue with even the slightest bit of intelligence, insight or nuance."
If you step back and realize that when president Reagan took office and throughout his presidency congress was controlled by the opposite party except for 2 years when republicans controlled the senate it may offer some insight into the growth of government that you are blaming on Reagan. In fact the tax hikes that you cite were finally agreed to contingent on promises of spending decreases. If you are referring to a growth in the military to effect "peace through strength" that ended the cold war, that is growth in government that ended the cold war. Chris Edwards makes the point I am trying to make better than I can.
When the budget is looked at as a share of the economy, Reagan's legacy looks a bit better from a small-government perspective. Federal revenues as a share of gross domestic product fell from 19.6 percent in 1981 to 18.3 percent by 1989. Spending fell from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent. Thus, Ronald Reagan shrank the federal government by about 5 percent — a less radical change than supporters or detractors often claim. (1)
In summary, whether or not the gipper lived up to the ideal stated in the quote has been and will continue to be a subject of debate. All politicians and anyone who has ideas find their idealism attenuated by the practical realities of their circumstances. The political realities of what happened after the quote was said doesn't in my opinion dilute the impact. I feel that this also applies to the Reagan quote I chose on gun control.
I feel like your cost benefit analysis makes some great points and I agree with them but I like to be concise and get to the bottom line. I feel that the point of the 2nd amendment intends to give us the right to bear arms so that our personal security from criminals as well as tyrants is
possible to be retained as a personal responsibility. When you cite Australia as a gun free country that has not given rise to a tyrant, they have only been gun free since 1996. I say wait a couple hundred years and let's see.
Another point about your cost benefit analysis that I wanted to address is that you unequivocally state that guns have no intrinsic value except to kill people. I think that comes from a view of a person who just doesn't like guns. The same way I don't like sports. It would be like me saying that we should ban the NBA because a lot of NBA players commit crimes and are a menace to society. I enjoy shooting guns personally and with my family and friends in a way that is difficult to quantify just like I imagine it is difficult for a basketball fan to quantify his enjoyment of watching NBA games. I do not feel that the NBA should be banned because I don't like it or because there is some negative consequences to having an NBA.
No comments:
Post a Comment