Ronald Reagan - Part 2

In this second installment, I will try and explain why I believe Ronald Reagan's economic policy was effective. In part 1, I promised a review of Reagan's domestic agenda. It is at this point that I wish to apologise to my readers for not being able to deliber on all my promises. I simply do not know enough to be able to talk about those other exciting areas that were developing in the 1980s, namely Reagan's policies vis-a-vis the judiciary, (the rise of 'judicial restraint'), crime (the 'war on drugs') or constituional issues (such as the 'new federalism' initiative). I do aim, as already mentioned, to talk about the economy. I am no economist. But the principles of 'Reaganomics' are basically accessible to all. Given the present situation in America, where George W. Bush is attempting to make further tax cuts to the ones he had passed in 2003, I'd like to spark a debate over this approach to managing the economic life of a country.

Contrary to popular opinion, Reagan was not the front-man for other people's ideas in this area. He had studied Economics as a university student and had had direct experience with high federal tax margins whilst a Hollywood actor. In 1964, sixteen years before becoming President, he came out in support of Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who advocated the conservative principles Reagan stood for as President. Reagan supported Goldwater at a time when it was politically unpopular to do so (being the heyday of the 'big government' approach to public life).

'Reaganomics' or supply-side economics, needs to be assessed against what the situation was like when Reagan came to office. The economy was in great difficulties. The country was hit by double-digit inflation and unemployment. Reagan's analysis was that the American economy was being held back from enterprise and productivity by federal tax rates that were discouraging investment, and by excessive federal regulation. The philosophy behind the 1981 tax cuts, which reduced the top rate of income tax by 25% over a period of three years, was to kick start the economic engine, by giving entreprenuers and businesses the incentives to produce.

As stated, I am no economist, neither can I or am I going to go into much more depth than that already described. What is important here, however, is a measure of historical perspective and the persistency of Reagan's character.
He believed in his tax cuts. He believed in them from the time George H.W. Bush had described them as "voo-doo economics", through the time of their implementation, and even during the immediate aftermath of 1981-82 when almost everyone else was claiming that they had failed and that tax rises were going to be necessary to reinvigorate the depressed economy. Needless to say, Reagan's persistence paid off, the deep recession bottomed out, and things begin to turn, so much so that America enjoyed her longest period of peacetime economic expansion.

It is easy to say now that such a recovery was inevitable, that inflation and low economic growth were never going to continue for ever, but the mood during those days in the late 70s/early 80s was very different. Many were predicting years of double-digit inflation and a future in which Americans would have to settle for less. Set against this context, Reagan's economic recovery programme cannot be understated. Individuals were given freedom, and freedom did the job.

Ronald Reagan - part 1

I have wanted to write a post on Ronald Reagan for some time. I originally wrote one on my old blog space, a fairly brief commentary, but I have since forgotten what exactly the address was for that.

There is potentially so much to write about. It is hard to know where to begin. Perhaps the best place is to explain a little of why I have grown to admire Reagan and his achievements. I have generally been someone who has been ready to change his views on subjects, as different revelations occur to me. At one time, I would not have admired Reagan's policies, and possibly in the future I will come to change my views (I am perfectly open to that possibility), but in my present understanding I think Ronald Reagan did much for America, and the world.

I think what most struck me about Reagan, as I was watching some of his best known speeches on an Internet archive (during those days when I had broadband), was the sense of love and humanity he expressed. I'm thinking particularly of the speech he gave in West Berlin in 1987, where he famously declared 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'. That was a great moment. But the other words of that speech drew my attention even more. They were words of substance. They were words of meaning. I will repeat here the particular part of that speech that stuck this most. Talking of the enduring spirit of the West Berliners, divided from the Eastern sector of the city by the wall:

What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life--not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love--love both profound and abiding.

This passage perhaps summarises for me Reagan's whole approach to the cold war, and represents, as I understand it, evidence to the contrary regarding the popular view that he was overly belligerant towards the Soviet Union. He was only belligerant in so far as he was criticising systems. It was not individual people he was attacking. He understood that the communism that was practised in the Soviet bloc worked fundamentally against the grain of the human spirit, against the deepest feelings of universal man, and as a result, he took a stand against the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union. But it was governed through a desire, not for American supremacy, but for those under the yoke of Communism to obtain their freedom. He understood that qualities such as love, faith, hope and creativity, were more powerful than what any system could try and prevent. Seeing footage of his speech in Berlin palpatably moved me.

In my student experience, I have experienced several lecturers who have scorned Reagan. I do not object to views that are different from my own. I do, however, object to views that amount, in my opinion, to some degree, of intellectual snobbishness. Views that claim Reagan had limited intelligence are cheap criticism and don't amount to any substantial criticisms of policy. I believe that Reagan's intelligence was of the deepest kind, in the sense that he understood the human being's desire to be free, something which is powerful enough to bring down the most tyrannical of systems of governments. As Reagan said himself, while the values he espoused may have been simple ones, they were not easy. It is my passionate belief that simple values, the values that Reagan advocated, are the most powerful, most transforming ideas for transforming and healing our world, and that the more complicated solutions become, the more ineffective their outcome.

That is my assessment of Reagan the man. Through reading books and seeing footage, I have also come to see, as those who met him saw, his incredible warmth and kindness, his humility.

I feel it is also worth discussing the substance of his domestic policy. Much has been said of his administration's economic policy. I will do so. I feel, at present, however, it is necessary for me to sign off for now, and start thinking about heading to bed, for it is late. Watch this space for commentary on Reagan's domestic policy!

On Liberalism

There is much to be said for the modern liberal philosophy, as well as the historical tradition known as liberalism.
Its emphasis on the freedom of the invividual, on equality and on tolerance deserve much credit. I do believe, however, that there are certain limits to liberalism, chiefly in the sense that too strong an emphasis on rights, over human beings themselves, can lead to non-desirable outcomes.

Firstly on the agenda though, liberal praise. At the present time, living, as we are told, in the age of global terrorism, Tony Blair and his government have been eager, as they always are, to be seen to be doing things. Taking action. This has led to some extremely worrying propositions concerning the curtailment of civil liberties, particularly with the Belmarsh case in 2005 regarding the Home Secretary and planned proposals for detaining foreign suspects for an indefinite period, and the recent '90-days' debacle (I need not elaborate). Liberals have, as have conservatives, spoken up in the name of the basic rights we regard as inalienable and fundamental to our national way of life. They are right to do so. Liberal groups such as Liberty have been the most vocal in the opposition to the trend towards authoritarianism, speaking out also on important matters such as ID cards.

Liberal tolerance is also commendable. At a time when the issue of immigration is quite heated, they (the Liberal Democrats in particular) have tried to address the balance by focusing on the benefits immigration brings to our society. This, I feel, is much needed in a generally hostile climate. Whilst there are clearly concerns with the government's current policy, mostly with the mess and uncertainty that the administrative system seems to be in, a voice that defends the rights of immigrants against prejudice is very much needed.

There are, however, concerns I have with liberalism. Fundamental to this is my feeling that there is sometimes too strong an emphasis on a culture of rights, rather than on a culture of rights and responsibilities. Possibly the best example of this is, in my view, the issue of abortion. One constantly reads, or is told, by the most well-intentioned of people, that a woman's right to an abortion is a right to be defended at all costs. We are told that the matter of abortion is a matter of privacy, and the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body is not to be violated in any way. We are also told that an abortive act can be a humane one, if a child is born who will not be likely to lead a happy or secure life. My question is who has the right to make such judgements about something that is, ultimately, an independent being? A life that, if no positive act is done to prevent it, will develop into a full and mature one? (the notion of the 'positive act' is a concept borrowed from a friend).

An abortion law that ignores the fact that individuals are free agents and that would absolve individuals of any responsibility for the consequences of their action cannot be progressive or desirable. Of course there are circumstances where people don't plan, don't think ahead and don't think of the consequences of their actions. That is true in any area of life. But to have a policy that condones abortion cannot lead us to a better situation, where there is more thought for the actions we take, more consideration of serious consequences that follow from the choices we make. The law on abortion, as it currently stands, will not reduce the number of abortions.

I also feel pangs of discomfort when it comes to liberalism and drug culture. Rarely do I hear a positive argument when it comes to the issue of legalisation. Regarding cannabis, we are often told how alochol and tobacco are far worse. That is not an argument for legalising something of which the results of taking can be decidedly uncertain. The law is there to protect. There is certainly a debate to be had regarding effective ways to fight drugs, but that does not, in my opinion, mean fundamentally changing the nature of their criminality, which is based on the understanding that drugs are decidedly harmful, individually and socially. Legalisation, regardless of intentions, can only send out a message that such activity, whilst to be avoided in the past, is 'now ok'.

So my feelings on liberalism are mixed (which probably explains why I joined the Conservative Party!). It has a rich tradition, and has, to my knowledge, not an intolerant or hostile bone in its conceptual body. I do feel, however, that government, whilst not preaching or telling the people what to do, does have a responsibility not to encourage activity which is fundamentally harmful for individuals, families, communities, and the nation as a whole.