In an article published today on Indybay, Socialist Party Vice-Presidential nominee Stewart Alexander has called for a common currency and basic income for the United States and Mexico:
To accomplish his goal, Stewart Alexander says it will be necessary to restructure the entire banking industry; all banking and financial institutions would be socially owned, and operated by a North American Banking Authority that would be democratically controlled.
Alexander says creating the banking authority and a common currency would be the first step toward creating a basic income that would benefit working people on both sides of the border and eventually benefiting hundreds of millions of working people throughout the entire western hemisphere.
Alexander points to the Center for the Study of Democratic Societies as inspiration for the plan, arguing that a guaranteed personal income would “meet the basic needs of the poor and homeless” as well provide working students with more time to focus on their studies. Alexander also ties in the immigration issue with his cross-border economic plan:
“It is unfortunate that the Democrats and Republicans are now building a $50 billion fence on the U.S.-Mexico border; it has divided families and is severely straining our relationship with Mexico. The goal of Socialist Party USA, and our Presidential Candidate Brian Moore, is to build a stronger bond with ours neighbors to the south and a Basic Income Guarantee will help to resolve many of the issues involving immigration.”
53 responses so far ↓
1 Deran // Aug 10, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Hmmm, I’m a socialist, of some sort, but this sounds like a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy.
I could see a commonwealth of American nations, but tieing Mexico’s economy even more to the US sounds dangerous for the Mexicans.
2 Deran // Aug 10, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I also think the idea of basic income is unnecessary if basics like utillities were owned by Public Utillity Districts, and rental housing was regulated with rent stabilization, and speculation were illegal on necessities (like food and water), and usury were recriminalized on a federal level.
At the same time, I am all in favor of a guaranteed basic supplemental income for college students first four years or something, the poor and homeless.
3 paulie cannoli // Aug 11, 2008 at 12:26 am
Everybody gets a pony!
4 Trent Hill // Aug 11, 2008 at 9:56 am
Not just a pony. A pony that is rated “SAFE” by the Federal Department of Pony Inspectors. This Pony is free of disease, hunger, or even sleepiness.
5 Mike Theodore // Aug 11, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I don’t have room for a friggin’ pony! Can I give it back? Eat it?
…
Strike that last comment from the record.
I’m noticing that Alexander is more vocal than Moore when it comes to press releases and what not.
6 Nexus // Aug 11, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Has this ever been tried successfully anywhere in the world?
7 Trent Hill // Aug 11, 2008 at 5:07 pm
The “Everyone Gets a Pony Program”? Sure. Look at Cuba! They’re successful!
8 Peter Orvetti // Aug 11, 2008 at 6:15 pm
The U.S. still owes a bunch of folks 40 acres and a mule, plus interest.
9 Deran // Aug 11, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Actually, under the Johnson and Nixon “Great Society” stuff the US was pretty close to a guaranteed basic income, and it worked well. Until the Great Satan Reagan came to power. And of course the Lesser Satan Clinton and the Democrats shameful support of the so-called “welfare to work”.
10 langa // Aug 11, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I’m certainly no fan of Reagan, but I think the average family was a lot better off in the ’80s than they were in the ’70s.
The ’70s were a lot like now, with high inflation, exorbitant gas prices, etc. That shouldn’t be a surprise, since the 2nd Bush adminstration was just like the Johnson and Nixon administrations, with huge increases in the size of government at home, coupled with a foolish war abroad.
Reagan was able to fix part of what his predecessors had wrought. Unfortunately, his idea of smaller government meant getting rid of programs he didn’t like and replacing them with others that he did like. If he had lived up to the rhetoric that he used in his campaign, maybe he would be worthy of the praise that many people heap upon him.
As for Clinton, his legacy is helped by the fact that he (like Reagan) presided over an era of heavily divided government, which kept him from being able to implement many of his goofy schemes, and thus turned him into something of a “do nothing” president — which, of course, is the best kind.
11 Trent Hill // Aug 11, 2008 at 8:30 pm
You’re kidding right? A Gauranteed basic income?
12 donald raymond lake // Aug 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Michael Moore says they have better health care.
13 G.E. // Aug 11, 2008 at 9:01 pm
langa – I think things were bad in the 70s due to LBJ-Nixon. Carter was one of the least bad presidents ever, and his appointment of Volcker to the Fed (whom Reagan hated and tried to fire) is what brought the economy out of hyper-inflation territory.
What did Reagan fix? It was Carter who deregulated and privatized and appointed Volcker to the Fed.
14 Darcy Richardson // Aug 11, 2008 at 9:14 pm
“I’m noticing that Alexander is more vocal than Moore when it comes to press releases and what not.”
That’s a keen observation, Mike. Stewart Alexander has been issuing most of the campaign’s press releases while Brian, one of the hardest working minor-party presidential candidates in the race this year, has been almost totally consumed handling the grueling and often nightmarish task of trying to get the tiny Socialist Party on as many ballots as possible.
In addition to recently campaigning for the California-based Peace & Freedom Party’s presidential nomination and organizing and coordinating volunteer petition drives in numerous states, Brian has also personally carried nominating petitions in several states this year, most recently gathering a couple of hundred signatures in Toledo, Ohio, where the Socialist Party’s presidential ticket hopes to land a spot on the ballot for the first time since 1932 when Norman M. Thomas and his vice-presidential running mate, James H. Maurer — the gruff and salty former longtime president of the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor — garnered more than 64,000 votes in the Buckeye State.
By a combination of luck and pluck, the Socialist Party’s ticket is hoping to be on the ballot in as many as a dozen states this autumn — the most since 1952.
I suspect we’ll be hearing a lot more from Brian Moore once the ballot-access deadlines have passed.
15 Mike Theodore // Aug 11, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I know he’s been looking for a few campaign events, speeches, and meet-and-greets. I haven’t heard anything about his personal ballot access effort.
16 Sivarticus // Aug 11, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Totally sick and twisted! That goes for both programs from the socialist nobody.
17 paulie cannoli // Aug 11, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Actually, under the Johnson and Nixon “Great Society†stuff the US was pretty close to a guaranteed basic income, and it worked well.
I don’t think it did. I remember my first memory of the USA (in early 1980): gas lines, and a NYC that was very dysfunctional in many regards.
18 paulie cannoli // Aug 11, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Reagan was able to fix part of what his predecessors had wrought.
To be fair he messed a lot of things up too. Lots of corporate welfare, military-industrial-government complex expansion, ramping up of the drug war and the police-prison-industrial complex, S&L bailout, massive debt and other forms of hidden corporate welfare…
And Reagan did not cut domestic spending either, that is a total myth. All he cut was projected spending increases. The “great compromise” with O’Neill was that Congress would appropriate more money for a world policeman military and militarized domestic police, and Reagan wouldn’t veto social spending increases.
Not that this would surprise anyone who looked at his actual record as Governor, rather than his quasi-libertarian rhetoric on economic issues. Jerry Brown actually cut California spending after Reagan, precisely the opposite of what most people would assume.
(In fact, the moonbeam nickname refers to Brown’s early advocacy of teleconferencing).
19 langa // Aug 11, 2008 at 11:34 pm
GE & Paulie,
As I said, I’m no fan of Reagan (for many of the reasons that Paulie points out). My primary reason for “defending” him was to respond to Deran’s claim that he ruined the country by dismantling the Great Society. To the extent that that’s true, he should be commended.
However, as I mentioned, he failed to live up to his campaign rhetoric, and he is certainly viewed far too favorably by many people who call themselves enemies of the state. But his election did at least send a message that the country was tired of the creeping socialism that had defined the 2 previous decades.
20 paulie cannoli // Aug 11, 2008 at 11:38 pm
By a combination of luck and pluck, the Socialist Party’s ticket is hoping to be on the ballot in as many as a dozen states this autumn — the most since 1952.
Good luck to the SPUSA. We need more voices in the debate.
21 G.E. // Aug 12, 2008 at 1:11 am
langa –
Agreed. But… I’d say the “extent” is zero.
His election sent the message that fascism in a psuedo-libertarian bag could be more attractive than more overt socialism… But it’s also far more destructive.
22 johncjackson // Aug 12, 2008 at 2:32 am
FWIW, there are people who are considered libertarians who have proposed or believe in some type of guaranteed income plan. It is probably more an attempt at pragmatism considering the massive welfare programs for certain groups that are NEVER going away than an ideological proposal though.
23 langa // Aug 12, 2008 at 3:06 am
“His election sent the message that fascism in a psuedo-libertarian bag could be more attractive than more overt socialism… But it’s also far more destructive.”
I disagree with the “more destructive” part. The worst abuses of power (in democracies, at least) occur in countries (and eras) where people believe that the state is their friend. Fending off tyranny requires a citizenry that is aware of how dangerous the state can be.
That’s why I was so upset a while back when I heard Barr say that he was running for POTUS in order to “restore the American public’s faith in government”. A real libertarian’s goal should be just the opposite: to convince the public to put NO faith in government.
Getting back to Reagan, the fact that so many people voted for a guy who said “the state is your enemy” was a good thing, especially considering that the last guy who had run on that message got crushed. Reagan’s election showed that people had learned something from the disasters of Johnson & Nixon.
Unfortunately, they forgot that lesson all too soon. But perhaps Ron Paul’s impressive showing among young people is a good sign that they’re starting to remember. If nothing else, a lot of those voters grew up in the ’80s hearing the message that “government is bad” at a very early age. That’s got to be a good thing.
24 Deran // Aug 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Hey, I’d take 1980 NYC to todays bourgeois resort that it has become, any day of the week. I loved the graffiti covered trains. Rent was cheap, even in large areas of Manhattan. Rent stablization made sure working and middle class people could live near where they worked.
Yes there was cheating on social services and rent control, but those were small potatoes compared to the corporate welfare and corporate crimes that go un commented on and unprosecuted today.
The Great Society did work very well. It created summer work for kids like me (CETA), and there were even movements toward helping recipients set up bank accounts. It’s called social investing. Not a very complicated idea.
All Reagan did was shift tax money from people who needed it, to expansion of the corporate welfare system we have today. Reagan really set the stage for the gangsterism we’ve lived through for the last eight years.
25 G.E. // Aug 12, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Here, I agree with Deran.
Langa: It’s time to give up the ghost. Reagan was a fascist.
26 langa // Aug 12, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“Langa: It’s time to give up the ghost. Reagan was a fascist.”
I agree. Nowhere in this thread have I defended Reagan’s policies. I said that his election was a positive, that his campaign rhetoric was good, and that IF he had lived up to that rhetoric, he would’ve been a good president. Unfortunately, he didn’t. That doesn’t mean his election was bad, compared to the alternatives.
Do you disagree? Would you rather have a President who constantly tells us how great the state is, and how it’s the solution to all our problems, like FDR did?
If you notice, kids who grew up in the ’30s and ’40s (who grew up hearing how great the state is) are the most authoritarian statists around. They’re the people currently running things. On the other hand, kids who grew up in the ’80s, hearing that the state is bad, are today’s Ron Paul supporters.
Don’t get me wrong. If I had been old enough to vote back then, I would NOT have voted for Reagan, but that doesn’t mean there was nothing positive about his election. It sent a message that the public was fed up with big government.
There’s a reason why Ron Paul quotes Reagan so often, and it’s the same reason why big goverment lefties hate him so much. Reagan was an eloquent advocate of freedom, even though his policies themselves were anti-freedom.
Does that make him a great, or even good, president? Absolutely not. But it does make him less evil than those who openly celebrate and glorify the state (like FDR, LBJ, Nixon, McCain, Obama, etc.). That much seems obvious. When’s the last time you heard RP quote FDR, LBJ, or Nixon?
27 G.E. // Aug 12, 2008 at 7:26 pm
langa – But there’s another side to that coin, too. Reagan conflated conservatism with libertarianism, and vice versa, in the minds of many — including people like our horribly misguided socialist friend. To him, Reagan = capitalism! Thus, many young people who grew up hearing how great the “free market” was, etc., rebel against it, thinking that anti-state rhetoric is really about redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, incarceration of people for nonviolent non-crimes, etc.
Conservatives still use anti-state rhetoric like Doublespeak. I don’t think that’s good for people in understanding and appreciating laissez-faire.
28 langa // Aug 13, 2008 at 12:37 am
GE – You make a good point, and it’s one that I largely agree with. The tendency to equate capitalism with corporate fascism is an unfortunate byproduct of the “conservative revolution” of the ’80s.
Today, however, a lot of this confusion stems not from “conservative” politicians (many of whom no longer even bother to use anti-state rhetoric), but rather from the MSM and the academic community, who are quick to label any problem that arises (even those directly and obviously caused by state action) as an example of “market failure” that justifies more state action. This rhetorical sleight of hand far predates Reagan. FDR was a master of it.
29 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 12:57 am
Yes, and it goes back even further than that. But before Reagan, the GOP was more honest in its hostility to the free market. Now people think Bush is a capitalist!!
30 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 3:39 am
Hey, I’d take 1980 NYC to todays bourgeois resort that it has become, any day of the week.
It’s a tradeoff.
I loved the graffiti covered trains.
So did I – especially the ones I painted. The urine smell, I don’t miss as much.
Rent was cheap, even in large areas of Manhattan. Rent stablization made sure working and middle class people could live near where they worked.
It also was a large contributing factor to the burning of whole neighborhoods, like ones where I grew up, which ended up looking like they had just gone through wartime bombing.
Yes there was cheating on social services and rent control, but those were small potatoes compared to the corporate welfare and corporate crimes that go un commented on and unprosecuted today.
I oppose the corporate welfare and corporate crimes. In fact, I would do away with nonconcensual limited liability, corporate personhood, and corporate welfare.
On the other hand, I also have experience living in government housing projects, SRO hotels and decaying tenaments, attending urban zoo schools, etc. The “Great Society” is nothing to celebrate or reenact. It failed miserably at eradicating poverty. It exacerbated social problems.
As an example, if a woman got a job or a husband, she lost her benefits. If she stayed single and unemployed, she received more benefits the more kids she had. If a girl got pregnant as soon as she was physically able to, she got to move out and start her own household.
Not exactly the greatest set of incentives in the world, and certainly not good for kids who grew up that way, like most of my friends. We were doing the same things growing up, but almost all of them ended up dead young, stretched out in prison, or homeless, strung out and insane living on the streets. Having two parents who stayed together may literally have saved my life.
The Great Society did work very well. It created summer work for kids like me (CETA), and there were even movements toward helping recipients set up bank accounts. It’s called social investing. Not a very complicated idea.
You really ought to read What is seen and what is not seen by Bastiat, if you haven’t.
All Reagan did was shift tax money from people who needed it, to expansion of the corporate welfare system we have today. Reagan really set the stage for the gangsterism we’ve lived through for the last eight years.
I’ll certainly agree with you there, although we’ll continue to differ greatly that tax money is a good, proper or moral way to help people who need it. I’m with Malcolm X in preferring community self-help efforts. They tend to be much better at distinguishing who needs help and who doesn’t and providing a way out of dependency.
On the other hand, bureaucratic welfare programs are soul-destroying for those who deal with them, self-perpetuating featherbeds for those who work for them, horribly inefficient, and a massive diversion of money from entrepreneurial activities which can actually lift people out of poverty in a meaningful way.
In fact, they are a great boon to corporations. All the taxes and regulations tend to crush startup businesses, or prevent them from ever starting. On the other hand, big corporations easily comply with the mountains of red tape, having attorneys and accountants on hand for that purpose. They manipulate the system by writing in custom rules to benefit themselves, and many of the same people pass through the revolving doors of corporations, regulatory agencies and legislatures.
Linking health care and other benefits to corporate employments is another way in which the system keeps people bound to corporations, away from starting their own business. And that goes double for occupational licensing laws.
If you think that the welfare state is the bane of corporate criminals, rather than their handmaiden, you are sadly mistaken.
31 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 3:48 am
I agree. Nowhere in this thread have I defended Reagan’s policies. I said that his election was a positive, that his campaign rhetoric was good, and that IF he had lived up to that rhetoric, he would’ve been a good president. Unfortunately, he didn’t. That doesn’t mean his election was bad, compared to the alternatives.
Do you disagree?
Yes. Duplicitous praise for markets was only one part of the Ron Old Raygun trifecta.
The other parts: coercive social moralizing, police-prison-industrial “law and order” fascism, corporate cronyism, jingoistic nationalism in the service of the military-industrial-government complex, were all present in rhetoric as well as reality.
I should mention that the symbolism of the 1980 campaign kickoff in Philadelphia, Mississippi, was not lost on Reagan’s advisors. Rest assured it was not to pay tribute to the freedom riders. Nor did Pat Buchanan arrange the wreath-laying at the graves of SS soldiers in ignorance.
Only a small part of Reagan’s rhetoric was libertarian leaning, and that small part was a transparent lie to anyone who knew his record as Governor.
32 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 3:49 am
Do you disagree? Would you rather have a President who constantly tells us how great the state is, and how it’s the solution to all our problems, like FDR did?
Look up Reagan’s quotes re: FDR
33 langa // Aug 13, 2008 at 4:21 am
Paulie – I think you’re missing the big picture with what I’m saying about Reagan. I fully agree that the specifics of his actual policies were terrible. But that’s no different than any other president of the last 50 years (and virtually all the ones before that as well). What was different about Reagan is the way that he was perceived.
The average Reagan voter (or at least the ones I’ve talked to) didn’t vote for him because of the things you’re talking about. Some of them liked his Cold War “death to the commies” rant, but again, that’s no different than his predecessors. What did make him different was that he claimed to be against the government.
Again, this is why Ron Paul made appeals to Reagan supporters. He knows that most of them voted for Reagan because they PERCEIVED Reagan as the enemy of big government. Whether he was or not is irrelevant. They voted for him because he promised to get government out of their lives.
The last candidate who made a similar promise was Goldwater, who got crushed in 1964. LBJ and later Nixon saw this as a green light. They no longer had to worry about selling the public on big government. The public was already sold. Thus, they gave the public exactly what they wanted: the Great Society.
Reagan’s election 12 years later was like a referendum on the Great Society, and on big government in general. The fact that people rejected it by voting for Reagan showed that they had (at least temporarily) learned from their mistakes, and didn’t want to repeat them. That’s all I was saying.
34 langa // Aug 13, 2008 at 4:22 am
That’s supposed to be “16 years later”, not 12.
35 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 4:45 am
You see, I used to think the Right was being absurd when they said “liberals” (socialists) wanted to destroy the family. But now I believe it to be true. A basic tenant of Communism is to destroy the family, which is a threat to the supremacy of the state. Admitting that does not make one anti-gay or pro-Christian, etc.
36 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 4:54 am
The one upside was that when I was a teenager, living in an environment where teen girls actually wanted to get pregnant made it really easy to get laid a lot, especially since I was slinging coke and crack.
Also, since they had zero interest in having a man to raise their babies, I did not have to worry about it at all.
The downside, other than occasional gonorrhea (luckily nothing more serious), is that unless I am infertile, I have contributed genetic material to perpetuate the problem.
With a half-life of twelve, that puts me in the awkward position that this year, at 36, I may have my first crop of biological great grandchildren.
Also, while I don’t get much action anymore, when I do I have to wonder about the possibility of any woman under the age of 24 being my daughter (vanishingly unlikely, but I still have to wonder).
37 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 4:57 am
paulie – You’re stumbling into some very un-PC territory here. You are giving hard evidence for the state’s artificial promotion and subsidizing of sexual promiscuity (add Roe v. Wade to this mix, as well) and debasing traditional morality. Whatever one thinks of traditional morals, they should not be subject to an aggressive, coercive attack by the state.
38 Mike Theodore // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 am
Paulie,
First of all, just…ewww.
Second,
…
just…
ewww
39 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:08 am
Paulie – I think you’re missing the big picture with what I’m saying about Reagan. I fully agree that the specifics of his actual policies were terrible. But that’s no different than any other president of the last 50 years (and virtually all the ones before that as well). What was different about Reagan is the way that he was perceived.
The average Reagan voter (or at least the ones I’ve talked to) didn’t vote for him because of the things you’re talking about. Some of them liked his Cold War “death to the commies†rant, but again, that’s no different than his predecessors. What did make him different was that he claimed to be against the government.
I can’t say I agree at all.
“Law and order” a law George Wallace was a big part of the Reagan marketing plan.
“Rambo” nationalism/jingoism, as well.
Coercive moralist reaction against porn, gays, hippies, dope, etc.
Thinly veiled racial reaction was behind much of the anti-welfare state rhetoric (as much as any quasi-libertarian deception was), and even more so behind the tough on crime rhetoric.
Reagan, to many of his supporters, was the cowboy who would kick commies and Muslims in the ass (with our tax money of course), put uppity negroes and women back in their place, get the gays back in the closet, restore the ideal 1950s Father Knows Best social order and fill up the prisons.
It was not exactly a libertarian vision.
The moral majority was a big part of it.
And what about those Reagan Democrats, remember them? Not exactly libertarians — actually, socially conservative Democrats, about the opposite of libertarians.
The folks who could identify with George Wallace’s big spending (small example: we have a community college in every county in Alabama thanks to Wallace, numerous road building and public works projects, etc) as well as his social reactionary views, and were equally at home with Curtis LeMay calling for bombing Vietnam back to the stone age.
These were Reagan voters, and they responded to his campaign rhetoric.
40 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:10 am
You’re stumbling into some very un-PC territory here. You are giving hard evidence for the state’s artificial promotion and subsidizing of sexual promiscuity (add Roe v. Wade to this mix, as well) and debasing traditional morality. Whatever one thinks of traditional morals, they should not be subject to an aggressive, coercive attack by the state.
I agree – and I’m not exactly a bible thumper.
But I’m a lot different than I was at sixteen, for sure.
41 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:22 am
Watch out! To the annoying libertines, admitting the truth makes you a socially conservative authoritarian who wants to control people’s lives!
42 langa // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:24 am
I don’t deny that all those groups were a part of Reagan’s coalition, but I think they more formed the fringe, much like the Truthers and militia-types in Ron Paul’s coalition.
I was a kid in the ’80s, and what I remember most about Reagan was all the quoting of Jefferson, references to the Founding Fathers, etc. I also had plenty of liberal teachers who despised him for not supporting their pet projects. However, perhaps other people saw him differently back then. I know I certainly see him differently today than I did back then.
43 langa // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:26 am
“The downside, other than occasional gonorrhea…”
Hopefully, you didn’t get burned twice by the same girl, like ODB.
44 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:27 am
I thought ODB only “got burned once, but it was only gonorrhea”???
45 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:28 am
What? You think the Moral Majority, the anti-communists, and the “Reagan Democrats” were the equivalent of Truthers within the libertarian movement, while libertarians were Reagan’s real constituency? Huh? WTF? I’m sure I must be misunderstanding you, because that’s insane. At best, pseudo-libertarians were a “fringe” element — but they weren’t even that.
46 langa // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:43 am
In the Intro to his first album, ODB does a sort of standup routine, in which he explains that he got burned again…by the same girl, which provokes tremendous laughter from the crowd.
Yeah, I know, I’ve listened to that album way too many times.
47 langa // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:56 am
I’ve already explained that the anti-communists were not the unique property of Reagan. This was the Cold War. Even hardcore liberals like JFK talked tough about commies back then.
As for the Moral Majority, many of them voted for Reagan because he promised to get the government out of their lives, by scaling back the CRA, stopping passage of the ERA, etc. Remember, guys like Chuck Baldwin were in the Moral Majority back then. They weren’t nearly as openly statist as they are now.
Finally, the “Reagan Democrats” were largely a creation of the media to try to explain why the country had turned in such a conservative direction. They claimed it was because of social issues, but the more plausible explanation was that the same people who voted for JFK and LBJ looked at the economic disaster created by the Great Society programs, and turned to Reagan to solve it.
48 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 9:30 am
Watch out! To the annoying libertines, admitting the truth makes you a socially conservative authoritarian who wants to control people’s lives!
Only if they voluntarily agree to have me in control.
49 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 9:35 am
I don’t deny that all those groups were a part of Reagan’s coalition, but I think they more formed the fringe, much like the Truthers and militia-types in Ron Paul’s coalition.
You’re wrong in both cases. Truthers are at the core of Ron Paul supporters, and the assorted medley of reich wing statists was at the core of Ron Old Raygun’s.
I was a kid in the ’80s, and what I remember most about Reagan was all the quoting of Jefferson, references to the Founding Fathers, etc. I also had plenty of liberal teachers who despised him for not supporting their pet projects. However, perhaps other people saw him differently back then.
We most certainly did. From where I breathed, he was best known for ramping up the drug war, which we were in the middle of.
Even before we lived there, way back in ‘80, he was best known as a bellicose cold warrior. That is what everyone I can remember who supported him in 1980 supported him for.
I recall being surprised that we made it out of the Raygun era without a nuclear war.
50 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 10:00 am
Hopefully, you didn’t get burned twice by the same girl, like ODB.
No.
51 paulie cannoli // Aug 13, 2008 at 10:23 am
I’ve already explained that the anti-communists were not the unique property of Reagan. This was the Cold War. Even hardcore liberals like JFK talked tough about commies back then.
Not everyone did so equally. The 70s were the era of detente. Reagan represented reaction against it being perceived as weakness and failure which allowed the Reds to gain ground.
As for the Moral Majority, many of them voted for Reagan because he promised to get the government out of their lives, by scaling back the CRA, stopping passage of the ERA, etc. Remember, guys like Chuck Baldwin were in the Moral Majority back then. They weren’t nearly as openly statist as they are now.
wikipedia:
Some issues for which the Moral Majority campaigned included:
* outlawing abortion
* opposition to state recognition and acceptance of homosexuality
* opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
* enforcement of a traditional vision of family life
* censorship of media outlets that promote an ‘anti-family’ agenda
The Moral Majority had adherents in the two major United States political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, though it exercised far more influence on the former.
Falwell was the organization’s best known spokesperson throughout the 1980s. By 1982, Moral Majority surpassed Christian Voice in size and influence. The organization dissolved officially in 1989 but lives on in the Christian Coalition network initiated by Pat Robertson.
In 1981, a series of exposés (later nominated for the Pulitzer Prize) by Memphis reporter Mike Clark led to some condemning the interactions between the Moral Majority and the Republican Party.
In early October of 2007, Cal Thomas openly admitted on Fox News’ popular show Hannity and Colmes that the marketing department of the Moral Majority would commonly discuss ways to demonize homosexuals (among others) in order to manipulate the public into following the Moral Majority’s agenda.
Finally, the “Reagan Democrats†were largely a creation of the media to try to explain why the country had turned in such a conservative direction. They claimed it was because of social issues, but the more plausible explanation was that the same people who voted for JFK and LBJ looked at the economic disaster created by the Great Society programs, and turned to Reagan to solve it.
No. I’ve met many Reagan Democrats, and that is not what it was at all. There were many socially conservative and militaristic Democrats who did not like the sexual revolution, the counterculture, marijuana, desegregation, secularization, perceived weakness in the cold war – but did like the tax and spend element of the Democratic Party.
Again, many of the people who voted for George Wallace and in some cases Nixon in ‘72, but voted for Carter in ‘76 and continued to vote for Democrats at the local level in the 1960s and 70s.
These also included some that voted Democrat up until Reagan (although many defected in ‘72).
Keep in mind that the faction of Democrats who started taking control of their party in 1972 were outside in 1968, protesting and getting their asses kicked by a police gang controlled by a Democratic Party patronage machine, and the people who went on to be Reagan Democrats were watching it on TV and cheering the cops.
That is, other than the few who were in the hall to pick Humphrey.
52 G.E. // Aug 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The Democrats ceased being anti-Communist with McGovern’s triumph in 1972. From then on, the Dems were portrayed as being soft on Communism, just as they’re portrayed as being soft on terrorism now.
This is all moot, anyway. The Republicans still hold Reagan highly, but they reject all of his anti-state rhetoric. They just use Doublespeak now. I really don’t think we are better off or freer or closer to being free thanks to Reagan’s win over Carter in 1980. Carter was one of the least offensive presidents in U.S. history; the best (i.e. least bad) president since Coolidge. Reagan was just an all-new kind of bad.
53 langa // Aug 14, 2008 at 11:55 am
OK, I’m a pretty stubborn guy, but I can see when I’m beating my head against the wall. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
On the bright side, you guys won’t have to worry about President Obama using any misleading anti-state rhetoric.
Leave a Comment