I say Reagan and Kemp, because they said they gave us capitalism when they didn’t. That makes people think Capitalism does nothing but make the rich richer. At least Hillary Clinton is honest on this particular issue and without people like Reagan and Kemp, not more than 1% of the population would listen to her because they would be enjoying capitalism.
I’d even go as far as to say that Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of capitalism. I hate him with a passion and I hope he’s in Hell if it exists
It’s arguable Reagan did in fact play a role in making America fat.
Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[11]Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as “freedom fighters”.
Also
On August 2, 1990 President George Bush issued a statement indicating that, while the U.S. overseas basing system should remain intact, by 1995 U.S. global security requirements might be met by an active force 25 percent smaller than in 1990. On that same day Iraq invaded Kuwait… New military bases in the Middle East were established, most notably in Saudi Arabia, where thousands of U.S. troops have been stationed for more than a decade.
And
in September of 1982 the PLO was forced to evacuate Beirut. The United States government now mounted their own peace initiative. The heart of the initiative was total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, which angered the Israeli government, and on the other hand, no support for a Palestinian state, which alienated the Palestinians.
So it’s also arguable that Reagan played a role in causing 9/11 as well.
I don’t think Reagan lied about, or damaged capitalism tho. He did give us capitalism. Corporate statist capitalism, as opposed to the free market anarchistic capitalism LvMI advocates.
In my opinion, this site needs fewer posts like this, and this movement needs fewer hotheads. Constructive passion and incontinent, spleen-venting hate are not the same thing.
No worries. I went through what I consider a “hothead” stage myself when I first started posting here. I cringe when I read some of the swaggering, polemical diatribes I wrote back then, punctuated with ALL-CAPS outbursts and self-righteous “evil statist” denunciations. Reading more Mises is very helpful in dropping such excess baggage.
Perhaps the rants do not. But a deeply seated hatred of evil can be an asset.
When you have the time you can try tunning in for Scott Horton’s Antiwar Radio show and wait for one of his periodic ‘Woodrow Wilson was one step down from antichrist’ rants. He is a huge asset to the movement but he wouldn’t be half the radio host he is without his hatreds.
That may be appealing to fellow hotheads who already totally agree anyway. But it doesn’t do any good with regard to changing minds. For all his passion, you never see Ron Paul displaying hatred toward Obama or Bernanke. I really believe that’s why he’s changed so many minds. People are inspired by wisdom, principle, passion, and goodwill toward man, not by hate.
I don’t really accept the term hothead here. To me a hothead is somebody who is impulsive and does not think things over and therefore later regrets his actions. Not somebody who feels about something more strongly than somebody else thinks is the proper level of feeling about it.
If you think about certain a thing a certain way 100% of the time then you are not a hothead, because you are not driven by impulse.
Ron Paul is important in certain ways, other spokesmen are important in others. They all have their place and there is room and role for all of them. One thing that we would be without, if Ron Paul were our only spokesman, is that murderers worth of contempt would not get called out as such. Ron Paul said many things that needed to be said, but not all. I am glad there are other people who will publicly name murderers for murderers and scumbags for scumbags. Joe Sixpack needs to hear that truth too and to have the protective shell around him where he refuses to think about statesmen in quite those terms shattered.
Neither do I think there is something wrongful about hatred or drawing from your hatreds. If we just imagine say, somebody living in the 1930s hating Joseph Stalin for his terror and expresing contempt for him in passionate diatribes, surely that would not be wrong.
