Zombie Reagan Has My Vote

 

Imagine how pathetic the GOPe would be without pressure from Reagan supporters, not to mention Trump supporters. Would they even consider fighting the Left? On anything?

There is a lot of opposition to “Zombie Reaganism” by much of the GOPe and some of our brethren in the MAGA movement.

The GOPe folks talk about Reagan a lot but are adamantly opposed to his governing philosophies.

The argument against Reagan principles is always the same. We are “stuck in the ’80s, pushing that tired old formula of tax cuts and deregulation.” Then they produce straw-man arguments against duplicating the exact same policies we implemented in the ’80s. They also complain about “unfettered free markets,” as if that ever happened.

No one is saying we should bring back the exact same policies. (Who wants to invade Grenada? Raise your hands, please.)

It’s the Reagan principles that matter, and they didn’t originate with him. Reagan was guided by principles that pre-dated him and are applicable any time. Before Reagan, you would have to go all the way back to Calvin Coolidge to find another president who understood them.  The principles worked then, too.

“Reaganomics” and “Supply-Side Economics” were just names for plain old Classical Economics — a thing despised by most politicians.  Classical economics consists of solid principles that existed before Adam Smith wrote them down. Bad things happen when you violate those principles.

And violating the principles is on the to-do list of every Democrat and far too many Republicans.

You know who else appreciated the Reagan principles? Donald Trump. The economy was pretty good under the Donald, wasn’t it? That’s because President Trump implemented that “tired old formula of tax cuts and deregulation.”

The “ditch Reagan” people don’t like those principles. A lot of them are former Bushies who did a subsequent stint at National Review. A common thread among them is a dislike for classical economics, especially sound money and free markets.  They don’t get starry-eyed about limited government, either.

More than once, I’ve heard that it’s time to “deemphasize” free markets, as if we hadn’t already done that. Free markets consist of the absence of something – that something being government control of the economy. You can’t deemphasize free markets without increasing emphasis on government control.

The free market de-emphasizers want bigger government. Otherwise, why would they complain about a President who’s been dead for 18 years?

Several political groups — such as National Conservatism, Reform Conservatism, and American Compass — have formed around the deemphasis of free markets and an aversion to limited government.  Those groups advocate things that sound very reasonable to the uninitiated but will steer us to increased government coercion.

It’s true that times change, but the right thing to do doesn’t change so quickly.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 79 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Stoaty Weasel has mascot and slogan: “Zombie Reagan: Optimism, Conservatism, Braaaaaiiiiiiins!”

    Zombie Reagan by blogger S Weasel

    • #1
  2. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Stoaty Weasel has mascot and slogan: “Zombie Reagan: Optimism, Conservatism, Braaaaaiiiiiiins!”

    Zombie Reagan by blogger S Weasel

    LOL!  This is good.

    • #2
  3. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Getting government out requires government getting itself out.

    But free market in our borders is very different from global free trade. These are two different principles.

    • #3
  4. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    BastiatJunior: More than once I’ve heard that it’s time to “deemphasize” free markets, as if we hadn’t already done that.  Free markets consist of the absence of something – that something being government control of the economy.

    Great point, and one not understood by the same people who think that Americans’ money is the government’s money, and that reducing taxes means government payouts.  The math only stays consistent for them by utterly swapping their credit and debit columns.

    • #4
  5. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    BDB (View Comment):

    BastiatJunior: More than once I’ve heard that it’s time to “deemphasize” free markets, as if we hadn’t already done that. Free markets consist of the absence of something – that something being government control of the economy.

    Great point, and one not understood by the same people who think that Americans’ money is the government’s money, and reduced taxes means government payouts. The math only stays consistent for them by utterly swapping their credit and debit columns.

    Well put.

    • #5
  6. AMD Texas Coolidge
    AMD Texas
    @DarinJohnson

    Stina (View Comment):

    Getting government out requires government getting itself out.

    But free market in our borders is very different from global free trade. These are two different principles.

    Not really. The fact is that the US was never and will never be completely self-sufficient. That does not mean that you cannot prevent subsidization of goods or labor in the international markets that are utilized in trade to even out real imbalances.

    • #6
  7. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    AMD Texas (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Getting government out requires government getting itself out.

    But free market in our borders is very different from global free trade. These are two different principles.

    Not really. The fact is that the US was never and will never be completely self-sufficient. That does not mean that you cannot prevent subsidization of goods or labor in the international markets that are utilized in trade to even out real imbalances.

    That requires government interfacing, which is why the two are different.

    • #7
  8. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    AMD Texas (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Getting government out requires government getting itself out.

    But free market in our borders is very different from global free trade. These are two different principles.

    Not really. The fact is that the US was never and will never be completely self-sufficient. That does not mean that you cannot prevent subsidization of goods or labor in the international markets that are utilized in trade to even out real imbalances.

    This only makes sense if there are no governments and no societies, or if all governments and societies are exactly the same.  A different legal regime in this country vs that country is already an imbalance, and one which we dearly wish to preserve.  We The People, and all of that.  Unregulated migration is just kicking holes in a voluntary system, exfiltrating benefits while importing problems.  We’re not perfect, but it’s our system and critically, we have a right to it.  Every American citizen has a fractional property in our cultural and real capital accrued at great cost and bequeathed to us.  Those who would “re-distribute” or fritter it away should walk the plank.

    A system with a hole in it is not a system — that’s definitional.

    • #8
  9. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    AMD Texas (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Getting government out requires government getting itself out.

    But free market in our borders is very different from global free trade. These are two different principles.

    Not really. The fact is that the US was never and will never be completely self-sufficient. That does not mean that you cannot prevent subsidization of goods or labor in the international markets that are utilized in trade to even out real imbalances.

    #ShorterRebuttal:  To equate domestic free markets with international free markets is to deny either the existence or the legitimacy of the United States.  I’m a-gin’ it.

    • #9
  10. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    BastiatJunior: They also complain about “unfettered free markets,” as if that ever happened.

    Sigh. If only.

    • #10
  11. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    How about this: Reagan at home – low taxes, repeal regulations, bust government unions; Trump abroad – strong borders, pro-American trade, peace not war. 

    • #11
  12. GlenEisenhardt Coolidge
    GlenEisenhardt
    @GlenEisenhardt

    I don’t believe in tax cuts for corporate entities pushing for sex changes on kids and anti Americanism. I don’t believe in their speech either. They should be crushed and scattered to the winds and other people should take their place. They don’t need more money. And we don’t need more of their speech or wheeling and dealing politically. 

    • #12
  13. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    BastiatJunior: The GOPe folks talk about Reagan a lot but are adamantly opposed to his governing philosophies.

    Gee, I wonder who that would be . . .

    • #13
  14. Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer Member
    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer
    @ape2ag

    Zombie Reaganism isn’t the same as Reaganism.  The Republican party and conservative leaders, in the 90s, drifted away from what Reagan ran on in 1980 and 1984.  Reagan was more populist than is generally recognized today.  Henry Olson wrote a book about this.

    • #14
  15. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Zombie Reaganism isn’t the same as Reaganism. The Republican party and conservative leaders, in the 90s, drifted away from what Reagan ran on in 1980 and 1984. Reagan was more populist than is generally recognized today. Henry Olson wrote a book about this.

    I didn’t know Zombie Reaganism had a formal definition.

    The biggest departure from Reaganism started with Bush 43 who, by a massive increase in government regulation, government spending and a serious devaluation of the dollar, abandoned Reaganism in a way that must have made Clinton green with envy.

    Clinton ended up sticking with more of the Reagan policies than he’ll ever admit, and that was under duress.

    My biggest beef with the people who denounce “Zombie Reaganism” is their desire to abandon or “de-emphasize” free markets.  They see free markets as good for the eighties but not today.

    The sad irony is that I first heard about that desire right after the Bush administration’s dramatic departure from Reaganism.  These people had already gotten their wish and didn’t seem to know it.

    • #15
  16. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    genferei (View Comment):

    How about this: Reagan at home – low taxes, repeal regulations, bust government unions; Trump abroad – strong borders, pro-American trade, peace not war.

    I can absolutely live with this.

    • #16
  17. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Stina (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    How about this: Reagan at home – low taxes, repeal regulations, bust government unions; Trump abroad – strong borders, pro-American trade, peace not war.

    I can absolutely live with this.

    I accept your terms. 

    • #17
  18. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    BastiatJunior: (Who wants to invade Grenada? Raise your hands, please.)

    If the Soviets and Cubans try to control it again, then absolutely my hand is in the air.

    • #18
  19. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    I am waiting for Zombie Coolidge so that the debt can be addressed 

    • #19
  20. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    AMD Texas (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Getting government out requires government getting itself out.

    But free market in our borders is very different from global free trade. These are two different principles.

    Not really. The fact is that the US was never and will never be completely self-sufficient. That does not mean that you cannot prevent subsidization of goods or labor in the international markets that are utilized in trade to even out real imbalances.

    Alternatively, you could set up the economy to capitalize on this stupidity. We aren’t smart enough to do that. Lower prices from other countries stupid statist nonsense could work in our favor, we are just too dumb to do it. 

    • #20
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    BastiatJunior: The “ditch Reagan” people don’t like those principles. A lot of them are former Bushies who did a subsequent stint at National Review. A common thread among them is a dislike for classical economics, especially sound money and free markets.  They don’t get starry-eyed about limited government, either.

    Libertarian-almost-everything. The Fed runs with 0% inflation or lower. 

    That’s what we should have done the second the Soviet Union fell.

    Now it’s a gigantic mess that is very hard to fix.

    • #21
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer (View Comment):

    Zombie Reaganism isn’t the same as Reaganism. The Republican party and conservative leaders, in the 90s, drifted away from what Reagan ran on in 1980 and 1984. Reagan was more populist than is generally recognized today. Henry Olson wrote a book about this.

    I didn’t know Zombie Reaganism had a formal definition.

    The biggest departure from Reaganism started with Bush 43 who, by a massive increase in government regulation, government spending and a serious devaluation of the dollar, abandoned Reaganism in a way that must have made Clinton green with envy.

    Clinton ended up sticking with more of the Reagan policies than he’ll ever admit, and that was under duress.

    My biggest beef with the people who denounce “Zombie Reaganism” is their desire to abandon or “de-emphasize” free markets. They see free markets as good for the eighties but not today.

    The sad irony is that I first heard about that desire right after the Bush administration’s dramatic departure from Reaganism. These people had already gotten their wish and didn’t seem to know it.

    41 got rid of Paul Volker.

    • #22
  23. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

     

     

     

     

    • #23
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I could be talked out of this, but I think the only thing in life that should possibly be going up in price is healthcare. 

    • #24
  25. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I could be talked out of this, but I think the only thing in life that should possibly be going up in price is healthcare.

    The only reason it’s as expensive as it is now is because Hillary and company have been meddling in health care for a few decades now.  There is too much regulation and too much power by insurance companies.  The insurance companies are just like universities with all admin and few professors, but all admin and few doctors.

    • #25
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Skyler (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I could be talked out of this, but I think the only thing in life that should possibly be going up in price is healthcare.

    The only reason it’s as expensive as it is now is because Hillary and company have been meddling in health care for a few decades now. There is too much regulation and too much power by insurance companies. The insurance companies are just like universities with all admin and few professors, but all admin and few doctors.

    Right. I agree with all of that, but what I mean is theoretically since it’s getting better you could make a case that you have to shell out more above and beyond that bad policy.

    If anybody thinks anything should be going up, have at it. I think it’s stupid policy that causes it.

     

    • #26
  27. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I could be talked out of this, but I think the only thing in life that should possibly be going up in price is healthcare.

    The only reason it’s as expensive as it is now is because Hillary and company have been meddling in health care for a few decades now. There is too much regulation and too much power by insurance companies. The insurance companies are just like universities with all admin and few professors, but all admin and few doctors.

    Right. I agree with all of that, but what I mean is theoretically since it’s getting better you could make a case that you have to shell out more above and beyond that bad policy.

    If anybody thinks anything should be going up, have at it. I think it’s stupid policy that causes it.

     

    All of those goods which have gotten cheaper are also getting better.  I *like* new cars less than I like old ones, but as far as being more survivable, more efficient, more fit for (most peoples’) purpose, the new ones are just hands-down better.  I see your point from a static point of view, but I’ll wager that in a healthy economy, healthcare would be cheaper even while getting better.

    I used to know my doctor.  I used to *have* a doctor.

    • #27
  28. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    BDB (View Comment):

    .

    I used to know my doctor. I used to *have* a doctor.

    I like how you put that.  I feel that way too.  

    Now I always feel like I have to be careful what I tell my doctor.  At least I haven’t seen them asking me if I have firearms anymore, but HIPAA keeps your loved ones from knowing your medical condition, while letting the insurance companies and the government almost unfettered access.  Strange how that came out.  I’m sure insurance lobbyists had nothing to do with it.

    • #28
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    genferei (View Comment):

    How about this: Reagan at home – low taxes, repeal regulations, bust government unions; Trump abroad – strong borders, pro-American trade, peace not war.

    Didn’t those Reagan policies apply to Trump too, and didn’t the Trump policies apply to Reagan too?

    • #29
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Skyler (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    .

    I used to know my doctor. I used to *have* a doctor.

    I like how you put that. I feel that way too.

    Now I always feel like I have to be careful what I tell my doctor. At least I haven’t seen them asking me if I have firearms anymore, but HIPAA keeps your loved ones from knowing your medical condition, while letting the insurance companies and the government almost unfettered access. Strange how that came out. I’m sure insurance lobbyists had nothing to do with it.

    HIPAA doesn’t stop you from telling anyone you like about your medical condition.  It’s just supposed to keep the medical people from doing it on their own, without your permission.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.