Guest Post from Jake on Reagan and Conservatism

As we look at the man that is Ronald Reagan, I can't seem to forget a famous and recognizable quote that even the most novice conservative can affirm, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Truly inspiring and utterly impressive to myself as a born and bred conservative. But really, is there any light between the arguably conservative hero and the would be President Clinton? After reading an article by Andrew McCarthy in the National Review entitled "Statism Goes to Court," which was held in regards to the hearing of the Health Care Law (Obamacare) in the USSC, I began to wonder myself if Reagan was really the "small-government man" we loved so much. One particular paragraph ended up sticking out to me in the article that really put things into perspective regarding Reagan:

Health care, like most things, should not be a federal concern at all. If people at the state or local level think everyone should be entitled to emergency medical care, that’s fine — they ought to raise taxes and pay the hospitals to provide it. If they think sick or high-risk patients who can’t get affordable private medical insurance ought to have their treatment paid for nonetheless, they ought to raise taxes to pay for that, too. It is great to be noble, but it’s not noble to throw around other people’s money. Your choices ought to be your costs. And that goes for insurance-company executives, too: If they take premium payments, then fraudulently wriggle out of the consequent obligations, they ought to be prosecuted, sued for damages, and put out of business. The state’s legitimate role is limited, but it is essential.

Now this section may not deal with Reagan or his decisions, but it goes to show how the modern conservative has evolved during the current century. Looking back at Reagan, and if McCarthy were to be dealing with Reagan, he would more than likely criticize his entire approach to Government. Reagan increased taxes, increased federal spending, and most importantly grew the federal government's size by not only NOT eliminating the Departments of Energy and Education, but instead adding the Department of Veteran's Affairs which handles a large portion of the nation's budget. What I am curious about how the rest of the class feels, is what they consider Reagan to truly be, looking through the eyes of a modern conservative. Would the Tea Party have demanded his removal and USSC cases to remove his decisions as they have done with Obama? Or would they be as loyal as they all claim to have been to his presidency when looking through the texts on a page of a book?

Personally, I believe the American public would have ignored his sentiments because of what his general values are, not to mention he is still a republican. Take for instance George W Bush who also increased the size of government, spending, ran us into a deficit and two wars. While most republicans may have disagreed with the overall implications that Bush had on the country, they were willing to accept his decisions and would excuse it as necessary to run a country. The same can even be seen now of Obama who is "illegally" holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and has disenfranchised his liberal base in many other ways including continuing the war in Afghanistan. At the end of the day, Obama will still receive vowed support from his party and ideological base because he still generally stands for those values and they recognize he may some times drift from the path to continue a positive non-partisan presidency. Therefore, as a valued conservative, ideological members of the community may criticize Reagan, but they would still support his candidacy and his presidency. This is the point at which idealism becomes political and decisions are made because it is "your guy" and not just "some guy."