[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Both candidates have said that this election is about two fundamentally different views of the role of government. I don't know how you hash out that difference over drinks. Unless you get so drunk that you can't tell the difference. Or unless neither believes what they say. I think they do believe it. Reagan also understood that over 30 years ago. You can see and hear that understanding in his " A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Goldwater. It is why he switched from Democrat to Republican. You can hear it in all of his other major and most minor speeches. He didn't cut a deal in order to come to some middle ground between those two fundamental differences. He did so because it was the only way to move the ball forward in the direction of his belief in government based on our founding principles. He knew (as the pragmatist you claim him to have been) that he didn't have the power to entirely change in a single stroke the direction of government from what he clearly stated was toward socialism back to free market principles and the garantees of individual freedom granted by the Founders' Constitution. He never hedged on that difference and expressly, clearly, and constantly stated his purposes and beliefs. He knew that as those principles were incrementally eroded they would have to be incrementally restored. One deal at a time. He probably knew that eight years would not be enough time to accomplish it. He knew that it was imperative, before it was too late, to begin the process of restoring original government, and hoped that the process would continue with the succession of President's and Congresses that followed him. Listen to and watch the you tube videos of his speeches, not only the "A time for Choosing," but the later ones, the "Evil empire" and his farewell speech as well as several others in between.

He started a brief shift back toward founding principles, but, unfortunately, those that followed had neither his strength of character or ideals nor his charisma or "communicating" powers. A great deal of those powers lay in the content of what he communicated, and his successors either didn't believe in that content or were too weak or were too willing to compromise to "move the ball forward" in a socialistic, centralized government direction. He was despised by the centrists and leftists of his time who hated that his predictions of a resurgence and growth of the American economy and the ensuing spread of prosperity came true under his policies, and they tried to depict him as a stupid actor who slept his way through his presidency. Now that he is looked upon as one of the greatest presidents and beloved by the people, his "legacy" is characterized as being a pragmatic compromiser and recognized as having restored some optimism in the American people. But the basis of and goals for his compromises and the fundamentals of what informed that optimism are passed over as if they didn't exist.

And so we are again at a time for choosing. The road to socialism has progressed even further. The central government and its regulatory agencies (which he disparaged), as well as the amounts of money required to fund them, have grown exponentially larger in the few years since Reagan's time, and the difficulty in stopping the transformation of government power at the expense of the individual is even greater. Both candidates know that it cannot be hashed out and compromised over drinks. The difference is too clear.

Great post, well said

I hope it's not too late to get restoring

"But the basis of and goals for his compromises and the fundamentals of what informed that optimism are passed over as if they didn't exist."
That is sad