Radio Reagan, via Hoover Digest:
Shaping the World for 100 Years to Come
September 1, 1976Shaping the World for 100 Years to Come
In this election year many of us talk about the world of tomorrow but do we really think about it? I’ll be right back.
Sometimes it’s very easy to get glib about how the decisions we are making will shape the world for a hundred years to come. Then A few weeks ago I found myself faced with having to really think about what we are doing today & what people (not history), people like ourselves will say about us.
I’d been asked to write a letter for a "time capsule" which would be opened 100 years from now. The occasion will be the Los Angeles Bicentennial & of course our countrys tri-centennial. It was suggested that I mention some of the problems confronting us in this election year. Since I’ve been talking about those problems for some 9 months that didn’t look like too much of a chore.
So riding down the coast highway from Santa Barbara–a yellow tablet on my lap (someone else was driving) I started to write my letter to the future.
It was a beautiful summer afternoon. The Pacific stretched out to the horizon on one side of the highway and on the other the Santa Ynez mountains were etched against a sky as blue as the Ocean.
I found myself wondering if it would look the same 100 yearsfrom now. Will there still be a coast highway? Will people still be travelling in automobiles, or will they be looking down at the mountains from aircraft or moving so fast the beauty of all this would be lost?
Suddenly the simple drafting of a letter became a rather complex chore. Think about it for a minute. What do you put in a letter that’s going to be read 100 yrs. from now–in the year 2076? What do you say about our problems when those who read the letter will know what we don't know–namely how well we did with those problems? In short they will be living in the world we helped to shape.
Will they read the letter with gratitude in their hearts for what we did or will they be bitter because the heritage we left them was one of human misery?
Oh I wrote of the problems we face here in 1976–The choice we face between continuing the policies of the last 40 years that have led to bigger and bigger government, less and less liberty, redistribution of earnings through confiscatory taxation or trying to get back on the original course set for us by the Founding Fathers. Will we choose fiscal responsibility, limited government, and freedom of choice for all our people? Or will we let an irresponsible Congress set us on the road our English cousins have already taken? The road to economic ruin and state control of our very lives?
On the international scene two great superpowers face each other with nuclear missiles at the ready–poised to bring Armageddon to the world.
Those who read my letter will know whether those missiles were fired or not. Either they will be surrounded by the same beauty we know or they will wonder sadly what it was like when the world was still beautiful.
If we here today meet the challenge confronting us, those who open that time capsule 100 years from now will do so in beauty, peace, prosperity and the ultimate in personal freedom.
If we don't keep our rendezvous with destiny, the letter probably will never be read–because they will live in the world we left them, a world in which no one is allowed to read of individual liberty or freedom of choice.
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
Looking Out a Window
January 27, 1978
It’s nightfall in a strange town a long way from home. I’m watching the lights come on from my hotel room window on the 35th floor.
I’ll be right back.
I’m afraid you are in for a little bit of philosophizing if you dont mind. Some of these broadcasts have to be put together while I’m out on the road traveling what I call the mashed potato circuit. In a little while I’ll be speaking to a group of very nice people in a banquet hall.
Right now however I’m looking down on a busy city at rush hour. The streets below are twin ribbons of sparkling red & white. Tail lights on the cars moving away from my vantage point provide the red and the headlights of those coming toward me the white. It’s logical to assume all or most are homeward bound at the end of a days work.
I wonder why some social engineer hasn’t tried to get them to trade homes. The traffic is equally heavy in both directions so if they all lived in the end of town where they worked it would save a lot of travel time. Forget I said that don't even think it or some bureaucrat will try do it.
But I wonder about the people in those cars, who they are, what they do, what they are thinking about as they head for the warmth of home and family. Come to think of it I’ve met them–oh–maybe not those particular individuals but still I feel I know them. Some of our social planners refer to them as "the masses" which only proves they don't know them. I’ve been privileged to meet people all over this land in the special kind of way you meet them when you are campaigning. They are not "the masses," or as the elitists would have it–"the common man." They are very uncommon. Individuals each with his or her own hopes & dreams, plans & problems and the kind of quiet courage that makes this whole country run better than just about any other place on earth.
By now, thinking of their homecoming I’m counting how many more hotel room windows I’ll be looking out of before I’m in the rush hour traffic heading home. And yes I’m feeling a little sorry for myself and envious of the people in those cars down below. It seems I’ve said a thousand goodbyes, each one harder than the one before.
Someone very wise once wrote that if we were all told one day that the end was coming; that we were living our last day, every road, every street and all the telephone lines would be jammed with people trying to reach someone to whom we wanted simply to say, "I love you."
But doesn’t it seem kind of foolish to wait for such a final day and take the chance of not getting there in time? And speaking of time I’ll have to stop now; Operator I’d like to make a phone call–long distance.
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
Free Enterprise
April 16, 1979
It isn’t unfair to say that today the world is divided between those who believe in the free market place and those who believe in government control and ownership of the economy.
I’ll be right back.
Our free market system is usually termed capitalism and by that definition capitalism has hardly been around long enough to deserve all the evil for which it is being held responsible.
Most of us aren’t really conscious of how recently the capitalist system came into being. Possibly we look back & think of the extravagant luxury of kings and emperors and see that as capitalism. We have a modern counterpart today in the rulers of Marxist nations. The ruling hierarchy of the Soviet Union live on a scale more akin to royalty than do the heads of capitalist countries.
Maybe our trouble is caused by the term capitalist itself. Actually all systems are capitalist. It’s just a matter of who owns and controls the capital–ancient king, dictator or private individual. We should properly be looking at the contrast between a free market system where individuals have the right to live like kings if they have the ability to earn that right and govt. control of the market system such as we find today in socialist nations.
We have a very visible example of the contrast between the free market and government ownership in a household necessity we take for granted. The invention of Alexander Graham Bell–the telephone offers us irrefutable proof of the superiority of the free market.
As recently as 1880 there were only 34,000 miles of telephone wires on the whole North American Continent. There were dozens and dozens of small telephone companies using several different kinds of equipment and there was no inter-connection between these different companies. The same situation prevailed in all the other so called advanced nations.
If someone had openly advanced a plan to put a phone in every home, on every farm, in every hamlet and city and hook them all together I’m sure someone would have said, "only government has the resources to do that."
Now strangely enough in most other countries government did take over the telephone system and to this very day the telephones in a great many countries are part of the postal system. In America the government wasn’t bulldozing it’s way into the free market place as it is today. For that we can be grateful. The scattered, competing phone companies were left to the magic of the market place. And that magic worked as it always does.
We take the phone so much for granted it’s hard to realize things weren’t always this way. We can dial directly to any point in the world country and to a great many outside the country.
With no intention of insulting anyone, I have to say it only takes a few days trip in many of those other countries to where the telephone is a government service to realize there is a difference. A long distance call there can be quite an adventure–so can getting a phone installed.
But here we have them in our cars if we like, in private or corporation owned executive planes and on boats. We bounce long distance calls off privately owned satellites and use telephone lines for network radio and remote broadcasts of sporting and special events.
And all of this came about because private individuals wanting to make a profit for themselves kept thinking of better services to offer, confident that we’d want that better service.
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
 | ||
| In God's Hands now Bright Dawn Ahead-UPDATE: Reagan Biographer Craig Shirley talks with Monica Crowley about his new book Reagan Rising:The Decisive Years, 1976-1980
Monica Crowley: "I WANT TO BEGIN WITH THE IDEA OF MOVEMENTS. SO BEFORE THE POPULIST MOVEMENT LED BY ONE MAN DONALD TRUMP WE HAVE THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT LED LARGELY BY ONE MAN RONALD REAGAN. GOLDWATER GOT THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT BALL ROLLING IN 1964, REAGAN PICKED IT UP IN 1976 AND IT TOOK IT OVER THE FINISH LINE IN 1980. WHAT REAGAN SET APART FROM OTHER REPUBLICAN AND CONSERVATIVE LEADERS THAT ESTABLISHED HIM AS INTELLECTUAL POLITICAL AND PRACTICAL LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT? Craig Shirley: "REAGAN WAS DIFFERENT IN THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SINCE THE TIME OF 1972 UP UNTIL 1976 HAD BEEN PARTY OF THE FUTURE. AND AS HENRY LUCE SAID, AMERICA IS THE COUNTRY OF THE FUTURE. AND WE AS AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED IN A BETTER FUTURE OR OURSELVES AND FOR OUR CHILDREN. THAT'S PART OF BEING AN AMERICAN. IT MAKES US UNLIKE ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND WE ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR LIVES AND IMPROVE THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN AND WE CAN IMPROVE OUR ECONOMY. WE CAN IMPROVE OUR RIGHTS. WE'RE ALWAYS IN THE SEARCH OF A MORE PERFECT UNION. AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, FROM THE TIME OF FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WHOSE THEME WAS "HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN" THROUGH JOHN KENNEDY'S "LET"S GET THIS COUNTRY MOVING AGAIN"-- WAS THE PARTY OF THE FUTURE FROM 1932 THROUGH 1976. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAD BEEN THE GREEN EYE SHADE [ACCOUNTANTS], EAT YOUR SPINACH, THE PARTY OF BALANCED BUDGETS--NO YOU CAN'T DO THIS. NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THE UNCLE WHO WAS ALWAYS SAYING NO TO THE KIDS. AND OUR ONLY REJOINDER WAS WE'RE THE PARTY THAT CAN RUN GOVERNMENT BETTER THAN DEMOCRATS. THAT ISN'T A VERY COMPELLING MESSAGE, LET'S FACE IT, CARTER DID SOMETHING REMARKABLE IN 1976. HE THROWS AWAY THE MANTLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS THE PARTY OF THE FUTURE. HE EMBRACES A FUTURE OF SCARCITY AND OF SACRIFICE. NOW PART OF IT IS BECAUSE OF HIS CULTURE HE'S A FOOT-WASHIN BAPTIST-- DON'T SMOKE, DON'T DRINK, DON'T DANCE, THAT YOUR LIFE ON A THIS PLANET IS MEANT TO BE A SACRIFICE AND SAY NO TO TEMPTATIONS. AND TO ACHIEVE A BETTER AFTERLIFE. BUT CULTURAL OUTLOOK COMBINED WITH HIS OWN PERSONAL SOUTHERN BAPTIST OUTLOOK AND COMBINED WITH A MORE PREVALENT OUTLOOK AT THE TIME. ONE OF THE FAMOUS BOOKS AT THE TIME WAS 'THE CULTURE OF NARCISSISM' -- THE LEFT IS ALSO PREACHING THIS -- FUTURE IS NO GOOD FOR ALL OF US. REMEMBER 'THE POPULATION BOMB' AND BOOKS THAT PREDICTED WORLDWIDE FAMINE. WORLDWIDE STARVATION AND WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR WAR? AND THE LEFT ADOPTS THIS AT THE SAME TIME CARTER IS ELECTED PRESIDENT SO HE MAKES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INTO THE PARTY OF THE PAST AND FEARING OF THE FUTURE. AND AS THIS IS HAPPENING, REAGAN IS ALWAYS PERSONALLY OPTIMISTIC BUT NOW HIS OWN MESSAGE BEGINS TO CHANGE. THE GOLDWATER SPEECH [IN 1964]-- IS A GREAT SPEECH AND IT IS HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT BUT REAGAN IS OFTEN ANGRY AT LYNDON JOHNSON AND ANGRY AT THE GREAT SOCIETY. BY 1977, '78, AND '79, HIS FUNDAMENTAL CONSERVATISM HASN'T CHANGED BUT HIS DELIVERY OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSERVATISM HAS. HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE, OPPORTUNITY, PROSPERITY, HE'S TALKING ABOUT 'WE CAN DEFEAT THE SOVIET UNION' AND THAT WAS RADICAL AT THE TIME. GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE PANACEA. RELY ON YOURSELF. RELY ON YOUR COMMUNITY. THE GOVERNMENT THAT GOVERNS BEST IS THE ONE CLOSEST TO YOU. HE REINTRODUCES OPTIMISTIC CONSERVATISM TO THE AMERICAN POLITICAL LEXICON AND THE DEMOCRATIC RISES UP TO BECOME THE PARTY OF THE FUTURE AND REAGAN SEIZES IT BACK. SO IT COMPORTED WELL WITH HIM BECAUSE HE WAS A NATURALLY OPTIMISTIC PERSON, AND I WON'T SAY HAPPY-GO-LUCKY BECAUSE THAT IS SUPERFICIAL. HE THOUGHT DEEPLY ABOUT THINGS, HE READ GREATLY. HE HAD ALL -- YOU KNOW HAD AN ECONOMICS DEGREE BUT IT WAS NEVER STATIC BUT ALWAYS LEARNING AND SELF-TAUGHT. SOMETHING YOU KNOW- HE DIDN'T FLY FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS FROM 1945 UP UNTIL 1966. SO ALMOST 20 YEARS.
HE HAD TO GO TO GE THEATER FACTORIES AROUND THE COUNTRY AND GIVE TALKS WITH EMPLOYEES AND GIVE MOTIVATIONAL SPEECHES AND AT THE TIME THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF GE FACTORIES ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES. SO HE WOULD ONLY TRAVEL BY TRAIN, SO GOING FROM LOS ANGELES TO BOSTON. HE DOESN'T GO TO THE CLUB CAR AND CHASE SKIRTS AND KNOCK BACK DRINKS WITH OTHER BUSINESSMAN BUT HE GETS A PRIVATE COMPARTMENT AND HE LOADS IN ARTICLES AND BOOKS. THE WHOLE TIME HE'S TRAVELING ACROSS THE COUNTRY HE'S IN THERE READING BY HIMSELF.
AND YEARS LATER A FRIEND OF MINE, LEE EDWARDS, WHO IS LIKE THE OFFICIAL HISTORIAN FOR THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT, WAS DOING AN INTERVIEW WITH REAGAN IN THE 60s OUT IN LOS ANGELES AT THE HOUSE IN PALISADES. WHILE HE WAS WAITING THERE HE WAS IN THE LIBRARY, AND HUNDREDS OF BOOKS WERE THERE, HE STARTS PULLING OUT BOOKS AND EVERY ONE OF THEM -- PASSAGES WERE UNDERLINED, DOG-EARED, NOTATIONS MADE IN THE MARGINS. HE DIDN'T USE BOOKS AS DECORATION, HE USED BOOKS TO TEACH HIMSELF. SO HE IS A FULLY FUNCTIONING INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATIVE BY 1976,  AND NOW HE HAS THE MEANS AT HIS DISPOSAL TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VIA SPEECHES, TV APPEARANCES, RADIO COMMENTARY, COLUMNS. I DID AN INTERVIEW EARLIER TODAY WITH BREITBART, AND I SAID LOOK IF REAGAN WAS ALIVE TODAY, HE'D BE ON TWITTER USING THE WAY DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN USING TWITTER. [LAUGHTER] BUT THINK ABOUT IT. IN 1930s , RADIO WAS THE NEW PHENOMENON YET REAGAN MASTERED IT. IN THE 40s, IT WAS TALKING PICTURES YET REAGAN MASTERED THAT. IN THE 50's, IT WAS COMMERCIAL TELEVISION AND REAGAN MASTERED THAT. HE MASTERED PRESS CONFERENCE AND SOUNDBITES. HE USED REGULAR COMMENTARY AND COLUMNS AND I'M CONVINCED TODAY IF REAGAN WAS ALIVE HE'D BE USING FACEBOOK, TWITTER. REMEMBER, THERE WAS A FAMOUS PHRASE IN 1980s 'OVER THE HEADS OF WASHINGTON'. WHEN REAGAN WANTED TO STIR AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SUPPORT HIM FOR SOME INITIATIVE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PHRASE IN THE REAGAN WHITE HOUSE "HE'S GOING OVER THE HEADS OF WASHINGTON" WHICH IS WHAT TRUMP IS DOING NOW. I'M CONVINCED REAGAN WOULDN'T THE BE SAYING EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP IS SAYING -- [LAUGHTER] Monica Crowley: [REAGAN] MIGHT HAVE BETTER JOKES Craig Shirley: HE MIGHT HAVE BETTER JOKES BUT HE WOULD BE USING THAT TECHNOLOGY. …  Monica Crowley: LET'S MAKE SOME COMPARISONS SINCE WE ALL LIVE IN THE MOMENT TODAY WITH THE NEW PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. THIS WAS ONE YEAR AFTER REAGAN LOST THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION {1977). THAT WAS A VERY INTERESTING SPEECH AT C-PAC BECAUSE HE INTRODUCED THE CROWD TO THE "NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY'' TO SAY THIS IS BEYOND THE STEREOTYPES OF THE COUNTRY CLUB, THE CORPORATE BOARDROOM. WE WILL EMBRACE THE MEN AND OF WOMEN OF THE FACTORIES THE FARMER AND THE COP ON THE BEAT. AND WE MUST BE THE PARTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL. ONE PARTY MUST BE THE PARTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND MUST NOT SELL OUT TO THE GROUP. THAT SOUNDS VERY FAMILIAR AND SOUNDS LIKE DONALD TRUMP. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES OF THE MEN AND THE SIMILARITIES OF THE ELECTION OF 1980 AND THE ELECTION OF 2016. AND THE COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE TWO MEN AS THE RESPECTIVE LEADERS OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT AND NOW THE NATIONALIST AND POPULIST MOVEMENT.
Craig Shirley: AMERICAN POPULISM AND AMERICAN CONSERVATISM ARE TWO
DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES WITH A LOT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THE TWO. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE REAGAN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM 1975 AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB IN WASHINGTON DC, HE TAKES ON THE WASHINGTON BUDDY SYSTEM OF BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG LABOR, BIG LOBBYIST [BIG MEDIA, TOO-ED.] BECAUSE IT'S ANTI-CORRUPTION OF POWER. REAGAN LIKE CONSERVATIVES AND POPULISTS BELIEVES THAT CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY IS CORRUPTING AND LEADS TO THE DIMINUTION OF PERSONAL FREEDOM. SO REAGAN KIND OF VEERS BETWEEN TRADITIONAL [INTELLECTUAL] CONSERVATISM AND TRADITONAL POPULISM WHICH IS ANTI-CORRUPTION. HERE IS HOW REAGAN AND TRUMP ARE SIMILAR IN THE MOST IMPORTANT AEGIS OF ALL: THEY ARE PART OF A DIALECTIC OF AMERICAN HISTORY . EVERY GENERATION OR TWO HAS EXPERIENCED A POPULIST UPRISING WHICH IS ANTI-ELITE, ANTI-STATUS QUO AND THE CENTRALITY OF THE ARGUMENT IS ANTI-CORRUPTION. IT STARTS WITH THOMAS JEFFERSON IN 1800. JEFFERSON SAID HE REGARDED HIS ELECTION AS THE SECOND REVOLUTION SO HE REVERSES ADAM'S PROGRAMS LIKE THE SEDITION ACT AND CUT TAXES AND CUT THE BUREACRACY AND THEN OF COURSE, HE'S FOLLOWED BY JACKSON. WE'VE ALL GOTTEN A REFRESHER COURSE IN ANDREW JACKSON WITH THE ELECTION OF TRUMP AND WHAT HE MEANS TO AMERICAN POPULISM AND THE BANK OF AMERICA. Monica Crowley: AND THE ANTI-CORRUPTION MESSAGE "DRAIN THE SWAMP". Craig Shirley: YES, AND HE WAS ALSO WAS VICTIMIZED BY THE [#FAKENEWS] MEDIA OF THE TIME, WHO WOULD WRITE THE MOST TERRIBLE AND AWFUL PAMPHLETS AND THEY WERE DISSEMINATED WIDELY ATTACKING ANDREW JACKSON, AND THEN OF COURSE, ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS ANTI-STATUS QUO. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WAS REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-SLAVERY BY 1860, THAT CONTINUES THAT TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN FREMONT PHILOSOPHY OF THE MAXIMUM FREEDOM FOR ALL INDIVUIDUALS. SO THEN OF COURSE, TEDDY ROOSEVELT RUNNING AGAINST THE CORRUPT TRUSTS, AND FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT IN MANY WAYS IS A POPULIST REFORMER RUNNING AGAINST CORRUPT WALL STREET. AND THEN REAGAN, THEN TRUMP COMES 2O-SOME YEARS LATER. SO THAT'S THE DIALECTIC TO AMERICAN HISTORY. I AM MAD AT MYSELF FOR THINKING HILLARY WOULD WIN BUT I FAILED MYSELF AS A STUDENT OF HISTORY TO REALIZE THAT THE TRUMP ELECTION WAS NOT FORETOLD OR INEVITABLE, BUT HE HAD A MUCH BETTER CHANCE THAN WE REALIZED, IF ONLY BECAUSE HE FOLLWED THE TRACK OF AMERICAN HISTORY.
Monica Crowley: WHAT WOULD REAGAN MAKE OF DONALD TRUMP?
Craig Shirley: I THINK HE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT TRUMP IS A UNIQUE POLITICIAN AND THE FACT THAT HE CONTINUES TO GO AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT. REAGAN'S WHOLE CAREER WAS DEFINED BY BEING AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT. IN 1966, WHEN HE FIRST RAN FOR GOVERNOR, THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT WERE FOR THE MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO GEORGE CHRISTOPHER, WHO WAS BRIGHT AND ARTICULATE MODERATE REPUBLICAN. BUT REAGAN WOULD RUN IN THE PRIMARY AND SMASHED CHRISTOPHER--IT ISN'T EVEN CLOSE. BUT THE ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT SAID "HE'S A BROKEN DOWN GRADE-B ACTOR WITH WITH PREMATURE ORANGE HAIR. WE CAN'T SUPPORT HIM-HE'S GONNA LOSE. HE'S GOING TO CARRY THE PARTY DOWN TO DEFEAT". INSTEAD HE DEFEATS GOV. PAT BROWN BY ALMOST 1 MILLION VOTES. IT'S A LANDSLIDE.
REAGAN ALWAYS WAS BETTER WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAN HE WAS WITH THE AMERICAN ELITES. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD HIM BETTER AND THAT'S ANOTHER SIMILARITY BETWEEN HE AND TRUMP IS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE TRUMP BETTER THAN THE AMERICAN ELITE UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE DONALD TRUMP." 
"...140 characters, you say?"
"Yes, Mr. President."
"If it keeps you close to the American people, Donald, I'm all for it."
"Thank you, Mr. President."
"No--thank you, Mr. President."
|
