The Demonization of “Big Government” and the Myth of the Greatness of Ronald Reagan

[Time for change]

“Despite the grievous harm that Reagan’s presidency inflicted on the American Republic and the American people, it may take many more years before a historian has the guts to put this deformed era into a truthful perspective and rate Reagan where he belongs -- near the bottom of the presidential list.” – Robert Parry


I begin this post with a summary statement that puts the Ronald Reagan presidency in proper perspective because it was Ronald Reagan who most successfully perpetrated the toxic myth – that still plagues our country today – that “big government” is inherently bad.

In his First Inaugural Address (1981), Reagan declared that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Reagan also said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.’”

These Reagan statements about government are stupid beyond belief, and yet he sold that ideology to millions of Americans, rode it to victory in two presidential elections, and helped turn American politics sharply to the right for years to come.


REAGAN’S INTELLECTUAL/IDEOLOGICAL LEGACY TO OUR COUNTRY

The ridiculously absurd idea that government is inherently bad

The justification for a role of government in providing essential goods and services to the American people was established in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which was created “to promote the general welfare” as one of the main reasons for our existence as a nation. Closely related to that purpose is the need to establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty and defend against crime (“ensure domestic tranquility”).

Government is us the people. It is the vehicle by which the American people have arranged to serve their needs. Without government we have anarchy and the rule of the jungle, as opposed to the rule of law.

So assuming that, as our Founding Fathers wrote in the preamble to our Constitution, it is important that the general welfare of the American people be promoted, that justice be established, that the blessings of liberty be secured for us, and that domestic tranquility be ensured, then what would Ronald Reagan put in the place of government to accomplish those functions?

There are basically two different kinds of political systems that can take the place of government being responsible for those functions: anarchy and fascism. Think of it like this: Suppose that wealthy corporations are allowed to pursue industrial activities that pollute the air, water and soil of our country with little or no regulation or penalty. The health and livelihood of much of the U.S. population could be damaged by such activities, while the polluting corporations rack up immense profits. Who can stop corporations from doing this if not government? Allowing them free reign to pursue their profits at the expense of ordinary Americans is tantamount to government standing aside while thieves break our homes, kill us and steal our possessions. That’s essentially anarchy. But it’s even worse than that. Government under right wing ideologues like Ronald Reagan doesn’t just stand aside. In addition, it subsidizes corporate activity and provides police protection for the corporations in the event that the public becomes aroused and tries to impede their destructive activities or protest against them. That’s fascism – the melding of government with corporate interests.


Fascism vs. democracy

It has largely gone unmentioned that when Ronald Reagan built his whole political career on the demonization of “big government”, what he was really advocating to take its place was fascism. So the most pertinent question becomes: Should government – elected by the people to represent their interests, and accountable to the people – serve the functions described in our Constitution? Or, should government delegate that job to private, for-profit corporations?

The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. If we as a people have a need that has to be met, such as the provision of water or health care, and all other things being equal, would we rather that need be met by an entity – government – which we created specifically to serve our needs and which is accountable to us? Or would we rather that need be met by an entity – a corporation – that was created to make a profit?

I don’t want to exaggerate this. Government is composed of people, and so are corporations. Despite the fact that government is created to serve us, it nevertheless has the potential to perform poorly, and it often does, for a variety of reasons. And conversely, corporations sometimes serve our needs quite well. This issue is not black and white, and there certainly is a role for both government and private business in our country. But Reagan’s implication that government is inherently bad or incompetent compared to the private sector is, well, incredibly stupid – and dangerous as well.


THE LEGACY OF THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY

The presidency of Ronald Reagan ushered in the era of privatization and deregulation. Another way of saying this is that the Reagan administration ushered in the era of favoritism towards wealthy corporations and individuals at the expense of everyone else, which began a trend towards a disappearing middle class and the greatest level of income and wealth inequality ever seen in this country.

Thus our country took giant steps towards transformation into a corporatist state during the Reagan presidency. By equating “big government” with Socialism or Communism the Reagan administration had a good deal of success in their goal of privatizing most of the functions of government. Their idea of reducing “big government” was to hire “contractors”, unhindered by government rules created for the purpose of ensuring accountability to the American people, to do the work that government employees used to do. The expense of doing this is immense because of the additional layers of bureaucracy, the need to support the immense salaries of the CEOs who employ the contractors, and the need for corporate profit. But it allows ideologues like Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and their supporters to then claim that they have eliminated “big government”.


Some background: FDR’s New Deal

Before describing the legacy of the Reagan presidency it is necessary to say a few words about FDR’s New Deal, since the Reagan administration had to dismantle much of the New Deal in order to proceed with its agenda. Due to the stunning success of the New Deal, most of its components lasted for decades. Largely as a result of this, our country experienced for the next three decades what Paul Krugman calls “the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history”.

As a result of the labor protection laws enacted during FDR’s presidency, the percent of non-agricultural U.S. workers who were members of labor unions rose from 10% to close to 30% during his presidency and remained at that level for many decades, until the anti-labor policies of the Reagan administration resulted in a precipitous decline in union membership. The labor protection laws and other New Deal innovations, such as Social Security and unemployment insurance, were instrumental in alleviating poverty in our country and producing a vibrant middle class. Median family income rose steadily (in 2005 dollars) from $22,499 in 1947 to more than double that, $47,173 in 1980.


Eliminating social services that had benefited Americans for decades

A major purpose of Reagan’s effort to cut down “big government” was to save money previously spent on programs that benefited the poor or middle class, so that taxes on the wealthy could be reduced. Thus the demonization of “big government” served as an excuse to dismantle government programs that had long benefited the American people.

William Kleinknecht writes about the Reagan Presidency in his book, “The Man Who Sold the World – Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America”. He sums up Reagan’s philosophy of government with respect to the New Deal:

Reagan stood against everything that had been achieved in this remarkable age of reform. His constant attacks on the inefficiency of government, a rallying cry taken up by legions of conservative politicians across the country, became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more money that was taken away from government programs, the more ineffective they became, and the more ineffective they became, the more ridiculous government bureaucrats came to be seen in the public eye. Gradually government, and the broader realm of public service, has come to seem disreputable… Politicians, imbued with the same exaltation of self-interest that is the essence of Reaganism, increasingly treat public office as a vehicle for their own enrichment.

With the onset of the Reagan Presidency the economic boom that followed the New Deal came to a virtual standstill. The Reagan administration’s budget cuts were particularly hard on the poor, as described by a report by Sheldon Danziger and Robert Haveman on “The Reagan Administration’s Budget Cuts”

Many of the programs which grew most rapidly from 1965 to 1981 (Food Stamps, Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, federal guaranteed loan programs for higher education, and Legal Assistance, for example) have sustained the largest cuts. Compared to Carter's proposed 1982 budget, the fiscal 1982 budget that was proposed by Reagan represented a reduction of $44 billion, or 5.7%, and all categories except national defense were reduced. Over half of the $44 billion budget reduction came from two areas: income security; and education, training, employment, and social services….

Deep cuts are planned for programs designed for the poor and near poor-such as AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, education aid, Low-Income Energy Assistance, and training and employment programs… Particularly hard hit will be the demographic group with the lowest mean census income-households headed by women with children…. Also greatly affected will be the near poor…This group has stayed above the poverty line with the help of food stamps and extended unemployment insurance coverage in economic downturns; it has depended upon job training and education subsidies to provide opportunities for a better life. Yet because the near poor are not being classified as truly needy, their eligibility for food, housing, medical care, and cash benefits is being most restricted.

Deregulation of the financial sector

A major component of the Reagan agenda was the deregulation of corporations whose activities greatly affect the public welfare. In the absence of government regulations, corporations that are subsidized and otherwise supported by government with the understanding that in return they will serve a public function, become free instead to pursue profits with no regard for the public whatsoever. Kleinknecht describes what this process meant in terms of financial deregulation:

The Reagan administration’s zest for financial deregulation was responsible for the boom-and-bust cataclysms of the 1980s and 1990s, the obscene inflation of executive compensation; the corporate scandals and stock market meltdown of 2000-2001; and innumerable crises in international finance, including the most devastating of them all: the subprime mortgage scandal. Deregulation corrupted financial institutions at the same time that it made them the lords of the world economy and allowed their proxies, people like Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan, to dictate the policies of the federal government. History will marvel that these two standard-bearers of Reaganism – Greenspan and Rubin – were lionized as geniuses and visionaries at the very time they were steering the nation toward disaster….

Reagan’s plan for deregulation of the financial sector would take years to come to full fruition – what was finally left of Glass-Steagall would not finally be repealed until 1999 – but the processes he and his Republican colleagues set in motion in 1981 were the genesis of so much that is wrong with the U.S. economy in the 21st century.

Reagan didn’t have the votes in Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall. So he attacked it the same way that he attacked everything else he didn’t like about our system of government: by executive fiat. He simply neglected to fulfill his responsibility as a U.S. president to enforce our existing laws and regulations. As Kleinknecht explains:

Reagan changed the role of government from that of watchdog to lapdog without even bothering to consult the Congress. He also gave a potent political voice to the backlash against regulations, ensuring that the movement would continue to burgeon after he left office… The Reaganites went after regulatory agencies with relish, starving them of resources and staffing them with officials committed to their destruction…The S&L mess worked out well for the new class of robber barons that emerged in the Reagan years. A small group of rich business types went on a spending spree, and the public picked up the $150 billion tab. Privatize the wealth and socialize the risk.

Reagan’s Treasury Secretary, Donald Regan, drafted legislation in 1983 to repeal Glass-Steagall, but it was defeated in the Democratic House of Representatives. With the help of his newly appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, Reagan tried again in 1988, but the effort was again defeated in the House. Nevertheless, Reagan put Glass-Steagall on life support through his continuous refusals to enforce the terms of the law.


Energy and the Environment

Robert Parry sums up the Reagan administration’s approach to energy and the environment:

When it came to cutting back on America’s energy use, Reagan’s message could be boiled down to the old reggae lyric, “Don’t worry, be happy.” Rather than pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging from Washington.
The same with the environment. Reagan intentionally staffed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment.

Hiding behind the “free market” label

To a large extent, Reagan and his fellow ideologues justify their economic policies by putting a “free market” label on them. Their point is that it is best to leave economics to the workings of the “free market” rather than to upset the apple cart with intrusive government policies. But it is difficult to see how tilting all aspects of economic policy in favor of the wealthy and powerful constitutes “free market” policies.

The reality is that these ideologues not only don’t care about the welfare of the American people, they don’t care about their so-called “free market” principles either. Would those who care about free market principles vote down an amendment that would have required the federal government to negotiate prices with Medicare? Would they vote to make it illegal for Americans to obtain cheaper generic drugs from Canada? Is that free market ideology in action? Or would those actions be more accurately described as sucking up to the pharmaceutical industry in return for the millions of dollars showered upon their campaigns?


Foreign policy under Reagan

It’s very interesting that those who complain most about “big government” are the first to support massive military expenditures – either for defense, or merely for the purpose of U.S. intervention in foreign countries, regardless of the cost. The Reagan administration was one of the most militant and interventionist administrations in U.S. history.

Reagan support for Guatemalan atrocities
According to documents declassified by the Clinton administration in an effort to cooperate with the efforts of the Guatemalan truth commission, 200,000 people were killed by the Guatemalan security forces during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The mounting death toll disturbed one American embassy official, Viron Vaky, enough for him to issue the following report:

The official squads are guilty of atrocities. Interrogations are brutal, torture is used…we are believed to have condoned these tactics, if not actually encouraged them…we suspected that maybe it is a good tactic, and that as long as Communists are being killed it is alright. Murder, torture and mutilation are alright if our side is doing it and the victims are Communists… I have literally heard these arguments from our people.

When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, he criticized the Guatemalan regime and initiated an arms embargo. But when Reagan became President in 1981, he loosened the arms embargo and began pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the country to support the military suppression of the people. Reagan justified this to the American people and to Congress by blaming the violence on “leftist extremist groups”, even though he should have known, from U.S. embassy, CIA, and human rights groups reports, that the Guatemalan government was carrying out a scorched earth campaign against the Mayan Indians, which included according to Americas Watch, “virtually indiscriminate murder of men, women and children of any farm regarded by the army as possibly supportive of guerrilla insurgents”. According to the truth commission, this resulted in 626 massacres against Mayan villages in the 1980s alone.

Other military interventionism by the Reagan administration
In our financial support and military training of the Contras and other right wing causes in Central America we sponsored groups with abysmal human rights records and little support among the populations that they desired to lead. Robert Parry describes the:

“death squad” operations throughout Latin America, bloody campaigns that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, including what a truth commission judged a “genocide” of Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s.

In that same decade, the Reagan-Bush administration financed and supported the Nicaraguan contras, a terrorist-style organization that ravaged towns along the Nicaraguan-Honduran border, committing acts of torture, murder and rape – killing thousands. Some contra units also collaborated with drug cartels shipping cocaine into the United States, while the Reagan-Bush administration sidetracked investigations for geo-political reasons.

The trillions of dollars that we put into military spending, including the unworkable missile defense system known as “Star Wars”, probably did our country little good, while leaving two future U.S. presidents with a massive national debt to deal with. And our interest in helping Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet interests in Afghanistan led to our training of the Islamists in the techniques of terror and our ignoring of Pakistan’s move towards becoming a nuclear power, both which have now come back to haunt us, with Pakistan’s facilitation of North Korea’s nuclear program and the terror threat posed by al Qaeda.


SELLING THE REAGAN MYTHS

Thus it is that Ronald Reagan’s most substantial “intellectual contribution” to the nation he presided over for eight years was the still prevalent but absurd idea that government is inherently bad. This is the core idea of the radical right wing ideology that has been responsible for widening the wealth gap in our country to unprecedented levels and shrinking our middle class. So absurd is this idea that those who stood to reap huge rewards from it had to undertake an aggressive and sustained propaganda campaign to get the American people to accept it.

And indeed they did. Kleinknecht writes about the propagation of the Reagan myth in his book. From the book jacket:

The myth of Ronald Reagan’s greatness has reached epic proportions in recent years. The public rates him as one of the most popular presidents, and Republicans everywhere seek to cast themselves in his image. But award winning journalist William Kleinknecht shows in this penetrating analysis of his presidency that the Reagan legacy has been devastating for the country – especially for the ordinary Americans he claimed to represent.

So how did one of the worst presidents in our history come to be seen in such a glamorous light? Some call Reagan the “Teflon president” because none of his many scandals would “stick” to him in the public mind. But there was a very good reason for that. Kleinknecht explains in the introduction to his book:

It cannot be disputed that there are legions of Reagan critics across the country. But why are they never seen on television or quoted in the media? Why is this dissenting view of Reagan’s “heroism” never in the public eye? … When it comes to media assessments of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the usual standards seem not to apply.

Let’s just say that our corporate controlled media wish to maintain his image.

So enduring is the myth of Reagan’s greatness that his supporters created that 19 years after the end of Reagan’s disastrous presidency, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama felt the need to justify Reagan’s policies, attributing them to “all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability.” And even as President of the United States, Obama felt compelled to praise Reagan, saying “President Reagan helped as much as any President to restore a sense of optimism in our country, a spirit that transcended politics – that transcended even the most heated arguments of the day”.

The Reagan propagated myth that government is inherently bad must be knocked down, because it is ruining our country. And along with that, the myth of Ronald Reagan as a great president must also be knocked down – because the two myths are intimately related, to the point of being joined at the hip.