76-05-B3
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1976
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Liberals
TranscriptAs a former New Deal Democrat and I suppose at the time, something of a liberal, I have come to the conclusion that liberals aren't liberal. I'll be right back. Now I realize I may be opening a Pandora's Box to use a cliché, but like many others I've wondered at times if the terms liberal and conservative haven't been hung on the wrong doors. Why should a belief in individual freedom, less centralized authority in government, and more local autonomy be called conservatism? By the same token, what is liberal about wanting more government, government interference in the raising of our children, compulsory government medicine, and the confiscation and forced redistribution of a sizable percentage of each citizen's earnings? Can anyone say that I have not honestly described the fundamental difference between what we term liberal and conservative? Several days back I told you of a new special interest organization, a kind of international Common Cause named New Directions. As a matter of fact, figures prominent in Common Cause, John Gardner for instance, turn up in this new group. One of its brochures says it will, “attempt to influence the non-governmental shapers of national policy, corporations, banks, universities and trade associations. It will organize people in local communities to respond to local manifestations of global injustice or irresponsibility and, when necessary, it will take its case to court.” End quote. Now I grant you none of this seems sinister, indeed it has a high sounding note, but one can't deny it's rather generalized and non-specific. Who will decide what is a local manifestation of global injustice or irresponsibility and whether to take the case to court. The founders of New Directions actually provide the answer but I doubt if they'll appreciate what I see is the only interpretation of that answer. I'll quote from the bylaws of New Directions, and let me interject this too is typical of liberal movements, the bylaws are determined in advance by the founders not by those who will subsequently make up the rank and file membership. They read: “The governing body of New Directions shall be its board of directors, here and after referred to as the ‘Governing Board.’ The Governing Board shall have supervision, control and direction of the affairs of New Directions, its committees and publications, shall determine its policies or changes therein, and shall supervise the disbursement of its funds.” Those who make up the rank and file membership will accept bylaws already adopted and in addition a governing board already in existence by a kind of intellectual inbreeding process. The board is made up of names long associated with causes which, shall we say, see danger only if it approaches from the right never from the left. One of them journeyed to Hanoi in 1969 to lend moral support to Ho Chi Minh. Another saw nothing in Russia's invasion of Czechoslovakia that could be called aggression. Statements and deeds like these are typical of other board members, but my point is all associated with New Directions have impeccable liberal credentials, but an elitism and lack of democracy characterizes this newest expression of liberalism. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
|
Details
| |||||||||||
Added Notes |
