Ronald Reagan: A Constitutional Conservative, Not A "Crony Capitalist"

Yesterday was the 102nd birthday of Ronald Reagan, the greatest President of my lifetime, to whom I owe personal and professional thanks for my marriage (to one of his White House secretaries) and my Washington career (beginning as a Reagan Administration political appointee). His personally autographed photo congratulating us on our marriage is one of our most cherished possessions.

Almost two years ago, I researched all of his speeches and writings available on the internet to determine whether he would be considered a "constitutional conservative" by today's standards, meaning fidelity to the Bill of Rights, or whether he would stand with today's "Crony Capitalists" who lobby in Washington for special protection in federal law through the preemption of state law or, worse yet, immunity through federal tort reform. Too many politicians who pass themselves off as constitutional conservatives ditch the 7th Amendment right to civil jury trials and side with Crony Capitalists to protect companies they represent.

I then wrote a special post titled, "What Ronald Reagan REALLY Said About Tort Reform," which I re-posted in January of last year. The conclusion of my research is crystal clear.

Ronald Reagan was never for federal tort reform. He never proposed a federal tort reform bill in his State of the Union speeches, budget proposals, nomination acceptance speeches, or major addresses on the economy.

Reagan's silence in the issue is due primarily to his strong belief in the rights of the states and individual, as protected in the Bill of Rights. Reagan understood, better than almost any political figure of our times, the limitations on central power built into the Constitution and fortified by the Bill of Rights. He highlighted his fidelity to federalism in his first Inaugural Address in 1981:

"All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government."

And before that, in his 1979 speech announcing his candidacy:

"The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well. There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities and a transfer with them of the sources of taxation to pay for them."

That sounds like a constitutional conservative, not a Crony Capitalist. And I remember that Reagan was the presidential candidate for "Main Street Republicans," including the social conservative movement, while John Connolly of Texas was the guy backed by the "Wall Street Republicans."

In the decades in which he addressed public policy issues as a commentator, Governor and President, he addressed the issue of federal tort reform apparently only once, near the end of his Presidency. In remarks he gave in Washington in April 1986, he remained true to his roots, saying, "To be sure, much tort law would remain to be reformed by the 50 States, not the Federal Government. And in our Federal system of government this is only right." That's a man who knows that Uncle Sam's authority is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Unlike many on the left and right today, Reagan would have had no inconsistency between his opinion on Obamacare and his thoughts on federal tort reform. He would have found both unconstitutional.

Reagan would feel right at home with the Tea Party base of the Republican Party that recognizes and honors the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial for civil suits. He would have stood with legal scholars Randy Barnett and Rob Natelson; Senators Tom Coburn and Mike Lee; and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli against the takeover of state tort law by the feds. I have to believe that anyone proposing sweeping preemption of the states' rights to protect citizens and manage courtrooms would've drawn severe skepticism or outright opposition by President Reagan.

So thank you, Ronald Reagan, for your vigorous defense of personal and states' rights, and for so much more.

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Dawn Pizzo on February 7, 2013 at 1:58pm: I see where you are going with this Mr. Irish and thank you for bringing this up. His last sentence states, "It would require all the conservative groups to coalesce into one cohesive organization with the same agenda. Can this happen?" I think that the one thing that the democrats have is cohesion. They all are completely brainwashed and not a one has any common sense to speak of. You see the whole premise of democratic principles is that change is okay and the government is here to help and protect you. We all know that's a load of hooey. Anyway, conservatives, by their name's sake, are the one's who resist change and government protection (a/k/a control) because they know that they can take care of themselves. They are almost always more fiscally and physically responsible than their democratic cousins. Lets face it democrats need republicans but republicans don't need democrats. Amen??? Now we have these RINOs in the GOP and they are stirring up a lot of trouble, making the party look weak and indecisive. One day they talk like true conservatives and the next they are moving to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants. Who is going to feed them? Constitutional conservatives, that's who. The people who still believe that hard work is its own reward. The GOP is scattered all over the place right now. The democrats are completely united in their mantra of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town". Santa Claus of course being Barack Obama.

Simply, we need to put Tea Party Patriots in office and get rid of the RINOs. Once constitutional conservatives become elected for positions of power in the political arena, politics as usual will start to change. Then maybe we can even a run a candidate for presidency that people on the fence will respect and even admire. Someone just like Ronald Reagan (my personal favorite after Thomas Jefferson). But like I said, we need to get rid of the RINOs first.

Comment by Vern Shotwell on February 7, 2013 at 1:24pm: Thanks, Andrew.

I as well cringe when I hear people on our side call for Tort reform on the Federal level!

It tells one that essential concepts of separation of State and Federal enumerated powers, or their importance, are not understood at all by many here. We have much work to do, Sir!

Comment by Herb Irish on February 7, 2013 at 1:03pm: My parents were so heavily democratic that they thought FDR was the second coming, and I accepted this belief until I learned, through education and life-experience that he was a total socialist. I then became a Republican and had another revelation - after the disappointment of voting for Eisenhower, I discovered I was really a "Conservative." Ronald Reagan was the first Republican President, in my lifetime, that was a true conservative. Having him for president was almost like dying and going to heaven. Well, that was the last time I felt that way. Sadly, we haven't had a conservative president since Reagan.

I fear that we may never see another conservative become president. The cards are stacked against us. America has developed an entitlement mentality that only thinks in terms of "What's in it for ME, if I vote for you?" O'Bummer was elected by a majority that simply thought in terms of "Gimme mo' free stuff!", and some Libtards who want this country transformed into a socialist, "Big Brother" society. I question whether Reagan could be elected today, and that's a terribly sad statement. It would require all the conservative groups to coalesce into one cohesive organization with the same agenda. Can this happen?