Tuesday, February 22, 2011

3 Left Turns Makes a Right Needs Debater for Ronald Reagan Program


Mark Small producer of 3 Left Turns Makes a Right is looking at doing a video debate on the Reagan presidency, hopefully to be recorded this weekend.  He has asked me to publish this announcement:
3leftturnsmakearight is a webcast show that seeks civil debate on various issues of current interest. This would have been the 100th birthday of former President Ronald Reagan. I believe it is timely to discuss the quality of his presidency. The topic for the show this week is Resolved: that Ronald Reagan was a really bad president. I am taking the affirmative. I am looking for someone who is interested in taking the negative on this resolution. You may respond to marksmall2001@yahoo.com

17 comments:

varangianguard said...

Dang. That might be "fun".

But, Jon Easter would never quit calling me a DINO. Well, Ok, he wouldn't quit anyway. ;)

Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to research the open side of the question, nor the time to sit through a taping session.

Still, for whomever does pick up the gauntlet, ask Mr. Small just what defines "really bad".

I doubt Ronald Reagan even hits my Bottom Ten.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Mark Small's political views sometime classify him as a deranged lunatic. Actually Mark is a thoughtful guy, a straight shooter. Even though I disagree with him on a lot of issues, he's intellectually honest, a rare commodity in today's world.

Varan, if you know of someone, feel free to pass along the word.

Nicolas Martin said...

While the liberals and conservatives revise history and spout platitudes, a knowledgable libertarian could easily dismember the Reagan myths.

Reagan accomplished nothing of substance. On his watch, spending and taxes rose, regulations grew, no federal agency was eliminated, no important deregulation occurred, Republicans discovered that they liked debt, and government became more bloated.

Under the deplorable Carter, the Democrats deregulated trucking and airlines, and under Carter they reformed welfare.

Murray Rothbard dissected the Reagan presidency in 1989:

http://liten.be//wEEuL

varangianguard said...

Nicholas Martin.

Hmm. The Berlin Wall came down. I never thought to see that in my lifetime. It may have been right, or it may have been wrong, but the late President Reagan did stand toe-to-toe with the USSR, and they blinked. And, without the threat of nuclear devastation.

I'm thinking, if nothing else, that's something.

The late President also presided over the beginnings of a resurgence of business over labor which is apparently beginning to come to a head.

I'm sure there is more. I just am not a Reagan expert.

Cato said...

For anti-Reagan material from the right, read Murray Rothbard. LewRockwell.com has abundant links to Murray's anti-Reagan works.

Cato said...

Damn you, NICHOLAS MARTIN!!!!

I guess I should read all the posts before commenting, but who the Hell knows about Murray in these corners of the web?

Nicolas Martin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAX said...

I suggested Liz K. and wrote her today. You guys should back me up and email her that this is a good show to do.

Nicolas Martin said...

varangianguard, the USSR imploded because socialism is a doomed system, as Ludwig von Mises explained in the 1920s. Socialist reformers tried to save the system, but by then it was too late. Reagan had nothing to do with it.

Here's another hatchet to the Reagan myth:

http://liten.be//jfxeG

Nicolas Martin said...

Cato, please spell my name right when you curse me!

Cheers!

By the way, I totally reject the notion that libertarians are "from the Right."

marksmall2001 said...

varangianguard,
Terms of the resolution can be determined before the debate. Paul, Sean, and Chris, I think will agree, I try to talk a couple of days beforehand (at least) so no one is caught off-guard and we can rationally discuss issues. Watch the shows on the site.
As far as Paul's reference to my being a deranged lunatic, I would say the appellation is redundant. Choose. Deranged? Lunatic? I'm comfortable w/either. But both? A little overkill.

Sean Shepard said...

I'm going to agree with Paul. Mark's a good guy and flexible in working out how the discussion starts.

Dismantling the Reagan presidency, even though I still have a soft spot for him, is really easy. I mean, just start with tripling the national debt (Bush Jr. at least only tripled it) and go from there. ;-)

Sean Shepard said...

Bush Jr. DOUBLED sorry. Meant, doubled it. (where's that edit button when I need it - which is most times)

varangianguard said...

Nicholas Martin. Well, we'll just have to disagree, I think. While Soviet-style communism was a bankrupt form of government on the whole from my perspective, but the persistance of form and behavior could have easily kept it in its old existence to this day.

Truly, I believe that it simmers in the wings of today's Russia, and many of those people who either directly or indirectly benefited from such a system would love to see its return.

marksmall2001 said...

I still have no takers in the debate. Will no one defend the legacy of the Gipper?--Mark Small

Nicolas Martin said...

varangianguard, socialism is in the nature of all government. Reagan didn't lavishly spend money that was donated; he gladly transferred confiscated wealth, as almost all politicians do. He was no Ron Paul.

marksmall2001 said...

Former City-County Council member Curtis Coonrod has agreed to debate the Reagan topic on March 12. I look forward to the show. This weekend we will have another guest on to debate collective bargaining.