QFT.
Wow, I was hoping for a reasoned argument as to your opinion; but, no, that's not to be from you.
Reagan's legacy to the American people is a non-rational movement that believe what they believe without any conscious justification whatsoever. It's just what they feel that counts. Because? 'Cause. Got it.
No thanks for that.
Now, to be fair to Reagan, I think he had a good idea
for the time.
Remember, Reagan grew up in an age with little government intervention, so he was looking at how government was impeding businesses. Unfortunately, I don't think he really realized how unethical businesses could be, and exactly why they needed regulating.
Also, Reagan's lifetime had the attitudes go from "every man for himself" to "the government will provide you a living." Now, granted, the reason why the government provided work to Americans was because it was the only way the federal government knew how to guarantee getting the American people out of the Great Depression - they couldn't rely on businesses to volunteer to do the policies that would help re-stir economic growth. Which is why FDR centralized the economy like he did.
But after the Depression, LBJ did his "War on Poverty" and the welfare state was an actuality. Why work when the government will provide you with food if you can't afford it?
However, after Reagan, and especially during the Clinton administration, I think we have gotten farther away from policies of
welfare and towards policies of
workfare. Instead of having an impoverished class relying on the government for sustenance, the policies liberals prefer are those that allow the impoverished to get educated enough to pull themselves up from poverty.
So liberals have gone from giving aid
directly to the poor continually - which is what the liberals of the '60's and '70's were doing, and what Reagan and Goldwater were fearing - to giving aid to the poor
indirectly - by giving them an education and work skills that they can use to live a life of quality on their own.
This latter type of government assistance was done by compromising with conservatives, and they
do have valid arguments of caution.
However, this doesn't mean that they are totally right and that the best government is the one that governs least. In fact, we are all consumers, and we all benefit from consumer protections that the federal government enforces.
So, in short, I think Reagan's rhetoric was good
for it's time. Some things in the U.S.
does need less regulation. However, the evil in his rhetoric is his use of a broad brush - deregulation needs to be targeted, not total.