I do so love when liberals tell us what conservatism really is and what it really means, especially when some of those doing it are amongst the most hyper partsian "aquapub of the left" type of people.
Fiscal Conservatism is not anarchism nor a government that gives nothing, does nothing. It believes the government has a few primary functions of which money most definitely should be spend, and the rest should be kept to a minimum. While the meaning and application behind “The General Welfare” is oft argued in regards to intent, there is no ifs, and’s, or buts that the Federal Government was meant to support defense.
Some will deridingly say that “Fiscal Conservatism is just cutting spending in programs you don’t like”. It’s a childish simplification meant to insult and degrade rather than have any actual conversation. A more accurate attempt to still be belittling would be to say that Fiscal Conservatism is just cutting spending of parts of government you don’t believe is the purpose of government. THAT would be more accurate. Now, you can throw such an insult around if you want, but frankly it doesn’t bother me. I’ll flat out admit that’s what it is. Just because liberals are looking for a way to insult and tweak conservatives doesn’t mean I’m going to be insulted when they act like I should be embarrassed that my ideology is what it is, or when they attempt to exaggerate my ideology as if they’re some kind of expert on it, and they tend to do it laughably poor fashion.
While there is still argument over whether the Cold War was truly a war, Reagan believed it was. And, adhering to conservative philosophy, set out to defend this country. The military spending mixed with pressure that reduced oil prices tanked the Soviet Unions economy setting the stage for the potential for actual legitimate arms agreement and peace talks between Gorbachev and Reagan, leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War.
Liberals on this forum can caterwaul all they wish, telling us all how smart they REALLY are and how much better they know what conservatism really is than us (Sure, they say “we’re just going off what you say” but that’s bull****, the majority of people in this thread are going off the stereotype and caricature they have in their head that they then paint over anything anyone they disagree with says). Spending on military during times of War, which Reagan clearly believed the Cold War was, is not diametrically opposed to traditional modern Conservative ideology.
One can also not discount the affects a congress has on a President. Civics 101 tells us all where spending is initiated, and its not on the desk of the President. Truman’s “The Buck Stops Here” is the most tired, over used, and lazy quote ever for people deciding to place blame squarely place blame on a President they don’t like (from either side) and take it off something else. One cannot look at Reagan, or Clinton, or even Bush’s spending without looking at the corresponding Congress and how it affected the situation.
Was Reagan the perfect conservative? No. No one is. Just as there is no perfect liberal, no perfect Christian or Muslim, no perfect libertarian, no perfect Hobbesian, no perfect Sacrotic man, etc. Philosophies and Ideals are generally extremely rarely embodied 100% by ANYONE in any way. This is the difference between humanity and free will and theoretical philosophy. Reagan did make some missteps from traditional conservatism, he did make some compromises in the name of pragmatism, and he did make some complete missteps. But the over arching attempt on the left to describe him as anything from a Neo-Conservative to a flat out non-conservative Republican is a gross misrepresentation of his legacy, his politics, his philosophies, and even his acts.
He was a solid conservative during a pseudo-war time, who was not a complete ideologue, was pragmatic at times in his approach, and occasional reached outside of the mold to do what he thought was right, all while trying to work with a Congress diametrically opposed to many of his views.