I'm feeling better now...

So I thought I'd make one or two clarifications about the current discussion.

Ryan keeps saying that reduced spending (smaller government) is a must EXCEPT in times of war. He uses our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, and also includes the Cold War (at least from 1981 to 1989) as another... yet none of these are declared "wars" as defined by the Constitution, are they? So, the last time the US could deficit spend, according to the letter of "Ryan's Rules" for sound fiscal policy was prior to Aug, 1945... because that was the last time we were actually fighting a declared war.

I agree with Ryan that the wars being fought now, and including the Cold War and all its "hot" issues like Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Beirut, etc, are legitimate crisis points in American history and needed to be confronted with the full weight of what the American society could bring to bear to resolve them. I do NOT feel that a formal declaration of war is the ONLY means by which America should be able to defend her interests abroad.

"Defending her interests abroad" is, however, only part of the problem. We are also expected to defend and protect the interests of the United States "at home", which I take to mean domestically. Not every domestic threat is a bomb-throwing terrorist... ensuring that our society continues to be able to function in times of natural disaster, plague, or economic crisis is every bit as important as being able to repel invaders from our shores and frontiers... and I would expect the same level of commitment and effort be expended to successfully conclude such a crisis.

Ryan maintains that the level of intervention taken by the New Deal policies of FDR were unprecedented and unnecessary. I agree 100% that they were unprecedented, because the crisis was more than anything we had ever seen before... but if THAT is true, then the claim that they efforts were "unnecessary" must be false, right? If the crisis constituted a threat to American society as a whole, and the lives and safety of Americans were at risk, how can that not constitute a threat that could (at the very least) warrant some unprecedented action by the Federal government?

The unprecedented actions taken by Thomas Jefferson in 1803 when he spent, without authorization from Congress, the equivalent of three years of domestic budgetary expenses to purchase all French Imperial territory in North America... does that constitute a "despotic" act by Jefferson? Or was he acting outside his enumerated powers as President, in the best interests of the country as he saw them AT THE TIME?

When Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus after the commencement of hostilities in 1861 and imprisoned most of the Maryland legislative assembly to prevent them from voting for secession, was he following Constitutional authority? Where was the precedent he was following when he imprisoned 12,000 "suspects" of treason with no formal charges or trials? Was this "despotism" or was this the actions of a President doing whatever he felt necessary to protect and defend the United States in the time of a national crisis?

Let's pretend that the 22nd Amendment is never written, and Ronald Wilson Reagan faces the prospect of running for a third term in 1988... I am convinced he could have won (rather easily, too). Would the Ryan-of-today take that to mean he was hoping to achieve "despotic authority" and to rewrite our governmental norms, or could he have only wanted to finish what he felt still needed to be done to set the country on the path away from "New Deal" policies and back to "real conservatism"?

My point is simply that you have chosen to look at FDR as a "singular" instance in American history, and I say that is something that doesn't actually exist. No President worth the time to study hasn't made some precedent-setting policy or action while in office, and all that have faced a national crisis have had to make tough choices or take tough actions. This does not mean they are anti-American tyrants... they were only doing the job they felt they were elected to do.

If we can't demonize Jefferson or Lincoln for what they did as President, and we admit that we might have supported a three-term Presidency for someone we like but oppose it for someone we don't, doesn't that indicate that there might just be a touch of hypocrisy in our attitudes about FDR and the New Deal effort?