The Real Julia could do with a few lessons on real leadership. One of the great leaders of the 20th century was the late President Ronald Reagan. This week we celebrate the anniversary of his 100th birthday.

Thumbs up for small government. Image: AP.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

It is difficult to reconcile the two different perceptions of Ronald Reagan. On the one hand, the modest former actor who revelled in self-deprecation; and on the other, the conqueror of communism who said, “Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honourable form of government ever devised by man.”

Reagan understood that strong democratic institutions and economic freedom are vital to ensure peace in the world. In the context of America’s struggle against the Soviet Union – a struggle for ideas as much as geopolitical power – this was of the utmost importance. By the end of Reagan’s second term as President, due in no small measure to his advocacy and strength, communism was not an unworkable if noble idea, but rather a dangerous and laughable one. Less than ten months after leaving the White House, the Berlin Wall was demolished.

Reagan arrived on the political scene at just the right time. Reagan’s view was that the government was not the source of a nation’s success. He understood that the wealth of a nation is not measured by the size of government, but in the natural gifts of its people – their ingenuity, their knowledge, and their quest to create a better life for themselves, their communities and future generations. He believed strongly in the power of the individual to create beneficial change without the need for government to direct him or her.

Many pilloried Reagan’s view as naïve. The need for strong government intervention had been ingrained in American society since Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal. At that time, the popular view of the economic collapse that led to the Great Depression was that it was caused by a lack of government involvement; that an expansive regulatory regime was needed to curb the inherently selfish attitude of humankind.

Reagan’s view was very different. He saw the impediments that government was creating for the American people, through taxation, regulation and social and economic programs with good intentions but bad results. He understood that people are naturally inclined to cooperate with one another to find solutions and produce wealth if they are free from government interference to do this.

Reagan was in stark contrast to Presidents before and after because he did not seek to aggrandise the government and the office of the president with more power. He did not seek to impose policy initiatives that would last forever. Instead, he made it his explicit aim to give power back to the American people. Reagan said, “I never thought of myself as a great man, just a man committed to great ideas.” What drove him was a set of values and a philosophical framework within which his administration operated, by which ideas could be tested and decisions made.

In Australia, Julia’s prime ministership continues the tradition of Labor leaders before her. Founded on a bedrock of ‘government knows best’, she leads a government that seeks to increase government power and intervention in the lives of Australian citizens.

Hers is a top down, one-size-fits all approach to policy. An approach that takes decision-making and responsibility away from individuals. Her legacy of big government, new taxes, government waste and squandered opportunity will be very different to that of Reagan. What the Gillard Government will be remembered for is its total lack of direction, completely unmoored from any fundamental principles and wholly dedicated to political management as demonstrated time-and-time again through its broken promises on everything from new taxes to climate change.

Labor wants to fight a battle of perception, rather than a battle of ideas. If Ronald Reagan’s presidency has taught us anything, it is that conviction in a core set of ideas is fundamental to good government. Leadership requires a real leader. If only Julia understood that.

Kelly O’Dwyer MP is the Federal Member for Higgins and Chairman of the Coalition’s Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

134 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • nossy says:

      10:06am | 08/02/11

      Old Ronnie wasnt a bad frontman for the Republicans Kelly.The old gaffer was certainly a good public speaker. As for detail he reportedly left that to his minions and went off for a kip or two.. Overall I did like him Kelly and it was truely sad re his demise with Alzeimers - he did not deserve that indeed.

    • Grace Rey says:

      10:34am | 08/02/11

      What a nice tribute to Ronnie.  He would have liked this.  grin

    • KH says:

      11:56am | 08/02/11

      Reagan was just one of the absolute morons the Republicans have given the world…....but wait, they have plenty more where that came from…

      And he didn’t “conquer” communism - it ate itself up as it was never going to be workable - he was just standing there at the right time.

    • Rosie says:

      12:17pm | 08/02/11

      nossy Nosthow how unkind to bring up “Alzemimers” Was it necessary?

      It is typical Labor philosophy to try and fool the public into believing they are the only ones that could and should “climb the Ladder of Opportunity” ( Mark Latham ) find a leader and turn this country into a bigger than previous Liberal Govts. In this case the “Howard Liberal Govt” but sadly to do this they have to keep attacking the now Liberal leader, Tony Abbott instead of getting on with the task of governing for all Australians.

      The only comparison that Gillard has to Regan is that she is a very bad actor. She must be having acting lessons which so far hasn’t worked for her because there in no conviction or faith that she is capable of producing. Yes the power of a leader to create beneficial change without the need for her party or the “faceless men” to direct her is very much lacking.

      It would be great for a Labor politician to defend the decisions they are trying to implement without attacking Tony Abbott as a defence for justifying what they have decided to dish out for the Australian people.

      If the Govt could make good decisions they wouldn’t have to attack Tony Abbott. All is required is to defend to the hilt the decisions they strongly believe is the best for all Australians.

    • nihonin says:

      01:32pm | 08/02/11

      Great comment about Old Ronnie, nossy, I dont always agree with what nossy says, but Holy Crap Rosie, where did that come from.  Not one single comment about Tony Abbott and you have to turn it into one.  Are you that one eyed and rusted on you can only see any comment that nossy makes, as a broadside against Tony Abbott and the Liberals.

    • nossy says:

      01:52pm | 08/02/11

      @Rosie - I dont know what you are taking Rosie my girl but please get back soon and see you GP !  hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa And please try and stay on topic my love - I do !

    • nossy says:

      01:57pm | 08/02/11

      @nihonin - thank you m good friend - yes your are right I did NOT mention you know who did I ? Poor Rosie she probably feels soooooooo illy now - and rightly so ! haahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    • john says:

      02:03pm | 08/02/11

      @nihonin, I can’t believe that from nossy either, He in fine form today, nice summary of ronnie’s political life.

    • Syl says:

      02:46pm | 08/02/11

      WTF Rosie?  Did you even read the post?  Or comprehend it?  This is the only time I have ever read a post from Nossy and not dismissed it as insane ramblings.  I can’t believe I agree with him on something.

    • nossy says:

      04:46pm | 08/02/11

      @Sly and @John - why thank you fellas - we forgive poor Rosie - shes just had a Bex and a good lie down !

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      04:53pm | 08/02/11

      Rosie says:12:17pm | 08/02/11; “nossy Nosthow how unkind to bring up “Alzemimers” Was it necessary?”

      Yes it was he was propped up for a long time when he was struck by it while still in office. I made the real controllers have a field day.

      Syl says:02:46pm; “WTF Rosie?  Did you even read the post?” Who Rosie??? nah she just shoots her commie mouth off whenever it gets the chance.

    • acotrel says:

      05:07pm | 08/02/11

      ‘“Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honourable form of government ever devised by man.”

      Ronnie must have said that before he got dementia, and played with economics?  However I totally agree with him!

    • huhul says:

      10:09am | 08/02/11

      If Julia Gillard is considered a leader then we are all in a shit load of trouble.

    • acotrel says:

      05:10pm | 08/02/11

      ‘And he didn’t “conquer” communism - it ate itself up as it was never going to be workable - he was just standing there at the right time.’

      What’s this?  Are you telling me that our 500 or so digger deaths in Vietnam didn’t contribute to the downfall of communisn?

    • HappyCynic says:

      10:17am | 08/02/11

      It isn’t just the Labor Party that thinks Government knows best.  The Libs have also refused to acknowledge any individual rights.  Rights like allowing individuals to decide who they can marry etc.

      The biggest problem with the “right” (I’m loathe to use such crass generalisations but it kind of fits here) that look up to Reagan’s politics is that they can’t reconcile the rights of the individual with their religious voter base who, to be perfectly honest, like to meddle in peoples lives.

      Also another problem the Liberal Party has is once they are given power they never ever give any of it back to the people.  Labor takes rights from people Liberal holds on to it.

      Though I’ll happily stand corrected if you can cite a single incident in the past 20 or 30 years.

    • n_dude says:

      11:42am | 08/02/11

      Sounds like the Libs believe in individual freedom and choice when it suits their religous interests. Don’t forget that the bible bashers make up a big source of their core voter base.

    • Richard says:

      12:20pm | 08/02/11

      The Libs aren’t perfect, no doubt, but the foundational purpose of the Liberal party in Australia as depicted by Menzies was to stand up for individual freedoms and choice. Now its true they do falter on some issues such as gay marriage (hello Penny Wong btw?), but they are a hell of a lot better than the socialist Labor party and the communist Greens, surely.

    • PatC says:

      10:20am | 08/02/11

      There is a lot of truth in this article. Governments are predominantly part of the problem,  rarely part of the solution and never the total solution.  Yet it seems to me that a vast number of Australians today want Governments to be the total solution to all that ails and they want that solution right now. This is not only a naïve and simplistic view but a dangerous one as well because it builds unreal expectations, weakens the populations power and weakens community resilience.

    • Rick says:

      10:23am | 08/02/11

      Iran-Contra

    • Nigel says:

      10:30am | 08/02/11

      Khemlani?  Is this a game of word association?

    • john says:

      10:52am | 08/02/11

      @Kelly O’Dwyer(The author)

      Its comically premature to put Julia’s name in the same story with the historical caliber of the likes of Ronald Ray-gun, Mr. R and Lincoln.

      Maybe Menzies, perhaps charismatic Hawke, but Jooyla? How long is a piece of string?

    • AndrewK says:

      10:54am | 08/02/11

      But…. but… home insulation!  And… and… flood levy! Surely these are scandals on par with the scandal you mention?

      I will further indicate my disgust by spelling the PM’s name as “Joolya”.

    • Rick says:

      03:52pm | 08/02/11

      Official name: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ REP. 392 June 27, 1986.

      Good old Reagan, President of a country that earned the honour being the first nation convicted of terrorist acts by the ICJ.

    • Dew Point says:

      10:24am | 08/02/11

      You go Kelly.
      Every proposal for new laws and regulations should be met with some sort of “Do we really need this? Will the functioning of society be improved by this?” kind of test.
      Then if the proposal meets this test, the next test should be “What’s the lowest level of government at which this can be achieved?”
      Then we would, as Ronald wanted for the US, be members of a nation that has a government, rather than living with the effects of a government that has a country.
      Now, having said my piece, I can’t wait to read the stream of vitriol that this article elicits…

    • Kelly O'Dwyer says:

      03:07pm | 08/02/11

      Thanks Dew Point for your comments. Your predictions were right. Just reading the stream now!

    • Yak of the Goldfields says:

      04:02pm | 08/02/11

      @Dew Point. Totally agree. Well said.

    • MarK says:

      04:12pm | 08/02/11

      Hi Kelly.

      If you need a staffer I am available.

      Everyone thinks I am one anyway.

      Feel free to give me a hoi.

    • AJ says:

      09:49am | 09/02/11

      The issue I have with this concept is the ‘what’s the lowest level of government at which this can be achieved’.  America is horrendously over-governed, but not, as many think, y the Federal Government, but rather by local governments.  When a national franchise has to deal with a different tax regime in every COUNTY, let alone state, and the myriad of different ordinances dreamed up by yahoos from across the spectrum of politics at a council level, it makes me leery of local government.

      Just think of your local council and the ‘highly capable’ members it has on it.  Now give them to ability to levy whatever tax they liked.

      Yikes.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      10:27am | 08/02/11

      And like many leaders, he polarised the country. Those who like the concept of the nanny-state, the welfare state, were vehemently opposed.

    • Ripa says:

      10:31am | 08/02/11

      Great stuff Kelly, Socialism, communism and the absolute dictator type power they result in are the biggest causes of death, lower standard of living, limited freedom and slavery on the planet. Our MPs especially Julia, a socialist from way back, could learn a lot from Regan.

    • DEBUNKED says:

      10:34am | 08/02/11

      0h please dont compare Ronadl Reagan to Gillard as Gillard just hasnt got a clue how to be a leader! She is such an embarrasment to ORstralai( her sppech)  and Gillard is so out of her depth in foreign affairs she drops inane clangers like she would rather be in a classroom when she is with foreign dignataries!
      hey Gillard suggestion get back to school and learn how to be a PM that had the gravitas of say a Paul Keating or a Robert Menzies!!!
      Gillard you aint no Pm Material many women are so ruing the day you became the first female PM because you have let the side down!
      hey what do you know about what families suffer Anna Bligh and Carmen Lawrence have both over the years shown how imcompetent you are!
      The biased left wing media made a giant of you their darling but just remember the bigger in deluded self perception they are the harder they fall!
      You booted KRudd but now you may realise how hard and demanding it is to be PM!
      So the sooner for the sake of Australia you get the flick as PM the better
      well you told us during the floods that you were our PM so many times hey it wasnt about you it was about the flood victims so your insensitive behaviour there proves you Gillard so lack the empathy, the class and the grace to be an enduring PM, one that would be held in genuine affection by the public like Reagan as President is in America was.
      so the sooner you step down as PM to move Australia foward the better
      Install Tony Abbott for PM and by the way he Tony is so very nice to women another media myth that so needs to be debunked! Sayonara Gill-( non impacting as PM) ard

    • Rick says:

      10:35am | 08/02/11

      What a croc.  For people who regard themselves as having fiscal conservatism as the foundation of their beliefs conservatives cannot possibly elevate Reagan to any position of great leadership.  When he became President the United States was the world’s largest CREDITOR nation.  When he left office the United States was the world’s largest DEBTOR nation.  Opposing him in the primaries in 1980 George Bush (Snr) said that Reagan was economically illiterate and that he practiced ‘voodoo economics’.  He was proved correct. As Reagan’s VP he helped implement those voodoo economics with the ‘trickle down’ economic theory - that you give the biggest tax cuts to the wealthiest, they will spend and that will trickle down to the poor.  Didn’t work.  The Republicans are now demanding the same thing again - extension of the Bush (Jnr) tax cuts that give the biggest cut to the wealthiest in America while at the same time demanding massive cuts to programs that help the less well off in order to cut the deficit.  Reagan and both Bushes drove the US further and further into debt.  Clinton balanced the budget and reduced debt.  Reagan made great speeches but a great President - not within a bull’s roar.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      11:00am | 08/02/11

      I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. You cannot be seriously suggesting that Clinton was a fiscally responsible president. 
       
      He caused the GFC.

    • Grumpy says:

      11:40am | 08/02/11

      Carter and Regan were the ones who deregulated the Finance sector in the states. He and Thatcher pushed other countries to do the same.

      Regan set up america for the GFC, George W Bush finished the job. Clinton was banging interns. None of them knew what they were doing. All learning on the job.

    • Dave-o says:

      11:50am | 08/02/11

      It was Regan’s initial de-regulation of the industry that allowed Clintons “minority ownership” blunder.

    • P. Darvio says:

      10:43am | 08/02/11

      When ever you look up into the night sky and see a bright shining white light travelling across the dawn or evening sky remember its Reagan who gave the go ahead to build it - part of our future in Space - the International Space Station

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdMTTlpfNP4&feature=related

      20:21 minutes into his speech

    • Duff says:

      11:58am | 08/02/11

      Yes, and what dud that turned out to be.

    • P. Darvio says:

      01:19pm | 08/02/11

      .....and Australia’s Space Program is between the ears of people such as yourself…....

    • Mugz says:

      10:58am | 08/02/11

      Reagan didn’t kill communism anymore than Obama freed the people of Tunisia.  Communism collapsed from within
      It is funny how conservative forces can be against “big” government yet still feel the need to morally control their people by passing legislation about abortion, gay marriage etc.

    • jf says:

      02:05pm | 08/02/11

      Your right Mugz, Reagan didn’t smash communism.

      He smashed a cruel, murderous totalitarian dictatorship. The fact that such communism necessarily resulted in that regime is incidental.

    • jf says:

      02:13pm | 08/02/11

      “It is funny how conservative forces can be against “big” government yet still feel the need to morally control their people by passing legislation about abortion, gay marriage etc. “

      I’m conservative and have been all my adult life. I don’t support the legislation that controls people’s personal moral decisions inlcuding gay marriage. Certainly I don’t support outlawing gay marriage any more tha Julia Gillard or Penny Wong.

    • James says:

      11:02am | 08/02/11

      100% of Punch articles by the Member for Higgins include the word ‘fail’ in their title.

      Negative nelly much?

    • Flexo says:

      11:07am | 08/02/11

      Julia will go down is history as one of the worst leaders of a country. A legacy of back stabbing, failure, nastiness and lack of leadership is just the tip of the ice berg on what makes Gillard a complete letdown. Gillard = Failure

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:19pm | 08/02/11

      No, John Howard will go down as one of the worst Prime Ministers in Australia’s history. Establishment of the middle class welfare state, Underfunded baby boom and flogging off anything he could get his hands on…..Julia Gillard is merely an incompetent fool…...

    • CL Angus says:

      11:07am | 08/02/11

      It’s interesting that Reagan is hailed as small government’s greatest champions, yet he was responsible for, at the time, some of the largest tax increases in the US. Nowadays ANY attempt at introducing a tax, or a levy, gets attacked as if it is a fundamental breach of human rights.

      I think in the end people need to take any praise of political figures with a grain of salt, whether left or right wing. There’s plenty to learn from figures such as Reagan, but they’re not as perfect as their fans like us to believe.

    • Grumpy says:

      12:00pm | 08/02/11

      Agreed. Theyre all on the back foot to and do anything to appear like theyre doing something. I dont believe any of them know what theyre doing 90% of the time, its just made up as they go. If it wasnt like that it would be a dictatorship. Even Mao and Stalin are seen as hero’s in their countries to some these days.

    • Lucius says:

      11:13am | 08/02/11

      Julia Gillard may be a fake mole, but I’d rather Labor in than the decietful, racist, bigoted fear-mongering Coalition led by Phony Abbott. They cant even balance their printer-toner budget.

    • john says:

      11:24am | 08/02/11

      @Lucius-if you like being led by a fake mole, who are we to argue what it says about you?

      On the topic of fake, how do you know the toner budget isn’t for printing more fake money for Labor to blow on fake labor programs, from your fake leader?

    • Rev says:

      11:39am | 08/02/11

      300k on printer toner is nothing when you examine the billions (trillions?) blown by our goverments over the years.

      Is it any wonder that politicians and public servants fail to deliver cost effectiveness, when they’ve never operated in the real world?  The only reason why they continue is thanks to the almighty cash cow, you and me.

      Small government all the way.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:38pm | 08/02/11

      Got any more nasty adjectives to throw around Lucius?  If you’re going to act all unstable you may as well go all out.

    • HarlequinBeetle says:

      11:13am | 08/02/11

      Have we become a country of whingers?  a country where we no longer look at the good of any situation/person/policy?  It seems to me, that so much reporting is now totally and utterly focused on the negative side of everything.
      The Prime Minister and the Premiers of Queensland, Victoria and Western Australian are faced with unenviable post flood/bushfire infrasture restoration.  The focus in the media seems to be how incorrectly, how badly, how incorrectly things are being done.
      Wake up Australia and stop the whinging.

      PS MrAbbott, you and the Liberal Party are among the worst.

    • TheDishpan says:

      11:18am | 08/02/11

      @Kelly. Ah! Regan = Ideological Purity. I think not.

      I’m not in the habbit of quoting from Cato, but I think this sums it up pretty well.

      http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
      by William A. Niskanen, Cato Institute

      Selected quotes:
      “Reaganomics continues to be a controversial issue. For those who do not view Reaganomics through an ideological lens, however, one’s evaluation of this major change in economic policy will depend on the balance of the realized economic effects.

      “Most of the effects of these policies were favorable, even if somewhat disappointing compared to what the administration predicted.

      “In retrospect the major achievements of Reaganomics were the sharp reductions in marginal tax rates and in inflation.

      “Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan’s last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988.

      “The Reagan economic program led to a substantial improvement in economic conditions, but there was no “Reagan revolution.”

      —-

      In sum, a mixed record on the economic front. And I think it’s fair to say that his influence on the collapse of the USSR was roughly the same: mixed.

      I’ve heard Kelly’s triumphant version of history before see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/. The problem is Yergin & Stanislaw’s telling of the Regan-Thatcher revolution just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

      Unfortuantely for the fan-boys (and girls, Kelly), it turns out that Regan, like most of his predecessors and successors, was a pragmatist in power and not a bastion of ideological purity. Government still designed the economy and experts still tweaked at its settings.

    • Richard says:

      11:47am | 08/02/11

      So basically Dishpan you’re saying that, although Reganomics was successful in fighting inflation and cutting taxes, that it was still too orientated towards Big Government and Big Spending, racking up excessive debt burdens on behalf of the government.

      Well I agree! Even though Regan was going in the right direction, even his government was far too large and profligate. We need to cut the size of government smaller, much smaller than Gillard’s government, much smaller than the government Abbott proposes to lead, and yes, even smaller than Regan’s government was.

    • TheDishpan says:

      02:12pm | 08/02/11

      @Richard

      No. That’s you putting words in my mouth.

      All I sought to do was point out that Regan wasn’t the great herald of small government and low taxation that his acolytes make out. Rather, he was a popular pragmatist.

      I don’t buy into small government nonsense. Big sophisticated economies need equally sophisticated design and regulation. Only government can provide that. It’s a great and marvellous thing that government can promote the general welfare by being able to employ markets; or grant monopolies; or regulate the supply of money; or tax the citizenry; or ensure that important industries are provided with skilled workers; or use regulation to protect workers from unsafe workplaces. Without this, it’d be survival of the fittest and probably pretty violent.

      The problem with your line is that it’s easy to spout; but requires the whole body of economic history and theory to rebut. Thankfully there is shortcut: there are practically no credible economists who think the way that you do, and that all have very sophisticated and nuanced reasons for not doing so. All have probably spent most of their adult lives looking at history, data and policy settings over time rather than playing armchair rhetorical games like praxeology, or trying to pretend that Adam Smith thought like Ludwig von Mises, or that the nineteenth century was the high-point of human achievement and social organisation.

      So, Richo, either you are a genius, or they are right. I know where I’m putting my money.

      Regan did the world a disservice by legitimizing the view that in western liberal democratic states, government is the problem. It wasn’t government; it was the tools being employed at a specific point in time under specific conditions. Don’t be a simpleton and confuse the two.

    • Richard says:

      02:53pm | 08/02/11

      I have spent all of my childhood since the age of 6, and all of my adult life reading, researching and studying history and economics. I have sacrificed much to come to my current understand of the natural order, and if I stand in contrast to the prevalent left-wing groupthink that pervades the the community of what you call “credible economists”, then at least I stand it good company.

      Because, not one of your nobel-prize winning “credible economists” accurately forecast the impending GFC in advance, or fully understood the reasons why it was bound to occur. During 2004/05/06 they were all confidently predicting 10% growth in real estate prices and stock markets as far out into the conceivable future as they could, blissfully unaware of any potential storm clouds on the horizon.
      Only the small government, free-market advocates that you believe are “unsophisticated” were screaming at the top of their lungs, writing books about it, trying to warn everyone (who at the time were so smugly satisfied with the advice of their “credible economists”) about the looming financial disaster that eventuated in the form of the GFC.

      Economists like Peter Schiff, Marc Faber and Jim Rogers, who you dismiss as “unsophisticated” were the real prescient geniuses, not the self-congratulating “credible economists” who were too busy patting themselves on the back and awarding each other nobel prizes to notice the impending financial apocalypse set to unfold on a scale unprecedented since the 1930’s.

      But anyway, lets look into history and ask if Big government is the answer. Was it the answer for the Soviet Union? Was it the answer for China? Isn’t it interesting that China was a veritable hell-on-earth for as long as they followed Big government, Marxist-Leninist social and economic policies, but that as soon as they started to bring in free-market liberal reforms under Deng Xiaoping, things started to turn around for them, until the present time when they are actually more capitalist than America in many ways, and are now poised to take over from them as world Super Power?

      At the end of the day, you can rail against the “violence” of “survival of the fittest” all you like, but that happens to be the natural order of the universe. Evolution, which drives all forward progress, operates through this mechanism, and ultimately, nature will prevail. I always think its best to work in harmony with nature than against it, even if that does make me “unsophisticated”.

    • TheDishpan says:

      04:24pm | 08/02/11

      @Richard

      Starting a post with “all of my childhood since the age of 6” and “natural order” doesn’t exactly bolster your case. Neither does telling lies, like “it was only the commentators that I like that told us about the coming crisis”, which is manifestly untrue.

      Here’s just one survey:
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      04:55pm | 08/02/11

      @Richard- Umm, China is not, and probably will never be free market capitalist. The closest you could describe it as is a centralized state oligarchy with mercantilist leanings. A hybrid of socialism and 19th Century British Mercantilism if you will. It is ironic that the bastion of free market, the United States, is an economic basket case and doesn’t implode only because it is the currency of last resort (unfortunately that other bastion of capitalism that is a basket case, the United Kingdom, does not have that luxury)

    • Richard says:

      08:42pm | 08/02/11

      Dishpan, you’re the one telling porkies. For you to suggest that Alan Greenspan predicted the GFC, you must be a lunatic: it was his dirt cheap interest rates policy post 9/11 that went a long way to causing the GFC! For you to turn around now and say “oh Alan Greenspan was on top it all along it was just bad luck”, well, that’s utter bs and you should be ashamed of your revisionist attitude.

      “The financial crisis was not widely predicted by mainstream economists, who instead spoke of The Great Moderation. A number of heterodox economists predicted the crisis, with varying arguments. Dirk Bezemer in his research[127] credits (with supporting argument and estimates of timing) 12 economists with predicting the crisis: Dean Baker (US), Wynne Godley (UK), Fred Harrison (UK), Michael Hudson (US), Eric Janszen (US), Steve Keen (Australia), Jakob Brøchner Madsen & Jens Kjaer Sørensen (Denmark), Kurt Richebächer (US), Nouriel Roubini (US), Peter Schiff (US), and Robert Shiller (US). Examples of other experts who gave indications of a financial crisis have also been given.[128][129][130]
      A cover story in BusinessWeek magazine claims that economists mostly failed to predict the worst international economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1930s.[131] The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania’s online business journal examines why economists failed to predict a major global financial crisis.[132] Popular articles published in the mass media have led the general public to believe that the majority of economists have failed in their obligation to predict the financial crisis. For example, an article in the New York Times informs that economist Nouriel Roubini warned of such crisis as early as September 2006, and the article goes on to state that the profession of economics is bad at predicting recessions.[133] According to The Guardian, Roubini was ridiculed for predicting a collapse of the housing market and worldwide recession, while The New York Times labelled him “Dr. Doom”.[134]”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010

      Watch this Schiff video and marvel at his prescience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k

    • TheDishpan says:

      10:26am | 09/02/11

      @Richard:

      Who said anything about Alan Greenspan’s predictive powers?

      The subject of that Frontline documentary was the conflict between Alan Greenspan and Brooksley Born. Born, as Director of the Commodity Futures Exchange Commission, attempted to regulate the OTC derivatives market (here is that agency’s 1998 Concept Release: http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opamntn.htm). The reasoning of the CFTC was that “like any complex financial instrument, [OTC derivatives] can present significant risks if misused or misunderstood by market participants” and that “a number of large, well publicized, financial losses over the last few years have focused the attention of the financial services industry, its regulators, derivatives end-users, and the general public on potential problems and abuses in the OTC derivatives market.” Given the size of the market, the CFTC concluded that the hitherto unregulated sale of OTC derivatives could present a systemic risk to the US economy.

      Unfortunately this didn’t fit Greenspan’s vision of the financial markets, which was that free markets, when left alone, will regulate themselves; that the introduction of regulation to the derivatives market would introduce friction and hinder market efficiency. Along with Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and Arthur Levitt, he successfully lobbied the Congress to take away the CFTC’s ability to regulate the market.

      What’s interesting about this event (and the subsequent collapse of LTCM) is that there was a time when these products could have been subjected to some sort of regulatory scrutiny that would have allowed the wider market (or at the very least, the regulator) to detect firms that may have been getting into trouble, and then acted to prevent the collapse of said firm from triggering a much wider crisis. But the thinking of the time, that the market can work it out (or, more precisely, that firms can be trusted to look after the interests of their stock holders out of their own self-interest) prevented that from occurring. The cries for small government, no regulation prevailed even after the world economy dodged the bullet of the LTCM collapse.

      I’m not arguing that this was a prediction (in the sense that the BoM might predict tomorrow’s weather). That Peter Schiff predicted anything isn’t at issue: anyone can invent a method of predicting whether a coin toss will come up heads or tails; in the long run they’ll be right about 50% of the time (which, incidentally, is Peter Schiff’s record of predicting recessions: 3 out of the last 6). It doesn’t mean that the predictive method reflects the reality of the data being observed. You need other tests for that.

      What I am saying is that events like the financial crisis are proof positive of the complexity and interconnectedness of the economy, and the need for regulation to protect the system that allows most people to live with the certainty that they will never have to go back to an existence based on agrarian subsistence farming. The desire for that kind of security, almost of necessity, requires a government to coordinate some activities and to regulate others: the more diverse and complex the system, the bigger and more complex the government component.

      You see, Richard, for me Economics isn’t about prediction. I’m happy to leave that wonderland of crystal balls and intra-day speculation to traders like Schiff.

      The utility of Economics is its capacity to provide tools to measure and explain the aggregate of human activities; and by developing theories about how that complex of interactions works, to provide design options to government that improve the general welfare.

      The real power of Economics is its capacity to provide explanation based on observed data. If you can explain a pattern in observed data, then that might tell you how something works; and if you know how something works then you might be able to use it more effectively or make it behave the way you’d like. Or it might tell you that there’s nothing you can do. The point is that you adjust your theory to fit the data.

      Your approach is very different. Austrian Economics expressly forbids the possibility of adjusting theory to match observation on the basis that that rules of human action are both understood and fixed. This means that as a discipline it suffers from a poverty of ideas: from philosophy, and history, and economics, and nearly 100 years of research into psychology (which demonstrates that even the simplest model of human behaviour is vastly more complex than that of von Mesis in Human Action or Rand in Atlas Shrugged).

      The lesson is that a logically consistent system does not a reality make.

      Finally, of the folk that you’ve listed from your Wikipedia quote only Schiff and Richebächer are Austrians. 2 of 12 hardly proves your case.

    • Mary Monica Roche says:

      11:30am | 08/02/11

      Under Ronald Reagan, World War Three almost became a reality on November 8 1983.It was only a fluke and Gorbechev’s rise to power that saved the world from Ron Raygun Reagan and USA
      Under Ronald Reagan, the rich paid 25 % tax and the poor paid 29%.
      Both Ronald Reagan and Julia Gillard are Aquarius.
      Ron had 8 long years to prove himself and Julia Gillard has had only 8 Months.
      Tony Abbott is the new George W Bush and not the new Ron.
      Sarah Palin is the new Pauline Hansen and not the new Ron.

    • Economist says:

      11:32am | 08/02/11

      Regans greatest acheivement was the signing of the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Sure he had skeletons in his closet and did some pretty dodgy things that have had signficant reprecussions on the US.

      But what’s laughable about this article is that the Liberals follow Reagans ideas of small government. Where’s your evidence?  Howard introduced reforms that took big brother to a new level. He was the largest government in Australia’s history, prior to the current one. Abbott himself doesn’t propose massive cuts to public sector programs and policies. Kelly I think you’re living in a dream world.

    • AdamC says:

      12:46pm | 08/02/11

      To be fair, Economist, Reagan didn’t follow ‘Reagan’s ideal’ of small government either.

      I see Reagan as fundamentally an effective nationalist and populist politician. He certainly did do some good on foreign policy and his economic record is reasonable. However, the deification of Reagan by Republicans is doing the GOP damage.

    • Economist says:

      02:29pm | 08/02/11

      Adam C that’s a fair assessment and your words also aptly describe how I see the JWH government in hindsight.  Nationalistic, populist with a good foreign policy and reasonable economic record, however rabid Liberal supporters won’t allow any criticism of his reign, nor acknowledge that they are a diverse church, that when in power will not necessarily achieve a small government despite Kelly’s desire to do so. They’ll simply target their policies and programs, spending around $360 billion a year, to their own world view and supporter base.

    • AdamC says:

      03:39pm | 08/02/11

      Well, I do think that the Liberal Party has a better record on spending than the ALP, but it is certainly far from a small-government agenda.

      I agree with you on Howard as well. One thing that the two also share, along with Thatcher, is that they were far more pragmatic than the ‘true believers’ are willing to admit. Indeed, one of the reasons for their political success was their ability to sniff where the centre ground was.

    • William Jones says:

      11:32am | 08/02/11

      Ronald Regan great?.Surely you are not falling in with that FOX News crowd.Republicans like to think they ended the ‘cold war’,but it is Mikhail Gorbachev that deserves the credit.And prove me wrong but didn’t Regans administration get caught trading drugs for guns to supply an illegal war in Nicaragua (the Contras) and did not the Regan adminstration get caught swapping weapons with Iran for hostages.Or was it the invasion of the small carribean country of Grenada over an airport.No Regan was not great,he was just another ham fisted American Republican President.

    • Mary Monica Roche says:

      11:34am | 08/02/11

      Ron was once called Ronald Ray Gun .
      Why was that Kelly O’Bulldust?
      The economic policies of Ron Ray Gun gave America the third world banana republic superpower economic basket case that USA is proudly today.

    • stephen says:

      11:34am | 08/02/11

      Yesterday in The Oz a writer said that, knowing Mr. Reagan, he never knew him to be sentimental. Never, ever.
      Which was a big surprize.
      Thinking back, I was confusing his general good nature and spontaneity with his - I thought -  maudlin sense of his own importance.
      In the 80’s and 90’s it was common for us intelligentsia, (well we thought so, anyway) to poke fun and say that Ronny never gave up his day job as a stand-up Comic.
      He wasn’t perfect, but he was a blessing.

    • Richard says:

      11:41am | 08/02/11

      Great article Kelly, you’ve articulated my inner-most feelings on the subject of big-government socialism and its failings.

      Government is a parasite, it feeds off the productive individuals in society, sucking them dry with as much taxation as they can get away with. They even have formulas worked out so that they know where the “sweet spot” is in the tax rate to collect the absolute most taxes possible without totally and utterly discouraging the population from working at all.

      We need government, but ideally it should be as small and unobtrusive as possible. Australians don’t realise this, they want the government to intervene and fix this problem or regulate that industry and so forth and so on.

      But to do so the government needs to take hard-working people’s money away from them forcibly, enforced through the threat of incarceration. That is immoral.

      Nobody else’s “need” entitles them to your hard-earned money. Need is a great motivator, we cannot ask the government to solve everyone’s problems (using other people’s money), because people ought to be allowed the opportunity to develop their own problem solving skills, and to let the process of solving their own problems for themselves by themselves lead them towards greater individuation and self-actualisation.

    • David LD says:

      01:02pm | 08/02/11

      So you’ll be handing in your medicare card, defunding the police and the defence force, the fire services, providing your own clean drinking water, generating your own electricity, ensuring your own food and drug standards and driving on your own personally paved roads from now on?

      Your position can best be summed up as “Got mine. F*$% you.” and it’s morally repugnant.

    • Richard says:

      01:34pm | 08/02/11

      No, your lack of imagination is stunning.
      Why do you think that the ONLY possible way of these services being made available is if the government steps in, with its heavy-handed, ham-fisted, bureaucratically bungling manner which its infamously characterised by?
      Surely there are better ways of organising the delivery of essential services that by-passes all the bureaucratic snouts-in-the-trough feeding frenzies, all the waste and inefficiency, all the kick-backs and corruption.
      Nothing comes free mate, but the only difference between the government mandating something and the free market having its wicked way with it is the wide disparity in their respective efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
      Its a provable fact of nature that the free market is the most efficient system of organising economic transactions.
      It causes prices to reduce year on year at the same time as quality increases year on year.
      Now why wouldn’t we want that inherent process to operate in the health-care sector? In the education sector? Why is it acceptible for health care costs to spiral out of control, higher and higher each year, for education cost to increase every year, when its simply not necessary to be like that?
      Get the socialist government out of the way and let the free market do its work unfettered.
      In the long-run, that would be the best thing for everyone… yes, even the poor (like me).

    • StefanR says:

      02:24pm | 08/02/11

      Richard, even the most basic reading of economic thought would dissuade you of the simplistic assertions spouted here. The free market is optimal only given certain conditions; the more these conditions are violated the less optimal it is.

      As an example, given the positive externalities that education and healthcare provide, a purely free market will underprovide these goods and this would be to everyone’s detriment.

    • Richard says:

      03:09pm | 08/02/11

      A true free market never under-provides StefanR, it matching suppy with demand as closely and efficiently as possible, your objection is invalid.

    • mary monica roche says:

      11:51am | 08/02/11

      Your comment:
      ron reagan was the oldest USA President ever .
      julia gillard is the youngest Australia president ever.
      Ron Reagan was a Republican and an Aquarius just like Julia Gillard.

    • Thomas says:

      12:07pm | 08/02/11

      Mary, your comment is absolute tosh. Have you been drinking?

    • Scarneck says:

      12:19pm | 08/02/11

      “What the Gillard Government will be remembered for is its total lack of direction” - and what is this comment based on? Less than six months in the job - give the woman a break, let time show whether Julia has what it takes or not to be a great leader. Kelly O’Dwyer should be more concerned about the lack of leadership and vision within her own party.

    • MarK says:

      01:52pm | 08/02/11

      Lol dude.

      She was deoputy PM for a while too.

      How long a break does she get? She is running the country (well I am being kind but you get the message) after all.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

      Just substitute the names and you have your very own tanty.

    • TimB says:

      09:28pm | 08/02/11

      Ryan who is that? Badger or Nossy?

      Surely it can’t be Persephone smile

    • Scarneck says:

      07:03am | 09/02/11

      Oh well, I’ve had 24 hours since….Nup, she’s not a great leader - great leaders don’t cry when addressing their people. Funny vids peoples grin

    • Against the Man says:

      12:21pm | 08/02/11

      Gillard is more of a comparsion with Jimmy Carter or George W Bush. Well maybe that isn’t right. How about comparing Gillard to Idi Amin, now that is a fair comparison. They both tore their country a new one, just in different ways smile

    • TheRapist says:

      12:31pm | 08/02/11

      Why is it that Abbott doesn’t respond to speech therapy.

      He is often unintelligible with his umms, ahh, and errs.
      Can’t the Liberals get Geoffrey Rush in, or his a Labor supporter?

    • David LD says:

      12:34pm | 08/02/11

      Alternative headlines for this article -
      Ronald Reagan; Great President? Or Greatest President?
      or
      How can I deify Reagan while vilifying Gillard?
      or
      Watch me re-write history to fit my current agenda.

    • john says:

      12:51pm | 08/02/11

      @Thomas, the last name roche is the same name as the drug company roche, maybe its too many free prescription drugs mixed in with the drink as well. goo-goo-ga-ga.

    • Zaf says:

      12:52pm | 08/02/11

      The Libs should put their money where their mouth is and wind up medicare.  That danged socialist claptrap is what’s holding Australians back from enjoying low price high quality universal health coverage that US citizens do.  Come on Libs, get rid of medicare! Ronnie would have.

      Then they should deregulate Australian banks….

      The Tea Party finally comes to Oz.

    • MarK says:

      01:49pm | 08/02/11

      I am sure they will be onto that after they catch the fairies in your garden.

    • john says:

      02:48pm | 08/02/11

      @Zaf we forgive you drinking booze at the keyboard, we know you really meant to say mediocre instead of medicare, and Tea Party is really in reference to next weeks afternoon tea at kirribilli.

    • TimB says:

      01:20pm | 08/02/11

      Probably my favourite Reagan moment, his joking sound check:

      “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes. ”

      Hilarious in hindsight, but it sure freaked the Soviets out when they heard about it. Could have ended very badly.

    • MarK says:

      02:21pm | 08/02/11

      Wasn’t it awesome.

      I miss jokes about nuclear war. Now we have climate change that will happen like Labors helath reforms…...sometime in the future…maybe…..well probably not.

      The nuclear winter scare was so much more real because you visualise the finger on the button and the red phones and the football of codes. So sci fi. So cool.

      Now we have Flannery and that excitement machine Garnout. I mean seriously - they are as scary as a Costner movie and make about as much sense*. I like my scare campaigns with rockets and stuff like that. Guns blazing. Commies breaching the walls.

      Not some computer model that gets it wrong all the time.

      *Disclaimer - Bull Durham was sooooo good. But it has Sarandon and Robbins so they outweighed the Costner factor. Besides, chicken sacrifices are always cool.

    • Dan says:

      02:10pm | 08/02/11

      Re “the anniversary of his 100th birthday”. If you don’t want to publish my comment, please at least fix this atrocity against the English language.

    • Johnno says:

      02:20pm | 08/02/11

      Ronald Reagan a great leader? he’s the guy that instituted the idea that taxation for the rich was optional - why is why the USA is in such a terrible economic state today!

    • Yak of the Goldfields says:

      02:24pm | 08/02/11

      Goodness me. What happened to Journalistic integrity. I’m a newcomer at this Punch site, but I’m learning.

      I was wondering how an article on Ronald Reagan could suddenly turn into vitriolic abuse of our Prime Minister. Ms/Mrs/Miss O’Dwyer should be made to put her allegiances at the top of the page, then I wouldn’t have bothered reading this biased tripe; I would know how the story ends. I’m not taking sides here, both parties do the same thing. Haven’t they got proper jobs to do. God I hope so as they stink at “Journalism”. Don’t both parties have their own sites where they can dribble this bias drivel to the converted.

      This article will remind me of Kelly O’Dwyer’s failings.

    • MarK says:

      03:15pm | 08/02/11

      You are a new comer Yak.

      Under each author picture at the top of the article is a link to their bio.

      Knock yourself out and censor whatever opinion you don’t want to read based off the bio. It is an opinion site so opinions will vary.

      No author hides here.

    • john says:

      03:47pm | 08/02/11

      @Yak of the Goldfields “I’m a newcomer at this Punch site, but I’m learning”
      -welcome to free speech. Its not polished for the tea totaling blue-rinse set.

    • Bobster says:

      04:03pm | 08/02/11

      You know who Kelly O’Dwyer is, right?

    • Yak of the Goldfields says:

      04:18pm | 08/02/11

      I thought it was opinion pieces, not instilled doctrine pieces.

      Silly me. I know now.

    • Yak of the Goldfields says:

      04:30pm | 08/02/11

      @John. Thank you for your condescending responce.
      My gripe was that I thought I might learn something about Ronald Reagan and his tenure as Pres. The fact that the article suddenly dived into the character assassination of someone not even remotely assocciated with him, is what got my goat. It’s not the political allignment of the author that is the problem, it’s just the lack of restraint in going there at all. I didn’t think the article needed that distraction.

    • Yak of the Goldfields says:

      05:08pm | 08/02/11

      @Bobster. I do now.

      I shall vet before I read next time.

      It’s all a learning experience; and interesting reading, sometimes.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      03:23pm | 08/02/11

      Gross Federal US Debt as a percentage of GDP.

      Carter   35 %/GDP -> 32 %/GDP =  3%  better
      Reagan 32 %/GDP -> 53 %/GDP = 21% worse
      Bush I   53 %/GDP -> 66 %/GDP = 13% worse
      Clinton   66 %/GDP -> 56 %/GDP = 10% better
      Bush II   56 %/GDP -> 83 %/GDP = 27% worse

      So far Reagan has only been beaten by the train wreck that was dubya. Republicans are a financial disaster. (Unless you are an acknowledged supporter standing in line for the graft and corruption that Republicans do so well.)

    • Digby says:

      05:52pm | 08/02/11

      Your figures cannot be right.

      Conservative governments decrease debt. 

      Left Wing governments increase debt.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      10:08pm | 08/02/11

      @Digby Not MY figures champ. Look it up. In the US, the conservatives are the ones that have always increased the debt/GDP ratio. ( And spend their time in opposition decrying the horrors of public debt. Oh, the humanity! )

    • DaveinPerth says:

      03:31pm | 08/02/11

      Reagan stabbed the hostage US embassy staff in the back, by doing a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election. He deliberately lengthened the imprisonment of the US hostages for party political purposes.
      He should have been impeached and convicted of treason.
      The history of Reagan is constantly re-written by republicans due to a complete lack of credible references. Nixon? GHWB? GWB? Who to point to if not Reagan.

    • Holly says:

      03:32pm | 08/02/11

      Yak of the Goldfields - sorry this has come as such a shock .  Kelly is only outdone by the atrocious musings (I couldn’t call it journalism) of Sophie Mirrabella who occasionally treats us to similar non sequiturs. 

      Richard who thinks that we do not need government to provide us with anything -it is interesting that the “Pink Batts” scheme which the coalition keep insisting was a failure, was due to the greed and incompetence of private providers, plus their failure to adhere to workplace laws.  Oh I forgot, in his ideal world there would be no regulation of business and no workplace laws. 

      Also the current increases in electricity prices are due to failed privatisation of utilities.  Companies which purchase these are happy to pillage as much profit as they can while they can, but they are very reluctant to re invest any of the profits and plan and build for the future.  The profits go to the shareholders ( directors of course hold large shareholdings) and this cycle goes on until suddenly we have to ration the power or raise costs to cut demand.

    • Mark says:

      03:41pm | 08/02/11

      There is room to debate the virtues of Ronald Reagan but please can we raise it above the so-so-so shallow hagiography of the above article. Reagan supported democracy but he also supported regimes like Pinochet. He believed ins mall Government but he also presided over a massive increase in the Federal bureaucracy. He believed in lower taxes but when confronted with a massive deficit he raised taxes.

    • Rosie says:

      03:50pm | 08/02/11

      Regan was a bad actor and so is Julia Gillard. It was quite a performance, an emotional one today at Parliament when condolences for flood victims were put forward by her.

      Expressing emotions of human tragedies to the public is OK but as a PM being emotional like Julia Gillard to the people she is leader of is not good. Leaders would gain more respect if they showed inferior importance by holding back their emotions when talking to those they lead during these emotional times. As much as you are feeling it inside, as a leader you should never let it show for the sake of your true convictions and strength of your position as PM of this country. Australians would very much like to gather strength from its leader to deal with the difficult task ahead of us.

      It is said that those in commanding positions should never show emotion as the people will look up to them for strength, conviction and faith to deal with whatever is placed in front of us.

    • Ryan says:

      04:33pm | 08/02/11

      Anything Bligh can do Julia can do better, I wonder how many government funded acting classes she had to attend to pull that poor performance off.

    • The Harass says:

      04:36pm | 08/02/11

      Rosie
      Did you take your meds this morning?
      I think you forgot.

    • nossy says:

      04:56pm | 08/02/11

      @Rosie - I have one word for you my love “BEX” - take one and have a good lie down sweetie ! Nossy is concerned for your mental well being.

    • AJ says:

      03:53pm | 08/02/11

      This article is clearly a joke, coming from the party of middle-class welfare and state handouts designed specifically to buy elections.

      As someone put it above, if you were serious about holding to the myth of Reagan (as opposed to the deficit-loving, government-expanding, astrology-consulting actual Reagan), you’d propose to abolish the pension, abolish Family Tax Benefit Parts A and B, abolish compulsory superannuation, abolish Medicare, let universities charge whatever they want and select students based upon the size of Mummy and Daddy’s bank account, abolish public education and return the money saved as tax cuts.

      But Ms O’Dwyer won’t, because ideology for the Liberal Party, just like the Labor Party, is a thin veneer covering an insatiable desire to get into power.

    • Daniel says:

      03:58pm | 08/02/11

      Ms O’Dwyer your piece is very eloquently put and easy to read. I’m a bit confused though.

      On the one hand you say that “Julia’s prime ministership continues the tradition of Labor leaders before her…” with the notion that ‘government knows best’; Yet on the other hand you say that her government and by implication, Ms Gillard, are “unmoorred from any fundamental principles”. One would have thought that “government knows best” is a guiding principle. It may not be yours but that is another issue.

      Secondly, I don’t believe that it is a “government knows best” disposition that has been adopted by the government.  Unlike your utopia where individuals will relate and grow together to build a perfect society, I think there are others in the Australian community who feel that yes, while we should be optimistic about humanity and its capabilities, we should also be wary of it’s weaknesses and failings. Some people, in response to these weaknesses, believe that Governments SHOULD step in and assist in providing, for example, quality education, health and other vital organs of the overhead capital upon which our successful country has clearly benefited. Governments are not enemies, for indeed, we elect them! That is all.

    • Bobster says:

      04:05pm | 08/02/11

      Really, Kelly? I know you think the great unwashed are stupid but we’re not that dense.

      The Reagan administration was the only one to date that bears comparison to NSW Labor.

      The only difference was more of Reagan’s mob finished up behind bars.

      Yes, yes. A sterling example, indeed.

      Christ, woman. Must you take every idea you spout from Glenn Beck?

    • Pauline says:

      04:12pm | 08/02/11

      Kelly you don’t have to even bring up Ronald Regan for heavens sake, how sad.  Watching our Prime Minister in Parliament today makes one proud,but watching a number of the Opposition using condolence motions for political gain is a tragedy.  Australia doesn’t need a reminder of an old film star galloping along to save some one, we have a wonderful Army and volunteers who help this country when in need and a Prime Minister who stands a way out in front of what the alternative might be!

    • demeter says:

      04:49pm | 08/02/11

      But she cried today on cue.

      it what we want to see…

      she is real

      she has my vote

    • pub says:

      05:34pm | 08/02/11

      reagans own daughter was very very critical of her fathers politics including other members of his family at least he raised his kids to think for themselves!!

    • Flexo says:

      09:21am | 09/02/11

      At least he had kids, unlike a certain PM.

    • Davo says:

      07:57pm | 08/02/11

      Kelly’s hotter than any Labor chick-beats Keneally hands down!

    • Jack says:

      09:00pm | 08/02/11

      It always almost brings me to fits of laughter when I hear how these young careerist neo-conservatives (Kelly was born in 1977) idolize these hasbeens like Reagan and Thatcher when they weren’t even living under them let alone in the same country.

      Reagan and Thatcher’s apathy to the AIDS crisis was probably their worst legacy as compared with the government response here in Australia.

    • Stevo Di Devo says:

      10:59am | 09/02/11

      My God, the young liberals and International conservatives pay you for this literary drivel by the word?
      Are you so Myopic as to Ignore Iran Contra,and the biggest defence spending that initiated the US’s drive into the biggest deficit for anything ever in global history a and yet you wanna smack Julia around with a clearly Dementia Addled Republican Puppet/Stooge Signing whatever was thrust in front of him by the Military -industrial complex? Look at what the last republican Brain dead stooge Dubya got us into,.. two major wars.
      We can thank you toady yes men Liberals for not thinking twice about things there can’t we?

      You call this journalism. My Son’s Full Diapers contain more intelligent matter than this entire diatribitic rant.

      Then again what do we expect from An Acolyte of Tony. Oppose everything, wreck everything, drag everything down not Liberal.
      Stop trying to Imitate your Tea Party Mates and start acting a bit more like your   UK Conservative counterparts.

      At Least Julia isnt pissing trillions away on “Star Wars” scehmes and sticking to fixing the destruction around Australia. Unlike you whingeing no good libs

    • Mark says:

      12:36pm | 09/02/11

      “Many pilloried Reagan’s view as naïve. The need for strong government intervention had been ingrained in American society since Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal. At that time, the popular view of the economic collapse that led to the Great Depression was that it was caused by a lack of government involvement; that an expansive regulatory regime was needed to curb the inherently selfish attitude of humankind.”

      The above was spot on , these regulation imposed after the great depression were slowly removed over the last thirty years and just look at the result.
      Free markets can’t function unregulated , greed of the worst kind takes over , monopolies would form quickly killing off innovation and efficiencies.

      The world has had two massive examples of largely unregulated markets melting down in the last hundred years , the great depression and global financial crisis we don’t need a third anytime soon.

      We now has a government that puts its citizen before its corporations and we can see the proof of this in them protecting our mosy vulnerable workers job during the GFC .

      Reagan was just a foolish idealouge who caused long term damage to his country and the world.

    • Steve says:

      04:23pm | 17/02/11

      WTF?  Your kidding right?  The soviet union went broke, lost control over parts, then once the ball started rolling it was going to collaps.  That’s just rubbish the Americans want erveryone to think.

      Having said that, do you realise some of the very things your saying are what lead to the financial mess we call the GFC??!?

      Less regulation made the rich richer until it all fell apart.  It didn’t work, expecting the money from the rich to trickle down to everyone else has been tested and lead to not enough money being around to stop the GFC.  It’s called “Regan Economics”.  Look it up.  You’ll see many American’s from Comedians to Economists saying how bad it was and how come it didn’t work.

      Regan great my arse.  He even made the War on Drugs worse with his wifes idea of “Just Say No”  within months of those adds the DEA reports a dramatic increase in Cocaine seizures.  Seems every took his words of “It makes your feel good, makes you forget about your problems and it cheap, but its also addictive.  Just say no”, WTF?  Lots of people instead said Yes.  Cocaine addiction went through the roof.

      He also blocked funding for AIDS research because quote “Its only a gay problem” .  So millions of Hetro people as well as Homo people died and it was years before researchers where even allowed to look at the Virus.  He killed millions because he hated Gay people…  Research after him lead to drugs which we now all take for granted!

      He CREATED the millitary rule in Pakistan by giving billions to ISI (Pakistan version of CIA).  He FUNDED the TALIBAN.  He even called the Taliban leaders the Middle East version of Americas Fore Fathers!!  They wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for him!  I’ve watched the interview of them in the oval office.  Seriously come on!  What planet are you on to call Regan good? 

      Regan is an Idiot, sorry that’s offensive to Idiots everywhere.  He was nothing more than a puppet.  I was born in 1979 and I can even see this.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@MelanieTait I was thinking the same thing!

Malcolm Farr

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter