“Trust the People” — The Triumph of Ronald Reagan: He Addressed The American Economy as a Pragmatic Business Capitalist

just call me Bill
9 min readOct 5, 2022


The degree of regard unto the simple American principle that government be ‘of and for’ shows itself in the character of those who have been elected or entered political power. How well a nation’s leader, their administration’s policy makers, representatives of our U.S. Congress, and finally, the Justices in our Supreme Court respect, value, and understand the dual role of solemn stewardship and leadership requires personal humility and a selfless sense of service to the people that may oft be placed aside when the same individuals in positions of government power realize that they can affect national policy according to their political self-interest distinct from the unanimous good of all the people.

In that regard, what does stewardship and leadership in government signify to a Supreme Court Justice, to the holder of the office of the American Presidency, and our with our members of Congress? How do they do their job in such a way that their work distills a spirit of liberty and justice for all, instead of political and ideological favoritism that certainly polarizes the national body of Americans? Isn’t it so that these officials must swear allegiance to our U.S. Constitution, and uphold the spirit and word of our fundamental laws as written and intended from our founding fathers in that Constitution, and our Declaration of Independence with the congressional actions from these same founders of government being proof of their intentions to establish a national unity based on the equitable right to life, liberty; the right to be safe and happy, and to assure that said government is justly ‘of and for’ all the people?

But how do we assure the right stewardship and leadership in the midst of political party machinations? Perhaps we never will, and so, what safety do we have than to strengthen the people to be a responsible, independent-minded critical thinking national body? What safety do we have than to focus on our Justices that they interpret fundamental laws, and the laws created from these to exemplify the allegiance to the unalloyed spirit of liberty and justice for all as understood in its ‘originalist’ intention from our founders and proved through their public writings, and official works?

It is a hard thing to do a solemn work of gentle stewardship and strong leadership. It is an easy thing to do a solemn work of gentle stewardship and strong leadership.

Our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, once said that there is no left or right in politics, but an up and down: ‘above’ the role of government decreases, and yet is not disintegrated, while individual liberty, civility, economic self-determination rise unto an ideal of a civil society of empowered individuals with government in service to the people; and below there is that increase in government office and policy as the economic welfare source and educational policy creator to shape the minds of the people. The former is inspirational, motivating, and a breath of fresh air, whereas the latter delegates the passion, fortitude and mental strategy of the national people into the purview of a few people. History has taught us that great power in the realm of a few sets the conditions for cronyism, and factious self-interest.

Ronald Reagan understood the dichotomy of being in the position of having command over the strongest most advanced armed forces in the world, and also discerning the correct equilibrium of direction and support to the domestic economy of the United States. He understood the value of individual self-determination was core to the American experience. Was he resolute in his understandings that we must trust the people’s ability to economically self-determine the course of their lives while placing an emphasis on the historical economic tradition of the U.S., that of establishing small businesses?

Yes, he was. And in time, as official reports the positive progress of Reagan’s policies became clear, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of England, and a number of European national governments, reversed their quasi-socialist course, and applied the same, successful economic formula that Reagan first pioneered as Governor of California, and later as President of the United States of America.

Reagan did not take the opportunity to drastically disrupt the economy or to sign executive orders that enforced politically-ideological monetary actions to impose upon the different sectors of the economy. Instead, he sought to lessen the role of government manipulation of the economy, and worked to remind the American people that it was them who had to be in the driver’s seat; creating their own individual economies, without the imposition of government office being used as a politically-intrusive instrumentality. So, he lowered taxes, simplified the tax code, wherein Americans would pay according to three separate percentage brackets, and spoke to the people about plan to support the people’s economic self-determination. Within two years, employment drastically increased, the economy began to thrive after stagnating under the economic policies of Democrats, and revenue from taxes increased due to the strength of the economy.

What do the Democrats do but call for an internalization of our economy, a hindering with objective to rapidly destroy our self-sufficiency in energy independence, and a pronounced attempt to polarize the people into a reactionary mode of politics?

It seems as if the reverse of Ronald Reagan’s domestic and foreign stewardship and leadership is the mode of the Biden presidency, his administration, and the Democrats in Congress:

Where Reagan sowed an emphasis on reducing the number of government offices, reducing taxes, simplifying the tax code and practicing a dynamic doctrine of trusting and supporting the people’s economic self-determination, Biden and the Democrat Party have enacted legislation (Inflation Reduction Act) to:

Point of order, breaking the energy independence of a nation does not strengthen its geopolitical or geoeconomic power amongst nations, — it decreases it. Aligning the U.S. tax code to an international banking scheme does not protect the economic resiliency of the U.S. economy, it erodes it with the redistribution of its capital to be invested outside of the U.S., and using the office of the presidency, the seat of our U.S. Congress, and the instrumentality of the office of the Supreme Court to cloak ideological-based policy, that is to say, ‘to legislate from the bench,’ in constitutional words (judicial aggrandizement), only serves self-interest distinct from the unanimous good of all the American people.

What the Democrats have done in order to maintain power is to conflate a number of controversial issues and mix these in with legislation and issue executive orders with tremendous consequences for our national economy and the sense of political peace amongst the people. They do this in order to divide the people on issues, that with the people divided they may maintain control of the instrumentality of government powers and attach their legislations, such as the Inflation Reduction Act that aligns the U.S. economic policy, both foreign and domestic, unto a globalist order. Civilian Democrats are then handed the tough option of being presented the possibility that they may achieve their political self-interests while having to also accept the unconstitutional and economically disruptive legislation that Janet Yellen and the World Bank want the federal government to participate in.

Outside of the ‘Western’ alliance of leftist, globalist governments that are pushing the ‘climate change economics’ that is quickly appearing to actually be the World Bank’s Global Tax Program, other national governments, including the Saudi Arabian monarchy, the Chinese Communist Party, Vladimir Putin and his absolute, totalitarian control of the Russian state, and the Iranian government are all to happy to step into the geopolitical/ geoeconomic void of power that has been artificially created in the obstruction of 80% of America’s energy market production and distribution.

Is the decision-making of the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress fault of these national governments? Should they limit their production of oil or step into the economic void as it pertains to the best interest of their government and their people? News reports in October of 2022 describe that the OPEC oil cartel alliance of countries that include a plethora of Middle Eastern, African, and South American nations have moved to cut production with the intention of safeguarding the best price point for their oil. Should Saudi Arabia, for example, hinder its own economy at the behest of a globalist economic order of national governments?

It should not.

Should the people of the United States of America, as one political, national body, allow the downward economic trajectory that the Biden administration is telling us to patiently endure, or should we oppose through the power of the vote the Democrat Party, that is imposing its failed economic policies at the expense of America’s middle class, and its leverage as an economic superpower of and for liberty and justice?

At this point, the entire Democrat Party has to be reformed, and the economy has to be saved, as does the geopolitical and geoeconomic position of the United States.

The government of Saudi Arabia has done well in protecting its priority’s of maintaining a heterogenous society that compliments the tradition of its national sovereignty, an economy that suits its goals, and a military force to defend its people and resources within the Middle East. Undoubtedly, its abundance in a natural resource, oil, and ability to produce, sell, and distribute it to the world is the historical foundational basis in achieving these goals, and provides for its continued economic and political stability, and this strengthens its geopolitical and geoeconomic leverage in that region and the world.

Its sanctioned communications herald and prepare for a new age that builds on their present success with an internal focus on increasing the quality of life for its people, and aims to place before the world a new narrative: individual educational empowerment, an increase in women’s rights, and a desire to be understood as a civil, professional society.

That’s great news… for Saudi Arabia.

But what and when was the triumph of gentle stewardship and strong leadership in the United Sates at its height, if not during the Reagan presidency? The notion of ideological imposition was not there. It was more a ‘business administration’ to lay the best foundation for a strong domestic economy that would in turn, yes… lay the foundation for a strong foreign policy, based on the domestic economic strength of the U.S. as the core support of it military strength, and this in turn, solidify that geoeconomic and geopolitical balance of world power wherein America was the last remaining superpower.

Civilian Democrats have been disrespected by the Biden administration in that they are being offered a counterfeit option of selling out their nation to an international bank’s self interest in exchange for a shallow promise that their short-term social issues will be addressed. But the continuance of that position can only source more national political animosity, instead of unanimity as one people. Only a resounding vote for conservative Republicans in Congress at this time will give the Democrat Party the most powerful opportunity to reformulate itself; not to rebrand itself, but to recreate itself with a greater degree of regard unto the simple American principle that government be ‘of and for’ the people, and that the dual role of principled, solemn and gentle unanimous domestic stewardship is the best and strongest form of true leadership, and this requires personal and professional humility and a selfless sense of genuine service to the people.



just call me Bill

Dad, Special Educator, Political Scientist, Writer. Instagram & YouTube: @CoachBill007