Reagan

[uh Clem]

Reagan in contrast took the fight to congress in order to see his agenda through. Part of the reason that those deficits were so high was that he was willing to compromise in order to get his programs rolling. He had no other choice really, as congress was solidly democratic with only a Bob Dole led minority in the senate able to wield any influence from the right sight of the aisle.

The Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 years under Reagan. In the House, many southern Democrats were ideologically closer to Reagan than to the rest of their party. Even the administration admitted at the time that Reagan had an "ideological majority" in Congress.

Read some of the earlier posts. Their recollection agrees with mine (as an outsider). Reagan revitalised a beaten and demoralised population. People who can do great things often do not for want of leadership.

"Reagan revitalised a beaten and demoralised population." Crimany. What a load of crap. Do kids today really believe that?

[JohnT]

Q: The signs were there in 86-89 of an impending Communist Bloc collapse, the problem was that nobody was prepared to expect such a thing because they couldn't believe in a world without the USSR - so they weren't looking for one.

I'm not too sure what you meant by that last sentence, so I'll just ignore it.

[JohnT]

"Reagan revitalised a beaten and demoralised population." Crimany. What a load of crap. Do kids today really believe that?

They should, because that's what happened. I was there and well old enough to remember the mood of the 70s.

[uh Clem]

John, sorry to hear that you were so down on yourself during the '70s. I wasn't. But even if I had been, it's highly unlikely I would have become more upbeat because of the words and actions of a politician. Sheeesh.

[Q Classic]

The signs were there in 86-89 of an impending Communist Bloc collapse, the problem was that nobody was prepared to expect such a thing because they couldn't believe in a world without the USSR - so they weren't looking for one.

ah, i see what you mean now. so pretty much, we're not really in disagreement.

oh, and that last sentence was directed more at ned and the like, not you.

[rah]

While I credit him with bringing pride back to America, I only give him very slight credit for the Soviet collapse. It was a rotting house just waiting for a freak wind to blow it down. If it wasn't that wind it would have been another. And a lot of you naysayers at least seem to believe that Reagan blew.

[Sava]

And a lot of you naysayers at least seem to believe that Reagan blew.

nice Rah...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by uh Clem
John, sorry to hear that you were so down on yourself during the '70s. I wasn't. But even if I had been, it's highly unlikely I would have become more upbeat because of the words and actions of a politician. Sheeesh.

Puh-leeze. Save the insults for somebody who gives a shite for your opinion about them.

If you do not think that there was any change in the overall mood of the country between 1979 and 1984, than that's your opinion. It's wrong, but you can still believe it.

Remember when the newspapers would run Above-the-Flap expose's on the ravages of inflation, and how everybody was going to be eating $8 Big Macs and paying $12 for a gallon of gas by 1990? Remember The Limits to Growth and the huge influence it had on American policy making from 1974-1979? Hell, remember the Iranian hostages and the inability of the US of A to fly some helicopters at night... the argument whether to mine the harbors of Nicaragua, where Carter just dithered and dithered... the "giving away" of the Panama Canal... a DJIA that went from 1,000 in 1972 to (iirc) 550 in 1979?

Was it just the "politician"? Of course not, but leadership exists and Reagan had that quality in spades, whereas second-term Nixon, Ford and Carter did not.

[Sava]

So... Carter was a bad president... that doesn't mean Reagan was a good one.

[JohnT]

I think the issue is of "leadership", Sava, not the long-term effects of specific policies.

[Sava]

That's an opinionated judgement though. So basically you think Reagan was great because of his PR... that's nice... but I tend to look at the actions, not the words... and yes... the long term effects.

[JohnT]

I meant that the current debate on hand is about leadership.

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
I meant that the current debate on hand is about leadership.

Yeah, and devastatingly negative long term effects of policy decisions has something to do with one's leadership.

[Theben]

To all of you saying you had to be there, well I was there, and Reagan came off as a liar and a buffoon.

He also had the distinction of making a good number of us think we would die before his presidency was over, in a nuclear holocaust. Most of my classmates back then hated him. Quite a few still haven't forgiven him.

Reagan was surrounded by some good advisors, and once he picked an opinion he stuck to it like glue. That's about all you can say about him that's positive.

And to whoever said nothing came of the Iran-Contra hearings, check your history. Reagan's administration had literally hundreds of indictments and quite a number of convictions.

[JohnT]

Edit: I actually got my Reagan threads confused... when I posted the above, I was thinking this was the movie thread. My apologies.

[uh Clem]

Okay John, you personally weren't beaten and depressed then. I always forget how touchy Republicans are; love to dish it out, etc...

But if you remember the inflation of the '70s, then remember the guy who killed it. No, not Carter, and certainly not Reagan (with those deficits, are you kidding?).

It was Paul Voelker, Carter appointee to the Fed, who strangled inflation and damn near killed the US economy in the process. Stagflation was endemic throughout the decade (it started under Nixon). In the late 70s, Voelker decided to deal with it once and for all by raising interest rates as high as they'd go. The result was the worst slump in the economy since the 30s, but it worked. Sort of how Russians clear minefields, by marching through them...

a DJIA that went from 1,000 in 1972 to (iirc) 550 in 1979?

Well, in this instance, you don't remember correctly. The Dow basically went sideways under Carter: up-down-up-down, etc. The big drop was under Ford, hitting the low point in 1974. Nothing since has been anywhere near that bad.

But it's interesting that you take the DJIA as an indicator of Presidential performance. I wouldn't have taken you as being such a fervent admirer of Bill Clinton.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
While I credit him with bringing pride back to America, I only give him very slight credit for the Soviet collapse. It was a rotting house just waiting for a freak wind to blow it down. If it wasn't that wind it would have been another. And a lot of you naysayers at least seem to believe that Reagan blew.

Talk about blowing a political leader out of proportion of his actual accomplishments.

As if Americans never had pride in their country before Reagan.

[Japher]

I have a friend who just found out that I am a republican. I don't come off as one, my mom says I am somewhat "granola" in appearances and in social tastes (music, parties, etc). So, a lot of people think I am a democrat or green. Yet, she was super shocked that I was a republican.

She went on a tirade on how I could be republican. I wasn't in the mood for arguing, so I just kept my mouth shut. I did, however, say that I am republican mainly for fiscal reasons, and she said "Yeah, Bush has done such wonders for the economy" alluding to the economic disparity we are in. I didn't respond, but

But it's interesting that you take the DJIA as an indicator of Presidential performance. I wouldn't have taken you as being such a fervent admirer of Bill Clinton.

would of been a good response

I won't say that Bush has done anything to help the economy, but to say he ruined it is absurd. Terrorist attacks, natural disasters, war, tech. collapse (energy deregulations), etc... were not ALL in his control, and these things cost money...

Economic policy is not entirely up to the president. Though certain legislation can lead to how an investor invests (i.e. no taxes on dividends we have right now). Still, to rate a president on current states of the economy is silly since economies change slower than presidents ussually do, and thus presidents don't ussually get credit for their efforts, secsessors usually do.

Anyway. I though Reagan was a good pres. probably an 8. I remember the 80s, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of domestic concerns... At least not like we have now (thanks Clinton)...

[JohnT]

I am an admirer of Bill Clinton. Sorry to disappoint, but I think the man was a pretty effective President regardless of his faults. He was also entertaining as hell, which accounts for a lot too.

The point is, Clem, is that the person in charge gets to take the credit for when the times are good, just as they are hit on when times are bad. Reagan was President when a lot of things went right for America (especially compared to the decade prior to that) and he gets a chunk of the credit.

Okay John, you personally weren't beaten and depressed then. I always forget how touchy Republicans are; love to dish it out, etc...

And again, be a man and drop the insults. They do nothing for your position except undermine it.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MrFun


Talk about blowing a political leader out of proportion of his actual accomplishments.

As if Americans never had pride in their country before Reagan.

What does the word, "return", mean?

You are really letting your misapprehension of one aspect of his presidency cloud your judgement. I'm disappointed.

[rah]

Originally posted by MrFun

Talk about blowing a political leader out of proportion of his actual accomplishments.

As if Americans never had pride in their country before Reagan.

I willing to bet you weren't very old the decade before Reagan. There were so many negative feelings after VietNam. The economy sucked. Worldwide, the US was seen as weak and ineffective. Ford and Carter were portrayed as wimps. "killer rabbit" still makes me laugh. People weren't feeling good about their country. The same can't be said for when Reagan left office. While a president can only do so much, and should only be credited for so much, he was quite responsible for a lot of the change in attitude. He was quite the charismatic speaker. Previous posters have said that they thought they feared worldwide destruction while he was in office. Guess what, our enemies did too and that had some positive outcomes. The US regained it's strut. Whether that was good or bad, optimism and good feeling returned to a lot of people. Perception becomes reality. As said before, his presidency was defined by "leadership".

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Sava
So... Carter was a bad president... that doesn't mean Reagan was a good one.

Don't go bashing Carter now. Carter may have been a bad president, but thats mostly because his cabinet sucked big time.

Carter had heart, and I respect him for that. I don't think Carter ever did anything to intentionally undermine the country or its people. He just didn't have a lot of help during his presidency.

[-Jrabbit]

Reagan's economic and foreign policies were ineffective at best, near-disastrous at worst.

He had a solid group of core Republican advisors, but not the ability, the desire, or the will to question their direction.

He was an excellent mouthpiece. Best performance of his acting career -- by far. It is for this ability to inspire the positive in the face of an intensely negative reality that I raised him to a 2.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


What does the word, "return", mean?

You are really letting your misapprehension of one aspect of his presidency cloud your judgement. I'm disappointed.

You're right -- and maybe I should appreciate some of Hitler's accomplishment in spite of the Holocaust.

Extreme example -- but one that immediately comes to mind.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah


I willing to bet you weren't very old the decade before Reagan. There were so many negative feelings after VietNam. The economy sucked. Worldwide, the US was seen as weak and ineffective. Ford and Carter were portrayed as wimps. "killer rabbit" still makes me laugh. People weren't feeling good about their country. The same can't be said for when Reagan left office. While a president can only do so much, and should only be credited for so much, he was quite responsible for a lot of the change in attitude. He was quite the charismatic speaker. Previous posters have said that they thought they feared worldwide destruction while he was in office. Guess what, our enemies did too and that had some positive outcomes. The US regained it's strut. Whether that was good or bad, optimism and good feeling returned to a lot of people. Perception becomes reality. As said before, his presidency was defined by "leadership".

Raegan was ignorant on environmental issues (thought that trees caused pollution), he worshipped the upper class at expense of middle class America, he neglected to take action against the early AIDS crisis, IN SPITE of the information that the Cancer Development Center had compiled, and Raegan has taken credit for overthrowing the USSR, when it was economic factors, and the Russians themselves that overthrew communism.

[rah]

You didn't address my point that he made Americans feel good again through his perceived leadership. Which was my only point. I admit that he made mistakes. I'm just saying that the feel good thing was really important to the country at the time, and unless you were around, you probably don't realize how important it was.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
well, if you wish to believe that.

the fact is that by the time gorby came into power, the soviet system had already suffered from at least twenty years of dry rot from within. unable to match the growing technological and economic might of the west, gorby tried to modernize soviet russia to compete. it was a bold gamble, trying to allow some free reforms in order to help breed a new generation of scientists and thinkers to create the same miracle in the eastern bloc. what he failed to realize was that democracy is a contagious thing: glasnost and perestroika, once they gave a voice to the people, brought down the soviet empire from within.

it wasn't reagan, ned. it was the people who put the final blow to communism. it was the freedom-loving citizens of the democratic west using their drive to outpace their stalinist and communist eastern brothers. reagan was just one man in it, who just happened to be in charge of america at the time.

Well, why not ask Gorbachev? Of course the USSR was being bled dry by Afghanistan and by the arms race with the US. Then came the Solidarity phenomenon in Poland that was reinforced by the Pope. This lead to democracy in Poland and then to democracy in Russia. The USSR then collapsed in the face of great pro-democracy leaders from within, like Walesa and Yeltsin.

[Alexander's Horse]

anyone remember "reaganomics"?

[Japher]

I'm not going to debate trickle down again...

[Alexander's Horse]

oh go on Japher - you know you want to....