Who was a bigger "agent of change"?

[ACW]

Another lasting impact of Reagan:

-the drug war was ramped up and continues today, in no small part thanks to Reagan. Too bad he didn't realize what he said about gov't being the problem applies to the drug war as well. Thanks a lot Reagan :mad:

[rincewind]

Reagan is the second most overrated President of the 20th Century (maybe ever). JFK takes the cake, but Reagan holds his own.

[Zguy28]

Reagan is the second most overrated President of the 20th Century (maybe ever). JFK takes the cake, but Reagan holds his own.

Its funny you mention JFK. Later in the interview I posted from Obama (its not in that particular clip) he also names JFK as being very similar to Reagan.

[wysknz1]

I don't believe ANY politicians have this country in their best interest. They have their own agendas for political power and financial gain.

That said,

I'm out

[DGreenistheBest]

I don't believe ANY politicians have this country in their best interest. They have their own agendas for political power and financial gain.

That said,

I'm out

I would agree with the caveat "since televised debates and speeches began." I have a personal theory that I'd like to research: the quality of politician, especially president, has gone down remarkably on the whole since the introduction of televised debates. The reasoning: having to appear on television during debates and speeches inspired parties to search for their candidates based more on presence and acting ability and less on morals and honesty. I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't had a truly great president since the "television era" began. Again, just a theory I've been tossing around and I'd like to find a way to research it and collect evidence that supports it.

[Zguy28]

I would agree with the caveat "since televised debates and speeches began." I have a personal theory that I'd like to research: the quality of politician, especially president, has gone down remarkably on the whole since the introduction of televised debates. The reasoning: having to appear on television during debates and speeches inspired parties to search for their candidates based more on presence and acting ability and less on morals and honesty. I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't had a truly great president since the "television era" began. Again, just a theory I've been tossing around and I'd like to find a way to research it and collect evidence that supports it.

You mean as opposed to when John Quincy Adams was accused of breaking all Ten Commandments by a rival campaign?

[Midnight Judges]

Reagan is the second most overrated President of the 20th Century (maybe ever). JFK takes the cake, but Reagan holds his own.

Premature deaths have that effect cough *Mozart* ahem. excuse me.

[DGreenistheBest]

You mean as opposed to when John Quincy Adams was accused of breaking all Ten Commandments by a rival campaign?

Was that ever proven? Yes, there were bad presidents in the past and yes there have been...moderately good presidents in recent history, but my theory is that, on the whole, the quality has decreased substantially as a direct result of television becoming a political tool.

[SkinsHokieFan]

JFK and Regan are highly regarded because they were critical agents of change

Clinton tried to be, but when America saw the "change" he was bringing, his party got swept out of power for the first time in 40 years

JFK and Regan are far more similar then anyone seems to believe today. Both instituted major tax cuts which created greater revenues for the federal government (Kennedy lowered the 90 percent marginal rate and closed many loop holes, Regan's tax cut helped crush the stagflation of the 70s), were very anti Soviet, spent on the military, and gave America a sense of optimism

It is actually quite eery just how similar the first 3.5 years of the Reagan presidency was to the JFK presidency, in terms of fiscal policy and actions with regards to the Soviets

[TMK9973]

JFK and Regan are highly regarded because they were critical agents of change

Clinton tried to be, but when America saw the "change" he was bringing, his party got swept out of power for the first time in 40 years

Wow! So you think America loved Regan and revolted against Clinton because of his 1st mid term elections?

How partisan of you.

Regan’s party lost 26 seats in 1982. SO by your logic, America rejected him?

Both presidents were elected into 2 terms; both had VERY high numbers when they left office.

I thought I was partisan! This thread is a joke! News flash - BOTH parties have tried to do good things. When you reference two of the most popular and successful presidents in the past 25 years, you first have to say both did good, and bad.

Regan - Absolutely speed up the fall of the USSR. There is no doubt. USSR was having money trouble, Regan figured if he increased funding of the military and proposed all sorts of new weapons the USSR would have to keep up and would go broke.

They did. It was more then just "Happen to be there"

At the same time.

Clinton introduced policies that made the tech boom happen. He focused on the R&D tax credit. He focused on making the current tax loopholes to be focused and tied back to re-investments in the companies.

At the same time, he increased taxes on the top 2% in order to keep a eye on the national budget and focused on bringing down the debt. He also listen to the other party, saw that welfare roles were a huge part of states budget, and ran with the idea while making it ok with Democrats by focusing on redirecting the Welfare $$'s to focus on programs to make people independent and the skills needed. To say he just happen to be President is a joke.

Also - Neither was perfect.

For anyone to think that either president was a failure is simply so focused on their own agenda they have nothing to add.

[DjTj]

It is actually quite eery just how similar the first 3.5 years of the Reagan presidency was to the JFK presidency, in terms of fiscal policy and actions with regards to the Soviets

You're definitely stretching the truth a bit here, so maybe I should respond in kind ...

JFK's tax cuts did not result in huge budget deficits like Reagan's, and the public debt, as a percentage of GDP, actually decreased during the 60's while it rose dramatically during the 80's. JFK cut taxes to spur the economy; Reagan cut taxes to get votes, and Republicans have been doing the same ever since.

JFK's cut was a demand-side cut, focused on getting money in the hands of consumers (similar to the recent stimulus package), and based on FDR's Keynesian policies. Reagan's cut was a supply-side cut, focused on encouraging investment and putting money in the hands of corporations, which was a new kind of economic policy.

JFK's foreign policy was of course the liberal interventionist policy of Wilson, FDR, or Truman, and the Democratic Party began to abandon those policies during Vietnam. Reagan was very astute in realizing this void and taking advantage of it, shifting liberal foreign policy to the Republican Party and the neo-cons, eventually culminating in Bush's invasion of Iraq, which could end up being the Republican Party's Vietnam if the Ron Paul wing of the Party grows in influence.

Of course, on domestic policy Reagan and JFK were completely at odds, with Reagan doing his best to undo the Civil Rights policies (desegregation, voting rights, affirmative action) started by JFK, as well as the Great Society policies inspired by JFK.

As far as the topic of this thread, however, I think it's very clear that Reagan was a bigger agent of change than Clinton. Maybe if Gore had won, the Democratic Party would have solidified around the moderate pro-trade/welfare reform kind of policies that Clinton embodied. Unfortunately, after eight years of Bush, the Democratic Party is less interested in compromise, so nobody invokes Clinton ... they invoke the revolutionary ideas of JFK, who wanted to reshape society and inspire America. Clinton did not change the country or his party in the way that Reagan did ... JFK is still the dominant influence in the Democratic Party.