The Reagan Legacy

[deejaydana]

I'm betting not one person who has posted in this thread read the article.

That was the point I was making in my post where Yusuf stated basically that he never liked Clinton or Reagan w/no further explanation to it. WTF? That adds ZERO to the conversation. What's the point?

[alexey]

I'm betting not one person who has posted in this thread read the article.

This is what an election map looks like when a real conservative is on the ballot.

= instant disqualification.

(there are many other similar statements... the whole article is written by a self-proclaimed "Reagan desciple"... Of course that does not mean that his information is wrong. Neither are huge steaming piles of dung guaranteed to never have diamonds inside. That does not make it reasonable to dig through dung.)

[PeterMP]

I agree. Despite Clinton leaving office with a higher approval rating, Reagan seems to have benefited from the outright failure of modern conservatism, and favorable comparisons to GWB despite the fact that their policies were very similar.

Different time and different place. There is no reason to believe that Reagan would have believed the policies he carried out in 1980 were the right approach in 2000 and later (and note even the policies that Reagan actually DID implement aren't the same- as I noted earlier, Reagan DID raise taxes).

In general, your attempt to link GWB with Reagan is weak

Clinton was actually in control of his administration, left the economy in good shape, and had a proper respect for the Government he was leading. Reagan's outright disdain for Government, rule of law, and penchant for needless interventionism have reaped untold amounts of damage over the last 20 years inflicted by followers who actually bought into his empty political rhetoric. His leadership lead to a Republican party that had zero respect for the FED and thus no interest in good Governance. Being one of the two major parties, they inevitably gained power and proceeded to scrap Government regulations, ignore department of justice rules, and subvert the intent of the law across the board. And here we are.

Can you say tech bubble? Worldcom? etc.?

Are you telling me that the extrandonary rendition program started under Clinton was legal? Keeping FBI files in the White House of political rivals?

That might be the case regarding popular opinion at the time. But the fact is the Soviet style of Government began it's decline long before Reagan took office, particularly economically in the 70s. Communism is inherently inferior to capitalism, and the Soviet Union was riddled with corruption and incompetence. The results were inevitable with or without Reagan. At best, he can be credited with expediting the inevitable.

Ahhh yes, the inevitable end of the Soviet Union HAD TO BE the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union. Why didn't anybody else from like 1950-1988 realize that?

Other factors in the outcome of the cold war are more significant than Reagan's strategy of military spending-most notably Nixon's policies which regularized relations with China and ended the Vietnam war.

I don't think anybody wanted to continue the Vietnam war. If anything, Nixon let it drag on.

Regularizing relationships of China is highly overrated. The Chinese and Russians were never going to cooperate as they have to much natural distrust of one another, AND it alienated it from India, which as a democracy should have been a natural ally, which influences how we deal with the war on terror today (in a negative manner IMO).

OK. But go to the 1993 world trade center attacks and I don't think it would be so hard for folks to fathom the terrorists would make another attempt.

Shouldn't that have made them more vigilant and another and even bigger attack LESS likely in the relative short term.

Also, China's economy isn't the most powerful in the world by any stretch, even after another 8 years of Reagan's ill-advised fiscal policy. And they especially weren't as a result of the Clinton years, which were some of the best economic times in history while simultaneously setting us up for years of prosperity to follow.

As far as trends go I can see what you are saying. Bush inherited a GDP that was 7 times China's and left office with one that is 4 times China's. But I don't see how that can be seen as a strike against Clinton.

As measured by GDP no, but as measured by other things that people use to measure the strength of an economy (e.g. trade surplus, rate of growth, etc.) the argument could be made.

[Larry]

I'm betting not one person who has posted in this thread read the article.

Sorry.

I honestly tried, but I guess I'll never make it as a male porn star.

I just couldn't suppress my gag reflex long enough.

[PeterMP]

I'm betting not one person who has posted in this thread read the article.

I did. I just think it is ludicrous to believe a person would absolutely think the best way forward in a situation where there is (or close to it) double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates would also think the best way forward in a situation with record (or near record) lows in interest rates, unemployment, and inflation is exactly the same.

[rincewind]

I'm betting not one person who has posted in this thread read the article.

I'll take that bet. Unless, of course, you're in the habit of posting articles you don't even read.

[Larry]

I did. I just think it is ludicrous to believe a person would absolutely think the best way forward in a situation where there is (or close to it) double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates would also think the best way forward in a situation with record (or near record) lows in interest rates, unemployment, and inflation are exactly the same is exactly the same.

Funny. The GOP seems to think so.

Remember what the justification was for W's tax cut?

Seems like, to the GOP, no matter what the economic situation, the answer is always the same: A tax cut, targeted specifically on the very top incomes, sold using the claim that it's only going to be temporary; big increases on government spending to corporations; and act surprised when there's a deficit.

[PeterMP]

Funny. The GOP seems to think so.

Remember what the justification was for W's tax cut?

Seems like, to the GOP, no matter what the economic situation, the answer is always the same: A tax cut, targeted specifically on the very top incomes, sold using the claim that it's only going to be temporary; big increases on government spending to corporations; and act surprised when there's a deficit.

I'll point out that not everybody in the GOP thinks/thought that way.

[alexey]

Ahhh yes, the inevitable end of the Soviet Union HAD TO BE the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union. Why didn't anybody else from like 1950-1988 realize that?

Paranoia.

Also, how would you counter an argument that the credit for peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union belongs entirely to Mr. Gorbachev? He was the one who actually did it, right?

[PeterMP]

Paranoia.

Also, how would you counter an argument that the credit for peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union belongs entirely to Mr. Gorbachev? He was the one who actually did it, right?

He certainly gets a lot (most) of credit. BUT it isn't possible that SOME of Reagan's actions helped him mantain control of the situation to get it at that point in time?

Without Reagan does Gorbachev succeed? And if Gorbachev fails what happens to the Soviet Union/Russia?

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

[Jumbo]

For the people reporting posts--because sometimes when we get reports, check them and see they were within boundaries, we don't say anything and folks who like to spend questionable amounts of time squabbling on the interwebz for fun tend to be the kind of folks who feel they are being personally ignored by the staff----

you are a complete slack d**k. Don't post your disdain w/ZERO back up. Just throw up on yourself, it's more productive and we don't have to witness it.

This could be a time-out at any point--and I am giving you a warning, dee, to watch making such direct insults. But there is no circumventing of the profanity filters. How you use "dick" in a phrase can get you in dutch, and the policy of mixing asterix and letters is not a good one, just type out the word, let the filters do their job, and think about your phrasing if you think you're on the edge.

Also, context can count for or against. Here we have some heated back-n-forth that's close but still within reason, and we try to allow as much as possible of that since this is a platform for spirited debate. But not so much kinda juvenile direct insults made in a general sense (like "you are monkey****) made disconnected from any specific comment(s) by the dude you're insulting.

Now I happen to know that Yusuf has a long-standing policy of asking we give people who insult him any slack possible because he's a very mature dude whether you agree with what he types on issues or not, but we will make the call.

Do you realize how moronic you sound? He's a historical figure, just like George Washington, Robert E. Lee, ect. You can't just stop talking about someone, whether it be critical of them or not, just because they are dead when they part of American history.

What would you like history text books to be? Nothing but sunshine about everyone in history because they are dead?

Here, there is nothing wrong with asking such questions as the one being asked, not to mention as phrased, and certainly not to mention in this context. This one isn't that close.

And BTW, when you report a post, I'd avoid capatilzing MOD in the midst of your sentence because it adds to whatever perception may already exist that you're a little mental.

(I keed I keed---but really, don't do that).

On a topic note, as a guy who was actuaally a well-functioning adult during Reagan, I had a love/hate dealio with him, yet always "liked" him. And he got my vote. To me, his tenure was often a mix of "you've got to be kidding" (sometimes with Nancy's help) and "you go, Ray-Gun" but the latter reaction became more scarce the more critical thinking was applied as his admin evolved. Iran/Contra related issues were particularly troubling to me.

And I knew as it was happening he was just a part of one on several powerful forces behind the collapse of the USSR and not "the reason." Many of the moves he championed to help with that goal and others also helped further us on the path for many of the problems we have today internationally and domestically.

I have long figured the way we "did business" at times around the world would work against our interests, long-term, just as powerfully as all the good things we try to do would be hoped to work for our interests. And much of his economic directive did assist the ultimate trickle down. His designs for cuts to some social programs were (overall) every bit as negative to me as Clinton's comparably poor designs for trimming the fat off of military budgets. Both were more "fail" then success, and by a large margin. But I type that understanding the pres is like the QB, he gets too much credit and too much blame at times, when the other guys on the field kinda have a lot to do with things, win and lose.

Emotionally, there is still much I care for in the guy and what I peceived of "where his heart was" and how he could be a true statesman at times.

I read the article in the OP, note it's source, and for grins typed in in "reagan's legacy" and one of the first links was this:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/editors

Now I don't read "the nation", and actually had to google it to remind myself whether it was left or right because I remembered it was slanted in one direction or the other. So it's a good counterpart to the link in the OP and maybe useful for the discussion.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/editors

One last note, people can express anything within the rules, but to enter threads like this and "expect" folks to not have a wide range of strong, even passionately harsh or loving, opinions is not being very grounded in reality, IMO. Sorry. And trying to "control" that reality in others' behaviors (as opposed to just saying what you think about what they said) is futile at best and I won't what else it is at worst.

RIP RR. :cool:

[BigMike619]

so its cool to imply that someone sounds like a moron as long as its in question form?

im just trying to be clear in all of this going forward.

[alexey]

He certainly gets a lot (most) of credit. BUT it isn't possible that SOME of Reagan's actions helped him mantain control of the situation to get it at that point in time?

Without Reagan does Gorbachev succeed? And if Gorbachev fails what happens to the Soviet Union/Russia?

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

It is hard to imagine a situation where a soviet leader wants to do what Gorbachev was trying to do and yet fail to get necessary implicit support from the american side.

[zoony]

so its cool to imply that someone sounds like a moron as long as its in question form?

im just trying to be clear in all of this going forward.

Yes, it's cool to tell someone they sound like a moron within the context of the conversation. Of course, its all outlined in the rules, so you could read those.

And how about we don't take this any further.

....

[BigMike619]

Yes, it's cool to tell someone they sound like a moron within the context of the conversation. Of course, its all outlined in the rules, so you could read those.

And how about we don't take this any further.

....

sure. i will read the rules again too.

[PeterMP]

It is hard to imagine a situation where a soviet leader wants to do what Gorbachev was trying to do and yet fail to get necessary implicit support from the american side.

I think it is easy to believe that an American President, especially considering his winning the Presidency was based on the idea that he would be "tough" on communism, would have been leery of Gorbachev or simply ignored him for political expediency.

I think it is unlikely any other President, especially considering Reagan's campaign rhetoric, at the time would have gone in and offered to completely get rid of nukes AND share SDI (an offer that Gorbachev turned down- Why would a Soviet premiere have turned down such a good offer (because he didn't trust Reagan)? Why would have an American President not have given support to Gorbachev? (because they might not have trusted them)?

I don't honestly know if Reagan was Bush II like and got luck that he was dealing with Gorbachev and somebody not more like Putin or not, or if Reagan (or his staff) was actually better at reading people/the situation but the fact of the matter is that Gorbachev got an American President that was willing to sit down and deal with him straightly and felt comfortable doing so irregardless of the political risk to himself and the history of distrust between the two countries.

We know that in similar situations not all political figures have acted in the same manner, and we know Bush thought he had something similar in Putin, and he sure turned out to be wrong.

[Jumbo]

so its cool to imply that someone sounds like a moron as long as its in question form?

im just trying to be clear in all of this going forward.

see your PMs.

[alexey]

I think it is easy to believe that an American President, especially considering his winning the Presidency was based on the idea that he would be "tough" on communism, would have been leery of Gorbachev or simply ignored him for political expediency.

I think it is unlikely any other President, especially considering Reagan's campaign rhetoric, at the time would have gone in and offered to completely get rid of nukes AND share SDI (an offer that Gorbachev turned down- Why would a Soviet premiere have turned down such a good offer (because he didn't trust Reagan)? Why would have an American President not have given support to Gorbachev? (because they might not have trusted them)?

I don't honestly know if Reagan was Bush II like and got luck that he was dealing with Gorbachev and somebody not more like Putin or not, or if Reagan (or his staff) was actually better at reading people/the situation but the fact of the matter is that Gorbachev got an American President that was willing to sit down and deal with him straightly and felt comfortable doing so irregardless of the political risk to himself and the history of distrust between the two countries.

We know that in similar situations not all political figures have acted in the same manner, and we know Bush thought he had something similar in Putin, and he sure turned out to be wrong.

My impression is that this was a simple matter of reassuring each other. I think a wide range of actions by US could have given Gorbachev such assurances, and thus allowed him to proceed.

He [Gorbachev] could continue with perestroika, which involved not just economic reforms but—as a necessary precondition—massive defense cuts and a transformation of international relations. He needed assurances of external security in order to move forward with this domestic upheaval. Reagan gave him those reassurances.

[Larry]

Also, how would you counter an argument that the credit for peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union belongs entirely to Mr. Gorbachev? He was the one who actually did it, right?

Actually, if I had to pick one single person to credit for that event, it would be Lech Wallessa (sp?), and Solidarity.

What he did, founding a Labor Union within The Worker's Paradise, took some real guts. And I'd say that what he did had a much bigger impact on the Soviet System than Ronnie Raygun spending Big Bucks on weapons that didn't work did.

Ronnie risked a deficit and his legacy. Solidarity risked their behinds.

-----

Edit: I also wonder how much of an effect The Polish Pope had on it. Really hard to measure.

[Midnight Judges]

Different time and different place. There is no reason to believe that Reagan would have believed the policies he carried out in 1980 were the right approach in 2000 and later (and note even the policies that Reagan actually DID implement aren't the same- as I noted earlier, Reagan DID raise taxes).

That's fair enough. Reagan, in practice was not as much of an ideologue as his rhetoric suggested. To say he "did raise taxes" is a little misleading though. He only raised taxes by a fraction of what he lowered them by and only when he was forced to. And the effects of his tax increases were felt by the lower and lower middle classes. He also greatly reduced taxes on the highest income bracket (rightfully so IMO although perhaps a tad too much) because it was way too high at the time.

But this gave birth to trickle-down economics and Republicans have never looked back. A portion of my arguement was not against what he did but what he morphed the Republican party into. While you are correct, it's not directly his fault that the people running the modern Republican pary would buy into his every word and try and shoe horn his policies into every scenario, it is a part of his legacy. Particularly in terms is saying the Government is the problem (etc) with regards to deregulation of the financial markets.

In general, your attempt to link GWB with Reagan is weak

I don't think so. Besides, I'm not merely linking one man to another, it's the entire Republican party that took Reagan's words to heart. They were appointed to every regulatory position in a Government they didn't believe in. Self described Reagan disciples had total control. How on Earth are people who think Government is always bad (except for defense spending) going to be good at it?

Can you say tech bubble? Worldcom? etc.?

They certainly helped., but Clinton managed them nicely and left office with a balanced budget.

Are you telling me that the extrandonary rendition program started under Clinton was legal? Keeping FBI files in the White House of political rivals?

IMO, those are perfectly legitimate criticisms.

Ahhh yes, the inevitable end of the Soviet Union HAD TO BE the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union. Why didn't anybody else from like 1950-1988 realize that?

Maybe because they didn't have a crystal ball. Same reason they didn't predict 9/11 or the emerging Chinese economy. Not sure why you keep using conventional wisdom at the time as a benchmark. In 1992, is there anyone who could predict their $250,000 house would be worth $600,000 in 2003? Or that the DOW would go to 12,000 by 1999?

I don't think anybody wanted to continue the Vietnam war. If anything, Nixon let it drag on.

I think he was in a tough spot. Just saying though, ending Vietnam was more subtantial in the cold war (IMO) than Reagan's military spending, among other things.

Regularizing relationships of China is highly overrated. The Chinese and Russians were never going to cooperate as they have to much natural distrust of one another, AND it alienated it from India, which as a democracy should have been a natural ally, which influences how we deal with the war on terror today (in a negative manner IMO).

Uf. How highly rated is it? And holy cow we could have an entire forum on this issue alone!

Shouldn't that have made them more vigilant and another and even bigger attack LESS likely in the relative short term.

I think it did. Hence the 70 cruise missiles directed at Afghanistan (which Republicans mocked at the time) eventual increased intelligence spending, and the 50% increase in the number of CIA operatives devoted to Islamic radicals.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/19/rudy-giuliani/hes-on-point-but-still-off-base/

There were no more attacks on the homeland for the remainder of the Clinton administration. Now me personally, I think it's largely a factor of luck. But Republicans assure me that this is a huge accomplishent.

As measured by GDP no, but as measured by other things that people use to measure the strength of an economy (e.g. trade surplus, rate of growth, etc.) the argument could be made.

can't disagree with that.

[PeterMP]

My impression is that this was a simple matter of reassuring each other. I think a wide range of actions by US could have given Gorbachev such assurances, and thus allowed him to proceed.

Again, I think you are looking back and judging the situation w/o understanding the reality of the situation as it was.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan prevented the ratification of the SALT II treaty.

In 1985, the Soviets increase their troops and fighting in Afghanistan, despite the change, Reagan was still able to deal with the Gorbachev.

A standard response to a situation by American Presidents is that all of the options are on the table. While I doubt any American President would have actually put troops in Afghanistan, few would have put Gorbachev in a situation where he'd be sure it wouldn't happen.

[PeterMP]

That's fair enough. Reagan, in practice was not as much of an ideologue as his rhetoric suggested. To say he "did raise taxes" is a little misleading though. He only raised taxes by a fraction of what he lowered them by and only when he was forced to. And the effects of his tax increases were felt by the lower and lower middle classes. He also greatly reduced taxes on the highest income bracket (rightfully so IMO although perhaps a tad too much) because it was way too high at the time.

But this gave birth to trickle-down economics and Republicans have never looked back. A portion of my arguement was not against what he did but what he morphed the Republican party into. While you are correct, it's not directly his fault that the people running the modern Republican pary would buy into his every word and try and shoe horn his policies into every scenario, it is a part of his legacy. Particularly in terms is saying the Government is the problem (etc) with regards to deregulation of the financial markets.

I think that is part of the problem and the point of my first post.

Reagan wasn't the idealogue that he portrayed himself to be and has been portrayed since then to be.

He was anti-abortion, but never passed a single piece of legislation to curb it and appointed Supreme Court justices that generally up-held Roe v. Wade.

He was anti-tax, but raised taxes (his alt. min. tax increase hit mostly the rich and upper-middle class).

He was guns blazing and no negotiating, but pulled out of Lebanon, didn't non-ratified SALTII until his second term, and offered to get rid of all of the nukes AND share SDI.

If you want to blame him because some idiots took his rhetoric seriously instead of as political bluster/a negotiating stance, I guess that's his fault, but I don't really tie Reagan to Bush II.

I'm not sure if it is this thread or the other, but to believe that an intelligent person would absolutely see a situation with double digit (or close to it) inflation, interest rates, and unemployment, and think the proper course of action is the same as when those same things are at (or near) record lows is ludicrious.

I'll even go further with Reagan, with things that I think distract from him. I don't think Reagan was racist. We have a lot of his "private" writings from the time now. None of them suggest racism, but he certainly used racist language and symbolism to help get him elected.

I don't think Reagan was perfect, but big picture (removing where the GOP ended up going and Bush II), I think he did more for the country than Clinton.

I guess if you want to argue that w/o Reagan you don't get Bush II, then I guess that changes the dynamic a little (of course, I'm not sure w/o Clinton you don't get Bush II so is Bush II part of Clinton's legacy?).

[alexey]

How on Earth are people who think Government is always bad (except for defense spending) going to be good at it?

This is something that always troubled me about Republicans. It is one thing to debate the role Government should play. It is another thing to elect to public office people who lack basic respect for public service and hold beliefs that government is fundamentally incompetent. Unfortunately it appears that RR has much to do with creating this monstrosity.

[PeterMP]

This is something that always troubled me about Republicans. It is one thing to debate the role Government should play. It is another thing to elect to public office people who lack basic respect for public service and hold beliefs that government is fundamentally incompetent. Unfortunately it appears that RR has much to do with creating this monstrosity.

So you can debate the role government should play as long as part of your belief isn't that government tends to be incompetent?

Wouldn't that be silencing an important voice in the debate?

[Larry]

This is something that always troubled me about Republicans. It is one thing to debate the role Government should play. It is another thing to elect to public office people who lack basic respect for public service and hold beliefs that government is fundamentally incompetent. Unfortunately it appears that RR has much to do with creating this monstrosity.

Yet another legacy that RR left to W.

It really seemed, there, as though W had a policy that, in order to be considered for the job of Secretary of (Agency X), applicant must be on record as publicly stating, for a period of at least a decade, that Agency X should be abolished".

For example, the man W appointed to head FEMA had been on record as stating that FEMA should be abolished. ("Brownie" was appointed to be the man's deputy, because he needed a job, and because he was in the same college fraternity as the Head or FEMA. Brownie became Head when the original Head quit after one year on the job, to become a lobbyist.)