Thank you for this post even though I know the very title of it is going to bring gnashing of teeth and wailing by the Reagan worshippers. The issues raised are ones I had long observed but wondered about because no one else seemed to bother with them. For instance the cold war was virtually over by the time Reagan came to office. Gorbachev has said, and recently released Soviet documents confirm this, that Reagan's bellicose approach almost sabotaged the efforts of reformers in Russia. The few hard liners left in government were given talking points and Gorbachev was almost thrown out by people who wanted a military confrontation with the U.S..
My own experience in Central America can attest to the damage that was done when we supported terrorism under the guise of resisting communism. Especially in El Salvador I saw the progressive and democratic influence within the Catholic Church crushed only to be replaced by a paternalistic and materialistic church that supported the oligarchy.
I have been especially interested in recent years to read about the transition from Carter to Reagan. Reagan's "sunny style" covered up in my opinion three stunning reversals of Carter policy. One was that Reagan began a policy which continued through to
Bush II of using terrorists and extremists when it suited his interests. Ignoring human rights abuses and negotiating with terrorists was a major mode of operation for Reagan. Secondly, if Reagan had not reversed Carter's energy policies there is evidence that today we would not be dependent on foreign oil. Lastly, the Federal government was actually beginning to shrink under Carter. It reached then unprecedented size under Reagan.
There is much more that I could say but there is one huge thing the article leaves out. Reagan's vaunted supply side economics were such a dismal failure that Reagan instituted not one but two huge tax increases. One of these was the largest in American history and became necessary because the government was on the verge of collapse. Even as he saved himself from the embarrassment of "losing the American government" on his watch his friends to this day only refer to his earlier tax cuts, the ones he had to make up for later.
I don't know if Reagan was the worst President ever but I can say I get tired of the adulation based on his style and lack of substance.
Question US
Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
Bastion3 July 30, 2009 13:06:25
- 7 answers
- Read all 32 comments
- +3 raves
Please read the following article. If you can argue with the facts, please do. If you learn something new, please comment. If you think the conclusions are unfair, please explain. If you want to partake in mindless attack without facts, or if you want to engage in mindless Reagan worship without facts, please don't waste everyone's time.
Published on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 by Consortium News
Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
by Robert Parry
There's been talk that George W. Bush was so inept that he should trademark the phrase "Worst President Ever," though some historians would bestow that title on pre-Civil War President James Buchanan. Still, a case could be made for putting Ronald Reagan in the competition.
Granted, the very idea of rating Reagan as one of the worst presidents ever will infuriate his many right-wing acolytes and offend Washington insiders who have made a cottage industry out of buying some protection from Republicans by lauding the 40th President.
But there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed" presidents of the 1970s - Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter - may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country.
Nixon, Ford and Carter won scant praise for addressing the systemic challenges of America's oil dependence, environmental degradation, the arms race, and nuclear proliferation - all issues that Reagan essentially ignored and that now threaten America's future.
Nixon helped create the Environmental Protection Agency; he imposed energy-conservation measures; he opened the diplomatic door to communist China. Nixon's administration also detected the growing weakness in the Soviet Union and advocated a policy of détente (a plan for bringing the Cold War to an end or at least curbing its most dangerous excesses).
After Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, Ford continued many of Nixon's policies, particularly trying to wind down the Cold War with Moscow. However, confronting a rebellion from Reagan's Republican Right in 1976, Ford abandoned "détente."
Ford also let hard-line Cold Warriors (and a first wave of young intellectuals who became known as neoconservatives) pressure the CIA's analytical division, and he brought in a new generation of hard-liners, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
After defeating Ford in 1976, Carter injected more respect for human rights into U.S. foreign policy, a move some scholars believe put an important nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union, leaving it hard-pressed to justify the repressive internal practices of the East Bloc. Carter also emphasized the need to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, especially in unstable countries like Pakistan.
Domestically, Carter pushed a comprehensive energy policy and warned Americans that their growing dependence on foreign oil represented a national security threat, what he famously called "the moral equivalent of war."
However, powerful vested interests - both domestic and foreign - managed to exploit the shortcomings of these three presidents to sabotage any sustained progress. By 1980, Reagan had become a pied piper luring the American people away from the tough choices that Nixon, Ford and Carter had defined.
Cruelty with a Smile
With his superficially sunny disposition - and a ruthless political strategy of exploiting white-male resentments - Reagan convinced millions of Americans that the threats they faced were: African-American welfare queens, Central American leftists, a rapidly expanding Evil Empire based in Moscow, and the do-good federal government.
In his First Inaugural Address in 1981, Reagan declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
When it came to cutting back on America's energy use, Reagan's message could be boiled down to the old reggae lyric, "Don't worry, be happy." Rather than pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging from Washington.
The same with the environment. Reagan intentionally staffed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment. George W. Bush didn't invent Republican hostility toward scientific warnings of environmental calamities; he was just picking up where Reagan left off.
Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries, including banking; he slashed income taxes for the wealthiest Americans in an experiment known as "supply side" economics, which held falsely that cutting rates for the rich would increase revenues and eliminate the federal deficit.
Over the years, "supply side" would evolve into a secular religion for many on the Right, but Reagan's budget director David Stockman once blurted out the truth, that it would lead to red ink "as far as the eye could see."
While conceding that some of Reagan's economic plans did not work out as intended, his defenders - including many mainstream journalists - still argue that Reagan should be hailed as a great President because he "won the Cold War," a short-hand phrase that they like to attach to his historical biography.
However, a strong case can be made that the Cold War was won well before Reagan arrived in the White House. Indeed, in the 1970s, it was a common perception in the U.S. intelligence community that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was winding down, in large part because the Soviet economic model had failed in the technological race with the West.
That was the view of many Kremlinologists in the CIA's analytical division. Also, I was told by a senior CIA's operations official that some of the CIA's best spies inside the Soviet hierarchy supported the view that the Soviet Union was headed toward collapse, not surging toward world supremacy, as Reagan and his foreign policy team insisted in the early 1980s.
The CIA analysis was the basis for the détente that was launched by Nixon and Ford, essentially seeking a negotiated solution to the most dangerous remaining aspects of the Cold War.
The Afghan Debacle
In that view, Soviet military operations, including sending troops into Afghanistan in 1979, were mostly defensive in nature. In Afghanistan, the Soviets hoped to prop up a pro-communist government that was seeking to modernize the country but was beset by opposition from Islamic fundamentalists who were getting covert support from the U.S. government.
Though the Afghan covert operation originated with Cold Warriors in the Carter administration, especially national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the war was dramatically ramped up under Reagan, who traded U.S. acquiescence toward Pakistan's nuclear bomb for its help in shipping sophisticated weapons to the Afghan jihadists (including a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden).
While Reagan's acolytes cite the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as decisive in "winning the Cold War," the counter-argument is that Moscow was already in disarray - and while failure in Afghanistan may have sped the Soviet Union's final collapse - it also created twin dangers for the future of the world: the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism and the nuclear bomb in the hands of Pakistan's unstable Islamic Republic.
Trade-offs elsewhere in the world also damaged long-term U.S. interests. In Latin America, for instance, Reagan's brutal strategy of arming right-wing militaries to crush peasant, student and labor uprisings left the region with a legacy of anti-Americanism that is now resurfacing in the emergence of populist leftist governments.
In Nicaragua, for instance, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega (whom Reagan once denounced as a "dictator in designer glasses") is now back in power. In El Salvador, the leftist FMLN won the latest elections. Indeed, across the region, hostility to Washington is now the rule, creating openings for China, Iran, Cuba and other American rivals.
In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of neocon intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called "perception management," the shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were frightened by threats from abroad.
Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the lies and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S. intelligence analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the propaganda demands from above.
To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward anyone who challenged the era's feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not just honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or - in Jeane Kirkpatrick's memorable attack line - they would "blame America first."
Under Reagan, a right-wing infrastructure also took shape, linking media outlets (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) with well-financed think tanks that churned out endless op-eds and research papers. Plus, there were attack groups that went after mainstream journalists who dared disclose information that poked holes in Reagan's propaganda themes.
In effect, Reagan's team created a faux reality for the American public. Civil wars in Central America between impoverished peasants and wealthy oligarchs became East-West showdowns. U.S.-backed insurgents in Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan were transformed from corrupt, brutal (often drug-tainted) thugs into noble "freedom-fighters."
With the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan also revived Richard Nixon's theory of an imperial presidency that could ignore the nation's laws and evade accountability through criminal cover-ups. That behavior also would rear its head again in the war crimes of George W. Bush. [For details on Reagan's abuses, see Robert Parry's Lost History and Secrecy & Privilege.]
Wall Street Greed
The American Dream also dimmed during Reagan's tenure.
While he played the role of the nation's kindly grandfather, his operatives divided the American people, using "wedge issues" to deepen grievances especially of white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of "reverse discrimination" and "political correctness."
Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called "Reagan Democrats"), their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; "free trade" policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.
Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.
Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)
Many other trends set during the Reagan era continued to corrode the U.S. political process in the years after Reagan left office. After 9/11, for instance, the neocons reemerged as a dominant force, reprising their "perception management" tactics, depicting the "war on terror" - like the last days of the Cold War - as a terrifying conflict between good and evil.
The hyping of the Islamic threat mirrored the neocons' exaggerated depiction of the Soviet menace in the 1980s - and again the propaganda strategy worked. Many Americans let their emotions run wild, from the hunger for revenge after 9/11 to the war fever over invading Iraq.
Arguably, the descent into this dark fantasyland - that Ronald Reagan began in the early 1980s - reached its nadir in the flag-waving early days of the Iraq War. Only gradually did reality begin to reassert itself as the death toll mounted in Iraq and the Katrina disaster reminded Americans why they needed an effective government.
Still, the disasters - set in motion by Ronald Reagan - continued to roll in. Bush's Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich blew another huge hole in the federal budget and the Reagan-esque anti-regulatory fervor led to a massive financial meltdown that threw the nation into economic chaos.
Love Reagan; Hate Bush
Ironically, George W. Bush has come in for savage criticism, but the Republican leader who inspired Bush's presidency - Ronald Reagan - remained an honored figure, his name attached to scores of national landmarks including Washington's National Airport.
Even leading Democrats genuflect to Reagan. Early in Campaign 2008, when Barack Obama was positioning himself as a bipartisan political figure who could appeal to Republicans, he bowed to the Reagan mystique, hailing the GOP icon as a leader who "changed the trajectory of America."
Though Obama's chief point was that Reagan in 1980 "put us on a fundamentally different path" - a point which may be historically undeniable - Obama went further, justifying Reagan's course correction because of "all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability."
While Obama later clarified his point to say he didn't mean to endorse Reagan's conservative policies, Obama seemed to suggest that Reagan's 1980 election administered a needed dose of accountability to the United States when Reagan actually did the opposite. Reagan's presidency represented a dangerous escape from accountability - and reality.
Still, Obama and congressional Democrats continue to pander to the Reagan myth. On Tuesday, as the nation approached the fifth anniversary of Reagan's death, Obama welcomed Nancy Reagan to the White House and signed a law creating a panel to plan and carry out events to honor Reagan's 100th birthday in 2011.
Obama hailed the right-wing icon. "President Reagan helped as much as any President to restore a sense of optimism in our country, a spirit that transcended politics - that transcended even the most heated arguments of the day," Obama said. [For more on Obama's earlier pandering about Reagan, see Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's Dubious Praise for Reagan."]
It's a sure thing that the Reagan Centennial Committee won't do much more than add to the hagiography surrounding the 40th President.
Despite the grievous harm that Reagan's presidency inflicted on the American Republic and the American people, it may take many more years before a historian has the guts to put this deformed era into a truthful perspective and rate Reagan where he belongs -- near the bottom of the presidential list.
© 2009 Consortium News
Published on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 by Consortium News
Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
by Robert Parry
There's been talk that George W. Bush was so inept that he should trademark the phrase "Worst President Ever," though some historians would bestow that title on pre-Civil War President James Buchanan. Still, a case could be made for putting Ronald Reagan in the competition.
Granted, the very idea of rating Reagan as one of the worst presidents ever will infuriate his many right-wing acolytes and offend Washington insiders who have made a cottage industry out of buying some protection from Republicans by lauding the 40th President.
But there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed" presidents of the 1970s - Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter - may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country.
Nixon, Ford and Carter won scant praise for addressing the systemic challenges of America's oil dependence, environmental degradation, the arms race, and nuclear proliferation - all issues that Reagan essentially ignored and that now threaten America's future.
Nixon helped create the Environmental Protection Agency; he imposed energy-conservation measures; he opened the diplomatic door to communist China. Nixon's administration also detected the growing weakness in the Soviet Union and advocated a policy of détente (a plan for bringing the Cold War to an end or at least curbing its most dangerous excesses).
After Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, Ford continued many of Nixon's policies, particularly trying to wind down the Cold War with Moscow. However, confronting a rebellion from Reagan's Republican Right in 1976, Ford abandoned "détente."
Ford also let hard-line Cold Warriors (and a first wave of young intellectuals who became known as neoconservatives) pressure the CIA's analytical division, and he brought in a new generation of hard-liners, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
After defeating Ford in 1976, Carter injected more respect for human rights into U.S. foreign policy, a move some scholars believe put an important nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union, leaving it hard-pressed to justify the repressive internal practices of the East Bloc. Carter also emphasized the need to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, especially in unstable countries like Pakistan.
Domestically, Carter pushed a comprehensive energy policy and warned Americans that their growing dependence on foreign oil represented a national security threat, what he famously called "the moral equivalent of war."
However, powerful vested interests - both domestic and foreign - managed to exploit the shortcomings of these three presidents to sabotage any sustained progress. By 1980, Reagan had become a pied piper luring the American people away from the tough choices that Nixon, Ford and Carter had defined.
Cruelty with a Smile
With his superficially sunny disposition - and a ruthless political strategy of exploiting white-male resentments - Reagan convinced millions of Americans that the threats they faced were: African-American welfare queens, Central American leftists, a rapidly expanding Evil Empire based in Moscow, and the do-good federal government.
In his First Inaugural Address in 1981, Reagan declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
When it came to cutting back on America's energy use, Reagan's message could be boiled down to the old reggae lyric, "Don't worry, be happy." Rather than pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging from Washington.
The same with the environment. Reagan intentionally staffed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment. George W. Bush didn't invent Republican hostility toward scientific warnings of environmental calamities; he was just picking up where Reagan left off.
Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries, including banking; he slashed income taxes for the wealthiest Americans in an experiment known as "supply side" economics, which held falsely that cutting rates for the rich would increase revenues and eliminate the federal deficit.
Over the years, "supply side" would evolve into a secular religion for many on the Right, but Reagan's budget director David Stockman once blurted out the truth, that it would lead to red ink "as far as the eye could see."
While conceding that some of Reagan's economic plans did not work out as intended, his defenders - including many mainstream journalists - still argue that Reagan should be hailed as a great President because he "won the Cold War," a short-hand phrase that they like to attach to his historical biography.
However, a strong case can be made that the Cold War was won well before Reagan arrived in the White House. Indeed, in the 1970s, it was a common perception in the U.S. intelligence community that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was winding down, in large part because the Soviet economic model had failed in the technological race with the West.
That was the view of many Kremlinologists in the CIA's analytical division. Also, I was told by a senior CIA's operations official that some of the CIA's best spies inside the Soviet hierarchy supported the view that the Soviet Union was headed toward collapse, not surging toward world supremacy, as Reagan and his foreign policy team insisted in the early 1980s.
The CIA analysis was the basis for the détente that was launched by Nixon and Ford, essentially seeking a negotiated solution to the most dangerous remaining aspects of the Cold War.
The Afghan Debacle
In that view, Soviet military operations, including sending troops into Afghanistan in 1979, were mostly defensive in nature. In Afghanistan, the Soviets hoped to prop up a pro-communist government that was seeking to modernize the country but was beset by opposition from Islamic fundamentalists who were getting covert support from the U.S. government.
Though the Afghan covert operation originated with Cold Warriors in the Carter administration, especially national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the war was dramatically ramped up under Reagan, who traded U.S. acquiescence toward Pakistan's nuclear bomb for its help in shipping sophisticated weapons to the Afghan jihadists (including a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden).
While Reagan's acolytes cite the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as decisive in "winning the Cold War," the counter-argument is that Moscow was already in disarray - and while failure in Afghanistan may have sped the Soviet Union's final collapse - it also created twin dangers for the future of the world: the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism and the nuclear bomb in the hands of Pakistan's unstable Islamic Republic.
Trade-offs elsewhere in the world also damaged long-term U.S. interests. In Latin America, for instance, Reagan's brutal strategy of arming right-wing militaries to crush peasant, student and labor uprisings left the region with a legacy of anti-Americanism that is now resurfacing in the emergence of populist leftist governments.
In Nicaragua, for instance, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega (whom Reagan once denounced as a "dictator in designer glasses") is now back in power. In El Salvador, the leftist FMLN won the latest elections. Indeed, across the region, hostility to Washington is now the rule, creating openings for China, Iran, Cuba and other American rivals.
In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of neocon intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called "perception management," the shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were frightened by threats from abroad.
Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the lies and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S. intelligence analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the propaganda demands from above.
To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward anyone who challenged the era's feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not just honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or - in Jeane Kirkpatrick's memorable attack line - they would "blame America first."
Under Reagan, a right-wing infrastructure also took shape, linking media outlets (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) with well-financed think tanks that churned out endless op-eds and research papers. Plus, there were attack groups that went after mainstream journalists who dared disclose information that poked holes in Reagan's propaganda themes.
In effect, Reagan's team created a faux reality for the American public. Civil wars in Central America between impoverished peasants and wealthy oligarchs became East-West showdowns. U.S.-backed insurgents in Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan were transformed from corrupt, brutal (often drug-tainted) thugs into noble "freedom-fighters."
With the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan also revived Richard Nixon's theory of an imperial presidency that could ignore the nation's laws and evade accountability through criminal cover-ups. That behavior also would rear its head again in the war crimes of George W. Bush. [For details on Reagan's abuses, see Robert Parry's Lost History and Secrecy & Privilege.]
Wall Street Greed
The American Dream also dimmed during Reagan's tenure.
While he played the role of the nation's kindly grandfather, his operatives divided the American people, using "wedge issues" to deepen grievances especially of white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of "reverse discrimination" and "political correctness."
Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called "Reagan Democrats"), their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; "free trade" policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.
Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.
Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)
Many other trends set during the Reagan era continued to corrode the U.S. political process in the years after Reagan left office. After 9/11, for instance, the neocons reemerged as a dominant force, reprising their "perception management" tactics, depicting the "war on terror" - like the last days of the Cold War - as a terrifying conflict between good and evil.
The hyping of the Islamic threat mirrored the neocons' exaggerated depiction of the Soviet menace in the 1980s - and again the propaganda strategy worked. Many Americans let their emotions run wild, from the hunger for revenge after 9/11 to the war fever over invading Iraq.
Arguably, the descent into this dark fantasyland - that Ronald Reagan began in the early 1980s - reached its nadir in the flag-waving early days of the Iraq War. Only gradually did reality begin to reassert itself as the death toll mounted in Iraq and the Katrina disaster reminded Americans why they needed an effective government.
Still, the disasters - set in motion by Ronald Reagan - continued to roll in. Bush's Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich blew another huge hole in the federal budget and the Reagan-esque anti-regulatory fervor led to a massive financial meltdown that threw the nation into economic chaos.
Love Reagan; Hate Bush
Ironically, George W. Bush has come in for savage criticism, but the Republican leader who inspired Bush's presidency - Ronald Reagan - remained an honored figure, his name attached to scores of national landmarks including Washington's National Airport.
Even leading Democrats genuflect to Reagan. Early in Campaign 2008, when Barack Obama was positioning himself as a bipartisan political figure who could appeal to Republicans, he bowed to the Reagan mystique, hailing the GOP icon as a leader who "changed the trajectory of America."
Though Obama's chief point was that Reagan in 1980 "put us on a fundamentally different path" - a point which may be historically undeniable - Obama went further, justifying Reagan's course correction because of "all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability."
While Obama later clarified his point to say he didn't mean to endorse Reagan's conservative policies, Obama seemed to suggest that Reagan's 1980 election administered a needed dose of accountability to the United States when Reagan actually did the opposite. Reagan's presidency represented a dangerous escape from accountability - and reality.
Still, Obama and congressional Democrats continue to pander to the Reagan myth. On Tuesday, as the nation approached the fifth anniversary of Reagan's death, Obama welcomed Nancy Reagan to the White House and signed a law creating a panel to plan and carry out events to honor Reagan's 100th birthday in 2011.
Obama hailed the right-wing icon. "President Reagan helped as much as any President to restore a sense of optimism in our country, a spirit that transcended politics - that transcended even the most heated arguments of the day," Obama said. [For more on Obama's earlier pandering about Reagan, see Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's Dubious Praise for Reagan."]
It's a sure thing that the Reagan Centennial Committee won't do much more than add to the hagiography surrounding the 40th President.
Despite the grievous harm that Reagan's presidency inflicted on the American Republic and the American people, it may take many more years before a historian has the guts to put this deformed era into a truthful perspective and rate Reagan where he belongs -- near the bottom of the presidential list.
© 2009 Consortium News
Loading... 
Top Answer
-
Thank you for this post even though I know the very title of it is going to bring gnashing of teeth and wailing by the Reagan worshippers. The issues raised are ones I had long observed but wondered about because no one else seemed to bother with them. For instance the cold war was virtually over by the time Reagan came to office. Gorbachev has said, and recently released Soviet documents confirm this, that Reagan's bellicose approach almost sabotaged the efforts of reformers in Russia. The few hard liners left in government were given talking points and Gorbachev was almost thrown out by people who wanted a military confrontation with the U.S..(more)View thread
My own experience in Central America can attest to the damage that was done when we supported terrorism under the guise of resisting communism. Especially in El Salvador I saw the progressive and democratic influence within the Catholic Church crushed only to be replaced by a paternalistic and materialistic church that supported the oligarchy.
I have been especially interested in recent years to read about the transition from Carter to Reagan. Reagan's "sunny style" covered up in my opinion three stunning reversals of Carter policy. One was that Reagan began a policy which continued through to
Bush II of using ter...
SodaHead Hot Trends
I really don't think that you can blame Ronald Reagan for things like the near-bankruptcy experience of the Big Four automakers. Their downfall can have its blame placed squarely on the shoulders of the UAW (union) who went from asking for concessions that were truly fair and reasonable to asking for the moon and the stars--and, practically, the ownership of the companies--for the factory workers.
Our major problem is that a lot of things have been "dumbed down" over a period of many years that didn't start with Ronald Reagan.
Education was "dumbed down" so that nobody's self-esteem would get bruised by being held back...
I really don't think that you can blame Ronald Reagan for things like the near-bankruptcy experience of the Big Four automakers. Their downfall can have its blame placed squarely on the shoulders of the UAW (union) who went from asking for concessions that were truly fair and reasonable to asking for the moon and the stars--and, practically, the ownership of the companies--for the factory workers.
Our major problem is that a lot of things have been "dumbed down" over a period of many years that didn't start with Ronald Reagan.
Education was "dumbed down" so that nobody's self-esteem would get bruised by being held back a year and/or being placed in special education classes.
Education was even "dumbed down" for the teachers to where they wouldn't have to work so hard to manage their students as they now could use Ritalin to turn busy kids into zombies.
The work ethic was "dumbed down" to where people got to be "entitled" to work a whole lot less for a whole lot more in the way of money and other benefits.
ALL work is priceless, but there's got to be a wage/salary limit on it to where paying people what they're worth doesn't turn a company into non-profit--or, actually, even LOSING money.
I can write even more about what's both right and wrong about the state of our country--and the state of the world in general--but I will save that for another time and end by saying that, while I didn't always agree with decisions made by Ronald Reagan (for instance, he's for the death penalty and I'm against it), I thought that he came along at the right time to lift our spirits, and The Berlin Wall DID come down not even a year after he left office.
Minimising the government - noble pursuit, keeps authority's nose out of everyone's business. But people aren't really ready for it yet, and Nixon, Ford and Carter realised that. They confronted the problems of our time with government, which was all they had, and all we still have to fight things like the gap between rich and poor and the failing environment.
Everything else was just bordering on fascism. Marching into other countries to "spread freedom" and simplifying every complex world conflict into an epic battle between good and evil is like something Hitler would do. It wasn't just the foreign interventionalism, it was how he spun it. Not every conflict in the world is as simple as right-left, east-west, good-bad. For example, both sides of the current Iranian revolution support an islamist state. And on top of all that, he created a bunch of new problems, such as Al-Qaeda and a bitter anti-American taste in the mouths of many peoples the world over.
My own experience in Central America can attest to the damage that was done when we supported terrorism under the guise of resisting communism. Especially in El Salvador I saw the progressive and democratic influence within the Catholic Church crushed only to be replaced by a paternalistic and materialistic church that supported the oligarchy.
I have been especially interested in recent years to read about the transition from Carter to Reagan. Reagan's "sunny style" covered up in my opinion three stunning reversals of Carter policy. One was that Reagan began a policy which continued through to
Bush II of using ter...
My own experience in Central America can attest to the damage that was done when we supported terrorism under the guise of resisting communism. Especially in El Salvador I saw the progressive and democratic influence within the Catholic Church crushed only to be replaced by a paternalistic and materialistic church that supported the oligarchy.
I have been especially interested in recent years to read about the transition from Carter to Reagan. Reagan's "sunny style" covered up in my opinion three stunning reversals of Carter policy. One was that Reagan began a policy which continued through to
Bush II of using terrorists and extremists when it suited his interests. Ignoring human rights abuses and negotiating with terrorists was a major mode of operation for Reagan. Secondly, if Reagan had not reversed Carter's energy policies there is evidence that today we would not be dependent on foreign oil. Lastly, the Federal government was actually beginning to shrink under Carter. It reached then unprecedented size under Reagan.
There is much more that I could say but there is one huge thing the article leaves out. Reagan's vaunted supply side economics were such a dismal failure that Reagan instituted not one but two huge tax increases. One of these was the largest in American history and became necessary because the government was on the verge of collapse. Even as he saved himself from the embarrassment of "losing the American government" on his watch his friends to this day only refer to his earlier tax cuts, the ones he had to make up for later.
I don't know if Reagan was the worst President ever but I can say I get tired of the adulation based on his style and lack of substance.
in a 1975 interview, Reagan said, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." While I take issue with many of his decisions, particularly those in the realm of foreign affairs, He did have an overall platform that was friendly to my parties objectives, which is more than I can say from damn near any Democrat.
So, I would be inclined to disagree with your statement.
Republicans and I butt heads all the time, I just see Obama and democrats as a greater threat generally.
The Libertarian Party is the only political party to advocate both personal and economic liberty. Simply put, we’re the only political party who believes you should have the freedom to do what you want with your life and your wallet.
Democrats are the party of total government. They search constantly for problems, so they can start tax supported programs, which create government jobs for Democrats. They view politics as a career, and have voted in outrageously high pay scales, benefits, and retirement packages for elected officials and government employees. They will say anything to get elected. They fear, and fight against, non government solutions to problems. They ridicule self sufficient people and work to make everyone dependent on government in some way.
Republicans are the party of enforced morality. Republicans believe that government should take sides in religious issues, such as outlawing abortion. Most profess to believe in limited government. They often cut out the more ridiculous Democrat programs when they come into office, but they almost never actually reduce government. They usually become captives of the government agencies and programs they are trying to reform, and wind up enjoying the gravy train created by Democrats. They support a large military and believe that America should police the world. When R...
Democrats are the party of total government. They search constantly for problems, so they can start tax supported programs, which create government jobs for Democrats. They view politics as a career, and have voted in outrageously high pay scales, benefits, and retirement packages for elected officials and government employees. They will say anything to get elected. They fear, and fight against, non government solutions to problems. They ridicule self sufficient people and work to make everyone dependent on government in some way.
Republicans are the party of enforced morality. Republicans believe that government should take sides in religious issues, such as outlawing abortion. Most profess to believe in limited government. They often cut out the more ridiculous Democrat programs when they come into office, but they almost never actually reduce government. They usually become captives of the government agencies and programs they are trying to reform, and wind up enjoying the gravy train created by Democrats. They support a large military and believe that America should police the world. When Republicans have large majorities, they try to pass laws to force their views of proper behavior on others. This usually brings the return of Democrats, and the size of government ratchets up another notch.
Libertarians believe that most people do well in spite of, not because of, government involvement in their lives. Libertarians want to actively downsize and limit government. Libertarians believe in free market solutions, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.
To me anyway, the current battle lines between the 2 parties is clear. Either have those that promote bureaucracy and big government openly, or those that do so in a more covert fashion.
I will always continue to reject both as flawed, problematic, and counterproductive to American ideals and freedom.
Not really a discussion for here - Reagan was about as much of a Libertarian as Dick Cheney.