US Presidents, Day 40: Reagan

[The Duke]

Oh, Rockefeller Republican, the Cold War started under Truman, not Nixon. Reagan deserves credit for doing things to help end the Cold War, as does every President from Truman on... They all did something to help end it... The credit deserves to be shared by every Republican and Democrat from Truman to Bush I for seeing the fall of the Soviet Union, as well as the flawed system the Soviets used.

I don't think every President deserves credit for winning the Cold War.  Nixon's policy of detente, a policy followed by Ford and Carter, specifically said that victory in the Cold War was not even our goal anymore.  Coexistence was our goal.  How can Presidents who openly said they were no longer trying to win the Cold War, but just trying to coexist with the dited with winning the Cold War?  The uncomfortable reality is that Nixon made very little contribution to winning the Cold War, and Ford and Carter made none at all.

The reason that Reagan is often credited with winning the Cold War is that he ended detente and made "We win, they lose" our national policy.  This was a fundamental shift from his predecessors views on the subject, and a shift that the elites roundly criticized at the time.

Elites never criticized Reagan. They were too busy spending all the extra money they got from his tax cuts.

You can't be serious when you say that elite opinion was never critical of Reagan.

[memphis]

Oh, Rockefeller Republican, the Cold War started under Truman, not Nixon. Reagan deserves credit for doing things to help end the Cold War, as does every President from Truman on... They all did something to help end it... The credit deserves to be shared by every Republican and Democrat from Truman to Bush I for seeing the fall of the Soviet Union, as well as the flawed system the Soviets used.

I don't think every President deserves credit for winning the Cold War.  Nixon's policy of detente, a policy followed by Ford and Carter, specifically said that victory in the Cold War was not even our goal anymore.  Coexistence was our goal.  How can Presidents who openly said they were no longer trying to win the Cold War, but just trying to coexist with the dited with winning the Cold War?  The uncomfortable reality is that Nixon made very little contribution to winning the Cold War, and Ford and Carter made none at all.

The reason that Reagan is often credited with winning the Cold War is that he ended detente and made "We win, they lose" our national policy.  This was a fundamental shift from his predecessors views on the subject, and a shift that the elites roundly criticized at the time.

Elites never criticized Reagan. They were too busy spending all the extra money they got from his tax cuts.

You can't be serious when you say that elite opinion was never critical of Reagan.

Never is one of those tricky words that one shouldn't use (like always). For that, I apologize. What I should have said is that the overwhelming majority of the elites loved Reagan because 1. of the tax cuts and 2. he stopped inflation, which is only a serious problem if you have money. By elites, you must mean Jews, who were then and continue to be the only group of people with money who are Democrats.

[Reaganfan]

Just a fun fact, this morning an old Western,  "Law and Order" with Ronald Reagan from 1953 was on AMC. It's odd seeing him playing a movie role when I'm so used to him as President.

[Dr. Cynic]

Just a fun fact, this morning an old Western,  "Law and Order" with Ronald Reagan from 1953 was on AMC. It's odd seeing him playing a movie role when I'm so used to him as President.

I've seen a few of his movies... Honestly, he was just an average B-actor with no real distinguishing qualities over any other actor. He had some talent, as expressed in his performance of George Gipp, but his film credits are mostly B-movies that theaters would show before the main feature. (I actually wish they had that feature today... You got a cartoon, a short or serial, a B-picture, and the feature)

One story worth sharing about Reagan's acting career, was that on the set of a film he was doing, Errol Flynn loved to tease him. One day, just before filming, Flynn got whiskey for the cast and everyone but Reagan got themselves plastered. Well, filming starts, and Reagan says his line without slurring or missing a beat. Flynn's was next, and he was so drunk he couldn't remember it, and he was swaying on his feet. All he could muster was "F**k you, Reagan."

Flynn got Reagan back a little later on, when Flynn, Reagan, and a few others were to ride off on their horses. Flynn loosened the saddle, so that when the horses took off, and the dust cleared, Reagan was on his ass holding his head, wondering what had happened.

[The Duke]

Never is one of those tricky words that one shouldn't use (like always). For that, I apologize. What I should have said is that the overwhelming majority of the elites loved Reagan because 1. of the tax cuts and 2. he stopped inflation, which is only a serious problem if you have money. By elites, you must mean Jews, who were then and continue to be the only group of people with money who are Democrats.

First of all, you need recalibrate that anti-semitism meter.  You just got a false positive.

Besides, there are a lot of Jews who do not have money, a lot of Jews with and without money who are not Democrats, and a lot of Democrats with money who are not Jews.  Actually, I'm just going to move on from your whole comment about Jews now, because its going to get weird soon.

When I talked about elites, I wasn't referring to people with money.  I was referring to elite opinion makers, whether they be editorial writers, academics, television commentators, or even the career officials in the State Department who were adamantly opposed to any of Reagan's famous proclaimations regarding the USSR (State tried to strike "Tear down this wall" and "Evil Empire" from their respective speeches).

[memphis]

Never is one of those tricky words that one shouldn't use (like always). For that, I apologize. What I should have said is that the overwhelming majority of the elites loved Reagan because 1. of the tax cuts and 2. he stopped inflation, which is only a serious problem if you have money. By elites, you must mean Jews, who were then and continue to be the only group of people with money who are Democrats.

First of all, you need recalibrate that anti-semitism meter.  You just got a false positive.

Besides, there are a lot of Jews who do not have money, a lot of Jews with and without money who are not Democrats, and a lot of Democrats with money who are not Jews.  Actually, I'm just going to move on from your whole comment about Jews now, because its going to get weird soon.

When I talked about elites, I wasn't referring to people with money.  I was referring to elite opinion makers, whether they be editorial writers, academics, television commentators, or even the career officials in the State Department who were adamantly opposed to any of Reagan's famous proclaimations regarding the USSR (State tried to strike "Tear down this wall" and "Evil Empire" from their respective speeches).

Liberal editorial writers, academics, television commentators are nearly all Jews. The so called "liberal elite" that the right is always complaining about it just a code word for Jewish people. You may as well call a spade a spade.

[The Duke]

Never is one of those tricky words that one shouldn't use (like always). For that, I apologize. What I should have said is that the overwhelming majority of the elites loved Reagan because 1. of the tax cuts and 2. he stopped inflation, which is only a serious problem if you have money. By elites, you must mean Jews, who were then and continue to be the only group of people with money who are Democrats.

First of all, you need recalibrate that anti-semitism meter.  You just got a false positive.

Besides, there are a lot of Jews who do not have money, a lot of Jews with and without money who are not Democrats, and a lot of Democrats with money who are not Jews.  Actually, I'm just going to move on from your whole comment about Jews now, because its going to get weird soon.

When I talked about elites, I wasn't referring to people with money.  I was referring to elite opinion makers, whether they be editorial writers, academics, television commentators, or even the career officials in the State Department who were adamantly opposed to any of Reagan's famous proclaimations regarding the USSR (State tried to strike "Tear down this wall" and "Evil Empire" from their respective speeches).

Liberal editorial writers, academics, television commentators are nearly all Jews. The so called "liberal elite" that the right is always complaining about it just a code word for Jewish people. You may as well call a spade a spade.

Actually most editorial writers, TV commentators, and academics are not Jewish.  You've got no clue what you're talking about.  Maureen Dowd isn't Jewish.  Neither is David Border.  Neither are Michael Kinsley, Dana Milbank, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, or George Stephanopoulos.  Most of these guys aren't Jewish, and to try and avoid a real discussion of the issues by inferring your opponents to be anti-Semitic when they are not is childish.  Do you even think your posts through before you write them?

[memphis]

Never is one of those tricky words that one shouldn't use (like always). For that, I apologize. What I should have said is that the overwhelming majority of the elites loved Reagan because 1. of the tax cuts and 2. he stopped inflation, which is only a serious problem if you have money. By elites, you must mean Jews, who were then and continue to be the only group of people with money who are Democrats.

First of all, you need recalibrate that anti-semitism meter.  You just got a false positive.

Besides, there are a lot of Jews who do not have money, a lot of Jews with and without money who are not Democrats, and a lot of Democrats with money who are not Jews.  Actually, I'm just going to move on from your whole comment about Jews now, because its going to get weird soon.

When I talked about elites, I wasn't referring to people with money.  I was referring to elite opinion makers, whether they be editorial writers, academics, television commentators, or even the career officials in the State Department who were adamantly opposed to any of Reagan's famous proclaimations regarding the USSR (State tried to strike "Tear down this wall" and "Evil Empire" from their respective speeches).

Liberal editorial writers, academics, television commentators are nearly all Jews. The so called "liberal elite" that the right is always complaining about it just a code word for Jewish people. You may as well call a spade a spade.

Actually most editorial writers, TV commentators, and academics are not Jewish.  You've got no clue what you're talking about.  Maureen Dowd isn't Jewish.  Neither is David Border.  Neither are Michael Kinsley, Dana Milbank, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, or George Stephanopoulos.  Most of these guys aren't Jewish, and to try and avoid a real discussion of the issues by inferring your opponents to be anti-Semitic when they are not is childish.  Do you even think your posts through before you write them?

Bull. I'm sure you can name some that aren't Jewish, but fields like academics and journalism are still dominated by Jews. Look up faculty at prestigeous universities or who founded and continues to produce most of the media. Nearly all Jews. As I said earlier, these group are about the only with any influence who opposed Reagan. The real "elite" (big business and religious pupeteers) coalesced around Reagan to give the Republicans their base. You're totally blind if you can't see this.

[The Duke]

Bull. I'm sure you can name some that aren't Jewish, but fields like academics and journalism are still dominated by Jews. Look up faculty at prestigeous universities or who founded and continues to produce most of the media. Nearly all Jews. As I said earlier, these group are about the only with any influence who opposed Reagan. The real "elite" (big business and religious pupeteers) coalesced around Reagan to give the Republicans their base. You're totally blind if you can't see this.

I'm not going to engage your "Jews run the universities and the media and all have lots of money but I'm not the anti-semite, Republicans are are" argument.

[??????????]

Oh noes...jEWish conspiracy!@@!!@

[gorkay]

Where to start with Ronald Reagan? Well, first of all, he was a master politician. He came to the game late, but mastered it quickly and completely. I have a similar question about him as I had about Teddy Roosevelt: did he change his views to suit the prevailing mood of the times, or did he just happen to capture it perfectly at various moments? I'm not sure. One thing I know is that when you discuss Reagan, you have to separate the mythic Reagan from the real Reagan. This happens to some extent with all popular political leaders, but I think to a greater extent with him than most, and I can hardly think of any other case in which the mythic version of the man diverged so broadly from the real one.

The mythic Reagan is the one who rescued the federal government from the tax-and-spend liberals, restored our national defense after it had been left to rust by same, and scaled back government spending and social programs drastically; in foreign policy he ground the Soviets into dust, lit the spark that led to the fall of the Berlin wall, and won the cold war for the U.S. It's interesting that in many cases his severest critics agree with the mythic version; they give him credit for his foreign-policy successes and deplore the way he gutted domestic programs.

The interesting thing about all this, of course, is that virtually none of it is true. But he was such a Great Communicator that he convinced people, almost hypnotized them, into believing he was doing things that he wasn't, simply by saying that he was over and over. There weren't any big cuts in domestic spending during his administration; in fact, that was one of the problems, since he was cutting taxes without cutting spending, leading to an enormous increase in the federal budget deficit and the national debt. He increased defense spending, but much of the increase went into ill-conceived programs that never panned out, and there isn't any evidence that all that money improved the power or efficiency of the military.

But those myths pale to the ones that have been constructed about his foreign policy. There may be some truth to the claim that under Reagan we spent the USSR into the ground militarily; if so, however, it was our folly, because we wasted billions building weapons to defend ourselves against an enemy that was no longer much, if any, of a threat. And the claims that he "won" the Cold War are nonsensical. Yes, he talked a lot about how bad the Soviets were, and how they should tear down that wall, but that's like saying if I go outside right now and shout at the sun to go down, I'm responsible when it does. It's a great insult to the people of Eastern Europe who fought, suffered, and even died to liberate themselves and their countries to ignore their heroism and instead ascribe all their triumphs to Ronald Reagan. It's like giving the cheerleading crew credit for winning the game.

[Joe Republic]

But those myths pale to the ones that have been constructed about his foreign policy. There may be some truth to the claim that under Reagan we spent the USSR into the ground militarily; if so, however, it was our folly, because we wasted billions building weapons to defend ourselves against an enemy that was no longer much, if any, of a threat. And the claims that he "won" the Cold War are nonsensical. Yes, he talked a lot about how bad the Soviets were, and how they should tear down that wall, but that's like saying if I go outside right now and shout at the sun to go down, I'm responsible when it does. It's a great insult to the people of Eastern Europe who fought, suffered, and even died to liberate themselves and their countries to ignore their heroism and instead ascribe all their triumphs to Ronald Reagan. It's like giving the cheerleading crew credit for winning the game.

That was extraordinarily well-put.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The interesting thing about all this, of course, is that virtually none of it is true. But he was such a Great Communicator that he convinced people, almost hypnotized them, into believing he was doing things that he wasn't, simply by saying that he was over and over. There weren't any big cuts in domestic spending during his administration; in fact, that was one of the problems, since he was cutting taxes without cutting spending, leading to an enormous increase in the federal budget deficit and the national debt. He increased defense spending, but much of the increase went into ill-conceived programs that never panned out, and there isn't any evidence that all that money improved the power or efficiency of the military.

But those myths pale to the ones that have been constructed about his foreign policy. There may be some truth to the claim that under Reagan we spent the USSR into the ground militarily; if so, however, it was our folly, because we wasted billions building weapons to defend ourselves against an enemy that was no longer much, if any, of a threat. And the claims that he "won" the Cold War are nonsensical. Yes, he talked a lot about how bad the Soviets were, and how they should tear down that wall, but that's like saying if I go outside right now and shout at the sun to go down, I'm responsible when it does. It's a great insult to the people of Eastern Europe who fought, suffered, and even died to liberate themselves and their countries to ignore their heroism and instead ascribe all their triumphs to Ronald Reagan. It's like giving the cheerleading crew credit for winning the game.

FF.

[gorkay]

But those myths pale to the ones that have been constructed about his foreign policy. There may be some truth to the claim that under Reagan we spent the USSR into the ground militarily; if so, however, it was our folly, because we wasted billions building weapons to defend ourselves against an enemy that was no longer much, if any, of a threat. And the claims that he "won" the Cold War are nonsensical. Yes, he talked a lot about how bad the Soviets were, and how they should tear down that wall, but that's like saying if I go outside right now and shout at the sun to go down, I'm responsible when it does. It's a great insult to the people of Eastern Europe who fought, suffered, and even died to liberate themselves and their countries to ignore their heroism and instead ascribe all their triumphs to Ronald Reagan. It's like giving the cheerleading crew credit for winning the game.

That was extraordinarily well-put.

Thanks.

[Wakie]

Ok, let's be fair here about Reagan.

The Good
1. First and foremost what he brought to the White House was a firm understanding of mass media, how to look good on it and how to use it to swing popular opinion.  That shouldn't be understated.  It allowed him to directly take his message to the people and to hit back at Congress.

2. His message of eternal optimism was exactly what the nation needed after the pain of the 60s and 70s.  He literally breathed new life into the country.

3. He had a willingness to tell people that government cannot solve all of their problems and that they must be willing to take personal responsibility.


The Bad
1. At some point during his Presidency his mind started to go.  That is evidenced in numerous memoirs written about his time in office.  This allowed and resulted in his aides taking more and more control.  Unfortunately there is a reason why there is ONE Executive and when the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing we get problems.

2. His policies towards the Middle East truly encouraged global terrorism.  First, he showed a willingness to negotiate with terrorists (Iran-Contra).  Second, when confronted in Syria he rapidly withdrew.  Third, he armed and trained an entire generation of Muslim Extremist warriors in Afghanistan (going as far as giving them Stinger missiles, which at that point had been reserved for NATO only).  Fourth, he armed dictator states throughout the Mid-East regardless of how they repressed their people.

3. He unnecessarily ran up massive budget deficits which we are still trying to pay off.

4. Under Reagan several of his aides were able to line their own pockets at the government (and public) expense.  Examples include the HUD Grant rigging, Lobbying scandals, the EPA Superfund Scandal, and the S&L Bailout.


The Summary
I believe a President's legacy cannot begin to be measured until 50 years after they are out of office.  We're really only beginning to grasp Eisenhower.  Reagan is overly demonized by Democrats who resent him for breaking unions and demonstrating that a peace-time President CAN go over Congress's head.  Similarly Reagan is overly lionized by Republicans who love him more for bringing their party back from the wilderness it was wandering in for years after Watergate.

In my view, Reagan was effective at advancing his agenda.  I do not believe that he ended the Cold War, he simply hastened its end.  Soviet power had largely been decaying since the late Eisenhower years.  It was simply a waiting game.  Because Reagan failed to believe this I believe he damaged America and the world as a whole to speed up the process by a few years.