Is Ronald Reagan partly responsible for Donald Trump being president?

[uti2]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened today would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

[uti2]

Nah, besides the fact that the assumption Trump had not happened without the Bushes is pure speculation, there is way too much time in between. There are millions of option how events would or could have play(ed) out if you change one minor thing. It's like making Eisenhower responsible for Watergate, because he picked Nixon as his VP. Or: Watergate is JFK's fault since he selected Johnson as his running mate. Without Johnson, Kennedy had lost, Nixon would have been president 1961-69 and less paranoid, therefore no Watergate or no Carl Bernstein/Bob Woodward researching the story. I'm even skeptical on assumptions like that Gerald Ford winning 1976 would have prevented the GOP from trending to the right. It may have prevented President Reagan, but not the partisan shift towards the right.

An argument can be made that neither Perot nor Trump would've run if not for their grudges against the Bushes and their relative friendliness with the Clintons. In other words, the Bushes rubbed them the wrong way, while inoffensive Clinton-style centrism made them content with the possibility that the nature of their vicious anti-Bush campaigns would lead to a neoliberal Clinton defeating a badly damaged Bush.

[uti2]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

The Laffer Curve is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Old School Coolidge style conservatives knew that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending.

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-7-hayek-and-friedman-come-to-britain/Wayne%20Parsons%20-%20The%20Power%20of%20the%20Financial%20Press.pdf

See Page 80/149.

[uti2]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

The Laffer Curve is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Old School Coolidge style conservatives knew that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending.

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-7-hayek-and-friedman-come-to-britain/Wayne%20Parsons%20-%20The%20Power%20of%20the%20Financial%20Press.pdf

See Page 80/149.

The laffer curve was in my economic text book in college and we were taught it .


It is correct as if taxes get to high the goverment will lose revenue, and in 1981 taxes were clearly too high .

You probably read about the Ptolemaic system in an astronomy textbook too.

Reagan single-handedly transformed the US from the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation in the world within 8 years. That's why Bush called it Voodoo economics in 1980.

[uti2]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

The Laffer Curve is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Old School Coolidge style conservatives knew that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending.

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-7-hayek-and-friedman-come-to-britain/Wayne%20Parsons%20-%20The%20Power%20of%20the%20Financial%20Press.pdf

See Page 80/149.

The laffer curve was in my economic text book in college and we were taught it .


It is correct as if taxes get to high the goverment will lose revenue, and in 1981 taxes were clearly too high .

You probably read about the Ptolemaic system in an astronomy textbook too.

Reagan single-handedly transformed the US from the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation in the world within 8 years. That's why Bush called it Voodoo economics in 1980.

The Laffer curve does not say that if you keep cutting taxes you will get more revenue, all it says is if you raise it beyond a certian point the amount of revenue you receive will decrease.

The model would put the theoretical peak at 65-70%, yet it is inconsistently used to justify 25% tax rates.