How will they be remembered?

[The Duke]

Just wondering.  I believe Reagan was better, and will be remebered that way.

Reagan was a Titan.  When he took office, the Soviets were on the march everywhere.  When he left, they were on the ropes, begging us to let up the pressure.  When he took office, we were in the worst economy since the great depression.  When he left, we were in the greatest expansion in history to that time.  The change in attitudes cannot be understated.  He flat out left us a country that was totally unrecognizable from the one he inherited.

When it comes to defending Clinton, Democrats are in a tough position.  People who hate free trade are stuck defending NAFTA as an accomplishment.  The people who created Medicare are stuck defending a $270 billion cut in that program as "reform".  People who cared more about social programs than deficits are stuck defending a budget surplus as an accomplishment.  As Clinton himself once lamented, "We're Eisenhower Republicans and we're fighting with Reagan Republicans.  We're for low interest rates and the bond market, isn't that great."  Conservatives always knew Clinton wasn't one of us.  Its time for liberals to realize he is one of you either.

[Keystone Phil]

Reagan was definetley better and will be remembered that way.

[zorkpolitics]

Reagan was more suscessful in leading America to where he wanted to go.  
I think Clinton had more potential to lead, but he was unable to effectively use that leadership.
So overall Reagan will be remembered as the more succssful President

[platypeanArchcow]

When he took office, the Soviets were on the march everywhere.

Uh, no, they weren't.  They were in stagnation, hanging on with oil money.

When he left, they were on the ropes, begging us to let up the pressure.

No, they were just dying because oil prices had gone down and they poured all their money into weaponry and completely messed up the economy.

[ATFFL]

Clinton was a middle of the pack President whose greatest accomplishment was not meddling with the economy when it was going good.  His lack of achievements are more amazing considering his party had full control of congress for 2 of hs years.

Reagan won the decisive battle of the Cold War, rebuilt a stagnant economy, and changed the way the nation percieves itself.  He did this while teh Democrats had control of at least the House for his whole term.

Reagan was better and will be remembered as such.

[The Duke]

When he took office, the Soviets were on the march everywhere.

Uh, no, they weren't.  They were in stagnation, hanging on with oil money.

Am I the only one who remembers Afghanistan?  Nicaragua?  El Salvador?  Angola?  Mozambique?

When he left, they were on the ropes, begging us to let up the pressure.

No, they were just dying because oil prices had gone down and they poured all their money into weaponry and completely messed up the economy.

And why is it that they were pouring money into weaponry?  Oh, that's right, they had to keep pace with the Reagan buildup.


It seems that your whole argument is that the Soviets subsisted almost solely on oil money, and once their oil profits dropped, their whole operation arn afoul.  However, from 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power, until 1972 when the Arabs started hiking oil prices, the USSR did just fine.  After the oil crunch ended, Soviet oil profits did not disappear, they simply returned to the normal level that had been more than sufficient to keep the USSR a superpower for 55 years between 1917-1972.

[TheWildCard]

Reagan was simply one of our nations best Presidents right up there with Lincoln, Washington, Truman, FDR, and Eisenhower. Clinton will be remembered as a good President but I don't think he'll be remembered as one of the greats.

[dazzleman]

Reagan was simply one of our nations best Presidents right up there with Lincoln, Washington, Truman, FDR, and Eisenhower. Clinton will be remembered as a good President but I don't think he'll be remembered as one of the greats.

I think that Clinton will probably be remembered as an inconsequential president.  He presided over 8 good years economically and in terms of peace, but he did not really bring most of these conditions about.  And he failed to confront developing problems that would bring an end to the good times soon after he left office.

Presidents are remembered more for their effect on the future than for what conditions were when they were in office.  Things were miserable while Lincoln was president, and yet he is remembered as a great president.  Does anybody know, or care, what the economic indicators were in the 1861-65 period?

That's why Reagan wins out solidly over Clinton.  He delivered a better world as a result of his term in office.  Clinton milked the accomplishments of others, including Reagan and Bush, to bolster his own popularity, and left little for his successors.

[© tweed]

Reagan will be remembered as the better president, but, I think both were perfect for their respective eras.

The 1980's were a time of war and fear, and Reagan successfully won the Cold War.  It took a strong character to stand up to the Soviets, as Reagan did.

The 1990's were an era of good times.  Jobs boomed, the dotcom industry grew, the economy grew, etc.  Clinton was the Eisenhower of the 1990's; he governed in between two storms.  Eisenhower was in the intermission between the Nazi threat and the Communist threat; Clinton was in between the Communist threat and the Muslim Fundamentalist Threat.

[dazzleman]

Reagan will be remembered as the better president, but, I think both were perfect for their respective eras.

The 1980's were a time of war and fear, and Reagan successfully won the Cold War.  It took a strong character to stand up to the Soviets, as Reagan did.

The 1990's were an era of good times.  Jobs boomed, the dotcom industry grew, the economy grew, etc.  Clinton was the Eisenhower of the 1990's; he governed in between two storms.  Eisenhower was in the intermission between the Nazi threat and the Communist threat; Clinton was in between the Communist threat and the Muslim Fundamentalist Threat.

I think you're right about Clinton, but Eisenhower was president during the height of the communist threat.  There really was no in-between period between these two threats, though you could say that in the 1950s, the Soviets had not yet developed into a global superpower, but were more of a regional one, in Europe and Asia.

Clinton in fact was the perfect reflection of the America of the 1990s, in both a good and bad way.  He possessed strong optimism and ingenuity, and the ability to make chicken salad out of chickensh**t.  On the other hand, his self-involvement and refusal to accept any responsibility for his actions also reflected some very alarming trends in our society.

The funny is that during Reagan's term, liberals denied that there even was a communist threat.  So I guess it's progress that even some liberals will now admit that Reagan helped rid us of the Soviet threat.  Maybe they'll be hailing Bush in 20 years.  But as Konrad Adenauer (postwar West German premier) said to a political opponent, who had opposed West German alignment with the west but later admitted that Adenauer had been right about the Soviet threat, "the difference between you and me is that I was right in time."  That's the problem with liberals with respect to Reagan.  He was right in time and liberals were wrong, and the attempt by liberals to rewrite history, casting themselves as Reagan supporters, is proof that they know it.  It's too bad they can't draw the obvious conclusion that they may be wrong today too.

[© tweed]

In my mind, the Cold War went inot full force during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but you can argue it was during the Korean War.

[dazzleman]

In my mind, the Cold War went inot full force during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but you can argue it was during the Korean War.

I would actually say it went into full swing at the time of the Berlin Blockade in 1948.  The Korean War was an escalation of it, and it peaked (for the time) with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

After the scare from the missile crisis, both countries elected other means to pursue the cold war.

[platypeanArchcow]

When he took office, the Soviets were on the march everywhere.

Uh, no, they weren't.  They were in stagnation, hanging on with oil money.

Am I the only one who remembers Afghanistan?  Nicaragua?  El Salvador?  Angola?  Mozambique?

Afghanistan was a failure for the Soviets not because of any American intervention, but for the same reason it was a failure for the British in the 1870's.  The Afghans are a fiercely independent people, fighting in the mountains, where they had the military advantage.  Don't know much about the rest of these.  In any case, Afghanistan for the Soviets was a sign of weakness, not strength, already when Reagan took office.

When he left, they were on the ropes, begging us to let up the pressure.

No, they were just dying because oil prices had gone down and they poured all their money into weaponry and completely messed up the economy.

And why is it that they were pouring money into weaponry?  Oh, that's right, they had to keep pace with the Reagan buildup.


It seems that your whole argument is that the Soviets subsisted almost solely on oil money, and once their oil profits dropped, their whole operation arn afoul.  However, from 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power, until 1972 when the Arabs started hiking oil prices, the USSR did just fine.  After the oil crunch ended, Soviet oil profits did not disappear, they simply returned to the normal level that had been more than sufficient to keep the USSR a superpower for 55 years between 1917-1972.

My point is that the USSR was stagnating earlier and would have fallen apart after 60 years and not 75 if the oil money did not suddenly mushroom.  The Soviet Union was never strong enough to survive indefinitely, but it was strong enough to hang on for some time.  This is what my parents taught me, I'm not old enough to remember the USSR's fall.  We moved from Russia in 1992, and the perspective from there was that the Soviet Union was crumbling under its own weight, not the US's.

[The Duke]

Actually, the USSR beat the hell out of the Afghans, until of course the US sent stinger missiles to the Muj.  With Soviet air superiority gone, the Muj was able to fight on more equal terms and the began to chew up the Soviet conscripts who were replacing the Spetznaz (who did most of the early ground fighting).

[platypeanArchcow]

Actually, the USSR beat the hell out of the Afghans, until of course the US sent stinger missiles to the Muj.  With Soviet air superiority gone, the Muj was able to fight on more equal terms and the began to chew up the Soviet conscripts who were replacing the Spetznaz (who did most of the early ground fighting).

They didn't beat the hell out of the Afghans.  It was the Soviets' Vietnam.  But I don't have enough info to continue this debate.  Oh well.

[StevenNick]

I think this is sort of a funny poll question.  The question shouldn't be whether or not Clinton will be remembered better or worse than Reagan, the question should be whether or not Clinton will be remembered at all.

[WONK]

Of course he'll be remembered...he's one of only 2 presidents in US history TO BE IMPEACHED!!!

[Nym90]

Clinton was the better President, and will be remembered that way.

[The Duke]

Reagan is winning.

[Citizen James]

I think it's still too early to make an objective judgement.  Both had they're strong suits and weak points.

Reagan was certainly more charismatic, and had more major events happened on his watch, so that may put him a bit higher in the history books.

It is interesting to see the partisanship peek through still.  Some claiming that Reagan singlehandedly won the cold war while the economy just 'happened' to be strong under Clinton vs those who credit Clinton for phenominal economic growth and see the Soviet union as having self-destructed being the poorly run style of government that it was.

I think there is a lot more subtlety to the truth between the two extremes.

[The Duke]

Reagan seemed to have major events because he made them big.  He acted after a discoteque bombing by bombing Tripoli, whereas there was almost no reaction from Clinton when somone tried to bomb the World Trade Center.

Maybe some conservaatives thin the 1990s economy "just happenned", but I credit Newt.