I was listening to some radio station, and they kept boasting about how Reagan saved our economy, made Americans proud to be in the U.S. again, etc. Is this true? Was he a good president or not? I was born in '78, so school me….
Well, I think he did a pretty good job as President. I do think his general outlook in life and his ability to communicate did help America regain some pride in their country. We were coming off a decade when being an American didn't seem like something so great. We had Vietnam, we had Nixon's resignation. We had the gas lines and out-of-control inflation, along with high unemployment (something so unusual, they had to coin a new term for it - stagflation). Reagan did have the ability to instill a sense of optimism in a number of Americans. I think that was his greatest accomplishment as President. His success with the economy can be argued. After taking office, the Reaganites basically ran the economy into the ditch... on purpose. Inflation was out of control, and the way they handled that was to drive the country into recession. The recession did hurt a good many people, and it was a fairly deep recession (compared to the 1990 recession and the 2000 recession). But it wasn't a very long one. After emerging from the recession, the economy did go on the longest peace-time expansion to that point. A problem was that the budget deficits became very large. Now, they were coming down by the end of Reagan's term, but they shot up again with the S&L failures. So the First Bush saw what was then-record budget deficits, especially when that longest peace-time expansion (to that point) ended. And Reagan does deserve at least some credit for helping to defeat communism. There was also a lot of deregulation during Reagan's years. Some of those things helped consumers a great deal. The AT&T break-up has been a boon for customers, as has the airline deregulation, though those things, like everything in the world, have their own downsides. Some other deregulations (though none I can think of offhand) were probably less successful. Of course, a lot of people missed out on the expansion of the 1980s. Factory jobs continued to go overseas. Texans were hurt deeply by the collapse of oil prices and pretty well missed the whole 1980s expansion. In the end, I think the goods outweighed the bads. And I do think the country would be worse off we continued the Carter policies beyond 1980. Yes, the 1982 recession was bad, but it was likely necessary to stop inflation that really was completely out of control (something that hasn't been a problem since), etc. Personally, I think Reagan often gets too much credit from those of like mind. And I think those who oppose Reagan give him too little credit. The truth is, as always, somewhere in between.
Man, I was voting for President 6 years before you were born. I think he was a lousy president. He, what, tripled the national debt?? But compared to G. W. Bush, he was a ****ing genius. I could say a lot more, but I'll leave that to others from both sides. I will say that, before he was elected, I told my wife that we should move to New Zealand if he won. I was serious. She was afraid to make such a radical change. So here we are... in Austin.
I kind of agree with Deckard. If you were a college student at the time, without rich parents, it sucked. Lots of kids had to leave college because Reagan gutted school loan programs. The economic divide increased pretty remarkably during his presidency. And in urban areas, homelessness went way up, especially the "nutso" homeless population of people who'd been in government-funded care facilities and group homes before he cut that funding also. What was great about him, though, was just his big persona and the confidence and congeniality he exuded. A lot of people just loved having him as a leader -- it's an ineffible sort of thing. But I respect that. I also respect that I think (like GWB) he had principles and good intentions. It seems like Americans like leaders who use comic-book diction: "evil empire," "evil doers," "axis of evil." I just more often than not disagreed with Reagan's policies, in the end.
Well, I wasn't really aware of what was going on outside of cartoons in the 80's. I do think he is given too much credit in the sense that I think powerful Republicans really want to put this guy on the same pedestal of the founding fathers. Didn't people try and get Reagan put on Mt. Rushmore? They changed the name of Washington Airport to Reagan. I think it's a result of Dems having a prez like FDR in the 20th century and the Republicans in the White House before Reagan were Nixon and Ford. People need heroes.
The historian Howard Zinn has written that Reagan may well have extended the cold war. The Soviet economy was in shambles already in 1980. The bluster and sword-rattling arguably pushed them further into a militaristic shell. I'm not saying I agree, but "People's History of the United States" is a pretty fascinating, and well-documented read.
Sure. For 50 years we were neck and neck with them, and then all of a sudden they dropped the ball. Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that after 50 years of appeasement and retreat, largely by Democratic Presidents, a Republican President finally standing firm and going on the offensive against global Communism - I mean, it just couldn't have anything to do with that? I mean, It just couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that by increasing defense spending ans touting SDI Reagan forced them to spend inordinate amounts of their money to counter it? I mean, that couldn't have helped to break the Soviet bank, could it? And it couldn't have had anything to do with his support for Polish olidarity, which eventually brought down the Iron Curtain, or his challenge at Reykjavik, could it? Nah, the Soviets did it all on their own. It simply amazes me how liberals will attempt to steal credit from Reagan for winning the Cold War. Did he do it all by himself? No, of course not. Was he more responsible for the fall than anyone else? That is very difficult to argue against when considering the facts. What sickens liberals so much about Reagan is the same thing that sickens so many about Bush: he believed that the US was in a struggle against evil, and that it must win the fight if the world was to survive. It just makes people sick that he failed to retreat like his predecessors did.
I heard something about the Russians' missles that they would parade out were mostly hollow wooden fakes. Was that for the purpose of the parade, was it because they couldn't keep up with Reagan spending wise, or was it something that happened even before Reagan?
Reagan was a useless old hag, who had no business being president. He should have stayed an actor. Instead he spent this country stupid. What a f*cking waste of money.
and yet you pretend to be an independent. Was he more responsible than any ONE else? I guess an argument can be made, although reasonable minds will differ. Was he more responsible than any THING else? more responsible than the decrepit soviet system collapsing its economy on itself? Probably not. But anyway, I have a problem with assigning responsibility to one man for large scale global events that have long term causes and effects. If you want to assign responsibility for global events, I guess we can thank Reagan for arming the mujahaddin and Saddam, and you know where it goes from there. Take the bad with the good, you know.
I have to agree that the Soviet Union was doomed to fail. Has anyone ever bought anything made in the USSR, nuff said.
Thank God for treeman. If it wasn't for him, we'd all forget that we have no right to consider an alternative view of history. B-bob, how dare you throw out one historian's view as an alternative? Sure, it seems like you were just throwing it out there for consideration, but all level headed people know that that was a clear attack on the legacy of a great man. If I knew who you really were, I'd call the Thought Police on you, you unpatriotic b*stard. . .
treeman, can you make a post without the "roll-eyes" thingy? It gets old. I prefer the rare "insert roll-eyes here" myself. Oh, and "insert roll-eyes here" regarding your "50 years of appeasement and retreat" from Democratic Presidents. I don't buy it.
This coming from the military history scholar who thought we dropped 3 nuclear bombs in WWII. This reminds me of the brilliant Quanell X quote: "If a cat has kittens in the oven, then they ain't biscuits!" Truly inspirational.
