The ghost of Reagan [in8sworld]

It's interesting to me how in so short a time since his presidency ended, Ronald Reagan has become a sort of paragon of conservative Republican virtue. No matter what the issue, you're likely to hear Republican candidates rhetorically musing "What would Reagan do?". As an unabashed Reagan-hater myself, it is hard for me to try to look at Reagan's presidency objectively. I blame him for hundreds of thousands of South American deaths in Guatemala and El Salvador, as well as the end of the compassionate society that defined America and the *great generation* post FDR. But, I am willing to try to try to be fair and put his actions into historical context if I can. I found Steve Sherman's article Reagan's Historical Legacy interesting. In summary, he ends with a comparison of Reagan's legacy to that of G.W. Bush:

It is frequently said that Bush shares Reagan's vision. But Marx's comment about history appearing first as tragedy, then as farce, has never seemed more apropos. Reagan rallied the wealthy classes worldwide; Bush has divided them. Reagan increased the US' power while avoiding much direct military action; Bush has mired the US in two hapless occupations. Reagan brought about a new day for US world power, albeit presiding over an order that everywhere undermined the well-being of the poor. Bush has likely hastened the departure of the US from the world stage.

I never thought that another president could make me nostalgic for the good old days of Reagan!

in8sworld

Comments

[Swiss Miss]

Clinton's foreign policy looks admirable compared to Bush's. And Clinton's foreign policy is exactly what we are going to get from Obama. Unfortunately, America is so fatigued by the Bush presidency that Obama actually looks like the candidate of change, but he's really just as status quo as his predecessors, Republican or Democrat (excluding G.W. Bush).

[Klayton Elliot Kendall]

Hey, Nate -- this is a great piece on economics that can be read in an hour. For great undergrad-level economics textbooks, I recommend McConnell and Brue's Macroeconomics and Microeconomics. Older editions can be bought cheaply.

[Friar_Tuck]

I am a little bit of a Reagan fan, although not unobjectively so. Being a Republican who is a little more progressive in last couple of years, I still have a certain fondness for some of the leadership Reagan gave. Here is a little set of analogies for ya, just for thought.

Reagan is for conservatives
what Kennedy was for democrats

some personal and policy flaws, but took on big challenges and made a number of people (especially supporters of said person) feel good about being American again.

Bush is for conservatives
what Carter was for democrats

some good ideas. decent men. but utter failures as presidents in so many ways.

[in8sworld]

AAAH! You had me with you till that last bit. I would argue that Bush has had precious few good ideas, if any, while Carter, as a nuclear scientist was very intelligent and was full of good ideas - even foretelling the energy crisis we are in today 30 years ago. I disagree entirely that Bush is a 'decent man' and he certainly not on par with Carter who could be raised to Sainthood if he wasn't a Prot, and while I agree Bush is an utter failure as a president, I think Carter's 'failures' as president are just as overblown as Reagan's historical importance.

[Klayton Elliot Kendall]

Reagan's real legacy: debt. And it's starting to crush us. Why? Because we're using borrowed money to fund war and consumerism, instead of investing in social infrastructure (like we did at home and abroad after WWII). We send our kids to Eisenhower-era schools on Eisenhower-era roads and bridges. We get our energy from Eisenhower-era power plants. Meanwhile we burn trillions of borrowed dollars on tanks, bombs, and cheap consumer goods made by Asian slave-labor. Reagan and his neo-conservative successors are to blame. The complete militarization of our indebted society can only be explained as a result of Cold War paranoia and psychosis. Joseph Stalin died 55 years ago, but we're still fighting him, at least in our minds.

[Swiss Miss]

Why Reagan really sucked, from Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class", which I highly recommend as a succinct portrayal about why we are where we are as a country.

"In 1981 Reagan introduced America to trickle-down economics [called voodoo economics by George H.W. Bush, by the way, as well as by others]." We all know about trickle-down economics.

"To institute his voodoo economics, Reagan slashed top marginal income tax rates on millionaires and billionaires from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1981 and all the way down to 28 percent by 1988[...]The result wasn't at all what Reagan expected. Rather than create income, the Reagan tax cuts dropped the United States into the greatest debt in the history of the world. Reagan turned to his conservative friend Alan Greenspan, who suggested that Reagan could hide part of the debt by borrowing a few hundred billion dollars a year from the Social Security Trust Fund. Reagan followed Greenspan's advice, which is why we have Social Security crisis today; the government borrowed all the money in the fund from 1982 to today to help cover the voodoo economics budget deficit; and now, to pay back Social Security, income taxes-which hit millionaires and billionaires (unlike Social Security FICA taxes, which are taken only on the first $90,00 of income from working people)-rose substantially.

Additionally, the rich got fabulously rich under Reagan. From 1980 to 1990, the income of the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans rose by 25 percent while the income of the bottom 40 percent stayed absolutely flat. This is why the most wealthy in America didn't use their money to build factories-after all, there wasn't a significant increase in demand, so why manufacture things that people can't afford? Instead this nation's rich loaned some of their money to the U.S. Government so it could pay the bills Reagan was running up, getting it back over the ensuing twenty years with a healthy dose of interest, paid for by future taxpayers."

During this time, manufacturing jobs started leaving America, and thus we have the situation we have now, where the middle class is in serious jeopardy. So, instead of seeing Reagan's policies for what they were and are, Bush jr. thinks we need more of the same to jump start our economy again and Republican candidates are telling us that they will be more like Reagan. I think the middle class has abandoned the illusion that Ronald Reagan still is among hard-core Republicans, and the Republicans in Congress don't understand this because they are so disconnected from the general population. As our Congress continues the slide toward corporate ownership, I don't know how bad things will get before they get better. Ronald Reagan was dumb, but no one will say it (except Christopher Hitchens, I think, said it once).

[pete]

I don't think accomplishing everything you're set out to do, and in record time no less, is a sign of stupidity. Bush jr. and Reagan are far from dumb. Well, at least the people crafting their policies aren't. Of course, the policies look dumb to the lot of us middle or lower class folks, but that's not who they were ever designed to serve. It's just easier to think "oh, they never meant any harm, they're just stupid" than to accept the reality of what's been going on.

Great Thom H. quotes, Swiss Miss, I'm a big fan too. For some conspiracy or another it seems they're taking him off the air here in Denver. He was the only host on talk radio with a brain and his ability to recall relevant and detailed history was very impressive...but that's another subject.