Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because of some discussion on the "Worst Presidents thread" I thought maybe we ought to have a place to discuss Reagan directly.
Where does Ronald Reagan belong as a President? My own personal assessment is that he is neither among the best or the worst of the men who have served as President of the United States. Like so many people and events, there are complexities to Ronald Reagan that make his historical reputation difficult to pin down.
He was not particularly well educated. Nor, do many of his speeches lead one to believe he possessed high intelligence. Yet, at the same time calling him "dumb" or "ignorant" is also a great exaggeration. Reagan's reputation as a B grade movie actor caused many to look at him as a character in one of his movies. The correct background to view Reagan in was when he served as President of the Screen Actors Guild. This took "street smarts" and a certain savvy.
There were two major accomplishments of the Reagan Presidency. I will attempt to analyze both a little.
1. Ending the economic recession of late 70's and early 80's. America dove into a deep economic recession (one that rivals our current one) during the last years of the Carter Presidency. This recession was not only typified by high unemployment. We also experienced some very unusual at the same time--record high inflation. The Federal Reserve must be given some credit for ending the inflation that occurred. They raised interest rates to record high levels and that caused the recession to become particularly deep. Reagan's policies though of lowering taxes undoubtedly contributed to the economic recovery that took place. The country recovered relatively rapidly from high unemployment that occurred. Although, the Reagan Presidency seems to mark the beginning of huge structural budget deficits in the American economy. In the final analysis, the economy did recover from the recession and the Reagan Administration deserves some of the credit for it.
2. Ending the Cold War. An objective student of history would have to say that the Cold War would have eventually ended on its own. By the 1970's the Soviet economy was staggering under the wait of mismanagement. The country could never compete with foreign countries in terms of exports. The Soviets could only run a space program by giving it the very best of everything that existed in the country. Even so, their space program was inferior to the USA's space program. However, none of this changes the fact that Reagan's policies helped bring an end to the Cold War and helped lead to the downfall of the USSR. Massive defense spending that occurred during the Reagan Presidency sent a clear message to the Soviets that they would have to make an intense struggle to maintain any parity with the USA. Eventually, this proved too much and Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, realized that and sought to make peace with the US.
These are two real accomplishments and even a solid democrat like myself recognizes them. I give credit to President Reagan where it is due, but also ask that credit be given the other people who played a role in these achievements.
There is a third accomplishment though that is more psychological than real. America was hurting when Reagan took office in 1980. We had been through the hostage crisis in Iran. We had suffered high inflation and high unemployment. Some doubted whether our institutions were capable of solving the seemingly vast problems we had as a country. Reagan, through a certain odd charisma reassured many people. Improvements in the economy virtually guaranteed his reelection in 1984. He was given the label "Great Communicator" and while I never agreed with it, many people did. I now think those people were right and there was something I just could not see.
On the negative side, the Iran/Contra Scandal occurred while Reagan was President. This scandal was not an example of a corrupt or evil President. The problem that the scandal exemplified had more to do with the fact that Reagan became more and more out-of-touch with what was going on around him by about 1986. He was just starting to experience early onset Alzheimer's Disease. However, he was not in control at this point and almost no one in the country really understood what was occurring. Ideally, Reagan's term in office would have ended by 1986. However, it didn't and in the last two years of his presidency there were legitimate concerns over whether a man in his condition should serve in the highest office in the land. Most of this was kept from the public and I regard it as a disservice.
Its overlooked now, but virtually no President before or after had Ronald Reagan's ability to make verbal gaffes. Some were silly. Others were downright dangerous. One day, the during the very height of the Cold War, he made a joke about bombing the Soviet Union. Another time, he shocked a segment of the public by saying that nuclear missiles "could be recalled" after they were fired.
The Reagan Presidency marked a period where the distribution of income in this country became ever more lopsided. Reagan tax policies greatly favored the wealthy. The number of people calling themselves millionaires greatly increased. Unemployment was 10% at one point in the Reagan Presidency (before it declined).
All in all, Reagan was a mixed bag. He is neither the "saint" nor the "sinner" that many make him out to be. I would rank him somewhere between 15 and 20 in terms of "America's best Presidents". He is also a polarizing figure. Therefore, it won't surprise me if my post receives criticism from those on both ends of the political spectrum.
President Reagan's record is one of achievements and mistakes, along with arguments about whether certain things were actually achievements or mistakes. His administration was spared any dramatic singular issue by which his terms in office could be defined.
What Reagan was spectacularlly successful at was the ability to make people feel a certain way about themselves and their nation. Reagan brought a new legitimacy to old values, ones which had been buried during the protesting '60's and self absorbed '70's. He made conservatives feel that they counted, that this was once more their country as well, that they had not been permanently replaced.
It is ironic, although actually a cyclical thing, that the previous years of domination by the left had made Reagan's feel good conservatism possible. Two huge issues which defined the gulf between liberals and conservatives, Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, were solved, they were no longer on the table and thus the two biggest things with which the left had been tarring the right, were not around to make for impossible disharmony. Had Reagan been in a position of having to try and hold the line against Civil Rights, or defend the continuation of the Vietnam War, his great cross party/sectional appeal would not have been possible.
Thus Reagan was free to concentrate on making people feel good about America without any great polarizing issues to disrupt whatever illusions we wished to form. Reagan's greatest strength was his talent for reshaping emotions and he was fortunate to come into office right at a time when such a thing was possible and considered a great need.
It seems futile to debate Reagan on the level of accomplishments/failures because such things were always secondary to his prime mission..reversing the cynical dynamic which had set in following the defeat in Vietnam, the Watergate crisis and the shock of America being bullied by a second rate nation like Iran.
In terms of that prime goal, Reagan was a huge success, he completely altered the emotional atmosphere and that is what people remember about his time in office...how good he made them feel. The most well informed and reasoned essay on Reagan's economic voo doo, his inability to grasp policy details, or a narrative of the Iran-Contra scandal, are not going to have any impact on those feel good memories.
President Reagan's record is one of achievements and mistakes, along with arguments about whether certain things were actually achievements or mistakes. His administration was spared any dramatic singular issue by which his terms in office could be defined.
What Reagan was spectacularlly successful at was the ability to make people feel a certain way about themselves and their nation. Reagan brought a new legitimacy to old values, ones which had been buried during the protesting '60's and self absorbed '70's. He made conservatives feel that they counted, that this was once more their country as well, that they had not been permanently replaced.
It is ironic, although actually a cyclical thing, that the previous years of domination by the left had made Reagan's feel good conservatism possible. Two huge issues which defined the gulf between liberals and conservatives, Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, were solved, they were no longer on the table and thus the two biggest things with which the left had been tarring the right, were not around to make for impossible disharmony. Had Reagan been in a position of having to try and hold the line against Civil Rights, or defend the continuation of the Vietnam War, his great cross party/sectional appeal would not have been possible.
Thus Reagan was free to concentrate on making people feel good about America without any great polarizing issues to disrupt whatever illusions we wished to form. Reagan's greatest strength was his talent for reshaping emotions and he was fortunate to come into office right at a time when such a thing was possible and considered a great need.
It seems futile to debate Reagan on the level of accomplishments/failures because such things were always secondary to his prime mission..reversing the cynical dynamic which had set in following the defeat in Vietnam, the Watergate crisis and the shock of America being bullied by a second rate nation like Iran.
In terms of that prime goal, Reagan was a huge success, he completely altered the emotional atmosphere and that is what people remember about his time in office...how good he made them feel. The most well informed and reasoned essay on Reagan's economic voo doo, his inability to grasp policy details, or a narrative of the Iran-Contra scandal, are not going to have any impact on those feel good memories.
Actually, this is a good summary. Rep for you, my friend.
President Reagan's record is one of achievements and mistakes, along with arguments about whether certain things were actually achievements or mistakes. His administration was spared any dramatic singular issue by which his terms in office could be defined.
What Reagan was spectacularlly successful at was the ability to make people feel a certain way about themselves and their nation. Reagan brought a new legitimacy to old values, ones which had been buried during the protesting '60's and self absorbed '70's. He made conservatives feel that they counted, that this was once more their country as well, that they had not been permanently replaced.
It is ironic, although actually a cyclical thing, that the previous years of domination by the left had made Reagan's feel good conservatism possible. Two huge issues which defined the gulf between liberals and conservatives, Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, were solved, they were no longer on the table and thus the two biggest things with which the left had been tarring the right, were not around to make for impossible disharmony. Had Reagan been in a position of having to try and hold the line against Civil Rights, or defend the continuation of the Vietnam War, his great cross party/sectional appeal would not have been possible.
Thus Reagan was free to concentrate on making people feel good about America without any great polarizing issues to disrupt whatever illusions we wished to form. Reagan's greatest strength was his talent for reshaping emotions and he was fortunate to come into office right at a time when such a thing was possible and considered a great need.
It seems futile to debate Reagan on the level of accomplishments/failures because such things were always secondary to his prime mission..reversing the cynical dynamic which had set in following the defeat in Vietnam, the Watergate crisis and the shock of America being bullied by a second rate nation like Iran.
In terms of that prime goal, Reagan was a huge success, he completely altered the emotional atmosphere and that is what people remember about his time in office...how good he made them feel. The most well informed and reasoned essay on Reagan's economic voo doo, his inability to grasp policy details, or a narrative of the Iran-Contra scandal, are not going to have any impact on those feel good memories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Actually, this is a good summary. Rep for you, my friend.
I agree with cpg, very well written piece by Grandstander. I need to spread my reps a little, but you have one in spirit.
Because of some discussion on the "Worst Presidents thread" I thought maybe we ought to have a place to discuss Reagan directly.
Where does Ronald Reagan belong as a President? My own personal assessment is that he is neither among the best or the worst of the men who have served as President of the United States. Like so many people and events, there are complexities to Ronald Reagan that make his historical reputation difficult to pin down.
He was not particularly well educated. Nor, do many of his speeches lead one to believe he possessed high intelligence. Yet, at the same time calling him "dumb" or "ignorant" is also a great exaggeration. Reagan's reputation as a B grade movie actor caused many to look at him as a character in one of his movies. The correct background to view Reagan in was when he served as President of the Screen Actors Guild. This took "street smarts" and a certain savvy.
There were two major accomplishments of the Reagan Presidency. I will attempt to analyze both a little.
1. Ending the economic recession of late 70's and early 80's. America dove into a deep economic recession (one that rivals our current one) during the last years of the Carter Presidency. This recession was not only typified by high unemployment. We also experienced some very unusual at the same time--record high inflation. The Federal Reserve must be given some credit for ending the inflation that occurred. They raised interest rates to record high levels and that caused the recession to become particularly deep. Reagan's policies though of lowering taxes undoubtedly contributed to the economic recovery that took place. The country recovered relatively rapidly from high unemployment that occurred. Although, the Reagan Presidency seems to mark the beginning of huge structural budget deficits in the American economy. In the final analysis, the economy did recover from the recession and the Reagan Administration deserves some of the credit for it.
2. Ending the Cold War. An objective student of history would have to say that the Cold War would have eventually ended on its own. By the 1970's the Soviet economy was staggering under the wait of mismanagement. The country could never compete with foreign countries in terms of exports. The Soviets could only run a space program by giving it the very best of everything that existed in the country. Even so, their space program was inferior to the USA's space program. However, none of this changes the fact that Reagan's policies helped bring an end to the Cold War and helped lead to the downfall of the USSR. Massive defense spending that occurred during the Reagan Presidency sent a clear message to the Soviets that they would have to make an intense struggle to maintain any parity with the USA. Eventually, this proved too much and Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, realized that and sought to make peace with the US.
These are two real accomplishments and even a solid democrat like myself recognizes them. I give credit to President Reagan where it is due, but also ask that credit be given the other people who played a role in these achievements.
There is a third accomplishment though that is more psychological than real. America was hurting when Reagan took office in 1980. We had been through the hostage crisis in Iran. We had suffered high inflation and high unemployment. Some doubted whether our institutions were capable of solving the seemingly vast problems we had as a country. Reagan, through a certain odd charisma reassured many people. Improvements in the economy virtually guaranteed his reelection in 1984. He was given the label "Great Communicator" and while I never agreed with it, many people did. I now think those people were right and there was something I just could not see.
On the negative side, the Iran/Contra Scandal occurred while Reagan was President. This scandal was not an example of a corrupt or evil President. The problem that the scandal exemplified had more to do with the fact that Reagan became more and more out-of-touch with what was going on around him by about 1986. He was just starting to experience early onset Alzheimer's Disease. However, he was not in control at this point and almost no one in the country really understood what was occurring. Ideally, Reagan's term in office would have ended by 1986. However, it didn't and in the last two years of his presidency there were legitimate concerns over whether a man in his condition should serve in the highest office in the land. Most of this was kept from the public and I regard it as a disservice.
Its overlooked now, but virtually no President before or after had Ronald Reagan's ability to make verbal gaffes. Some were silly. Others were downright dangerous. One day, the during the very height of the Cold War, he made a joke about bombing the Soviet Union. Another time, he shocked a segment of the public by saying that nuclear missiles "could be recalled" after they were fired.
The Reagan Presidency marked a period where the distribution of income in this country became ever more lopsided. Reagan tax policies greatly favored the wealthy. The number of people calling themselves millionaires greatly increased. Unemployment was 10% at one point in the Reagan Presidency (before it declined).
All in all, Reagan was a mixed bag. He is neither the "saint" nor the "sinner" that many make him out to be. I would rank him somewhere between 15 and 20 in terms of "America's best Presidents". He is also a polarizing figure. Therefore, it won't surprise me if my post receives criticism from those on both ends of the political spectrum.
For the most part, what you are saying has a lot of merit. I think most historians are putting him closer to the 0 to 15 best catagories, but none of us will ever totally agree on this. It is still a matter of opinion.
Yes, you have hit his strengths on the button. About the only negative I can think of was the Iran/Contra disaster and the signing of the amnesty bill. I will add, he later regretted signing it, but by then it was too late.
As for the alzhiemers, yes, there were signs, but no one recognized them at that time. I don't think it did any damage, though I think it is now obvious he was failing.
As well as the positives you point out, I will always maintain, he brought respect and patriotism back to our country. Something that had all but disappeared with the Nam war, the hippy generation, the Watergate scandal and total failure of Carter.
You mention intelligence, I do not think that has one thing to do with the success or failure of a Pres. Look at Carter, always thought to be one of our most intelligent Pres. What makes a Pres great or successful has more to do with his/her ability to work with the houses and to communicate wiht the people. Reagan did both very well.
President Reagan's record is one of achievements and mistakes, along with arguments about whether certain things were actually achievements or mistakes. His administration was spared any dramatic singular issue by which his terms in office could be defined.
What Reagan was spectacularlly successful at was the ability to make people feel a certain way about themselves and their nation. Reagan brought a new legitimacy to old values, ones which had been buried during the protesting '60's and self absorbed '70's. He made conservatives feel that they counted, that this was once more their country as well, that they had not been permanently replaced.
It is ironic, although actually a cyclical thing, that the previous years of domination by the left had made Reagan's feel good conservatism possible. Two huge issues which defined the gulf between liberals and conservatives, Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, were solved, they were no longer on the table and thus the two biggest things with which the left had been tarring the right, were not around to make for impossible disharmony. Had Reagan been in a position of having to try and hold the line against Civil Rights, or defend the continuation of the Vietnam War, his great cross party/sectional appeal would not have been possible.
Thus Reagan was free to concentrate on making people feel good about America without any great polarizing issues to disrupt whatever illusions we wished to form. Reagan's greatest strength was his talent for reshaping emotions and he was fortunate to come into office right at a time when such a thing was possible and considered a great need.
It seems futile to debate Reagan on the level of accomplishments/failures because such things were always secondary to his prime mission..reversing the cynical dynamic which had set in following the defeat in Vietnam, the Watergate crisis and the shock of America being bullied by a second rate nation like Iran.
In terms of that prime goal, Reagan was a huge success, he completely altered the emotional atmosphere and that is what people remember about his time in office...how good he made them feel. The most well informed and reasoned essay on Reagan's economic voo doo, his inability to grasp policy details, or a narrative of the Iran-Contra scandal, are not going to have any impact on those feel good memories.
and I too well remember the night after the election when the so called experts were predicting he would be judge, by historians, in the future, as more like a joke than a Pres. Wonder if any of them ever ate their words and how they tasted?
Let me say that from a historical perspective, Reagan merits being included in any list of important and politically influential Presidents.
Now let me deal with the mythology.
Quote:
1. Ending the economic recession of late 70's and early 80's.
The recession of 1973-1975 was the result of OPEC's oil embargo and a major correction in the stock market. Reagan nor any other policy maker had any effect on the recovery.
Credit for ending inflation and as a result causing the subsequent recession goes solely to the Federal Reserve and George Volker in particular. Ending the recession was both a structural function of the Fed's reversal of the monetary policy that is used to end the inflationary pressures. Credit is due to Reagan for jump starting the economy by - dare I say it - pursuing classical Keysian economics, cutting taxes and raising spending.
Which brings us to...
Quote:
2. Ending the Cold War.
Absolute nonsense. How Reagan gets credit for something that NO ONE in the United States government even saw coming is amazing, and rather insulting to the policies of Mikail Gorbachev and those who developed the democratic movements that swept through the Warsaw nations as a result of those policies.
This reasoning is flawed in fundamental respects. It both greatly overstates the importance of Reagan's "toughness" in bringing the Soviets to their knees and downplays the truly historic departure of new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev from his predecessors. Three key weaknesses in the narrative stand out.
Jonathan WeilerProfessor, Global Studies, UNC Chapel Hill
It is ironic, although actually a cyclical thing, that the previous years of domination by the left had made Reagan's feel good conservatism possible. Two huge issues which defined the gulf between liberals and conservatives, Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, were solved, they were no longer on the table and thus the two biggest things with which the left had been tarring the right, were not around to make for impossible disharmony. Had Reagan been in a position of having to try and hold the line against Civil Rights, or defend the continuation of the Vietnam War, his great cross party/sectional appeal would not have been possible.
First of all I'd like to thank 'catto for criticizing the OP's treatment of the statements s/he made about Reagan's role in ending the Cold War. That's far too simplistic of a statement to make that confuses lots of history and is really meaningless in itself.
As for Grandstander's fine post, I agree that he did make folks feel better (and I mean that esoterically because "feelings" on a mass scale cannot be measured in any real way). I myself remember of thinking of Reagan as my grandfather or as grandfatherly.
That being said, one of the many faults of Reagan--but really may be a fault of the people around Reagan--was his treatment of the memory of the Vietnam War (I'm going to ignore your statement about the Civil Rights Movement for now).
Reagan, or at least his people around him, did a great deal of mythologizing the Vietnam War and its impact on the American people and its legacy in American history. So that's the first outright military conflict that Americans truly lost (I know you can say the War of 1812, or Korea was a stalemate, and of course the South [Americans] certainly lost the military side of the Civil War). That has psychological effect and contributed to the overall American malaise of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
What Reagan and his people did was rewrite the history of this awful chapter in American history. Reagan's version of the war was that 1) it was lost on the homefront, meaning a) American policy makers went to war with kid gloves on, and b) the antiwar movement splintered Americans and caused policymakers to doubt the overall mission. The next major thesis of Reagan and his political cronies on the Vietnam War was 2) that the overall mission by Americans in Vietnam was essentially just--that Vietnam was a just war and was fought on just terms.
This totally confuses the actual history of that needless conflict and it minimizes the American role in fomenting to near genocidal proportions the vast destruction of the people of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (and destabilized the region to the point of enabling the pol pot regime to emerge in the concomitant power vacuum created by a failed U.S. endeavor).
Should it be remembered that Americans killed some 2 million Vietnamese from roughly the mid 1950s to 1973? Reagan and his cronies would want Americans to forget this saga of American warmongering. No, they say, the cause was just and was fought in a just manner, and only lost because of feeble-minded politicians and bureaucrats taking more cues from the antiwar demonstrators than the top military brass.
Fact is, Americans expended an awful lot of firepower in Vietnam. The casualty count alone warrants critical reflection on this war rather than Reagan's P-R spin. The war was not fought justly.
To see if the war was indeed a just cause should have the serious student of the war to critically examine the origins of the conflict. Ho Chi Minh was an American sympathizer and even emulated so-called American heroes like Jefferson and Washington because at his basic level, Ho was a popular anticolonial leader just like American founders. Yet Washington confused Ho's radicalism as Soviet inspired when the Soviets probably could have cared less about him.
U.S. Cold War policy throughout the 1950s and 1960s emphasized self-determination, except when those people in developing countries determined that they wanted a Leftist or socialistic country. That's when the U.S. blocked a treaty-mandated unification vote because they knew Vietnam would be unified under Ho. The U.S. then created the "nation" of South Vietnam and propped it up with fanatical dictators like Diem. The quick succession of South Vietnamese leaders from the early 1960s to the early 1970s will tell any serious student of history that this was indeed no real "nation."
The sad truth of the matter is that the U.S. should have had no interest in Vietnam except as one of aid and support. Yet Cold War ideology blocked that option and too many people on the left and right in the United States opted for a strong interventionists approach lest another domino should fall.
Americans in the 1970s and 1980s needed critical reflection on this failed foreign policy from the past, but instead got from Reagan and his ilk a sturdy unreflective and uncritical mythmaking about the Vietnam War. Americans were told that they had to secure orders to shoot or engage the enemy while nothing could have been further from the truth. Americans were told that returning GIs were spat upon after disembarking from troop ships or aircraft when no recorded event of this exists in the historical records (just like the feminists supposedly burning bras). Actually, a great number of returning servicemen came from Vietnam to heroes' welcomes by whole communities, and this occurred late in the war.
Reagan and his people, namely Podhoretz, crafted this image of America losing a war at home when there was simply nothing to win in Vietnam. The measure for victory was simply too much for any military power to handle--to nation-build where no nation existed. South Vietnam was not a nation and was not in the mold of Korea who had its Singman Rhee, a popular leader who rallied the South Koreans.
For those interested, I'd suggest reading quite a few books on the subjects, namely Bernd Griener's War Without Fronts, which thoroughly dispels the Reagan-era myths without mentioning Reagan or the mythmakers by name. On the contrary, Griener dispels the myths by using U.S. Army records.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
