Long-Term Negative Consequence of the "Reagan Revolution"? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 19, 2024, 05:15:14 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Long-Term Negative Consequence of the "Reagan Revolution"? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Long-Term Negative Consequence of the "Reagan Revolution"?  (Read 7692 times)
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,903


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

« on: May 02, 2004, 03:27:35 PM »
« edited: May 02, 2004, 08:39:52 PM by TheGiantSaguaro »

I'd certainly say that we were far more divided in 1980 and 2000 (at the close of the last two Democratic President's terms) than we were in 1990. All Reagan did was fight back (against high taxes, weak military, weak foreign policy, socialism, etc.) and give a rather large percentage of the American population hope. After having been stuck with LBJ, Carter (and their policies as mentioned above), and the Nixon scandals, I would say Reagan and his strength and appeal united the country a great deal. The only way he could have divided the country in the present is if people, having realized what Reagan did for the country, do not want to go back to the days of weak military, high taxes, socialism, run-and-hide foreign policy, etc.

I mean Clinton got elected in 1992 because he (along with Perot) was successfully able to divide the country. That's how he campaigned. It's like a good old classic liberal strategy - make people angry and resentful.

Still, good article.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 11 queries.