Lefties Only: Ronald Reagan vs. George W. Bush

[RaphaelDLG]

Only vote if you are a Democrat, Green, Socialist, or left-leaning/tilting independent.

Both were horrible Presidents IMO. 

Ronald Reagan was a pretty bad President (even worse when he, after Jim Baker left, had the extremely incompetent Donald T. Regan run the country for him while he watched movies, took naps, and went to bed early), pretty bad domestically and only seems okay because of the reality of the strongly Democratic congress, and overrated internationally.

But unfortunately with what we've had to work with throughout history he's not at the absolute bottom of the barrel. 

The real insidious part of Ronald Reagan was how successful he was at evangelizing for laissez-faire economics/boneheaded trickle-down/ayn randian greed/the idea that government is this big boogeyman other that can never do anything right that you should demonize rather than take democratic ownership of/try to make better.

His pernicious ideology took deep root in the American psyche.

George W. Bush was a complete disaster and incompetent boob in basically every way, a very intellectually lazy man who delegated authority to idiots, war criminals, and war profiteers. 

Obviously, he started an illegal war that destabilized the middle east, maimed and killed our boys (not to mention hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians), wasted trillions of dollars, ruined our international prestige and stained our honor, and helped give rise to isis.

He added to our bloated entitlements with a cynically pandering sweetheart deal for the drug companies, ran up gigantic deficits with his giveaways for the rich, greatly accelerated the deregulation that began under Clinton that resulted in a historically devastating economic crash that destroyed lives and livelihoods.

I narrowly tilt Bush even though I think Reagan was more negatively influential on the trajectory of this country, just because his 8 years were so breathtakingly devastating.

Anybody disagree or have anything to add?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dubya is one of the worst Presidents of all time. He made America worse in every respect. Reagan did a lot of damage (especially when you factor in the long term), but not nearly as much.

[Intell]

Dubya is one of the worst Presidents of all time. He made America worse in every respect. Reagan did a lot of damage (especially when you factor in the long term), but not nearly as much.

Reagan economic policies, were pretty horrible and continued on through the Clinton and Bush administration, but by then not much could be added to such economic policies and the continuation of reaganomics.

[NeverAgain]

Lean Reagan. I hold Iran-Contra and the idiotic Reagan Tax Cuts and the stunting of the economic growth that could have been are things I feel strongly about. But an unconstitutional war, less, but still awful tax cuts, and turning a planned debt payoff by the early 2010's to the possibility we will never do so.

On the personal front, I think Reagan would probably be better to talk to (more intelligent). Bush would be just a quick meaningless chat.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dubya is one of the worst Presidents of all time. He made America worse in every respect. Reagan did a lot of damage (especially when you factor in the long term), but not nearly as much.

Reagan economic policies, were pretty horrible and continued on through the Clinton and Bush administration, but by then not much could be added to such economic policies and the continuation of reaganomics.

I agree. But Dubya pushed Reaganomics even further with his massive tax giveaway for the wealthy, in addition to all the destruction and death he caused in the Middle East for no good reason, squandering Clinton's surplus (deficit spending isn't a problem in itself, but it is when deficit is caused by immoral policies and then blamed on good policies), and generally leading one of the most corrupt and cronyistic administrations in history (I'm amazed how everybody always forget that part).

[Mr. Smith]

Congratulations, you actually got me to support Reagan in something.


Reagan at least actually bothered to sit down and actually talk with Gorbachev, and he never would've allowed a big "Eff the UN" sort of thought to occur.

Also George H.W. Bush was a much better choice than Cheney.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Congratulations, you actually got me to support Reagan in something.


Reagan at least actually bothered to sit down and actually talk with Gorbachev, and he never would've allowed a big "Eff the UN" sort of thought to occur.

Also George H.W. Bush was a much better choice than Cheney.

This.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

As Antonio said, Reagan did far less irreversible damage and made far fewer blunders, especially in foreign policy.

[President Johnson]

Dubya. He's more moderate on domestic affairs.

[Mr. Illini]

This one sent my head spinning.

[Maxwell]

W. Bush, if only because people recognized how awful his policies were. Reagan's policies were largely just as bad, but because he so damn folksy, people let it go.

[Lyin' Steve]

Reagan was a significant figure in ending the Soviet Union, achieved 7% economic growth three of his last four years in office, had a reasonable relationship with Congress and was able to provide leadership in an unparalleled fashion.  So much better than Bush.

The War on Drugs gets a bad rap today but I don't think anyone wants to go back to the crack epidimic of the 80s.

The three major knocks on the Reagan administration are his lack of response to the AIDS epidimic, Iran Air Flight 655 (largely forgotten today), and Iran-Contra. 

[Illiniwek]

Dubya as a person and domestic policy. Reagan for national security and foreign policy.