Opinion of Ronald Reagan?

[TheReckoning]

The first President I voted for and the best in my lifetime.

His 1980 tax cuts raided the SSA trust fund while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires. Iran Contra sold weapons to our enemies, he isn't Saint😭😭😭

No he isn't, but it speaks to the (lack of) quality of presidents in our lifetimes.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were vastly better Presidents than Ronald Reagan.

What makes you so confident in that assessment, given how most independent political scientists disagree?

Because I teach history and economics and I know of the same events they do.  I believe what is going on is the right wing political scientists and historians in these surveys deliberately vote Reagan as the best President ever (or, at lowest, third best) in order to put him higher up the rankings than he would be otherwise.

Other than that, I can understand also understand some of it.  After Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, all men essentially defeated by their offices, there were, at least, arguments in academia that the office of the Presidency should be replaced in favor of the Swiss governing model.

Reagan did restore the idea of a 'strong Presidency' and he also did play a role in successfully addressing the two top issues of the day: inflation/stagflation and the Cold War.

Gorbachev deserves the credit for ending the Cold War and Reagan's brinksmanship with the Soviet Union could have ended in a much different way, but Reagan deserves the credit for recognizing that Gorbachev was genuine.  In this, Reagan had to marginalize his own cold war hawks like Richard Perle.

Beyond that though, I invite you to try to argue that Reagan's Presidency was not 'short term gain for long term pain.'

However, because of these two major accomplishments, this is why I put Ronald Reagan as the 10th best President since 1901, out of the 20 Presidents.

Even among Democrats, Reagan is ranked 14th out of 44, or just below Clinton. Independents put him at 7th. Republicans at 5th. Since there are more Democrats surveyed than Republicans, he’s overall at 9th.

Given how the Democrats on this forum think he’s pretty much Hitler, I doubt the Democrats surveyed think Reagan is some sort of a hero because of Right-wing propaganda.

[Benjamin Frank]

Yes, and the domino theory is of course why Iran is today communist. As is Honduras. And the
Caribbean.

I’m not saying Domino Theory is 100% true, but what makes you so confident that those places wouldn’t be communist if Reagan hadn’t had contributed to the stop of the spread of Communism in there respective regions?

My time travel experiment to an alternative timeline was very informative.

So you’re admitting you have no idea?

Partisan hackery like this is why America is going nowhere. You believing you know better than 99% of political scientists is no better than Republicans who do the same to Obama (well, maybe a little bit, because I can’t ignore the racism in my party).

You have no way of knowing either.  We do know though that the Domino theory in Southeast Asia was wrong.  Even Cambodia and Laos probably wouldn't have fallen to the Communists had Nixon not destabilized their governments with his illegal bombing.

[TheReckoning]

Yes, and the domino theory is of course why Iran is today communist. As is Honduras. And the
Caribbean.

I’m not saying Domino Theory is 100% true, but what makes you so confident that those places wouldn’t be communist if Reagan hadn’t had contributed to the stop of the spread of Communism in there respective regions?

My time travel experiment to an alternative timeline was very informative.

So you’re admitting you have no idea?

Partisan hackery like this is why America is going nowhere. You believing you know better than 99% of political scientists is no better than Republicans who do the same to Obama (well, maybe a little bit, because I can’t ignore the racism in my party).

You have no way of knowing either.  We do know though that the Domino theory in Southeast Asia was wrong.  Even Cambodia and Laos probably wouldn't have fallen to the Communists had Nixon not destabilized their governments with his illegal bombing.

True, but I do believe that SE Asia is different from Latin America since SEA is much more diverse, so nothing spread much in those regions.

Plus, you can’t ignore the role that neighboring China played in the spread of Communism in that region (and later, Vietnam), even if those were just one part of the equation.

[Badger]

The first President I voted for and the best in my lifetime.

His 1980 tax cuts raided the SSA trust fund while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires. Iran Contra sold weapons to our enemies, he isn't Saint😭😭😭

No he isn't, but it speaks to the (lack of) quality of presidents in our lifetimes.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were vastly better Presidents than Ronald Reagan.

What makes you so confident in that assessment, given how most independent political scientists disagree?

Because I teach history and economics and I know of the same events they do.  I believe what is going on is the right wing political scientists and historians in these surveys deliberately vote Reagan as the best President ever (or, at lowest, third best) in order to put him higher up the rankings than he would be otherwise.

Other than that, I can understand also understand some of it.  After Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, all men essentially defeated by their offices, there were, at least, arguments in academia that the office of the Presidency should be replaced in favor of the Swiss governing model.

Reagan did restore the idea of a 'strong Presidency' and he also did play a role in successfully addressing the two top issues of the day: inflation/stagflation and the Cold War.

Gorbachev deserves the credit for ending the Cold War and Reagan's brinksmanship with the Soviet Union could have ended in a much different way, but Reagan deserves the credit for recognizing that Gorbachev was genuine.  In this, Reagan had to marginalize his own cold war hawks like Richard Perle.

Beyond that though, I invite you to try to argue that Reagan's Presidency was not 'short term gain for long term pain.'

However, because of these two major accomplishments, this is why I put Ronald Reagan as the 10th best President since 1901, out of the 20 Presidents.

Let me play Devil's Advocate on that. First regarding the elimination of stagflation / inflation. Could one not argue that inflation was ground out of the economy only at the cost of absolutely brutal depression level unemployment, the highest the country had seen in over 40 years? Furthermore wasn't it also minimized by oil development in Mexico and Venezuela which help to break the OPEC Bubble Witch had been screwing Carter and Ford previously? Please recall that in one of these touted rankings by us historians that plays Greg and 11th and actually listed the presence of on various categories such as dealing with Congress, communication with the public, Etc, Reagan was ranked near the top in the category of "Luck". This is arguably exhibit a

I'll particularly dispute the Cold War mythology. Just because Reagan barely controlled The excesses of the truly dangerous Hawks in his cabinet Like Richard Perle - - widely called The Prince of Darkness in Washington for his views - - was that particularly much of an accomplishment? After all, he couldn't control Admiral Poindexter, Oliver North, etcetera from running a shadow foreign policy. It seems like not getting into a hot War of great magnitude seems to be a very low level threshold of success, and certainly doesn't speak to any of Reagan's policies actually materially contributing towards the end of the Cold War.

[Benjamin Frank]

Yes, and the domino theory is of course why Iran is today communist. As is Honduras. And the
Caribbean.

I’m not saying Domino Theory is 100% true, but what makes you so confident that those places wouldn’t be communist if Reagan hadn’t had contributed to the stop of the spread of Communism in there respective regions?

My time travel experiment to an alternative timeline was very informative.

So you’re admitting you have no idea?

Partisan hackery like this is why America is going nowhere. You believing you know better than 99% of political scientists is no better than Republicans who do the same to Obama (well, maybe a little bit, because I can’t ignore the racism in my party).

You have no way of knowing either.  We do know though that the Domino theory in Southeast Asia was wrong.  Even Cambodia and Laos probably wouldn't have fallen to the Communists had Nixon not destabilized their governments with his illegal bombing.

True, but I do believe that SE Asia is different from Latin America since SEA is much more diverse, so nothing spread much in those regions.

Plus, you can’t ignore the role that neighboring China played in the spread of Communism in that region (and later, Vietnam), even if those were just one part of the equation.

1.Central American nations have gone to war with each other not long before Reagan. The Football War between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969 is an example of that.  Central American nations are more diverse than you seem to think.

2.Reagan dropped to 13th in the latest Sienna Times College Poll of Historians and Political Scientists (down from 9th), I doubt he's ranked as high as 14th by Democrats.

[TheReckoning]

Yes, and the domino theory is of course why Iran is today communist. As is Honduras. And the
Caribbean.

I’m not saying Domino Theory is 100% true, but what makes you so confident that those places wouldn’t be communist if Reagan hadn’t had contributed to the stop of the spread of Communism in there respective regions?

My time travel experiment to an alternative timeline was very informative.

So you’re admitting you have no idea?

Partisan hackery like this is why America is going nowhere. You believing you know better than 99% of political scientists is no better than Republicans who do the same to Obama (well, maybe a little bit, because I can’t ignore the racism in my party).

You have no way of knowing either.  We do know though that the Domino theory in Southeast Asia was wrong.  Even Cambodia and Laos probably wouldn't have fallen to the Communists had Nixon not destabilized their governments with his illegal bombing.

True, but I do believe that SE Asia is different from Latin America since SEA is much more diverse, so nothing spread much in those regions.

Plus, you can’t ignore the role that neighboring China played in the spread of Communism in that region (and later, Vietnam), even if those were just one part of the equation.

1.Central American nations have gone to war with each other not long before Reagan. The Football War between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969 is an example of that.  Central American nations are more diverse than you seem to think.

2.Reagan dropped to 13th in the latest Sienna Times College Poll of Historians and Political Scientists (down from 9th), I doubt he's ranked as high as 14th by Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

These polls have varying results, but before you think the one I just linked is biased in favor of the GOP, it put Obama at 8th, and Trump in last.

[Benjamin Frank]

The first President I voted for and the best in my lifetime.

His 1980 tax cuts raided the SSA trust fund while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires. Iran Contra sold weapons to our enemies, he isn't Saint😭😭😭

No he isn't, but it speaks to the (lack of) quality of presidents in our lifetimes.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were vastly better Presidents than Ronald Reagan.

What makes you so confident in that assessment, given how most independent political scientists disagree?

Because I teach history and economics and I know of the same events they do.  I believe what is going on is the right wing political scientists and historians in these surveys deliberately vote Reagan as the best President ever (or, at lowest, third best) in order to put him higher up the rankings than he would be otherwise.

Other than that, I can understand also understand some of it.  After Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, all men essentially defeated by their offices, there were, at least, arguments in academia that the office of the Presidency should be replaced in favor of the Swiss governing model.

Reagan did restore the idea of a 'strong Presidency' and he also did play a role in successfully addressing the two top issues of the day: inflation/stagflation and the Cold War.

Gorbachev deserves the credit for ending the Cold War and Reagan's brinksmanship with the Soviet Union could have ended in a much different way, but Reagan deserves the credit for recognizing that Gorbachev was genuine.  In this, Reagan had to marginalize his own cold war hawks like Richard Perle.

Beyond that though, I invite you to try to argue that Reagan's Presidency was not 'short term gain for long term pain.'

However, because of these two major accomplishments, this is why I put Ronald Reagan as the 10th best President since 1901, out of the 20 Presidents.

Let me play Devil's Advocate on that. First regarding the elimination of stagflation / inflation. Could one not argue that inflation was ground out of the economy only at the cost of absolutely brutal depression level unemployment, the highest the country had seen in over 40 years? Furthermore wasn't it also minimized by oil development in Mexico and Venezuela which help to break the OPEC Bubble Witch had been screwing Carter and Ford previously? Please recall that in one of these touted rankings by us historians that plays Greg and 11th and actually listed the presence of on various categories such as dealing with Congress, communication with the public, Etc, Reagan was ranked near the top in the category of "Luck". This is arguably exhibit a

I'll particularly dispute the Cold War mythology. Just because Reagan barely controlled The excesses of the truly dangerous Hawks in his cabinet Like Richard Perle - - widely called The Prince of Darkness in Washington for his views - - was that particularly much of an accomplishment? After all, he couldn't control Admiral Poindexter, Oliver North, etcetera from running a shadow foreign policy. It seems like not getting into a hot War of great magnitude seems to be a very low level threshold of success, and certainly doesn't speak to any of Reagan's policies actually materially contributing towards the end of the Cold War.

1.Oil prices stabilized sometime after Reagan became President, but were still high long after the end of the recession in 1983.

https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-crude-oil-prices-table/

It was not until 1985-1986 that oil prices collapsed.

I agree with the rest
2. At the same time as Reagan allowed Paul Volcker to enact monetary policies that Reagan knew would place the economy into a deep recession and cause massive unemployment ("if not now, when?  If not us, who?"  Reagan quoted when asked about this),  Reagan simultaneously demonized people on welfare ("welfare queens in their limousines") and massively cut welfare spending.

3.As I mentioned earlier, Reagan's large government budget deficits led to the return of inflation.  By 1990, the inflation rate (CPI) had gone from 1.9% per annum in 1986 (no doubt lowered by the collapse of oil prices) to 5.4% in 1990.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA

The higher real interest rates the Federal Reserve implemented to re-fight inflation ultimately destroyed the George H.W Bush Presidency.

4.In regards to Reagan and Gorbachev.  I mean, they did reach an agreement to actually reduce the number of nuclear weapons each side had.  I think Reagan deserves credit for recognizing Gorbachev as a different type of Soviet leader and not being bound by cold war thinking.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

[TheReckoning]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

1. Because I’m right and they’re wrong.

2. Yes, and I’m right and you’re wrong.

[TheReckoning]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

1. Because I’m right and they’re wrong.

2. Yes, and I’m right and you’re wrong.

This quote could easily be from a Trump cultist after I point out no evidence of fraud.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Why was this thread even started if your just going to repeat that in an unscientific survey in the NYT of political scientists list him well if you only look at the ones who don’t identify with either major party?

I want to know your opinion on Ronald Reagan, but consider that anything but ‘awesome’ is objectively wrong.

[Red Velvet]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

The long term effects of the Washington consensus formed in late 80s and how it shaped the world are very damaging. The longer time it passes, the easier it gets to notice.

Pinochet in Chile, Thatcher in UK and Reagan in US is like the trinity of hell to many people. You can disagree about the negative effects being overstated or not, but you’re missing the point people make when you bring the “US political scientist” perspective that deliberately judges these people based on very specifically picked patterns and indicators cold data, ignoring all human subjectivity and also all the long-term effects.

So much that these “specialized” rankings usually diverge a lot from each other. They also change a lot as time passes, because you can’t take out the subjectivity aspect. If anything, the reckoning that comes from current unrest makes Reagan look worse because it all can be traced back to him. Naturally people who just want a more Keynesian capitalism back will hate him.

Even then, not all rankings are that favorable of Reagan. Siena puts him on par with Clinton and Obama, which even if they consider it decent enough, it’s far from the “greatness” associated to FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Lincoln, etc. But it’s a mistake to base yourself on these too firmly regardless of what they say. They’re mostly pointless and serve better to understand how these people tend to be remembered by specific groups.

It’s quite something to see people who identify as patriotic conservatives with angry anticapitalist discourse about corporations and elites invading the US capitol wanting to kill their neoliberal leaders. And yet they are really convinced they’re fighting against communism/socialism. That’s the biggest evidence that some major political “castration” happened in the past and they were increasingly brainwashed. And a lot of that can be traced back to Reagan, even if the effects increased slowly.

[TheReckoning]

A right-wing extremist who shared his fellow Californian Richard Nixon’s criminality and racism but with worse economic policies and a sunny affect to more effectively mask the cruelty of his policies. Responsible for so many negative developments, ushered in the stifling bipartisan conservative consensus, and paved the way for Donald Trump (the Boomer New Yorker version of Reagan). Massive HP.

Can I ask you why you think you know better than a survey of independent political scientists who ranked him 7th of all presidents?

And, did you seriously just compare Reagan to Trump? They are not even close in terms of governance.

The long term effects of the Washington consensus formed in late 80s and how it shaped the world are very damaging. The longer time it passes, the easier it gets to notice.

Pinochet in Chile, Thatcher in UK and Reagan in US is like the trinity of hell to many people. You can disagree about the negative effects being overstated or not, but you’re missing the point people make when you bring the “US political scientist” perspective that deliberately judges these people based on very specifically picked patterns and indicators cold data, ignoring all human subjectivity and also all the long-term effects.

So much that these “specialized” rankings usually diverge a lot from each other. They also change a lot as time passes, because you can’t take out the subjectivity aspect. If anything, the reckoning that comes from current unrest makes Reagan look worse because it all can be traced back to him. Naturally people who just want a more Keynesian capitalism back will hate him.

Even then, not all rankings are that favorable of Reagan. Siena puts him on par with Clinton and Obama, which even if they consider it decent enough, it’s far from the “greatness” associated to FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Lincoln, etc. But it’s a mistake to base yourself on these too firmly regardless of what they say. They’re mostly pointless and serve better to understand how these people tend to be remembered by specific groups.

It’s quite something to see people who identify as patriotic conservatives with angry anticapitalist discourse about corporations and elites invading the US capitol wanting to kill their neoliberal leaders. And yet they are really convinced they’re fighting against communism/socialism. That’s the biggest evidence that some major political “castration” happened in the past and they were increasingly brainwashed. And a lot of that can be traced back to Reagan, even if the effects increased slowly.

Trumpists aren’t conservatives- at least, them being Trumpists doesn’t have much to do with them being conservative.

If it did, why didn’t this happen for George HW Bush- Reagan’s own successor?

This can be traced back to Trump first and foremost. You could make some sort of abstract argument involving Reagan, but that would be like involving JFK because he was also a patriotic capitalist.

Reagan was someone who was ACTUALLY anti-communist. Not Trump, who has brainwashed millions into believing raising taxes in those making 400k+ will turn us into the Soviet Union.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Reagan was someone who was ACTUALLY anti-communist. Not Trump, who has brainwashed millions into believing raising taxes in those making 400k+ will turn us into the Soviet Union.

Good point, Reagan never used "communist" as a generic slur for any vaguely left-of-center domestic policy.

[TheReckoning]

Why was this thread even started if your just going to repeat that in an unscientific survey in the NYT of political scientists list him well if you only look at the ones who don’t identify with either major party?

I want to know your opinion on Ronald Reagan, but consider that anything but ‘awesome’ is objectively wrong.

TFW a study must be wrong because it doesn’t confirm your bias.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Why was this thread even started if your just going to repeat that in an unscientific survey in the NYT of political scientists list him well if you only look at the ones who don’t identify with either major party?

I want to know your opinion on Ronald Reagan, but consider that anything but ‘awesome’ is objectively wrong.

TFW a study must be wrong because it doesn’t confirm your bias.

A cutesy survey of political scientists asking them to rank the best Presidents is not a study.

Also, do you know what political scientists do? It’s not sitting around debating who the best President was.

[TheReckoning]

Why was this thread even started if your just going to repeat that in an unscientific survey in the NYT of political scientists list him well if you only look at the ones who don’t identify with either major party?

I want to know your opinion on Ronald Reagan, but consider that anything but ‘awesome’ is objectively wrong.

TFW a study must be wrong because it doesn’t confirm your bias.

A cutesy survey of political scientists asking them to rank the best Presidents is not a study.

Also, do you know what political scientists do? It’s not sitting around debating who the best President was.

So because it wasn’t tested strictly with the scientific method, it’s completely invalid?

All I’m saying is, in not a single ranking of US presidents in this millennium has Reagan not been in the top half. And I think they might know a bit more than “LVScreenssuck” on talkelecions.org.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

So because it wasn’t tested strictly with the scientific method, it’s completely invalid?

As a scientific study, yes, it would be completely invalid.

[TheReckoning]

So because it wasn’t tested strictly with the scientific method, it’s completely invalid?

As a scientific study, yes, it would be completely invalid.

But just because something wasn’t “scientifically” conducted in a technical sense, doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a basis for the views of experts.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

So because it wasn’t tested strictly with the scientific method, it’s completely invalid?

As a scientific study, yes, it would be completely invalid.

But just because something wasn’t “scientifically” conducted in a technical sense, doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a basis for the views of experts.

Yes, as a personal opinion, but you referred to those as a "study", and I am saying that a piece of nonfiction literature has to meet certain scientific standards and criteria to be referred to as a study.

[TheReckoning]

So because it wasn’t tested strictly with the scientific method, it’s completely invalid?

As a scientific study, yes, it would be completely invalid.

But just because something wasn’t “scientifically” conducted in a technical sense, doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a basis for the views of experts.

Yes, as a personal opinion, but you referred to those as a "study", and I am saying that a piece of nonfiction literature has to meet certain scientific standards and criteria to be referred to as a study.

I’d say it’s less that this poll itself was a study, but more that the answers given are reflective of the studies that Political scientists do. Actual, scientific studies.

So it still holds some fact-based merit, especially since I only included Independents- no partisans.

[Bismarck]

Massive freedom fighter. Perfect? Of course not. Just compare where America was in 1980 to where America was in 1989. He really did take us from the biggest post WW2 20th century rut to extend the golden age of America another two decades at least.

[TheReckoning]

I really don't care about the study

This is why I don’t take Democrats seriously when they say, “we’re the ones who listen to the scientists!”

[TheReckoning]

I really don't care about the study

This is why I don’t take Democrats seriously when they say, “we’re the ones who listen to the scientists!”

I don't care about it because I'm making an evaluation on *my* opinion of Ronald Reagan, you nitwit.

And “your” evaluation goes against almost all respected political scientists, so clearly something is wrong with it.

Appreciate the use of the word “nitwit” though, so take the recommendation.