|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 17, 2021, 11:52:47 AM
News: Chaos in the capitol: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=422360

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderators: TexasGurl, Associate Justice PiT)
  Opinion of Ronald Reagan?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
FF
 
#2
HP
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 149

Author Topic: Opinion of Ronald Reagan?  (Read 2737 times)
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,002
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: January 13, 2021, 09:15:09 PM »
« edited: January 13, 2021, 09:23:24 PM by MT Treasurer »

One who understood that politics essentially boils down to theatrics and branding. His astonishing success in the realm of political image-making (which notably has lasted well beyond his presidency) is one of the greatest marketing wonders in American history, especially given the Iran-Contra episode, the long list of broken promises which fly in the face of the pompous rhetoric (particularly to social conservatives/the Religious Right, groups he and his successors used as props), and the divisive rhetoric ("They act like Tarzan, look like Jane, and smell like Cheetah", etc.). Probably the one president who comes as close to the fabled 'Trump with a brain and actual political shrewdness' as you can realistically get. A masterful manipulator (especially in reading and playing his audience) and rhetorician, but the fact that he didnít sink under the weight of his rhetoric is the real story of his presidency/legacy.



e: I highly recommend this gem, youíll see why itís really amusing (and illuminating):

Billing, William C. "Reagan in Youngstown." The Ripon Forum, vol. 40, no. 5, Oct - Nov 2006.

https://riponsociety.org/article/reagan-in-youngstown/
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,130


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: January 13, 2021, 09:53:12 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they arenít as objective as they think.

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say thatís simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah thatís... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

Eh, those were still great times of massive prosperity compared to what we're dealing with now.

In 2008, everyone I knew was doing fine (at least economically). Myself and my whole family has been devasted by this 2020-2021 great depression though.


The long term impacts of 2008 were worse , and unemployment currently is at Jan 2014 levels .

Heck on Election Day 49% of Americans thought the economy was good while that number was 36% in 2016
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,122
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: January 13, 2021, 10:05:46 PM »

FF and much better President than everyone since.
Logged
MarkD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,812
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: January 14, 2021, 10:41:35 AM »

I used to think of RR as FF, but I don't think that way anymore.

First of all, I disapprove of the fact that he vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which was good legislation, and RR's argument against it, as well as Pat Robertson's, was BS.

Secondly, I eventually realized what a hypocrite RR was regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In 1987, when Reagan announced he was appointing Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, he said that Bork "shares my view that judges' personal perferences and values should not be part of their constitutional interpretations. The guiding principle of judicial restraint recognizes that under the Constitution it is the exclusive province of the legislatures to enact laws and the role of the courts to interpret them." But more than a dozen years later, all of Reagan's successful appointees to the Court -- Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and William Rehnquist (elevated by Reagan to be Chief Justice) -- joined in together to perpetrate the Bush v. Gore decision, which was a decision that had absolutely nothing to do with judicial restraint, and which certainly had nothing to do with Originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation. That Court decision punctured my faith that Republicans appoint better Justices than do Democrats, and it drove me to making the decision to stop voting (for over a dozen years).
Logged
Lechasseur
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,652
France


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: January 14, 2021, 02:03:37 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they arenít as objective as they think.

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say thatís simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah thatís... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

Eh, those were still great times of massive prosperity compared to what we're dealing with now.

In 2008, everyone I knew was doing fine (at least economically). Myself and my whole family has been devasted by this 2020-2021 great depression though.


The long term impacts of 2008 were worse , and unemployment currently is at Jan 2014 levels .

Heck on Election Day 49% of Americans thought the economy was good while that number was 36% in 2016

Yeah i have a hard time believing that. Empirically it just doesn't make sense.

Well with polling we all know what a joke that is. You can just make it say what you want it to say.

And with the unemployment rate, i think the difference is in 2008 people were still trying to find work. In 2020 many simply aren't bothering as there's no work out there. And you're not counted as unemployed if you're not actively looking for work.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,130


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: January 14, 2021, 04:00:49 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they arenít as objective as they think.

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say thatís simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah thatís... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

Eh, those were still great times of massive prosperity compared to what we're dealing with now.

In 2008, everyone I knew was doing fine (at least economically). Myself and my whole family has been devasted by this 2020-2021 great depression though.


The long term impacts of 2008 were worse , and unemployment currently is at Jan 2014 levels .

Heck on Election Day 49% of Americans thought the economy was good while that number was 36% in 2016

Yeah i have a hard time believing that. Empirically it just doesn't make sense.

Well with polling we all know what a joke that is. You can just make it say what you want it to say.

And with the unemployment rate, i think the difference is in 2008 people were still trying to find work. In 2020 many simply aren't bothering as there's no work out there. And you're not counted as unemployed if you're not actively looking for work.

It makes perfect sense for economic fundamentals to be better now than the Great Recession, as there has been no credit crunch this time at least to anywhere near as the levels of the Great Recession. Also the fast growth since June makes sense as the bad economic numbers last spring were inflated due to the lockdowns not really cause of any major fundamental problem with the economy.

Also unemployment rate even if you include discouraged workers is lower now than that number was from  2009-2012
Logged
Alcibiades
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -6.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: January 14, 2021, 06:35:14 PM »

I could list all the bad things Reagan did as President, or all the corrosive impacts he’s had in the years since, but I think that would be missing the ultimate point as to why I think he was such an HP.

The Reagan political playbook (utilised to immense success) was ultimately based off demonising the vulnerable: poor people, black people, unions, industrial workers, and gay people, to name some of his favourite groups to pick on. I would contend that choosing easy targets such as these to appease the middle class majority who felt somehow threatened by and/or jealous of them is the epitome of cowardice, and why Reagan completely lacked the qualities required to be a truly great leader.

As much as people bemoan the the current culture war alignment (and I think Elliott County, KY, voting for the right-wing candidate while Darien, CT, votes for the more left-wing one is just as insane as anyone), I think it is better than the Reagan-era class alignment. Reagan very successfully, using the above strategy, gathered up the affluent suburbanites (ranging from the merely centre-right in the burbs of places such as Philadelphia and Chicago, to his rabidly right-wing base in Orange County and the Sunbelt), as well as the legendary Reagan Democrats, who had got a bit of money, and desperately wanted to feel middle class, which they did by joining in with the bashing of marginalised groups. I think this gets at some of the irony that MT Treasurer hints at in the link to the article in his excellent post above (although Youngstown was never really representative of that group in the same way as Macomb was), as well as the obvious future echoes to the Trump era.

But this is why the Reagan coalition was so toxic; it was, in essence, like a completely rigged game, with the confident and upwardly mobile majority against the voiceless, marginalised, substantial minority. It was like high school bullying, and, somewhat perversely, this was apparently manifested in the high school culture and politics (especially in middle-class and affluent suburbia) of the 1980s (I have heard a number of people talk about this, ranging from 90s indie rockers talking about going to high school in the 80s in interviews to Badger on this forum), a reflection of the stifling conformity of the decade in which outsiders were relentlessly picked on. I have often thought that being a liberal or a poor kid or other social outcast in a well-off section of 80s Orange County* as a teenager must have ranked as among the most hellish social experiences possible. Fortunately, that suburban world is now dead as these places have greatly diversified. In his book Which Side Are You On?, Thomas Geoghegan talks about organised labour as being the counterculture of the 80s. I think there is a certain forlorn beauty in these macho middle-aged men in a dying subculture being the #Resistance of their day, but at the same time it captures the hopelessness of being on the wrong side in Reagan’s America.

FF and much better President than everyone since.

I’m surprised that you think so highly of Reagan, considering how you’ve spelt out your vision of a Republican Party which is a sensible check on the more outlandish currents within the Democratic (a vision which I have a lot of sympathy for, even if I think it is a bit optimistic given the party’s current state). It was Reagan after all, who destroyed any hope for this kind of GOP; while the Rockefeller faction had passed its sell-by date at that point, it was by no means inevitable that the GOP had to end up as a coalition of the various particularly toxic elements Reagan worked to bring together, including the Religious Right (whom, remember, Goldwater hated with a passion) and the white resentment/ex-segregationist Southern crowd; there was of course frequent overlap between the two. Not to mention, of course, Reagan being the first to pursue (again, very successfully) the kind of fact-free, responsibility-free rhetoric which has come to define the modern GOP, to again reference MT Treasurer. I think it is a stretch to say that Trump is Reagan’s spiritual successor, but by no means inaccurate to say that, without Reagan, the kind of GOP which gave rise to Trump would not have been possible.

*The irony is that movement conservatism, which ultimately succeeded in mostly overturning the New Deal Order, would have never have existed without the Sun Belt suburbs, which never would have existed without the massive investment and development the New Deal brought to the South and West. Similarly, the Reagan Democrats, in their desperate quest to be truly middle class, voted for a man who helped destroyed the ladder from working class to middle class.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,130


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: January 14, 2021, 07:17:49 PM »


FF and much better President than everyone since.

Iím surprised that you think so highly of Reagan, considering how youíve spelt out your vision of a Republican Party which is a sensible check on the more outlandish currents within the Democratic (a vision which I have a lot of sympathy for, even if I think it is a bit optimistic given the partyís current state). It was Reagan after all, who destroyed any hope for this kind of GOP; while the Rockefeller faction had passed its sell-by date at that point, it was by no means inevitable that the GOP had to end up as a coalition of the various particularly toxic elements Reagan worked to bring together, including the Religious Right (whom, remember, Goldwater hated with a passion) and the white resentment/ex-segregationist Southern crowd; there was of course frequent overlap between the two. Not to mention, of course, Reagan being the first to pursue (again, very successfully) the kind of fact-free, responsibility-free rhetoric which has come to define the modern GOP, to again reference MT Treasurer. I think it is a stretch to say that Trump is Reaganís spiritual successor, but by no means inaccurate to say that, without Reagan, the kind of GOP which gave rise to Trump would not have been possible.


Reagan is liked by all wings of the Republican Party given how successful he was(definitely are most successful president at least since Eisenhower).

Also the Reagan gop was pretty different than the type of gop Trump wants to  bring and if you actually look at the 1976 GOP map , Ford  does better in the Trumpian blue collar areas than Reagan does while Reagan is obviously the candidate of sunbelt suburbs .


Reagan is probably the most popular candidate our nation ever had in the suburbs
Logged
thumb21
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,316
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -5.71, S: -1.08

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: January 14, 2021, 08:15:34 PM »

Ridiculously overrated.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,823


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: January 14, 2021, 08:34:42 PM »
« Edited: January 14, 2021, 10:16:56 PM by YE »

This has gone on too long.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]  
« previous next »
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 0.061 seconds with 14 queries.