Opinion of Ronald Reagan?

[Badger]

I tried to think of one problem in contemporary American governance and public life that couldn’t trace it’s origins to this administration and his little plutocratic revolution.
I came up with ‘Well we probably can’t pin Covid on him.’

A good part of the problem is a lot of people, some of whom had a very tense relationship with Reagan at various points, taking its legacy and shilling it with their spin on it.

Reagan made some mistakes, but he was far more strategic in his thinking and much more competent then 99% of Republican politicians today.

You do realize how low of a bar that is, right?

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t 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

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t 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

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t 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

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t 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

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

My point is that Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras.

Only, if they got in power, and Communism spread through Latin America, the Cold War may have ended VERY differently. Remember that.

Ah, the discredited domino theory. Your statement is at once both hyperbolic and fantastical. To say we needed to support a group of far right-wing bloodthirsty paramilitaries to remove a government which ultimately step down after losing a free election, let alone that it would have spread communism throughout Central America or even reverse the Cold War entirely, shows a breathtaking lack of basic historical knowledge.

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t 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

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

My point is that Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras.

Only, if they got in power, and Communism spread through Latin America, the Cold War may have ended VERY differently. Remember that.

Ah, the discredited domino theory. Your statement is at once both hyperbolic and fantastical. To say we needed to support a group of far right-wing bloodthirsty paramilitaries to remove a government which ultimately step down after losing a free election, let alone that it would have spread communism throughout Central America or even reverse the Cold War entirely, shows a breathtaking lack of basic historical knowledge.

Either way, while the financial support of Contras was questionable, it doesn’t discredit Reagan entirely because 1) It makes perfect sense as to why Reagan would oppose the spread of Communism, and 2) because Reagan’s presidency was much more than just this.

You are so right. His presidency also included a policy of supporting rather than condemning the South African apartheid regime, write down to having to be kicked Dragon screaming to be among one of the last leaders in the world call for Nelson Mandela's release, which was not only morally reprehensible but thoroughly counterproductive for combating the root causes of Communism. Involved the Iran-Contra deal which was beyond a debacle on so many levels for both are Central American and Middle Eastern policy, not to mention undermining the basic rule law and constitutional perogative sitar country. Involve being the only post-war president not to reach some nuclear arms agreement with the Soviets oh, and the fact is Soviet Union collapsed soon after he left office doesn't excuse that failure.

Oh, and that's just foreign policy. On the domestic front his was the presidency that brought the religious right into political power for the first time and ensconced it as a fundamental power source in one of the two major political parties right up to the present day. Keep vastly accelerated the politicization and partisanship of the appointment of the federal judiciary. And of course he slashed High income tax rates for all his rich friends and corporate donors, which not only doubled over 200 years of national debt within his first term alone, it said what turned out to be a horrible template 4 future budgets which have been adopted this present day ( notwithstanding Bill Clinton and Al Gore's Brave attempt, ultimately forwarded by W reinstituting half-assed Reaganomics, to maintain a budget surplus and start reducing the national debt). All of which accomplished only a handful of years worth of economic growth through the economic equivalent of a massive sugar high.

I seriously never hear any good specific talking points from Republicans as to why Reagan was so good unless either they think somehow truly believe slashing tax rates on the wealthiest in exchange for running up debt that I today decades later have to pay a huge chunk of my taxes just to pay the interest on the resulting debt, or something along the lines of gee whiz he was really patriotic and stuff.

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t 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

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

My point is that Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras.

Only, if they got in power, and Communism spread through Latin America, the Cold War may have ended VERY differently. Remember that.

Ah, the discredited domino theory. Your statement is at once both hyperbolic and fantastical. To say we needed to support a group of far right-wing bloodthirsty paramilitaries to remove a government which ultimately step down after losing a free election, let alone that it would have spread communism throughout Central America or even reverse the Cold War entirely, shows a breathtaking lack of basic historical knowledge.

The Domino Theory wasn't discredited, the Soviets had the goal of turning the whole world communist.

Also Eisenhower took many similar actions in Latin America as Reagan did, and in many ways Reagan's FP was a return to Eisenhower FP which until Reagan's was by far the most confrontational to the Soviets during the Cold War.

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

[Badger]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

On character, Reagan started his campaign outside Philadelphia, MS (site of the Mississippi Burning murders of civil rights activists) with a speech on states' rights. He called African politicians monkeys in a leaked phone conversation with then President Nixon. He failed to respond to the AIDS epidemic because his party was apathetic toward gay people (even if he wasn't personally homophobic). In retrospect we can peg him as a prejudiced man who inflamed situations when he should have been a leader.

Mississippi was a swing state in 1980 and the event he was speaking at was one of the top political fairs in Mississippi so of course he would speak there. Also actually read the states rights speech instead of just looking at one soundbite and you will see the only time he was referencing states rights came to economics in the speech not civil rights

" gosh fellas, the dog whistle was only a couple lines in the speech. I'm sure no one in the crowd noticed!"

He. Knew. Exactly. What. He. Was. Doing.

[Badger]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

He called African politicians monkeys in a leaked phone conversation with then President Nixon.

In summation: HP

You focus only on the bad while leaving out important context. Yes, Reagan said a racist thing once. He was born in 1911 and had his early childhood under a president who supported the KKK, and he held some of the prejudices of that time. If you’re calling every president who’s said something racist once a HP, then Washington, Lincoln, LBJ, and pretty much all presidents pre-Reagan were HP.

I judge people's values and deeds based on the time they lived in. There were plenty of people who were not bigots in the 1960s and 1980s, and people who had plenty of exposure to outside groups and still were bigoted are worse human beings. Reagan was an adult in control of his facilities when he chose to deliberately pander to racists for their votes. Other Republicans who had presidential ambitions chose not to, even though they were doubtless aware of previous Lily White strategies. Not valuing the humanity of some of your constituents more than votes makes a politician an HP.

You think the same of FDR?

He didn’t just make a racist comment once. He sent hundreds of thousands to an internet camp.

How’s that for “not valuing the humanity of some of your constituents more than votes”?

Yeah, I think FDR was a sh**tty guy, though an effective wartime leader and one of the best American presidents on economic policy. He sent parts of my family back to Europe to die, I'm not championing his character or actions. Pointing to another president is running from the question asked. The question is if Reagan was a Freedom Fighter or a Horrible Person. He was an HP.

And dismissing eight years of giving voice and legitimacy to racists to act like it was just a few comments is why Republicans are not going to win back people of decency.

I would argue that Reagan set of a better economic boom than FDR did, and would argue 1983-2001 was when we were at our peak not 1946-1963. The neoliberal consensus set out by Reagan did a lot of good and yes eventually it broke down but so did the post-war consensus as not everything can last forever and not everything is positive.


Bill Clinton mostly followed this economic consensus with deregulation, expansion of the type of free trade Reagan first proposed, welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts showing how influential Reagan was as a Democratic President economic policies turned out to be more similar to Reagan's than even the Rockefeller Republicans of the 1960s were let alone the Democrats of that era

Of course you would give Reagan credit for everything positive that occurred from 1983 on for the following several decades, writing up to and including rainbows and nice weather.

Bill Clinton raised upper income taxes, remember? And the reaganites of your party, that is every single one of them, decried how this would utterly destroy the economy and vibrant gross started by Clinton. Remember that also? And then, we had at the strongest. Of post-war growth ever during the next several years under Clinton's watch. Any of this ringing a bell?

[Badger]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

He called African politicians monkeys in a leaked phone conversation with then President Nixon.

In summation: HP

You focus only on the bad while leaving out important context. Yes, Reagan said a racist thing once. He was born in 1911 and had his early childhood under a president who supported the KKK, and he held some of the prejudices of that time. If you’re calling every president who’s said something racist once a HP, then Washington, Lincoln, LBJ, and pretty much all presidents pre-Reagan were HP.

I judge people's values and deeds based on the time they lived in. There were plenty of people who were not bigots in the 1960s and 1980s, and people who had plenty of exposure to outside groups and still were bigoted are worse human beings. Reagan was an adult in control of his facilities when he chose to deliberately pander to racists for their votes. Other Republicans who had presidential ambitions chose not to, even though they were doubtless aware of previous Lily White strategies. Not valuing the humanity of some of your constituents more than votes makes a politician an HP.

You think the same of FDR?

He didn’t just make a racist comment once. He sent hundreds of thousands to an internet camp.

How’s that for “not valuing the humanity of some of your constituents more than votes”?

Yeah, I think FDR was a sh**tty guy, though an effective wartime leader and one of the best American presidents on economic policy. He sent parts of my family back to Europe to die, I'm not championing his character or actions. Pointing to another president is running from the question asked. The question is if Reagan was a Freedom Fighter or a Horrible Person. He was an HP.

And dismissing eight years of giving voice and legitimacy to racists to act like it was just a few comments is why Republicans are not going to win back people of decency.

I would argue that Reagan set of a better economic boom than FDR did, and would argue 1983-2001 was when we were at our peak not 1946-1963. The neoliberal consensus set out by Reagan did a lot of good and yes eventually it broke down but so did the post-war consensus as not everything can last forever and not everything is positive.


Bill Clinton mostly followed this economic consensus with deregulation, expansion of the type of free trade Reagan first proposed, welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts showing how influential Reagan was as a Democratic President economic policies turned out to be more similar to Reagan's than even the Rockefeller Republicans of the 1960s were let alone the Democrats of that era

Of course you would give Reagan credit for everything positive that occurred from 1983 on for the following several decades, writing up to and including rainbows and nice weather.

Bill Clinton raised upper income taxes, remember? And the reaganites of your party, that is every single one of them, decried how this would utterly destroy the economy and vibrant gross started by Clinton. Remember that also? And then, we had at the strongest. Of post-war growth ever during the next several years under Clinton's watch. Any of this ringing a bell?

1983-1991 was a huge boom too , and again yes Clinton broke Reaganite polciy some of the time but look at the rest : Welfare Reform, Deregulation, Capital Gain Tax Cuts, Reagan style Free Trade Agreements.  

Reagan also broke with his orthodoxy when he raised capital gains tax rates in 1986 so you can say he wasnt a real Reaganite either.


Just like people credit FDR for 1946-1963 as Eisenhower continued the vast majority of FDR's Policies, Clinton continued most of Reagan's policies and actually expanded upon them.

Who the hell credits FDR for the economic boom of the 50s and early 60s?

Just because engaged in some limited triangulation with the Republicans, to call his presidency a continuation of the hard-right economic and social policies of Reagan is a self-serving falsehood.

[Badger]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Sure, I will grant you that. I misspoke earlier in stating that Reagan was the only post-war president to fail to achieve any Arms Control treaty with the Soviets. He did in fact ratify the INF treaty in the last several months of his presidency. I admit remembering that that was a campaign talking point of mondale's in 1984, when it was of course true , but forgot about INF.

I'll gladly give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that Reagan's foreign policy success achieving that treaty. However, likewise needs to be acknowledged that It ultimately came about from Reagan abandoning his hard-line bellicose foreign policy which had followed for most of his administration, and giving diplomacy a chance like a grown up instead of catering to the better dead than red crowd in much of his administration. Consider all the idiotic and needlessly bellicose  policies throughout the first three quarters or so of his administration, such as supporting the Nicaraguan contras, coddling the South African apartheid regime, allowing Military Arms to be traded to a ran throw it back door Channel circumventing the will of the our elected Congress, firmly refusing to meaningfully attempt arms reduction negotiations with the Soviets (even though that last one was admittedly hampered somewhat by the Soviet leadership repeatedly dying on him) etc etc. None of these so-called tough on communism policies in any way help Reagan achieve his late Administration successes like INF, and frankly and be considered to have harmed our fight against the Soviets by tending to isolate us diplomatically from our allies, when set alliances were aren't number one strength against the Communist world.

In the end, for all Republicans rever Reagan for supposedly winning the Cold War by getting tough on the commies, he was no more than a single Link in the chain, or perhaps one more nail in the coffin, extending all the way back to Truman right up through Carter before him and the ongoing bipartisan policy of containment, which Reagan initially tried to undermined until halfway through his second term. Furthermore, his few foreign policy successes stem from abandoning needless belligerence the first several years which brought no successes of note, and it worst undermined our efforts to defeat communism with our International alliances and standing. The Republican memory of Reagan and what impact he had on ending the cold war is quite Divergent from actual history.

As painful as it is for Republicans to hear, if they really want to celebrate the person who did more than anyone else in history to breaking up the Eastern Bloc, they shouldn't look to Reagan, but rather Mikhail Gorbachev.

[Badger]

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.

To answer your question, in these polls I have seen ranking Reagan in the decent category somewhere around low double-digits or even high single-digits, I've yet to read any explanation from the polled experts as to why he is ranked so relatively favorably. As mentioned, the one poll I saw that ranked him 11th at least further ranked the presidents in a number of categories, Reagan was very high on the list for communicating with the public, which is undeniable, as well as I kid you not, luck. Which come to think of it is also pretty undeniable.

But until then, I'll gladly stick by my own analysis, having live through and followed his presidency like a hawk from the day he was elected.

 His foreign policy is insanely overrated by Republicans when, at best late in his term he got aboard the internationalist Diplomatic train and had some moderate successes, and was thus merely a link in the chain running back to Truman rather than St Ronnie Slayer of the Communist dragon, and at worst were outright counterproductive embarrassments like Iran-Contra, his Nicaraguan policy, supporting the apartheid regime, etc etc.

His economic policy, despite some laughable attempts to credit the economic growth that arose years after he left the presidency with an intervening recession as being somehow related to him, created several years of growth with the economic equivalent of a debt-fuelled sugar high. He slashed social welfare programs for the poor and working-class and in its place slashed income taxes for very wealthiest individuals and corporations in the country, and thereby further started truly disastrous blueprint which continues to the present day of running our government inordinately on issuing debt rather than collecting Fair taxes from the wealthy.

His social policy brought the religious right into a full governing partnership with the GOP, again another dangerous precedent which continues to this day. He furthermore started the Republican policy of being overly and unapologetically opposed to civil rights and minorities in order to double down on the white vote that firmly launched the gop's trajectory towards even attempting to be the party of Lincoln towards eventually evolving into the de facto white nationalist party it has become today under Trump.

Yes, polled expert presidential historians, I'm all ears for your reasoning as to why Reagan even reaches the level of average president let alone hovering near the top 10!