Grade Ronald Reagan’s presidency

[KaiserDave]

The fact that the only Republican president and heck even nominee  the media covered positively since 1960 was Reagan , that shows how successful he was that even the usual liberal press liked him a lot

Nobody denies he was successful at what he did, but what matters is whether these things were good for the country. And I think they were terrible for the country, so I grade him rather poorly.

Why do you think the media then liked him much more than any other Republican

The media does not fully evaluate the merits of policies, it is all optics, popularity, and charisma. What the 80s media thought of Reagan's policies then or the media now thinks of them is of very little consequence to me.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The fact that the only Republican president and heck even nominee  the media covered positively since 1960 was Reagan , that shows how successful he was that even the usual liberal press liked him a lot

Nobody denies he was successful at what he did, but what matters is whether these things were good for the country. And I think they were terrible for the country, so I grade him rather poorly.

Why do you think the media then liked him much more than any other Republican

His charisma and popularity (which I'll concede is true but that doesn't make it a good thing inherently) is the simple answer. Also when did the media hate GHW Bush or Gerald Ford?

The media called HW Bush a wimp many times during his 1988 run, called him out of touch non stop for all of his presidency but like the few months leading up to the Gulf War and After, and made it seem like he was only President cause he rode of Reagan's coattails .


Maybe Ford was liked as well but it was nowhere near to the extent as JFK, Reagan, Clinton , Obama, and Biden were liked by the media(and among Dem nominees also Kerry and Hillary)

[VAR]

C

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Reagan really was Just That Good a communicator and has plenty of genuinely fantastic lines. I quote "trust but verify" and "if you're explaining, you're losing" all the time. Doesn't mean his policies were good for the country.

[TheReckoning]

You have brought this on yourself.

Good meme, you forgot to edit out Woodbury on the bottom though.

[SWE]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

lmao

Let me guess: you also think Animal Farm is anti-socialist?

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

lmao

Let me guess: you also think Animal Farm is anti-socialist?

It’s anti-communism, specifically, anti-communism-in-practice.

But as someone who’s favorite book is 1984, I know Orwell was a socialist. This doesn’t mean that he was uncritical of socialism, though.

[AGA]

C+

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

B-/C+ territory. His first term was a B, hes second a C.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Responsible for 84.6% of American problems. The Bushes, and the Clintons are responsible for 10% of them.

[Senator Spark]

B