+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Reagan, just past his 100th Birthday.

  1. #1
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default Reagan, just past his 100th Birthday.

    Sunday was the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan. As it was Superbowl Sunday; HBO showed their new documentary movie last night instead. It was well done and I thought pretty well balanced, no simple view of the man, no right-wing idolatry of him and non of the left-wing making him into either a figure head or villain. I recommend it highly. I also caught part of the PBS American Experience special on Reagan which is part one of two. I have it recorded and look forward to seeing the rest of it.

    In a nutshell, Reagan was effectively spying on Hollywood as Union President for the FBI. He was truly as anti-communist as you can get even back in those days when he idolized FDR and the New Deal. Throughout the 50s he grew conservative very fast fuel mostly by his anti-communism from what I can see. His rise to politics began with the Speech. This was a speech for Barry Goldwater’s Presidential run in 1964. He came out of this campaign effort with more Republican interest than Goldwater did. Goldwater was not compelling, Reagan was compelling and charismatic. Shortly they convinced him to run for Governor of California. He won fairly easily. Part way through his first term he was convinced to run for President but barely showed this time. He of course ran again in 1976 against the incumbent Gerald Ford and nearly pulled it out. Many think he would have beat Carter but it is hard to dislodge an incumbent, even an accidental one like Ford. Finally he ran in 1980 and won by a huge margin.

    He inherited a country in terrible shape. Morale was low, the economy was terrible and the military in a bit of a shambles. Inflation was rampant and common opinion was America was fading and slowly losing the Cold War. Losing Vietnam and the Hostage Crisis under Carter were big reasons for this. The mechanical failures of the rescue attempt probably drove home how pathetic our military had been allowed to get for the average American. The Blue Collar workers, especially the older ones that were New Dealers were largely confused and repulsed by the rioting and chaos of the 60s and 70s and turned away from the Democrats. Reagan wooed and won the Theocrats (and thus set in motion the destruction of the classic Republican Party in my mind). He brilliantly defeated Carter in the debates. He made many feel that America could rise again, that the Cold War could be won.

    Well he won and won easily. Carter is a joke to most people to this day. But Reagan inherited a terrible economy and in the short term his policies cutting taxes and increasing the military actually made the recession worse. His getting shot and his handling of it actually might be the only reason his tax cuts made it through a Democratic house. At least this is what the HBO Documentary stated. I tend to agree with this view. By 1982 his poll numbers were down to Carter levels of 35%. He gave a few speeches and the economy did turn around. Our military might started re-asserting itself. The oil crisis was a thing of the past. By 1984 election* his poll numbers were much better and Walter Mondale of course ran a lackluster campaign and Reagan was re-elected in one of the largest landslides of all times.

    Things got darker though, Iran-Contra happened from good intent and a total disregard for law and constitution. It will forever be the darkest mark on his Presidency. His deficit spending was the worst peace time example to that point though I believe he did not consider peace time in his heart but was living up to his 40 year goal of ending the Cold War with a victory. On the positives, he worked hard and well with Gorbachev to thaw relations with the Soviet Union. To work towards disarmament. Along the way, he strengthened our ties to England greatly with a mutual admiration society between himself and Maggie Thatcher. This relation would stand both countries in good stead for years to come. His is a very mixed legacy. He probably should be credited with winning the Cold War but I notice few give him credit for it now.

    His record on Aids was dismal. He ignored it until it struck home in his old friend Rock Hudson, and then he finally acknowledged the problem. There is no defense of this though there is an explanation. In the circle of his advisors, older conservatives, this was strictly a “gay issue” for years and they did not care. Sad but true and it took Nancy and his son Ron to finally get him to care. Far later than he should have.

    I figure there is plenty here worthy of debate. Let me hear it.





    *FTR: I was a young Republican back then and worked towards his re-election and 1984 was the election I could vote in and I did vote for him happily.

  2. #2
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    I don't think either Reagan or Gorbachev will get as many plaudits as they should for the end of the Cold War.

    When it came US assistance in the Falklands was appreciated, although initially he was for giving the Falkland Islands back to Argentina until Thatcher handbagged him. However, they certainly did have a good working relationship.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  3. #3
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    As I recall and it is fuzzy, publicly Reagan was trying to keep strong relations with Argentina is some hopes of building a Food Exporting Nation Pact to more or less go up against OPEC and the Soviet Union. Argentina was a key exporter.

    At the time I recall being pissed we did not give the UK every assistance. However I have read much later that we supplied all intel possible to the UK's Navy for the war before we publicly supported the war. I wish I can recall where I read this though.

    Even Wiki has this much:
    The USA provided political support voting for UN resolution 502 requesting the departure of Argentine troops. They also discreetly provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles

  4. #4
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    I don't remember his presidency very well (I was an infant-to-small-child), but from what I've heard, I don't think much of him. The Iran-Contra affair was fairly despicable, and "trickle-down economics" are a joke.

    Also his courting of the fundamentalist lunatic fringe led to to the face the Republican Party wears now. So that's vomit-inducing.

  5. #5
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Yeah, "trickle-down economics" was definitely a failure and based on a concept of spending that just doesn't exist in reality. He does deserve a lot of credit for the end of the Cold War, though. Things could have easily gone far worse and been dragged on for much longer.

  6. #6
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Did he really play that much of a part in the Cold War's end?

    My impression was by the 1980s it was only a matter of time, Afghanistan had bled the USSR to the brink.

  7. #7
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Depends on who you ask. As of 1979 it sure looked like the USSR was winning. By the time Reagan left office it was all but over.

  8. #8
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    24,325

    Default

    Reagan was the President during my politically-formative years. The first presidential campaign in which I voted, 1984, was one in which I voted against him (I was and remain a Democrat, although I have voted for Republicans for lesser offices). In hindsight, I think Reagan did more good than harm, but it's a relatively close call for me.

    For better: Economic boom including taming inflation; lower taxes overall, and the important '86 tax reform; a long-overdue defense buildup (including, most importantly, the Navy); confronting the USSR in Afghanistan and elsewhere, playing a key (although not absolutely determinative) role in ending the Cold War with the defeat of Soviet communism; much closer ties to the UK due to the Reagan/Thatcher friendship; firing the PATCO (air traffic controller) strikers who had sworn oaths not to strike; overall, vastly improved national mood and self-confidence.

    For worse: The gap between America's haves and have-nots increased quite a bit; the Federal budget deficit ballooned; deep cuts to social spending; hostility to teachers; the Christian Right had unmatched influence; endemic corruption among top Reagan appointees; outright hostility towards environmental protection and energy conservation; very conservative judges were appointed at all levels of the Federal courts; violating international law by invading Grenada and supporting the contras; a botched intervention in Lebanon that ended with the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks; pervasive militarism; an extreme view of Presidential power that was built upon by Dubya; a very poor response to AIDS; use of horoscopes and other mumbo-jumbo by Nancy behind the scenes; very little done to bridge the country's racial divide; and of course the Iran/Contra fiasco.
    Last edited by Elendil's Heir; 09 Feb 2011 at 12:25 AM.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts