It’s 5:00 EST and CNN just announced that Ronald Reagan died today after a ten-year battle with Alzheimer’s. So we intellectual vultures on the SDMB might as well get started on his carcass. How will history remember RWR’s legacy? Will he be credited with winning the Cold War, or blamed for prolonging it? In hindsight, was Reaganomics the best policy for the time or the worst? And what about the Iran-Contra affair? Just for openers.
There are already threads about this going on in GQ, MPSIMS, and The Pit. Do we really need another?
The others are irrelevant. Reagan’s historical legacy is a quintessentially GD topic.
Personally, I just wish this news happened before he ever took the office of President. As for the Cold War, I doubt he had anything to do with how long it lasted. The Soviet Union collapsed due to its own internal contradictions, and not due to the US. Reaganomics was an abysmal failure on its own terms. Running up a large national debt wasn’t what he campaigned for. Ironically, Reagonomics looks good only from the liberal economic perspective of Keynesianism. Iran-Contra was just a manifestation of his stupidity.
Another issue to toss on the table: the issue of Reagan selling out the Religious Right. Reagan in speeches here and there pandered to the RR. However, he never actually invested any political capital to deliver for them what they wanted. Who Reagan did deliver for is the rich, and helping them get richer, at the expense of the lower classes.
Exactly. It is the threads in the other fora (except perhaps the Pit) that don’t belong there.
I’ll just re-post what I said in the pit thread:
Reagan inherited a MESS. The U.S. was in far, far, worse shape than it is now. Let’s go down the list: Double-digit interest rates. Double-digit inflation. Unemployment near 10%. Big deficits already. No growth (“Stagflation”). “Malaise”. Hostages in Iran. The Soviet Union had just invaded Afghanistan. The cold war was icy cold. Unrest at home. 70% tax rates. An energy crisis. A military in decline and under-funded. America was in very bad shape, and getting worse.
After Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 31%. Inflation and interest rates were low. The economy was expanding at a rapid pace. Unemployment was low. The back of the Soviet Union had been broken. There was no more ‘Malaise’, and people actually felt good about the U.S. again. Yes, Reagan ran up some big deficits, but part of that was because the military needed a big injection of funds, and because he lost significant revenue from ‘Bracket creep’ when tax rates and inflation came down. But by the end of his second term, the deficit was falling rapidly as a percentage of GDP as the U.S. grew out of its debt problem.
This is why Reagan will be remembered as a great president. That’s also why he’s hated by so many. He was a transformational figure. Like Thatcher in England, he presided over sweeping changes in the country.
100 years from now, Reagan will be remembered as one of the two or three great presidents of the 20th century.
Sorry, Sam, this is a subject were you really will show your ignorance:
(reposted from the pit: )
The legacy of Reagan will live on!..
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/011003/011003f.htm
BTW I do remember all the pain and suffering he caused, I was in El Salvador when those things happened. For Reagan, the Contras were in the same package as it was the support of the repressive regimes in Honduras (were the contras had their bases) Guatemala, and El Salvador. And that package included the death squads.
Still, I hope he did find peace, I do know his former cabinet members, working for Bush do not (they find war on purpose), so we have to send our bile and contempt to the living, were it counts.
The irony being if so, he’ll no doubt be ranked alongside FDR. FDR embraced left-wing economic ideology. AFAICT, how well the economy does mostly is due to factors beyond the Presisdent or Congress. The reality is likely any President who takes over when the economy is a mess will end up looking good. In that case, things are guaranteed to get better due to the nature of capitalism.
That part of his legacy lives on!
The debt was soaring high.
100% due to Super Reagan and his doing… um… what did he do, again?
While you’re looking into the future, can you tell me when I’ll die? I want to know when to start saving for retirement.
Like Sam said. Everything was going to hell in a handbasket in 1980 until Reagan stepped forward with his no nonsense yet upbeat approach. There is a damn good reason that the beginning of his presidency launched two subsequent presential electoral endorsements for the Republicans.
Its easy to forget the spectre of intercontinental missiles raining down on us now.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again:
I believe that it is far too early to make judgements as to the legacy of ANY President since Nixon.
I’d wait for another 25-30 years, when all the partisans (on both sides) are out of the way.
What fun would that be?
Really? They all have been beaten into plowshares? And, for a quarter century no ICBMs rained downed from the USSR without Reagan as president. Reagan had nothing to do with this. It was that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) worked before he took office, worked while he was in office, and still works to this very day, that explains it.
I agree that the President’s effect on the economy is overstated most of the time, however if there is one major effect the President can have regarding the economy it is the consumer confidence level. Reagan did, without a doubt, improve the nations morale.
I have an idea-- let’s wait until he’s buried to get into all this. Or I am too old-fashioned?
Yes, you are. Reagan was public property from the day he was inaugurated.
This is silly. We’ve debated his legacy plenty before, and are sure to after. There’s no pressing need to do so on the day of his death.
Of course, I doubt we can trust the pundits and politicians to do the same. How about we debate the character of the people debating his legacy instead? 20 points for the person who picks out the most gross attempt to exploit Reagan’s legacy for political gain!
It seems some people have already forgotten what a threat the Soviet Union was, along with its vassal states, and the groups it controlled. GIGObuster, I suppose an acceptable alternative was to allow Soviet-backed communist regimes to take over one nation after another? Pathetic.
No, you’re not too old-fashioned. To the OP … *“Have you no sense of decency, sir?” *