# How well-liked was Reagan? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2005, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940 "2005-09-28T23:57:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/41 "2005-09-29T16:53:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Reagan was well liked. Harding was well liked and incompitent. Therefore, Reagan was incompetent. Yeah, we get what you’re trying to imply. Problem is, there’s a little logical fallacy that gets in the way of that implication. > > Reagan being “in over his head” has been debunked over and over. The portrayal of him just being some aged actor pretending to be president makes a nice story, but it simply isn’t true. Take the time to read the book of his letters that was published a few years ago, and you’ll see that he was a student of government and politics for decades with well thought-out, intelligent postions on important issues. I’ve implied nothing of the kind. What I’ve pointed out that being liked doesn’t always translate in to good government. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/42 "2005-09-29T17:01:15Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > I’ve implied nothing of the kind. What I’ve pointed out that being liked doesn’t always translate in to good government. The converse also being true of course… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/43 "2005-09-29T17:11:27Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s highly unlikely that Bush Sr would ever have been elected if people generally disapproved of Reagan. I’m not sure how significant that is – a **real** bush could have beated Dukakis. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/44 "2005-09-29T17:40:07Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > I’m not sure how significant that is – a **real** bush could have beated Dukakis. You might have a point, you know the Dem’s need a new rule. No more candidates from Mass. Dukakis & Kerry what a combo. I still can’t understand how they didn’t support Dean more, he could’ve beat Bush or a bush. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/45 "2005-09-29T17:57:59Z")
It is good to have a new though put in your head now and again. “Clinton was the Liberal Reagan.” That is a new idea for me. Both we flawed but for some reason inspired a huge amount of reverence among their core, and others in society. I never thought of that comparison before. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/46 "2005-09-29T18:09:38Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > I’ve implied nothing of the kind. If you say so… > [@](#): > > What I’ve pointed out that being liked doesn’t always translate in to good government. Not in and of iteself, but it’s an important data point. And “good government” is subjective. However, if you have evidence that people voted for Reagan \*\*despite \*\*his political leanings, let’s see it. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/47 "2005-09-29T18:23:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You’re memory is wrong, and that’s why it’s better to stick to the facts. As per my first post in this thread (#4), his approval rating was 64% when he left office. It’s highly unlikely that Bush Sr would ever have been elected if people generally disapproved of Reagan. People generally had had enough of Bush by the time he stood for re-election, and he got booted. As you say, it’s all about the unreliability of memory. I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/48 "2005-09-29T20:43:24Z")
Just look at his funeral, people waited (IIRC at least) 6hrs to see him. Besides the Pope was there anyone who compaired? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/49 "2005-09-29T21:03:32Z")
The US is unique among democracies in that its chief executive is both head of government and head of state. In my opinion, Reagan was a dismal head of government, bloating its size and scope beyond the dreams of avarice. But he was a smashing head of state, rivaling any ever known. He singlehandedly lifted America’s morale off the floor, dusted it off, put on the top shelf, and gave it a good new shine. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/50 "2005-09-29T21:14:39Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Besides unlike all the presidents since, RR could and did make fun of himself. Can you imagine Bill Clinton making a joke like that? [I don’t have to imagine it.](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0401.katz.html) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/51 "2005-09-29T21:24:13Z")
BTW, **Sam,** you might be interested in this GD thread, started 6/5/04: “Reagan dies! Let’s debate his legacy!” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=260014](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=260014) (It went on for six pages!) ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/52 "2005-09-29T21:50:44Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Just look at his funeral, people waited (IIRC at least) 6hrs to see him. Besides the Pope was there anyone who compaired? I’m not sure that is the greatest measurement. The Lines for Babe Ruth funeral at Yankee stadium was even longer by all reports. On August 16, the day after Frick’s visit, [Babe Ruth died](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth#Death) at 8:01 p.m. at the age of 53. His body lay in state in Yankee Stadium for 2 days; more than 200,000 people filed past the casket. Three days later 6,500 mourners crammed into the area around St. Patrick’s Cathedral for his funeral. Tens of thousands more lined the streets as his funeral cortege drove by. I could try to use this as proof that Ruth was the most beloved American of all time. Would I be right? ---
**Author:** ![BoringDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ad7895/32.png) [@BoringDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BoringDad)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/53 "2005-09-29T22:29:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think **John Mace** has already dealt with the “heavy unemployment” nonsense. The “poor getting poorer” is also wrong. Um, no, he just said there was not double digit unemployment. Kinda nitpicky of him. Heavy unemployment was a fact. Look at the numbers he posted - 7 to 9.7 percent. That’s not good numbers. Did I imagine the grown family men laid off from factory jobs detassling corn (typically done by 14-17 year olds at that time) to put food on their table? There was undoubtedly heavy unemployment in the early 80’s. And did you gleefully ignore my cite from the US census stating that income inequality rose at a historically fast rate in the 80’s? Are you doubting the facts or my interpretation? > [@](#): > > General economic growth is bad because it leads to income inequality. No, general economic growth is NOT bad because it leads to income inequality. There was tons of economic growth in the 50’s that did not lead to growing income inequality. Reagan era policies led to growing income inequality. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/54 "2005-09-29T22:54:57Z")
> [@BoringDad](#): > > Um, no, he just said there was not double digit unemployment. Kinda nitpicky of him. Heavy unemployment was a fact. Look at the numbers he posted - 7 to 9.7 percent. That’s not good numbers. Did I imagine the grown family men laid off from factory jobs detassling corn (typically done by 14-17 year olds at that time) to put food on their table? There was undoubtedly heavy unemployment in the early 80’s. No it was not nit-picky. **DtC** , partisan that he is, spun the unemployment numnbers in a poor light, by quoting only the peak number, and offering zero explanation as to why the high numbers came about… As I said, the recession in the early '80s was a TYM\* type action that had to be done to reverse the effects of bad monitary policy in the 70s. Carter actually started this effort, to his credit, by appointing Volker as head of the Fed. Once the tighter and saner monitary policy was in effect for a few years, unemployment dropped dramatically. \*TYM = take your medicine. A little pain now to avoid worse pain later. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/55 "2005-09-29T23:19:15Z")
> [@BoringDad](#): > > Um, no, he just said there was not double digit unemployment. Kinda nitpicky of him. Heavy unemployment was a fact. Look at the numbers he posted - 7 to 9.7 percent. That’s not good numbers. Did I imagine the grown family men laid off from factory jobs detassling corn (typically done by 14-17 year olds at that time) to put food on their table? There was undoubtedly heavy unemployment in the early 80’s. No it was not nit-picky. **DtC** , partisan that he is, spun the unemployment numnbers in a poor light, by quoting only the peak number, and offering zero explanation as to why the high numbers came about… As I said, the recession in the early '80s was a TYM\* type action that had to be done to reverse the effects of bad monitary policy in the 70s. Carter actually started this effort, to his credit, by appointing Volker as head of the Fed. Once the tighter and saner monitary policy was in effect for a few years, unemployment dropped dramatically. \*TYM = take your medicine. A little pain now to avoid worse pain later. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/56 "2005-09-30T16:07:03Z")
> [@BoringDad](#): > > Um, no, he just said there was not double digit unemployment. Kinda nitpicky of him. Heavy unemployment was a fact. Look at the numbers he posted - 7 to 9.7 percent. That was also at the beginning of his term, before his economic policies could get started. (Though, Carter should be given some credit, too for starting off on the right foot). > [@BoringDad](#): > > Did I imagine the grown family men laid off from factory jobs detassling corn (typically done by 14-17 year olds at that time) to put food on their table? There was undoubtedly heavy unemployment in the early 80’s. I’m guessing, but I would say that this was only typical of your area (or similar areas in the US). I would further guess that you didn’t live near a big city and the local economy was agrarian (experimenting with industrialization, unless it was NJ or PA) that put more emphasis on working the fields (or factories) rather than going out and getting an education, where completing high school was not so viable option if there was a new opening at the local plant. I’m sure pockets of America still exists like that today. Another argument can be made whether or not society should continue to push that way, i.e. go and get an “educamation” or earn your keep with your God given two hands and back breaking labor – but, I think we should reserve that for another thread. > [@BoringDad](#): > > No, general economic growth is NOT bad because it leads to income inequality. There was tons of economic growth in the 50’s that did not lead to growing income inequality. Reagan era policies led to growing income inequality. Income inequality is not bad in of itself! There are other factors to identify, but even those are iffy indicators, save one: if there is income inequality, how is money being distributed? Are the top earners just earning more? Or, more nefarious, is it being re-directed to the top (either by law or by force)? Really, it’s only the latter that society should be worried about. Without hijacking this thread further, the economy isn’t zero-sum, there’s plenty to go around. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/57 "2005-09-30T16:35:27Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > [I don’t have to imagine it.](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0401.katz.html) Great link, well worth printing out. Still it proves my point. Bill was the kind of self-important guy who took Boy’s State a bit too seriously. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/58 "2005-09-30T17:02:48Z")
> [@BoringDad](#): > > There was tons of economic growth in the 50’s that did not lead to growing income inequality. Reagan era policies led to growing income inequality. Can you think of something that might have been unique in the 50s? Like almost every country in Europe had been devasted in WWII, and Asia had for the most part not become industrialized. Simply put, we had almost no competition in the 50s, and the US accounted for an enormous fraction of the world GDP. ---
**Author:** ![BoringDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ad7895/32.png) [@BoringDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BoringDad)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/59 "2005-09-30T17:17:28Z")
> [@mazinger\_z](#): > > That was also at the beginning of his term, before his economic policies could get started. I suppose, if you consider 80-85 the beginning of his term. Kinda looks like the majority of his term to me. > [@](#): > > I would further guess that you didn’t live near a big city and the local economy was agrarian (experimenting with industrialization, unless it was NJ or PA) that put more emphasis on working the fields (or factories) rather than going out and getting an education, where completing high school was not so viable option if there was a new opening at the local plant. I’m sure pockets of America still exists like that today. Another argument can be made whether or not society should continue to push that way, i.e. go and get an “educamation” or earn your keep with your God given two hands and back breaking labor – but, I think we should reserve that for another thread. Welll golleeee! You sure use some mighty fancy words. You some kinda city slicker? Cause see, most people know that all kinds of people work in factories, engineers, managers, accountants, etc. It was a nice ad hominem attack though. May I paraphrase? “Those unemployed people were not important because they were not like me or the ideals I hold. I will make some guesses about their educational status and then degrade them.” > [@](#): > > Income inequality is not bad in of itself! This is a philosophical point where we will have to disagree. Increasing and continuing income inequality IS bad in and of itself. It separates America, just as you have identified by your denigration of people who are following lives different from your own. So, to the OP, yes, many people who lived in that time did not like Reagan. To say that he was universally liked is a fabrication. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940/60 "2005-09-30T17:18:34Z")
Since when is Clinton “revered”? I think Clinton was a fine president, and as he was the only democratic president of my adult life, I have fond memories of the days when he was in the white house. But he’s certainly not _revered_. If nothing else, if he’d just kept it in his pants, Gore would easily have won in 2000, and we’d be in SO MUCH BETTER SHAPE right now (from a liberal perspective, obviously). Reagan is practically worshipped. Clinton is respected with qualifications. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-liked-was-reagan/323940.md?page=4)