According to Candy Crowley with CNN, who covered him for nearly eight years, he was quite the opposite. She said he was a facilitator who brought Republicans toward center from the right and Democrats toward center from the left.
Lib and Otto, you may find “Reagan’s Liberal Legacy” from the Washington Monthly to be an interesting read.
It was interesting, Cheddar, thanks, and pretty much seems to support what Crowley herself observed. One quibble that she might have, however, is the claim that he “relented on his tax cut”. The fact of the matter, according to her, is that he relented only after he had gone $250 million dollars beyond what he had promised in his campaign. She indicated that he had a knack for knowing when and how to compromise.
Sam, I have to admit that is one of the most insightful posts I’ve ever seen from you. However, you’ll probably either be dismayed or unsurprised to find that it merely confirms my reasons for hating the man and not being sorry to see him go. He played nuclear poker with the world as stakes and the only reason we’re still around today is because the Russians didn’t call his bluff, of which there was no guarantee at the time. His whole attitude was “Fuck you if you don’t agree with me” and it showed in everything he did from PATCO to Latin America to the Middle East to Russia and Eastern Europe. The man was an arrogant bastard.
That article only leads me to conclude that he was an incompetent extremist.
I suggest a perusal of Matthew Dallek’s book “The Right Moment,” an account of Reagan’s winning 1966 campaign for California governor for a lovely deconstruction of the “Reagan was a moderate” myth.
On the contrary. Respect must be earned, and Reagan never earned it, from anyone with any knowledge of history at all. Those of us who were **adults **in that time span are well aware of what that fumfering old fool did to this country and to its future. The fact that he’s dead doesn’t change that.
There’s a big difference between playing a president on TV and actually being one. Reagan was an actor and he was very good at reading scripts. That’s it.
You might want to get out some history books and find out who really did in the Soviet Union (hint: You’ll have to look a lot farther back than Reagan’s presidency to find the culprit) and what the consequences of “Reaganomics” were (hint: check out what the **conservatives **had to say about Kennedy’s “economic stimulus” tax cuts in the early 60s) and oh yeah, do look up “Iran-Contra” and see if you can find out what happened to the people who blew up all those Marines in Beirut (hint: They didn’t hide out in Grenada).
I couldn’t care less what a bunch of pontificating blowhards, who are paid to pontificate come hell or high water, are saying. I’m merely expressing my own opinion that it’s a bloated claim; furthermore, this is the Pit, so I don’t got to show you no steenkin’ cites.
Seriously, though, “leadership, vision and hard work”, sounds nice but it doesn’t really list what concrete steps may have been taken by the US under Reagan to actively topple the Soviet leadership. Sam Stone, by contrast, lists a number of relevant claims in support of this notion, some, I think, valid (increased miltary spending, the SDI bluff), some silly (support for the vile Contras, the Soviet Union collapsing merely because Reagan called it an “Evil Empire”).
My view: what ended the Cold War, IMO, was a fundamental ideological change within the former Soviet Union, and an irreconcilable economic crisis resulting from a hopelessly flawed system of production. The Soviet Union collapsed from within, not from without; while the Reagan administration can justifiably take credit for some of the initiatives that Sam mentions, in my view, and despite Sam’s dismissal that “the facts don’t bear it out”, the Soviet Union would most likely have collapsed during that period pretty much no matter who was President of the US at the time. So I’ll give Reagan credit for not having screwed the collapse up, but not for personally engineering it.
Yep. Those of us who **were and are ** adults mourn the passing of a great man.
Actually, it is in a way a good thing that he died-if only because he is no longer suffering, and his family can grieve and then move on-rather than having it dragged out.
And he was 93-that’s a pretty long life.
OK, silenus.
From that statement, I assume that you think those of us who don’t mourn Reagan’s death (or even credit him with greatness) are not adults.
Well, to that indirect and cowardly insult, I’ll respond in a direct and non-cowardly way: Fuck you and your condescending bullshit.
If you can’t understand why many of us think the bad (Iran-Contra, indifference to AIDS, cozying up to the troglodytes of the Religious Right, among others) outweighs the good (restoring the USA’s pride, starting an economic recovery, facing down the USSR, among others), then I guess you’re simply a partisan dweeb. You apparently have no idea that good, decent adults can respectfully disagree. And even feel indifference or happiness about the death of one whom they regard as a villain (not my view), or dangerously out of touch (my view, considering the power he wielded).
It should be obvious that not all of believe he was a great man. You will not find a post in which I celebrate his death; you will, however find many a post in which I resist his deification. Do not expect everyone to smile, and nod, and go “mm-hm” out of politeness while your sort tells us how wonderful he was. I voted for Carter, and then Mondale, and nothing in Reagan’s presidency caused me to regret either of those votes.
Sadly, yes.
The “malaise” of the post Vietnam years was an aknoweldgment that we were players on a world stage and we could make mistakes. That might does not necessarily make right. That it does not necessarily make sucess, even. That just being American and thinking good and pure thoughts does not guarentee a good and pure outcome…sometimes it guarentees even more evil.
Reagan “reminded” us that we are the purely good cartoon heros we want to think we are. And led us to where we are now (hated by most and distrusted by our friends).
Woo hoo.
I voted for Reagan the first time and against him the second time. I agreed with some of his politics and disagreed with some others. There is one thing I can never forgive him for: He bifucated politics in this country. He saw everything as black and white. Either you were for him or against him. If you disagrered with him you were bad/evil. There was no middle ground to him and his cronies. Compromise was not in his vocabulary. It has set a trend in American politics that continues to this day. IF the idea is from “our” party it is good, if it is from “their” party it is bad. Look how The Democrats and REpublicans bash each other. Are there bad REpublicans? Yes. Are there bad Democrats? Yes. But, most of each party are good people who may or may not agree oh particular solutions to certain problems. They should be able to reach an accord and a solution that most of America can support. However, that is unusual today and I lay the blame squarely on Mr. Reagans shoulders. This is what I can not forgive and why I changed my vote in 1984.
Having said all that I did not wish him dead or suffereing. He did do some important things for America, and that earns my respect for the former POTUS if not the man.
Oh, I can understand it. You are wrong, but I can understand it. The good far outweighs the bad. But History will judge, not you and me.
And please, I am a partisan asshole, not a partisan dweeb. 
We’ll just have to put up with it. Our hopelessly Rightarded fellow citizens are entitled to thier maudlin histrionics, and it is churlish of us to sneer. It won’t last forever, it will just seem like it does. And there is, perhaps, an upside.
I’ve been looking at several articles regarding the Executive Order keeping the Reagan Papers out of the public view. Unless I am very much mistaken (certainly possible), the President’s option to extend such secrecy depends on a living Presidents agreement, that is to say, with Reagan gone there is no one to concur with.
There are many reputations at risk, some of the very same men still stride through the halls of power. I am next to certain that some attempt to continue the secrecy will be made (“issues of national security” seems like a likely excuse).
Rest assured, the very same men extolling Reagan with blubbering adulation are not eager that the real facts, as recorded, be known. You would think they would be, if they were so certain that the record would so thoroughly justify thier ringing endorsements. Unless, of course, they have reason to suspect otherwise.
I am quite sure that friend Sam, who is as sincere in his admiration as he is adamant, would happily join me in calling for the immediate release of those papers, that it might cast light on the motives and actions of those men. I, too, want that, and for precisely the same reason. And one of us is in for a disappointment.
Glad you cleared that up.
Sam:
It is entirely possible that Reagan’s hard-line policies vis-a-vis the Soviet Union hastened its collapse, but I believe the historical record clearly reveals that the Soviet Union was in decline long before Reagan took office.
In addition, your argument here contradicts your own political philosophy, does it not? Or do you actually believe that a communistic system could eventually beat out a capitalistic one, all other things being equal?
Come on, Sam. What a load of crap. The Soviet Union was not “on the rise” during the 70s – it was collapsing. No one thought the USSR had a chance of “winning” against the West.
?
WTF?
Do you mean the Russians aren’t around anymore? What did Reagan do with them?
Oh, yeah, that was really unique. As if “the Soviet Union is evil” hadn’t been a mantra of the Right since the days of McCarthy.
SDI. Strategic DEFENSE Initiative. A network of satellites that would serve to protect the US from nuclear attack. How, exactly, did this threaten the “Soviet Union,” may I ask?
I can hardly believe I’m reading this.
The 9/11 hijackers were Mujahadeen, Sam. You praise Reagan for his financial and military support of a group that eventually morphed into the Taliban and al-Qaida. In fact, one can wonder whether al-Qaida would ever even have come into being without the Reagan administration’s particular support for their precursors. And yet you praise this policy….
Oh, yes, let’s not forget the Reagan administration’s support for that fun-loving, torture-happy, nun-raping gang of “freedom fighters,” the Contras!
You neglected to mention that he also claimed trees cause more pollution than automobile do.
Oh, bullshit.
It’s this sort of willful misunderstanding of the left by members of the right that leads to the discursive collapse you so abhor, Sam. You show no respect whatsoever for those who disagree with your political views. No wonder you get bashed so much when you post your (oft-times noxious) opinions in GD.
I suppose if I’m German, and Reagan wants to plant a cruise missile in my backyard, I shouldn’t be allowed to have any opinion about it. Maybe I don’t like having missiles in my garden? Does that make me a commie, Sam?
What a spectacular pile of crapola. Provide evidence that fear of SDI led the Soviets to grant “huge concessions” to the US.
Yes indeed, because the Soviet system was so infinitely superior to Western capitalism that, had Reagan not appeared on the scene, we would all surely be eating borscht by now.
Can you not see that this argument contradicts your own political philosophy, Sam?
Just a reminder to the Reagan bashers that the one and only time the American people as a whole could register their feeling regarding Reagan was in November 1984 when after almost 4 years of his presidency , he was returned to office with a whopping 59% of the popular vote. Has this ever been matched or exceeded by an incumbant president before or since? I doubt it.
And infamousmom, I was 30 years old starting a family and paying a mortgage with a 16% interest rate. The state of the world and the world economy was of great importance to me. Where were you at in your “adulthood”?
PS: actually Nixon got re-elected with 61% of the popular vote, but that was before Watergate broke, and his successor lost the subsequent election. On the other hand George Bush senior succeeded Reagan with 54% of the popular vote, exceeded only by Eisenhower(a war hero) and LBJ (on the coatails of JFK)for first time presidents. History can’t rewrite the facts.
Perhaps the Soviet Union realized that this would allow the United States to launch missiles at them, and any counter-attack would be shot down. Or, the other way around. They might desire to destroy the United States, but their missiles would be destroyed and the US would be free to attack.
Cecil on Reagan’s “landslide”.
Mr Svinlesha-I believe Sam has actually stated that trees DO cause more pollution than cars. (The Smoky Mountains or something)…or was that december?