Reagan, just past his 100th Birthday.

Great Debates
1

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 advisers, 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

This is, to me, the epitome of the Reagan adminstation and the worship it still has among certain groups. He made us feel better. Style over substance. Era of good feeling. He did an excellent job at being a politician, garnering support, building bogeymen, and playing to the people. As an actual President, he was a fine figurehead.

For thing that really mattered, however, I think he is the most overrated president in history. Central America, Iran Contra, rich getting richer, and massive deficits and debt are his real legacy. Not the pretty spin that so many seem to put on his administration. Nice guy, great leader and communicator. Seemed genuine. Bad administration though.

3

Say, how’s that Grenada Memorial coming along?

4

I spilled my dislike of Reagan in the other thread so I’ll say what I think was good about him here.

The number one job of a president is to be a leader and a figurehead. He isn’t in charge of passing laws. His job is to choose a direction and lead us in that direction. Reagan was an excellent public speaker of course, he looked presidential and he preformed all of the ceremonial duties, on the world stage, with skill and aplomb. That sounds trivial and it’s not, it’s essential in a president. The contrast to down-homey Carter was striking. Even if Carter was completely correct in all of his decisions it would mean nothing because he couldn’t convince us, collectively, to follow him. Reagan could do that well. I just disagreed with where he was heading.

5

For what it’s worth, the list of things I found interesting about February 6, 2011:

  1. Fiancee’s birthday (had to list that first just in case she sees)
  2. Super Bowl
  3. 40th anniversary of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the moon
    Whatever else was on the Wikipedia page for February 6
    Then Reagan having been born 100 years ago and dead for 6.

Seriously, I’m sick of the talk of Reagan the same way I’m sick of the still fairly-constant refighting of Vietnam or the fact that the Republicans this year seem determined to repeat 1995. I normally just complain about the Baby Boomers screwing everything up, but at this point I’m about ready to start blaming the Xers too.

6

From Yes, Prime Minister:

Sums up the Reagan presidency pretty well, I think.

7

What do you think Reagan should have done about AIDS? The CDC was working on it as fast as it could. You have to remember that all of the people who died of AIDS while Reagan was president was about half the number who die of kidney disease in a single year.

8

Reagan, just past his 100th birthday reads to me in the same style as “Shaka, when the walls fell”. :slight_smile:

Was that intentional?

9

Well it might have helped if he acknowledged it. But this is not a subject I have read much on. I was pretty much parroting his son, Ron.

Not at all actually. It was strictly in reference to them airing the movie & show the day after so as not to compete with the Super Bowl.

10

While I was an adult in the 80’s, I was not really paying attention to anything outside of my little circle of friends, coworkers, and day to day concerns. I never developed any emotional attachment to Reagan.

The 50’s are sometimes portrayed as being the “golden age” of the all american way of life (like on Leave it to Beaver), even though the reality was not quite as portrayed. The “golden years” rule is things seemed somehow better or simpler back then, compared to now, and it’s true with every generation.

I’m beginning to suspect that the Reagen years will adopt a similar aura.

11

There’s a 6 page (and counting) Reagan thread on the first page of this forum. Really don’t think we needed another one on the same topic.

12

There are plenty of criticisms to be levied against Reagan, not the least of which was his tendency to simplistically polemicize a situation beyond utility; his “Evil Empire” speech is a prime example. Even if it was true (and in my opinion, it wasn’t far from the truth) it served only to convince the deathbed progression of “BAC” Soviet leaders that Reagan was exactly the cowboy they thought he was and would very likely launch an unprovoked nuclear strike upon the Soviet Union if the opportunity seemed ripe (even though Reagan hated and feared nuclear weapons and consistently sought their retirement). Reagan’s use of the term “evil empire” ironically mirrored the use of a similar term by Leon Trotsky about the Mensheviks, a competing Marxist political front within the Revolution.

However, Ronald Reagan, as a person, did accomplish one amazing thing that no president during the Cold War accomplished, and is met in the history of the United States only by the The Great Rapprochement between the US and the UK: he formed a warm, genuine, and productive friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev which allowed the two men to openly discuss strategic arms reductions and agree on a moral commitment to reducing nuclear arsenals, resulting in marked reductions in nuclear arms, the elimination of the most threatening class of nuclear weapons (IRBMs via the the INF treaty), and ultimately the START I treaty which placed the first every limitations on strategic launchers upon which deterrence theory theoretically rested. This was an amazing achievement, all the moreso for the period in which it occurred, just following the shootdown of KAL 007, the paranoic Operation RYAN by the KGB, the flailing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, the absurd proposals of SDI by Reagan, and the unjustifiable invasion of Grenada by the United States. Although Reagan did little to “bring down this wall,” or in any other way directly effect the dissolution of the Soviet Empire despite bombast to the contrary, he can certainly be accorded primary responsibility for opening this relationship and committing the United States to a path of limiting nuclear proliferation. For this, if nothing else, he should be recognized.

Stranger

13

What good intent would that be, exactly?

14

For me, the key person/event here was the USSR choosing Gorbachev. His presence & personality opened the door - Reagan walked through. So, had Gorbachev not appeared - none of this would have happened.

15

Agreed, but while Thatcher warmed to Gorbachev (“I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together,” she said to an interviewer after meeting with the future Soviet leader for the first time) Reagan openly and unabashedly introduced the topic of reductions of strategic arsenals and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. For Reagan–a vocal opponent of Communism in any form, and a blunt critic of the Soviet Union in general–to extend this olive branch was a tremendous act for a leader who was otherwise insensitive to the plight of many people negatively affected by his politics and rhetoric.

Gorbachev took the greater risk, and ultimately paid the greater sacrifice in losing the country to which he was an avowed patriot; it was never Gorbachev’s intent to dissolve the Soviet Union; merely to reform it economically and socially into what he felt was the true vision of Marx and Lenin. The one major sticking point between the two men–Reagan’s blind and obtuse advocacy of missile defense, a road that the Soviets had already explored extensively both technically and strategically, and found to be an unprofitable dead end–hindered their cooperation to reduce the threat of nuclear exchange, but both put aside their particular opinions to make a moral commitment to reducing nuclear arsenals, and were at least partly successful, albeit more in perception than reality, as the remaining stockpiles are still adequate to kill tens of millions of people and reduce whole nations to pre-Industrial capability.

Stranger

16

Well as explained in the HBO documentary, he had met with the hostages families and decided to do something to help free them.

Honestly I opened this thread thinking others would have watched the well done and well researched movie but it is appearing I am the only one that watched it.

17

Do you mean the Americans held hostage in Iran? They were freed a couple hours after Reagan was sworn in; how much more help did they need after that?

18

No the Lebanon Hostages.

19

Somewhat (OK, entirely) off topic, but this discussion made me realize something; let me set this up, first. Jimmy Carter gets a bum rap in some ways, but there’s no denying the contrast between him and Reagan – there really was something depressing about his administration. After Watergate (and ever since, in my opinion), people distrusted politicians more than ever, viewing presidents in particular with a new kind of cynicism, and giving muckraking new respectability. Carter, with his “I will never lie to you” rhetoric, was swept into office on the strength of voters’ perception of him as an honest man. After four years, voters were heartily sick of him, but I don’t think he ever lost that “honesty” sheen.

No, Carter did a new kind of damage that mere lies could not have accomplished: he made honesty seem irrelevant. After Nixon, Carter, and Reagan, voters no longer cared if a candidate lied (because “they all lie”), as long as he told the right lies and was canny enough not to get pinned down. The average voter came of age when Nixon was in office; maybe as that generation passes, and younger citizens start voting in greater numbers, this attitude will change. Maybe Obama will be held to a higher standard in 2012, and his successors to a higher standard still. That won’t happen if this cynicism is a persistent part of the national identity. Is it?

20

Boy I hope so, but Carter really was terrible. Largely as he could not control his own party.