I’ll have to say that I consider Reagan a massive failure as president for the 8 years he was in office.
The Bad:
Iran Contra Scandal
Nomination of Robert Bork and Antonio Scalia to the Supreme Court
Appointment of Rhenquist to Chief Justice
Terrible Cabinet appointments: James Watt, Ed Meese, Al Haig, Caspar Weinberger, Don Regan.
Ignoring the AIDS epidemic
Invasion of Grenada
Firing of the air traffic controllers
Massive deficits
SDI
Support of the Contra “Rebels” in Nicaragua
The Good:
START Treaty
Nomination of Sandra Day O’Conner to the Supreme Court
George H W Bush as Vice President (The assassination attempt proves this was important. Too many Republicans have picked lousy Vice Presidents such as Sprio Agnew and Dan Quayle)
The overwhelming evidence is that Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents of the 20th century.
Massive failure? Nah. The west was changing dramatically in the eighties and the U.S. wasn’t the only nation to elect a pro-business conservative to oversee the huge economic expansion at hand. The U.S. in particular had a huge amount of emotional baggage left over from Vietnam and needed leadership with a more patriotic message.
No credit for reinstalling an Espirit de Corp for the US military.
The military was mighty low post Vietnam and with the Helicopter rescue disaster of the hostages.
Reagan rebuilt the military and showed love and support for it. (few raises however)
I still say he won the “Cold War”, but I will be shouted down.
His getting shot brought about a lot of gun control. Incidental good.
James Baker & John F. Lehman as SecNav were good Appointments, but so many horrible ones outweigh them.
Add Mrs. Elizabeth Dole as another terrible appointment. As United States Secretary of Transportation she sold Conrail for less than value.
To a leftist, of course Reagan’s tenure was a disaster.
For example, firing the air traffic controllers was a great move. It was a terrible blow for organized labor. As I believe organized labor needs to be weakened, I see this as a good thing.
I think that a lot of the political finnagling with supporting various rebel groups and whatnot about the globe did eventually seem to result in more negatives than positives. Principally being a whole bunch of governments run by bad people and who we have to let sit, because we’re the ones who put them there.
I don’t view this as a fault of Reagan’s, just that no one had tried it before. Now we know. Either a country is ready to nurture modern, democratic minds or it isn’t. Trying to force it when it isn’t coming natural isn’t going to work. At least not if you’re not willing to dump a whole lot of time and resources into it over a lengthy period of time (ala Hong Kong.)
Reagan/Bush created the conditions for Bill Clinton to be elected, bringing about the greatest peacetime economic expansion in the history of this country. Thanks Bonzo!
Clinton got elected more on the power of being such a great campaigner that I could ever tell. What economic bliss there was under his tenure seemed to be due more to his sitting still and letting it run on as Bush Senior had left it. Of course, knowing when to sit still and do nothing is itself a skill.
In my view Reagan abandoned the poor and gave religion a bad name. The only good thing he did was the START treaty. Of course I was under 10 throughout his presidency so I really have no idea of his policies. The only reason he was elected was because Carter was considered weak and Vietnam left the US feeling divided and unsure of itself.
He also started the massive national debt we have. It tripled under Reagan’s eight years but has only gone up by 2.5x as much in the 17 years since.
Nitpick: While I substantially agree with your conclusion, remember that being a bad president and being a failure as a president are not the same thing. For instance, you listed Scalia’s appointment to the SC on the “bad” side of the ledger, and I would agree; but in terms of Reagan’s own values and goals, that appointment was a stunning success (i.e., Scalia got onto the court and became its leading conservative).
Out of curiosity, what’s your take on his support for the Contras? Most presidents have done something that I believe should earn them serious prison time; Reagan’s support for a group of terrorists who targeted health clinics and schools ought, in my opinion, to have been a felony.
What do you mean by “distribution”? Do you mean that you would have put some of dalej42’s “bad” items in the “good column” – or that an unbiased person would have come with roughly the same number of items for each category?
Speaking as a Left-of-centrist, Clinton voter, cultural liberal, I’d say he, Ron, was NOT a failure. Now, whether that was GOOD or BAD for you and me or whether he was a "great"president, is a different value judgement. From the POV of his ideological constituencies he was successful on a lot of issues and on big-picture philosophy (do we hear anyone running as “I’m your Liberal alternative!”? Hmm?) even if he did fall short on some key items. High sleaze/doofus factor in the Cabinet and White House, yes – but still they mostly got the work done, per the platform. That we may feel we’d rather some of that work had NOT been done, again, is another story.
And, contrary to what everyone was tearing their hair out about in the 80s, he did not lead to the world getting nuked to cinders (at least not directly and not on his watch) so on that much he pleasantly surprised us all . OK, so it may sound like low expectations but that’s gotta count for something.
You have a good point, as the list of President’s who have not done something that deserves prison time would be shorter, who is on that list for you?
I suggest Ford & Carter & maybe Ike.
BrainGlutton Yes I know what the boards view on Reagan are but I still think otherwise and I guess I will maintain a minority view this. Of course I was part of the huge military machine he built and so I am prejudiced in his favor on the cold war.
If you know me at all, you know I am not a right-winger, but I still say Reagan won the “unwinnable” war.
We were at a real low point with Carter and following Vietnam and Nixon’s bullshit. Reagan restored a sense of America the Free and the Brave to the country. He changed the attitude of the country the same way the German’s are now desperately trying to change the attitude of their people.
This is rather interesting to me; unfortunately, I have barely any memories of the guy’s presidency, and I haven’t educated myself to what he did. But every time someone says that George W Bush is stupid, conservatives shoot back with “Well, they said Reagan was stupid too, and look how great he was” – now I can find out just how good or bad he actually was.
Reagan wasn’t as stupid but if you are comparing IQ’s to Clinton or Carter it would seem lacking.
Lets see Carter[sup]1[/sup] was a wonderful, intelligent man and a true failure as President.
Clinton[sup]2[/sup] was a smart, slimy man and overall a great success as President.
So intelligence guarantees nothing anyway.
Jim
Carter was a top rated Nuclear Officer in Admiral Rickover’s Navy.
. OK, so it may sound like low expectations but that’s gotta count for something.