People seem to forget that the alternative was Ford. I’d vote for Carter again. (Also my first election. We’re a cohort!)
I believe he was a pretty good president, but not a historically significant one. His eight years were, in retrospect, relatively uneventful, and he was pretty centrist. That doesn’t make for an administration people will remark on 100 years from now, any more than people discuss the sensible and competent Grover Cleveland. Sadly, I think his claim to fame in 2100 will be Monica.
Reagan, for good or for ill, was meaningful. He embodies the conservative resurgance; before him, Dems had controlled congress for nearly a half-century, and Republican presidents were moderate-to-liberal. He created the fiscal-and-social conservative marriage that dominates the Republicans to this day, and from 1980-2010, they’ve held Congress half the time. Clinton was the only Dem president, and as noted, he was a moderate. Plus, as noted, there’s the end of the 40-year Cold War, the economic boom that lasted for two decades, and the beginning in earnest of the era of massive debt.
People may hate him, just like some people hated FDR or Wilson or Jackson. But the fact that people still have that hate twenty years after he left office is testament itself.
Naw…I was still too young. I was born in '60. I voted for him against Reagan (THAT was my first chance to vote and I was really excited). My family (with the exception of my dad) have always been dyed in the wool Democrats. I say ‘always’ as if we have been here since the founding of the country…
-XT
Reagan did indeed get a large number of Americans feeling good again.
JFK also inspired and lifted the spirits of a similar number (who FWIW were fairly disjoint from the group that twenty years later, greeted Reagan’s ascent.)
I didn’t hate, or love, either of them (and to be fair, my assneessment of JFK is second-hand, since I was only a year old when he took office).
But the ‘dark’ mood attributed to Carter had been going on for a LONG time. Inflation, rising gas prices, high unemployment and Vietnam were around when Nixon and Ford were in office. (I seem to remember the name of a Washington, DC hotel that may have been on people’s minds at the time too.) 
If you only felt ‘dark’ when Carter took office, you hadn’t been paying attention, or were reacting to identity politics.
People who fault Carter for not invading Iran remind me of bullies who dare their target to put a tack on the teacher’s chair. If they refuse, they’re “cowards”. If they go along, “hey, you made the choice…”
I am reminded of the memoir of Secret Service agent Martin Venker, who was guarding ex-president Nixon when the Iran hostage rescue attempt failed.
In response to hearing the number of helicopters used (eight) Nixon expressed outrage. “Eight?! Why not EIGHTY?!”
Like it would have made a difference.
I for one am grateful it didn’t happen when Nixon was in office.
Reagan does deserve a big part of the credit for ending the cold war. People forget how widely criticized was his hardline approach to the Soviets - critics said he was a crazy old man who wanted to blow up the world. Liberal/progressive positions are more likely to suffer this fate, simply because liberals propose more changes. But Reagan’s courageous departure from detente and containment deserves its due.
The long-term credibility of Reagan’s anti-regulation stance has suffered serious damage in the last few years.
Making loans to people who weren’t qualified to pay them back was a mistake. But neither party was speaking out against increasing home ownership - they would have been compared to Stalin and Monty Burns.
Two years after September 2008, it’s clearer that ‘honors system’ regulation of the financial sector doesn’t work.
When the blue-collar people in red states (including Tea Party members) complain about Wall Street, they are expressing this sentiment. But they have a hard time agreeing with individuals and ideologies who’ve expressed it for thirty years.
We don’t expect crooks to lock themselves up when they commit crimes. We shouldn’t be shocked when banks who pay the entities that assess the risk of their holdings lie to us.
(It’s worth noting, however, that while the Reagan Revolution was the main force behind getting the public to favor deregulation, many (most?) Democrats got on board whole-heartedly.)
Yes, the first time voting should be exciting. Hell, every time voting should be exciting.
I meant Reagan. I voted for Reagan. I was 18, I had just joined the Navy, was living in the South, and was young enough for those cultural influences to make me think Reagan had substance. I grew up. I felt especially betrayed by Iran-Contra. I was an Embassy brat, and my family knew people who were in that embassy in Beirut where the bombing killed all those Marines. I knew a lot of Embassy Marine Guards. They were, to a person, class individuals. They’re pretty selective about who they pick for that duty.
Maybe it’s just my contrarian view of things, but during my lifetime it seems like most president’s lasting contributions are when they go against expectations. Liberal Carter deregulated the airline industry. Fiscally responsible Reagan ran up huge deficits. “No new taxes” Bush (the elder) raised taxes. Democrat Clinton reformed welfare. Non-nation-building Bush (the younger) invaded two countries.
I’m also a little surprised at how many people are attributing the down years and distrust of government to Carter. He came in after what would have been Nixon’s second term, had he not resigned in disgrace. That Carter couldn’t reverse that perception in four years shouldn’t be a huge black mark on his record.
I’m not a slave to partisanship. think Bush Sr. was probably a better President than Carter, but both will be names on a list like Millard Fillmore and Benjamin Harrison 100 years from now. Reagan, Clinton and Obama will all have more extensive entries in the history books.
How is it possible to have that problem and make it as a politician?
:shakes head sadly:
What’s sad is that people actually believe this. Based on what? Granted, most of the men in that office since LBJ have been putzes, but we keep expecting more, & somehow in Reagan people think they’ve found it.
Is Reagan to be understood not as an administrator, then, but a quasi-religious head of state, a Japanese emperor?
Clinton made blow jobs and dildos (if you consider a cigar as a dildo) into normal dinnertime conversational subjects in many American homes. That’s VERY significant.
What Jimmy Carter are you talking about? The one that was 39th pres, Graduated, Georgia Inst. of Technology.
Got a B.S. at Naval Academy
Was picked by Rickover for the nuclear program.
His post grad work was in Nuclear Technology and nuclear physics.
He is the author of 23 books.
Righto ,he is no Reagan.
It’s all about message with you, huh?
Too bad you haven’t been acquainted with reality. Later we tried taking out the Islamic Republic militarily, with Saddam Hussein as our proxy. They repelled him, & sacrificed waves of their children to do it.
Sometimes logistical limitations matter more than “message.”
[del]I would gay-marry you.[/del]
I mean, I was confused for a moment, wondering if there was another guy named Ronald Reagan.
I’m not sure I’d count all those things as good ones, but you’re certainly right that sometimesonly Nixons can go to China.
At the risk of hijacking, I’d add that we’re seeing another one right now, with Obama’s continuing Bush policies w/r/t the War on Terror, Guantanamo, etc. With a liberal continuing them, all those policies are now by and large noncontroversial, and likely non-issues in 2012. We may see it again if Obama decides that military action is needed against Iran. President McCain would get crucified for it; I suspect that Obama has the dovish credentials to go to war if he feels it’s needed and still survive politically.
Reagan had charisma; that was his power. He was the nation’s grandfather, and in that role, he excelled. Other than that, I got nothin’.
In other words, IMO, he did far, far more damage than good, but his charisma and rose colored glasses did boost the self-esteem of the country, which is an intangible, but necessary, trait (self-esteem is necessary, I mean).
Not that that outweighs the lasting damage he did in setting up what would become (laughably) the “compassionate conservative” movement (as W claimed he was), and has been said, letting loose the dogs of the Religious Right.
Other damage included, directly or indirectly (my memory is a little fuzzy on how much responsibility St. Ronnie bears for this), the meme of “tax and spend liberals,” as opposed to “borrow and spend, and spend, and spend, and spend” conservatives. Not to mention allowing the idea that the planet is ours, to do with what we wish, and to hell with the future; I’m talking about James Watt’s ideas of exploiting the national parks for drilling and lumber.
Carter, on the other hand, failed IMO for one big reason: he told the country the truth, at least as far as energy was concerned. He tried the fireside chat, wearing a sweater, and advised people to turn their thermostats down to save energy. Reagan, on the other hand, said, “Nope! Everything’s great! Run your thermostat at 90 in the winter if you want! It’s all good! We got coal, we got oil, we got lots and lots of energy! Don’t worry about the future!”
My father died the month after I turned 15 and just under a year into Reagan’s presidency. Under previous administrations this would have enabled me and my mother to each receive a check on his Social Security account (not welfare but SS that he paid into and that he never drew a nickel of himself) until I was 18, and it would have enabled me to receive a check until I was 21 if I attended college full time. In Reagan’s first year this was changed so that instead I drew a check until I was 18, period, and my mother drew one until I was 16, period (and since my birthday is on the first we actually drew one less than if I’d been born on the second). My brother who was already in college and over 18 when this change was made drew one for the few months between my father’s death and his 21st birthday.
What little life insurance and work related death benefits my father had were instantly consumed by bills and my mother wasn’t working when he died (she’d had to quit for a year due to a leg injury and her employer wasn’t required to hold the job). When she was ready to go back there were no jobs in her field (education) that paid anywhere near what she’d been making and the state had a hiring freeze on teachers, so after my 16th birthday (when her SS check stopped) we were really feeling the pinch. Also the SS would have been of enormous benefit to me in my college years- I had to continually quit school due to money, whereas with that SS check I’d have been able to finish in much closer to the usual 4 years and start making better money sooner. Meanwhile the national debt was exploding but the people I knew in the lower socioeconomic echelons, many of them with degrees and great work ethics, were drowning and receiving no benefits from the massive spending.
While selfish perhaps since this situation was one of being caught in various cracks, this has always flavored my perception of Reagan in particular and cuts to low income families/Republican disregard for those without money in general.
There’s also a small matter of Iran bordering the Soviet Union. How do you think a pre-Reagan USSR might have reacted to the US invading the country next door? I’m guessing the answer is not “with hearts and flowers”.
The argument that Reagan was showing signs of alzhheimers while he was in office was made by many of his confidants after his admin ended. They wrote books stating he had to be protected from questions off message. His press conferences were extremely specific. They would have a theme and reporters were expected to stay on theme. His handlers feared anything that would take him off subject. He could be embarrassing. They had no idea what he would say. But, they could give him the lines to get through a press conference if it stayed on subject.
Many reporters hinted that he was having problems. They could not prove it, but they were aware something was wrong.
Now his son and Stahl have stated it was known. Whats so hard to believe?
The question is to what extent this increased belligerence accelerated the end of the cold war. The Soviet Union collapsed from the inside out, not from the outside in. Most of the people I talk to from Eastern Europe are frankly offended by the claims that Reagan won the cold war, as it washes away the courage and sacrifice of those who were working for freedom within the regime. Much as Americans would feel if it was claimed that Louise the 16th gave them their freedom. With the exception that France did actually provide significant material assistance to the revolutionaries, while Regan was basically a cheering section.
Reagan’s statement “Tear down this wall” had as much influence as saying to a stop light “I command you to turn green” just as you see to cross traffic light turn red.