I have to admit I kind of love the family drama Ron Jr.'s claims have caused.
Michael Reagan is in sharp competition with [del]Livia[/del]Nancy to be official high priest and keeper of the flame and heir apparent and sees Ron Jr.'s claims as a great op to cry “TREASON! PERFIDY! SERPENT’S TOOTH!”
If the Reagans were the Caesars Nancy would doubtlessly have poisoned Michael years ago, probably while Sr. was still alive, to remove any possible obstacle for Ron, Jr… Michael being adopted and having enjoyed less than a close relationship with Ronald for most of his life probably carries a lot of baggage as well, especially since his entire career is based on his paternity (there not being much of a career in discussing Johnny Belinda or Falcon Crest these days, though I’m guessing he got a lot more money from his mom’s estate than his dad’s).
By the way, did anyone else catch the recent This American Life episode about “kid’s politics”? There was a fascinating segment on a simulator (for school kids) of the Grenada invasion and the astoundingly propagandistic nature of it. I particularly loved the bit about how we had to invade to prevent a Cuba-Grenada-Nicaragua Communist axis from threatening the US.
For some reason, this clip came to mind (especially the line at 2:25).
“Good answer…good answer…I like the way you think…”
So, how’s that Grenada Monument project coming along?
Union busting, Lebanon debacle, S&L crisis, voodoo economics, alzheimer’s disease, HIV stupidity, deregulation. That’s enough of that creepster, for me, anyway.
He sewed the seeds for where we currently are, in this country, sold up the river.
When Regan’s announced that he had Alzheimer’s, one of my co-workers at the time brilliantly said, “That sound you heard was the loudest collective ‘well, duh’ in the history of the world.”
I remember a professor quoting Dorothy Parker’s comment upon learning Calvin Coolidge was dead: “How can they tell?”
The President isn’t about micromanagement. He doesn’t sit there and write bills, that’s Congress. He doesn’t wrangle up votes, that’s the whip’s in Congress. He actually doesn’t really do much. He is a figurehead, a leader, and a representative to foreign governments. The President outlines broad goals, and relies on his staff and Congress to achieve those goals.
Viewed as such, a lot of complaints of his detractors is just wrong. They’re blaming him for issues that Congress of the time were responsible for. A lot of those singing his praises are also wrong, they’re crediting him with that there’s no way he was responsible for.
I consider Reagan a pretty good President. On matter important to him, he knew what he wanted and directed his full resources into getting exactly that, while not getting into a micromanagement bullshit fight that he would lose just because that’s not what the President can do. As far as foreign policy, he and Gorbachev had what was probably the most important and influential relationship between nation’s leaders since the big three in WWII. Reagan didn’t end the cold war, but his relationship with Gorbachev was an important factor in how it ended and a world political climate that allowed a (mostly) peaceful reunification of Europe after it ended.
He’s 1/3 of the government. He has the power to sign or veto bills and appoint the most powerful officials in the nation. Certainly appointing Antonin Scalia has influenced many of the SCOTUS decisions ever since including the 2000 Election.
I will say that Reagan, and I’ll give this to the patrician Bush Sr. as well, certainly looked the part of a president on camera. That’s something that Bush Jr. never mastered and it took a while for Clinton to fall into (his brilliance [even his enemies don’t deny his intelligence] being initially hidden behind an accent that’s a turnoff to many non-southerners).
We needed a lot of “hope” restored–after Tricky Nixon’s Watergate & the end of the Southeast Asian Debacle. Carter wasn’t superman enough to do it.
But I don’t remember Reagan doing a thing to improve anyone’s “mood.” (Then again, I didn’t hang out with the monied Republican crowd.)
Cite?
In all fairness, there probably weren’t too many qualified, conservative black jurists in the 1980s. I mean, Clarence Thomas was the most qualified black man that Bush Sr. thought was palatable, and his resume, as SCOTUS nominees go, was pretty thin.
I was a kid for all of Reagan’s presidency, but my assessment of it now is that while he may not have “ended the Cold War,” he certainly did an excellent job in working with the Soviet Union and advancing America’s agenda in that sphere. He certainly made Gorbachev look weak at home, which in turn inspired the failed coup that led to the dissolution of the USSR, but there’s way too many steps in between to give Reagan much credit for that. Still, in terms of managing the Cold War and our relations with the USSR, I’d give him high marks.
But, oh man, does he get a big honkin’ F on economic matters. Sure, liberals were probably over-reaching on economic policy in the late 1960s and 70s, but Reagan over-reached in the opposite direction and by a much higher level of magnitude. His philosophy was that any institution he didn’t like would be better off being destroyed completely instead of merely being reformed to fulfill its original, good intentions. For a guy who people like to think restored hope to this country, he sure was absolutely hopeless when it came to the idea that large institutions could help people. The man turned unions and progressive taxation policies into such enormous villains that they still haven’t recovered, and perhaps never will.
I think Reagan’s legacy is in the final analysis, a negative. While the Us had certainly run deficits before, Reagan tripled the gap between what the government took in and what it spent. He also quite deliberately argued that deficits were not important. He was our first tax cut and spend Republican president. On terrorism he retreated in Lebanon after the barracks attack; an incident that OBL took as a sign that the US was a paper tiger and he helped create the conditions that lead to the Taliban. Also, his invasion of Grenada was set the stage for other feel good invasions by the US including Panama and Iraq, that were more about domestic electoral concerns than vital national interests.
It seems here that his complete failure in race relations doesn’t factor into his legacy. Okay, moving on.
Let’s talk drug war. While much of the blame deserves to go to the Democratic led Congress for its passage of the 1986 crime bill, Reagan most certainly played a central role in its development. Here’s a good quote from a 2004 article:
One other thing about Reagan’s legacy that hasn’t been discussed here, and this is more pertinent to the Cold War. The US, under this particular President, was giving nearly 3/4 of a billion dollars a year to these rebel fighters battling the evil empire that was the Soviet Union. They gave them not only money, but weapons, lots and lots of weapons, and military training, and access to future trade routes for their poppy business. One of these rebel fighters that was fighting against the Russkies went on to make quite a name for himself, I wish I could remember it.
On the other hand, without the War on Drugs we would never have had that Very Special Episode of Diff’rent Strokes.
It was terrible when she came back on to molest Dudley though.
Yes, but I have heard it argued it is intentionally the weakest one third. How weak it really is depends a lot on who’s in office and how far they’re willing to push things, but lets look at a Presidents influence realistically.
He has the power to sign or veto bills. He has no enumerated power in crafting, or even shaping the bill. Realistically, the President can and does use the trappings of the White House and as nominal leader of his party to influence legislation. The threat of a veto can certainly sway how legislation is writing. However, in general, Congress calls the shots on what gets written into laws and the President has, at best, an advisory position.
He has the power to appoint, but barring short term tricks like recess appointments, that doesn’t always go his way. His choice for positions does have a huge influence, but he doesn’t have a free hand to do whatever he wants. I’ll grant that the power he does have in this area is significant enough that his appointment choices should be viewed as part of his legacy.
A third thing is his enforcement power. Congress writes the laws but the President decides how, or even if, to enforce them. However it’s not like the President sits in his office late at night going ‘Send Agents Johnson and Jones to such and such’. Instead he delegates that power to lower levels.
So I stand by what I said. The Office of the President has very limited power. A lot more limited than most people believe. A President can use his influence to nudge things his way, define the debate, to a large extent dictate what is important and not important in Washington at the moment. However, the details are the responsibility of Congress and lower levels of the Executive. As such, most detailed things can’t be credited or blamed on the President. For example, the push for Star Wars was a broad level drive and a fair comment on Reagan. A focus on laser and optics is far beyond what Reagan would have had control over so isn’t a fair evaluation even if it were true.
This is all domestically speaking of course. A President has far more direct authority in foreign relations and military matters. Which is why I credit his relationship with Gorbachev since that was under his control.
Let’s not forget that he also provided arms to Iraq. And Lebowski, I did briefly mention that he helped create the conditions that lead to the rise of the Taliban two posts abover yours, but didn’t explicitly mention that he helped create Bin Landen.
National debt, Saddam Hussein, and terrorism; there don’t be too many crises we faced in the past 15 years of so that can’t be traced right back to Ronnie.
So you did, madmonk28, apologies for my omission.
I like your style, Dude.
Charlie Daniels captured the prevailing sentiment rather well.