True or False: Ronald Reagan was a great president

Great Debates
21

I’m going to play a cruel trick, and make people on the left AND the right reconsider their knee-jerk reactions.

I liked Ronald Reagan, but unlike many of my conservative brethren, I don’t worship him. I’m going to ask you to envision a joyous right-wing maniac on Election night of 1980.

JOYOUS RIGHT-WING MANIAC: He won, he won! Oh, this is ging to be great!

ME: So, tell me, what is ROnald Regan going to do that gets you so excited?

MANIAC: I’ll tell you what he’s going to do! He’s going to abolish abortion, he’s going to bring back prayer to the public schools, he’s going to balance the budget, he’s going to put strict conservatives on the Supreme Court, and he’s going to get tough on Russia and IRan… you’ll never see REAGAN pussyfooting with the Ayatollah the way CArter did!

Well now…

Did Reagan do ANY of the things that right-wingers hoped he would (or that liberals feared he would)? Not really. Reagan was a lot like Bill Clinton- he’d make a bold proposal, take some media flak for it, then back off quickly, blaming the whole idea on someone else (like poor Dave Stockmann).

Diehard conservatives always loved Reagan and scorned successor GEorge Bush… but really, when things looked bad for Clarence Thomas, GEorge went to the mat for him. Did Reagan ever really fight tooth and nail for Robert Bork? Nope.

It just proves what I’ve always believed- when we LIKE or DISLIKE a politician, we usually have good reasons. When we LOVE or LOATHER a politician, it’s usually for utterly irrational reasons… or for what he “stands for” in our minds.

22

Reagan was like Kennedy; a charismatic guy but a poor president. Both of them are given credit for things they had nothing to do with; Bush was president when the Soviet Union collapsed (assuming you could give any president credit for causing this) and Johnson was the one who pushed civil rights through. There’s no reason to give Reagan post-victory credit for winning the Cold War; you could just as palusibly say he was riding on the momentum of Carter’s administration (or Nixon’s or Truman’s).

If you want to say Reagan made you feel good fine; but that’s a subjective standard and there’s plenty of Americans who can say they didn’t like Reagan. And keep in mind Reagan rarely practiced the traditional values he preached; his family life was a shambles (worse even than Clinton’s), he was not a practicing member of any church, and he was willing to break his principles and the law if need be.

Reagan’s economic program was terrible. He ran on the platform of decreasing government spending, the national deficit, and the size of the government, all of which increased during his administration. His military spending program was also bad. Carter, an engineer and military academy graduate, started the stealth technology program; over the course of a decade this quietly produced genuinely effective new weapons. Reagan, on the other hand, spend billions reactivating WWII era battleships, most of which were again retired after he left office.

The two biggest military events of Reagan’s eight year administration were Grenada and Lebanon. Grenada was proof that if you overwhelm a small enough target with enough force you can win even in the face of poor planning. Lebanon didn’t even achieve a paper victory.

And Reagan was a poor administrator; maybe the worse president ever in this regard. Many presidents have been unable to control congress. But Reagan is the only president who comes to mind who was unable to control the executive branch.

23

If any one person could be responsible for the collapse of communism it’s Lech Walensa (sp?) of Poland and the Solidarity labor union. The cracks in communism started there. Republicans like Reagan hated unions and did anything in their power to crush them. Reagan’s military buildup did put pressure on a weakening Russia and I give him credit for that but I can’t agree Western civilization owes it’s existence to Ronald Reagan as so many conservatives today believe.

24

[q]Reagan was in his seventies when he took office.[/q]

Not to nit-pick or anything, but RR was 69 when he took office.

25

<slight hijack>
Is nobody going to give Gorbachev any credit for the end of the Cold War? We’re talking as if glasnost was completely imposed on the Soviet Union from outside.

26

Regan was a great president by the standards of which we should judge presidents. He will be remembered. Now personally I think he did a lot of stupid things and seriously messed up the country. But, what president hasn’t done that? Looking at his legacy (not of what he actually did but what people will remember him for) he was quite impressive.

27

If you want to ask who was responsible for the fall of communism, why don’t you ask someone who might actually know? That would be Mikhail Gorbachev. In his autobiography he gave full credit to Reagan.

Why do you think Glasnost happened at all? One of the first chinks in the armor was Reagan’s refusal to appease the Soviets or treat them as moral equals, as did many presidents beforehand. Remember the ‘evil empire’ speech? Reagan helped turn world opinion against the Soviet Union, which in turn sparked freedom movements in many satellite states. That prompted the Soviets to put a moderate in power (Gorbachev). And once Reagan had a man in the Soviet Union who would actually listen, he hammered on him relentlessly (remember, “Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!”)?

Then there was SDI. A terribly misunderstood program (both its defenders and critics usually never ‘got it’). But the Soviets were TERRIFIED of it. Until then, the competition between the two countries was a straightforward arms buildup, and the Soviets could easily compete in that race. They had more tanks, more soldiers, more missiles, and long borders on which to build up forces. But along comes SDI, and changes the whole nature of the game. Now it was a race for technology, and the Soviets didn’t have a chance in hell.

Read the history of the arms summits between Reagan and Gorbachev, and it should quickly dispel any notion you have that Reagan was a mushy-headed lightweight. He pushed Gorbachev all over the place. He routinely came away from those negotiations with all the things he wanted, and giving up nothing. And by the way, at every opportunity the Soviets first demand was always that SDI be cancelled. They were willing to give up almost anything to get SDI killed. Reagan stuck to his guns. The morons at home marched against SDI, and accused Reagan of being a war-monger because he refused to give in to Soviet demands. In the end, Reagan oversaw the biggest nuclear arms reduction in the history of the cold war, while his peace-loving predecessor failed at every attempt and watched the Soviets march all over the globe.

Reagan was not an idiot. Most of you arguing this are simply re-iterating the popular rhetoric spouted by comedians and Reagan’s opponents. Do some actual reading about the guy. Read abut his tenure as Governor of California, and before that as president of SAG. And he did have a degree in Economics. If you get the chance, go back and watch some of his old press conferences. The man was quick on his feet. He’d field questions and give long, unscripted and quite complex answers to matters of economics, foreign policy, etc. He was extremely well read.

28

Ukulele Ike wrote

When I saw the OP, I knew this elitist “there is no other side to this argument and you don’t belong here” post was coming, but I’m surprised (and disappointed)it came from you Ike.

29

All I know is, when Carter was president there wasn’t any work! The recession of '82 was short lived compared to 4 years of unemployment and high interest rates. And the thought of a “President Walter Mondale” makes me gag.
Reagan had strength. Testicular fortitude if you will.
And he brought that strength to Washington when we needed it most. His greatest mistakes were the “moral police” he empowered, and giving us George (and maybe G.W.)Bush as president!

30

I really have to agree with astorian on this comment. Great insight astorian.

31

I don’t know what’s worse. My spelling or my typing skills.

32

Are we judging Reagan as a man or as a President? As a man, he was goofy and definitely not a genius. As a President, he would be seen in a better light, I think. While he hardly left the most shining legacy, he also didn’t come to power under the best circumstances. Compare him to Clinton: Reagan came to office during an economic slump, Clinton came to office during an economic upturn. If Clinton were President during such rocky times, as Reagan was, he would have completely floundered and probably made things worse.

33

dhanson
Why would the Russians be afraid of a boondoggle like SDI? After 15 years and 60 yes 60 billion dollars not one deployable weapon system. Reagan’s minions described SDI as a system that could protect the civilian population from a massive first strike by the Soviet Union, this is pure bunk! Remember what was proposed nuclear powered X-ray lasers, brilliant pebbles interceptors, hundreds of satellites, 3 tiered defense system to destroy missiles at launch, boost phase and reentry. The Peace Shield, give me a break. Sixty-billion dollars and all that you have are a few interceptor missiles that once hit a target that was illuminated so you could not miss it. SDI will not stop a massive first strike, warheads with multiple decoys, cruise missiles, low trajectory missiles, bombs in suitcases, etc., etc. How much money do we have to spend on this nonsense.

34

Is it poor form to quote oneself? Oh well,

When all is said and done, I believe that the above is self-evident. It is irrelevant whether he was acting in the role, was sincere, or perhaps both. America found a new confidence under Reagan and that is his legacy and the measure of his “greatness”.

35

I’m not sure of everything else, I’m not as well informed as others. As to the end of the cold war, I feel I can state conclusively.

It was not Reagan’s doing.

The Iron Curtain fell because the USSR panicked. It panicked because of Star Wars. Star Wars was a fairly laughable idea, in the short term. The USSR thought we could do it, however, and attempted to build up their arsenal. Their economy collapsed.

Remember, the CIA had no clue this was going to happen, how could Reagan? Regan proposed an idea, not a very good one, that the USSR took seriously enough to push them over the brink of collapse. They’d been hovering on that brink for a decade. Their system was ridiculously flawed and unworkable. In a few years, they’d have bankrupted anyway.

Reagan was not responsible for the fall of the Iron Curtain.

And Reagan was not a good public speaker. Being an actor, he could memorize and recite, but if he ever spoke off the cuff, he botched it horribly. I just bring this up because I think someone mentioned it.

36

I’m not a political wonk or an economist or anything. More just a somewhat detached observer. I really don’t like politics.

But I think we can assess Reagan’s administration as positive if for no other reason than he brought a positive attitude back to Washington, and that spread to the rest of the country.

After Viet Nam, Watergate, the Ford and Carter debacles, America was not a nation that felt good about itself, and nothing; not a good economy, not a strong military, not reduced crime, will help a nation feel positive if it has a bad self-image. A nation is no different than an individual person in that respect. The U.S. may have been the “poor little rich boy” of the world in the 70s.

Even if Reagan did nothing more than boost national morale, then, for that time, he did very well for the nation. Unfortunately, I see the opposite happening under Clinton. We’re more divisive, mean, cynical and distrustful as a nation. I’d rather have citizens feeling good about themselves and thereby accomplishing more as individuals than have citizens worrying that their neighbors have a bigger piece of pie than they do, and demanding that the government increase their slice in the name of fairness.

37

Great President? The mind boggles.

Ah, the glory of Grenada! The biggest military power of the world comes screaming down on a girls volleyball team! Does anyone else know how many medals and ribbons were awarded for that exercise in military masturbation? Are you aware that one of our warships SHELLED an insane asylum. Regretably, not the one on Pennsylvania Ave.

SDI?! (Slobberingly Dumb Idea). Jesus Wept!

Now lets suppose that you really believe that Evil Empire crapola. And you publicly announce that your getting ready to render their weapons useless. Did it occur to anybody that they might opt to use them rather than lose them? That does for stupid what Stonehenge does for rocks! Whats worse? We were bluffing! We still can’t come anywhere near it.

The Laughable Curve/Trickle down? Give plenty money to the rich cause history shows they are simply all aquiver to demonstrate thier humanity and compassion, and will trickle all over the rest of us.

Did you know that he flirted with joining the Communist Party in the late 40’s and they turned him down! Why? Guess. Go ahead. Just guess.

And the same band of self-righteous cretins are poised to foist George W. upon us. And the worst of it is, we probably deserve it. Come back, Jimmy Carter, all is forgiven!

I’m getting dizzy. Gotta go hurl.

38

I recently found a copy of “Nancy” by Kitty Kelly in a used book store. That book is an interesting perspective on the Reagan years.

Reagan will be treated well by history. He championed the economy, law and order, a strong military, all pretty sensible things from an historical perspective.

Regan will get a lot of credit for hastening the fall of the Soviet Union, if only for his strong military policies. It’s true that he engaged the Soviets in an economic race they could not win.

I think history will recognize the beginning of the end of Soviet Communism was the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The Soviets tried to keep it secret and distributed radioactive food all over the empire. Those tens of thousands of people who travelled by train from all over the Soviet empire to Chernobyl, to run out and spend ten minutes cleaning up radioactive debris, and then travelling home again? They’re pretty much all dead now. Pretty bad P.R. even for an iron-fisted dictatorship. After Chernobyl the Russian Communist party was doomed.

39

Reagan’s brinksmanship with the Soviet Union may have been a factor in the fall of communism. But don’t assume that it necessarily was an intelligent policy. After the Soviet regime collapsed, released documents revealed how close Reagan’s belligerence came to provoking WWIII. The Soviets did in fact take Reagan at his word. So much so that at one point they felt the United States was on the verge of attacking the Soviet Union. There was a Politiburo vote as to whether the Soviet Strategic Rocket Force should launch a preemptive strike against the US while there was still a window of opportunity. While there were some Politiburo members who voted yes, the majority voted against firing the first shot. They put the Soviet military on its highest alert status and waited with their finger on the button. Of course, as it tuns out, Reagan’s rhetoric was in fact just rhetoric and there was no war. In fact, the United States military, intelligence, and diplomatic services were oblivious to how close to the edge they had gone until they found out by reading the Soviet records years after the fact.

40

Sigh. You people don’t understand SDI, have probably never looked at it in detail, yet you can sit here and claim that it was ‘incredibly stupid’. And your decision is almost certainly based on an incorrect notion of how it was supposed to work.

Somewhere along the way, the notion built up that SDI had to be some sort of impenetrable shield, and if it it let even 1% of the missiles through it would be a terrible failure. Since it could not achieve that in anything like the reasonable future, everyone thought it was stupid.

But here’s the news flash: SDI was a MISSILE defense. It was protection for our missiles, so that a first strike could not remove our retaliatory capability. As a missile defense, if it was even 20% effective it would make it financial prohibitive for the soviets to overwhelm it, and it it were 50% effective they would bankrupt themselves before they could build enough missile to ensure a first-strike.

Now here’s the kicker: The Soviets did not have to worry about us gaining a first-strike capability because of SDI, because even a 90% shield would allow them to obliterate us. So it was not an offensive weapon in any way. It simply guaranteed that no one could first-strike the other.

In time, the effectiveness of SDI may have approached that of a real umbrella, but not for decades. So what? SDI included many elements, some of which were proven to be effective (for instance, a gatling gun mounted at missile silos, much like the Aegis cruisers use). So there is no doubt that it would have worked. Even if it were only 10% effective, it would leave us with 800 missiles for a retaliatory strike, which would have been enough to ruin the Soviet union. Therefore, they could not first strike us.

As I said, it was a brilliant plan. Eventually, it would have forced the Soviets to try and combat it with killer satellites and other high-tech weapons, which put them at a huge disadvantage.

The other effect of SDI was to route defense spending away from factory production of expensive weapons, which make the world more dangerous and don’t teach us anything new, into R&D of defensive weapons, which both make us safer and build our knowledgebase. There are already a number of big commercial spinoffs from SDI research.