Why is Reagan considered such a great president?

I was born 2 years after Reagan left office, but throughout the years I’ve noticed people steadily inciting his name as a model of a good presidency. Looking from an objective standpoint, however, his tenure as President seems pretty bad. Even more in hindsight. Which makes the post-morterm deification of his presidency all the more confusing. For clarification, I will list the reasons why I think Reagan that while Reagan wasn’t a bad president, he sure as hell wasn’t as great one.

  1. Trickle down economics: perhaps one of the worst economic theories created in the 20th century. The increasing wage gap between the poor and rich that we’re seeing in current times is partially a result of this theory. He used a dirty rag to stop the economic bleeding of the late seventies. Unfortunately, that rag also gave us gangrene.

  2. Prior to Reagan’s presidency, America was the largest creditor nation in the world. By his presidency’s halfway point, we became the largest debtor nation.

  3. His huge increase of an already over-bloated defense budget. America spent a reported 100 billion dollars on the S.D.I., which amounted to nothing.

  4. His needless renewed bluster at Russia. And deciding to not sign the nuclear disarmament treaty at the last minute because they wanted a provision that the U.S. keep S.D.I. in the lab for ten years.

  5. His renewal and escalation of the War on Drugs

  6. The Iran-Contra Affair: Okay, this is a big one. This was an absolutely impeachable offense. It was different than Watergate, but still brought up the issue of Executive power. It seems odd that a president with such a horrendous scandal, even if he wasn’t impeached, would become symbolic of past presidential greatness.

This list is in no way meant to be exhaustive; just the first things that popped in my head. So, I know Reagan was generally well-liked in his time and his economic policies may have helped short term, but why is he being idolized by the same people complaining about the deficit, expansion of federal power, shady politics, wealth disparity when he either created, revived, or strengthened those things?

It’s totally a matter of opinion. I was born in 1962 and I don’t consider him a great president. He was certainly a popular president, I grant you that.

The economy did pretty well under him and people attribute winning the Cold War to him. Volcker and Solidarity are pretty easy to ignore when most Americans don’t know what either of those are.

Won two landslide victories, revived American confidence, accelerated the USSR’s demise, strengthened the military, had high approval ratings, a strong dollar, economic growth, helped the rise of the evangelical right, nuclear arms reduction, had a VP who carried on his mantle by winning in 1988, Iranian hostages were released on his inauguration*

  • Before someone says, “The hostage release wasn’t Reagan’s doing!” - the American public often only cares about whether something happened during or at the start of a presidency, or was associated with a presidency - not whether he was responsible for it or not.

Many people idolized him at the time, despite many others who were very critical of the administration. Those that idolize find narratives that reinforce their beliefs. Regan was charismatic, he said (and sometimes did) things that rang true with his constituency. Whether those things actually had the purported positive effects was not something supporters needed to examine, the action was the validation.

In coming years there will be many people that look back at the Trump administration as a golden era. They will see the negatives that the rest of us see as false, or as net positives. Trump supporters already believe a different reality than those critical of him, time probably won’t change that much.

I guess I don’t get the popularity, but I wasn’t from that era. Being a successful former actor probably helped. He did seem tapped into pop culture in a way few presidents before him were. Hell, I’d love to have one of those “A Democrat shot J.R.” campaign buttons they made. Still, it seemed the public loved him (and largely still do). Honestly, it was probably a factor in him not being impeached

Which is pretty damn sad.

People forget what the economy was like before he became President.
Inflation was double digit. For operating engineers many union contracts had a cost of living clause it them. By the time he was elected employers were no longer willing to sign contracts with a cost of living clause based on the rate of inflation.

Interest rates on mortgages were climbing daily. I got a good loan at 12%. I know people with adjustable interest loans that topped out 20 to 24%. People were beginning to loose their houses.

Unemployment was climbing yearly. and the trade deficits was growing at an alarming rate.

Most people do not understand trickle down so they think it was a failure. As more products were being imported from overseas rather than being produced here factories were closing. The goal of trickle down is to make it an advantage for manufactures to keep their companies in the US. And to encourage investors to invest in American companies not overseas. It was not meant to close the gap between workers and management. (that is a whole different argument, but if CEOs were paid what they are truly worth the gap would be smaller).

His pushing hard against Russia ended living daily under MAD. The USSR loosing the cold war resulted from that push.

His build up of the military kept this country as a world power. Senior Bush could not have has success in Iraqi war without that military. the world would have just sat back and watched Sadam Husain take over the middle east. The second time there was not enough of a military to secure the country and keep the citizens of Iraqi safe. Many people differ with me and believe we should not be acting as the global police, and have a good argument for their stand.

The drug war? I would hope we could eliminate drugs from this country. But as you have seen a lot of effort and money is bringing little results.
I was born in 1947 I saw what happened to get him elected.

For a few reasons:

The United States had suffered almost twenty years of turbulence and tragedy. You had JFK murdered in 1963, which traumatized a whole generation. You had Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy also murdered, which further traumatized the nation. You had the Vietnam War, which killed thousands of young men, which broke their family’s hearts, and ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of other young men who served and were wounded or became addicted to drugs during or after the War.

You had race riots, thousands of bombings every year for almost a decade, cities engulfed in flame and smoke.

With the death of Kennedy came LBJ, who while a great President in terms of domestic legislation, was a liar and a crude man who misled the nation into the aforementioned war. The Pentagon Papers showed that every President from Eisenhower onward had lied to the public about Vietnam. Following him, you had Nixon, a creepy son of a bitch who violated and utterly destroyed the nation’s trust in the Federal government.

You had gas lines, a lost Vietnam War, and beginning in the mid 1970s, chronic economic unease. You had the rise of other nations which helped lead to the beginnings of the Rust Belt. All of these things dealt body blows to the nation’s morale. We were becoming a second-rate power. We couldn’t even defeat “primitive” guerrillas in a war.

The WWII Generation looked broken-hearted as the dreams they had for their children during the prosperity of the 1950s faded away and a generation gap grew. They looked with lukewarm acceptance of civil rights, only to see the passage of paternalistic Civil Rights Acts met with rioting (from their POV). They saw the death of the mores they were raised to believe happen virtually overnight.

The Baby Boomers threw themselves into idealistic revolutions and dreams of their own utopias, which, like their parents’, died a death. The Communes dried up, the Hippies cut their hair, and with cynicism and a bleak looking future ahead, went to work. Altamont was a tragedy, John Lennon was killed, the leading Hippies became Yuppies, and the dreams of the Love Generation were lost.

The lovable but ineffective Jerry Ford followed the dark and dour Nixon and the crude and misleading Johnson. The humble but incompetent peanut farmer named Carter from Georgia followed him.

Into all this came a handsome, charismatic, smooth talking man who oozed confidence. A simple man who had a deep faith and love of America. A man who promised to make America strong and respected again, who told us we were not in a rut, but on the verge of a new morning. This was a man who copied Nixon’s playbook which had attracted older and young centrist Democrats - without having Nixon’s swarthyness or creepiness. This was a man who told us we did not need to fear that tomorrow would bring a nuclear apocalypse - we would win. Communism would be at the ant heap of history. This was a man who invoked the imagery of the Cowboy. He also invoked nostalgia for the Golden Age of Hollywood (and with it, the perceived Golden Age of America). He was classy and sharp, with a pretty wife.

He cut taxes, and while trickle-down led to long-term issues, in the short term, it led to a massive economic boom. We went from being on the verge of a second Great Depression, to having prosperity on par with the Roaring Twenties. During his term, you had the Personal Computer boom. You had great blockbuster movies coming out every year, which only helped to increase the growing sense of optimism (compare them to the gritty, dour, depressing films of the 1970s). These were not Reagan’s doing, but they were part and parcel of the era in which he governed.

Reagan is viewed as a great President because he was a great leader. I don’t agree with his policies. But like his idol, Franklin Roosevelt, he had amazing communicative skills. He was able to uplift a depressed and downtrodden nation with his promises of “Morning in America.” He’s viewed as great because it seemed that under him, America had turned from the turbulence and dreariness of the 1960s and 1970s back to order. He’s viewed as great because he seemed to be the first President who was a true leader and inspirational figure since JFK. Even on their best days, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter were not inspirational men. He’s viewed as great because he was able to use the media to his advantage; he was able to sell events which would’ve happened without him as being his doing. He’s viewed as great because not only were the men immediately before him mediocre, but the men who followed him were similarly mediocre.

Reagan is basically Hollywood. He was style, not substance. We had had substantive Presidents in Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon - brilliant, intellectual men whose flaws wounded America. America wanted style. America wanted to feel good again, even if it was just superficial. We needed hope; we needed inspiration. Reagan brought those to a nation that needed it.

His policies sucked, but his image and ability to comfort the country did not.

It was widely believed over here that Reagan was more puppet than master. That he worked from a script and floundered if he ever went off message. Charisma and style - yes. Substance and intellectual capacity - not so much.

These sound more like explanations for why he won the election, rather than reasons to think greatly of his presidency in hindsight.

IANA economist, but from what I gather, credit is generally given to Paul Volcker for fixing those issues. Volcker was appointed chair of the Federal Reserve by Carter in 1979 (and re-appointed by Reagan four years later).

We survived two Reagan presidencies, so there’s that. I think that Reagan may have actually tried to be President instead of being a total dick all the time.

Listen to that. A private phone call between Reagan and Thatcher taped in 1983. Note: This tape was never meant to be public. NSC phone calls were taped to help with transcription, and were then discarded. A few, however, about 20 tapes, were not, and were released only a few years ago. The guy I’m hearing on tape doesn’t sound like a figurehead, or like he’s not that unintelligent. He might be “dumb” compared to John F. Kennedy or Richard Nixon - guys who had extremely high IQs - but he seems to be above average intelligence here in a candid, private, diplomatic call.

Read my post above. Short version is he came into office during a time when American morale was at a very bitter low. America had been at war from 1965 to 1973, rocked by scandal from 1973 to 1974, and then riddled with recession and other social issues between 1974 and 1982. America’s military might also was second-rate, and Vietnam’s ending was a loss of face. When Reagan left office in 1989, America’s morale was at an all-time high, the economy was booming, our military strength and global leadership was unquestioned, and Americans felt better about the future than they did in 1980. That’s why Reagan’s Presidency is well-thought of. Americans had a leader who was inspirational, and truly a leader - not just a President - arguably for the first time since 1963.

Moderator Action

This is going to be a matter of opinion, so off to IMHO it goes (from GQ).

That’s a triple negative, there, and even you got tangled in it! :slight_smile:

Yes, Pazuzu was the real power behind the throne…

I took you to task this morning in another thread.

But all of your above post is beautiful. Your analysis is spot-on and well told. Bravo Good Sir.
Reagan shifted the zeitgeist from decline to improvement. He did so in ways that were a short term sugar high and we’ve been living through the ghastly aftermath ever since with moments of improvement here and there.

IMO Trump hopes, in his own deeply confused way, to sell another sugar high and profit financially from the corresponding short term boom. Or profit politically from the adoration that follows from creating an optimistic zeitgeist, no matter how patently false most of the reasons for that optimism turn out to be.

Reagan himself was not a bad or evil man. In many ways he’s responsible for setting the R party on a new path that has since carried it forward to where they are now. It’s deeply ironic that despite being one of the leadingest lights in their pantheon he could never come close to being nominated by the current R party. He’s not nearly R enough for what they’ve become in his name.

Actually, in many ways, the actual details don’t matter that much, when it comes to an overall judgement by the general public as to who was or was not a “great” President.

The two main factors in labeling a PAST President as 'great" or not, are, first and foremost, CURRENT DAY POLITICAL GAMING, and a smaller second concern, OVERALL AMERICAN MYTH SUPPORTING. That’s why we CAN have such strong and opposite ideas about who qualifies as historically “great” and who doesn’t.

Among the reasons why Reagan is SAID to be “great” right now, more than anything else, is that the Republican Party is very much in the ascendancy, and it is important to them to SAY he was great, as part of their own current day manipulations of public opinion, in order to remain in power. This despite the fact that they actually abhor some of Reagan’s most cherished concepts.

Someone above pointed out that Presidents get credit for things that chanced to happen, or SEEMED to happen during their time in office, with no regard to whether they had anything to do with it or not. Understanding that more thoroughly will allow you to see even more, that in addition, lots of Presidents who are seen as lesser leaders, WERE the actual person responsible for what their successor got credit for. And of course, lots of Presidents who have been promoted as having been “great,” were ALSO responsible for very BAD things that only came home to roost after they left office.

Reagan got credit for MANY things he had little or nothing to do with, and that included a lot more than freeing the hostages. He gets credit for the economy improving and even appearing to go into boom mode, even though he actually had very little to do with it at all. And he was responsible very much, for many very bad things, some of which occurred during his time in office, and some which came to fruition much later.

But the combination of TIMING of people becoming aware of events, and who chances to be in power WHEN people become aware of them, has a big influence on whether a prior President gets blame or credit that they are due. Reagan blew the deficits into the stratosphere, because he supported the idea that deficits don’t matter, as a part of his very 70’s Democrat style Guns And Butter approach. That didn’t come home to roost until Bush Sr was in office, so Bush got blamed for Reagan’s economic mess, and caused Clinton to win office.

For most serious and unbiased historians, making a valid judgment about a President’s “greatness” isn’t possible to do, for at LEAST fifty years after they leave office, because it takes AT LEAST that long for all the facts to come out as to who was really responsible for what, and to get a clear understanding of what really did happen overall. So, right now, the real ONLY reason why many people think of Reagan as having been “great,” is ENTIRELY due to current day politics and a hazy recall of the actual time Reagan was in office. Not to any reasoned and fact based judgment of any kind.

He was folksy and charismatic. I remember hearing him in debates and in addresses to the American public. Intellectually, I disagreed vehemently with many of his policies, but his charisma was such that I would catch myself wanting to agree with him.

Yep, and he could think on his feet. Asked a question he didn’t want to deal with, he’d bring up something totally unrelated and tell a folksy tale that would make you chuckle. Then he’d say something serious about a topic he wanted to address and everyone would applaud.