I could not agree more.
The problem with the Republicans is that they became too embroiled in the Culture Wars starting in 1992. They didn’t know how to beat Clinton in 1992 or 1996 when it came to economics or personal popularity, so they used cultural issues as a wedge which helped cultivate a devoted, die-hard base. They embraced figures such as Pat Buchanan wholeheartedly, and fully embraced the religious right. These figures were around during Reagan’s years, but they hadn’t taken over the party. They were represented, but kept in check. In the effort to beat Clinton and later Gore, these forces were given a prominent voice as the Republicans cultivated a new base. Clinton had taken a lot of traditional Republican/centrist voters, so they had to look for a new form of messaging and a new audience to sell that message to.
Thus the pro-business and small government oriented party of Ronald Reagan and William Buckley became the culture war, anti-gay, wedge issue party of Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, and George W. Bush. No-nonsense tough foreign policy (with limits) became Evangelical, Jesus-inspired foreign policy under George W. Bush.
Outside of the superficial calls for smaller government (which are just at this point hollow cries to keep the small-government base voting), I do not believe Ronald Reagan would much recognize today’s GOP.
He certainly would not recognize the nationalistic, populist elements of the party. Reagan used populism, and he used the Southern Strategy, to win elections, but he never governed as a populist or racist figure.
The seeds for today’s GOP can be seen being planted at the 1992 Convention. The Republican Party now is really at this point more like a loose confederation of two or three parties - The Tea Party, Establishment Republicans, and the Religious Right. They have no real unified message outside of “Repeal the 20th century” (not literally, but in essence); ‘Burn it all down’; much of their agenda is not driven by ideology, but by spite and hatred. Buckley could at least offer philosophical and ideological reasons grounded in logic as to why the Republican Party should endorse small government and pro-business rhetoric; today’s Republican Party, with no intellectuals allowed, only has reactionary voices as their intelligentsia. They have no ideas. What keeps them together, and what keeps people voting for them, is a shared hatred of Democrats and a fear of minorities and “Socialism.”
The Democrats, looking to win elections after losing in 1980, 1988, and 1992, became a schizophrenic mixed bag of ideas. On one hand, they were the law and order party, fucking over minorities and the poor; on the other, they were pushing for programs for the same group while showing apathy toward poor whites and toward the unions which had made up their base for so long. The Democratic Party even now really has no identity. It doesn’t stand for any coherent set of ideals. It certainly does not stand for the middle class. The Democrats are basically three parties at this point too. Blue Dogs, who are simply Rockefeller Republicans; Socialists aka the Bernie wing; and the Corporatist Third Way/Clinton wing. They have no ideas either; what keeps them (barely) together at this point is a hatred of Trump, but I would argue that in terms of being a functioning party, the Democrats are in worse shape than the Republicans because the Republican base always falls in line. The Democrats’ base at this point despises one another.
EDIT: On one hand, the Republicans were the law and order party, fucking over minorities and the poor; on the other, they were pushing for programs for the same groups while showing apathy toward poor and working class whites (who made up the base of the party) and apathy toward the unions which had made up their base for so long. They became the party dedicated to minority poor (but also locking the same group up) and the LGBT community (while making concessions with regard to that group’s rights). They would toss the minority and LGBT base a bone, while screwing them over at the same time; this was a working strategy as the Republicans became more and more virulently anti-minority and anti-gay. LGBT people and minorities were increasingly unwelcome in the GOP, and while the Democratic Party wasn’t exactly their best friend (Hillary, as late as 2004, declared marriage was only between a man and a woman), they had no place else to go - and the Democrats knew this and capitalized it. “Hey, we may fuck you over, but we don’t hate you.”
The Republicans’ best hope were the Latino voters. Reagan, HW Bush, and George W. Bush had made overtures to this growing group, and the numbers of Latino GOP voters (who are more generally conservative than their white and black counterparts) slowly began to grow. The Democrats had nothing really to offer Latinos until immigration reform became a prominent issue under Obama. I don’t really recall Clinton doing much to help Latinos. His 1996 Welfare Reform Act certainly didn’t help them. The Republicans could’ve further cultivated the Latino vote as a conservative, small-business replacement for a dying non-Hispanic white majority. But Donald Trump fucked all that up for eternity.
I’ve highlighted a “spectacular” achievement that will eventually haunt us. The huge borrowing that began under Reagan has been used by the right-wing as the on-going excuse why the U.S. cannot provide for its people.
You fail to mention that his dawdling on AIDS, perhaps due to bigotry against gays, may have exacerbated that epidemic.
You also fail to mention the “S & L crisis” of the 1980’s, in which deliberately lax regulations allowed billions to be transferred from federal insurers to the crooks.
When you examine graphs of income inequality in the U.S. there is a sharp inflection point in the 1980’s — Reagan’s Administration shoved the U.S. massively to the right politically, where it has stayed since. Of course Reagan is revered by the right-wing. And, contrary to the whines about “lamestream media” it is the right-wing which sets the directions for national dialog.
As for economics claims made in the thread:
(1) The stagflation of the 1970’s was killed by Jimmy Carter’s excellent appointment of Paul A. Volcker and resultant aggressive FRB action. The Fed interest rate was as high as 17.5% in 1980, BEFORE Reagan’s election. It took a while for Fed action to effect its cure.
(2) While it’s true that a stock market boom began during the Reagan years (and accelerated under Clinton), real GDP growth was at normal levels during his terms. The rich did get richer, but it did NOT trickle down.
TL;DR: Reagan’s “greatness” is just right-wing hype.
Exactly. It is the fruit of a concerted and purposeful effort that has no bearing on reality.
Ronald Wilson Reagan and his service to the nation deserve nothing but paeans.
In fact, one of the items on my bucket list is to make the pilgrimage to Simi Valley so that I may paean his grave…
He is popular to this day due to the ignorance of the masses. His philosophy was “there is a free lunch and we’re going to eat it”, cutting taxes for the rich while wasting billions on unneeded arms build up. Under his watch, the deficit spiraled out of control while the US took on such powerhouse foes as Grenada. He turned his back on the rise of AIDS and engaged in union-busting against PATCO. The ignorant masses give him credit for the demise of the USSR, despite there being no credible evidence that the Soviets were attempting to keep up with Reagan’s wasteful military spending.
Reagan was easily the worst president until W came along, who held that spot until Orangeanus.
I saw what you did there…
Edited the thread title to fix the spelling of Ronald Reagan’s name.
The OP exemplifies why I think the lingering Reagan luster will soon wear off. If you were not alive to experience his strong personal charisma firsthand and could only judge his presidential performance from the objective distance of history, his luster dims.
He planted the seeds for what much of the worst of the American right has become. He blew some of the earliest dog whistles that hard working, church-going, middle class (mostly white) people were the rock upon whom the nation rested and that the slothful, socialistic (mostly colored) people were the problems (plus smelly hippies!). Straying from the cultural norms of the day was met with fierce resistance. Among others, he set the issues of alternative power and marijuana legalization back decades.
I was no fan then and I’ll be joined by many more as the years pass.
The role of President is largely public speaking and he was excellent at that. People like to know what they’re getting and I think Reagan gave them that too. He was clearly a law and order guy who honestly believed in America and it’s mission to bring good to the world. He also had a very loyal group around him who were concerned for his image and legacy, Nancy in particular. He gave a pretty rousing speech too.
I would argue that he was an actor who lost sight of the fact that he was reading from a script written by other people, people I disagreed with. His moral compass aimed wherever his advisors pointed it IMO. But it was a strong moral compass.
Reddy Mercury: Excellent political historical analysis, repeatedly. Well done, and thank you for answering the actual question. I’m an anti-fan and get tired of seeing this question come up with regularity on this site, only to see my fellow Lefters respond with…well, arguments against the OP. Your explanation doesn’t make me like him any better, but they do explain why he was popular and remains idolized.
Kayla’sDad: PM me when you want to come to Simi and I’ll see if I can host you. I drive by the Reagan Museum/Library on my way to work each day so I could easily show you where it is. Unfortunately, though, you won’t find his gravesite out here. I think it’s up in Santa Barbara where the family Ranch and Library is located. Still, that’s only an hour or two drive away, so you’d be close if you actually wanted to visit it. I’ll just turn my back when…:dubious:
–G!
On the other hand, I used to make a point of rolling down my window to spit whenever I drove on Highway 118 – the Ronald Reagan Freeway. Now it’s no so easy; I’m on a motorcycle and don’t want to spit inside my helmet. :smack: