Reagan

[Sikander]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


OK, Reagan used his good rhetorical skills to feed Americans the propaganda they wanted to hear. They didn't want to know that we were bad. So, he got the whole country thinking America was so great, and it made the American public stop questioning things and allowed the government to get away with a lot more. It also led to even less vigorous political participation (by participation I mean researching the issues, listening to the viewpoints of different perspectives, and actually thinking about the decisions the US was making) which is never a good thing in a democracy.

So, it ended up leading to Americans feeling better about themselves and the rest of the world made worse from suffering the problems of US intervention because Americans couldn't question their government and stop it from doing it. I don't see how that makes him a good leader.

I have never been able to get a clear, well supported opinion of how good Reagan's economic policies were. When people talk about it they are always very vague and don't back up what they're saying with specific examples.

I was born in 87, but from what I know Reagan cut services that really helped people, and then cut taxes that put us in a deficit so terrible it could have caused some gigantic problems but we got lucky and lived through it. He also gave big tax breaks to the corporate billionaires who have never worked a hard day in their live and make ridiculous sums of money from brainwashing people to buy their product, not to mention all of the unethical business practices, all while there are people who live in ghettos and are lucky to graduate from high school. Is this the kind of society we want? Reagan than simply made himself look good by saying that the money would trickle down to the poor, when he really could have not made the tax cuts and let the people keep the services they really needed.

Reagan also caused a whole lot of people to be oppressed and a whole lot of violence down in Central America by backing terrorist wars and other atrocities to help out American businessmen. I believe he also backed UNITA and Renamo terrorists in Mazambique and South Africa that caused an estimated 1.5 million and 60 billion dollars worth of damage. He also wholeheartedly supported the genocide of the East Timorese and also gave the Indonesians the weapons (some chemical) to do so, though Carter did more of this than Reagan. He also supported the Baathists, and I think he was the one that gave them the list of thousands of 'Communists' that were then murdered. He also backed brutal terrorist/fascist organizations in Eastern Europe to help destroy the USSR, not to free its people but merely for US interests.

And I must say, Mr. Fun-your quote is a classic! It's sig material and I would put it in my signature but it doesn't have any more room.

You weren't there, and it shows. Your "facts" are a grab bag. Some correct, some incorrect and none with proper context. Your analysis sounds like a very facile set of opinions which are stretched to fit things as they are now. They have nothing to do with the situation in 1981-1989 which was what Reagan had to work with. The man is a complete cipher outside the context of his times.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned
Here is Reagan's 1983 Evil Empire speech. Those of you on the left are boung to be outraged.

Jeez, give credit where it's due. Reagan didn’t write that speech. White House speechwriter Tony Dolan and his staff did. Of course Reagan delivered it well. For heaven's sake, he was an actor.

Originally posted by notyoueither
re Korea. There is very little external pressure. That is my point. No pressure, no failure.

Wow, someone who doesn't think North Korea is a failure? 10% of the population starved to death, inability to keep the capital lit or heated, swarms of people defecting to ... China!!!! I sure don't want to see your idea of a real failed state!

Originally posted by Imran
Reagan challenged his cabinet all the time.

Yeah, when he wasn't dozing through cabinet meetings! Reagan was famously "hands-off" in his executive style, delegating far more to his cabinet officials than most presidents. According to James Schlessinger:

Reagan had a total incapacity to manage even the mildest detail. He was an executive who could not execute. We probably have not had as good a chief of state since George Washington, but he was a dreadful, dreadful chief of government. He really didn't know what was going on most of the time.

Imran, you usually get your facts fairly straight. For shame!

[mindseye]

However, there is still the issue of what the Gipper did for Americans about how they felt about themselves.

Some of you keep going on about how good Americans felt during the Reagan years. Not in the city I was living in! When people heard his administration stating things like "a nuclear war is survivable", with national forests being sold to strip-miners by fundamentalist Watt, with creepy religious fanatics like Jerry Falwell hanging around the White House, with the monumental silence surrounding the national AIDS crisis, ... we were anything but inspired. Yes, I was there, too (born in '59).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Theben

NYE, yes, after reading those articles, it does look like Q Cubed and other Reagan haters are students of those who in the 80's saw the USSR as everlasting and who, at the time, criticized Reagan's effort to resist it as pointless and provacative.

Brilliant deduction. Do you contribute articles to the National Review?

Theban, I am sure you too are careful student of history and politics.

But, do you not remember or did you not learn that that was exactly what Reagan's critics said during his early presidency? They objected to the buildup, to placing new missles in Europe, to Star Wars, on exactly these grounds. At the time, the USSR was perceived as an invincible superpower, and the anti-Reaganites were much more into appeasement than confrontation.

[Q Classic]

Q Cubed, do you expect the same collapse from Cuba?

yes, but not immediately. i doubt that cuba will be able to do the same thing nkorea did in regards to a dynasty change.

NYE, yes, after reading those articles, it does look like Q Cubed and other Reagan haters are students of those who in the 80's saw the USSR as everlasting and who, at the time, criticized Reagan's effort to resist it as pointless and provacative.

what the ****? ned? you've just fallen a huge amount in my respect for you because i'm starting to feel as if you really do believe that if one's not with you, we're all against you. do you understand that people can have differing degrees of support?
i'm a reagan-hater because i don't think he really won the cold war?
i've always thought that the communist/soviet system was doomed from the get go simply because human nature does not allow for such free redistribution of goods and services. we're all greedy, and so communism and socialism won't work unless it's at the point of a gun. and any government that derives its operational legitimacy from the point of a gun is doomed once the oppressed get a taste of freedom in a nation outside of it.
i myself don't think reagan was a bad president. i was a kid when he was, so i don't know how he did policy-wise, but i remember that as a little kid, i liked him. my parents liked him too. reading back on a lot of his policies, i like them too.
nowhere did i say that his increased military spending was bad. i've only stated that the military spending did not do much to destroy the soviet empire; the symptoms of collapse were already present.
now, if thinking someone was a decent president overall, but not believing that he should get credit for one thing makes me a hater, then i'm sorry i don't kowtow to the same brainwashed party line.

NYE, if Q Cubed truely believes it was the communist system that collapsed of its own accord, then Cuba should (soon? eventually?) collapse as well. But, he never answered my question as to whether Castro's Cuba would collapse. Clearly, the people in Cuba struggle daily for existence just as they once did in the USSR. How long can this go on until someone in Cuba says enough is enough.
I would accept Q Cubed saying that the collapse will come with Castro dies, because, until he does, no one can act to make the system better by ending communism. But, all we get is silence.

look, ned, i don't spend all of my ****ing time on these boards. i have a real life, and so just because i don't answer for the rest of the day does not mean that i've dropped the argument. **** off if that's how you want to treat this.
if you see what i said above, cuba won't last as a communist nation. there, the symptoms of communism's collapse are already there. once castro dies, there's no possibility of a dynastic succession, unlike nkorea. nkorea in any case, is less communist and more absolutist despotism. it has a dressing of communism, but even in the soviet system, three whole generations of a family weren't tossed into the gulag.
communism does not work. human nature won't allow it. that is why every single communist nation that exists has such trouble internally. when the walls come down and they liberalize, we find that things were even worse than they appeared on the outside.

look, i'm so sorry i don't buy all of my political bull**** and news from one ****ing right-wing source, but if that makes me a reagan hater, or some radical left wing liberal, i cry for the state of discourse in my country.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mindseye

However, there is still the issue of what the Gipper did for Americans about how they felt about themselves.

Some of you keep going on about how good Americans felt during the Reagan years. Not in the city I was living in! When people heard his administration stating things like "a nuclear war is survivable", with national forests being sold to strip-miners by fundamentalist Watt, with creepy religious fanatics like Jerry Falwell hanging around the White House, with the monumental silence surrounding the national AIDS crisis, ... we were anything but inspired. Yes, I was there, too (born in '59).

Clearly, Reagan was not admired or loved by all. But, since he was twice elected in landslides, the second time taking all but one state, most Americans appreciated him.

Now, if you ask Gorby his opinion - he personally negotiated with Reagan, not with Reagan's speachwriters - he will affirm that Reagan was the great leader people perceived him to be.

[Ned]

Q Cubed, every time I think you are a left-wing nutcase, you surprise me. I actually agree with your last post. Will you accept my deepest apology for the clearly false association with the Reagan-haters of this world?

[Q Classic]

ned, if you're apologizing, i accept.

what i'm taking you to issue for though, is that you seem to be falling victim to the exact same things a lot of bloody bleeding heart liberals do: namely, grouping everyone who disagrees with you into one big group, whether they truly belong in that group or not. you can't do that. otherwise, you're no better than they are. the only difference between grouping all rightist opponents as nazis and fascists and grouping all leftist opponents as communists and idiots is two words. the end result is the same: it kills any sort of meaningful discourse.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by PLATO


I remember sitting in an economics class in 1985. The class was "The Political Economy of the USSR" The instructor regularly consulted with the White House on Soviet economic matters as he was considered one of the west's experts on the subject. He told us unequivocally that the USSR would fall in 10 years or less. He said it was an economic inevitability. Everything he taught about what we would do...we did. Every result he taught us about...happened.

I was there...I saw it. That is the truth of that time, not the opinions you have been led to believe.

(Interestingly enough...this guy was Greek. Not that it matters...just thought it was interesting.)

1985, some 5 years into the Reagan presidency, ...hmmm... By that time some did predict the eventual fall of the SU, but as with all analysis there are conflicting viewpoints. Certainly, by Rekjavik the writing was (perhaps) on the wall (pun intended).

I was there too (until mid 84) and I'll put my first hand knowledge of the events of those times up against anyones.

[Ned]

Q Cubed, true.

'Nuf said.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ramo
1. A regime could go on for years with a declining economy if it's authoritarian enough. Specifically, Gorby's extremely rapid dismantling of large parts of the Soviet military and arms industry destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs, dealing the final blow to the Soviet economy. Thanks to Gorby's reforms with regards to broader freedom of information and expression, the people were able to capitalize on it and totally dismantle the USSR.

I agree that Gorbachev was the right man in the right place.

If the Politburo succeeded in replacing him with someone like Brehnev, I'm not convinced that the Soviet Union wouldn't still exist today.
2. Other people who apparantly saw the other truth of the time would disagree.

Dont forget though that Gorbachev was not seen to be a moderate when he took power after Chernenko. After all, he was an Andropov protege. History suggests he was a moderate of sorts, but he couldnt have taken power as a moderate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, when he wasn't dozing through cabinet meetings! Reagan was famously "hands-off" in his executive style, delegating far more to his cabinet officials than most presidents.

Being 'hands off' and delegating doesn't mean you don't stand up to your cabinet when you get the chance. In the end, the ultimate power was with Reagan. Usually he let the cabinet do their work, but if he didn't like where they were going he'd say it.

As for the 'dozing' during cabinet meetings, I've yet to get proof of this, even though I've been asking on the forum for years .

[Theben]

So far all I've seen is that economists and commentators have both said either "the system will collapse," or "it will keep going." They also say "the economy is great," or "the economy is terrible." My point is given enough people you'll find plenty of quotable snippets from both sides (as well as shades in-between).
The difference is you are saying that everyone who disagreed with Ronnie's comments must have hated him, or were trying to appease commies, etc. Could it be that they were just reporting the results that they had gathered?

nye,
Dinesh D'Souza (aka Distort D'newsa) has been a talking head for the Right since the late 80's. He'd never say anything bad about the Right's policies, or his hero RR.

ned,

But, do you not remember or did you not learn that that was exactly what Reagan's critics said during his early presidency? They objected to the buildup, to placing new missles in Europe, to Star Wars, on exactly these grounds. At the time, the USSR was perceived as an invincible superpower, and the anti-Reaganites were much more into appeasement than confrontation.

It wasn't about appeasement. It was attempting to curb Ronnie's spendthrift ways. Especially with Star Wars, which was a colossal waste of tax dollars.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As for the 'dozing' during cabinet meetings, I've yet to get proof of this, even though I've been asking on the forum for years .

As for accomplishments, I've yet to get proof either, though I've asked several times myself.

[rah]

Man, this is like saying that world war II was caused by one single thing. It was a combination of things. Same thing with the Soviet collapse. It was lots of things. While I don't think Reagan was the primary reason or should get primary credit, it's hard to say that he NO impact.