Reagan

[uh Clem]

Reagan in contrast took the fight to congress in order to see his agenda through. Part of the reason that those deficits were so high was that he was willing to compromise in order to get his programs rolling. He had no other choice really, as congress was solidly democratic with only a Bob Dole led minority in the senate able to wield any influence from the right sight of the aisle.

The Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 years under Reagan. In the House, many southern Democrats were ideologically closer to Reagan than to the rest of their party. Even the administration admitted at the time that Reagan had an "ideological majority" in Congress.

Read some of the earlier posts. Their recollection agrees with mine (as an outsider). Reagan revitalised a beaten and demoralised population. People who can do great things often do not for want of leadership.

"Reagan revitalised a beaten and demoralised population." Crimany. What a load of crap. Do kids today really believe that?

[JohnT]

Q: The signs were there in 86-89 of an impending Communist Bloc collapse, the problem was that nobody was prepared to expect such a thing because they couldn't believe in a world without the USSR - so they weren't looking for one.

I'm not too sure what you meant by that last sentence, so I'll just ignore it.

[JohnT]

"Reagan revitalised a beaten and demoralised population." Crimany. What a load of crap. Do kids today really believe that?

They should, because that's what happened. I was there and well old enough to remember the mood of the 70s.

[uh Clem]

John, sorry to hear that you were so down on yourself during the '70s. I wasn't. But even if I had been, it's highly unlikely I would have become more upbeat because of the words and actions of a politician. Sheeesh.

[Q Classic]

The signs were there in 86-89 of an impending Communist Bloc collapse, the problem was that nobody was prepared to expect such a thing because they couldn't believe in a world without the USSR - so they weren't looking for one.

ah, i see what you mean now. so pretty much, we're not really in disagreement.

oh, and that last sentence was directed more at ned and the like, not you.

[rah]

While I credit him with bringing pride back to America, I only give him very slight credit for the Soviet collapse. It was a rotting house just waiting for a freak wind to blow it down. If it wasn't that wind it would have been another. And a lot of you naysayers at least seem to believe that Reagan blew.

[Sava]

And a lot of you naysayers at least seem to believe that Reagan blew.

nice Rah...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by uh Clem
John, sorry to hear that you were so down on yourself during the '70s. I wasn't. But even if I had been, it's highly unlikely I would have become more upbeat because of the words and actions of a politician. Sheeesh.

Puh-leeze. Save the insults for somebody who gives a ****e for your opinion about them.

If you do not think that there was any change in the overall mood of the country between 1979 and 1984, than that's your opinion. It's wrong, but you can still believe it.

Remember when the newspapers would run Above-the-Flap expose's on the ravages of inflation, and how everybody was going to be eating $8 Big Macs and paying $12 for a gallon of gas by 1990? Remember The Limits to Growth and the huge influence it had on American policy making from 1974-1979? Hell, remember the Iranian hostages and the inability of the US of A to fly some helicopters at night... the argument whether to mine the harbors of Nicaragua, where Carter just dithered and dithered... the "giving away" of the Panama Canal... a DJIA that went from 1,000 in 1972 to (iirc) 550 in 1979?

Was it just the "politician"? Of course not, but leadership exists and Reagan had that quality in spades, whereas second-term Nixon, Ford and Carter did not.

[Sava]

So... Carter was a bad president... that doesn't mean Reagan was a good one.

[JohnT]

I think the issue is of "leadership", Sava, not the long-term effects of specific policies.

[Sava]

That's an opinionated judgement though. So basically you think Reagan was great because of his PR... that's nice... but I tend to look at the actions, not the words... and yes... the long term effects.

[JohnT]

I meant that the current debate on hand is about leadership.

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
I meant that the current debate on hand is about leadership.

Yeah, and devastatingly negative long term effects of policy decisions has something to do with one's leadership.

[Theben]

To all of you saying you had to be there, well I was there, and Reagan came off as a liar and a buffoon.

He also had the distinction of making a good number of us think we would die before his presidency was over, in a nuclear holocaust. Most of my classmates back then hated him. Quite a few still haven't forgiven him.

Reagan was surrounded by some good advisors, and once he picked an opinion he stuck to it like glue. That's about all you can say about him that's positive.

And to whoever said nothing came of the Iran-Contra hearings, check your history. Reagan's administration had literally hundreds of indictments and quite a number of convictions.

[JohnT]

Edit: I actually got my Reagan threads confused... when I posted the above, I was thinking this was the movie thread. My apologies.