Why was Reagan better than Bush?

[Bosh]

I've noticed that a lot of people on this forum who strongly dislike Bush like Reagan a whole lot and think he was one of our best Presidents. Why? I don't see that big of a difference between them. The only good reasons I can think of is SALT-related stuff, but that get balanced out by Star Wars goofyness and that he was much better at pulling off a Presidential image.

I'm not feeling too much love for Teh Reagan ATM since I just read a quote of his commending SKorean dictator Chun Doo Hwan for his "commitment to freedom" at a time when he had imposed martial law, recently presided over the largest massacre in postwar Korean history and had came within an inch of executing the leader of the civilian opposition.

Please explain.

[Ted Striker]

Ronald Reagan, greatest President of our time


Bush, the worst president of our time

[Ted Striker]

Reagan gave us the Shining City on the Hill


Bush gave us the Axis of Evil


That pretty much sums it up

[Geronimo]

I dunno Ted, do you think either 'axis of evil' or 'shining city on a hill' were related to any concrete differences?


I'd say a big difference was that Reagan didn't violate the constitution as seriously as Bush continues to do.

[Q Classic]

I'm not feeling too much love for Teh Reagan ATM since I just read a quote of his commending SKorean dictator Chun Doo Hwan for his "commitment to freedom" at a time when he had imposed martial law, recently presided over the largest massacre in postwar Korean history and had came within an inch of executing the leader of the civilian opposition.

The people of Kwangju deserved it.

(I'm kidding. Seriously. Chun Doo Hwan was easily the second worst dictator of Korea, since he really did jack **** for the country. His ineptitude is exceeded only by that of Rhee.)

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I dunno Ted, do you think either 'axis of evil' or 'shining city on a hill' were related to any concrete differences?


I'd say a big difference was that Reagan didn't violate the constitution as seriously as Bush continues to do.

I think you missed the whole point.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Reagan gave us the Shining City on the Hill


Bush gave us the Axis of Evil


That pretty much sums it up

OK
Reagan = optimism
Bush = "scary terrorists want to kill us"

But that's more of an issue of packaging and rhetoric than substance. I still don't understand how you think there's that much of a difference between Reagan and Bush (especially to call on the best and one the worst president of our time).

I'd say a big difference was that Reagan didn't violate the constitution as seriously as Bush continues to do.

Right, in a lot of ways that Bush is bad Reagan was less bad. That I can understand. But saying that Reagan was very good but Bush is very bad confuses the hell out of me.

(I'm kidding. Seriously. Chun Doo Hwan was easily the second worst dictator of Korea, since he really did jack **** for the country. His ineptitude is exceeded only by that of Rhee.)

Right and Reagan did almost nothing to reign in him, while the Ford administration was at least a moderating force on Park (Carter being a complete **** up in his Korean diplomacy).

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Boshko

OK
Reagan = optimism
Bush = "scary terrorists want to kill us"

But that's more of an issue of packaging and rhetoric than substance. I still don't understand how you think there's that much of a difference between Reagan and Bush (especially to call on the best and one the worst president of our time).

I'm not going to go into the underlying, real differences in how their policy was implemented.

But I think you guys are seriously minimizing real leadership. Reagan was a real leader. Those things you call "packaging" and "leadership" are among the intangible things that can push a nation into greatness.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As Ted crudely put it, one reason was Reagan said America was a shining beacon and we should use our might to smack down Communism, while Bush is saying America should be afraid of terrorists. Big differences in what how they believe America should react to a stressful situation. And it ISN'T just packaging and rhetoric, but informs a totally different view on how legislation should be structured. Reagan's optimist led him to push for less governmental intrusion in the lives of people. Now, reasonable people can disagree on abortion, but in other aspects he was good at trying to get the government to pull away. Bush's fear leads to him to have a more and more overbearing government, driven by USA PATRIOT and USA PATRIOT II.

And that comes from the type of 'Wars' they decided to fight. Reagan's fight against Communism (which, btw was never the 'War Against Communism' TM) was a Cold War, mostly, fought using diplomacy and proxy wars. It was a 'war' built on containing the recognized enemy. Bush's "War on Terrorism" is incredibly vague built on exterminating a non-defined enemy.

While Reagan was not perfect on civil liberties, he was immensly better than Bush. When his cabinet was considering a national ID card, Reagan shot it down almost immediately. I think that if Bush is reelected, he'd push for a national ID card before his term is up.

The Reagan
The Bush

[Ted Striker]

Another way to look at it, was that Reagan brought people together

With Reagan, we were all Americans

Bush seems to divide people against each other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Another good point, Ted... fits in with the 'leadership' quality that Reagan had, but Bush lacks.

[Natalinasmpf]

I detest Reagan, anyhow. He was one of the worst hypocrites ever, even though he was a really good leader.

[Tattila the Hun]

Reagan is gone, Bush isn't.

Usually, the current anything is worse than the one we had x years ago. Time fuzzes people's memories.

This time, though, it is true.

[BeBMan]

Reagan said "tear down this wall" and some years later it was down. Bush said he will get the terrorists, but he still hasn't So the force is not with Bush.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think it's because the folks here have the luxury of looking back at Reagan's adminstration in hindsight, while they are living through Bush's. Reagan is certainly viewed more favorably now than he was during his Presidency. If you sent a lot of these "love Reagan" folks back in time, I think you'd find they'd turn into "hate Reagan" folks. They're just aping the conventional wisdom of the times.

BTW, I agree with you Boshko. Reagan and Bush are similar on many levels, so similar as to make pronouncements that Reagan is the greatest president ever and Bush is the worst ever look mighty silly.

Sorry, playa...