The Death of Ronald Reagan

fans at Morrissey concert in Dublin cheer wildly at news of Reagan's death, but cheer louder when the Moz says he wishes it had been Bush instead. story here.

 

I give Reagan credit for his role in ending the Cold War, but I do not believe that Carter's re-election would have led to war.

I agree. Carter is a good man but he was a lousy president. Reagan was a good man AND a strong leader who really did have the strongest hand in bringing the cold war down, IMO. Reagan also pulled our country together at a time in which we had little confidence in our government (ie Nixon and Watergate, Johnson and Vietnam, Ford...and the nothing that he did, and Carter and the Iran hostage situation along with the really bad Economy that we had during his administration). Then came Reagan. He made us proud to be American again. He also improved our economy. Some say he didn't but I don't see how they can claim that the economy during Reagan was worse than it was during Carter. Finally, he brought down the Cold War.

Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever. In fact I would venture to say that Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are the only other ones that were greater.

 

Reagan didn't end the cold war.

It was the Soviet Unions lack of economic means that broke them to the point of trying something else!

To put it simply. They couldn't afford to go in debt like we could to pay for their military.

 

Anyone who takes a fictional movie that seriously loses a lot of credibility in any argument thereafter. It was a complete work of fiction people, that's all. It's a movie.

_dArTh_SoLo,

If you try studying the situation by reading books, going to school, and staying informed you'll learn a lot of the above article is actually pretty accurate. I would not have posted it otherwise. Maybe you should try to come up with a decent argument instead of spitting out a simpleton answer.

Vezner,

The Soviets shot themselves in the foot, the entire world knows it and so do they. Reagan wasn't the one responsible for bringing them down, they ran their country into the ground.

 

DarthOb1 and Crix, it's tough to say what would have happened had it not been for Reagan and his strong stance against the USSR. Your speculation is just that, speculation.

BTW, according to this, you are both wrong. I would assume that he would know more about what really brought the cold war down than you two. Call it a hunch.

 

Reagan accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union by building up our military and supporting funds leading to tech innovations the USSR knew they could not compete against(SDI, support of anti-marxists groups, etc).

In a way, he held a mirror up to their face and forced them to look at the reality of their failed command economy.

His way of saying: "You cannot beat us."

And yet, he still signed a treaty beginning the halving of ICBMs.

 

DarthOb1 and Crix, it's tough to say what would have happened had it not been for Reagan and his strong stance against the USSR.

no, it's not. virtually everyone in and out of the former Soviet Union who knows anything about anything agrees now that it was dying on its own. Reagan was basically the guy who happened to be on duty when it came down, and has gotten disproportionate amounts of credit for doing so from US convervatives as well as from his former allies like Gorbachev, who's basically praising Reagan to increase his own standing on having dealt with Reagan, because he's widely hated at home where over 70% of the population lament the passing of the Soviet Union according to the latest polls.

the Soviet Union was collapsing on its own. where American presidents should be judged is on how well they facilitated the transition out of the Soviet period, and based on the complete shambles that tries to pass itself off as Russia these days, Reagan and everyone after him (both Bushes and Clinton) have been grossly incompetent. Reagan's attempts to push them further into bankruptcy have proved disastrous. they helped rack up a colossal US debt which we haven't even begun to deal with, and even if they may (emphasis on "may") have sped up the inevitable, that's probably not a good thing as it ended up happening too fast and now we're left with a bankrupt, nearly lawless state with nukes.

Reagan deserves to live in infamy as one of the worst presidents in US history. he's probably the worst of the 20th century, and if you had asked me this time four years ago i would have said he was the worst of my lifetime.

here's a bit from John K Galbraith in Salon:

But let's talk economics. It is not too early to contradict those who would elevate Reagan above Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, or even Bill Clinton, on this score. Yes, Reagan did change the course of history. But his economic legacy was mainly destructive, and especially so for the world's poor and our own working class.

Among postwar administrations, who had the best record on economic growth? The answer is Kennedy-Johnson (49 percent over eight years), followed by Clinton (34 percent), followed by Reagan (32 percent). Among postwar two-term presidencies, Reagan beats out only Eisenhower (21 percent) and Nixon-Ford (24 percent). Call him the best of the Republicans, if you want.

The unemployment rate stood at 6.6 percent when Kennedy took office and at 3.4 percent when Johnson left it. The average over their eight years was 4.8 percent. When Clinton came in, unemployment was at 7.4 percent; it averaged 5.2 percent during his two terms and fell to 3.9 percent by the end. And for Reagan? Unemployment stood at 7.5 percent at his inauguration, and it averaged that same 7.5 percent during his entire eight years. The jobless rate was 5.4 percent when Reagan left office.

Inflation did come down -- from just over 10 percent in the oil crisis year of 1980 to just over 3 percent in 1983. But at whose expense? Here the correct contrast is with FDR, who controlled inflation while doubling output over four years in World War II. In the process, Roosevelt leveled the pay distribution and created the modern American middle class.

Reagan's disinflation came from unemployment over 10 percent, from his attack on unions, and from high interest rates, which drove up the dollar and cheapened imports. Those measures bankrupted much of the manufacturing belt. They damaged the middle class. And they created a vast trade imbalance and a rising external debt whose consequences haunt us still. Precisely what Roosevelt built, in other words, Reagan did much to destroy.

 

dizfactor, did you even bother reading the link that I posted? I assume not. Gorbachev himself credits Reagan with ending the cold war. Do you honestly think that you, Galbraith, or anyone else knows more about what brought the Cold War down than Gorbachev?

BTW, anyone who says Reagan deserves to live in infamy as one of the worst presidents in US history. he's probably the worst of the 20th century, and if you had asked me this time four years ago i would have said he was the worst of my lifetime. right after the man died, is not worth giving the time of day to IMO. That's real nice kicking and slamming a man right when he died. Show a little more tact, will ya? All you are making yourself out to be right now is a left-wing radical nut.

Heck, I disliked Clinton as much as you dislike Reagan but if he were to die today, I would not be slamming the man on a public forum. I would be paying my respects.

 

dizfactor, did you even bother reading the link that I posted? I assume not.

vezner, did you even read the part of my post where i addressed the story about Gorbachev which you linked to? i assume not. i'll cut and paste it for you and emphasize the important bits:

Reagan was basically the guy who happened to be on duty when it came down, and has gotten disproportionate amounts of credit for doing so from US convervatives as well as from his former allies like Gorbachev, who's basically praising Reagan to increase his own standing on having dealt with Reagan, because he's widely hated at home where over 70% of the population lament the passing of the Soviet Union according to the latest polls.

Gorbachev is gunning after his place in the history books. he's trying to spin it so that it was the magnificent statesmanship of Ronnie and Gorby that brought down the Wall, when the truth is that the system was collapsing on its own and would have even with two different people in the respective drivers' seats. Gorbachev is, essentially, trying to take credit for an inevitability of history in order to increase his own prestige.

Do you honestly think that you, Galbraith, or anyone else knows more about what brought the Cold War down than Gorbachev?

i think a lot of people know more about what ended the Cold War than Gorbachev, yes, just like i think a lot of people understand the late 90s tech boom better than Clinton and there are a lot of people who understood the Vietnam war better than Johnson. history is not a top-down process, and generally speaking, the political leadership is not ideally suited to understanding the moment that they're in, educated as they are in the moment that came before and consumed with the need to act on a day-to-day basis. generally speaking, economists, political theorists, and other academics are able to come to a better understanding of what happened in a particular time period through careful scholarship than people who were involved in a more visible way.

also, i think Gorbachev probably knows he's full of poo-poo, but it's in his best interests to pretend otherwise.

 

Well, that's your opinion. I for one agree with Gorbachev over you and Galbraith. You can't have any clue about where Gorbachev's motivations come from. Stop pretending that you do. As far as you know he is being honest and sincere. The man was right there in the thick of things when the Cold War came to an end. I think he knows more about what happened than you do. There is no way that you will be able to change my mind until you at least show more respect for a man that just died.

 

That's real nice kicking and slamming a man right when he died. Show a little more tact, will ya? All you are making yourself out to be right now is a left-wing radical nut.

first of all, Reagan's been effectively dead for years now. he hadn't even remembered Nancy's name by most accounts in years, and seldom left his bedroom. this is just the body catching up to the brain.

second of all, this is exactly the time to be setting the record straight because this is when the Reagan legacy in the public memory gets set in stone, and we can't allow those who are practically canonizing the man for sainthood to write the only accounts of what Reagan means to America. someone needs to break up the lovefest and put things in perspective.

There is no way that you will be able to change my mind until you at least show more respect for a man that just died.

with all due respect, i think that you think i care about whether or not you change your mind more than i do. for better or worse, you and i are mostly settled into certain sets of belief. i know where i stand on most issues, and so do you, and we've both given them a lot of thought, and it would require a pretty major life shift for either one of us to radically change perspectives. i'm more interested in putting my perspective out there where it can get to the undecided folks who haven't really thought things through.

 

Me too Vezner.

Some people continue to be in denial......about alot of things.

 

with all due respect, i think that you think i care about whether or not you change your mind more than i do. for better or worse, you and i are mostly settled into certain sets of belief. i know where i stand on most issues, and so do you, and we've both given them a lot of thought, and it would require a pretty major life shift for either one of us to radically change perspectives. i'm more interested in putting my perspective out there where it can get to the undecided folks who haven't really thought things through.

Fair enough. I just think you could show a little more tact and respect for the man. If you don't think that he was the one who brought down the cold war, that's fine. We are each entitled to our own opinion. But at least give him the respect that he deserves as a former President of our great nation and as a member of the human race. He just died for crying out loud! Anyone short of being a murderer deserves a little respect when they die. That's what I will give to Clinton when he goes(not much else mind you, but I will give him that much).

 

Fair enough. I just think you could show a little more tact and respect for the man.

i understand and respect what you're saying, but i respectfully disagree. i think that, in cases like this, the deceased-as-public-figure necessarily supersedes the deceased-as-actual-human-being, and i think that's part of the deal you buy into when you take the Oath of Office. Reagan is an important cultural icon moreso than he is a flesh-and-blood person, and the meaning of that icon as a cultural and political reference point will influence the lifes of actual living people for decades to come, and that's more important than respect for the dead.

don't get me wrong, if i happened to run into Nancy or something, i'd still offer my condolences and i wouldn't be like "he sucked as President anyway!" but in terms of discussing his legacy and impact in an online forum, it's a different story.

 

Gonk to be fair, Manson had been convicted of a legion of lesser crimes well before the tate/labianca(sp?) murders.

I don't recall murder being one of those crimes. It all tended to be petty auto theft and pimping.

 

That's what I will give to Clinton when he goes(not much else mind you, but I will give him that much).

Clinton was a good president.

 

Yeah, but he's getting screwed by the right again! Man o man, remember the great speech he gave at Nixon's funeral? It's bogus that he won't get to speak at Reagan's, but I can see why, I mean, Clinton is the only one who even comes CLOSE to the Reagan ability for the motivational life-legacy speech.

"Let the day of Judging President REAGAN on anything less than his entire life and accomplishments come to a close."

CLINTON DISAPPOINTMENT: LEFT OFF FUNERAL SPEAKERS LIST

Former President Bill Clinton has privately expressed anger he has apparently been left off the speakers list of Friday's Reagan State Funeral, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"President Clinton really held out all hope the funeral would be a nonpartisan event, like Nixon's was," a top Clinton source said on Tuesday morning. "He's angry and disappointed neither he nor President Carter have been asked to speak, as of yet."

The top source says Clinton has been critical that both Bush presidents will address the crowd gathered at National Cathedral.

Nixon's vice president Gerald Ford did not speak at Nixon's funeral.

Clinton's inner circle is convinced Nancy Reagan has personally shut out Clinton from any high-profile participation.

"It is a state funeral, using tax dollars," the top Clinton insider explained.

Former President George H.W. Bush, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney will join President Bush in eulogizing Ronald Reagan, Reagan's office announced. Presiding over the service will be former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, who is an ordained Episcopal priest. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the Rabbi Harold Kusher will give readings, while Irish tenor Ronan Tynan will sing.

The eulogy is being prepared by President Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, who also wrote the president's moving speech for a memorial service in the same cathedral after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Developing...

 

diz and Vezner, please read my exchange with Darth Viper_81 a page or two back. I'm right there with you, dizfactor.

Oh and, by the way, I really think your sig is right on, OWM.

 

Hmmmmmmm

I wonder if Oliver North will be there?

 

Sounds to me like Clinton is trying to get in the news again.

 

diz and Vezner, please read my exchange with Darth Viper_81 a page or two back. I'm right there with you, dizfactor.

Oh and, by the way, I really think your sig is right on, OWM.

I saw what you were saying back then. I disagreed with you then and I still disagree with you now. At least Diz has shown a bit more respect than you did back then.

As far as the sig comment is concerned, at both of you.

 

TripleB: Your personal attacks on me have no place here.

In that same thread, I can pull out time after time where you made attacks against Christian Values enough for me to call you a Christian hating zealot. YOu sure did not like that sequence of events, as I recall.

You're right, I didn't. So I don't like being called ugly names on a message board--shoot me.

And I defy you to find the post where I said, "TripleB is a right-wing homophobe zealot."

It ain't there. Your hostility towards liberals is entirely unwarranted. You hate us because you want to hate us.

Then move to Europe. You can get gay marriage too while you are at it.

God forbid that we actually learn something from these old, established countries and their culture, as opposed to being arrogant and thinking we're God.

It is just that the left did not want that an issue. Remember, back then, there were a lot of leftists claiming all we had to do was disarm and the Soviets would follow suite......

I know you and the other libs on these boards really believed that, too.

Did you know me in the 80s? You have no idea what I believed.

Inflation was just the tip of the iceberg.

There was runaway unemployment, to the tune of 12% was it?

That's half what it was in Herbert Hoover's presidency. It was pushing 12% in the first George Bush's presidency as well.

To the aplause of school children everywhere: Who really ate the school vegetables anyway?

So because of that, nuclear weapons are more important than children's nutritional needs?

cut student loans,

wasn't aware of that.

I was in high school in the late 80s, my parents didn't have much money, and I remember seeing exactly how many student loan opportunities had been cut from the time I was in elementary school until I graduated in 1989.

So again, would you have rather been blown up by a First strike on the SOviets?

There are better ways to take care of the Soviets than by being a bully. There are also better ways to take care of communism than by siding with fascist dictatorial thugs like Francisco Franco and Pol Pot and Osama Bin Laden simply because they didn't like communism or the Soviets either.

You love to throw out the "Wanna live in a Theocracy? MOve to Iran" statements so much, it would be totally fair on my part to tell you "Want Gas Rationing, $6.95/Gallon for gas, and Gay Marriage? Move to Europe!!"

At least the Europeans are open-minded and have a clean environment.

Pretty sad that you would prefer to drive everyone who isn't like you out of America though, especially when America was created as a melting pot. For a country that is supposed to be a melting pot, some of its people certainly aren't very accepting of other cultures.

Do you believe France and Germany's opposition to war is based on Anti-War philosophy or do you believe anything to the corruption of the "Oil-For-Food" Program.

I believe France and Germany didn't want to go to war until they had proof that Hussein had WMDs--and we did not have proof. Bush lied to us, and got a lot of our military men and women killed in the process.

Hate is a two way street.

So being hateful is OK for you, but if they're hateful, you want to blow them up?

ANd maybe all these other country's are wrong and we are right.



It's such statements of sheer arrogance that makes me embarrassed to open my mouth and reveal my American accent when I'm overseas. I wouldn't want anyone there to think that I'm the type of American who thinks that my President and my country are God and that everyone should be massaging our collective feet.

As I said, no wonder people hate us.

I suggest you be ready for a very bad day on 11.02.2004 then....

We'll see.

DO you want a leader whom is feared by your enemies or a Leader whom is ridiculed and held in contempt by your enemies?

I'd rather have a leader

 

VeznerP,

dizfactor pretty much nailed my response above, laying out a brief bit of history for you that apparently you didn't understand.

You should read more books and study the international political process. Call it a hunch

 

At least the Europeans are open-minded and have a clean environment

You know ag, sometimes we can be so open-minded our brains fall out.

 

Minds are like parachutes, Shane--they don't function unless they're open.