Reagan

Vulchor

So many of the new right claim to be Reagan-esque. He is also talked about, in some circles (see Fox News) as historians refer to Lincoln or Ghandi. I am not writing this as a bashing of the man, nor as a liberal as I have often been wrongly accused of being. I am writing it as a counter point to many ideas, and a challenge to the idea of what Regan is/was. Because the Regan of the 80's is NOT the Regan than lore and mythology has made him out to be today. Many of his downfalls are not discussed, and other info is manipulated to fit this image of the man...and I dont get it

Perhaps first and foremost, Reagan would be a moderate today and a likely target for the Tea Party (Palin) who claim to be his continuation of ideas. Now perhaps his firing of the air traffic controllers and busting the rights of unions was a good thing to some. So maybe was his deregulation of business----these we could debate all day....and Iran Contra even longer than that

What cannot be debated (although Im sure many will say Im wrong)...is that ---Reagan acted far to slowly and with far too little about the AIDS/HIV epedemic in the U.S. and around the world---The deficit grew by a larger margin than any other president (until Bush)...which included alot of Govt. spending by the way, which was claimed to be so bad. See here the ever popular (failure) War on Drugs---Wealth increased for all (cant argue here), but it also was the largest gain for the top earners ever, while starting the end of the middle class...TRICKLE down, trickle being the key word---The help for Saddam, the fleeing of Lebanon, and the money in Grenada (heres some reasons to not involve ourselves in Libya, btw

phobicsquirrel

good luck....

absolutjer

phobicsquirrel:

good luck....

I could not have said it any better... My youngest daughter is named Reagan after "The Man"

Vulchor

Its a nice name----but I think the way Squirrel meant good luck, and the way you think he did are two different things Absolut.

kuzi16

Vulchor:

Its a nice name----but I think the way Squirrel meant good luck, and the way you think he did are two different things Absolut.

now that right there is funny.

Vulchor

Lol...I thought so to Kuz

Amos_Umwhat

I voted for Reagan, twice. As I recall, there were a couple of things that convinced me. One, unlike todays Neo-Cons, Reagan understood concensus-building, he didn't shrink from a good idea just because it came from a source he may have other disagreements with. This is what always kills me when I hear certain Right-Wing idealogues refer to themselves as "Reagan Conservatives", these guys would have crucified Reagan, if they'd been old enough to be where they are now when he was president.

The other main thing was; I always believed absolutely that Reagan was sincerely interested in the good of the country, the whole country, and what it stood for. I cannot find this ethic in the Neo-Cons who run todays Republican party. They seem to be elitists determined to bring back a plutocracy that would leave only the uppermost portions of the upper class with rights, or education. They seem to me to put forth the idea that it is "Libertarian" for them to use their money and power to force their will on those with less, and to rig the law to support their position.

I miss Reagan, even when he was wrong, at least he was honest.

xmacro

Amos Umwhat:

They seem to be elitists determined to bring back a plutocracy that would leave only the uppermost portions of the upper class with rights, or education. They seem to me to put forth the idea that it is "Libertarian" for them to use their money and power to force their will on those with less, and to rig the law to support their position.

I miss Reagan, even when he was wrong, at least he was honest.

I think you also just described the progressives and their desire to impose their ideals/establish "experts" as the deciders of everything from healthcare rationing to income redistribution.

Seems if you go far enough in either direction on the political spectrum, you wind up on the the other side.

Also +1 to The Gipper; the man was a liberal-turned-conservative and knew how to work with people

Vulchor

Amos Umwhat:

I I miss Reagan, even when he was wrong, at least he was honest.

Except on Ollie North;)

Amos_Umwhat

xmacro:

Amos Umwhat:

They seem to be elitists determined to bring back a plutocracy that would leave only the uppermost portions of the upper class with rights, or education. They seem to me to put forth the idea that it is "Libertarian" for them to use their money and power to force their will on those with less, and to rig the law to support their position.

I miss Reagan, even when he was wrong, at least he was honest.

I think you also just described the progressives and their desire to impose their ideals/establish "experts" as the deciders of everything from healthcare rationing to income redistribution.

Seems if you go far enough in either direction on the political spectrum, you wind up on the the other side.

Also +1 to The Gipper; the man was a liberal-turned-conservative and knew how to work with people

Agreed, it is the extremists that are the danger. That's why we (the voters) must not allow them to divide us on fine points of doctrine, which we are doing at an alarming rate these past few years, until we give up all our rights, so our side can be "right". It's just wrong.

Amos_Umwhat

xmacro:

Amos Umwhat:

They seem to be elitists determined to bring back a plutocracy that would leave only the uppermost portions of the upper class with rights, or education. They seem to me to put forth the idea that it is "Libertarian" for them to use their money and power to force their will on those with less, and to rig the law to support their position.

I miss Reagan, even when he was wrong, at least he was honest.

I think you also just described the progressives and their desire to impose their ideals/establish "experts" as the deciders of everything from healthcare rationing to income redistribution.

Seems if you go far enough in either direction on the political spectrum, you wind up on the the other side.

Also +1 to The Gipper; the man was a liberal-turned-conservative and knew how to work with people

Agreed, it is the extremists that are the danger. That's why we (the voters) must not allow them to divide us on fine points of doctrine, which we are doing at an alarming rate these past few years, until we give up all our rights, so our side can be "right". It's just wrong.

Laws4

To me, the reason that Reagan is so frequently cited has very little to do with what he actually did while in office. Simply, Reagan is the youngest republican president that is still a viable name in the court of public opinion. W. Bush, regardless of your or my personal opinion on the man, is one of the least highly regarded presidents ever by the country as a whole. That may be the incredibly different in 50 years, but right now, that is the case. H.W. Bush was only president for four years, and thus isn't exactly a testament to Republican viability. When pointing to better days, Republican strategists don't particularly want to bring up the Bushes, as moderates are relatively unlikely to respond favorably. Thus Reagan is chosen, as he is freshest on voters' minds. 

xmacro

Laws4:

To me, the reason that Reagan is so frequently cited has very little to do with what he actually did while in office. Simply, Reagan is the youngest republican president that is still a viable name in the court of public opinion. W. Bush, regardless of your or my personal opinion on the man, is one of the least highly regarded presidents ever by the country as a whole. That may be the incredibly different in 50 years, but right now, that is the case. H.W. Bush was only president for four years, and thus isn't exactly a testament to Republican viability. When pointing to better days, Republican strategists don't particularly want to bring up the Bushes, as moderates are relatively unlikely to respond favorably. Thus Reagan is chosen, as he is freshest on voters' minds. 

Ummm . . . not really. According to NPR, G. W. Bush is tied with Obama for public approval (bear in mind this was in Oct. of 2010, and Obama's poll ratings have since taken a dive).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/08/130436247/george-bush-now-ties-barack-obama-in-public-approval-poll

If you read the article, it turns out that voters think Biden is better than Cheney, but only by 5%

Laws4

Obama enjoys virtually no support across party lines currently. W. Bush enjoyed virtually no support across party lines towards the end of his presidency. He still enjoys virtually no support across party lines. I'm not saying Obama is more liked. I am saying that Reagan is much more liked than Bush. Similarly, I believe that Clinton is much more liked than Obama. In ten-fifteen years, I believe that democrats will be hearkening back to the Clinton days and pointing to his balanced budget, etc.

I didn't mean my first post as a pro-democrat/Obama post. If it came off that way I am sorry. I was saying that Reagan is much more popular among moderates and swing voters than Bush. Thus, identifying with him over Bush is intelligent politically. 

Vulchor

Agreed Laws----I will add to your point in saying my belief that: Reagans popularity among moderates and swing voters has much more to do with crafting an image that isnt real and constructing an ideal of the man which was not true-------in the same vain the way people felt FDR was the reason the depression ended.

cabinetmaker

Reagan was the first president I voted for, my very first vote. I think the greatest thing about Reagan was that he built consensus by moving the left further to the right.

Vulchor

The Master Manipulator

kuzi16

Vulchor:

The Master Manipulator

in all fairness there is a host of politicians that you can say that about on both sides. isnt that 50% of what a politician is anyway?

Vulchor

Sure. Just making the observation