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

Quote:

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 bullshit 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

Quote:

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.

[mindseye]

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 .

Jeez, even the man himself joked that the chair he sat in at cabinet meetings should bear a plaque declaring "Ronald Reagan slept here"!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, even the man himself joked that the chair he sat in at cabinet meetings should bear a plaque declaring "Ronald Reagan slept here"!

Yes, making light of a false image is one way to defeat it. At least you acknowledge he was smart .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Theben

ned,

Quote:

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.

I am primarily referring to the outbursts in Europe and from the far left radicals in the US. Reagan had a real hard time getting the Euro's to upgrade to a new US missile. They never agreed to Star Wars, just like they have never agreed to its modern variant, the NMD. There were riots in the streets in Europe and demostrations here in the US. Reagan was called a warmonger, etc. The left preferred appeasement of the USSR.

Sure there were Democrats who were concerned about the cost of the military buildup. But many also were concerned that Reagan was being unnecessarily provocative. Posts from students in US universities at the time are posted here in this thread. Reagan was primarily opposed on ideological grounds, not cost grounds.

[Theben]

IIRC the Europeans didn't want nukes on their soil period, since it made them a higher priority on the nuclear target scale. So I can't blame them there.
And there is a difference between 'appeasement' and 'non-provocative'. Standing your ground is one thing. Provoking a hostile response is another.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Ned:
John, may I ask, where did you learn all this about Reagan since you were born in '87?

By reading about it and talking to people that were there. How else could I have learned about him?

originally posted by Sikander:
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.

Some specific examples would be helpful. And the things he did were not because of the situation at the time but because they helped US interests, and it happened to be at the expense of other people.

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.

Well of course in the end the ultimate power was Reagan. That's what you'd expect from the president. And of course if he didn't like what his cabinet did he'd say it, I haven't heard of a president that even if he disagreed with what the cabinet was doing didn't say anything. I'd say that if you let the cabinet do the work and only say something when you disagree, that's hands-off. Ultimately it was the cabinet doing the work, he just occassionally would make a decision on his own if he disagreed with the cabinet's.

[The Vagabond]

A few curious stories about Reagan from the Soviet side of the fence.

During his first visit to Moscow (1987, I guess), he was asked whether he was still thinking that the SU was an evil empire. "No, I no longer think so" was Reagan's reply.

About the same time, Gorby and Reagan exchanged TV addresses to their respective nations. Gorby spoke to the American people, while Reagan appeared on the Soviet TV. He (Reagan) ended his speech with the words "God bless you". It was so unusual for the Soviet ear to hear such kind of words on TV that my grandmother, the only religious person in our family, was deeply impressed. She was in love with Reagan ever since.

Also when in Moscow, Reagan expressed his admiration for the Soviet women. In a casual and somewhat perplexed manner, he said something like that: "Oh, not only do they have to take care of their families, but also to work a whole working day!". Wow, that was a masterpiece! Women were bought. First, they appreciated his care. Second, a subtle message was sent that in America women can usually dedicated themselves to their families. No wonder he managed to handle America as he did.

[SpencerH]

Interesting comments vagabond.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Theben
IIRC the Europeans didn't want nukes on their soil period, since it made them a higher priority on the nuclear target scale. So I can't blame them there.
And there is a difference between 'appeasement' and 'non-provocative'. Standing your ground is one thing. Provoking a hostile response is another.

The problem wasn't just the nukes. Nato had a first strike policy. In other words if the Sovs invaded western europe Nato was going to use nukes first to stop the advancing soviet tank columns. They were using nukes to make up for the huge soviet superiority in conventional forces. This was a declared Nato policy.

There was no enthusiasm at all in Europe to become a nuclear battlefield.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


The problem wasn't just the nukes. Nato had a first strike policy. In other words if the Sovs invaded western europe Nato was going to use nukes first to stop the advancing soviet tank columns. They were using nukes to make up for the huge soviet superiority in conventional forces. This was a declared Nato policy.

There was no enthusiasm at all in Europe to become a nuclear battlefield.

Ah, yes, I do recall that now. Thanks.

[Ned]

From The New York Times
February 19, 2003 Another March of Folly? By Christopher Buckley WASHINGTON — Twenty years ago this month, I was an aide to Vice President George Bush during another trans-Atlantic crisis. There were demonstrations in European capitals in which America was portrayed as the threat to world peace and the American president was called a warmonger, a "cowboy" and worse. Vice President Bush's response in February 1983 may hold some lessons for President Bush in February 2003.

Two decades ago the vice president was dispatched to London to calm things down, to hold hands, to remind our European friends and allies that we were still all in this together. What made his trip necessary was the controversy over deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe; several years earlier, the Europeans had requested that the United States place Pershing 2 missiles in Europe to counter Soviet medium-range missiles that were aimed at the Continent.

But when the missiles were ready to be put in place, Europe changed its mind. We don't want those missiles after all, Europe decided, under pressure from its left and the Soviet Union. You'll just use them to wage nuclear war on our soil.

The United States countered that it had half a million American troops in Europe. These missiles were manifestly to protect them as well as Europe. And without them, the Soviets could destroy 100 European cities — along with those American troops — in 20 minutes with their SS-20's.

I was in the vice president's motorcade. I remember the demonstration we had to get through in London, on our way to the speech at Guildhall. Furious crowds lined the streets with signs that, 20 years later, remain unprintable in this newspaper. This particular group of angry demonstrators had been organized by the London School of Economics, as I recall, playing hooky from Keynes.

Watching them through the car windows, up close, face to face, inches away, I couldn't decide how to react. Here I was, an official member of the United States government — the speechwriter — driving through a capital that the United States had not considered hostile territory since 1814, and here were dozens of people calling me by quite unpleasant names.

What was the protocol? Did one smile and wave back serenely, as the queen would have — and as the vice president, a few cars ahead, surely was doing? Or did one sit sullenly and refuse even to acknowledge the young hearties of the L.S.E.? I could bring myself to do neither. Instead, I offered my best composed smile, and when I had made sure there were no cameras, I exercised a middle option.

Sometimes diplomacy can be satisfying. I hereby apologize for my appalling lapse in decorum.

That night in Guildhall, as the vice president gave a positively brilliant speech, the shouting of the demonstrators seemed loud enough to rattle the stained-glass windows of the historic building. There was a question-and-answer session afterward. A politician wearing the clerical collar of the Church of England rose and in a tone of high moral revulsion denounced the United States for bringing emotions in Europe to the present boil and for forcing on an unwilling England and Continent these ghastly weapons. He had children, he announced with umbrage, and he rather hoped he would be able to see them grow up and not be incinerated in a nuclear exchange initiated by America.

The vice president began to answer, in his usual earnest, thoughtful and patient way. And then he stopped. I saw the air go out of him. He sighed. It was as eloquent and sincere a sigh as I have ever heard from a politician.

"Look, I have kids too," he said. "Don't you think I want to see them grow up?"

He followed this remark by saying that these missiles — he did not add, "That you asked us for, bub" — were intended to make Europe safer, not more dangerous. He reminded the gentleman that President Ronald Reagan had pledged to meet with General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev "at any time" and "any place" to sign an agreement eliminating all intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

The moment was defused. I had never seen the vice president in better form.

We flew home the next day. In the following weeks, German voters elected candidates who supported the Pershing missile deployments. A few months later, the missiles went in.

A few years after that, Mikhail Gorbachev effectively surrendered in a cold war that had lasted almost four decades, and in a few more years the Berlin Wall came down. Game, set, match. The Gulag Archipelago is now Vladimir Putin's Russia. NATO now extends to the Baltics.

http://www.greatertalent.com/buckley021903.shtml

[johncmcleod]

Um, OK. That whole story is from a conservative American that worked in the Reagan administration. Don't you think that when talking about Bush and Reagan he might just a little bit biased?

[Ted Striker]

no

USA and allies whooped Soviet ass

Now the cowardly Muslim terrorists are going to get theirs

[Ned]

John, Why do you say a NY Times reporter who opposed the war in Iraq - read the end of the article online - is a conservative?

[Alexander's Horse]

They big lie in that article is the "they asked for the missiles" bit.

[Q Classic]

ned, not all who opposed the war were liberals. you did have a few conservatives who opposed the war in iraq.

not all liberals opposed the war, either.

===

the problem with star wars is that it'll never work until we have the technology for it, and we won't have the technology for it unless we spend a lot on it. so while we're spending all of that money, it won't work for most of the time.

my godfather's son is part of the team at raytheon working on their stuff. they've got a cute shirt that says "discrimination is our goal".

it has nothing to do with race.