Ronald Reagan: The Greatest President Ever

Yep, I already addressed this!! There is no doubt that Reagan was a funny and charming old fellow. He also gave really nice speeches, with some fine sunny platitudes. He was great at that. Most people don't deny that. But I just addressed this in a previous post.

PS. How does charisma mean political competence? Some of the world's most charismatic leaders, were also some of it's worse.

 

frods he stated this a long time ago. Somehow he seems to think that the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own policies AND it collapsed due to Ronald Reagan.

When asked to clarify this he preferred to indulge in petty abuse rather than go there.

When asked if the USSR would have collapsed under the weight of its own failed polcies if Reagan hadn't been President (say if Carter had won in 1980), he refused to answer the question or discuss the issue.

When you get to the kernel of things too many conservatives resort to abuse, rather than deal with the debate. This is what happened here.

It's like a game of chess. It's mate in one and your opponent knocks the board over.

 

Right, but what Reagan did that other presidents didn't do is demonstrate the backbone to stand up to Soviet expansionism and militarism. Reagan did a military build up that help the USSR speed along the way to it's ultimate demise. It's demise was never assured because we had such weak leaders in the West that it appeared as though communism was going to be the dominant system for decades or centuries to come.

 

Well even though this has been dealt with already at least it is an argument:

1. All evidence shows that the USSR did not respond to the escalation of the arms race by Reagan, so it had little effect on their economy. Towards the end Reagan helped the USSR politically (not economically) by agreeing arms control. Eastern Europeans were unaffected by they arms race as they didn't have nuclear weapons so that can have had no impact on the collapse of communism in Poland, East Germany or Hungary.

2. This argues that without Reagan communism would have continued - for centuries! It wouldn't have collapsed under its own weight. Clearly this is nonsense but the argument is that it was collapsing under its own weight with Reagan but was strong enough to survive without him. Yes, I expect even someone with an average American High School Education can see that this is illogical drivel.

So even though communism was a system that was collapsing from its own failed policies, if someone like Carter had been President then it would suddenly not have been collapsing under its own failed policies, the USSR (under Gorbachev) presumably would have invaded Poland, East Germany and Hungary to put down uprisings, and today we would still have a thriving communist bloc with an intact iron curtain. We have to guess this bit about Gorbachev invading Eastern Europe because they never actually mention Poland, East Germany and Hungary and the struggles of the people of these countries risking their lives for freedom.

It's easy to see how they don't really want to explain so deeply. When they start to spell it out, their carefully contructed myth becomes a laughable crumbling joke, doesn't it?

So we get the abuse instead. Round up the posse. Yee hah!

 

Do you really need to be this spoonfed? They collapsed following policies they created to compete with the US. Why did they need to compete with the US? Because Regan was overthrowing communist countries, outspending and outsmarting Russia in military defense.

My God you really need to educate yourself on this issue.

 

The policy that was most at fault for their failure, had absolutely NOTHING to do with competing with the US. Planned economies will inevitably fail. Autocracies also tend to fail. What was keeping the Soviet system together was violence and the threat of violence. That was taken away by Gorbachev, and the system collapsed. Reagan had nothing to do with it!! My God you really need to educate yourself on this issue!!


PS. I have also proven in this thread that the lie that Reagan's reckless military spending, led to the Russian military responding to keep up, is objectively false. They didn't raise military spending in the 80s to keep up, and by the mid 80s they were cutting the military. It is just another, in the long list of lies ignorant and uneducated right wingers believe in.

 

This has been dealt with over and over. The USSR did not respond to Reagans arms race when he started it in his early years and in his later years he initiated arms control to help his buddy Gorbachev. They squealed like heck at the USA increasing its superiority, but they took very little action in response because the country was bolloxed, as they say in Ireland.

The real damage had been done by having to compete with earlier US Administrations. This was not Reagan's fault. It's just that the USSR was already clapped out by the time Reagan showed up. Reagan made a lot of aggressive speeches. The US Right think that is the same as action. The USSR was terminally ill in 1980 when Reagan took over.

If you think that the USSR could have survived then you really do not understand the extent of the inherent weakness of communism. The evidence for communism's bankruptcy was found all over Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Berlin wall. I did a lot of business in Eastern Europe in the 1990's. The economies were bankrupt, poverty was widescale and these countries have had to be rebuild from Western investment. The peoples of these countries had been revolting since 1956. To suggest that without Reagan these countries would still be communist is a gross insult to the people of these countries and a statement of monumental ignorance.

 

Yes, look how you were accused of being stupid for not swallowing this lie. You and I have explained the truth over and over again. But they refuse even to acknowledge the point, let alone try and deal with it, preferring to abuse others who have actually done the research of being stupid or knowing nothing.

This is a totalitarian way of thinking - to cut out and ignore inconvenient facts and arguments that destroy your myths. This is why conservatives are a deep and sinister threat to our freedoms. They think and argue exactly like Mao's Red Guards or the NKVD of Josef Stalin.

 

This is mainly true but Gorbachev was not entirely blameless. He did remove the threat against Eastern Europe, but he did not let the Baltic States go without killing some freedom fighters. He reduced the threat of violence significantly but PN is at least right that he was trying to save communism, albeit in some reformed, benign form that would have - through the democratic institutions that would slowly have developed through perestroika - almost certainly very soon given way to liberal democracy on Western lines.

I find it amusing that us supposed "commies" (their cheap abuse) are so clear about the inherent weakness and ultimate collapse of communist economies, but the Right seem to think that at least to some extent communism can at least be efficient enough to survive. Ultimately this shows the inherent totalitarianism in the Right and that they may accommodate fascistic control over industry if they think it necessary politically as they do not see communism as critically flawed in terms of economic viability - as we do.

 

See, I don't get what you are doing here. You imply that you are uneducated or stupid if you do not agree with liberal thought processes. I understand you and your opinion and your political philosophy, and can disagree with it without claiming you are intellectually inferior to me. Yes, the debt exploded under Reagan. Reagan had a democrat congress. Congress controls the pursestrings. That is a Constitutional construct. Yes the trade deficit exploded under Reagan. It is not much better today, but it just doesn't make the news because we have a democrat president. I think both parties are in the pockets of the corporations when it comes to trade. I disagree with your assumptions about deregulation. Deregulation can be a good thing in moderation. There are some areas that need more regulation, but are not getting it. This is something that both sides need to come together on and find common ground. The Al qaeda comment is what I would call a myth. We supported the Mujahideen, not Bin Laden. Bin Ladin was doing his own thing in Afganistan. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher had a close encounter with Bin Laden in those days while visiting with our allies. His guides made him hide in a tent because they told him that Bin Laden would kill him because he was an American if he found out he was in the camp.

It is amazing to see that if you look at the true stats when it comes to presidential elections, Republicans out perform democrats.

I can't find the thread right now so I'll have to respond later.

 

If you don't mind then why are you whining?

 

That is a massive rewrite of history and a complete fabrication.

Please cite the statistics from 1988/89 showing he was so unpopular.

Please cite at least three economists who disagree that Reagan's economic policies not only rescued a nation in peril after four years of Obama-level incompetence by Jimmy Carter.

If you're going to post rash fabrications be prepared to support them.

 

Check your facts. Reagan did NOT impose tax increases. Congress did....a Democrat congress

 

Because you guys ratted to the Mods. That's what I mind.

 

Reagan's approval rating did improve some towards the end of his term, so I was slightly off. In 87-88 his numbers were lowest, and went back up slightly in 88-89.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html


However, he was still far less popular upon leaving office than many of his contemporaries. Clinton was more popular, JFK was more popular when he was assassinated, Eisenhower was more popular, and Reagan had a similar popularity to Ford upon leaving office.

As far as the economists who don't believe Reagan did something. What I am supposed to be disproving? First off, the burden is on you, as you are the one making the positive claim. But I will ignore generally understood debating facts, and show you 3 economists. There are of course hundreds. However, you asked for 3.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/ronald-reagans-legacy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html

And here is some criticism from the right, just to show it is not all "left-wing revisionism!!"

http://mises.org/daily/1544

 

Your sources will be dismissed with abuse. not argument. Krugman, who worked for Reagan already has been. Just wait,,,,

 

Yes, please tell us. What else could have been?

No one in here has ever said Ronald Reagan "single handedly" brought down communism. He had help. Not the least of which was Pope John Paul who, after meeting with Reagan scorned the parish priests of Poland for "tolerating the evil" of communism.

What, you think the Kremlin would have hesitated to start machine gunning Solidarity with Jimmy Carter in office? The guy who fiddled with the tennis court schedule while Americans were being tortured in Iran? You think Gorbachev backed down because he was a nice guy? Or was it because Reagan threatened to spend them into oblivion with SDI?

And if Reagan was such a great benefit to liberals how come he won the greatest electoral margin in modern history. The Dems carried one state in '84....and that by a slim margin.


So what did bring down the Berlin wall? Walter Mondale. Dukakis? Please let us in on this great historical secret.

 

I would say it's high time you substantiated some of this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) genius. Your posts have made a lot of claims, not the least of which is that there is a secret cabal plotting and scheming against you.

These paranoid ravings aside, its time to start posting some source material...like a chart showing Reagan's numbers were so bad at the end.

 

They didn't machine gun solidarity, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Ronald Reagan!! Where do you guys get this (*)(*)(*)(*) from? Gorbachev saw the writings on the wall, and believed the only way to avoid the collapse of the Soviet Union was to reform the system. His attempts at reform, and his decision to stick to his beliefs and not invade the Eastern Bloc countries trying to break away, was the reason they weren't machine gunned.


PS. Reagan was out of office by the time the Soviet Union was actually collapsing. So did George Bush scare them, or did they fear Reagan even after he left office and was starting to feel the effects of alzheimer's?

 

Don't give me Paul Krugman on Reagan.

and FYI, Kennedy's numbers were barely in the 40's when he was shot. he was under 20% in the South and had lost the unions.

So don't go accusing people of rewriting history when he engage in it and only offer a left wing maggot head's opinion as "proof".

 

I should also add that the average growth rate under Carter and Reagan were almost exactly the same!!

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/


That is another myth!! That Carter was historically bad, and Reagan saved us from the incompetence. Carter domestically was fine, but was undone by his inability to solve the Iran hostage crisis. Then they were released immediately after Carter left office, and Reagan didn't actually do anything to solve that problem. Then Reagan's recession early in his term was very serious, and then the recession at the end of his term was as well. A period of expansion brought about by Paul Volker's decision to loosen credit in the country was bookended by 2 serious recessions. So the myth of the great Reagan economy is absurd as well.

 

Your argument is presumably that Reagan was the decisive force in bringing down communism. That without Reagan communism would still be going. At least that is what PN has posted.

My argument made over and over, that you don't care to read before you weigh in with abuse, is that Reagan made little difference. The Russians didn't respond to SDI in spending more. They compalined but they didn't react. What is the point of discussing with you as frodly and I have made this point over and over but because it doesn't suit your argument your side continually ignore it as you do here.

The people who brought down the Berlin Wall were East Germans, some of whom had escaped East Germany via Hungary. Not everything that happens in the world is down to Americans. The whole of Eastern Europe's communist system was collapsing. The single decisive factor was the inherently bankrupt communist economic system. If you have seen the aftermath of communism and spent months working in Poland, the Baltic States and other parts of Eastern Europe, as I have, you would know that.

Reagan encouraged everyone. He played a small part. The Catholic Church played a much more significant part as did liberal and left wing intellectuals in Easten Europe, like Havel, Dubcek and Nagy. The USA played a very significant part over a long period of time. But probably Levi Jeans were more decisive in the collapse of communism than Ronald Reagan was. Gorbachev, although a reformist communist who was responsible for atrocities in the Baltic States, consciously weakened the CPSU one party state through perestroika. He did this because the alternative was anarchy, not because of America or because he was anice guy. The USSR was collapsing in on itself. There were many factors, but the singlemost significant one was that ultimately people will not put up indefintely with tyranny that delivers penury. The difference between the the Reaganauts and liberals here is that liberals have confidence that communism is a system that ordinary people will not permit. You guys still argue that the same people would be driving Trabants and Moskvichs today, without the Gipper having saved them. This is laughable bollocks. With no evidence.

History is about long term historical forces, not Angels and Demons.

As to Reagan being a benefit to liberals... Dukakis...what are you talking about?

 

Abuse?


Please provide specifics where anyone has abused you. If so, report them.

 

So now Murray Rothbard is a left-winger? You people really crack me up!! I suggest you google Murray Rothbard!!

PS. Attacking the author of a source is a logical fallacy. You told me to post 3 economists who disagree, I did. Only 1 of them you object to, and now incredibly unsurprisingly you move the goalposts!!

 

You mean like the time you called him an arrogant sociopath? That doesn't qualify in your world!! I guess in a world where Murray Rothbard is a left-winger, that may not be abuse? I don't know!