Since I have had to demote Ronald Reagan to being the second worst government head ever seen in a democracy, I realized we put off the discussion on what made Reagan great out of sensibility to those admiring him and mourning his death. By now, the grief should have passed, so I would like to hear the arguments for his greatness.
My most profound memories of the man was that he was directly supporting a guerilla movement in El Salvador whose most prominent modus operandi was to rape, murder and torture men, women and children alike. The fact that they also completely destroyed one of the very few central American countries that had control of its economy and was evolving into a democracy is also well documented. Also, the funding went directly against decisions made by congress, so to raise the money American weapons were sold to Iran in secret.
So in my book he is starting out with a massive deficit, but I still want to hear both sides of the equation.
Reagan's greatness? (spamfree)
Reagan's greatness? (spamfree)
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
From the lack of responses, I guess the man is not so great after all. I will give it another 24 hours, after which I will conclude that my assessment that Ronald Reagan was a war criminal is correct.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
-
RandomThug
- Posts: 2795
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
- Location: Nowheresville
- Contact:
I will again restate myself.
I started this junk I believe by saying he was a Great man in his death thread.
I then went on to say any man who holds the Office "President of the United States of America" is a great man. I didn't say holy, or sweet or even fair. I said great as in the definition "# Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West. "
Just as G.W.Bush is Great... just as Clinton was... you can not take away the fact that Reagen Like bush like clinton ran the most powerful nation.
I started this junk I believe by saying he was a Great man in his death thread.
I then went on to say any man who holds the Office "President of the United States of America" is a great man. I didn't say holy, or sweet or even fair. I said great as in the definition "# Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West. "
Just as G.W.Bush is Great... just as Clinton was... you can not take away the fact that Reagen Like bush like clinton ran the most powerful nation.
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
The Dude: On you maybe.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
If the definition of "great" is "powerful," which it isn't when one is considering human beings, then every leader of certain nations is automatically great, and every leader of certain other nations automatically isn't. End of story.
But since that leads us into a tautological dead-end, why don't we focus, instead, on the qualities of "greatness" that are typically associated with great leaders, and see how they apply directly to Reagan?
But since that leads us into a tautological dead-end, why don't we focus, instead, on the qualities of "greatness" that are typically associated with great leaders, and see how they apply directly to Reagan?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=RandomThug]I will again restate myself.
I started this junk I believe by saying he was a Great man in his death thread.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I remember. But even after you made your definition of great clear, others claimed that he was indeed great by his qualities and not only by his position. I realised that I never did get any of his qualities of greatness defined since we postponed the discussion indefinitely, and until now, no one has brought it up again.
I started this junk I believe by saying he was a Great man in his death thread.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I remember. But even after you made your definition of great clear, others claimed that he was indeed great by his qualities and not only by his position. I realised that I never did get any of his qualities of greatness defined since we postponed the discussion indefinitely, and until now, no one has brought it up again.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
-
dark_raven
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:03 am
- Location: in a world full of death and destruction...
- Contact:
i find this thread funny... i never knew that reagan was even consitered great... i mean, what great qualities did he have, anyways? (sorry, i never payed attention to US history last year) i can't think of any worth taking the time to argue them out with anyone, much less worth listing...
†Ð∂RK R∂VΣN†
--love is way over rated, less its true and honest... but thats not easily found--
-ÐR
-ÐR
"You will NEVER understand me till you can read my MIND!!!"
Usstan Elgga Dos, Wael!!!
@dark_raven: You don't understand. I despise the man on the level of Pol Pot. I strongly objected to anyone praising him upon his death, but on the request of some members we decided to delay this discussion out of sentiment for their feelings. Since he is now decomposing comfortably, I decided to yet again bring up the subject.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
[QUOTE=dark_raven]i find this thread funny... i never knew that reagan was even consitered great... i mean, what great qualities did he have, anyways? (sorry, i never payed attention to US history last year) i can't think of any worth taking the time to argue them out with anyone, much less worth listing...[/QUOTE]
Not me neither, I totally despised the man for the Iran-Contra affair and his support of the massacres in El Salvador. But when I came in contact with some Americans just after Reagan's death, it turned out they seemed to believe Reagan was involved in the fall of the Soviet union
I believe the argument would be something like "because Reagan spent a lot of money on warfare, Soviet went bankrupt/gave up trying to follow". I am not sure though, it's difficult to assess beliefs that are fantasies. It may be something else that nobody else in the world except some Reagan supporters living in an alternative reality, knows about. Or maybe they just think his record of crimes against human rights is the greatness?
Not me neither, I totally despised the man for the Iran-Contra affair and his support of the massacres in El Salvador. But when I came in contact with some Americans just after Reagan's death, it turned out they seemed to believe Reagan was involved in the fall of the Soviet union
I believe the argument would be something like "because Reagan spent a lot of money on warfare, Soviet went bankrupt/gave up trying to follow". I am not sure though, it's difficult to assess beliefs that are fantasies. It may be something else that nobody else in the world except some Reagan supporters living in an alternative reality, knows about. Or maybe they just think his record of crimes against human rights is the greatness?"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I believe the argument would be something like "because Reagan spent a lot of money on warfare, Soviet went bankrupt/gave up trying to follow".
This began as a Republican litany soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and eventually became Accepted Wisdom--which means it's never challenged. Dic! Cheney, giving a speech at the Reagan Library, said, "The Cold War ended as it did, not by chance, not by some inevitable progression of events: It ended because Ronald Reagan was President of the United States." There's no question that Reagan engaged in enormous defense expenditures: the president who supposedly favored small government built up the Pentagon and Defense Department to unprecedented levels, and turned around a budget surplus that had existed for decades into the worst federal deficit (up to that time) in US history. Arguably, the greatest effect of this was the economic drag that severely hurt Bush Sr's subsequent presidency and cost him a second term, though it also fueled an immediate drop in the inflation rate.
But if the Soviet Union's collapse was due to a ratchetting up of US defense spending, one would logically expect the Soviet to attempt to equal this spending. From what we can tell of the Soviet budget, that didn't happen. The real internal economic problem was the years of heavy, endemic corruption under Brezhnev, followed by the appointment of two elderly centrist strongmen successors (Andropov, Chernenko) who died quickly before any policy changes could be implemented. Gorbachev tried to halt the by-then swift decline through economic reforms, but was constantly stymied by the Communist bureaucracy which suspected his intentions. This led him to attempt genuine multiparty elections in an effort to create a bulwark in the Duma (congress) against the Communists.
But it backfired. While the new reform bloc sided with Gorbachev, they also wanted economic reforms he couldn't deliver. And when the satellite governments, aware of what was going on, decided to instigate social and ecnomic reforms of their own, Gorbachev refused to take military action. There's no evidence his refusal had anything to do with Reagan and the US. He's repeatedly said since that he wished to spare enormous loss of human life, and given Gorbachev's record in office, this is probably true, at least in part. He probably knew as well that the situation was too tense in many satellites to risk a series of simultaneous military crackdowns at the same time. All that required was common sense, and Gorbachev never seemed to lose that.
There are a lot of myths about Reagan. For example, his followers trumpet that he was the most popular of presidents, but his early approval ratings (52%) were relatively low, and never topped 68% at the height of his popularity. Clinton, the bane of the far-right, repeatedly hit 71%.
Let's remember, too, that Reagan funded and supported Saddam Hussein, using then-privately employed Donald Rumsfeld to act as a co-between for the sale of arms, including chemical WMD and anthrax. Reagan's regime also supported the Afghanistani warlords. As he said in a White House speech in 1983, ""The Afghan Mujaheddin are the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America." They then abandoned the Mujaheddin after the Soviet left Afghanistan to their own devices, with what results we now know: a nation torn into more than a dozen tiny pieces, a strong religious extremist faction, and among the largest heroin growers and exporters of the world. An individual mistake is understandable; but under Reagan, the US returned to a policy of supporting dictatorships and extremists wherever it was felt to be in US shortterm interests. Nobody seems to have looked at the longterm consequences of these actions, at least, not as they historically have worked out in the realworld. The similarities to the unilateralists under the latter Bush are uncanny, but then, some of the same officials were involved at high levels in both administrations.
I would suggest that Reagan's administration was not the extraordinary success it's been painted by his former cabinet colleagues and others who stand to gain through reflected light. True, it pulled back later from some of the very worst mistakes made during its early years, and its later term was actually a lot more moderate than the current administration. But it contributed little to the country of what I consider lasting positive value, and recommenced the cover-up of government information from the public which had been pushed to extremes by Nixon and pulled back by Carter. This, more than anything else, I find highly troubling. It set a precedent that would be advanced still further by Dubya, with his stated policy to all cabinet employees of "don't tell Congress, don't tell the public" and tightening of public disclosure acts.
This began as a Republican litany soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and eventually became Accepted Wisdom--which means it's never challenged. Dic! Cheney, giving a speech at the Reagan Library, said, "The Cold War ended as it did, not by chance, not by some inevitable progression of events: It ended because Ronald Reagan was President of the United States." There's no question that Reagan engaged in enormous defense expenditures: the president who supposedly favored small government built up the Pentagon and Defense Department to unprecedented levels, and turned around a budget surplus that had existed for decades into the worst federal deficit (up to that time) in US history. Arguably, the greatest effect of this was the economic drag that severely hurt Bush Sr's subsequent presidency and cost him a second term, though it also fueled an immediate drop in the inflation rate.
But if the Soviet Union's collapse was due to a ratchetting up of US defense spending, one would logically expect the Soviet to attempt to equal this spending. From what we can tell of the Soviet budget, that didn't happen. The real internal economic problem was the years of heavy, endemic corruption under Brezhnev, followed by the appointment of two elderly centrist strongmen successors (Andropov, Chernenko) who died quickly before any policy changes could be implemented. Gorbachev tried to halt the by-then swift decline through economic reforms, but was constantly stymied by the Communist bureaucracy which suspected his intentions. This led him to attempt genuine multiparty elections in an effort to create a bulwark in the Duma (congress) against the Communists.
But it backfired. While the new reform bloc sided with Gorbachev, they also wanted economic reforms he couldn't deliver. And when the satellite governments, aware of what was going on, decided to instigate social and ecnomic reforms of their own, Gorbachev refused to take military action. There's no evidence his refusal had anything to do with Reagan and the US. He's repeatedly said since that he wished to spare enormous loss of human life, and given Gorbachev's record in office, this is probably true, at least in part. He probably knew as well that the situation was too tense in many satellites to risk a series of simultaneous military crackdowns at the same time. All that required was common sense, and Gorbachev never seemed to lose that.
There are a lot of myths about Reagan. For example, his followers trumpet that he was the most popular of presidents, but his early approval ratings (52%) were relatively low, and never topped 68% at the height of his popularity. Clinton, the bane of the far-right, repeatedly hit 71%.
Let's remember, too, that Reagan funded and supported Saddam Hussein, using then-privately employed Donald Rumsfeld to act as a co-between for the sale of arms, including chemical WMD and anthrax. Reagan's regime also supported the Afghanistani warlords. As he said in a White House speech in 1983, ""The Afghan Mujaheddin are the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America." They then abandoned the Mujaheddin after the Soviet left Afghanistan to their own devices, with what results we now know: a nation torn into more than a dozen tiny pieces, a strong religious extremist faction, and among the largest heroin growers and exporters of the world. An individual mistake is understandable; but under Reagan, the US returned to a policy of supporting dictatorships and extremists wherever it was felt to be in US shortterm interests. Nobody seems to have looked at the longterm consequences of these actions, at least, not as they historically have worked out in the realworld. The similarities to the unilateralists under the latter Bush are uncanny, but then, some of the same officials were involved at high levels in both administrations.
I would suggest that Reagan's administration was not the extraordinary success it's been painted by his former cabinet colleagues and others who stand to gain through reflected light. True, it pulled back later from some of the very worst mistakes made during its early years, and its later term was actually a lot more moderate than the current administration. But it contributed little to the country of what I consider lasting positive value, and recommenced the cover-up of government information from the public which had been pushed to extremes by Nixon and pulled back by Carter. This, more than anything else, I find highly troubling. It set a precedent that would be advanced still further by Dubya, with his stated policy to all cabinet employees of "don't tell Congress, don't tell the public" and tightening of public disclosure acts.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=Silur]From the lack of responses, I guess the man is not so great after all. I will give it another 24 hours, after which I will conclude that my assessment that Ronald Reagan was a war criminal is correct.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silur]I despise the man on the level of Pol Pot. I strongly objected to anyone praising him upon his death.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=C Elegans]I totally despised the man for the Iran-Contra affair and his support of the massacres in El Salvador. But when I came in contact with some Americans just after Reagan's death, it turned out they seemed to believe Reagan was involved in the fall of the Soviet union I believe the argument would be something like "because Reagan spent a lot of money on warfare, Soviet went bankrupt/gave up trying to follow". I am not sure though, it's difficult to assess beliefs that are fantasies. It may be something else that nobody else in the world except some Reagan supporters living in an alternative reality, knows about. Or maybe they just think his record of crimes against human rights is the greatness?[/QUOTE]
*Sigh* This is why I won’t be defending Reagan here (Reagan is a war criminal, anyone who liked him is living in a fantasy land, Reagan ate my baby, Reagan was the Antichrist, Reagan sold poison milk to school children, etc.). What's the point? The enmity for the man is so thick it’s palpable. I am not a political Cognoscente with serious debating experience. I’m just not equipped for this kind of battle. No answer I give will be sufficient and any attempt I make will likely result in verbose dissertations refuting every facet of my response. It’d be like trying to take out a pack of wolves with only a plastic butter knife. I’m just going to get my ass mauled and nobody's mind is going to be changed. I learned a long time ago to keep my mouth shut and my head down when I'm around political topics (at least in real life I can always resort to physical violence when I'm getting trounced in a debate).
I admit it! I am a republican, a conservative, a Bush supporter, and a Christian. I am the thing you abhor. Blame this misguided rural peasant for helping keeping Bush in office for another 4 years.
Oh, "Knute Rockne All American" was my late Grandfather’s favorite movie, so that wins the Gipper a few points in my book. In closing: I love whales, but they have got to go. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
[QUOTE=Silur]I despise the man on the level of Pol Pot. I strongly objected to anyone praising him upon his death.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=C Elegans]I totally despised the man for the Iran-Contra affair and his support of the massacres in El Salvador. But when I came in contact with some Americans just after Reagan's death, it turned out they seemed to believe Reagan was involved in the fall of the Soviet union
I believe the argument would be something like "because Reagan spent a lot of money on warfare, Soviet went bankrupt/gave up trying to follow". I am not sure though, it's difficult to assess beliefs that are fantasies. It may be something else that nobody else in the world except some Reagan supporters living in an alternative reality, knows about. Or maybe they just think his record of crimes against human rights is the greatness?[/QUOTE]*Sigh* This is why I won’t be defending Reagan here (Reagan is a war criminal, anyone who liked him is living in a fantasy land, Reagan ate my baby, Reagan was the Antichrist, Reagan sold poison milk to school children, etc.). What's the point? The enmity for the man is so thick it’s palpable. I am not a political Cognoscente with serious debating experience. I’m just not equipped for this kind of battle. No answer I give will be sufficient and any attempt I make will likely result in verbose dissertations refuting every facet of my response. It’d be like trying to take out a pack of wolves with only a plastic butter knife. I’m just going to get my ass mauled and nobody's mind is going to be changed. I learned a long time ago to keep my mouth shut and my head down when I'm around political topics (at least in real life I can always resort to physical violence when I'm getting trounced in a debate).
I admit it! I am a republican, a conservative, a Bush supporter, and a Christian. I am the thing you abhor. Blame this misguided rural peasant for helping keeping Bush in office for another 4 years.
Oh, "Knute Rockne All American" was my late Grandfather’s favorite movie, so that wins the Gipper a few points in my book.
In closing: I love whales, but they have got to go. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
@Kayless: I see your point... and it really is fighting a pack of wolves with a plastic butter knife on a number of levels. Still, since I'm not really interested in mauling your behind, I would like to hear what makes you think he is great. The reason is that I really want to know, because I cant understand it. Pretty please? If I promise I won't bite? I can't vouch for Fable though...
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Nah, judging from the comments here and our meetings in Budapest and Amsterdam, I know I'm actually a lot more mellow about Reagan than you and CE. Everybody has their vision of what the US should be, and depending upon that, Reagan can be seen as either a president or did very little, or one who epitomized those desired qualities. I'm not inclined to argue over or even discuss these, since they're intensely subjective, and everybody is right.
Everybody has their vision of what the US should be, and depending upon that, Reagan can be seen as either a president or did very little, or one who epitomized those desired qualities. I'm not inclined to argue over or even discuss these, since they're intensely subjective, and everybody is right.To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable] Everybody has their vision of what the US should be, and depending upon that, Reagan can be seen as either a president or did very little, or one who epitomized those desired qualities. I'm not inclined to argue over or even discuss these, since they're intensely subjective, and everybody is right.[/QUOTE]
I can see how patriotic Americans with no regard for the rest of the world can appreciate aspects of Reagan's politics, but holding the belief that he should be credited for affecting the downfall of the Soviet Union, or supporting his contributions to the killing of El Salvador villagers, school teachers and other civilians, cannot be part of what even the most fanatic patriotic, christian conservative define as great.
I'm personally not very interested in Reagan, but like most European I dislike Reagan most of the recent US presidents, because of his crimes against human rights.
[QUOTE=Kayless]*Sigh* This is why I won’t be defending Reagan here (Reagan is a war criminal, anyone who liked him is living in a fantasy land, Reagan ate my baby, Reagan was the Antichrist, Reagan sold poison milk to school children, etc.). What's the point? [/quote]
There is a big difference between "Reagan was a war criminal" and the rest of your examples. "Reagan was a war criminal" is a historical fact, well documented.
Nobody has said "anyone who liked Reagan lives in a fantasy land", but I said: "it's difficult to assess beliefs that are fantasies" about the belief that Reagan influenced the downfall of Soviet Union, and I also said "It may be something else that nobody else in the world except some Reagan supporters living in an alternative reality, knows about. "Some" referring to those who believe he was to credit for the downfall of Soviet, or alternatively something completey else that is equally fantasy based as the Soviet idea.
[QUOTE=Kayless]*
I admit it! I am a republican, a conservative, a Bush supporter, and a Christian. I am the thing you abhor. Blame this misguided rural peasant for helping keeping Bush in office for another 4 years. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I know. I couldn't disagree more with your politcal and religious views, but I still refuse to believe that you are
1. so manipulated by media myths so you believe in the fantasies about Reagan's role in the downfall of Soviet or
2. so sadistic and misantropic so you think it's a great deed to support the murderer of thousands of innocent civilians
Therefore, my conclusion is that you and other's Americans who think Reagan was a great man, must see something else, something that Europeans or Asians don't see, something that appeals enourmously to you, so enormously so you forgive him for his violation of human rights.
What is this?
I can see how patriotic Americans with no regard for the rest of the world can appreciate aspects of Reagan's politics, but holding the belief that he should be credited for affecting the downfall of the Soviet Union, or supporting his contributions to the killing of El Salvador villagers, school teachers and other civilians, cannot be part of what even the most fanatic patriotic, christian conservative define as great.
I'm personally not very interested in Reagan, but like most European I dislike Reagan most of the recent US presidents, because of his crimes against human rights.
[QUOTE=Kayless]*Sigh* This is why I won’t be defending Reagan here (Reagan is a war criminal, anyone who liked him is living in a fantasy land, Reagan ate my baby, Reagan was the Antichrist, Reagan sold poison milk to school children, etc.). What's the point? [/quote]
There is a big difference between "Reagan was a war criminal" and the rest of your examples. "Reagan was a war criminal" is a historical fact, well documented.
Nobody has said "anyone who liked Reagan lives in a fantasy land", but I said: "it's difficult to assess beliefs that are fantasies" about the belief that Reagan influenced the downfall of Soviet Union, and I also said "It may be something else that nobody else in the world except some Reagan supporters living in an alternative reality, knows about. "Some" referring to those who believe he was to credit for the downfall of Soviet, or alternatively something completey else that is equally fantasy based as the Soviet idea.
[QUOTE=Kayless]*
I admit it! I am a republican, a conservative, a Bush supporter, and a Christian. I am the thing you abhor. Blame this misguided rural peasant for helping keeping Bush in office for another 4 years. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I know. I couldn't disagree more with your politcal and religious views, but I still refuse to believe that you are
1. so manipulated by media myths so you believe in the fantasies about Reagan's role in the downfall of Soviet or
2. so sadistic and misantropic so you think it's a great deed to support the murderer of thousands of innocent civilians
Therefore, my conclusion is that you and other's Americans who think Reagan was a great man, must see something else, something that Europeans or Asians don't see, something that appeals enourmously to you, so enormously so you forgive him for his violation of human rights.
What is this?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
@CE, I have to wonder if at least a bit of the Reagan mystique can be characterized by something I read in a piece of fiction recently, completely unrelated to this discussion:
"He had a sudden memory of a book about King Arthur he’d read as a child and realized that this was the sort of man he had wanted to be. A hero, plain and uncomplicated, simple in the best sense of the word, where good and evil were easy to spot and that right always triumphed with flags and trumpets."
Most people in any nation identify themselves with that nation. If we accept this, then most of those people in turn would find it difficult to live with an image of their nation as somehow inadequate and insufficient. This is especially the case in the US, where people are taught early in school to accept a series of myths regarding the manifest destiny of the US.
Reagan said the right things, made decisive actions, and looked genial but serious. The endless verbal stumbles (and some horrifically insensitive remarks) were overlooked, because for quite a few people, he helped them feel good about the US. Much the same could be said of his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher. Whatever her shortcomings as a prime minister, and they were many, she looked and acted decisively. And that's what quite a few British voters wanted at that time.
Personally I don't buy into any of it, and that's at least in part because I don't buy into the national myths of the US. But that's just me.
"He had a sudden memory of a book about King Arthur he’d read as a child and realized that this was the sort of man he had wanted to be. A hero, plain and uncomplicated, simple in the best sense of the word, where good and evil were easy to spot and that right always triumphed with flags and trumpets."
Most people in any nation identify themselves with that nation. If we accept this, then most of those people in turn would find it difficult to live with an image of their nation as somehow inadequate and insufficient. This is especially the case in the US, where people are taught early in school to accept a series of myths regarding the manifest destiny of the US.
Reagan said the right things, made decisive actions, and looked genial but serious. The endless verbal stumbles (and some horrifically insensitive remarks) were overlooked, because for quite a few people, he helped them feel good about the US. Much the same could be said of his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher. Whatever her shortcomings as a prime minister, and they were many, she looked and acted decisively. And that's what quite a few British voters wanted at that time.
Personally I don't buy into any of it, and that's at least in part because I don't buy into the national myths of the US. But that's just me.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]
Reagan said the right things, made decisive actions, and looked genial but serious. [/QUOTE]
Too add to this..(something I just love to do), After Carter and the bumbling in Iran, Reagan was to some the complete opposite.
(IMHO) If the attempt had not failed, Carter might had been reelected. The hostages and the planes burning in the desert was the doom of Carter. Some could recover (Bush 2 and Iraq, Clinton and Whitewater) from their mistakes, Carter (Bush 1 and the economy) couldn't.
Reagan said the right things, made decisive actions, and looked genial but serious. [/QUOTE]
Too add to this..(something I just love to do), After Carter and the bumbling in Iran, Reagan was to some the complete opposite.
(IMHO) If the attempt had not failed, Carter might had been reelected. The hostages and the planes burning in the desert was the doom of Carter. Some could recover (Bush 2 and Iraq, Clinton and Whitewater) from their mistakes, Carter (Bush 1 and the economy) couldn't.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Weasel]Too add to this..(something I just love to do), After Carter and the bumbling in Iran, Reagan was to some the complete opposite.
(IMHO) If the attempt had not failed, Carter might had been reelected. The hostages and the planes burning in the desert was the doom of Carter. Some could recover (Bush 2 and Iraq, Clinton and Whitewater) from their mistakes, Carter (Bush 1 and the economy) couldn't.[/QUOTE]
Carter was a very atypical American president. He was extremely naive in some respects and out of step with contemporary American views--among them, that the solution to all foreign crises is to send in the troops. Yet oddly enough, Reagan bungled Iran, as well. Remember when he arranged to free the hostage in exchange for an enormous amount of supplies--which Congress had approved for use in Nicaragua, rather than Iran? After the hostages were released, the Khoumeni regime simply and immediately gathered new ones. Yet the media was intimidated by Reagan's popularity, and never played this up as the kind of major blunder it was. I think that in this instance appearance played a larger part than reality in determining the public image of a president and his administration.
(IMHO) If the attempt had not failed, Carter might had been reelected. The hostages and the planes burning in the desert was the doom of Carter. Some could recover (Bush 2 and Iraq, Clinton and Whitewater) from their mistakes, Carter (Bush 1 and the economy) couldn't.[/QUOTE]
Carter was a very atypical American president. He was extremely naive in some respects and out of step with contemporary American views--among them, that the solution to all foreign crises is to send in the troops. Yet oddly enough, Reagan bungled Iran, as well. Remember when he arranged to free the hostage in exchange for an enormous amount of supplies--which Congress had approved for use in Nicaragua, rather than Iran? After the hostages were released, the Khoumeni regime simply and immediately gathered new ones. Yet the media was intimidated by Reagan's popularity, and never played this up as the kind of major blunder it was. I think that in this instance appearance played a larger part than reality in determining the public image of a president and his administration.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable] I think that in this instance appearance played a larger part than reality in determining the public image of a president and his administration.[/QUOTE]
Reagan was able to survive the pit. I would agree the preception has a lot to do with being able to weather the events. Bush 1 couldn't and really I didn't believe Bush 2 could either. As you wrote earlier though.."they're intensely subjective". What I see and believe others can't or will not ever see.
Reagan was able to survive the pit. I would agree the preception has a lot to do with being able to weather the events. Bush 1 couldn't and really I didn't believe Bush 2 could either. As you wrote earlier though.."they're intensely subjective". What I see and believe others can't or will not ever see."Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
[QUOTE=fable]I believe the argument would be something like "because Reagan spent a lot of money on warfare, Soviet went bankrupt/gave up trying to follow".
This began as a Republican litany soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and eventually became Accepted Wisdom--which means it's never challenged. Dic! Cheney, giving a speech at the Reagan Library, said, "The Cold War ended as it did, not by chance, not by some inevitable progression of events: It ended because Ronald Reagan was President of the United States." There's no question that Reagan engaged in enormous defense expenditures: the president who supposedly favored small government built up the Pentagon and Defense Department to unprecedented levels, and turned around a budget surplus that had existed for decades into the worst federal deficit (up to that time) in US history. Arguably, the greatest effect of this was the economic drag that severely hurt Bush Sr's subsequent presidency and cost him a second term, though it also fueled an immediate drop in the inflation rate.[/QUOTE]
Quick interjection: spending copious amounts of money, especially while lowering taxes, creates inflation - it doesn't help curb it. A loose fiscal policy pumps money into the system, and with more money available prices rise.
I'm under the impression the belief that Reagan lowered inflation is a misconception; as far as I can remember from various case studies, it was the Fed's chairman at the time, Paul Volcker, that continually raised interest rates in order to subdue demand and lower inflation. Since the Fed is a private bank that is neither controlled by nor liable to the government, Reagan had little to do with drop in inflation.
This began as a Republican litany soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and eventually became Accepted Wisdom--which means it's never challenged. Dic! Cheney, giving a speech at the Reagan Library, said, "The Cold War ended as it did, not by chance, not by some inevitable progression of events: It ended because Ronald Reagan was President of the United States." There's no question that Reagan engaged in enormous defense expenditures: the president who supposedly favored small government built up the Pentagon and Defense Department to unprecedented levels, and turned around a budget surplus that had existed for decades into the worst federal deficit (up to that time) in US history. Arguably, the greatest effect of this was the economic drag that severely hurt Bush Sr's subsequent presidency and cost him a second term, though it also fueled an immediate drop in the inflation rate.[/QUOTE]
Quick interjection: spending copious amounts of money, especially while lowering taxes, creates inflation - it doesn't help curb it. A loose fiscal policy pumps money into the system, and with more money available prices rise.
I'm under the impression the belief that Reagan lowered inflation is a misconception; as far as I can remember from various case studies, it was the Fed's chairman at the time, Paul Volcker, that continually raised interest rates in order to subdue demand and lower inflation. Since the Fed is a private bank that is neither controlled by nor liable to the government, Reagan had little to do with drop in inflation.
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
-
dark_raven
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:03 am
- Location: in a world full of death and destruction...
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Silur]@dark_raven: You don't understand. I despise the man on the level of Pol Pot. I strongly objected to anyone praising him upon his death, [/QUOTE]
silur, thats what i'd like to call sarcasm
anyways the meaning of my previous post was the fact that i also don't think that he should be praised after death...
silur, thats what i'd like to call sarcasm
anyways the meaning of my previous post was the fact that i also don't think that he should be praised after death...
†Ð∂RK R∂VΣN†
--love is way over rated, less its true and honest... but thats not easily found--
-ÐR
-ÐR
"You will NEVER understand me till you can read my MIND!!!"
Usstan Elgga Dos, Wael!!!
@Fable: You had to mention my previous number two, now number three candidate as worst government head. The old iron lady is almost as bad as Reagan, and I will gladly oppose any praise to come her way when she finally joins the choire invisible. Tony B Liar is working hard on bumping her to number four, but he needs a few more crimes against humanity on his resumé before he gets there.
Why cant the world elect some reasonable people to lead? But how stupid of me, reasonable people stay well away from politics.
Why cant the world elect some reasonable people to lead? But how stupid of me, reasonable people stay well away from politics.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman