Reagan

[sophia jane]

So, I have to read Reagan's autobiography for a class, and then I have to write a couple of papers about him. The whole thing is making me feel a little unclean, but it is enlightening because I was youngish for most of his presidencies.
Anyway, wondering what general thoughts are on him as a person and as a president. I know y'all must have plenty of opinions.

I'm only just getting through his Hollywood days, and the whole Communist thing is really interesting to me. Was there really that much of a Communist threat in Hollywood? Were they really trying to "take over?" It's a little disconcerting to read thru his explanations of why he went from being a Democrat to a Republican. It's a little like watching Fox News, actually.

So, thoughts? Opinions? Whatcha know that I don't? Cuz I'm sure it's lots. At least about this.

 

[The_Fool]

Communism was a much more accepted doctrine before the Cold War. That is not to say that it was widely accepted. True communism as proposed by Marx was a much more acceptable solution to extreme liberals before the USSR turned it into such a dirty word.


The key word for the early years of the Cold War was Hysteria.

 

[rgraham666]

The only thing I can think of Reagan is that at least he was honest about his tax breaks. They were meant for the wealthy and he didn't try to hide that, as the present administration did.

There was never any Communist threat inside Hollywood. If Hollywood had started making "communist" movies they would have gone broke as no one in the rest of America would have watched them. Most of the Red Scare was just the posturing of assholes like Tail Gunner Joe and Nixon.

The best summing up of Reagan I've ever read was from Peggy Noonan, one of his speech writers. "Battling for the mind of Ronald Reagan was like the trench warfare of WWI. Never has so much energy been spent over so much barren ground."

 

[yui]

I'm only just getting through his Hollywood days, and the whole Communist thing is really interesting to me. Was there really that much of a Communist threat in Hollywood? Were they really trying to "take over?" It's a little disconcerting to read thru his explanations of why he went from being a Democrat to a Republican. It's a little like watching Fox News, actually.

Reagan - The Great Communicator.

Regarding Hollywood and Communism, check out McCarthyism and the witch hunts that occured during that time; scary stuff here in the land of the free and the brave, eh?

 

[rgraham666]

Reagan - The Great Communicator.

Regarding Hollywood and Communism, check out McCarthyism and the witch hunts that occured during that time; scary stuff here in the land of the free and the brave, eh?

My favourite line from that time was from Walt Kelly, the creator of Pogo.

"It seemed the land of the free and home of the brave was neither. We astounded our friends abroad and dismayed our enemies at home. They had no idea we could be so soft in the head or so hard in the heart."

 

[sophia jane]

Reagan - The Great Communicator.

Regarding Hollywood and Communism, check out McCarthyism and the witch hunts that occured during that time; scary stuff here in the land of the free and the brave, eh?

I know a bit about McCarthyism, but I'd never read an account from someone "inside" Hollywood before, which is why I was curious about its accuracy. He's adamant in his book that there was an active plan for the communists to take over Hollywood and control the industry, that several groups were run by communists, that he was on a hit list for communists, etc.

Reading that over, I'm reminded very much by George W and the terrorists.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Reagan had his faults just like anyone else that's ever held the office. I don't know much about him during the Hollywood or governor of California years. I can only speak to my feelings while he was president.

He was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. America was hurting in the mid to late 70's. We were still in a stupor over losing Vietnam, out of control inflation, interest rates over 20%, oil embargo, hostages in Iran, failed rescue attempt of the hostages, weakened military.

Carter had no true ability to rally anyone behind him. While I think his motives were good, no one was inspired to follow him. Reagan was VERY charismatic. People were drawn to him. Reagan seized on this and used it as the main drive in his campaign. During one debate Reagan flatly said "If think things are okay in this country, vote for my opponent". The simplicity of statement was beautiful. The great communicator was able to get people rallied behind him.

Once he got into office people continued to rally. The economy leveled out as it always does. National pride came back under him. The military benefited most from him. Pride and resources were returned to the military. I joined the military during his presidency. Military personnel were completely behind the man. He stood firm in his beliefs of a strong defense whereas Carter was seen as just the opposite. He stood strong in the face of our adversaries. He had no problem calling the Soviet Union an evil empire in front of the world. He challenged Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall in front of the world. He was the most beloved president by military personnel since Eisenhower. I was proud to have served under him.

Reagan is remembered as the one that restored national pride. He came along at a time when it was sorely needed. Some of his policies were flawed, and I'm sure the man was flawed too, but he was in the right place at the right time. He brought a timely message, and the great communicator was able to get his message across in a convincing manner.

Some will claim that Reagan was not very smart. I think just the opposite is true. I think the man was brilliant and was able to convey the exact image of himself that he wanted to convey. If you get people that don't agree with you thinking you're not so smart, they underestimate you. Being underestimated is a powerful thing in politics.

 

[rgraham666]

I know a bit about McCarthyism, but I'd never read an account from someone "inside" Hollywood before, which is why I was curious about its accuracy. He's adamant in his book that there was an active plan for the communists to take over Hollywood and control the industry, that several groups were run by communists, that he was on a hit list for communists, etc.

Reading that over, I'm reminded very much by George W and the terrorists.

That, or so I understand, is how he got into politics. By feeding this sort of stuff to HUAC (House Un-American Committee) It made him popular with certain groups and they helped him pursue a career in politics.

I doubt he's going to pull a mea culpa and say "I made it all up so I could get on the good side of people who could help me in politics."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Reagan - The Great Communicator.

Regarding Hollywood and Communism, check out McCarthyism and the witch hunts that occured during that time; scary stuff here in the land of the free and the brave, eh?

Those were not witch hunts. Although some excesses were committed, Communism was very real and the USSR was a very real threat to the world. If you don't believe me, ask the people of Poland, Hungary, The Baltic States, Slovakia, the Czech Republic or other victims of Soviet aggression.

As for Hollywood, there was a threat there too, although probably not as much of one as was claimed.

Reagan was very much a Hollywood insider. He was never more than a star of B movies or a "featured actor" in A movies, but he was, at one time, the president of the Screen Actors' Guild. He used to be proud to say he was the only president who had been the president of a labor union.

 

[Boota]

Reagan was a figurehead that people give more credit to than he deserves. He was against the working man in nearly every policy he put forth, from allowing corporations to raid pension funds to breaking the back of the air traffic controllers union. His policies are directly responsible for my dad losing his job in 1986 that he had held for 28 years. That is what I remember most about Reagan. My parents losing everything they'd worked for and a lot of my dad's co-workers committing suicide when they lost everything. Their former bosses sure got rich as Hell, though.

The economy was up, overall, but it was head in the sand economics. America was spending money it didn't have and increasing the deficit astronomically. Nothing like W. has done, but it was still bad.

Reagan was all smoke and mirrors, but people bought into the show hook, line, and sinker. As Wildcard said, he did bring back pride in America. In my opinion, though, it was a hollow and unfounded pride in all the wrong things. Second worst President in the history of the United States. (Number one is currently in office.)

Reagan got credit for bringing down the Berlin Wall. Not so. He was just the one who was sitting in the big chair when the time came. That was fifty years of effort by Presidents from both parties getting that to happen.

Reagan won the first election primarily by saying that Carter was weak on the military, citing his cancellation of the budget for the B-2 bomber. The reason the B-2 was stopped was because Carter had switched the funding from the obsolete B-2 in order to put forth work on this new top secret weapon: the Stealth fighter. When Reagan kept hammering him on that he couldn't even respond. You can't blurt out national secrets in order to win elections. Well, you didn't use to be able to. Anything goes these days.

Reagan subverted Congress in order to broker an arms deal with Iran. This was a criminal act.

About the only good thing I can remember about him was that he liked jellybeans. I guess someone who likes jellybeans that much can't be all bad.

 

[izabella]

Reagan had a contempt for enironmental regulation. Billions of EPA Superfund dollars were wasted by the incompentent criminals he appointed to the EPA, many of whom were forced to resign in disgrace and some of whom went to prison.

HUD was looted, and his HUD Secretary took the Fifth when called to testify. His Attorney General, Ed Meese, was involved in a contracting scandal. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was pardooned by GHW Bush for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan "couldn't recall" his part in the Iran-Contra affair, for the most part.

Fraud accompanied the military build-up with rigged bids and bribes that ripped off the military in the Pentagon scandals. And then there was the Savings and Loan scandal that followed his deregulation bill...so many moms and pops lost their life savings.

I believe something like 120 or 130 administration officials had been under investigation for official misconduct and criminal violations, indicted, or convicted by the end of his term.

Some people may still be waiting for his trickle down economics to trickle down and let the rising tide lift all boats.

I remember him most for his speeches. He was a good speaker and he made people feel good about being Americans.

Nancy seemed to have quite a bit of influence over Ronnie. She was known for replacing the White House china and consulting psychics to make sure Ronnie's schedule was favored by the stars.

 

[Pure]

You might look into HUAC and McCarthy a bit. While the internal threat of communism was minimal, the crackdown in Hollywood ended several careers (writers like Dalton Trumbo) or hugely interrupted them.

The Iran Contra affair and Nicaragua were big events in his presidency, but he remained 'teflon' till the end; he was genial and hard to dislike.

He and his boys did some really nasty things besides in Nicaragua. They made a deal with the Iranians to free the hostages AFTER the election, so Carter would have no credit (and be assured of losing).

His foreign policy, on the surface sounded like the Neocons do now; use America Power to spread Freedom; confront the Evil Empire.
However his actions were far more cautious, e.g., invading Grenada of all places. Like his pal Thatcher, he had a gift for actions that get good press (she invaded the Falklands). OTOH, he built up the US military to unprecedented levels--sort of like a gun in the holster.

It's arguable that that helped cause the downfall of the Soviet Union, since they couldn't spend like the Americans; they couldn't retain a semblance of equality in military might.

He wasn't really an evangelical, but kinda managed to look like a serious Christian during his term. He appeared simpathetic to the "Pro Life" groups.

I think Wildcard was right about restoring national pride. BUT that has its downside. With pride comes confidence about using power.
So from a NON U.S. point of view, the US was in the process of becoming dangerous again-- e.g., willing to topple governments abroad, invade places that needed straightening out, etc.

You probably know that some key folks like Rumsfeld date back to Reagan.

 

[izabella]

Oh, yeah, and he did nothing about the AIDS epidemic for the first 7 years of his presidency. His do-nothing, say nothing policies delayed research, and increased discrimination against people who had AIDS. He did nothing to help increase education or prevention. Nothing.

 

[Pure]

here is a little piece from the CNN site, with excerpts from Reagan's testimony (and Ayn Rand's). it's pretty clear he was sucking up to them, if you read it. yet he does endorse democratice methods, unlike a certain GWB

from the CNN site
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/documents/huac/

After declaring that Hollywood filmmakers "employed subtle techniques in pictures glorifying the Communist system," the House Un-American Activities Committee held public hearings in October 1947 to question 24 "friendly" and 11 "unfriendly" witnesses from the filmmaking industry.

Ten of the 11 "unfriendly" witnesses -- including director Edward Dmytryk ("Crossfire," 1947) screenwriter Ring Lardner Jr. ("Woman of the Year," 1942) and writer Dalton Trumbo ("Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo," 1944) -- were jailed for contempt of Congress and blacklisted by the studios after refusing to answer the question "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

Among the 24 "friendly" witnesses who testified at the HUAC hearings were actors Gary Cooper and Ronald Reagan, producer Walt Disney and writer Ayn Rand. The following are excerpts from their testimony.

Ronald Reagan Gary Cooper

Walt Disney Ayn Rand

 

[Pure]

Hollywood Blacklist.

here's a little piece on HUAC. you could almost say it's Reagan's first successful effort to dive into and swim through a pile of shit and come up smelling like roses. from Presidency of the Screen Actor's Guild he went, after a time, to Governor of Calif., etc.

From Dan Georgakas, "Hollywood Blacklist"
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html

[start excerpt]
Response to the[ HUAC]hearings took many forms. Many members and sympathizers had never hidden their views but did not accept the right of the HUAC to question their right of political association. Civil libertarians could easily back this view on the basis of the First and Fifth amendments. Others like actor Zero Mostel said they would gladly discuss their own conduct but were prohibited by religious convictions from naming others.

Individuals who had only been involved with antifascist groups or had left the Party for ideological reasons did not wish to martyr themselves for a cause they had never embraced or had renounced, but naming names seemed morally wrong. Other ex-Communists such as Budd Schulberg and Elia Kazan felt there was a Communist conspiracy and that it was proper, if not patriotic, to expose it.

Whatever one's convictions, there was little room for maneuvering once called, yet two out of three who testified were unfriendly or uncooperative.

A few, like Lucille Ball, were allowed to pass with garbled and meaningless testimony, but most were pinned down. Fame was no protection. A lifelong non-Communist progressive like Sam Jaffe was blacklisted for refusal to cooperate. Jaffe, who had been nominated for an Oscar for The Asphalt Jungle (1950) and was famous for roles in Lost Horizon (1937) and Gunga Din (1939), was reduced to teaching high school math and living with his sisters. He would eventually make a comeback as Dr. Zorba on the successful Ben Casey television series.

Lee Grant, nominated for an Oscar for her role in Detective Story (1951), was blacklisted for refusing to testify against her first husband, screenwriter Arnold Manoff. Grant would eventually return to Hollywood and win two Oscars, one for acting and another for directing a documentary.


The most defiant Hollywood actor was gravel-voiced Lionel Stander, who had been in comedies directed by Ben Hecht, Frank Capra, and Preston Sturgis. Active in the Salinas Valley lettuce strike, the Tom Mooney case, the Scottsboro defense, guild campaigns, antifascist work, and other left-wing causes, Stander said he had not joined the CP because he was to the left of it. He said he had been blackballed for his politics for over twenty years and that the only "un-Americans" active in Hollywood that he knew of were members of the committee. Blacklisted anew, Stander became a successful Wall Street broker, later starred in European films, and still later returned to American prominence as the chauffeur in Hart-to-Hart, one of television's top ten programs during the early 1980s.


Few of those blacklisted would prove as resilient as Stander, Grant, Jaffee, and Mostel. No more than 10 percent would be able to return to careers in Hollywood. Even the biggest names were vulnerable. Larry Parks, fresh from triumphs in two films about Al Johnson, was banned for his brief membership in the CP and did not appear on-screen again until getting a small role in Freud (1962).

Charles Chaplin, the most famous face in the world, had remained a British citizen and a firm believer in the Popular Front. Although he had never been in the CP, Chaplin was not allowed to reenter the United States following a trip to Europe. He did not return to the United States until 1972, when an apologetic Hollywood honored him with a life achievement award during the Oscar ceremonies. His A King in New York (1957) satirizes HUAC. In like manner, Bertolt Brecht, one of many anti-Nazi refugees working in Hollywood, had such a bad taste from his HUAC appearance that he repatriated to East Berlin to become an in-house critic of socialism.


Performers who had already established some kind of name might survive through work on the stage, but those at the beginning of their careers had few options. Technical workers faced an even more difficult time, as there was no alternative industry for them to turn to, and Roy Brewer, head of the Hollywood craft unions, remained fiercely anticommunist. Ronald Reagan, then head of the Screen Actors Guild, kept in touch with the FBI about "disloyal" actors.

Dozens of blacklistees lost spouses due to the hearings and even more suffered irreparable financial loss. Mental and physical distress was common. Clifford Odets never again wrote effectively and the deaths of John Garfield, J. Edward Bromberg, Canada Lee, and half a dozen others are linked to their committee appearances.
[end excerpt]

 

[Pure]

Reagan Rummy and Saddam.

couldn't resist posting this!

Published on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 by the Agence France Presse

Reagan Played Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein's Survival in Iran-Iraq War


WASHINGTON - As Americans mourn the passing of president Ronald Reagan, almost forgotten is the decisive part his administration played in the survival of Iraq's president Saddam Hussein through his eight year war with Iran.

US soldiers now fighting the remnants of Saddam's regime can look back to the early 1980s for the start of a relationship that fostered the rise of the largest military in the Middle East, one whose use of chemical weapons set the stage for last year's war.


Reagan played decisive role in Saddam Hussein's survival in Iran-Iraq war

Reagan, determined to check arch-foe Iran, opened a back door to Iraq through which flowed US intelligence and hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees even as Washington professed neutrality in Baghdad's war with Tehran.

It was complemented by French weaponry and German dual-use technology that experts say wound up in Iraq's chemical and biological warfare programs.

Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special Middle East envoy, is credited with establishing the back channel to Saddam on a secret trip to Baghdad in December 1983.

Washington had plenty of motives to help Saddam stave off an Iranian victory. Not only was the United States still smarting from the 1980 hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran, but its embassy and a marine barracks in Beirut had been struck with truck bombings earlier in 1983.

In fact, the United States had begun to tilt in favor Baghdad even before Rumsfeld's arrival in Baghdad.

In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing the way for aid and trade.

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor of Iraq over the next year.

"Soon thereafter, Washington began passing high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the war, including information from US satellites that helped fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah that proved important in Iran's defeat in the next month," wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently published book "The Threatening Storm."

Economic aid poured into Iraq in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to buy US agricultural products, indirectly aiding the war effort.

Sales of UH-1H helicopters and Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters were approved by Washington. Though sold as civilian aircraft, nobody objected when they were quickly converted for military use.

A May 9, 1984 memo unearthed by the National Security Archive, a Washington research organization, noted that US policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program also was reviewed.

The memo said its "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its weapons of mass destruction programs, according to Pollack.

US allies also were active in Iraq.

"By 1982, Iraq accounted for 40 percent of French arms exports," wrote Pollack. "Paris sold Baghdad a wide range of weapons, including armored vehicles, air defense radars, surface-to-air missiles, Mirage fighters, and Exocet anti-ship missiles."

"German firms also rushed in without much compunction, not only selling Iraq large numbers of trucks and automobiles but also building vast complexes for Iraq's chemical warfare, biological warfare, and ballistic missile programs," he wrote.

The aid came despite clear evidence as early as mid-1983 that Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranian forces.

Washington said nothing publicly, but noted "almost daily" Iraqi use of chemical weapons in internal reports.

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons," a November 1, 1983 State Department memo said. "We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary."

It said "our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures."

Washington did not publicly denounce Iraqi use of chemical weapons until March, 1984 after it was documented in a UN study.

The Reagan administration opened full diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November, 1984. Iraqi chemical attacks continued not only on Iranian forces but also on Kurdish civilians, notably at Hallabja in 1987.

For its support, Pollack wrote, Washington got a bulwhark against Iran, cheap oil and Iraqi support for peace negotiations with Israel.

But when the Iran-Iraq war ended, Baghdad was left with huge debts and a large and menacing military looking for easy prey.

© Copyright 2004, AFP

 

[Huckleman2000]

Others have posted more useful factual information, so I will post my own memories.

At the time of Reagan's election, I was a 'starving actor'. As such, I was somewhat preoccupied with the nature of acting skills - and how they could be used and mis-used in professions outside the performance arts (it's not a good way to make a living ). In downtown Minneapolis there was an old theater that had been bought and transformed into the "Jesus People Church". the minister was a former actor, and the ministry relied on the sort of theatrical productions that have today become known as "Mega-Churches". The ritualism and theatricality of religious services is a recurring theme throughout history, although I've rarely seen any scholarship equating the two in terms of what religion has borrowed from theater - there's plenty about what theater has borrowed from religion, but apostatic though it might be, I would say that contributions have been made more often in the reverse direction.

Reagan was the first President or major politician in my experience to come to the position from a profession whose principal skill is fooling an audience into believing you're someone else. Although it wasn't emphasized in the original production, I dreamt of staging Evita! as an allegorical commentary on the dangers of mixing the skills of even a second-rate actor with nationalistic politics.

From the standpoint of a theater person, Reagan's productions were bombastic, schmaltzy, manipulative, and impressively effective. Particularly for the mass audience, unfamiliar with theatrical techniques, Reagan played a role as the figurehead of an amazingly cynical and ruthless political machine. The effectiveness of the deception was somewhat co-opted during the Clinton administration, although Clinton was the rare politician who understood both the role and the policy.

George Bush the Lesser is clearly Reagan's heir as the clueless figurehead for a corrupt political machine. He is a pale imitation, though, with neither an understanding of language and diction nor the charismatic presence exuded by someone trained to appear relaxed and confident simply standing in front of a crowd. His arms-akimbo Texas strut impresses the big-hair crowd, incoherent from hairspray inhalation, as well as the closet-case males dreaming of Kommander Kodpiece macho fantasies. Outside the frat-house, however, people have long recognized him for the self-inflated buffoon he is. That's a recognition that may never happen with Reagan, despite his radical policies that made life worse for those who supported him in the most unqualified way.

 

[cantdog]

In addition to this, he was mean.

Those who work with the poor remember the Reagan years as very bad ones for the lowest in the society. He was the President who held forth at such length about welfare moms in Cadillacs. He systematically took apart any efforts that his predecessors had made to help anyone, and he never disguised his contempt for the poor. To the working man, he employed calculated tactics to disempower them. No NLRB decision went to the side of any union man throughout the Reagan presidency-- not one. But to the poor, he was just mean.

 

[sophia jane]

In addition to this, he was mean.

Those who work with the poor remember the Reagan years as very bad ones for the lowest in the society. He was the President who held forth at such length about welfare moms in Cadillacs. He systematically took apart any efforts that his predecessors had made to help anyone, and he never disguised his contempt for the poor. To the working man, he employed calculated tactics to disempower them. No NLRB decision went to the side of any union man throughout the Reagan presidency-- not one. But to the poor, he was just mean.

This is all really interesting stuff. Sad that it happened that way, but interesting. In his book, he continually criticizes big government and the welfare system and talks about the good things of free enterprise/big business. He talks about taxes on the rich, too, the "ninety four percent" tax and how wrong that is to tax wealthy people so much. Kinda makes me want to smack him.

 

[Pure]

trivia for the day: Though Rummy was a pal of Reagan, Cheney, early on, criticized Reagan for overspending, unbalancing the budget, and excessively increasing the military. Cheney came more into his own with Ford, a much weaker figure. It is quite fascinating to read in Wikipedia, for instance, the histories of Rummy and Cheney, back in the Reagan times.

i can't quite formulate the relation of Reagan to today's neocons. in retrospect he seems to have talked like one, but preferred small scale and covert interventions abroad--a bit like the Nixon Doctrine envisaged. he was certainly as righteous-talking, but didn't put people off so much with displays of arrogance.

it would be very interesting to look into 'powers behind the throne.' though Reagan was not stupid, he was simply UN interested in many details of governing and left them to others. it was his job to package it (a program, a policy) and present it in 6th grade comprehensible terms, in his engaging and genial way (even us on the left found it hard to hate him).

a marxist analysis would be interesting: Reagan dealt with a crisis of late capitalism in the expected way; help the rich and screw the poor. and he continued, as predicted in "1984" to use military spending, i.e., a war machine (and its huge spending) to keep things going. you might say, somehow the middle and working classes did OK, since a riding tide lifts all boats. ie. we were all benefiting (except the poor, who don't count), like hogs at the trough, from the ascendancy of the 'military industrial complex' that Eisenhower warned everyone about. this is a pattern showing clearly in GWB's policies. i suppose the difference is that Reagan understood that the *war machine* was sufficient. Bush decided actually to *deploy* that machine (as had Lyndon Johnson, on a bigger scale); this helps the arms makers, Bechtel, Halliburton, etc, but gets the public concerned when the body bags start coming in.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Reagan was evil and stupit. Yadda yadda yadda.

When Reagan was elected the unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates were all solidly in double digits, and had been that way for a while. The concensus among "intellectuals" and the chattering classes was that America, the West and industrial civilization were over. The Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and were in the process of killing a sizeable percentage of its population. They had placed nuclear missilies in Eastern Eurorpe that radically altered the balance of power on the continent. Communism was viewed as "inevitable" and the wave of the future.

When Reagan left office unemployment, interest rates and inflation were solidly in single digits and trending down. A period of economic growth had begun which continues to this day, with only the mildest downturns (compared to the recessions of previous eras.) The Evil Empire was on threshold of landing on the ash heap of history.

I must be a big Reagan fan, huh? Yes and no. I make no assertions about what he specifically contributed to bringing about this turnaround. Paul Volker (the Federal Reserve chair) probably had more to do with the inflation and interest rate turnarounds (but the Reagan tax cuts more to do with the employment gains.) Dear old Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Friederich Hayek and many other heroes of the freedom movement had predicted that communism was not sustainable - maybe it's time had just come. It's likely the Pope had as much to do with the collapse of the empire as Reagan.

I will say that he presided over a change in the psychology and zeitgiest of the era, and I don't know if those changes would have come about without him. From some of the posts above you would think that the 1970s must have been a golden era of prosperity and freedom. Let me tell you, they were not. In both material and "spiritual" terms it was a sad and desperate time. The changes that came about to reverse this were not inevitable, it could easily have gone a different way. If you want to create a balanced and thoughtful paper instead of just another tired leftist screed you'll want to keep these things in mind.

 

[Pure]

yes, that's right

RAWhen Reagan left office unemployment, interest rates and inflation were solidly in single digits and trending down. A period of economic growth had begun which continues to this day, with only the mildest downturns (compared to the recessions of previous eras.)

I believe I said or implied that above; the rising tide of 'defense spending' lifted most boats.

Incidentally, if 'conservative' mean 'favoring small or limited goverment' or 'limited powers in the federal government', Reagan was by no means a conservative. He was NOT in the line of A. Smith or Mr. Hayek.

He was the first in a line of 'values conservatives' or 'talk conservatives' who want to ramp up federal spending and increase the power of the federal government, esp. the executive.

 

[sophia jane]

If you want to create a balanced and thoughtful paper instead of just another tired leftist screed you'll want to keep these things in mind.

Thanks for presenting the other side. My papers actually won't have any political bent to them (I'm a remarkably good academic writer )- one of them is a paper about how events of his life shaped him; the other paper is an analysis of whether he was an "intellectual" and his contributions in that arena. My questions in this thread were purely for my own information. Reading his biography has just made me very curious about the time frame he discusses, and I wanted to hear both sides of the coin, rather than just his slant.

 

[cantdog]

I never claimed evil or stupid. He was extremely partisan for the rich and powerful, and he saw that as just. His actions speak for that, and the poor and working people of the country saw them being done, in detail. He was our enemy, out of a sincere conviction that we deserved no consideration.

His interior secretary, Watt, charged with dismantling any protection for the national forests and parks, presided over their rape. His labor secretary was charged to stymie labor as much as he could. All that was inevitable, given the predilections of the Republican party of the time, and similar functionaries would doubtless have been appointed by any Republican chief executive.

On the whole, I prefer Republicans, since they tell you up front they're going to screw you. Democrats in those days always campaigned and spoke as though they weren't, but did it anyway.

Racking up enormous debt for the country is often seen as a negative for Reagan, but there is a school of economic thought which claims that a balanced budget is just an indulgence, and not at all necessary to a good and growing economy, and I'm sure that school was listened to, in addition to the bizarre supply-side people who caused such zealous repression of the working people and the poor.

The justification that Roxanne is using here relies on GNP as the master indicator of whether an economy is a good one or not. GNP does not reflect the condition of life for the lower strata of a society. Indeed it seems to rise simultaneously with extraordinary widening of the gap between rich and poor. If the proper gauge of a civilization is the way of life of its citizens, then that gap's widening is an indicator that, for most of its members, the economy is not doing well, despite the GNP's health. That sort of economics seems to imply that a civilization consists entirely of its super-rich.

The diplomatic record of the era is pretty clear that Gorbachev's plans were as surprising to the Reagan government as they were to anyone else.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Tax policy underwent a permanent and dramatic change beginning with the first Reagan tax cuts. The changes since then have been very modest in comparison. Ecomomic growth has continued with hardly a blip ever since.

In the same 25 year period defence spending went up for a while, then went down for a while, then went up again for a while. Ecomomic growth has continued with hardly a blip over the same period.

Judge for yourself which factor is more likely to have a causal relationship with economic growth.

(Pssst - In some circles you're not allowed to suggest that the economic growth of the past 25 years was caused by any positive change in the incentives to work, study, invest and take risks, however. You're only allowed to suggest that growth happens when somebody spends more money - say because they got a welfare check, or a defense contract.)