Who was best? Who was worst?
The United States of America has been in existence for over 231 years, yet only forty-two different men have had the honor to be called President. Our first President, George Washington, was inaugurated in 1789, thirteen years after Thomas Jefferson (our third President) authored the Declaration of Independence, and two years after the Constitution was adopted by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Silver Surfer
Hey dudes ... sorry for the skewed view of history, but it's always good to have your perceptions challenged :)
27 - Michael J. West
Baritone (#20):
As a person who thinks the Reagan presidency was an overall disaster, I find myself in the unfortunate position of defending him against one of your points:
His response to the air traffic controllers was uncalled for and over the top.
In fact, his response to the air traffic controllers was not only called for, it was his only option. Strikes by government employees was and is illegal, as was and is striking against the public safety.
It put people in jeapordy and damaged the air transportation industry for months.
There's some truth to that...but Reagan did no more, and perhaps less, than PATCO to jeopardize people and damage the air transportation industry. Indeed, PATCO's whole POINT in striking WAS to jeopardize airline passengers and damage the air transportation industry...thereby strong-arming the industry into conceding their demands. (Bear in mind that PATCO and the FAA had been in contract negotiations for months, even before Reagan came into office, and fell apart largely because PATCO refused any sort of compromise.)
Reagan also gave them plenty of warning. It's not as though he simply and suddenly called in troops to force people back to work, like the Presidents of the 19th Century used to do. He allotted them 48 hours. It was a high-stakes pissing contest; PATCO thought he was bluffing and that they had the leverage. He proved them wrong on both counts.
That out of the way, your other pronouncements about Ronnie were dead on. Especially the part about the Iranian Hostage Crisis; it might be pointed out that under Reagan's watch U.S. citizens found themselves in a hostage crisis in Beirut that lasted far longer than the one in Iran had.
28 - Baritone
Nothing happens in a vacuum. How much treachery and traitorous activity had gone before in England, France, Spain and wherever else you might mention? How much since? By what right (other than might) did England build its empire? By what right was ANY empire built?
Silver may be offering his two cents partly in jest, but the truth is that England was no less rotten to its core than any other country in those and most other times for that matter. Countries and empires are built on the backs and the blood of countless thousands who largely had no idea what the fuck was going on.
England earned no more loyalty from the American colonists than any of its other conquests. It's too bad that Native Americans did not have the wherewithal to shove the Brits and others back into the ocean from the get go.
The only small bit of justice Native Americans wrested from the early European settlers was their introducing the wonders of the tobacco plant to them.
"Here, roll this up just like this. Okay, put it in your mouth, that's it, that's right. Good. Now set it on fire. No,no. Trust me. It'll be great. You'll like it. Not a cough in a carload."
B-tone
29 - Silver Surfer
Lol ... nice one Baritone.
But mate, no traitors in England.
Actually, the whole lot of them - to a man - are the most devious, duplicitous, criminally-minded, machiavellian race on Earth.
But you know, no bastard's perfect.
30 - Dr Dreadful
Ahem...
31 - Silver Surfer
Oh, hello doctor ... didn't know you there old boy
32 - Baronius
One interesting thing about the air traffic controllers situation. Years later, after the fall of the USSR, former Soviet bureaucrats and negotiators were asked about Reagan. They said that they knew things were going to be different because of the air traffic controllers strike. Reagan came into office and immediately showed that he couldn't be strong-armed.
33 - Baritone
And once they realized that, it was all over but the shoutin'. The weak kneed Ruskies collapsed with visions of Ronnie's hairline in their little commie brains.
B-tone
34 - Michael J. West
They said that they knew things were going to be different because of the air traffic controllers strike. Reagan came into office and immediately showed that he couldn't be strong-armed.
If only they'd known he could simply be lulled to sleep during military briefings, and convinced that ruthless and corrupt world leaders were his buddies, they might not have worried about strong-arming him anyway.
35 - Baronius
Baritone, you're normally a thoughtful guy, but you seem to shut down when Reagan's name is mentioned. You fall back on the caricature of an actor eating jelly beans. What's up with that? I mean, I don't gush with respect for Clinton, but I know I've got to be objective to learn any lessons from his presidency.
The stupid cowboy actor with his finger on the button. I remember the cliches well. It was the inability of some people to move past them that made Reagan intriguing to me. I remember him saying that the Soviet system would collapse if they were confronted with strength. He said that the economy would right itself if taxes were lower. Pretty much everything he said happened. Yet some people never reconsidered their negative impression of him. I figure that you've got to give someone a second look if what they say comes true.
36 - Lee Richards
Reagan certainly had his policy and personal negatives, some of which have been mentioned.
Among his positives:
He earned his way to success and so knew it could be done by others.
He understood how to be an effective executive.
He could project likeabilty, trustworthiness and read a speech well.
He said what he believed and told you what he would do and then, nearly always, did it.
He did political favors but wasn't personally corruptible.
He could compromise.
He was strong on national defense.
He was respected at home and abroad, and represented America well in the eyes of many.
Other recent presidents would be lucky to be judged to have half these qualities.
37 - Ninja
Truman‘s political career started when he became associated with the corrupt Pendergast machine.
Truman was an opportunist and a bribe-taker, and he couldn’t even spell - read his diaries.
Truman didn’t have the good sense to not advance to the Yalu River in 1950 after China threatened to enter the war if it was done, As a result, tens of thousands of Americans died needlessly. It took Eisenhower to get an Armistice in 1953.
Put Truman in the cellar.
38 - Baritone
As I said, Reagan is "The Man" for most conservatives. It's true, my having been an actor for a time, I find it unforgivable for anyone to have been a bad actor and still to have made big money doing it. Reagan certainly qualifies. But it's a dirty job, and someone has to do it, I guess. Now we have Pauly Shore and Rob Schneider. Hopefully, neither one of them will aspire to the presidency.
As to Reagan, we should not forget Iran-Contra or the fact that the firing of 13000 air traffic controllers was simply the first salvo against unions and blue collar America. Reagan characterized striking union workers as "greedy, lazy, uncaring and unpatriotic."
It was under Reagan that the great disparity between the very rich and the very poor began to widen.
Reagan's drastic cuts in domestic programs put thousands of people out of work. Cuts in medicare and medicaid, education and other social programs increased the numbers of people, especially children into hopeless poverty. Reagan was largely indifferent to the plight of the poor as witness his "catsup is a vegetable" comment regarding school lunch programs.
It is also interesting to note that while Reagan boasted of reducing government, but in reality the federal government grew in numbers of civilian employees and in spending during his tenure.
There's more, but I've got to stop long enough to make a living. Suffice to say that Reagan was the quintessential conservative.
B-tone
39 - moonraven
Reagan was moron who was astute enough to play the US voting public for suckers.
He also ended freedom of the press in the US.
In April of 1986.
Check it out.
40 - Les Slater
My top would be Theodore Roosevelt.
41 - Nancy
I'm not sure where I'd put Nixon; he was a wannabe traitor & dictator, yet he was very strong on US foreign policy.
As for Ronnie Ray-gun, HE didn't do anything; Nancy did. Ol' Ronnie was losing his marbles even while in the WH, & it was pretty common knowledge Nancy did the deciding for him. Actually, Reagun was the best argument for age limits on any presidential candidate: no one over the age of 75 while in office, term to be ended immediately on development of alzheimers or other such conditions.
42 - Dr Dreadful
Les, I'd love to read your explanation of why you, a Communist, would have Teddy at the top of your list...
But he's my pick too. He had his faults, of course (his dubious views on Native Americans and Charles Dickens, for two!) but he had a keener awareness of, and perspective on, the responsibilities and powers of the presidency than anyone else since Washington and Jefferson - and he loved being President as well, which helped.
43 - Clavos
Anyone with enough imagination to see San Juan Hill in a flight of basement stairs gets my vote, too.
44 - Baritone
Another thing that nettles me about Teddie was his characterization of one of my heros, Tom Paine, as "a filthy little atheist." But, on the whole the Tedster was unique in a # of mostly positive ways, bringing a brand of swashbuckling enthusiasm to Washington and the presidency.
I have serious problems with Wilson in that he was a blatant racist. He had a plus side, but his open hatred of blacks and other non-whites was virulent and viscious.
B-tone
45 - Dave Nalle
B-tone, you know that Teddy integrated the federal workforce in DC and then when Wilson came in he reinstituted segregation for federal workers. I think that says it all about the two of them.
Dave
46 - Les Slater
"Les, I'd love to read your explanation of why you, a Communist, would have Teddy at the top of your list..."
Most communists would consider the U.S. to have been progressive up through the radical reconstruction. After that period ended the capitalist U.S. had no further room to progress within its own boundaries. Much of the rest of the world was at a lower economic form, namely pre-capitalist.
The Spanish-American war was not the first of the modern era of capitalist imperialism, but certainly the most important in it its rise.
It was this that matured the proletariat in parts of the world in which we would see the first successful working class rovolution to take power in 1917.
47 - RJ
"the first successful working class rovolution [sic] to take power in 1917."
Yeah, 'cuz that worked out so well...
48 - Dr Dreadful
Anyone with enough imagination to see San Juan Hill in a flight of basement stairs gets my vote, too.
"CHAAAARGE!!!!"
:-)
49 - Irene Wagner
Nancy-- No one over the age of 75?
What if someone from blogcritics wants to cast his hat into the ring? There's something to be said for the wisdom in a grey head.
50 - Lumpy
I doubt many on blogcritics are over 75.
51 - alessandro
#41 Nancy, have you read Reagan's diaries? You're kidding right?
52 - Dr Dreadful
Another thing that nettles me about Teddie was his characterization of one of my heros, Tom Paine, as "a filthy little atheist."
However he may have meant it, Teddy was at least partially on the button. Paine was, apparently, known for not being all that well acquainted with soap...
53 - handyguy
RJ:
Congratulations on an interesting and thoughtful and relatively spin-free article. Too bad you had to mar it by reverting to your usual frat-house liberal-bashing in the comments section.
54 - Baritone
Doc,
On that, you may be correct. I once performed in a musical called, well, what dya know? - Tom Paine. During the rehearsal process we were encouraged to do some research about the man and his times. He was a bit of a stinker - literally according to some sources noted by cast members.
Paine came perilously close to the guillotine while imprisoned in France. All prisoners who were to be beheaded the following morning had a mark placed at the top of their cell doors. Paine's door was marked. However, the dolt who marked it did so while it was open. Subsequently, the door was closed and the mark went unseen when they came to roust out the next luckless group of the doomed. Shortly after, I believe Jefferson and/or Lafayette interceded on Paine's behalf and he was rescued. That's "cutting" it a bit too close.
B-tone
55 - Maurice
Once again I have to comment on the vitriolic comments in reference to Reagan. There is no denying Reagan was a great President. Those that deny it are certainly in the minority - caustic and bitter but few.
This is an interesting comparison of liberal and conservative rankings of Presidents.
56 - schuhbox4
Reagan is overrated and should have been impeached for lying about the Iran-contra arms deals. All those saying other presidents could learn from Reagan about saying what they mean and being honest with the people should remember all the lies he told about not knowing anything about those arms deals. Secondly, Reagan kept telling the American people he would not negotiate with terrorists but did exactly that. The CIA, with Reagan's approval, sold HAWK and TOW missiles to Iran in exchange for the hostages. With the profits, Oliver North gave money to the contras, an act specifically forbidden by Congress. What was the result? Terrorists learned America would deal with terrorists and more Americans were taken hostage in the streets of Beirut and other parts of the Middle East. Reagan also sent American Marines into a situation we absolutely did not understand in Beirut and hundreds of Americans lost their lives because of it.
I don't know how anybody can claim Trickle Down Economics was a documented success. It wasn't. Reagan (like Bush) cut taxes at the same time he increased spending. Great in the short run, but crippling to the future. The fact is that during Reagan's admin. the national debt doubled. That's right, he amassed a debt equal to all the presidents who came before him. Don't take my word for it- look it up. Reagan's economic genius is liek living off a credit card. Sooner or later someone has to pay the bill.
Ronnie did not defeat communism. The Soviet Union was dying from within long before Reagan started falling asleep during meetings. Economically, the Russians couldn't compete with capitalism. Socially, the repessive measures used to keep order and the government's paranoia over secrecy belied socialist ideology. (Quote from Khruschev "What kind of socialism is this? What kind of shit is this when you have to keep people in chains?")
One area where Reagan definitely deserves praise is that he restored the pride of the armed forces. They were in a terrible state after Vietnam and Reagan brought the military back from the dead.
Also, Truman wasn't actually responsible for the Chinese entering the Korean War. It's clear that MacArthur disobeyed Truman's orders, and is most at blame for escalating the war.
57 - alessandro
While it can be said that much is overstated about Reagan, under stating him is just as (if not more) ridiculous.
58 - schuhbox4
So what would you say are his great accomplishments?
59 - Maurice
schuhbox4
check out my link. There are myriad polls listed by both liberals and conservatives placed side by side. Reagan is consistently listed in the top ten by both sides.
You are in the passionate minority.
60 - schuhbox4
I realize that I am in the minority. I am a historian and political scientist myself. I don't mean that to say "So I know more than you do." What I mean is that I am looking at how he will be viewed in another 20 years. It is typically about 40 years after a presidency is over that the juiciest details are declassified and start coming out. It's my bet that RR's rating will slide some at that point. I think there are a few parallels between Reagan and Kennedy. Supporters of both men point to their popularity and how their leadership inspired confidence in the American people. Kennedy had youth and energy, Reagan obviously had charisma as well. That said, historians have been coming down harder on JFK in the last 10 years. His charm and personality is wearing off, I guess, and now the historians are judging more on accomplishments and the legacy of his decisions. I believe Reagan will go through the same process. My biggest gripe with Reagan is the deficit he left us. The lack of criticism on this issue really surprises me. The idea of increasing spending while cutting taxes just bothers me. It is just not responsible. Perhaps I am making this a bigger issue than it really is, I am not an economist. Yet, I have to believe that ultimately a trillion dollar deficit has not been a blessing. I also believe that it will become even more apparrent that Reagan and GHW Bush knwew all about Iran-contra. (Just read a history of the CIA- Legacy of Ashes -that covers this) This is an issue that I don't believe will bother most people, but may tarnish his image with historians. Personally, it bothers me that he got away with lying to the American people.
Other issues that I believe may hurt Reagan are his indifference to AIDS and the spread of drugs and gangs during the 80's. Not his fault obviously but it happened on his watch and he didn't do enough to stop it. Maybe he should get credit for the great music of the 80's? 8-)
I, again, give RR great credit for rescuing the military. I've talked to guys who were in the service in the late 70's and to a man they say morale was terrible. Reagan changed that. I'm also not sure it is wise to discount the effect of a president's personality/attitude on the times. FDR, JFK and Reagan, even if their policies didn't really do what they are credited with (ending the Depression, confronting the Soviets, ending the Cold War) did inspire confidence in the people and at times that is invaluable. We'll see how this plays out, but maybe not anytime soon. Anyway, I enjoy the talk. Too often politics is all argument and no debate. Shouting heads instead of talking heads. Apparently the way to respond to criticism of your party/candidate is to make a counter accusation without actually discussing anything. Anyway, cheers.
61 - schuhbox4
I'd be interested to hear what a Reagan supporter has to say about him lying about Iran-contra or his huge budget deficit. What's your view and what do you consider his accomplishments?
62 - Dave Nalle
Reagan is overrated and should have been impeached for lying about the Iran-contra arms deals.
You forget the principle of plausible deniability. If Reagan said to Ollie North: figure out a way to get arms to the Contras without going through normal channels - or more likely had GHW Bush do it for him - and then didn't ask for the details, he's insulated from responsibility. Golly gee, he never expected Ollie would do it all by illegal means oh my.
Plus, history is very forgiving to those who do the right thing even if their methods were questionable, and that cuts heavily in Reagan's favor.
All those saying other presidents could learn from Reagan about saying what they mean and being honest with the people should remember all the lies he told about not knowing anything about those arms deals.
Except that there's no proof of those lies, so what they learned is to make sure that no one can prove you're lying.
I don't know how anybody can claim Trickle Down Economics was a documented success. It wasn't. Reagan (like Bush) cut taxes at the same time he increased spending. Great in the short run, but crippling to the future.
Except that in fact it was NOT crippling in the future. The economic growth created by tax cuts led to the surpluses of the Clinton era to some degree balancing out the Reagan deficits.
As a percentage of GDP the largest period of debt growth in the US was during the Roosevelt administration when the debt increased from 18% of GDP to 120% of GDP. That's a 7x increase. In comparison Reagan increased the debt much less, from 38% of GDP to 67% of GDP. That's less than a 2x increase.
The fact is that during Reagan's admin. the national debt doubled. That's right, he amassed a debt equal to all the presidents who came before him. Don't take my word for it- look it up.
I did. You clearly missed some of the historical context. Reagan may have doubled the debt, but Roosevelt increased it more than 5 times. That's 5 times all the debt accumulated by 150 years of presidents before him. Woodrow Wilston more than tripled the debt. Nixon/Ford doubled the debt. Even Clinton, with all of his surpluses and the benefits of the tech boom still increased the debt by more than 50%.
Reagan's economic genius is liek living off a credit card. Sooner or later someone has to pay the bill.
In actuality it's like almost every president since 1900.
Ronnie did not defeat communism. The Soviet Union was dying from within long before Reagan started falling asleep during meetings. Economically, the Russians couldn't compete with capitalism. Socially, the repessive measures used to keep order and the government's paranoia over secrecy belied socialist ideology.
True, but Reagan's continual pressuring of them certainly helped make sure that things fell apart quickly.
Dave
63 - schuhbox4
It's sounds more than a little like you are saying it is OK if you don't get caught. I'd like to see our leaders held to higher standard. Second, there are accounts out there (and probably more on the way) that show Reagan knew what was happening so even plausible deniability is lost.
Your point about FDR is surely well made, but speaking of historical context, I'm guessing a little thing called World War II MAY have had something to do with that increase in spending. I don't know, I'm just guessing. At any rate my point stands. Even if FDR did increase it 5X, Reagan doubled that amount, plus every other administration's debt. It's all hard to argue considering the value of the dollar and state of the economy. I'll never claim to be an economic genius but I still contend that cutting taxes (and talking about tax and spend Democrats) while increasing spending is fiscally irresponsible. I understand Keynesian economics and FDR used it to some effect in the Depression. I just think that the Trickle Down Theory relied too heavily on a small percent of the population to have any impact. Studies have shown that a significant portion of the upper class the theory targeted did not re-invest the money but instead saved the money. Having grown up in the Midwest during the 80's it is hard for me to look back on that period and see an economic success story. For me, and certainly this carries a great deal of personal bias, reality trumps theory. Lastly, at least for economics, it is worth remembering that Clinton did actually submit a balanced budget.
I'm not trying to make RR out to be an absolute failure, but I just think his legacy is largely myth. So many people still think he brought home the hostages (perhaps the same group that still thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11) and the truth about that has been covered by others on this board. RR certainly deserves some credit for standing up to the Soviets, but some people think "He won the Cold War."
I also don't agree with the popular image of him as tough. He negotiated with terrorists when he said he wouldn't. Republicans like to say that Clinton pulling the troops out of Somalia after the fight in Mogadishu inspired terrorists because they saw that America was afraid to take casualties. Clinton ran, he's a coward. What lesson do you suppose terrorists took from watching the Marines leave Lebanon? It just seems to me that the guy was Teflon, nothing stuck to him. Clinton WAS slippery, but most people knew it. It seems like Reagan didn't even have to try and blame bounced off him.
As I've said, I think we still need more time to really assess his time in office. It's all just talk I guess, but I'm glad to join in a discussion that doesn't break down into name calling and cliches.
64 - schuhbox4
So, to move on to another topic, what do you all think the odds are of GW Bush being the next Harry Truman? By that, I mean Truman left office with a very low approval rating and for years was considered a poor president, but his image has been greatly enhanced and he is now widely seen as an above average president. (One of the odd things about this is 50 years ago, everyone agreed with dropping the bomb, today it's controversial) Bush has actually compared himself to Truman and expects a similar historical vindication. I expect this to be a divisive issue, as most Bush topics are. Certainly how Iraq plays out will have a great deal to do with his legacy and we can't know that outcome, but what are your thoughts? Is it possible that issues like N. Korea, Iran, China or the resurgent Russia will carry more weight in 40 years?
65 - Dave Nalle
It's sounds more than a little like you are saying it is OK if you don't get caught.
I forgot to mention that I'm a historian too. And yes, historically speaking, it's usually okay if you don't get caught. History is much kinder than your contemporaries.
I'd like to see our leaders held to higher standard. Second, there are accounts out there (and probably more on the way) that show Reagan knew what was happening so even plausible deniability is lost.
Once the image is established it takes a LOT to shake it. Plus there are plenty who believe that the ends justify the means, especially when looked at 20 or 30 years later. I doubt any sudden revelation will reflect badly on Reagan. The determination that he was more hands-on will probably enhance his image in the eyes of as many as not. He does suffer somewhat from the assumption that he was dottering and everything was actually done by subordinates.
Your point about FDR is surely well made, but speaking of historical context, I'm guessing a little thing called World War II MAY have had something to do with that increase in spending. I don't know, I'm just guessing. At any rate my point stands. Even if FDR did increase it 5X, Reagan doubled that amount, plus every other administration's debt. It's all hard to argue considering the value of the dollar and state of the economy.
Do you want me to index those dollar values for inflation? I didn't bother to do it - GDP percentage is a better comparison - but I suspect that if you take FDR's highest debt and index it to 1988 dollars you're going to find that what reagan doubled wasn't nearly as much as you think. And in fact, adjusted for inflation, in 1988 dollars, the 1945 debt is 1.6 trillion dollars as opposed to the 2.6 trillion when reagan left office. So almost 50 years of presidents after FDR didn't manage to double his debt in real value.
I'll never claim to be an economic genius but I still contend that cutting taxes (and talking about tax and spend Democrats) while increasing spending is fiscally irresponsible.
I'd put it this way. It's less fiscally irresponsible than increasing spending and not cutting taxes. Cutting taxes to drive the economy and thus raise revenues is inherently better than raising those same revenues by increasing taxes which is the only other way to do it.
I understand Keynesian economics and FDR used it to some effect in the Depression. I just think that the Trickle Down Theory relied too heavily on a small percent of the population to have any impact. Studies have shown that a significant portion of the upper class the theory targeted did not re-invest the money but instead saved the money.
This is where most people fail to understand the entire concept. You see, saving money - unless it's just putting that money in the mattress - IS spending money. If you spend the money on stocks that helps expand businesses, create jobs and ultimately benefit everyone in the economy. Only if the money is literally taken out of the economy does it not benefit everyone in the economy. In fact, dollars invested probably benefit the general working population more than dollars spent directly on consumer goods, because they benefit employers and then those employers inevitably spend them so you get a double impact.
Having grown up in the Midwest during the 80's it is hard for me to look back on that period and see an economic success story. For me, and certainly this carries a great deal of personal bias, reality trumps theory.
Midwesterners often have a skewed view of this era because their part of the country benefitted least and unless they relocated they didn't catch the wave of the changing economy and new types of employment which benefitted most of the rest of the country.
I'm not trying to make RR out to be an absolute failure, but I just think his legacy is largely myth.
And you say you're a historian. Surely you know that myth looms far bigger than reality.
Dave
66 - Dave Nalle
Had to take the kids to school.
I agree in general about Reagan not being hard on terrorists. It clearly wasn't a priority for him and as a result we're paying some of the price for his inattention to the emerging problem.
It just seems to me that the guy was Teflon, nothing stuck to him.
IMO that's a very valuable quality in a president.
Clinton WAS slippery, but most people knew it. It seems like Reagan didn't even have to try and blame bounced off him.
I think the end result for Clinton will be much the same as for Reagan. He'll get credit for the good and the silly intern business will get brushed off.
So, to move on to another topic, what do you all think the odds are of GW Bush being the next Harry Truman? By that, I mean Truman left office with a very low approval rating and for years was considered a poor president, but his image has been greatly enhanced and he is now widely seen as an above average president. (One of the odd things about this is 50 years ago, everyone agreed with dropping the bomb, today it's controversial)
Truman has been allowed to get away with a lot by historians and his rehabilitation ignores some of his really serious failings. The fact that it was Truman who singlehandedly launched the red scare of the 1950s which ultimately got credited to Joe McCarthy is largely forgotten. Truman originated the blacklists and loyalty oaths and purges in the late 1940s and IMO that's inexcusable.
Bush has actually compared himself to Truman and expects a similar historical vindication. I expect this to be a divisive issue, as most Bush topics are. Certainly how Iraq plays out will have a great deal to do with his legacy and we can't know that outcome, but what are your thoughts? Is it possible that issues like N. Korea, Iran, China or the resurgent Russia will carry more weight in 40 years?
Bush believes that when the full historical record of what was really going on behind the scenes with Iraq and with terrorism gets its exposure his actions will be vindicated. I think that he's probably right, but that there are also people who will never forgive him.
He's right that he's in very much the same situation as Truman. The communist threat may have been very real and much worse than people at the time were aware, but that still doesn't excuse Truman's excesses in fighting it and some will never forgive him. I'm about as anti-communist as you can get and I still think Truman went too far.
Terrorism is to Bush as communism was to Truman. Bush believes he has a better understanding of the real threat than contemporaries have and that history will see it more clearly. Bush isn't as dumb as people make him out to be and apparently he's a kind of self-educated scholar on presidential history. I think he sees his situation pretty clearly in the historical context.
It helps that I've been following some of the facts about the war on terror which the media and those with a political agenda tend to overlook or blow off. The current accepted wisdom that there were no WMDs and no connections between Iraq and al Qaeda are convenient, but history is likely to show that there was an awful lot more going on behind the scenes than people today are willing to accept and that the threats to the US were much more serious than we realized.
Dave
67 - alessandro
#58: Clearly you are looking at it from one perspective. I am Canadian and tend to, naturally, look at this with some level of objectivity. To suggest Reagan was without some accomplishment is not only wanton desire to deny his due for partisan reasons but simply historically without merit.
He was not perfect but he was no idiot, as people on this thread, suggest either. Far from it.
68 - Baronius
Ooh, I'm glad this thread is still going. It's one of the more interesting topics we've had.
Schuhbox, you made a comment about drugs and gangs, that while Reagan wasn't responsible for them, they happened on his watch and he didn't do anything to stop them. I think of the 1980's deficits in the same way. Reagan wanted to cut taxes and battle the Soviets. He got his tax stuff through in the first couple of years, then basically gave up on domestic policy. If you read his autobiography An American Life, the last third of the book is about Russia. (Of course, that could do with his health at the time the book was being written. The last third relies on official communication more than on personal reflections.)
So Reagan's tax cuts were economically sound. He didn't follow through with enforcing the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit caps. He lost control of the budget in his second term, just as he settled for a bad immigration policy. He may have been shortsighted on the budget or on terrorism, but he accomplished his two big goals.
I've got a question for you as a historian. One thing that has always struck me about Reagan was his nurturing of political talent. Am I wrong about this? It seems like Bush Sr. kept and promoted a lot of Reagan's best people, but never had a chance to cultivate his own. Clinton and Bush Jr. have done nothing to breed new leaders, in my opinion. I don't see a crop of future governors and presidential candidates coming out of the last two administrations. (Maybe I'm underestimating guys like Reich and Richardson.)
69 - handyguy
This is an interesting discussion, and I don't want to drag it into unpleasant places where other threads have gone, but really, I can't let this one pass:
"It helps that I've been following some of the facts about the war on terror which the media and those with a political agenda tend to overlook or blow off. The current accepted wisdom that there were no WMDs and no connections between Iraq and al Qaeda are convenient, but history is likely to show that there was an awful lot more going on behind the scenes than people today are willing to accept and that the threats to the US were much more serious than we realized."
-- from Dave Nalle's secret knowledge, part 127 or so and counting
I believe there are also things "behind the scenes" that militarists and rightists "overlook or blow off." The nature of Islamic extremism has been distorted and misrepresented by many politicians and journalists - and certainly not all of them are on the left.
The "awful lot behind the scenes" could just as easily prove Bush's approach to have been wrongheaded and destructive.
If 25 or 50 years from now, people look back and see there was never another big terrorist attack inside the US [if it's clear then that there never was going to be one], or alternatively, if they see attacks that were a direct result of miscalculations in Iraq, then the militaristic Bush response to terror, with its relegation of civil rights and world opinion to secondary status, could look like grand folly.
Our era also may be looked back at as a low point in how the US was viewed by the rest of the world, especially if better presidents manage to correct some of that very deep damage.
70 - Martin Lav
Yeah Dave you and the administration keep telling yourselves that although everyone in the free world thinks you're all whack, History will judge you differently.
Bull shit.
71 - Dave Nalle
HG, your perspective on this issue is certainly a popular one and it's the one promoted right now by the media, but I can't help remembering all the little bits of evidence which I've seen mentioned and then ignored over the last 5 years, and it seems inevitable that they add up to something.
As for Bush's grand folly, i think the foolish elements of his policies are foolish whether the Islamist threat is more real and more substantial than many of us acknowledge. Even in the face of the worst scenarios, sacrificing the rights of individual Americans for dubious security is unacceptable. But when the blame for that gets apportioned out, it's going to be laid fairly heavily on the shoulders of the legislators from both parties who supported obscenities like the PATRIOT Acts and Real ID.
dave
72 - Martin Lav
"-- from Dave Nalle's secret knowledge, part 127 or so and counting" - HG
"HG, your perspective on this issue is certainly a popular one" - Dave Nalle
Not only popular, but damn accurate and funny to boot! - Martin Lav
"little bits of evidence" - Nalle
Seems to be the opposite to me.
The little bits of evidence, constantly sound-bited to the media, churning up a frenzy and call to arms.
The problem is that little bits of evidence is NOT intelligence, unless you are George Bush who has little bits of brain matter, which you mistake for intelligence.
Little bits of evidence, buried by the MSM so nobody could really use this GOOD STUFF to make a case for war. Seems to me that Colin Powell presented all this little bits of evidence to the UN and it didn't amount to a hill of beans.
What a farce!
Someday, all these little bits of evidence will be scraped together and equal a big pile of shit!
73 - Martin Lav
Not as well as some BC'rs
74 - STM
"Paine came perilously close to the guillotine while imprisoned in France ... Jefferson and/or Lafayette interceded on Paine's behalf and he was rescued."
All three fall into the category either of traitors to the Crown or duplicituous, bouffant-headed, perfumed nancy-boy Frenchman.
For those reasons alone, all three should have lost their heads or at least been imprisoned in the Tower of London, never to be heard from again.
75 - schuhbox4
alessandro - At NO point did I say the Reagan Administration had no accomplishments so please stop implying that I did. What I asked, is what you think the accomplishments were.
Baronius - Very few presidents have had a successful second term so what happened with Reagan is no surprise. Returning presidents get no “honeymoon” period with Congress, or the American people for that matter. Many presidents have been able to accomplish more in the first year to a year and a half of their first term than the rest of their time in office. The relationship with Congress starts out on a “We’ll see” basis during which time they are generally on good terms. Inevitably, a divisive issue comes along to poison the relationship and the political fighting starts. In a second term, the atmosphere is already political. Additionally, with the campaign season starting earlier and earlier, the president’s own party members are ready to break with him much sooner, especially if the president’s ratings are low.
As for grooming future leaders, I think it’s hard to say what impact the last administrations will have. I think, certainly, looking at Bush, the age of many of his key players prohibits much of a future. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz actually all date back to the Ford Administration. Not much future left there. Powell was really damaged by the faulty intelligence foisted on him by the CIA in the speech to the UN, but he’ll bounce back sooner or later. But, again, he’s really a holdover from earlier. Rice seems the obvious choice to make an impact in the future. Bush’s youth and inexperience necessitated an experienced staff, given his base of support. But I think GW’s personality had just as much to do with his choices. I just don’t think he feels comfortable with people he doesn’t know. Powell, who didn’t have a previous relationship with Bush, always felt he was an outsider dealing with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. So I guess I’m arguing Bush didn’t make much of an attempt to cultivate new talent, but it’s far too early to be sure what legacy Bush will have.
Clinton, of course, had a younger team, but few have made their mark to this point. Stephanopoulos, despite being a TV guy now, may still have a political career if he chooses that route. Though I’m not sure he will. One guy I liked was Richard Holbrooke. I thought he did a good job in a bad situation in Bosnia. But I’ve read he is particularly despised by Republicans so he may not have a great future either. Off the top of my head, I can’t really add any other names to the ones you’ve mentioned, though I guess you’d have to add Hillary to the list. There were a lot of young aides and advisors that may yet make their names known in the next 10 or 15 years.
I often make analogies to sports when I’m teaching, and I’ll use one here. I think there is a similarity between politicians and NFL coaches. Great NFL coaches often have a number of assistants rise to the rank of head coach. Why? First of all, the association with a winner is a plus. Secondly, a wise assistant learns form those around him and great NFL coaches don’t hire fools, so learning is taking place all the time. These assistants can see what works and take it and adapt it to their personality/style. The same is true for political aides. Few guys played up their relationship with Richard Nixon, and for good reason. (I mean, despite the fact so many of those guys spent time in prison) Is either Clinton or Bush strong enough a figure to have “coattail effect?” Your answer should tell you what kind of legacy to expect. I know there are plenty of exceptions to be made- i.e. Ford, but I would guess it is a strong indicator.
In another football analogy, I don’t know that administrations place a high priority on leaving behind a cadre of political followers. Certainly no one looks to avoid that fate, but like the NFL, politics is a win now game. Controlling policy today is a higher priority than preparing guys to control policy tomorrow.