Setting the record straight on Reagan
Jeffrey Hill | Fri, Jan 18th, 2008 | Category: Commentary | Tags: jeffrey hill, obama, barack obama, republican, democrat, sacred cow, aids, ann coulter, ronald reagan, reagan doctrine, war on drugs, reaganomics
Am I the only one who thinks it’s ridiculous that Ronald Reagan has become sacred cow of the 2008 presidential election? It’s not just conservatives, it’s everyone! Pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have always fawned over the “Big Gipper.” That’s expected—they live in Reagan’s fantasy. This morning, however, I woke up to an incredible nightmare. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this quote from Barack Obama in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal:
“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it ... I think he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Are you kidding me? Optimism? Clarity? Is this Barack Obama? Am I the only one who isn’t on the same boat?
Let’s get back down to Earth. Ronald Reagan’s bag of wind sold this country a sack of bad ideas. He turned America into an ill-managed business—in constant competition with the Soviets. While doing so, he committed some of the most unethical fouls in foreign policy. Give Obama a yellow card and tell him sit on the bench for a while while I heal the wounds.
-image courtesy of MSNBC
1.) The Reagan Doctrine (a.k.a. The Third World Doctrine) is directly responsible for killing almost half a million people. In order to keep the upper hand over the Soviet Union, Reagan allied this country with a vile assortment of characters like the murderous villain Jonas Savimbi in Angola, Rios Montt and the contra rebels in Nicaragua (who slaughtered Mayan Indians by the tens of thousands), the Khmer Rouge government of Vietnam, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. We shook hands with these people.
2.) No matter what the neo-cons tell you, Reagan expanded the federal government by 90 percent through its military industrial complex. This quadrupled the national deficit and caused recessions in the early 80s.
3.) Reagan’s “War on Drugs” was ineffective, wasted billions of dollars, failed to reduce the amount of drugs available on the streets and created significant racial disparities in our prison population. Most experts agree that Reagan’s “War on Drugs” has actually strengthened the black market and helped internationalize thousands of drug operations in Canada and Europe.
4.) Reaganomics— More tax receipts led to more government spending. The average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990. In simple terms, Reaganomics did little to help the economy while plunging the public into severe national debt. The job growth rate while Reagan was in office was only 2.1% per year.
5.) AIDS—Reagan refused to even use the term “AIDS” in public until Rock Hudson’s infection became public news in July 1985. Too late, Ron. 10,000 Americans were already diagnosed with AIDS, and over 6,000 had died. Thanks, bud.
There’s more, but even writing about Reagan reminds me of how we fell for the same kind of policy for the last eight years, and I want to stay positive about mankind for a while. Reagan is credited with a booming economy and an end to the cold war. Let me remind you that the 80s were not equipped with the internet and most media outlets in the country were controlled by conservative interests. Liberals were unorganized and neutered. Images of families buying cars, living in nice neighborhoods and benefiting from Reagan’s vision were as easy to sell as Reagan’s speeches. Remember, he was an actor, professionally trained in lying. Reagan’s “feel-good” America is an example of excess, ignorance of consequence, hedonism, and the blind nationalistic pride that requires you to shut up and watch T.V.
Jeffrey Hill is News Editor for Access Intelligence, a business and technology information firm, web editor for Next American City and a freelance writer based in Washington D.C.
David Patterson
Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 6:01am
Was this post designed to get someone—anyone—to leave a comment on this blog?
I mean, too bad it took someone pontificating from the depths of their ignorance to do it.
But I guess it worked.
-----
Mike
Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 12:25am
Ahh, the old “Reagan wasn’t so great after all” piece. This is something leftists drag out every now and then when they can’t understand why so many Americans worship the Gipper.
Much like “Bush Lied, Kids Died,” and the idea of Michael Moore as a serious political commentator, most of these assertions have been so thoroughly disproven so many times over that a full retort seems superfluous. But that’s the thing about liberals...to them, conventional wisdom must ALWAYS be wrong, because it is held by the ignorant, dumb masses who need the leftist “intellectuals” to “set the record straight” for them. But there are good reasons for Reagan’s overwhelming popularity, among them eight years of unprecedented economic growth and, obviously, the crumbling of the Soviet Union.
Look, I get it. You’ve been indoctrinated by leftist professors, moveon.org, Mother Jones, Al Franken, etc. I’m sure you fully believe these ideas, and they’re what has been preached to you by people you’ve admired and respected for their political rebelliousness. You try hard here to claim that conservatives have distorted the Reagan record and fooled people into believing their side, but if anything, it’s liberals who have tried in vain for so many years to persuade Americans that what they lived through in the 1980s never actually happened. It hasn’t worked. Keep trying, though. It’s almost cute.
Jeffrey Hill in Washington, D.C.
Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 12:56am
So do either of you have any numbers, facts or research? Feel free to read up on the subject.
Mike
Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 3:34pm
Gladly.
First, let’s establish that when Reagan took office, America was not exactly flourishing, thanks to the worst president in history and everyone’s favorite antisemite, Jimmy Carter. Carter taught Americans to settle for mediocrity and is very possibly responsible for the current state of Islamic terrorism, most notably in Iran. Under Carter, inflation was sky high, there was an energy crisis, American productivity was down, the value of the dollar was down, interest rates were up. Unemployment and poverty rates were high as well. It wasn’t pretty.
Reagan inherited a disaster and worked miracles:
-The eight years of sustained economic growth under Reagan is the longest such period in American peacetime history.
-In the supposed “Decade of Greed,” as liberals like to call it, charitable donations by individuals actually rose 57.7%.
-The rate of U.S manufacturing productivity growth tripled during the 80s, and the stock market doubled in value.
-Contrary to the liberal insistence that under Reagan “the rich got richer and the poor got poorer,” the POOREST 20% of the US population saw their income rise 12% from 1983-1989, the height of Reaganomics. Under the Carter administration, this same segment of the population saw its income drop 17%.
-Further, the notion that the rich didn’t pay their fair share doesn’t hold water either. In reality, Americans who made over a million dollars a year paid 41% more in taxes after the Regan tax cuts. The poorest segment of taxpayers paid 12% less in taxes. Any way you review tax figures, the rich paid a higher percentage of the overall tax burden under Reagan than they had previously.
-20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989. According to the Bureau of Labor, the percentage of new jobs rating in the “higher skills” categories was significantly up from the 70s. Unemployment originally went up, peaking in 1982-3, and then continually declined for the rest of Reagan’s time in office, eventually reaching its lowest point since the early 70s.
-Inflation, which soared to record heights under Carter, remained at 5% or lower for most of Reagan’s time in office.
-The “misery index,” which was around 13% under Gerald Ford and had soared to over 20% under Carter, was more than cut in half, falling to under 10% under Reagan.
-A 1992 study that issued economic report cards for presidents, based on economic growth, inflation, unemployment and interest rates, ranked 11 presidents from Truman to Bush. Reagan rated first (for his first term) and second (for his second term).
Most importantly, though, your claim that Reagan “is directly responsible for killing almost half a million people” is ludicrous. This line of thought is typical college liberalism that shows little real world comprehension of foreign affairs. You mock Reagan’s obsession with the Soviet Union as if it was some imaginary crusade. But the threat posed by communism and by the USSR was very real and imminent, and Reagan’s strategy – bottom line – worked. Yes, Reagan allied us with anti-communist fighters around the globe. Ever hear the expression “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”? You can point to the number of people who died at the hands of those you listed, but how about all of those who suffered and were slaughtered under the communist regimes and factions they opposed? And how many more would have been killed had communism been allowed to flourish? Communism was an evil system that could only be imposed through force – and so it was. And around the globe, dissidents were killed in the name of communism, and, since the system didn’t work at all, far more died due to starvation and malnutrition when living under these oppressive regimes. It is sometimes necessary to side with the lesser (and less powerful) of two evils.
Between 1974 and 1980, nine countries fell under soviet control. The oft-cited and exaggerated “alliance” between the US and bin Laden was in response to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It’s tragic that the Taliban that resulted from the expulsion of the soviets turned out to be what it did (granted, in hindsight, not the lesser evil). But it took another Republican, of course, to take care of that problem.
Reagan’s administration oversaw the collapse of dictatorships in Chili, Haiti, and Panama. When Reagan took office, fewer than one-third of Latin American countries were democratic; that number had risen to 90% by 1989. In preventing communism and encouraging democracy, Reagan was far more responsible for preserving lives than ending them. If the Carter doctrine had continued unchecked, there’s no telling how many millions of people around the world would be enslaved by communism today.
Yes, increased spending led to a deficit. That military buildup was not exactly negligent, as it was responsible for winning the Cold War. But the deficit is a funny thing…during the 80s, we were told repeatedly that it was going to destroy the economic future of the country. All these dire predictions never came to pass. Liberals love to trot out the national debt as the greatest indicator of economic health. But that’s not the way it’s ever worked. The deficit actually managed to curb congressional spending and eventually turned to a surplus (thanks to the Republican congress, NOT Bill Clinton).
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the AIDS thing – you seem to imply that Reagan is again “directly responsible” for all those deaths; perhaps you believe that evil Dr. Reagan created the virus in his lab, just like libs seem to believe Bush created Katrina in his Evil Weather Machine. Was he behind the curve on AIDS.? Yes…no president is perfect, and we didn’t know nearly as much about AIDS then as we do now. Interestingly, after he left office, Reagan offered to do commercials for AIDS research and funding, but was turned down. Apparently, preserving the moral high ground was more important than all the money that could have been raised through the involvement of one of our most popular presidents.
I’m also unclear about where you got the idea that the conservatives had control of the media in the 80s. Perhaps you have some facts and figures on that one? The vast majority of reporters – now and then – are liberal democrats. They identify themselves as such in surveys, and studies of their campaign donations confirm it.
Finally, here’s a statistic you won’t like: in a 2001 Gallup poll, respondents named Ronald Reagan America’s greatest president.
Jeffrey Hill in Washington, D.C.
Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 4:54pm
Before I tackle your post, I just want to thank you for taking the time to conduct research. Today’s media, both liberal and conservative, has a tendency to cop out with the “sources said that,” or “it is commonly believed that..” Envolved and engaging political debate is what makes our country a great place to live. Regardless of where we stand on the issues, it is essential to force each other to think about our statements.
Also, I want to make this clear that I am not a far-left liberal idealist. While I disagree with Reagan’s use of the military, I admired Eisenhower’s caution with the industry. The letter next to the candidate name means little to me - where they stand on the issues matters most. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Al Franken or any of the democratic celebrities associated with their party. I find them to be condescending and misleading. I agree with the conservative view of smaller government. Finding the balanced solution is key ... but you know as well as I do, that’s going to take a lot of work. Now, to address your post:
“First, let’s establish that when Reagan took office, America was not exactly flourishing, thanks to the worst president in history and everyone’s favorite antisemite, Jimmy Carter.”
-agreed. Jimmy Carter didn’t make things easy for Reagan. He was not an effective president.
“-The eight years of sustained economic growth under Reagan is the longest such period in American peacetime history.”
-true, but also one of the slowest. This is a very broad and general statistic. “Economic Growth” can be anything - military spending, corporate gains… but the truth is, the job market as well as the middle working-class went nowhere. If you were wealthy in the 80s, you definitely enjoyed several tax breaks.
“In the supposed “Decade of Greed,” as liberals like to call it, charitable donations by individuals actually rose 57.7%.”
Do you have a source for this, beside the Bart Campolo blogs?
“Further, the notion that the rich didn’t pay their fair share doesn’t hold water either. In reality, Americans who made over a million dollars a year paid 41% more in taxes after the Regan tax cuts. The poorest segment of taxpayers paid 12% less in taxes. Any way you review tax figures, the rich paid a higher percentage of the overall tax burden under Reagan than they had previously.”
-If you make 1 million a year, you can afford to pay 41% If you make 30,000, that 12% can really take a chunk out of your bill money and expenses.
-The “misery index,” which was around 13% under Gerald Ford and had soared to over 20% under Carter, was more than cut in half, falling to under 10% under Reagan.
Your number is inaccurate here. Arthur Okun’s misery index shows Reagan at an average of 12.19, lower than Carter’s 16.27 but higher than Bush Sr’s 10.68 during a recession. It measures unemployment versus inflation, and I find it to be very general.
“A 1992 study that issued economic report cards for presidents, based on economic growth, inflation, unemployment and interest rates, ranked 11 presidents from Truman to Bush. Reagan rated first (for his first term) and second (for his second term).”
-Where’s your source for this? Economic studies can be misleading depending on both sides. I don’t believe the economic studies that show Clinton was the economy’s friend either.
“You mock Reagan’s obsession with the Soviet Union as if it was some imaginary crusade. But the threat posed by communism and by the USSR was very real and imminent, and Reagan’s strategy – bottom line – worked.”
-I have a friend who considers himself a “Soviet.” He’s a ridiculous nationalist, and his rants are quite amusing. Even he says that communism was on the outs regardless of the actions of the United States. We’ve heard the saying, “you can’t eat bullets.” It’s true, and the USSR learned that lesson. I’m not saying we didn’t help, but the USSR couldn’t even support itself, let alone an “evil empire.” War is business. The military is an idustry. This business war costs too many live - whether they come from Africa or South America, we should value all life the same.
“I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the AIDS thing – you seem to imply that Reagan is again “directly responsible” for all those deaths; perhaps you believe that evil Dr. Reagan created the virus in his lab, just like libs seem to believe Bush created Katrina in his Evil Weather Machine. Was he behind the curve on AIDS.?”
C’mon, Mike. Do you really believe I was making this accusation? Of course Reagan didn’t “create AIDS in a lab.” But as the spokeperson for the country and as our chief executive, it’s his responsibility to address the problem. If Reagan was about confidence, why hide from the issue?
“I’m also unclear about where you got the idea that the conservatives had control of the media in the 80s.”
-A variety of sources, both liberal and conservative agree that the 80s were the golden years for conservative punditry, look at the careers that emerged from this decade.
“2001 Gallup poll, respondents named Ronald Reagan America’s greatest president.”
-I never said people didn’t like him. He is very popular. My father is a Reagan man, I hear it all the time from him.
Thanks for the reply.