Why is Reagan deified?

[Barry Ferguson]

Many Americans, especially Republicans, view Reagan as on of America's greatest presidents. Why? Under him debt went through the roof. I know that there is th "he won the Cold War" argument, but did he? The Soviets were in serious trouble, Gorbachev made his liberal movements in part to continue detente, whereas Reagan raised the stakes of the Cold War, removing the possibility of a democratic transition in Russia and replacing it with chaotic collapse.

Can anyone give me the other side of the coin?

 

[Dr. Croccer]

Logic need not apply in these sort of cases. The painfully obvious facts that Reagan was an incompetent, warmongering fool who was crap in pretty much every aspect doesn't prevent many from ************ to him.

 

[Monarchist]

These are the reasons Reagan is deified by Republicans. He had a very strong-minded stance on everything he believed in, and was pure of heart when it came to attacking anti-Capitalists. You have to remember that from 1973 to 1980 there had been incredibly weak presidents. Ford was basically just a flabbergasted know-nothing, and Carter talked with an extremely boring, un-presidential drawl that put people to sleep. Reagan's comparatively explosive manner of declaring his belief in God and conservatism was pretty new for 1980. Never mind the fact that he got the second-highest voting bid in the 20th century in 1984's election (the highest being F.D.R.'s win in 1936)!

Also, many Republicans tend to mindsex Reagan because of what came after. Bush I was considered to be mediocre and tax-happy, Clinton ... was a Democrat, and Bush II wasn't exactly the cream of the (R) crop. Reagan stands out in the last 35 years as a beacon of light to the last generation of conservatives. What can you expect but deification? It is more about his personality and drive than anything else.

People always mention Reagan's huge debt, but that was nothing compared to the huge leap the economy took after the initial 1982 post-deregulation dip. Reagan reversed an entire decade of malaise with dramatic tax cuts (from 76% of income to 28% of income for the rich, for example) which freed up private businessmen to start founding new businesses. The recession ended pretty quickly after that, and it set the standard for the next decade. Debt factored in, he probably made more money for America via his policies than any other president since Coolidge. The debt was easily absorbed by the new "American machine" of relentless Capitalism. I personally don't deify him, but I admit that he had a fiery conviction in what he believed to be true and right. Do you get that impression from listening to speeches of the presidents who bookended his own presidency? Did Carter have the same gravitas? Did Bush I excite people? It's all about context, historically speaking.

 

[motiv-8]

Logic need not apply in these sort of cases. The painfully obvious facts that Reagan was an incompetent, warmongering fool who was crap in pretty much every aspect doesn't prevent many from ************ to him.

Is that the "logical" biography of Reagan?

 

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

*

 

[Barry Ferguson]

So he's liked because he loudly declared he believes in God? Personally, I think cracking jokes about the Soviets in the Cold War context is irresponsible, and really don't think that the 1980s confrontation was better than 1970s detente

 

[Dr. Croccer]

Is that the "logical" biography of Reagan?

It's one of the better ones, I tell you that.

 

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

I have also often wondered about this. Many Americans, it would seem, prefer to quantify a President by how many Commies they crushed rather than by any other standard. Certainly, I remember back in the 1980s the only place scarier than London at night was New York at night. Have any of my American cousins ever been out at night in New York in the eighties? Then you'll appreciate the kind of serious social that I am talking about.

 

[hellheaven1987]

Because Reagan sold missles to Iran.

No joking, he did sell missles to Iran.

 

[Barry Ferguson]

Because Reagan sold missles to Iran.

No joking, he did sell missles to Iran.

I thought he sold them to Iraq? He cetainly sold them to Al-Qaeda

 

[conon394]

(It's really because he was the first attempt to get an unqualified person in the office who was totally in the pocket of big business (people always complaining about government meddling in business but ignore business getting in government even though they are in the end the same monstrous god - lol - people.)..

As opposed to say a lot of hacks who got High office in the 1800's

 

[razor-]

Because he is viewed as the one who got America back on track from the 70's where there had been the defeat in Vietnam, Watergate Scandal, Iran hostage Crisis, legalized porn/abortion, drug liberalization, economic downturn and so forth. With his strong ideological conviction and charisma he stood in huge contrast to LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter who where rather pragmatic and uninspiring. Also people think of him as having won the cold war, eventhough I personally believe it was inevitable and that Bush Sr. should get a lot more of the credit for his role in the dismantling of the Soviet Union.

Eventhough his physical achievements can be heavily debated, crime and poverty levels rose under him, he builded up even more debt and possible was one of the factors for the 1992 recession (letting Clinton into power). He restored national pride and had most of the country behind him, like Obama in his first months. I can't seem to think of any other period, save autumn 2001 where there had been so much patriotism in America. Under Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama the country seems enormously divided by "liberals" and "conservatives".

 

[motiv-8]

I thought he sold them to Iraq? He cetainly sold them to Al-Qaeda

Let me get this straight. Ronald Reagan sold missiles to a group that didn't exist until late 1988?

 

[Barry Ferguson]

Let me get this straight. Ronald Reagan sold missiles to a group that didn't exist until late 1988?

Mujahideen then, same difference

 

[Surgeon]

Probably all the same reasons other US presidents are deified by their respective parties; to be able to say "hey, when one of ours was in office look how well he did!"

 

[motiv-8]

Mujahideen then, same difference

No, not really, but I won't take this off-topic.

 

[hellheaven1987]

I thought he sold them to Iraq? He cetainly sold them to Al-Qaeda

No, to Iran.

This is the article.

 

[SigniferOne]

Basically the answer is right in the context of the 70s. The 70s were one of the absolute worst decades in American history -- in terms of spirit, opportunities, economically, in foreign policy, and every other measurable category. The 80s were a dramatic surge in all of those categories. Reagan had all of the values that mainstream Americans had, the economy surged with him, he held American security with a seemingly unshakable hand, and the general spirit, with him, seemed insuperable. With him America stopped fearing; and he demonstrated that there there was a third kind of politician than a liberal Carter and a liberal Rockefeller. To the extent that America is conservative now, it was he who re-founded it and contributed to it a great resurgence. And as an example of why I personally think of him highly, I offer the famous speech of 1964, known simply as 'The Speech' as if no other appellation is necessary:



In short, a modern Winston Churchill.

 

[Barry Ferguson]

No, not really, but I won't take this off-topic.

You're right, I meant the Taliban

No, to Iran.

This is the article.

Ah, I always thought it was Iraq the US armed during their little spat. I know we (Britain) armed Iraq

 

[motiv-8]

The US did provide some arms to Iraq during its war with Iran. Scandalous!

 

[Kanaric]

Reagan is deified because neocons need success to look up to through the pit of fail that they live in. Their pit deepens even more at all times due to the fact that his own views on things contradict much of what those people hold sacred.

Personally i dont understand why someone who destroyed the US economy and turned the US job market from respect at the workplace with decent wages, health care, and mutual respect between employer and employee into a minimum wage cost cutting racket that uses their workers as disposable tools. Before Reagan one man could care for his family, family values were actually MORE important. However with his introduction of policies like universal union busting and paving the way for corporations to give 100s of millions to failed CEOs and cutting every cost possible for maximum you have todays workplace as a result. Reagan played a large part is destroying the traditional "family values" that these people hold dear. His presidency is the everest peak of looking at today and not tomorrow. However that is what defines the 80s in whole, living in the now.

Also since reagan every president has to be some rock star where nobody cares to listen to what their actual values, beliefs, and policy are. Like Obama and Sarah Palin's strategies. Watch those videos on youtube where a guy goes around a Sarah Palin book signing asking people why they like her, they can't answer that question outside of what seems to translate as "coolness".

I think if you were to read US history as a novel 100s of years from now Reagan will be like some climax in the plot where though during his times things were great in a few ways but most of what he did set up the ending that was the eventual failure. People also seem to forget his many failures (ie. iran contra), many of which were moral failures, and the fact that the economy in the 80s was , due to his policies, and resembled much that it does today.

The US did provide some arms to Iraq during its war with Iran. Scandalous!

Then provided arms to Iran in their war with Iraq. That I think should be a term called Reagan logic.

 

[motiv-8]

That's not why arms were provided to Iran. Don't make a judgment call on a person when you haven't demonstrated a full grasp of the events.

 

[Stavroforos]

There are many Americans who love people who look backwards, talk backwards, and act backwards, hence the love for Reagan. I personally prefer GWB than Reagan.

 

[tomdidiot]

I personally do not like Reagan. I think many of his actions were disastorous.

He does have his merits. His move towards a more lasseiz-faire economic system were quite prudent in many cases, and they did yield obvious economic benefits. Cutting taxes did genuninely help stimulate the economy. However, he also decided to cut spending to many vital social programs, such as medicaid and education, and pimped the money instead into increasing military spending massively (moer about that later). And he was too thick to realise that deficits are unsustainable. His successor, Bush I, was much more prudent. I support cutting taxes, but slashing them and not reducing (or indeed, increasing) spending is sheer lunacy. Strike busting, not respectin labour rights etc. is also a despicable act.

His foreign policy, whether well thought out or not, was a success. No matter what his motivations were, his actions did excarbarate the tensions in the Soviet system by dragging them into a new arms race that they could ill afford, which, along with the Afghan war, probably dragged the Soviet system to its doom. He did free hundreds of millinos of Eastern Europeans. However, I think that this weas merely dick-waving on a massive scale, rather than a cunning calculated plan to bring down the Soviets.

 

[Barry Ferguson]

His foreign policy, whether well thought out or not, was a success. No matter what his motivations were, his actions did excarbarate the tensions in the Soviet system by dragging them into a new arms race that they could ill afford, which, along with the Afghan war, probably dragged the Soviet system to its doom. He did free hundreds of millinos of Eastern Europeans. However, I think that this weas merely dick-waving on a massive scale, rather than a cunning calculated plan to bring down the Soviets.

But was bringing the Soviets crashing down better than detente? The wave of chaos in Eastern Europe, the Russian nationalists and Putin. Ultimately the world was safer in the Cold War 1964-1989 than it is today

 

[motiv-8]

Ultimately the world was safer in the Cold War 1964-1989 than it is today

Were you alive from 1964-1989?

 

[Ænema]

Yes he made some mistakes and had some bad policies just like every president does. It was his personality that made Americans love him.

And how is he a warmonger? He advocated peace but made clear that we wouldn't be ed with and we had the muscle to defend ourselves if you brought your to us.

But was bringing the Soviets crashing down better than detente? The wave of chaos in Eastern Europe, the Russian nationalists and Putin. Ultimately the world was safer in the Cold War 1964-1989 than it is today

What? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Dr. Croccer]

In short, a modern Winston Churchill.

Except that Churchill was literate.

 

[Barry Ferguson]

Were you alive from 1964-1989?

No

What? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Yes. After the Cuban Missile Crisis both sides realised the danger of direct confrontation. There were no danger points between the superpowers until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
Both sides knew where the threat was, but also were aware that the probability of anything happening was very low. In todays world an attack could come from any angle with no prior warning

 

[Pontifex Maximus]

For better or worse, he spent the Soviets into submission. I think that in the long run his actions were better for the world, but not necessarily the US.