Hey everybody. I am curious to hear what everbody thinks of Ronald Regan. I know he was not great president by any means. He increased government spending on defense and launched the disastorous war on drugs, and sent troops over seas many times. However, he did have some pros also. He praised the Coolidge/Harding free enterprise system, and his initial goal as president was to dismantle the welfare state and shrink government (Unfortatetly, he was relatively unsuccesful in both).
So, do you guys think Ronald Regan was really that bad?
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
BWF89:Wasn't Reagan's administration the one that supplied weapons to Osama Bin Laden so the Mujahadeen could fight against the Soviets? That really came back to bite us.
It started under Carter, and was probably a decent policy at the time. The reason it bit us was because while the Muj. may have been our allies against the USSR, they were implacable enemies of Israel and the pliant Saudi regime. The only common cause with this "ally" was rolling back the Soviets and once that disappeared, our alliance with Israel and the House of Saud became extremely problematic.
Also, I think the only thing bin Laden's crew did was provide money and prayers. The plot itself required minimal resources. It was probably the most diabolically successful and spectacular criminal act ever devised by non-state actors.
That is, until they figure out weapons-grade biotoxins. The twenty-first century is sure gonna be fun.
The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton
To answer the original question, Reagan was definitely a good president. He strongly stood against the crashing tides of collectivism.
Reagan had many wrongs to be sure.
However, I will always hold a very fond memory of his single handily destroying an entire labor union, PATCO. One of the "brighter" moments in government. :)
Reagan was a great spokesman for limited government but ended up increasing the states size and scope while president, he was pretty much the 20th century's Thomas Jefferson. Read their speeches but don't think for a moment that their actions matched their rhetoric.
CopperHead: Reagan was a great spokesman for limited government but ended up increasing the states size and scope while president, he was pretty much the 20th century's Thomas Jefferson. Read their speeches but don't think for a moment that their actions matched their rhetoric.
Isn't that what makes him a horrible spokesman for "limited government", since people consequentially associate the results of his expansionism with "limited government" and therefore oppose it? This point was already harped on earlier in the thread.
I grew up in a family of Reagan worshippers, there's no other way to say that. My father in particular admires him so much that to this day criticizing Reagan in front of him can make family reunions explosive to say the least.
What I think of him? Probably as a person he was not that bad and perhaps he even believed in some of the things he said. But he was nothing more than a mere pawn in the end. The Republicans were still living in fear that their next president could become another Nixon, so they picked somebody who would just follow orders. Like the present US president he was pretty good at that.
If I were to judge his presidency I would rate it pretty low. We are not talking Lincoln or Wilson territory but it still had some pretty bad moments. The War on Drugs is a long, painful, unmitigated disaster which turned the US from being the "Land of the Free" into the world's largest prison camp. Not happy at destroying liberties at home the US government set about cajoling and blackmailing other countries from around the world into joining the "Crusade fo the Greater Good". He got himself involved in a needless showdown with Lybia which, while nowhere near as bloody as the present "War on Terror", costed many innocent lives (think about the Pan Am bombing and the bombing of Tripoli). He put the military-industrial complex into high gear. The original intention was to force the Soviet Union into over spending to crack their economy (don't know you but ever since I was boy I was told that Soviet Russia was incredibly powerful and wealthy so when I saw what lied behind the Iron Curtain I was taken aback to say the least). In the end Socialism took care of itself but the Star Wars stuck around (and US taxpayers are still generously financing the neverending R&D phase). During the Reagan presidency another Crusade against liberties, which started earlier and had been relatively harmless, was put in high gear: anti-smoking laws started to become more severe and to be truly enforced. Here too foreign countries were cajoled and blackmailed into joining the March of Fools.
Need I say more?
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!
Ego: I'm with Brainpolice here; he hurt the free-market brand.
I'm with Brainpolice here; he hurt the free-market brand.
Ego agrees with BP and I?This is a sign of the end times.
Do we really need MORE regulators?
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Niccolò:This is a sign of the end times.
End of times for false prophets such as yourself!
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
liberty student: Niccolò:This is a sign of the end times. End of times for false prophets such as yourself!
I am the the third revelation.
Brainpolice:Isn't that what makes him a horrible spokesman for "limited government", since people consequentially associate the results of his expansionism with "limited government" and therefore oppose it? This point was already harped on earlier in the thread.
You may very well be right but his words taken on their own account were quite good. Also I think it can go both ways, I was a consevative once and now Im a libertarian. I was driven in this direction to a great extent by Reagan's words. It doesn't take a genuis to realize his talk and his actions were two entirely different things. And again I think his "talk" was pretty good.
*boinks the ray-gun cult*
I think Reagan is a good example of where classical liberalism leads to.
Reagen defended government fire departments as consistent with the idea that government should exist only to protect one person from another. How absurd.