Blame Reagan. Catalyst or Cause?

[Zardnaar]

So I watched this video.

I don't expect you to watch it but Reagan tends to gets the blame for a lot of America's problems.

As a non American I tend to blame LBJ for setting into motion the events that lead to Reagan coming to power and the destruction of the post war new deal.

Essentially Vietnam War escalation. Money spent there resulted in the economic conditions of the 70's and the blow back against counter culture. Neoliberialism to me is just reheated 1920's garbage that lead to 1929 and the Great Depression.

Mitary spending doomed the USSR might doom the USA.

 

[Farm Boy]

LBJ destroyed the small c conservatives so badly politically that the Republicans elected an Assclown that astute foreigners need to wonder if he isn't some sort of Democrat plant. They even fund his guys.
Combine that with Kennedy destroying Nixon by running hard to Nixon's right and you explain a lot of what makes the Rs Rs until the big flop on immigration where the parties switched sides again.

 

[GenMarshall]

Are we going to link it to Woodrow Wilson?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Three major changes brought about by the Reagan years were:

1. The rise of investment banks, M&A profiteering and exporting of manufacturing overseas
2. The end of the fairness doctrine opening the door to Rush Limbaugh and right wing talk radio and, in the end, FoxNews
3. Changing Healthcare in the US from non profit to profit making businesses

He created the foundations for sharp rises in income inequality and the demise of American industry; the amped up political hate and divisiveness; and the frightfully expensive healthcare we enjoy today.

 

[Farm Boy]

Arguably, America started turning away in ernest from labor/manufacturing/middle class/the Midwest under Carter, when he squished our unions. Regan was flashier with the air traffic control, but he was staying the course. Clinton and Obama? More of the same. At least there was the ACA.

 

[Cutlass]

Reagan is clearly in the bottom 5 of American presidents. Based on what their lasting legacy will be. And yet he remains broadly liked in polls. Which is to say that what he was selling people want to buy.

 

[Zardnaar]

Reagan is clearly in the bottom 5 of American presidents. Based on what their lasting legacy will be. And yet he remains broadly liked in polls. Which is to say that what he was selling people want to buy.

I don't like him but I don't think he is bottom 10 let alone 5.

Problem is his shock therapy became the new default vs transitioning to something else.

Similar thing happened here but they went further, faster, harder than Reagan. We didn't recover until mid 90s.

 

[Tee Kay]

Democrats controlled the House for the entirety of Reagan's term; the president didn't rule by decree.

There's a lot of blame to go around if you want to assign them.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I don't like him but I don't think he is bottom 10 let alone 5.

Scholars and historians often rank him in TOP 15, sometimes top 10, few more critical ones at least still put him in top half. That's overall, so there may be some specific issues where one could think he was much worse than others on that specific issue.

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rankings do tend to change, much more so for recent presidents, but I think Reagan's been out of office long enough, it won't change that much.
Categories he scores worst in is, his pre-presidential background (actor), and IQ (what is perceived to have been his IQ, since I doubt any were actually tested). It seems there is some correlation in IQ and how they rank overall, but certainly not an absolute, as Carter and Hoover were graded pretty decent in IQ (top 15), but scored very poorly overall (bottom 10).

 

[amadeus]

So I watched this video.

How you managed to sit through it is a testament to your willpower, I guess. It is not a thoughtful analysis of the Reagan presidency.

Reagan is over-mythologized, right and left, credited for either all good or blamed for all evil. Both are wrong. Examples: the appointment of Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve Board was under Carter; the decline in union membership and manufacturing as a percentage of the labor force began 30 years before his presidency, and no, these trends did not accelerate during this time, either; the federal budget was not slashed, the last time a lower budget was passed by the House was also in the 1950’s.

Cold warriors credit Reagan for winning the arms race, but the Brezhnev stagnation and declines in Soviet arms spending, again, began or became more acute under Carter.

On some of the other things mentioned in this thread, the FCC fairness doctrine applied to holders of broadcast licenses, to which cable television did not apply since there’s no broadcast spectrum and thus no natural restrictions on radio bandwidth.

In the end, without going too much into it, I would say your initial statement about LBJ is closer to the truth. That stretched the dollar, still tied to gold reserves, to a point where we could no longer prevent high inflation and an outflow of gold to countries redeeming their dollars. Maybe Charles de Gaulle was right when he called it America‘s exorbitant privilege; but then again, he’s Charles de Gaulle…

 

[Zardnaar]

How you managed to sit through it is a testament to your willpower, I guess. It is not a thoughtful analysis of the Reagan presidency.

Reagan is over-mythologized, right and left, credited for either all good or blamed for all evil. Both are wrong. Examples: the appointment of Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve Board was under Carter; the decline in union membership and manufacturing as a percentage of the labor force began 30 years before his presidency, and no, these trends did not accelerate during this time, either; the federal budget was not slashed, the last time a lower budget was passed by the House was also in the 1950’s.

Cold warriors credit Reagan for winning the arms race, but the Brezhnev stagnation and declines in Soviet arms spending, again, began or became more acute under Carter.

On some of the other things mentioned in this thread, the FCC fairness doctrine applied to holders of broadcast licenses, to which cable television did not apply since there’s no broadcast spectrum and thus no natural restrictions on radio bandwidth.

In the end, without going too much into it, I would say your initial statement about LBJ is closer to the truth. That stretched the dollar, still tied to gold reserves, to a point where we could no longer prevent high inflation and an outflow of gold to countries redeeming their dollars. Maybe Charles de Gaulle was right when he called it America‘s exorbitant privilege; but then again, he’s Charles de Gaulle…

Yeah Reagan gets it both ends. If it wasn't him probably woukd have been someone else.

Neo liberalism becoming influential is mid 2970's Reagan was just the trigger man IMHO.

 

[Gorbles]

How you managed to sit through it is a testament to your willpower, I guess. It is not a thoughtful analysis of the Reagan presidency.

Reagan is over-mythologized, right and left, credited for either all good or blamed for all evil. Both are wrong. Examples: the appointment of Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve Board was under Carter; the decline in union membership and manufacturing as a percentage of the labor force began 30 years before his presidency, and no, these trends did not accelerate during this time, either; the federal budget was not slashed, the last time a lower budget was passed by the House was also in the 1950’s.

Cold warriors credit Reagan for winning the arms race, but the Brezhnev stagnation and declines in Soviet arms spending, again, began or became more acute under Carter.

On some of the other things mentioned in this thread, the FCC fairness doctrine applied to holders of broadcast licenses, to which cable television did not apply since there’s no broadcast spectrum and thus no natural restrictions on radio bandwidth.

In the end, without going too much into it, I would say your initial statement about LBJ is closer to the truth. That stretched the dollar, still tied to gold reserves, to a point where we could no longer prevent high inflation and an outflow of gold to countries redeeming their dollars. Maybe Charles de Gaulle was right when he called it America‘s exorbitant privilege; but then again, he’s Charles de Gaulle…

All of this nuance and literally no mention of HIV/AIDs? Huh.

 

[Birdjaguar]

the FCC fairness doctrine applied to holders of broadcast licenses, to which cable television did not apply since there’s no broadcast spectrum and thus no natural restrictions on radio bandwidth.

Yes, the fairness doctrine applied to Broadcast TV and Radio and not cable TV. but it did apply to radio and once the FCC did away with that rule, it opened the door for one-sided political talk radio. That divisive radio style developed by Rush build the audience that FoxNews tapped into when it was created a decade later. FoxNews was only feasible as a network because talk radio had built the audience for it.

 

[amadeus]

All of this nuance and literally no mention of HIV/AIDs? Huh.

Annual federal spending on HIV/AIDS went from $8m in 1982 to $2,300m by 1989.

once the FCC did away with that rule, it opened the door for one-sided political talk radio.

People tuned in. I don’t have a problem with that.

 

[Gorbles]

Annual federal spending on HIV/AIDS went from $8m in 1982 to $2,300m by 1989.

Yeah, I'm not sure a) we can attribute that to Reagan and b) that's the right numbers to focus on considering the first half of the 80s.

 

[amadeus]

Yeah, I'm not sure a) we can attribute that to Reagan and b) that's the right numbers to focus on considering the first half of the 80s.

The facts contradict your mythology and now you are moving the goalposts.

 

[Cutlass]

Democrats controlled the House for the entirety of Reagan's term; the president didn't rule by decree.

There's a lot of blame to go around if you want to assign them.

That ignores the fact that many Democrats at the time were more conservative than the Republican center at the time.

 

[Gorbles]

The facts contradict your mythology and now you are moving the goalposts.

What mythology, exactly? The fact that it was known about in '81? The fact that Reagan first talked about it in '84?

I'm talking about a well very documented event, that I had to prompt you to mention. For someone who wants to present a balanced take, you sure are resorting to fallacies pretty quickly!

 

[amadeus]

@Gorbles, it would be a fair criticism if it was being widely talked about in the upper echelons of elected politics, but I can’t find any evidence that his significant opposition at the time (Tip O’Neill, Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale) spoke about it before Reagan, nor contemporary world leaders Pierre Trudeau in Canada or Francois Mitterrand in France.

I also checked the 1984 Democratic platform, and it’s not a short document, and there are zero mentions of HIV/AIDS. There’s pages on the contras, but not AIDS.

What then is the criticism towards Reagan? He was no better or worse than his contemporaries.

 

[Gorbles]

@Gorbles, it would be a fair criticism if it was being widely talked about in the upper echelons of elected politics, but I can’t find any evidence that his significant opposition at the time (Tip O’Neill, Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale) spoke about it before Reagan, nor contemporary world leaders Pierre Trudeau in Canada or Francois Mitterrand in France.

I also checked the 1984 Democratic platform, and it’s not a short document, and there are zero mentions of HIV/AIDS. There’s pages on the contras, but not AIDS.

What then is the criticism towards Reagan? He was no better or worse than his contemporaries.

He was in charge of the country at the time.

Additionally, if you want to talk about other elected leaders in other countries, be my guest, but that's outside the scope of this thread so I don't really see the relevance. What use is invoking Mitterrand when talking about the AIDs crisis in the US specifically? I'm not blaming Reagan for something that happened in France.