Could Reagan or JFK be elected now?

Actually, if you look at his plan the deficits were intended to be temporary. Get the economy expanding, then reapply taxation to stabilize growth while paying back the money that was used to establish the growth. Much like a business borrows money to get going, then uses the profits to expand further while paying down the debt.

The problem was the only person capable of following his plan through turned out to be him. When the time came GHW Bush didn't have the charisma to raise the taxes and get away with it. Then Clinton came in and enjoyed eight years of riding the exploding economy like a surfer on a hot wave and making no effort to bridle it for long term benefit whatsoever. When the wave was finally petering out GW Bush and his merry band of idiots thought they could reenergize it through the same process that made it in the first place, despite the fact they were by then standing on dry sand (in other words they did not have the existing conditions Reagan had, so trying to use the same plan made no sense whatsoever but they did it anyway).

Clinton raised taxes and the deficit was cut while he was there. W cut capital gains tax by making sure no one had any capital gains.
 
There is one reason I can actually see that might keep them from being elected. The Obama legacy committee might assassinate them before they could win so modern US citizens will never know what it is like to have a President that knows how to stand up to Russia, making Obama look bad by comparison.
 
Both those men are far to the left of where their parties stand right now. But at the same time, both were charismatic public figures. The charisma might carry a lot of weight. There hasn't been a lot of competition in that regard. What would ultimately do in Reagan would be his willingness to work across the isle. That is a large part of what made him politically effective. But it takes members of both parties in Congress willing to go for that for it to work.
 
Clinton raised taxes and the deficit was cut while he was there. W cut capital gains tax by making sure no one had any capital gains.

Clinton did raise taxes, and cut the deficit...but he didn't raise them enough to rein in the economy which was expanding way to fast to be sustainable, and if he had he could have not only cut the deficit but created a surplus and eaten away a lot of the debt. Not his fault really, the American people showed no sign of tolerating having fiscal responsibility imposed on them.

There would have been a lot fewer 'dot com millionaires' and 'how to make a fortune flipping real estate millionaires' and assorted other speculators made good, because in that overheated economy 'speculation' wasn't really all that speculative...but the nation's accounts would have been a lot better for it and even GW Bush couldn't have totally blown it. Well, maybe...he was so economically clueless that he may have found a way no matter what he had been given to work with.
 
There is one reason I can actually see that might keep them from being elected. The Obama legacy committee might assassinate them before they could win so modern US citizens will never know what it is like to have a President that knows how to stand up to Russia, making Obama look bad by comparison.

I doubt JFK or Reagan would view Putin the same way as the USSR.
 
The key issue in 'standing up to' Russia is that the situation has to justify the threat. Given the technology of the time Russian missiles in Cuba would have meant a total reversal of the strategic balance the whole world relied on. The Soviet Union had conventional forces that could hands down win an invasion of Europe. The US made clear that they would use nuclear weapons to annihilate the Soviet Union in that event, and since they could do so without concern for being annihilated in return it was a credible balance. Over time that balance was shifted to parity in conventional arms, but if an overnight shift had occurred in 1962 the resulting instability would have been a disaster for everybody, even including the USSR.

There is nothing going on right now that in any way affects the strategic balance of the world.
 
I think it would be possible to argue that JFK would have a tough road towards being elected today, but not because he was too pro-business, since that's basically been co-opted by the governing Democratic party over the last 20 years. I think the argument is stronger that he'd be a little out of touch, foreign wise, or that he would lack a true base constituency that is needed to win a primary.

I'm with JR, in that Reagan's communication skills would allow him to not show his true policy preferences until after a primary, so he could win...but just based on what he did in office, you damn sure better believe he'd get a Tea Party challenger who thought he was insufficiently conservative.
 
If Reagan were to rise out of the grave as a zombie he could be nominated and elected. Same with JFK. In fact I want to see that debate. So I say emphatically yes to both. Please excuse the zombie bit, I just used that to show how emphatically. No intent to transgress the RD. With the current bunch on either side these two would fly into office.
 
There is one reason I can actually see that might keep them from being elected. The Obama legacy committee might assassinate them before they could win so modern US citizens will never know what it is like to have a President that knows how to stand up to Russia, making Obama look bad by comparison.

I don't really get the "stand up to Russia" deal. That happens optimally if you're either trigger-happy, or crazy enough to bluff that you're trigger happy... in which case you can respectively elect your favorite warmonger/madman.
 
I don't really get the "stand up to Russia" deal. That happens optimally if you're either trigger-happy, or crazy enough to bluff that you're trigger happy... in which case you can respectively elect your favorite warmonger/madman.

I don't think JFK was trigger happy, or bluffing. It was necessary to prevent missiles in Cuba at that time, and he did what he had to do. I think the Soviets knew they had put him in a corner where his only choice was to do what he had to do, and that would have gone all the way up to pulling the trigger...so they did what they had to do and backed off.
 
I don't think JFK was trigger happy, or bluffing. It was necessary to prevent missiles in Cuba at that time, and he did what he had to do. I think the Soviets knew they had put him in a corner where his only choice was to do what he had to do, and that would have gone all the way up to pulling the trigger...so they did what they had to do and backed off.

Yeah, but I'm talking about today.

Compared to Obama, the only way you get someone to "stand up" more is to be either more trigger happy than Obama, or more of a nutcase so that he can convince everyone that he's more trigger happy than Obama without actually being so.
 
I don't really get the "stand up to Russia" deal. That happens optimally if you're either trigger-happy, or crazy enough to bluff that you're trigger happy... in which case you can respectively elect your favorite warmonger/madman.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
 
Jack Kennedy almost didn't win in 1960 even with a Dixiecrat with massive political capital as his veep. With the Dixiecrats gone I wouldn't like Kennedy's chances, though I'd have to have the psychic ability to know who'd he prefer as a running mate out of today's Democrats to know for sure. Reagan would probably fit in with the GOP of today in terms of substance, but I have a feeling he would butt heads with the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in terms of presentation, much the same way establishment Republicans like Peter King and Chris Christie have.

Reagan's "Supply Side Economics" (GHW Bush called it voodoo economics) were cribbed from JFK. In his defense, the tax laws during WW II really were designed to be a brake on the nonwar economy. It was stupid to keep them going for another 15+ years.

He proved you could have a good economy with massive deficits.

No.

The deficits under Reagan were merely large. He also was dealing with a significant recesssion for half his first term. After the economy got rolling, deficits dropped the rest of his term, Bush's term and most of Clinton's.

Clinton raised taxes and the deficit was cut while he was there. W cut capital gains tax by making sure no one had any capital gains.

Factually incorrect. The last two years of Clinton's term was the .com bust. Capital gains taxes provided the surpluses in 1999 and 2000. The pendulum swing evened that out in 2001 and 2002. No President was responsible, but it occurred on Clinton's watch. The next bubble was on Bush's watch, followed by the true massive deficits under Obama.

J
 
No, I want the righteous dude who will stand up in the face of tyranny and oppression.
 
I think it might be a more interesting question to ask whether LBJ or Nixon could be elected now. Both were slimy but extremely effective politicians, but neither one would be likely to have the sort of media image that we seem to expect out of our politicians today.

Also, although JFK is the sort of personality that could probably be elected today if he had a clean background, would the inevitable sex scandals derail his run? It seems that a president was much more able to have numerous extramarital affairs back then than now, even though the median person is more sexually liberal now than in 1960.
 
Back
Top Bottom