Historians evaluate Reagan anew

[DesertFox]

Santa Barbara -- Years after Ronald Reagan stepped quietly off the public stage, scholars are struggling to separate the former president's policies from the long-running clash over his politics.

Historians and other Reagan watchers view him as a man with a strong set of core beliefs and an ability to lead, yet repeatedly underestimated by his political foes.

But the effort to judge Reagan's influence on issues such as the breakup of the Soviet Union and the nation's economic fortunes remains hampered by today's partisan battles over many of the same issues on his agenda two decades ago: military spending, tax cuts and the budget deficit.

More than 80 historians, political scientists and economists met at the University of California at Santa Barbara this past weekend to take a new, less partisan look at Reagan's legacy.

"We felt the time was right to present a second-generation look at Reagan," said W. Elliot Brownlee, the University of California at Santa Barbara history professor who helped organize the conference. "We wanted to get beyond the arguments of the proponents and opponents of the Reagan Revolution."

The partisan controversy that swirled around Reagan and the conservative programs he advocated made it difficult for many scholars to take a neutral view.

"The personal preferences of historians played a role," said James Patterson, the Brown University historian who gave the conference's keynote address. "Let's face it, they're virtually all liberals. They like FDR and they don't like conservatives."

Polls of historians in the 1990s placed Reagan well down the list of American presidents, ranking somewhere around Zachary Taylor and John Tyler. Liberal historians such as Garry Wills dubbed Reagan "a kindly fanatic," while Clark Clifford, a longtime Democratic adviser, called him "an amiable dunce." He was a B-movie actor mouthing other people's lines and ideas, the popular wisdom went.

But Patterson, who admitted he was "not a great fan of Ronald Reagan," said he could not accept the most extreme judgments of Reagan and his presidency.

The rest (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/31/MN216005.DTL)

[Warlady]

Excellent article Fox. The left has a history of underestimating greatness. It's good to see he's getting his due.

[SunnyBrook]

Ditto Warlady, except the malarky about Gorby!

SunnyBrook

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Warlady writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Excellent article Fox. The left has a history of underestimating greatness. It's good to see he's getting his due. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The left doesn't underestimate greatness. They haven't got a clue as to what it is. I'm absolutely astonished at the number of liberals I talk to who still insist that Jimmy Carter was a good President. JFK, of course, is untouchable. If only he'd lived long enough to get us out of Vietnam. What crap. First of all, he's the one who took us in to Vietnam. And no less an authority than Robert Kennedy stated that Kennedy never had any intention of withdrawing from Vietnam.

It was transparently obvious soon after Reagan left office that he was one of the greatest of the century. He won the Cold War! That's as great an achievement as winning WWI or WWII. The claim that other people played a part is irrelevant. FDR didn't win WWII single-handedly either. Of course other people played a part, but we give credit to the guy who provided the leadership and that was Ronald Reagan. It's also probable that the Soviet Union was going to undergo very big changes because of their own economic and financial problems. But the collapse of communism wasn't an inevitable outcome of those changes.

The only thing that prevented historians from recognizing Reagan's greatness when he left office was their own biases. It's certainly true that some administrations, like Truman or Eisenhower need time to fully evaluate their achievements but with Reagan, as with FDR or Lincoln, you didn't need time to figure it out. The events that occurred under their regimes were earth-shaking at the time and quite undeniably so.

[Timberwolf]

Ya know, Fusionist, the only thing you wrote with which I can mildly disagree is your take on JFK. Yes, he did get us into Vietnam. That is without doubt. But I think that, unlike LBJ, he would've called for a formal declaration of war and tried to WIN. It is really a moot point, though.

Other than that, GREAT post!!

[Radical-Conservative]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Timberwolf:
Ya know, Fusionist, the only thing you wrote with which I can mildly disagree is your take on JFK.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Limbaugh said a few years ago JFK would proably be a Republican today

[**DONOTDELETE**]

If I may;

Yes; there was a need in America for a President, like President Reagan, no question about that. Also; I would like to point out, in Russia - because of they nature of communism, there was not enough economy to support that army power & expenses.

Please don't forget; Russia's previous presidents were dictating jobs by - the way the guns point. Like; took away land from the people. The real problem was, not they took away the land, but the government had no traktors, machines to work on farm. So they created a total desester.

Hruschev ordered to buid a 100 mile long canal. (I'm not exactly sure how long) Done by prisenors and very little machinery help.

Gorbachev was the first with college education. So: He wasn't "A" brutal like those of previous presidents and he could not order tanks against civilians.

People - if I may.

The cold war is over, but not the communists.

President Clinton pushed or helped a lot of companies went all eraund the Globe. China most of. And today, we're loosing an economic war. The Liberals (Communists) are in America and our goods are coming from China, Mexico, Corea, Japan & Europe

How long we'll be free?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

>JFK, of course, is untouchable. If only he'd lived long enough to get us out of Vietnam. What crap. First of all, he's the one who took us in to Vietnam.

Actually it was Ike who got us into the Vietnam conflict. The debate over JFK's intentions conerning the war go on to this day. It was LBJ who jumped in with both feet and created a fiasco

[**DONOTDELETE**]

It is a good time to review and analyze President Reagen's terms in office. Looking at him now gives unbiased historians a chance to better view his role in United States and World history and to put it in context.

History written immediately after the fact is usually poor at best, since its too emotional and there is little chance to put events into true context until a reasonable amount of time has gone by. History written as it is happening is not really history at all, it is simply current events.

Good history is interpreted with a certain amount of cold detachment. There cannot be room for biases or personal likes/dislikes. Unfortunately this is often not the case. I hope that any new views of President Reagen's tenure are written in an unbiased manner.

Personally I think the passage of time greatly enhances President Reagen's legacy as it is now much clearer that his tactical and strategic goals had a mostly positive effect on the world of the late 20th century and that his leadership had positive long term impact.

[DesertFox]

Strider, welcome to the forum.

JFK AND his family have long since been exposed. David Horowitz and his long time partner Peter Collier did a number on the trashy Kennedys in their bio of JFK.