Why was Reagan so great? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why was Reagan so great?

Trau

10-11-2002, 05:17 PM

I was only two years old when Reagan left the White House, so I know next to nothing about the man other than what I hear about his Star Wars program. Many conservatives regard him as a fantastic man, so I was wondering, why? Could you all give me a summary or something of the like?

Wyatt_Junker

10-11-2002, 05:39 PM

Okay, drop trau and bend over. Cause here it comes.

Oh Fin???? Did you hear this child?

Give him some boooyaa.

The_Finman

10-11-2002, 05:47 PM

Well...for a complete overview, please visit the official Ronald Reagan web site (which I help administrate images/icons/wink.gif ) at:

www.RonaldReagan.com (http://www.ronaldreagan.com)

We have a complete overview of the entire life and accomplishments of President Reagan's life.

We also run a UBB board (like this one) dedicated to open discussions about President Reagan and his peers.

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php

But here are a couple of important articles that I think really sum up what Reagan was about and why most consider his to be the most important President of the 20th century

<h2>Reagan, 'hero in history'</h2>
By Arnold Beichman
Hoover Institution

http://reaganranch.com/images/best/gallery/Ron_on_porch.jpg
"The paradox inherent in democracy," Donald Kagan has written, "is that it must create and depend on citizens who are free, autonomous, and self-reliant.

Yet its success --- its survival even --- requires extraordinary leadership."

I was reminded of this judgment by Yale's eminent historian as I noted the news report that President Bush had presented a Congressional Gold Medal to Ronald Reagan and Mrs. Reagan for their service to the country and, I would add, to the free world.

And, perhaps just as important an event, is the upcoming commemoration by the Heritage Foundation of Mr. Reagan's historic Westminster speech Tuesday, June 8, 1982, in which he predicted that "the march of freedom and democracy [would] leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history."

It took extraordinary moral courage to make such a prophecy at a time when the Soviet Union was on the march, threatening Western Europe with intercontinental missiles.

More and more it becomes obvious, if not to the dominant school of American historians, that in terms of achievement Mr. Reagan was one of the country's greatest presidents.

Because his momentous deeds were accomplished without war, without bloodshed.

It is not to minimize the pantheonic stature of Abraham Lincoln to point out that his decision to save the Union cost millions of lives.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the Soviet empire, the outcome of the eight years of Mr. Reagan's extraordinary leadership, saved the world from what might have been a nuclear war.

http://people.clemson.edu/~mjmccoy/reagan.jpgIn fact, Mr. Reagan was one of the most successful U.S. politician-statesmen of the postwar era.

He said he would reduce regulation; he did.

He said that he would cut taxes; he did.

He said that he would spend the Soviet Union into submission; he did.

Mr. Reagan fits perfectly a definition of what Sidney Hook called the "hero in history."

That phrase was the title of a book in which the philosopher dealt with the role of personality in history and the impact of that force on mankind: "The great man or woman in history is someone of whom we can say on the basis of the available evidence that if they had not lived when they did, or acted as they did, the history of their countries and of the world, to the extent that they are intertwined, would have been profoundly different.

An immediate test of that definition is to consider how different a world it would be today had Jimmy Carter defeated Mr. Reagan and won a second term in 1980.

For it was Mr. Carter's stupendous misjudgment of Soviet history and ambitions that led him early in his term to exult that, "we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in our fear."

In his view of history, Mr. Hook repudiated the notion that "no man or woman is indispensable."

There are moments in history, he argued, when "a particular person may very well be indispensable."

The eventful man is like the legendary Dutch boy who with his little finger stopped up the gap in the dike all night until aid could come.

http://www.techsure.com/images/rreagan.jpg "The event-making individual is someone who by extraordinary traits of character or intelligence or some other distinctive facet of personality has largely shaped the viable alternatives of action between which he chooses, alternatives that but for him would probably not have emerged," Mr. Hook writes.

There are villainous event-making "heroes" like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or Mao and there are freedom-loving democratic event-making heroes in history like Winston Churchill and Mr. Reagan, whose eight years in office trumped the 10 days that shook the world.

Full Article Here (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020531-4860008.htm) http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/headcuts_article/hc_noonan.gif<h2>Why We Talk About Reagan</h2>
BY PEGGY NOONAN
Friday, February 8, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

A small band of former aides and friends of Ronald Reagan were all over TV this week talking about the former president on his 91st birthday.

Our memories and reflections were treated with thoughtfulness and respect by the media.

It wasn't always this way but I'm glad it is now, and I think there are reasons for it.

Journalists feel an honest compassion for Mr. Reagan's condition--everyone is saddened by the thought that this great man who was once so much a part of our lives no longer knows he was great, no longer remembers us.

It's big enough to be called tragic: this towering figure so reduced by illness.

Part of it too is a growing appreciation of Nancy Reagan, who is doing now what she did for 50 years, protecting him, protecting his memory and his privacy.

Only now she does it 24-7 at the age of 78, and without the help and comfort of the best friend of her life: him.

She told me some months ago how to this day she'll think of something and want to say, "Honey, remember the time.

Or something will happen and she'll want to ask him what he thinks.

It is also true--I am sorry to be cynical, but I have worked in media, have enjoyed and even shared its cynicism--that the hungry maw of every network and cable news show is hoping, on the day the former president leaves us, to get the Get.

To get Mrs. Reagan on the air, or the former president's children, or his associates in history.

The more sympathetic they are now, the better the chance they'll get the Big Get.

It's what news people want to do: Get the story.

Whatever the reasons, it's good to see Mr. Reagan's memory held high by those who admire and understand him, and have the arguments for his greatness heard with respect in the media.

But let me tell you why we make those arguments as often as we can.

When I talk about Mr. Reagan, media people often preface my remarks, or close them, with words like this: "You adore him."

Or, "You of course have great affection for him and so it's your view that.

These are not unfriendly words, but they're a warning to the viewer: Take what you hear with a grain of salt.

Needless to say the grain-of-salt warning doesn't come when the subject is, say, JFK or FDR or Martin Luther King, all of whom had friends, supporters and biographers who have spent decades advancing their causes with affection and respect.

And that's why those of us who talk about Mr. Reagan talk about Mr. Reagan, why we stick to the subject.

After he leaves us the media may well conclude that they have no particular reason to listen politely when we speak of him.

Children whose parents have not for whatever reason led them or nurtured them sufficiently sometimes feel a particular need to look at the historical past and think: Who can I learn from there as I try to put together a good life?

There is something the past few days I've found difficult to communicate on TV, in part because it sounds pretentious in the chatty atmosphere of the newsnook, but it's at the heart of what I'm trying to say.

We add to that larger life or detract; we give or withhold, we lead or shrink back, we put ourselves on the line for the truth or we ignore the summons, we meet the great challenge of our age or we retreat to our gardens.

They run the academy, the media; they control many of the means by which the young--that nice, strong 20-year-old boy walking down the street, that thoughtful girl making some money by yanking the levers of the coffee machine at Starbucks--will receive and understand history.

Those of us who lived in and feel we understood the age of Ronald Reagan have a great responsibility: to explain and tell and communicate who he was and what he did and how he did it and why. Where he came from and what it meant that he came from there. What it meant, for instance, that he came from the political left, was trained in it, and then left it--for serious reasons, reasons as serious as life gets. And: what it cost him to stand where he stood. That is always one of the great questions of history, of the story of a political or cultural figure--"What did it cost him to stand where he stood?" You learn a lot when you learn the cost.

If we don't tell the young they'll never know.

Full Article Here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=95001834)

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Her new book, "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan," is just out from Viking Penguin. You can buy it here at the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-11-2002, 06:42 PM

Ha ha ha ha, laughing hard, sides splitting.
Trau, how much money do you have? Well Reagan spent it re-fighting WW2, he didn't kinow the war was over.

HarvickFan29

10-11-2002, 06:52 PM

Matt.....LBAY!

Care to be much more specific? graemlins/icon127.gif

The_Finman

10-11-2002, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Matt Young:
Ha ha ha ha, laughing hard, sides splitting.
Trau, how much money do you have? Well Reagan spent it re-fighting WW2, he didn't kinow the war was over.Matt...do you want to know why we like you and keep you around here?

Because, your posts serve to prove that the left has no facts...only ad hominem attacks without any sort of data to back up their point of view. images/icons/wink.gif

Matt, economic and history professors from both the left and the right have concluded that Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century...if you disagree and feel that you are actually capable of debating me on the merits of the Reagan Presidency...I honestly welcome the challenge, because I will literally bury you with factual data...c'mon Matt, surely you are up to the challenge aren't you? graemlins/icon29.gif

Hell, let's create a brand new thread where you and I can go at it "one on one" directly on the merits of the Reagan Presidency...and let's make it a poll while we are at it, so people can vote on who presents the best argument...I'm game are you? http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/graemlins/EvilKingGrinning.gif

Warlady

10-11-2002, 08:26 PM

Matt you are out of our league.

Trau

10-11-2002, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Matt Young:Ha ha ha ha, laughing hard, sides splitting.What? Just discover that the leftist philosophy is a big, funny joke?

Trau, how much money do you have? Well Reagan spent it re-fighting WW2, he didn't kinow the war was over.Oh, guess not. Shall we refer you to a hospital?

The_Finman

10-12-2002, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Trau:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Matt Young:Ha ha ha ha, laughing hard, sides splitting.What? Just discover that the leftist philosophy is a big, funny joke?

Trau, how much money do you have? Well Reagan spent it re-fighting WW2, he didn't kinow the war was over.Oh, guess not. Shall we refer you to a hospital?<hr /></blockquote>Bravo, Trau...I suspect that you have better understanding than even Matt will ever be able to grasp. images/icons/wink.gif

Again, great job of being able to think on your own. images/icons/smile.gif

Trau

10-12-2002, 01:32 AM

Yeah, well if I couldn't think on my own, I'd be a hippy. We wouldn't want that.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-12-2002, 09:30 AM

Reagan is a big spending FDR liberal!
"Because, your posts serve to prove that the left has no facts."

Just like a Reaganite to make the leftist accusation. Reagan who grew the federal budget more than any president since FDR, a record not to be broken until another Reaganite, Bush the junior came into office and grew the budget by an even greater amount.

Reagan defined big government Republican socialism. He re-invented the massive spending practices of FDR, he spent tax money like it was going out of style, he grew the federal deficit by $2.5 trillion. More people were getting government socialist checks from the Reagan presidency then ever before, a record not to be broken until Bush the junior started writing government checks.

We would have hgad a smaller federal budget with Karl Marx himself in the White House.

Reagan could barely add, he was practically in full blown alzheimer when he left the presidency. Dave Stockman had to put budget material in the form of children's books so he could understand the numbers.

He did cut taxes and push free trade, but even a moron knows that is the thing to do.

oracle

10-13-2002, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Matt Young:
Reagan ... grew the federal deficit by $2.5 trillion.That is a lie and you know it.

Based on a table that you posted in an prior thread, the most the deficit was under Reagan was $221 Billion in 1986.

And I know you can't be confusing deficit with debt because when you lied in that same thread and claimed that Reagan grew the national debt by $5 trillion, I proved that it only grew $1.86 trillion.

You deliberately ignore the fact that in seven out of eight years, the budgets passed by Congress were larger than the budgets submitted by Reagan. Of course that would interfere with your ranting about reagan.

Reagan could barely add,Bullshit. Unlike yourself, Reagan majored in economics in college.

he was practically in full blown alzheimer when he left the presidency.More bullshit. It was five years after he left the White House before anyone suspected that he was ill.

Dave Stockman had to put budget material in the form of children's books so he could understand the numbers.Now you're really getting delusional.

He did cut taxes and push free trade, but even a moron knows that is the thing to do.That explains why you agree with those policies.

Lyta_Alexander

10-14-2002, 12:49 AM

Actually Reagan was my first policial hero back in da day I was in high school throught legendary Reagan administration

He help bring Cold War down
Little economic stablity after decade of mismanagement after Watergate scandel

Jimmy really screw up the country

I think Reagan have this "Small town Mentality" that everybody could succeeded this country

THAT IS COOL

Remember Trau he really brought GOP Party to age with his speeches

**DONOTDELETE**

10-17-2002, 10:38 PM

Ronald Reagan made you proud to be American.
Very smart man.
Good natured.
Defeated communism.
Kept Americans safe and secure. Giving them security with the knowledge that America would not tolerate terrorism nor any threat from any country.
Ronald Reagan provided Americans with jobs. America was prosperous under his policies.
Rescued the hostages the dipshit carter screwed up trying to rescue.
The only complaint I have with respect to Reagan is that I hate the fact that he has alstheimers(spelling)
It is a shame that he is stricken with that disease.
As I said in an earlier post so long as we remember him, his legend will grow.

DesertFox

10-19-2002, 08:56 PM

Reagan approached the presidency with two major goals: (1) fix the economy so that (2) he could spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. A tertiary goal was to reduce govt.

The economy. Reagan inherited from Carter the phenomenon known as "stagflation": 21% inflation while costs went thru the ceiling and unemployment skyrocketed. The economy was in the worst shape it had been since the Depression.

By mid1982, Reagan policies had whipped the inflation that had been a recurring problem since WWII but which still hasn't come back since Reagan fed chairman Paul Volcker showed how to defeat it. Reagan was the only politician up to then with the balls to try Volcker's remedies.

Despite doleful predictions by economists and constant hectoring by the media, academics and Dimocrats, Reagan stuck with his beliefs and by 1983 the economy had taken off. America had had a weak economy since the late Sixties, and Reagan cured it by whipping inflation and cutting taxes. By the time he left office, 19 million new jobs had been created.

Stopping the Soviets. During Jimmy Carter's presidency the Soviets ran wild. They set up the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and established half-a-dozen Marxist states in Africa, aided by Cuban troops. In 1979 they invaded Afghanistan, which moved Jimmy Carter to go on tv with his famous "malaise" speech -- America couldn't really do much about the Soviets because the country was in a moral malaise and besides, there were limits to what power could do.

Reagan took office and served notice that America would no longer sit idly by while the Soviets and Cubans established totalitarian regimes all over the world. He sent American troops into Grenada in 1983 to take out an incipient Marxist takeover, and to prevent construction of an airfield that could have been used as a base for bombing raids throughout the Americas.

Reagan's biggest achievement was conceptual. He recognized that the Soviet economy never could match the US economy, and he committed to a military buildup not seen since WWII. He approved the Bradley troop carrier and Abrams tank. He approved aircraft carriers. He approved pay raises the likes of which the Armed Forces had never seen, ever. Most famously, he approved Star Wars, which all informed observers today (including Gorbachev) agree was the straw that broke the Soviet back.

Reagan put teeth back into US foreign policy. He put Pershing missiles in Europe despite a gigantic, Soviet-orchestrated worldwide protest by everybody on the planet. The media went berserk. Reagan stayed the course. As noted, he went into Grenada in 1983. He sent bombers over Libya in 1986, scaring Khadafy straight for the next several years. He backed the contras in Nicaragua in 1986-7, so weakening their control that they agreed to free and fair elections in 1988 -- and got their heads handed to them.

All this accomplished an about face in attitudes toward America. Foreign govts realized they couldn't thumb their nose at America with this guy at the wheel.

There was a price to be paid for all this, however.

Dimocrat spending programs. Democrat and House Speaker Tip O'Neill made a deal with Reagan: Give me my social spending and I'll give you what you want for the military. O'Neill promised to stay within certain bounds. He promptly reneged on that promise as he and Ted *hic* Kennedy and others went on a spending binge unmatched in the history of the world.

That binge created the gigantic deficits for which Reagan is blamed. It also made a mockery of any efforts to reduce govt. Reagan came into office with the announced intention of getting rid of the Dept of Energy. Backing off on that was part of the deal he had to make with O'Neill to get the military spending Reagan wanted.

Sadly, only Reagan kept his part of any of those bargains. He did as he said he would vis-a-vis the economy, whipping inflation and creating a dynamic, strong US economy. And he kicked the Soviets' ass. O'Neill and Company sold out Reagan and America. Their gigantic entitlement programs took on a life of their own and, for the most part, are still with us today. I don't blame Ronald Reagan for them, but they ARE part of the legacy of those years.

In retrospect. Reagan was one of the few presidents in history to outline a program before taking office that he then largely carried out. He did not reduce govt -- in fact, it grew under him as it has under every president -- but his major goals were accomplished in spite of the fact that he faced a hostile, Dimocrat-controlled House for both his terms. Not since Eisenhower had a president been so successful, and even Ike hadn't run America's principal adversary from the international stage.

Most of all, Reagan restored American confidence. After the ignominy of Vietnam, from which we fled with our tails between our legs in 1973 and which fell to the Communists in 1975; the Watergate nightmare; the uncertain Ford years; and the disastrous Carter Administration, it seemed that America was in retreat all over the globe. Dimocrat Presidential hopeful Gary Hart would say without blushing that America was on the wrong side of history. Jimmy Carter was so ashamed of America that he gave the Panama Canal to Panama and got nothing but oppobrium for it.

Ronald Reagan stopped all that in its tracks. "It's morning in America," he said, and America believed him. It WAS morning in America under his leadership. Jimmy Carter was ashamed of America, but Ronald Reagan was proud of America and of Americans. Unabashedly antiCommunist, he proudly announced his participation in FBI stings during the McCarthy era, when he was President of the Actors Guild, to expose Communists in Hollywood. Reagan thought we had to fight back, and he had taken the lead his entire career in fighting back against Communism in America.

Reagan's positive attitude was infectious. He energized America not only with effective, rational policies but with his own exuberance and good spirits. America loved Ronald Reagan like it may never have loved a president before or since. He was genuine and he was one of us in a way no president had been since Andrew Jackson.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-19-2002, 11:01 PM

As a percentage of national income, federal spending went up an average of 4% under Reagan, which over eight years at an 8 trillion dollar economy come to:

$2.56 trillion

Timberwolf

10-19-2002, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Matt Young:
As a percentage of national income, federal spending went up an average of 4% under Reagan, which over eight years at an 8 trillion dollar economy come to:

$2.56 trillionPull your head out and take a whiff of reality...it doesn't smell so crappy as where it is presently.

**DONOTDELETE**

10-20-2002, 07:15 AM

No matte where my head is I see big government Republican socialism.

Timberwolf

10-20-2002, 01:29 PM

Nooooo...you see what happens when crooks, like yourself, rob the US Treasury blind under the guise of patriotism...you see the built in BLOAT of dimocrapically initiated social spending (yes, built in bloat. What else would you call an automatic 10% increase in spending written into the law??).

You should actually be higher on the "Most Wanted" list than Binnie or Saddam. Only because we KNOW they want to destroy us. You, OTOH, claim to love the Constitution and our country...tell me another one.

Peachdiane

12-04-2002, 08:47 AM

The only one good thing about Carter was that he was so disastrous it really made me sit up and take notice. Our family really suffered and I wasn't old enough to vote for Reagan legally but I sure paid attention and he was my political hero. Hell, I even got a gorgeous lab pup in '86 and named him Ronnie Reagan.

Reagan reversed the flow of power to Washington and took down some federal programs, and reduced others. He also forced the states and the cities to assume more responsibility for their own programs. I believe this WORKS.

Radical-Conservative

12-04-2002, 09:38 AM

It's spelled C H E A P Carl

Radical-Conservative

12-04-2002, 09:40 AM

Diane I had a dog named Reagan too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Peachdiane

12-04-2002, 10:22 AM

Rad, cool!!! Next dog will be "W."

Carl, I know you were being sarcastic but yes, to me, he is!

http://www.foodsubs.com/Photos/peach.jpg

**DONOTDELETE**

12-20-2002, 10:00 AM

Why was Reagan the greatest President of the 20th Century?

He had a vision. He saw a world without the Soviet Union, he saw lower taxes and the idea the government could do more with less, and he saw the power of Americans believing in themselves and their country again.

He concentrated everything on those goals.

Because of his style and personality, Americans believed once again that their country could do anything. They were proud to be called "American". More than any other person, Ronald Reagan was responsible for that.

He cut taxes and made possible the "Clinton Economic Miracle". The 1990s wouldn't have happened without Ronald Reagan. Of course, he wasn't able to make government live on less ... the DIMs had control of Congress. If there was a eight-year $2.5 trillion deficit, it was the the fault of Congress, controlled by the DIMs (Matt & Carl ... have you ever heard of baseline budgeting?).

And the Soviet Union was teetering on the brink of the abyss, when Reagan left office. Within a couple of years, a cry of "Freedom!" went up from the oppressed and enslaved peoples of Europe, as the people of Moscow brought down the statues of Lenin and Marx, and all of the evil they symbolized.

Yes, Ronald Reagan was a simple man. He had simple ideas, and simple goals. And he accomplished them.

Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill ... my vote for Men of the 20th Century.

**DONOTDELETE**

12-22-2002, 09:28 PM

Authenticy=Ronald Reagan

Sharp Intellect without any pretense, coupled with was at one time referred to as Common Sense.

I could go on but it appears I am a bit late to this thread, as it is, and I am fairly certain that were I to add any more, I would be repeating somebody else's message.

OH ONE MORE THING Ronald Reagan NEVER- EVER-EVER- would have Offered an Official KWANZA GREETING~!!!!

http://people.delphiforums.com/artcruncher/KwanzaThis2.gif

Radical-Conservative

12-22-2002, 10:04 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
OH ONE MORE THING Ronald Reagan NEVER- EVER-EVER- would have Offered an Official KWANZA GREETING~!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Proably because there was no such thing at the time

**DONOTDELETE**

12-23-2002, 02:00 PM

Unfortunately so called kwanza has been around since Ex Con Kareng Invented it even prior to Reagans Presidency. NO ONE was doing all this FEAR BASED RACE apologzing --------when RON was in the White House~though!

DoctorDoom

12-24-2002, 10:02 AM

Earth to dipstick: who was in charge of Congress for the eight years of Ronaldus Maximus' presidency, ergo in charge of gov spending?

I know this is a tough one for the neuronically-challenged, so here's a hint: it starts with "D" and ends with "RATs".

DesertFox

12-24-2002, 06:46 PM

Gee, Doc, that's pretty stiff for the boy. Could you make it a little plainer?

Taylor

10-27-2003, 09:36 AM

Ronald Reagan was great because he ended the cold war without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. He dismantled the Soviet Union through diplomacy. He cut taxes and reduced spending. He also created millions of jobs which were lost during the Carter years. I was a teenager when he was President. Jimmy Carter really messed up America.

CaptainJoe17

02-25-2004, 05:27 PM

Quote by Lyta Alexander:
Jimmy really screw up the country

Quote by Me:
And Ronald Reagan saved the hostages, got rid of the inflation, built up the US military and defense, Star Wars (which would definitely come in handy today), and on top of all that good stuff defeated the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. Not bad for 8 years. As far as the money goes, in case you haven't noticed Anon, it usually takes money in a capitalist country to get anything done.

nosferatuscoffin

02-28-2004, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Carl said:
Yep, Reagan whipped inflation alright, by paying US industries to move offshore into che(a)p labor markets (1982).
He also cut the American standard of living by half by devaluing US currency by half (1986).

Yep, Reagan was a real peach of a President.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I assume you are still using your old Kaypro Makery-Bakery PC to type this drivel on? Considering some of the interference coming from your Hayes 300bps modem (c. 1977), I suppose that is to be expected.

Sorry dude, those of us who understand and appreciate what the Gipper did for the World as well as this country know a hell of a lot better. Things are always getting cheaper because of DEMAND. That goes for labor too, which is the biggest expense any business must carry.

You can have your Atari 2600's. I am working on getting my 4th PC for my network here, And it will not be a C-64.