Ronald Reagan and Why He Was a Terrible President

[MattShizzle]

Besides the fact he's a darling of the right, I have a list:

1. Firing the Air Traffic Controllers for striking
2. Iran-Contra
3. Appointing probably the worst SC Justice, Antonin Scalia
4. All but trying to start WWIII
5. Declaring ketchup a vegetable in school cafeterias.
6. Drastically increasing poverty and homelessness
7. All sorts of deregulation of business
8. Vetoing the Equal Rights Ammendment.

feel free to add.

[VeritablyV]

He was an actor(Perfect for the presidency!), and he just plain looks evil. Kinda like how the Pope looks like Darth Sidious.

[Sir Comradical]

Like all bourgeois leaders he was an excellent president for the capitalist class. After all that is their mandate.

[Johnny Kerosene]

9. He was a President.

[Bombay]

Didn't he support the dictator of Pakistan Zia Ul-Haq?

[Sir Comradical]

Didn't he support the dictator of Pakistan Zia Ul-Haq?

You make it sound like it's unique for an American president to support rightist autocrats.

[chegitz guevara]

If it weren't for Ronnie, I wouldn't be a communist.

[Bombay]

You make it sound like it's unique for an American president to support rightist autocrats.

No, it's not unique at all. I just thought it should be mentioned.

[Rakhmetov]

You forgot how he supported all those dictators in Africa, Asia, Central and Latin America by propping them up and giving them military & economic aid and political support.

[RedSonRising]

Does anyone have any specific information on how he blocked/discouraged legislation and activism concerning women's rights and such? We all know about Reaganomics and his state-terrorism abroad but when Moore brought this up in his latest film I was intrigued. Not surprised, obviously, but curious.

[Rakhmetov]

How many fucking times that gutfucker opposed an ERA (equal rights amendment)amendment from being passes by congress!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ronald_Reagan#Women

[MattShizzle]

Which was # 8 on my list.
Another one was supporting Islamic extremists against the USSR - which lead to Al Quaeda, Taliban, etc.

[MattShizzle]

Found this:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/MattGo74/reaganbad.jpg

[Property Is Robbery]

He had the Contras import cocaine from South America

[Pyramid]

Matt, Just so you know: The title of your entry implies it is possible to be, from your point of view, a great U.S. President. Otherwise, the word "terrible" has no meaning. Oops! Perhaps, "typical" would have been better.

[thesadmafioso]

Just out of curiosity, who are you arguing against with this point? No Reagan supporter can even view this section of the site, so I can't help but find this topic a bit unneeded.

[tachosomoza]

I grew up in Reagan's ghettos. Cops turned a blind eye to poor black and hispanic kids gunning each other down in the fucking streets with Uzis and Tec-9s. Hell, at the apartment complex where I lived there was a cop who SOLD crack. Reagan didn't give a fuck. The DEA could have done something, but they didn't want to step on the CIA's toes, since they were the one's importing the shit. Fuck the feds, and fuck Reagan.

[Ocean Seal]

And don't forget what the fucker did to Grenada.

[RebelDog]

He was a shit bag, but i doubt Ronald Reagan even knew what day it was when he was president. He was a frontman, literally an actor who read the script but didn't understand it.

[MattShizzle]

Just out of curiosity, who are you arguing against with this point? No Reagan supporter can even view this section of the site, so I can't help but find this topic a bit unneeded.

This section is viewable by guests.

[MattShizzle]

Matt, Just so you know: The title of your entry implies it is possible to be, from your point of view, a great U.S. President. Otherwise, the word "terrible" has no meaning. Oops! Perhaps, "typical" would have been better.


"Terrible" means much worse than average. If you get slapped in the face every day, the day you get hit over the head with a sledgehammer is still comparatively a "terrible" day.

[thesadmafioso]

This section is viewable by guests.

Well played, I meant post in this section.

Regardless though, I can't imagine too many Reagan supporters viewing Revleft's political discussion board and being deterred from their positive view of his presidency. The topic just seems a bit rudimentary for political discourse amongst a community of already established leftists.

[MattShizzle]

Well, it gives us examples when arguing on other sites or in person with those who think he was a good president. Obviously no (nonrestricted) member of this site would think he was anything positive.

[thesadmafioso]

Well, it gives us examples when arguing on other sites or in person with those who think he was a good president. Obviously no (nonrestricted) member of this site would think he was anything positive.

That is true, but I still think that the political forum should serve a purpose beyond that of a political history review session. I mean, I understand the potential benefit that this topic could have for some, but in the context of this forum it just seems somewhat out of place.

[Pyramid]

Matt -

I am having fun with your comment because it is SO WAY OUT of bounds. ALL U.S. Presidents (by post Truman Period, I just don't have the time to review all of them)
are Terrible, and slap you in the face. ALL OF THEM. You name me a U.S. Presient from Eisenhower and afterward, and I'll give you a list of TERRIBLE things they did. :lol:

[MattShizzle]

All were bad, but Reagan and GWB were even worse than the rest.

[Pyramid]

I can make a good argument that Johnson was far worse than Reagan.

Anyway, it's the American presidency that's far more terrible than the person. It is an unusual invention that can never move left. Ever. Two years into its second term the power of the individual is moot. Regardless of the "intentions" of the person elected to it, he or she ultimately becomes far more conservative than when they entered, and they will maintain power over attempting to achieve a more "people oriented" agenda.

Ultimately, the current U.S. president, regardless of his intent or presentation, will come to a crossroads where he will be able to stand for the vast majority of Americans, and replace the wealth to them, stolen by the capitalist class. To support the people, the president will have to choose between an amazing and radical reinvention of the United States, or, he will have to choose "standing by until the bad times are over."

He will choose the later. The president ALWAYS will. And the current one no differently.

Ironically, I can make an argument that that will make him more "terrible" than Reagan or G.W. Bush. You see, they WERE what they said they were, and ultimately the proved they were what they were.

But Obama will go the way of Jimmy Carter, though probably a two term one. One that, after he's president, mulls over how unfair the U.S. is/can be; how the blow human rights, and try and resalvage his psyche by building homes for the poor.

But when, in let's say 2013 or 14, the United States becomes a nation that must openly embrace nationally based, government assistance emergency (which the right will call socialism and we will all laugh at them), or instead "keep the faith" of the American Corporate Structure, he will announce the later.

In my book that would make him at that moment, the most Terrible U.S. President in History. And as, during his long retirement, he sees the United States ruined into a RoboCop / Blade Runner world, he will cry every moment of every day, in his soul, for not standing up and speaking for the 90% of the people, when he could have.

He WILL choose the later. He WILL openly say to American to "stay the course", and waste 2013 - 2016.

Then, watch him try and move to the left in 2015, when no one will listen to him, and everyone gets ready for the 2016 election.

Terrible . . . Terrible.:(

[miltonwasfried...man]

He declared ketchup a vegetable? What a joke

[L.A.P.]

Don't forget to mention he funded and supported our favorite guy, Osama Bin Laden.

[tachosomoza]

Can anyone name something relatively GOOD that Reagan did? Besides pick George H.W. Bush as VP and pave the way for Bill Clinton in 1992?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

From a Marxist perspective there's no such thing as a good US president. All presidents by definitions are managers of the bourgeoisie state. Having said this Marx liked Lincoln-Honest Abe was not a socialist (although he condemned "wage slavery" in the Lincoln Douglas debates) but he could be seen as a revolutionary. Possibly some of the early Prez-Washington, Adams, Jefferson, despite their enormous flaws, (Washington's viscous war against natives, Jefferson owning slaves, etc.)could be seen as "good" at a time when the bourgeois still had a progressive role.

Reagan was horrible, he represented the first wave of neo-liberalism and attacks on the working class) but this has to be seen in the context of the crisis capitalism was and is facing.

[MattShizzle]

Another thing that made him so bad is how he thought there were good terrorists and bad terrorists. Most were "bad" but there were "good" ones (Contras in Nicaragua, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan) in his mind (or what was left of it at the time.)

[praxis1966]

I can make a good argument that Johnson was far worse than Reagan.

Yeah, I was just about to say, "Hey, what about Johnson, Kennedy and those Vietnam/Bay of Pigs thingies?"


Can anyone name something relatively GOOD that Reagan did? Besides pick George H.W. Bush as VP and pave the way for Bill Clinton in 1992?

If I were a liberal, I'd say the one thing would be that he gave amnesty to every undocumented immigrant living in the US when he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law in 1986. Since I'm not, I have to remind people that bill also contained probably singly the most heavy handed tightening of the borders the US has seen ever. Basically, it was a "You're invited but your friend can't come," sort of deal.

[coda]

a few things i remember on the young side of teenage when it started, transitioning into the early-side of adulthood when it ended, under the inglorious 8 (+ 4 )year regime:

Reaganomics, the secret war in Grenada, illegal military murders in Latin America, legislating nuclear weapons proliferation, ignoring the AIDS epidemic, the Iran/Contra (selling spare weapons to Iran to fund the secret war against Nicaragua; and the subsequent scapegoating of North and Poindexter, the support and funding of right wing governments in South and Central America, inappropriate response to the Challenger disaster, hiring George H W Bush and securing his succeeding presidency,the War on Drugs, collaborating with Russian leader Gorbachev to destroy the last vestiges of the Soviet Union..massively slashing US federal student loans and the social service sectors, the first US president of MTV-era but before 24 hour cable news, who held regularly-scheduled televised PR and press conferences, more than any (previous) or following president...

"we start bombing in 5 min."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos

[praxis1966]

Certainly, I think don has the most comprehensive post so far, but there's one or two things I'd like to add. Specifically, the Reagan tax cut wasn't one. It was a shift of the tax burden from the upper class to the working class. My parents were a perfect example of how this worked. In 1980, the two of them made a combined $16,000 and had one child (me). In 1981, they made $13,000 and had two children (my brother was born). 1981 was also the year the so-called Reagan tax cut took effect, causing my parents to pay more in taxes than they had the year prior.

Oh yeah, and he drastically cut federal funding for the free/reduced price school lunch program... Because, y'know, who cares whether poor school children go hungry?

[coda]

Oh yes!! Lunch cuts!!

those taxes the working class paid, (your parents and my parents... ) went straight to his "Star Wars" program.. cause ya know, he was a big fan of the movie ---and he actually saw one! a UFO, that is... so he named the nuke program that was intended to decimate Russia in honor of it! YIPPIE!

He was one scary MF! That Thorazine type of scary... very calm, the ha ha ha jokester I'll blow us all away right now...

[La Comédie Noire]

Back when he was governor of California, he busted up the peoples' park demonstrations with lethal force. Look it up, man had the blood lust.

[Klaatu]

Reagan was the biggest deficit spender of the 20th century (except for WWII war spending) yet the American Reich Wing worships the guy. (They simply hate deficit spending - go figure)

[Jose Gracchus]

He's overstated, because he's the stand-in for "evil-doer" for what's left of New Dealers and social democrats in the U.S. Fact is, the trend of reaction began under Carter, in all spheres of public policy. Second, Reagan was a prop - he was just a PR mask for capitalists and anti-communist fanatics in his Cabinet. His excuse for Iran-Contra was probably true: he didn't really understand what was going on.

"The poor dear, there's nothing between his ears."
- Margaret Thatcher

[Dimitri Molotov]

I also don't like him because of his preposterous war on drugs, especially on marijuana.

[coda]

<<Second, Reagan was a prop - he was just a PR mask for capitalists and anti-communist fanatics in his Cabinet. His excuse for Iran-Contra was probably true: he didn't really understand what was going on.>>

Reagan was a fervent anti-communist in his own right, going back to his time as president of the SAG (labor union for actors) and testifying as a "friendly witness " at the HUAC hearings. He was determinate about keeping communism from infiltrating out the entertainment industry.

On Iran Contra --he did know about and approved both arms for hostages in Irans and funding the Nicaraguan Contras. Whether it was his original idea, matters not. There are memos that leave little doubt that he knew what was going on.

A point generally overlooked, but interesting in it's magnitude is that the ranking House Republican on the Iran Contra hearing investigation who gave the both the opening and closing statements and was a key participant was Dick Cheney, who within a couple years would be rewarded with the job of job of Secretary of Defense (for Reagan's VP and immediate successor, George H.W. Bush [Bush I]) and will preside over the First Gulf War. Interesting, huh?!

[praxis1966]

He's overstated, because he's the stand-in for "evil-doer" for what's left of New Dealers and social democrats in the U.S. Fact is, the trend of reaction began under Carter, in all spheres of public policy.

Actually, I'd go farther back than Carter. Don't forget the Cold War didn't really go full bore until the Kennedy administration with the standoff in Berlin, the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not that I'd defend the CCCP during that period as it was pretty far gone by then, but still... I suppose there might be an argument to be made with Truman and Korea, but Eisenhower was a bit of a rollback of the adventurism of those years...


Second, Reagan was a prop - he was just a PR mask for capitalists and anti-communist fanatics in his Cabinet. His excuse for Iran-Contra was probably true: he didn't really understand what was going on.

This bit I'd pretty much agree with.