Reagan's Legacy

[Myrhaf]

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Some Republicans want to put Reagan's face on Mt. Rushmore. In our bitterly divided America, in which both sides say 20 words attacking the opponent for every one word they say supporting their own side, I wonder if the Republicans really think Reagan deserves this honor or if they just want to rub the liberal nose in conservative shit.

Reagan was a mediocre President who got a few things right. (You could say the same thing about Teddy Roosevelt, whose image is on Mt. Rushmore; he's the farthest one back, as if the artist knew something was wrong including him among Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.)

The best thing about Reagan was his supply-side economics and tax cuts that spurred an economic boom that, with a few dips along the way, we are still enjoying. He is given credit for ending the Soviet Union, but the fundamental reason it failed is the nature of communism. Socialism, or "planned chaos" as Mises called it, can't create wealth and simply cannot compete with the productive dynamo that is capitalism. Reagan was lucky to be in the White House when the Potemkin Village that was the Soviet Bloc began to collapse and people saw it was an empty facade.

Reagan's pragmatism toward Iran and terrorism, with his non-response to the Beirut barracks bombing and his Iran-Contra Scandal, makes him the single man most responsible for our feckless Middle East policy. Conservatives blame Carter and Clinton, but the enemy knew those men were weak. Reagan is worse because he pretended to be strong but was in fact as weak and appeasing as any liberal you could find. Our pretense at strength convinced people such as Osama bin Laden that America is a paper tiger. We still have not proved him wrong.

The size of government more than doubled during the Reagan Presidency. You can blame it on Tip O'Neill's Democrat Congress, but the fact is that Reagan didn't have what it takes to stand up to the big spenders. Such weakness is the stuff of mediocrity.

Worst of all, Reagan brought the Religious Right to power, destroying the Goldwater paradigm of a party dedicated to individual rights. With Reagan, the contradictions in the Republican Party grow. 20 years later we have a Republican President who expands the welfare state like a liberal and brings in faith to work with the welfare state -- and calls it "compassionate conservatism." The Republicans are well on their way to becoming, like the Democrats, a force for tyranny rather than for freedom.

Reagan on Mt. Rushmore? It would be an act of injustice.

View the full article

[Capitalism Forever]

Reagan was a mediocre President

Precisely. Every single President since Calvin Coolidge, other than Reagan, has been ABOMINABLE. To be a mediocre President when the expected standard is abominable--to get a few things right in an era whose moral code dictates that you get everything wrong--to be 1/100th as patriotic as George Washington was when everyone who "matters" wants you to be a traitor to all of America's founding principles--requires a moral fortitude that I have yet to see any Objectivist blogger to display. Myrhaf, when you have become the President of the United States and done better than Ronald Reagan (or accomplished anything on that scale), then I'll accept your criticisms of the Gipper.

[DarkWaters]

You could say the same thing about Teddy Roosevelt, whose image is on Mt. Rushmore; he's the farthest one back, as if the artist knew something was wrong including him among Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.

I went to Mount Rushmore this past summer. I remember reading how adding Teddy Roosevelt was actually decided a few years later than the other three Presidents. Most likely, the fact that he was widely loved by the public and had only been out of office for less than twenty years played a large role in his inclusion. If this instead had been carved in the 1950s, it probably would be FDR instead of TR. If the monument was created in the 1970s, it probably would have been JFK instead of TR. If it had been carved a few years ago, it could have even been Reagan.

On that note:

Precisely. Every single President since Calvin Coolidge, other than Reagan, has been ABOMINABLE.

While I can at least understand considering Ronald Reagan to be one of the better U.S. Presidents of the 20th Century, is there any reason why you consider him to be well above, say, someone such as Dwight Eisenhower?

[pvtmorriscsa]

Howdy All,

Personally I think that we ought to complete the sculpture as the artist originally intended before we even consider adding another face on such a powerful symbol of America.

As for Reagan being added to the monument; I am not so sure. Certainly he was the greatest president of my life time, but sadly that is not really saying a lot. Politics and policies aside one thing that I can say about Ronald Reagan is that he made one proud to be an American. That pride in America has been sadly lacking in modern times.

Rob

[Capitalism Forever]

While I can at least understand considering Ronald Reagan to be one of the better U.S. Presidents of the 20th Century, is there any reason why you consider him to be well above, say, someone such as Dwight Eisenhower?

For the simple reason that I don't buy into Myrhaf's assertion that the timing of the Soviet Union's collapse was a blind coincidence. He wrote:

He is given credit for ending the Soviet Union, but the fundamental reason it failed is the nature of communism. Socialism, or "planned chaos" as Mises called it, can't create wealth and simply cannot compete with the productive dynamo that is capitalism. Reagan was lucky to be in the White House when the Potemkin Village that was the Soviet Bloc began to collapse and people saw it was an empty facade.

If socialism cannot create wealth, how come it lasted for 70 years? Without the West's economic, military, and moral sanction, the Soviet Union would have collapsed some time in the 1920s, or at the very latest in the 40s under the burden of the war. The reason it didn't is that America kept propping it up. But as soon as an American President called it by its name--"the Empire of Evil"--its foundations began shaking. As soon as an American President called for the Berlin Wall to be torn down, Eastern Europe started overthrowing its Communist regimes, and within a couple of years, the Berlin Wall was torn down. Anyone who sees this as a coincidence has yet to learn a lot about the power of ideas and morality, and about how it is only the sanction of the victim that sustains the power of evil.

In the years before President Reagan came to power, it was America that had been slowly beginning to collapse, with Carter's malaise and gas rationing and general spiritual gloom and doom. To say anything negative about the Soviet Union was considered politically risky. To call it evil was absolutely unthinkable within the circles of the intellectual and political establishment. The idea that Americans "have every right to dream heroic dreams" would not even get close to crossing the mind of anyone in Washington. All they thought America had a right to do was to humiliate itself and apologize for its existence.

All that changed dramatically on January 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan delivered his first inaugural address. It was like the sun suddenly breaking through a layer of storm clouds that had seemed impenetrable, replacing the sense of impending devastation with the promise of "an era of national renewal," changing America's official self-image from one of guilt and shame into a belief "in our capacity to perform great deeds," being "special among the nations of the Earth." This was nothing short of an intellectual revolution--not on the level of explicit metaphysics and epistemology (that is up for us to do), but definitely on a sense-of-life level.

I do not dispute that President Reagan had many flaws, but let us keep in mind that he also had many merits--more than all other presidents since 1929 put together.

[fletch]

Capitalism Forever,

Thank you for that post. I couldnt agree with you more. I only wish there was an applause smiley I could insert here. Since there is not, I will do the next best thing;

<applause>

[Thales]

For the simple reason that I don't buy into Myrhaf's assertion that the timing of the Soviet Union's collapse was a blind coincidence. He wrote:

If socialism cannot create wealth, how come it lasted for 70 years? Without the West's economic, military, and moral sanction, the Soviet Union would have collapsed some time in the 1920s, or at the very latest in the 40s under the burden of the war. The reason it didn't is that America kept propping it up. But as soon as an American President called it by its name--"the Empire of Evil"--its foundations began shaking. As soon as an American President called for the Berlin Wall to be torn down, Eastern Europe started overthrowing its Communist regimes, and within a couple of years, the Berlin Wall was torn down. Anyone who sees this as a coincidence has yet to learn a lot about the power of ideas and morality, and about how it is only the sanction of the victim that sustains the power of evil.

Exactly right. "Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" he uttered while in Germany. That may be his most famous line. I too liked a lot about Reagan. Just as a human being he was superlative, but he really represented the American spirit in so many ways. He had definite philosophical flaws, but he was a genuinely good man, with many strengths.

Reagan had real charisma, because he was genuine, unlike Clinton who was a simply a double talker, and Reagan was great at delivering speeches.

Part of his 1987 "Tear Down This Wall" speech:

Btw, does anyone know how to embed videos? I noticed it was done in one of the threads in this forum.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Thales

[John McVey]

I don't buy into Myrhaf's assertion that the timing of the Soviet Union's collapse was a blind coincidence.

Neither do I. Myrhaf is right that the USSR would indeed have collapsed eventually, but wrong to say that Reagan had no influence on the timing thereof. IMMS, there are two chief reasons why Reagan had an active hand in the downfall of the USSR. One is the spiritual side that you've already mentioned - the power of sanction and recognition of A as A, through publicly identifying evil as evil. I also add that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn credits Reagan for a lot of influence just for saying "Evil Empire" because their public utterance set the dissident community afire. From there, coupled with similar increases in activism in eastern Europe, the Party's choices were either relaxation or engage in a second Prague-Spring-like crackdown that would both be larger than took place in Czechoslovakia and be under a considerably harsher and brighter set of public lights. Both options therefore meant The End, so the only real criterion for choice would have been which would be less likely to result in the Party members hanging from the lampposts. The leftist media screamed bloody murder after Reagan said them because they knew very well of the power behind uttering those two words.

The other is the material side, in this case the ramping up of the arms race. Again, Myrhaf is right that the USSR would collapse, but what Reagan did was bring matters to a head far sooner than would have been done by forcing them to endure enormous cuts in their standards of living in the attempt to keep up. Of course, this one is somewhat of a double-blade, as it would have lent credence to the propaganda of the USA being an imperial military power intent on invasion etc etc - these same fears were what kept Stalin in power during Operation Barbarossa, but I think it more likely that the austerity measures would have just angered a lot of passive people out of their pathetically-satisficed(*) comfort-zones and into a mood for action against who they knew very well were evil. Part of the reason behind the invasion of Czechoslovakia was precisely because (among other key points) Dubcek wanted to increase the quality of living better than the Russian people were currently getting, which Brezhnev and co identified (correctly) as a major threat to the USSR.

(* I notice this comes up as a spelling error. The verb 'satisfice' and its declensions are real words, referring a stable point (or a settling in thereto) from which any minor deviation is in the direction of lesser stability, even though there are other potential points reachable by larger deviations that in fact are considerably more stable. In 2D, think of a graph showing a curvy M-like line. The trough between the two humps is a satisfice point, even though the tails are lower still.)

If socialism cannot create wealth, how come it lasted for 70 years? Without the West's economic, military, and moral sanction, the Soviet Union would have collapsed some time in the 1920s, or at the very latest in the 40s under the burden of the war. The reason it didn't is that America kept propping it up.

Quite. There are books identifying just how much propping-up went on, and the quantities of material alone involved were staggering. Two chief examples come to mind. First, there were the infamous Murmansk runs during WW2. Many know of these, and harrowing war stories abound, but what fewer know (I think) is that when the crates were landed they got relabeled so as to make it appear they were produce of the USSR. Unfortunately, I don't have a reference handy for that. The other is one that even Miss Rand kindly pointed out to us - East Minus West = Zero by Werner Keller. She mentions this one twice in CUI, in "Roots of War" and "Let us alone!." I haven't read this book, so I can't vouch for the contents.

I do not dispute that President Reagan had many flaws, but let us keep in mind that he also had many merits--more than all other presidents since 1929 put together.

I don't know anywhere near enough about US politics to say anything about this one.

JJM

[Robert J. Kolker]

Howdy All,

Personally I think that we ought to complete the sculpture as the artist originally intended before we even consider adding another face on such a powerful symbol of America.

As for Reagan being added to the monument; I am not so sure. Certainly he was the greatest president of my life time, but sadly that is not really saying a lot. Politics and policies aside one thing that I can say about Ronald Reagan is that he made one proud to be an American. That pride in America has been sadly lacking in modern times.

Rob

The Greatest President of your time oversaw a fiscal policy that delivered $1.75 of government for every $1.25 in tax collected. Ronnie laid the groundwork for the kind of budgetary perversions that our Current Fearless Leader and his buddies do as a matter of course. The Republican Party is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility. It is as stinky statist as ever were the pinko stinko Democrat Liberals. Between Regan and Bush II the most fiscally responsible President was (gasp!) that base churl, William Jefferson Clinton! Talk about weird!

I lived during the Eisenhower administrations during which the budgets were balanced and inflation was less than one half of one percent. If you happened to be middle class and white, the Eisenhower Years were fantastically wonderful. The white middle class prospered and government was not nearly as obnoxious then as it is now. Those were The Good Old Days alright. In those days a household could not only survive, but even prosper on a single income. My Mom did not have to work to keep our heads above water. And she was a hard working women from back in the days of the Depression.

Bob Kolker

[Marty McFly]

WHY did they add roosavelt????????????????????????????

gawd!

that just shows you.

if nyc had a sculpture of all its' mayors, I'd say put giuliani there. I hope they don't put dinkins or something. that woud be like putting roosavelt.

[DarkWaters]

@Capitalism Forever:

Thanks for your posting clarifying your admiration of Reagan. I think you have made a lot of good points on the strengths of his presidency. It is too bad that Ayn Rand was unable to witness the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would be interesting to hear her thoughts on what caused the event.

[Marty McFly]

there are many things I am truely sorry Ayn Rand didn't see. just for that, I hope there is an afterlife where she could see the world.......

[Capitalism Forever]

It would be interesting to hear her thoughts on what caused the event.

Definitely!

just for that, I hope there is an afterlife where she could see the world.......

She can see you right now and she's shaking her head at such an arbitrary idea!