What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[alfred russel]

If you guys want to stay on your public health kick and knock down Reagan for HIV/AIDS, it seems Clinton should be the GOAT because of his anti smoking efforts.

[The Brain]

On economic management who are the viable candidates?

Washington - basically a proxy of one's view about the Hamiltonian program

It was a quantum leap forward.

[Berkut]

If you guys want to stay on your public health kick and knock down Reagan for HIV/AIDS, it seems Clinton should be the GOAT because of his anti smoking efforts.

Was that Clinton, or just something that happened on his watch?

[The Brain]

What did Truman do with the buck btw?

[alfred russel]

If you guys want to stay on your public health kick and knock down Reagan for HIV/AIDS, it seems Clinton should be the GOAT because of his anti smoking efforts.

Was that Clinton, or just something that happened on his watch?

Clinton. Republicans wouldn't have supported such aggressive anti-smoking efforts.

[Berkut]

If you guys want to stay on your public health kick and knock down Reagan for HIV/AIDS, it seems Clinton should be the GOAT because of his anti smoking efforts.

Was that Clinton, or just something that happened on his watch?

Clinton. Republicans wouldn't have supported such aggressive anti-smoking efforts.

Then he certainly deserves a lot of credit for that. Probably saved a lot of lives.

I wonder though if that was just him recognizing that this was were the culture was going, and he could jump on board, or how much he drove the change? I guess that is a question for really all of these accomplishments.

[Barrister]

Ive never understood any of what sober people would consider Reagans accomplishments.

Nobody serious, I don't think, would actually argue that the downfall of Communism was the result on anything as singular as who was President of the USA. I mean...that doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of the ideology of Reaganesque anti-communists! Isn't that entire argument that Communism simply does not work? If so, then it was doomed to fail no matter who was President of the USA.

So what exactly is it that Regan was so star spangled awesome at?

What was Reagan awesome at?

First of all you can't ignore just what a great communicator he was.  He had a simple ease and charisma about him.  He also came into office with a very specific agenda and was generally pretty good at implementing it.

The economy.  He oversaw going from 70s stagflation to a really strong economy a few years later.  Yes we always put too much emphasis on the ability of the President to influence the economy, but that goes for all other Presidents as well.  After the 1982 recession he saw 6 further years of strong GDP growth and a steep decline in interest rates.

He reformed the tax code, reducing the number of brackets and cutting taxes for most Americans.  You can argue about the need for tax cuts in 2017 when Trump did it, but not so much in 1986 when they were substantially higher.

The cold war (which you focused on).  Yes, the USSR probably would have gone away on its own, but he hastened the fall (and given the moral disaster that was the USSR that's undoubtedly a good thing to free people sooner).

Despite being a Russia hawk, it should also be remembered that he helped thaw relations with Gorbachev and signed one arms deal and started negotiating another.

He signed comprehensive immigration reform (the last time that has been accomplished) which legalized millions of illegal immigrants already in the country while simultaneously trying to increase enforcement.

HIs negatives?  Critics point to his response to AIDS but I don't know that any other world leaders put much emphasis on that disease.  The other was Iran-Contra, which I have very little doubt he was aware of at least in an overall sense.  I can sympathise with what he was trying to do (fight the Sandanistas), but the method he chose to do so was illegal and foolish.


FInally he's ranked 9th out of 45.  That's a good but not great ranking, which seems to me to be about right.

[Admiral Yi]

After reading Hamilton I'll never be able to think of Jefferson positively again.

Similarly I think Grant deserves more props.

Love me some Truman.

One thing this list made me think though, is what a bunch of mediocrity we've had in the White House.

[Sheilbh]

HIs negatives?  Critics point to his response to AIDS but I don't know that any other world leaders put much emphasis on that disease.  The other was Iran-Contra, which I have very little doubt he was aware of at least in an overall sense.  I can sympathise with what he was trying to do (fight the Sandanistas), but the method he chose to do so was illegal and foolish.

His record on AIDS is really bad compared to Maggie Thatcher who was not exactly a bleeding heart dances with homosexuals kind of leader.

Edit: Also I think Volcker is key to the move from stagflation which was a Carter appointment that Reagan sort of got the benefit of. I think at least part of the credit for the end of stagflation needs to go to Carter.

[Barrister]

After reading Hamilton I'll never be able to think of Jefferson positively again.

Similarly I think Grant deserves more props.

Love me some Truman.

One thing this list made me think though, is what a bunch of mediocrity we've had in the White House.

I was quickly perusing Reagan's legacy to make sure I didn't get any details wrong.  What was striking is how many major bills he was able to get passed, often with broad bipartisan support.  I think that's just because of the era he was in - later Presidents just haven't had that opportunity.

[Valmy]

Reagan did a great job dealing with the stagflation issue, with some very rough and difficult short term economic pain. Taking a principled and risky stand in the service of actual coherent ideas with some scholarship behind them is something that no Republican has done ever since. I was a huge fan at the time, as a young kid who was carried away by Reagan's image, but even today I have to admire that. Lots of his other policies look really bad in retrospect but that was admirable.

One thing that definitely bothered me at the time, and looks increasingly horrible as time goes on, was his cultivation and deference to religious fanatics.

One of the chief achievements that he did was restoring public confidence in American institutions after the cynicism of the 1970s but man the outcome of that has been an even deeper and more damaging crisis of confidence since then. I kind of look back that 1970s with envy these days.

[Admiral Yi]

I was quickly perusing Reagan's legacy to make sure I didn't get any details wrong.  What was striking is how many major bills he was able to get passed, often with broad bipartisan support.  I think that's just because of the era he was in - later Presidents just haven't had that opportunity.

The positive spin is that he was a great schmoozer a la Johnson.  The negative spin is that he bribed Tip O'Neil and Kennedy with the Big Dig.

I also give most of the credit in the economic sphere to Volcker.

I argued long and hard with Marty when he was here about Reagan and AIDS.  Funding for research skyrocketed.  The principle indictment was he didn't air public service announcements to tell people something they already knew, which was that unprotected butt sex could give you AIDS.

[Berkut]

I can most certainly ignore what a great communicator he was, because being a great communicator is not an accoplishment. It is a useful tool, but only a tool.

He used that tool to promote a economic viewpoint that is demonstrably toxic.

I mean...Hitler was a great communicator. Jim Jones was an amazingly great communicator. Being able to communicate your ideas well is an amazing skill, but it isn't an accomplishment. What you do with that skill is the accomplishment.

Economy. You say that we put too much emphasis on the President, then turn around and insist we put all the emphasis on the President? Huh?

He did cut services to the poor effectively, so he has that going for him for sure, and he was able to make the rich a LOT richer, but I don't see those as accomplishments, personally. Nor do I agree that making poor people more poor and rich people more rich is what triggered the economic growth after he wildly whacked away randomly at the tax code in his first couple of years.

I know the right wing story is that he "hastened the fall" of the USSR. And maybe he did by spending a shitload of money on missiles that the USSR felt a need to match. But I think that is FAR from an agreed upon narrative among actual historians, and even if we accept that it is accurate, if anything, he did it by accident. He did not promote building more ICBMs and tanks because he thought that would force the USSR to match it and then hasten its economic collapse. Rather, he thought more tanks and planes and ICBMs were a good thing just because he thought having lots of them were a good idea on their own merits. He never once said anything like "Build some more tanks and planes because the USSR will be forced to match it and that will cause them to collapse!"

He did sign immigration reform, I will give him that.

I am appalled at the idea that since other leaders probably did not emphasize HIV/AIDS we should give the US President a pass on actively and willfully ignoring it. I think he will rightly be villified to his role in how the epidemic was handled in the US. The US does not take our lead from "other world leaders", nor should we.

He does not deserve to be in the top 20, much less the top ten. His ranking is based on right wing mythology, not any actual sober analysis of his Presidency.

And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.

[Valmy]

Reagan ignored HIV because his religious fundamentalist base was cheering that God's judgement was being done. Ok now is that actually true? I don't know but it sure seemed like it.

[Admiral Yi]

Reagan ignored HIV because his religious fundamentalist base was cheering that God's judgement was being done. Ok now is that actually true? I don't know but it sure seemed like it.

I remember the rationale given at the time was that public service announcements about homosex would be inappropriate for children.