What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[grumbler]

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.

Yeah, I think we're done here.

I thought it was very apt.

You would.

I thought it was apt enough as well.

I thought that it was way, WAY overblown.  Reagan had no cultural war on homosexuality (he did change military policy when he declared that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," but the policy change was to discharge homosexuals instead of imprisoning them). And the anti-science movement long predated Reagan, so blaming him for the fact that it exists today seems absurd.

I thought Reagan actually had a very good first term (with the caveat that his aversion to thinking about homosexuality prevented him from even talking about AIDS), but his second term ruined any chance that he should be looked at favorably as a president. 

[alfred russel]

I think it is really libelous to associate Reagan with Trump.

Reagan ran on the slogan, "Let's Make America Great Again."

Trump ran on the slogan, "Make America Great Again."

Don't tell me those are the same!

[DGuller]

I thought that it was way, WAY overblown.  Reagan had no cultural war on homosexuality (he did change military policy when he declared that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," but the policy change was to discharge homosexuals instead of imprisoning them). And the anti-science movement long predated Reagan, so blaming him for the fact that it exists today seems absurd.

I thought Reagan actually had a very good first term (with the caveat that his aversion to thinking about homosexuality prevented him from even talking about AIDS), but his second term ruined any chance that he should be looked at favorably as a president.

I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many.  I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.

[Malthus]

I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?

Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.

The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.

[Sheilbh]

I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many.  I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.

Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.

[crazy canuck]

I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many.  I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.

Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.

You can see BB quoting that from time to time.  Ignoring Reagan's impact of thinking governments are good for nothing and should be limited as much as possible cannot be underestimated. 

[Eddie Teach]

I think it is really libelous to associate Reagan with Trump.

Reagan ran on the slogan, "Let's Make America Great Again."

Trump ran on the slogan, "Make America Great Again."

Don't tell me those are the same!

Though Trump's kinda suggests Reagan failed.

[The Brain]

I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?

Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.

The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.

To get a truly useful historical consensus you have to improve the way historians (people who research history) do history. This could be a while.

[alfred russel]

I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?

Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.

The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.

I think it is all pointless. Earlier today I was reading a bit of Beard's "An Economic Interpretation of Jeffersonian Democracy" written in 1915. The perspective would probably seem alien to younger casual readers of history (maybe not us history nerds) but his view of Jefferson owning slaves was more along the lines of "he didn't have a capitalist perspective like his federalist opponents."

History is so deeply influenced by current values that I'm not sure last consensuses are ever possible.

[viper37]

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. 

I'll give yout hat one.

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 led the US and the world to the banking crisis of 1988, which led to the recession of 1990.  And the banks were bailed out by the govt after 1988.  Just like 2008.

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.

Reducing the number of brackets is the opposite of what I would suggest for the tax codes, to avoid steep increases as soon as you get a small pay raise.

Removing taxes on billionaires does not have any effect in local economy other than increase the deficit and increase the wealth of said billionaires.  You could say it creates more billionaires, but really, buying a private island in the Carribean or buying a Ferrari or a made in Europe yacht or private jet does not do much for the US economy, the impact is quite negligeable.

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).

The USSR was economically done by the 70s.  The Afghan war accelerated their downfall and their own idiocy.  Reagan might have pushed them to overspend though, but he did by racking some huge deficits that would make our boy Justin so proud. 

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.

Takes two to tango.  Gorbachev wanted the deal, Reagan agreed to negotiate.Gorbachev knew the USSR was doomed and could not compete with the US economy on weapons of any kind and was trying to stall the envitable.

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.

Again, I'll grand you that one.

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.

-AIDS, other world leaders may not have put much emphasis on that disease in the 1980s, but they didn't actively fought against science and tried to promote abstination as a viable alternative all the while demonizing homos.
I remember the Iran-Contra being a big deal, but I don't remember much details about it, I'll give a pass.

[viper37]

I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?

Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.

The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.

Well, people are still debating Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Robert E. Lee, Grant, Lincoln, Napoleon and many, many, many military officers and statesmen (I'd say statesperson, but there are few women who were allowed to reach such positions in the history we know - what is written - compared to males).  Millenias might be too long, a century or two might be either too long or too soon...

[viper37]

thinking governments are good for nothing and should be limited as much as possible cannot be underestimated. 

The more I deal with the CRA and Revenu Québec, the more I feel he has a point there...

[The Minsky Moment]

I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many.  I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.

Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.

I agree with both of you on that.

[Barrister]

I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many.  I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.

Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.

You can see BB quoting that from time to time.  Ignoring Reagan's impact of thinking governments are good for nothing and should be limited as much as possible cannot be underestimated.

It's funny cuz I work for the government.

[garbon]

Yeah, I think we're done here?