The Party of Reagan Is No More

[MACVSOG68]

Mac, you did a great job of explaining my ambivalence towards RR.  I did love his style, his leadership ability, and his respect for the job.  He and Nancy made a great team in the best traditions of the American presidency. 

But, if we, each of us, do not own what we produce, we don't have any real freedom.

Indeed!

[MACVSOG68]

I'd like to see the ridiculous hawkish foreign policy side of Reaganism die, frankly. THe earlier debates were so ridiculous, Carly Fiorina sounded like she was ready to nuke Russia the next day, and Chris Christie was no better. I heard a lot of millenials mention that this makes the GOP seem like crazies and they're right.

Depends on which part of the Reagan foreign policy you mean.  Was it the part that challenged Gorbachev to reunite Berlin, his efforts to conclude an arms agreement, his rebuilding the military, his scaring the hell out of the Iranians?  He didn't really bomb the Soviets into their ultimate collapse, but his peace through strength philosophy, perhaps the best foreign policy a nation can have, certainly helped.

And if we remain strong militarily, we won't have to throw around a lot of inane bombing threats.  That strength will be reflected in the size, technology, versatility of our military, our alliances around the world, and our leadership.  Every nation must know that we cannot be destroyed, and that we can and will respond to threats not only to ourselves and our allies, but to instabilities that threaten the geopolitical balance.  Russia and China are not our enemies, not because they are good, but because they will fear our strength. 

The foreign policy challenges will continue to proliferate for the US.  A president who apologizes for our history and who considers the US an equal among many, will get us into many more wars than one who considers the US the leader among many, but understands the biggest guy in the bar doesn't have to throw the first punch.

[truth_seeker]

Depends on which part of the Reagan foreign policy you mean.  Was it the part that challenged Gorbachev to reunite Berlin, his efforts to conclude an arms agreement, his rebuilding the military, his scaring the hell out of the Iranians?  He didn't really bomb the Soviets into their ultimate collapse, but his peace through strength philosophy, perhaps the best foreign policy a nation can have, certainly helped.

And if we remain strong militarily, we won't have to throw around a lot of inane bombing threats.  That strength will be reflected in the size, technology, versatility of our military, our alliances around the world, and our leadership.  Every nation must know that we cannot be destroyed, and that we can and will respond to threats not only to ourselves and our allies, but to instabilities that threaten the geopolitical balance.  Russia and China are not our enemies, not because they are good, but because they will fear our strength. 

The foreign policy challenges will continue to proliferate for the US.  A president who apologizes for our history and who considers the US an equal among many, will get us into many more wars than one who considers the US the leader among many, but understands the biggest guy in the bar doesn't have to throw the first punch.

Thanks for being the adult in the house. Reagan did not start wars, he finished the Cold War. I believe the reality of the Cold War threat is completely missed by younger people.

Peace through strength. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Thanks for being the adult in the house. Reagan did not start wars, he finished the Cold War. I believe the reality of the Cold War threat is completely missed by younger people.

Peace through strength.

True. I should have said the hyper-hawkish stance of modern GOP candidates is off-putting to millennials. The debates were ridiculous in this regard. Donald actually looked sane compared to the other candidates. They acted like they wanted to get into a war with Russia, for example.

[MACVSOG68]

Thanks for being the adult in the house. Reagan did not start wars, he finished the Cold War. I believe the reality of the Cold War threat is completely missed by younger people.

Peace through strength.

Thanks...but the considerably older adult. 

He certainly had his faults, but I hope one day the younger crowd will learn to appreciate where we were on many levels before Reagan took the oath of office.

[MACVSOG68]

True. I should have said the hyper-hawkish stance of modern GOP candidates is off-putting to millennials. The debates were ridiculous in this regard. Donald actually looked sane compared to the other candidates. They acted like they wanted to get into a war with Russia, for example.

It's funny.  Romney said that Russia was our biggest threat.  In the end he may have been right in spite of today's ISIS aggressiveness.  We kon't need to start lobbing nukes, but our allies are going to need some substantial reassurances of our global leadership once the new president takes office.  We have a lot of treaties, both economic and military that will need reviewing for sure.   But what some candidates seem to miss is the importance of both.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It's funny.  Romney said that Russia was our biggest threat.  In the end he may have been right in spite of today's ISIS aggressiveness.  We kon't need to start lobbing nukes, but our allies are going to need some substantial reassurances of our global leadership once the new president takes office.  We have a lot of treaties, both economic and military that will need reviewing for sure.   But what some candidates seem to miss is the importance of both.

Russia is on the other side of the world, how is it a threat to us, really?

Western Europe maybe, but they don't like us either. And they're rich.

[truth_seeker]

Thanks...but the considerably older adult. 

He certainly had his faults, but I hope one day the younger crowd will learn to appreciate where we were on many levels before Reagan took the oath of office.

It seems like each generation of "Kumbaya Kids" can find a leader to sing sweet songs to them, but reality plays on nonetheless.

In the 1930s the GOP (and American isolationists) wanted to stay out of Europe, which had barely finished their last war.

In the 1960s many wanted to just have wars over with forever, by "Giving Peace a Chance."

Now instead of intelligent discussion of what to do with 1.5 billion muslims, we have the "Cuban Mistress Crisis"

[MACVSOG68]

Russia is on the other side of the world, how is it a threat to us, really?

Western Europe maybe, but they don't like us either. And they're rich.

Russia has been modernizing its nuclear arsenal.  It's conventional forces have been weakened and would likely not be up to defeating NATO, and thus might be more inclined to use nuclear weapons if challenged.  Both the US and Russia are opponents in the ME, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia.  Putin is trying to rebuild what it once had, in spite of the poor state of its economy.  Russia no longer subscribes to its no-shoot first nuclear policy.  Russia will not give up its gains, and may well again move forward, especially if Putin continues to believe we are either afraid to protect our interests or willing to jettison agreements and treaties to move back into our part of the world. 

And if Russia can't be a threat because of its location, then surely neither could China, or as many thought eighty years ago, Germany or Japan.

[Free Vulcan]

Russia is on the other side of the world, how is it a threat to us, really?

Western Europe maybe, but they don't like us either. And they're rich.

Yes and no. It is on the other side of the world, but it's size is so vast that it covers two continents that reaches to 50 miles off Alaska. Formerly three, because we bought Alaska off them. They are also not far from Canada if you go over the top of the world, or even from the east via Greenland.

Of all the Euroasian countries, they are by far the most accessible to the North American landmass.

[MACVSOG68]

I think if you listen to what Reagan said, he was a fiscal conservative.  He couldn't do it all by himself.  A President gets what they are handed and deals with the other branches who are co-equal.  So they move it in a direction, but can't do everything.  Of course SnakeOil Donald promises everything, but it is not possible.

Reagan should not have compromised on immigration.  He did have to push hard against leftist opposition on so much of what he wanted, though, that I suspect the bigger picture might give more understanding of that if we were to ever know it.  Or not.  No one is perfect.  But to say Reagan was not a fiscal conservative is just false.  George W. Bush was not a fiscal conservative, though he played one during elections (somewhat).

Can't give him a pass on fiscal conservatism.  He lowered taxes, increased spending and more than doubled the national debt.  He may have talked and really believed in fiscal conservatism, but he didn't seem to understand, just as Bush 43 didn't you can't cut revenues and increase spending without some very bad results, no matter the reason for the spending.  A fiscal conservative would have collected sufficient taxes to pay for his spending.  When he took over as president, the national debt had been lowered to 30% of GDP.  By the end of his term it was 50% of GDP.  When he took office, the debt was $900 billion; when he left it was $2.7 trillion.  Today it's $19 trillion and over 100% of GDP. 

He led the fight to reduce taxes from a marginal tax rate of 70% down to 28%, which is why the national debt began a turnaround and hasn't looked back since. 

He gave the Country hope when he came into office and the recession began.  He fought the Soviet Union with money and words...and won.  But he left the federal treasury at the end far worse than when he took over.

And yet, for his other leadership and statesmanship, I respect him very much.

[MACVSOG68]

He wasn't a dictator and had to deal with a dem congress.  I think the House was in dem hands all 8 years and the Senate for 2 years.   The spending was done by the Democrats in the House.  The debt did go up but would have been managed if not for the liberal congress spending so much.  Also remember the high interest rates then, which has to be factored into any debt comparisons.  I shudder to think of what will happen to the debt when the interest rates inevitably go up again. 

On the one hand you credit him with cutting taxes and on the other you discredit him.  The whole theory behind the tax cuts was that they would actually increase revenue.  The calculations are not so direct as to say "tax rate = spending allowed."  If is far more complicated than that.  Reagan moved it in the right direction.  The failure to cut spending is owned by the Democrats in the House.  Reagan fought for fiscal responsibility.  He wanted to do things he could not get done with a Dem congress.  To say he did not try is false.

Reagan's own budget proposals to Congress contained large deficits each year.  To my knowledge he did not propose a balanced budget, but assumed the tax cuts would eventually provide enough revenues to balance the budget.  They never did.  it took an agreement by the Gingrich House and President Clinton to finally balance the budget for a couple of years.

I didn't give Reagan credit for the tax cuts alone.  I held him accountable for the deficits.  You say he wasn't responsible for the spending, but he was responsible for the tax cuts.  Didn't he need Congress for both, and who was ultimately responsible for signing them all into law?  To get substantial increases in military spending, Reagan reached agreements on substantial domestic spending.

He was a good president and a great leader in many areas.  I don't credit him as such with the fiscal health of the federal government.  He started a trend of borrowing that has ultimately led to where we are today.  And yet we are looking at candidates who want to continue to cut taxes.  When will any of them seriously propose an actual balanced budget, let alone eliminating the $19 trillion debt?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

This thread started out rocky, but it's really gotten good.  Great posts MAC. 

[Bill Cipher]

This thread started out rocky, but it's really gotten good.  Great posts MAC. 

Agreed.  Good read.

[MACVSOG68]

This thread started out rocky, but it's really gotten good.  Great posts MAC.

 

[MACVSOG68]

The Heritage Foundation "The Real Reagan Economic Record":  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record

Look at the period covered.  It omitted the recession before 1983-84 and again ended it at the end of the Clinton tech boom.  And the results didn't change the facts that the deficits remained, the debt more than doubled and Reagan never submitted a balanced budget.  You can't pay for increased spending with tax cuts.  In order to get his tax cuts and military spending increases, Reagan had to make a deal with the devil.  Unfortunately his only recourse to pay for that deal was borrowing.

Just as with Bush 43 and Obama, it isn't all on the Congress.  Bush did the same thing, fought for tax cuts and launched two wars.  Whether the wars were right or wrong is irrelevant.  He should have insisted they be paid for not then and there and not by future generations.

The national debt was 127 percent of GDP at the end of the war, and through Democrat and Republican administrations was brought down to 30 percent.  With Reagan it turned around and today is over 100%.  You can call President Reagan a lot of good things, but a fiscal conservative isn't one of them.

[sinkspur]

Thanks for the exchange.  I'll keep calling him a fiscal conservative because that is how I see him.  He was the whole package:  fiscal and social conservative, in my view and in the view of many many others anyway.  But thanks for sharing your differing view.  Interesting perspective.

Reagan raised taxes three times in his presidency and ballooned the federal deficit, no matter the excuse.

Great president, fiscal spendthrift.

[Bill Cipher]

Reagan raised taxes three times in his presidency and ballooned the federal deficit, no matter the excuse.

Great president, fiscal spendthrift.

Quick question - and this cuts both ways - isn't it Congress, not the president, who raises taxes?

[NavyCanDo]

I really didn't intend this thread to turn into a debate on Ronald Reagan and how conservative or not conservative he was.   He was a great President, that came around during a time that we needed him badly, and that is how history will remember him. And rightfully so.

My intend of starting this thread was the UNITY the party had at the 1980 Convention.  Go back and look at the cover of Time Magazine one more time, or Google other photos of the 1980 RNC convention.  Will we ever see that again?   Will we heal?

[Bill Cipher]

I really didn't intend this thread to turn into a debate on Ronald Reagan and how conservative or not conservative he was.   He was a great President, that came around during a time that we needed him badly, and that is how history will remember him. And rightfully so.

My intend of starting this thread was the UNITY the party had at the 1980 Convention.  Go back and look at the cover of Time Magazine one more time, or Google other photos of the 1980 RNC convention.  Will we ever see that again?   Will we heal?

But you did start a good thread nonetheless; you should be proud.

[MACVSOG68]

Thanks for the exchange.  I'll keep calling him a fiscal conservative because that is how I see him.  He was the whole package:  fiscal and social conservative, in my view and in the view of many many others anyway.  But thanks for sharing your differing view.  Interesting perspective.

 

[MACVSOG68]

I really didn't intend this thread to turn into a debate on Ronald Reagan and how conservative or not conservative he was.   He was a great President, that came around during a time that we needed him badly, and that is how history will remember him. And rightfully so.

My intend of starting this thread was the UNITY the party had at the 1980 Convention.  Go back and look at the cover of Time Magazine one more time, or Google other photos of the 1980 RNC convention.  Will we ever see that again?   Will we heal?

Sorry 'bout that.  My bad.  But no, unless the Country faces a disaster and the Republicans can produce an effective leader,  I can't see unity or healing.  As Spock once replied when told to Live long and prosper..."I shall do neither for I have killed my Captain".  We may well be killing our Party.  And if so we may live long but likely not prosper.

[Free Vulcan]

I really didn't intend this thread to turn into a debate on Ronald Reagan and how conservative or not conservative he was.   He was a great President, that came around during a time that we needed him badly, and that is how history will remember him. And rightfully so.

My intend of starting this thread was the UNITY the party had at the 1980 Convention.  Go back and look at the cover of Time Magazine one more time, or Google other photos of the 1980 RNC convention.  Will we ever see that again?   Will we heal?

But regardless of whether he was or not, at least we can all agree that Reagan didn't accomplish in his administration a number of things that we conservatives would consider as goals. He set a good foundation but we need to build from there.

We've got even bigger problems now, and IMO we are at a point where we can no longer just go forward as we have been. We need to reform many things, and we can build and expand on Reagan to solve them.

[EasyAce]

I agree we don't need a Trump style populism, though like a blind squirrel he's found a few nuts on the trail.

Oh, baby boy don't tempt me!!!!!!!!! *chuckling*

p.s. We don't need any style populism. We have enough problems trying to preserve
and revive what's left of the best of the right.

[Free Vulcan]

Oh, baby boy don't tempt me!!!!!!!!! *chuckling*

p.s. We don't need any style populism. We have enough problems trying to preserve
and revive what's left of the best of the right.

Populism is a vehicle, what resonates with the people. We simply need to take conservative principles and articulate them to the masses. That's something Reagan did that conservatives simply don't do anymore.