The Deification of Reagan
 

Is it valid? Is it helpful (to the GOP)?

I think those that deify him in the GOP (anyone running for anything, Fox/talk radio), have conveniently glossed over a lot of things about him that would render him unelectable in the modern GOP. Hell, today he might even be considered a mainstream Democrat.:eek:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

As fallacious/revisionist as this modern day deification appears to be, why does the GOP continue doing it or refuse to discuss his legacy in real terms? Are they handcuffing themselves or helping themselves?

Not too dissimilar to the deification of JFK by the left. Interesting how Reagan's and Kennedy's policies on taxation and government regulation were similar, which is something that the Left often glosses over.

Because they have no viable "Superman/Woman" to run at present?
All of their current offerings are either loons, hipocrites or dullards, so they must offer up the ghost of Ronnie?

This is mostly true. However, on social issues, they were quite different.
I believe Finn is correct, though. Only I would add that if either man were running today he would be rejected by his own party. It just goes to demonstrate the extreme ideologies present in todays politics.

Dave

I'm not sure that Reagan's actions with regard to taxation/government were consistent with his rhetoric. He raised taxes numerous times and didn't cut government spending. The Hannity/Palins of the world would have you think otherwise. Plus he introduced the notion of fees instead of taxes for a variety of things (e.g., national park admission).

I think Reagan's biggest legacy is supply-side (aka Voodoo) economics. Somehow he has convinced the GOP faithful that cutting taxes is the answer to all ills and that increased deficits/spending don't matter (or that they can be reduced by more tax cutting).:confused: We're in the pickle we're in for exactly this reason.

With regard to the notion that his military buildup helped bankrupt the Soviet Union, it's partially true, but only if you accept the fact that he did the same thing to us (only on a delayed basis).

Reagan is the best the Pubbies can do.

After all, they don't have the likes of a Carter.

Chas

There was a rather educational documentary on Reagan on the BBC a few days ago. I doubt you guys will be able to watch it on BBCiPlayer but you probably know all about him already anyway.

If you want to watch the documentary try these links (in order), although I doubt either will work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...n_Idol_Reagan/

http://3.hidemyass.com/ip-1/encoded/...8%3D&f=norefer

Your not attempting to make comparisons in deficit spending from the Reagan era to what we are seeing today, really... are you? From a spending stand point, you could easily label Bush as a big spending dem also could you not?

Comparing some of our most recent presidents, it appears that Clinton held our countries fiscal situation in pretty good form but some of that was smoke and mirrors also attributed to a slight swing to the center and spending being held in check by congress.

Argue the merits of Reagan's policies all you want but I personally don't see the comparison an honest and accurate one. We're definitely in a nasty pickle but thats a bit of a stretch I think.

If a persons weight could be viewed as deficit spending, it would be the equivalent of comparing the health ramifications of a 175 lb healthy guy to a 1800 lb dude with diabetes and heart disease eating the same triple cheese burger.

Reagan was a gunius at getting elected. He knew what to say. A generation later, the people who believed his line are now in power, only they didn't know it was a sales pitch. They really bought it. Economy in the toilet? Shoot, we must not have cut taxes enough! Cut them some more! We need to get some money in here!

Reagan's people know it:

http://www.buysellshort.net/reagan-i...august-10-2010

I'm basically saying what David Stockman recently said in the piece that Eddie linked to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...tonwoodssystem

Today's GOP continues to insist upon the virtues of Reagonomics. Dubya was the first President to launch a war (two actually) without a plan to pay for it. Correction - his plan to pay for it cut taxes. We're living the legacy of Reagan's ridiculous economic policy.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Nixon eliminated Bretton Woods in an effort to pay for the Vietnam war and to fund the Great Society. Now who do we have to thank for both of those?

Since, the Keynesians have been running amuck. As a rule, the Republicans want to lower taxes while the Democrats want to spend ourselves rich...although it's getting hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

Stockman is correct in criticising the Republicans, which appears to me to be the point of his article.

Chas