Reagan's Legacy (1)
Not long ago, Dick Cheney was quoted as saying, “Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don’t matter.”
Will that be Reagan’s legacy? It will be part of it, that is for sure, just as the current occupant in the White House and the extreme right wingers who are also there will be part of his legacy.
But there are some big differences between Dubya and Reagan. Reagan’s rhetoric was more extreme than the way he governed, and the opposite is true with Bush, who tries to put a moderate face on some very extreme policies.
And while there are similarities in the personalities of both, there are differences as well. As Billmon pointed out in his post on Reagan, even many Democrats found it hard to hate Reagan, “Yes, he was as ignorant and stubborn and incapable of rational thought as our current president, but he wasn't arrogant - or at least, he didn't come across as arrogant. He lacked Bush's infuriating sense of entitlement, and his nasty temper. Reagan smiled, he didn't smirk.” Yes, and that’s a big difference, and it’s also why many people absolutely hate Bush.
Conservatives have been indulging in myth-making about Reagan for years, and many of them have come to believe their own propaganda that Reagan was the greatest president ever and was single handedly responsible for winning the Cold War. That of course is myth, but myth is really what the Reagan Presidency was all about. From “freedom fighters” to welfare queens who drove Cadillacs. Reagan often confused myth with facts, fantasy with reality, and movies with real life. And he firmly believed these myths, he believed they were true.
As Patrick Buchanan put it as quoted in the The Times "For Ronald Reagan, the world of legend and myth is a real world,"... "He visits it regularly, and he's a happy man there." That was one of the things so frustrating about Reagan, he simply believed things that weren’t true, and no one could convince him otherwise.
And while many conservatives believe that Reagan caused the sun to come up in the morning, there were many flaws to this man, and his administration. For example, we know now that while Reagan refused to name names in front of the House un-American Committee investigating Hollywood, he did give them names in secret. This is not exactly a profile in courage.
He also was not honest about many of his policies. Dubya’s dad correctly called his “supply side” economic policies "voodoo economics." and, with more than a bit of irony these policies have adopted by his son. Eventually, Reagan's own director of the budget, David A. Stockman, suggested that the president “was simply proposing a repackaging of economics intended to favor the rich, whose gains would ultimately trickle down through the rest of the economy.”
“After he left government, Mr. Stockman wrote a book, "The Triumph of Politics" (Harper & Row), in which he described how, on behalf of Mr. Reagan's programs, he had exaggerated the administration's success in reducing spending and minimized the projected deficit. He said he invented the "rosy scenario," making optimistic assumptions about future growth, inflation and interest rates.
"If the Securities and Exchange Commission had jurisdiction over the White House," Mr. Stockman wrote, "we might have all had time for a course in remedial economics at Allenwood penitentiary."
As the Times points out, “Within six years the deficit more than doubled, from $79 billion in Mr. Reagan's first year in office to $173 billion. In the 1987 fiscal year it dropped back to $150.4 billion but edged up again in 1988.”
“But by the middle of 1982, with a recession continuing and deficit projections soaring, Mr. Reagan grudgingly agreed to a $98.6 billion increase in excise and other taxes. But he refused to call them taxes, insisting on the term "revenue enhancers."
Other repercussions of his plans resulted in “Middle-income college students became ineligible for government-backed loans and more than a million people lost their food stamps. In 1981, the Department of Agriculture proposed that ketchup be considered a vegetable in calculating the nutritional values of school lunches. The suggestion caused such an uproar that the rule was never instituted.”
Will that be Reagan’s legacy? It will be part of it, that is for sure, just as the current occupant in the White House and the extreme right wingers who are also there will be part of his legacy.
But there are some big differences between Dubya and Reagan. Reagan’s rhetoric was more extreme than the way he governed, and the opposite is true with Bush, who tries to put a moderate face on some very extreme policies.
And while there are similarities in the personalities of both, there are differences as well. As Billmon pointed out in his post on Reagan, even many Democrats found it hard to hate Reagan, “Yes, he was as ignorant and stubborn and incapable of rational thought as our current president, but he wasn't arrogant - or at least, he didn't come across as arrogant. He lacked Bush's infuriating sense of entitlement, and his nasty temper. Reagan smiled, he didn't smirk.” Yes, and that’s a big difference, and it’s also why many people absolutely hate Bush.
Conservatives have been indulging in myth-making about Reagan for years, and many of them have come to believe their own propaganda that Reagan was the greatest president ever and was single handedly responsible for winning the Cold War. That of course is myth, but myth is really what the Reagan Presidency was all about. From “freedom fighters” to welfare queens who drove Cadillacs. Reagan often confused myth with facts, fantasy with reality, and movies with real life. And he firmly believed these myths, he believed they were true.
As Patrick Buchanan put it as quoted in the The Times "For Ronald Reagan, the world of legend and myth is a real world,"... "He visits it regularly, and he's a happy man there." That was one of the things so frustrating about Reagan, he simply believed things that weren’t true, and no one could convince him otherwise.
And while many conservatives believe that Reagan caused the sun to come up in the morning, there were many flaws to this man, and his administration. For example, we know now that while Reagan refused to name names in front of the House un-American Committee investigating Hollywood, he did give them names in secret. This is not exactly a profile in courage.
He also was not honest about many of his policies. Dubya’s dad correctly called his “supply side” economic policies "voodoo economics." and, with more than a bit of irony these policies have adopted by his son. Eventually, Reagan's own director of the budget, David A. Stockman, suggested that the president “was simply proposing a repackaging of economics intended to favor the rich, whose gains would ultimately trickle down through the rest of the economy.”
“After he left government, Mr. Stockman wrote a book, "The Triumph of Politics" (Harper & Row), in which he described how, on behalf of Mr. Reagan's programs, he had exaggerated the administration's success in reducing spending and minimized the projected deficit. He said he invented the "rosy scenario," making optimistic assumptions about future growth, inflation and interest rates.
"If the Securities and Exchange Commission had jurisdiction over the White House," Mr. Stockman wrote, "we might have all had time for a course in remedial economics at Allenwood penitentiary."
As the Times points out, “Within six years the deficit more than doubled, from $79 billion in Mr. Reagan's first year in office to $173 billion. In the 1987 fiscal year it dropped back to $150.4 billion but edged up again in 1988.”
“But by the middle of 1982, with a recession continuing and deficit projections soaring, Mr. Reagan grudgingly agreed to a $98.6 billion increase in excise and other taxes. But he refused to call them taxes, insisting on the term "revenue enhancers."
Other repercussions of his plans resulted in “Middle-income college students became ineligible for government-backed loans and more than a million people lost their food stamps. In 1981, the Department of Agriculture proposed that ketchup be considered a vegetable in calculating the nutritional values of school lunches. The suggestion caused such an uproar that the rule was never instituted.”
posted by Zack at 7:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home