The Reagan Myth

Opinion Journal ^ | July 17, 2006 | Fred Barnes

[The Raven]

-snip-

Liberals pretend the Reagan years--in contrast to the Bush years--were a golden idyll of collaboration between congressional Democrats and a not-so-conservative president. When Reagan died in 2004, John Kerry recalled having admired his political skills and liked him personally. "I had quite a few meetings with him," Mr. Kerry told reporters. "I met with Reagan a lot more than I've met with this president."

-snip-

[thegreatbeast]

Too little is recalled of the churlish Tip O'Neill and his minions trying to prop up communist dictators all over the map, actively working to subvert Reagan's foreign policies.

I remember being struck by how they increasingly marginalized Reagan beginning with the '86 elections. During the campaign for the '88 presidential election, it seemed like the president was an afterthought. The pols & the media treated him as if he were a ghost-- they no longer had a use for him.

Watch for the same process to begin after these coming elections. Being a lame duck is a terrible indignity.

[Jimnorwellwarren]

Wrong about the spending part Fred. Had the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, no doubt Reagan would have at least had the power of impoundment restored. This would have allowed him to cease funding those true wastes of money, like the Legal Services Administration and greatly cutback on waste in all department. It would have been interesting to see how much of the NEA or CPB was left, if he had been able to impound funds. The fact that GWB hasn't asked for this authority speaks volumes.

[LibertarianInExile]

"I've maintained for a long time that for the Democrats, Clinton was the exception. He was a man of such strong personal charm that he was able to sell the same old tired class warfare and socialism package of the left to the Democrats one last time."

Oh, right. Like that was a hard sell. /sarc The Rats love that old schtick. It's all they have to unite the various interest groups that otherwise wouldn't hang out in the same room together.

The hard sell was the American people, who wouldn't have been fooled were it not for Poppy's tax sellout, which gave them a choice between a covert leftist and an overt liar.

[Puppage]

Liberals pretend the Reagan years--in contrast to the Bush years--were a golden idyll of collaboration between congressional Democrats and a not-so-conservative president

Liberals pretend to have liked Reagan so they can villify Bush. "Look, we LOVED Reagan, it's just Bush that's bad."

The truth of the matter is that they DISPISED Reagan & everything he stood for. They went against him at every turn.

[BufordP]

I think before you can make comparisons between the Reagan and Bush II administrations you must also include the party makeup of Congress during their tenure.

Congressional make-up by party during Reagan's tenure.

Democratic Party majority counts highlighted in yellow.

Source:
The office of the Clerk U.S. House of Representatives
Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present

	House				Senate
	Reps	Dems			Reps	Dems
1981-1983	192	243	51		53	46	7
1983-1985	167	268	101		54	46	8
1985-1987	182	253	71		53	47	6
1987-1989	177	258	9		45	55	10
2001-2003	221	212	9		50	50	0
2003-2005	229	204	25		51	49	2
2005-2007	232	202	30		55	45	10

[gondramB]

>>Hah! :-) Next time the South decides to make a stand for "states rights" pick a better issue. By standing up for cheap (free) labor the South did more to hurt States rights that ever before in the history of the Republic. Couldn't they have just hired illegal Mexicans to do the jobs Americans weren't willing to do? /sarc

Hey, I'm just kidding. Don't call out Nathan Bedford Forest's insurgents on me, OK? /more sarc<<

It was a horrible, horrible war with no one completely in the right. The North was wrong to turn its back on the principles of the Declaration of independence and the South was horribly wrong to condone slavery. Nobody who fights their brother really wins.

The only winners are the decedents from both sides who share this great country.

[rhombus]

Not to reopen the war but...

The North was wrong to turn its back on the principles of the Declaration of independence

Which principles exactly? I can't agree with you if I don't know what you are referring to.

[BufordP]

Correction to my Post #25!

Democrat Party House majority count for 1987-1989 should read: 81 vice 9

[The Raven]

>>Wrong about the spending part Fred

Yep. He had Dems in both houses. In addition, the defense budget was far higher in those days. Clinton used the fast declining defense spending (the "peace dividend") and higher taxes to claim a balanced budget, while increasing domestic spending.

[Dixie Yooper]

"I think before you can make comparisons between the Reagan and Bush II administrations you must also include the party makeup of Congress during their tenure."

You forgot to include the "Trent Lott Factor" of 2003 which allowed the Democrats to impose a 60% vote factor to anything being passed by the Senate. Just wait and see what they do with that when and if they ever get control of the Senate again.

[Calpernia]

Art by Billie

[BufordP]

And the Gang of 14 and and and ... you can always count on some RINO to muck things up.

Reagan didn't necessarily have a Lott, McCain, or Specter to muck things up for him. He didn't have anyone.

[SamuraiScot]

Even people who didn't like his politics had grudging admiration for at least some of that.

You're right that they should have, but all I remember was non-stop hatred and the persecution of his staff by way of the courts, and of course the Fifth Column . . . I mean the Fourth Estate.

[blitzgig]

"Reagan didn't necessarily have a Lott, McCain, or Specter to muck things up for him."

Actually, Specter DID muck some things up for Reagan. He helped engineer the defeat of Robert Bork.

[RoadTest]

You addressed the wrong person. I'm not "Fred". I didn't speak on the subject you're talking about, either.

[BufordP]

Touché

[Fury]

All in all, I think a good piece on President Reagan, contrasting him with President Bush.

I consider Ronald Reagan one of the great Presidents of the 20th century and in the top 7 of all time. Anyone wanting to read about him would be best served by reading his own writings (e.g. "Reagan in His Own Hand, Reagan in His Own Voice, "An American Life", "Where's the Rest of Me? - I know, I know, the last two were ghost written, but Reagan had substantial input).

We know about the Left feels about Reagan, but I find that more and more, there are books from the Right coming out that I would call "fluff books". Reagan was an outstanding leader, but he was not perfect - and he would be the first to acknowledge that, IMO.

For me, Reagan was at his best while governor of California, from 1981-1984 in the domestic arena, and from 1986-1988 in foreign affairs.

One thing that is odd is that President Reagan had coattails in 1980, but not in 1982 and 1986. Democrats gained seats in those elections, taking control of the Senate back in 1986. It's a shame, but I blaime that on his advisors (can't stand M. Deaver, who would not let Reagan be Reagan)

[Dixie Yooper]

"I consider Ronald Reagan one of the great Presidents of the 20th century and in the top 7 of all time"

From an economic standpoint, he is the greatest in the history of the United States. The DJIA when he took office was around 800. When he left office 8 years later, it was over 10,000. If David Stockman hadn't gone drinking with a reporter, it would have been well over 15,000.

[Jimnorwellwarren]

No, I replied to Fred Barnes. Understand you didn't write the column...Fred is usually right 80% of the time. This article is about 60% correct. Then again, back in that time he was more liberal.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I think you are making this judgement WAY TOO SOON

Definitely. But since we're contrasting the contrast between Bush and Clinton vs. the contrast between Reagan and Carter, we have to make some sort of prediction of what history will say.