The Reagan Myth

Opinion Journal ^ | July 17, 2006 | Fred Barnes

[rhombus]

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.

History? Haven't met him yet. I sure hope it isn't written by the usual suspects. Of course times have changed which is probably yet another reason Reagan is being appreciated more. We don't have to trust the PhDs living off their Gov't subsidized jobs to tell us who is "great".

[Celtjew Libertarian]

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

Top four. There have been four Presidents, IMO, who, as President, made or remade America, for better or worse: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. (Only Jefferson, among Presidents, measures up to them in importance and that, IMO, is more for his work before he was President than as President.)

[TexasTransplant]

>>>>"Kerry told reporters. "I met with Reagan a lot more than I've met with this president."<<<<<

Kerry gives all other parasites a bad reputation

TT

[gondramB]

>>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.<<

I'm happy to discuss this - unless other people get too upset - I don't want to disrupt the board.

Short answer: The North did not allow the South the same self determination the colonies had demanded from England

Longer answer:

As I see it, the key principles of the American revolution wasn't that England was bad or that monarchy was unacceptable. It was first, that the right of the government to hold power comes from the consent of the governed. And second that when the people collectively conclude that the government is no longer just the people have the right to withdraw their consent and form a new government.

I would argue that the grievances the South had were less than those of the colonies but their right to secede was strengthened by the fact that they had joined voluntarily and thus could leave voluntarily.

Like the founders they didn't do it secretly. The Declaration says this "entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The South followed those rules, and just as the state legislatures have voted them into the union they voted out. Thus, I would argue that the North was not true to the spirit of the founding of the country in refusing self determination.

But while I'll joke about Yankees I'm not blind to the truth about the South. In fact many of the leftover feelings about Yankees come from what happened during Sherman's march to sea when the war was already settled and reconstruction, not the war itself.

Yes, the north was treating the South like a colony and yes the North had a lock on congress that looked like it could never change - effectively eliminating the South from governance. But we had slavery of an entire race of human beings in all the Southern States - a condition as utterly wrong and unChristian as can be imagined except perhaps genocide.

My Southern friends will sometimes argue that the border states had slaves too. Thats true. And maybe that makes some in the North hypocrites but it doesn't make slavery in the South any less wrong.

You know, if I had been in charge when the handover of Fort Sumpter was demanded, I wouldn't have attacked. I would have sent a rowboat filled with fresh bread and meat each day along with the message that we would be as patient as necessary in resolving our differences peacefully with our Northern brothers.

Importing of new slaves was already banned but the wealthy landowners were terrified of losing their property and poor whites were worried about the competition of suddenly freed slave. In the North there were anti-draft riots as many Northerners did not want to fight to force the South to stay.

There was a proposal that the states would begin slowly paying market rates to slaveholders to free their slaves.

But General Beauregard opened fire on Fort Sumpter and everyone's heart hardened.

God knows its for the best that we remained one country - the world needs us and we have accomplished so much... but the war was a calamity. With 20% less troops than in World War 1 there were twice the number of wounded and almost 5 times as many dead.

[gondramB]

Thanks for that post. We don't need to pretend President was perfect to recognize that not only was he a great man but that providence gave him to us at just the right moment.

[rhombus]

Lincoln did win the election. Let's fast-forward to the year 2000. What if those in California and a handful of other states decided to secede because they didn't like the results of the hanging chad election. Then those states demanded the return of all military bases and federal parks located there. Would that be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of "self-determination"? If not, why? If so, where does it end?

[gondramB]

>>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.<<

I was reading through a book of old Bloom County cartoons last night looking for a cartoon I remembered at Lebanon and I saw a character I had forgotten. The newspaper editor, whenever anything bad would happen would scream "Its Reagan's fault!"

Deja Vue all over again.

[gondramB]

>>Lincoln did win the election. Let's fast-forward to the year 2000. What if those in California and a handful of other states decided to secede because they didn't like the results of the hanging chad election. Then those states demanded the return of all military bases and federal parks located there. Would that be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of "self-determination"? If not, why? If so, where does it end?<<

This happens all over the world - my wife parents are from Latvia, captured by the Germans and then by the Soviets and annexed. Ronald Reagan worked hard for Latvian independence but on the principle of negotiation, not combat. If the Soviets can handle self determination then we could too.

But knowing that we are free and can change the government lessens the chance that step will ever be taken.

To answer the question, if California really was determined to secede, I think in the end we would let them go. But there would be a thousand details to be worked out.

[rhombus]

To answer the question, if California really was determined to secede, I think in the end we would let them go. But there would be a thousand details to be worked out.

OK, in your world, when the going gets tough anyone who wants to leave can. However, I would think the same rules for admitting a state to the union should apply to rejecting a state from the union. In otherwords it's not just up to the legislators in that particular state particularly with respect to federal property which is owned by all of us (military bases, state parks, etc). Further when speaking of the Civil War you stated the North had not lived up to the principles of the Declaration. One of the first principles discussed is the follow: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'd say the North did a better job holding to that principle than the South did...unless of course one disputes the definition of the word, "men" which I guess is what the anger was all about.

[NCSteve]

Ho hum. Yet another of Barnes' tiresome revisionism attempts aimed at morphing the socialist Bush into the libertarian Republican Reagan. In an ironic twist, Barnes seems to be attacking historical revisionism in order to engage in his own.

Sorry, Freddie-boy, the argument doesn't get any better through repetition.

[gondramB]

>>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'd say the North did a better job holding to that principle than the South did...<<

Slavery was wrong and I hope your not expecting me to defend it.

Its not the only thing that defines us, however. many of the founders we still look to (unless you're on the supreme court, of course) were slave holders.

[rhombus]

No, I don't expect you to defend slavery at all. I was just responding to your statement that the North didn't live up to the principles in the Declaration. Actually, I'm pleased that you didn't try and defend slavery and deny its role in the war betwixt the states. So many would have responded with the usual Lincoln quote that if he could keep the union together without freeing a single slave he'd do it. However, slavery was the issue even if those fighting on both the North and the South didn't realize it at the time. For my part I am so very glad the union was preserved. I doubt we could have survived without each other as we faced the crises of the 19th and 20th centuries...not to mention current crises.

[Moonman62]

But Reagan had three advantages over Bush43.

1. The Iranian hostages were freed the day he was inaugurated.

That was no accident. Reagan talked trash to the Iranians once he became president-elect and it worked.

Reagan had a huge disadvantage of taking over under a dark cloud caused by Vietnam, Watergate, Kissinger, and Carter. I won't even mention the MSM because they've been an ever present enemy to this day.

[MNJohnnie]

Thank you for posting this. Reagan was our greatest President but he was NOT the god a lot of the Freeper Frindgers try to make him out to be.

[krb]

The DJIA when he took office was around 800. When he left office 8 years later, it was over 10,000.

The DJIA didn't hit 10,000 until March 19, 1999.

3 days into Bush I's term (Jan 24, 1989), the DJIA hit 2,256.

[weegee]

But Carter is more prominent in political circles than ever before.

They don't seem so "tired" of him now. They have Bubba and the Peanut for living ex-presidents. By comparison, they'll stand next to Jimmah, the nucular scientist.

[gondramB]

>> That was no accident. Reagan talked trash to the Iranians once he became president-elect and it worked.

Reagan had a huge disadvantage of taking over under a dark cloud caused by Vietnam, Watergate, Kissinger, and Carter. I won't even mention the MSM because they've been an ever present enemy to this day.<<

Those are both good points - a number of Ronald Reagan's advantages were of his own making - I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[gondramB]

>>But Carter is more prominent in political circles than ever before.

They don't seem so "tired" of him now. They have Bubba and the Peanut for living ex-presidents. By comparison, they'll stand next to Jimmah, the nucular scientist.<<

I tend to see President Carter's role through political eyes - and while apparently he is a good negotiator he's too soft, and perhaps most importantly HE's NOT Frickin President any more and he should act like he understands that.

However, I live about 15 miles from the Carter Center and i can tell that when they are not over-seeing elections or interfering with foreign policy - they do good works. Particularly with fighting the Guiana worm - one of the most common and yet most horrible 3 foot long parasites a person can have. Under the Carter Program cases declined from several million a year to several thousand. Now they are working on river blindness, also caused by a parasite that infects almost 20 million people.

The volunteerism stuff he does with habitat for humanity is also good - sometimes he gets too much credit there but he does get them lots of visibility.

So, like a lot of other Georgians I have mixed feelings about Jimmy. He clearly never should have been President. He was a bad President even compared the the three bad Presidents who preceded him. And he's meddlesome to this day. But he started something with ex-Presidents doing more than just retiring to private life. President Bush43 has followed on this by using his father and President Clinton to lend Presidential names to the tsunami effort and send the American message.

I know intellectually I should dislike Carter but I just can't.

[streetpreacher]

I think the U.S. is figuring that out as well.

[nopardons]

Unlike a lot of posters to FR, you have a great memory. That IS how it was.