After 9/11 and the Clinton Administration, people today are in a frenzy about the activities of the Bush Administration. But the current administration's activities are not without precedent. After the Iranian hostage fiasco and the weak perception of the US during the Carter Administration, the Reagan Administration went on a spending spree in space. Reagan spent billions of dollars on a missile defense space program dubbed "Star Wars." The economic fallout was severe. Unemployment percentages were in the teens (unlike what we have today). Recession was on a national scale.
But the political fallout was unprecedented and truly historical. The new arms race was one in which the soviets could not keep up with. With massive protests already going on in their satellites states, Gorbachev simply could not compete. Already morally bankrupt, the Soviet Union became financially bankrupt and went down at the end of the decade.
Bush senior, upon his election, cleaned house and set about some fiscal policies that eventually brought spending in check. Clinton continued the economic policies started by Bush and was custodian to the longest boom in American history.
Today, Bush is in a similar situation that Reagan inherited. In addition to the aforementioned policies of the former President, Bush is accused of being too simplistic and un-diplomatic when he branded Hussein's Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "Axis of Evil." Eerily reminiscent of Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire", career diplomats are furious at the President for making such a "rash" statement that could hinder all the hard work of the State Department over the years. But history proved Reagan correct. Some believe that the verdict is still out on Bush.
But I digress. My question here is, in hindsight, which would you have preferred: the recession that followed Reagan's spending spree or the Soviet Union's continued existence?
But the political fallout was unprecedented and truly historical. The new arms race was one in which the soviets could not keep up with. With massive protests already going on in their satellites states, Gorbachev simply could not compete. Already morally bankrupt, the Soviet Union became financially bankrupt and went down at the end of the decade.
Bush senior, upon his election, cleaned house and set about some fiscal policies that eventually brought spending in check. Clinton continued the economic policies started by Bush and was custodian to the longest boom in American history.
Today, Bush is in a similar situation that Reagan inherited. In addition to the aforementioned policies of the former President, Bush is accused of being too simplistic and un-diplomatic when he branded Hussein's Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "Axis of Evil." Eerily reminiscent of Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire", career diplomats are furious at the President for making such a "rash" statement that could hinder all the hard work of the State Department over the years. But history proved Reagan correct. Some believe that the verdict is still out on Bush.
But I digress. My question here is, in hindsight, which would you have preferred: the recession that followed Reagan's spending spree or the Soviet Union's continued existence?
Facebook
Twitter