Why is Ronald Reagan such a hero to the right?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Reagan was awesome for top 1%. My dad who owned a very big lighting mfr company absolutely loves him. Even has a picture of him hanging in his office to this day. Not so much for our national solvency and labor as Craig illustrates.

Overall I think he was a good man and believed the stuff he said.

As far as cut and run.. he didn't want to however congress was on his ass and even passed a resolution demanding marine withdrawal and abandon the Multinational Force in Lebanon. Many say this was a huge mistake and instead of Hezbolla being a small politically marginalized terror group they are very powerful now politically and militarily.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Different time. Nothing is a universal bromide for all times. Then we had low UE, social services were not strained, etc so it seemed like the right thing to do. Today is a different USA - going broke and fast with high UE.

To be fair, though, note the difference between your position based on those reasons, and the views of the anti-amnesty crowd.

That crowd isn't making any of the distinctions you do - they're against amnesty for other reasons, including Xenophobia, and by THEIR standards, Reagan is on the wrong side.

Not once are you likely to hear at a tea party rally against amnesty, the speaker say "now, if we had higher employment, unstrained social services, I'd be for it, but not now'.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
But how to pay for that war? He couldn't write the check out of the government treasury, the act would be caught and a crime. And that's where the nasty stuff comes up - whether rumored 'cuts' of drug smuggling the CIA allowed in exchange for large sums, or the fact Iran wanted to buy missiles that were also illegal to sell - and which could also let Reagan get our Iranian hostages lest he have the political hit of them as Carter had.

Now, the connection starts to Lebanon: to make these sales, not wanting them exposed, Reagan used Israel as the middle-man in the early days. So you have here Israel serving the request of its one good friend in the world, the most powerful nation in the world whose number 1 foreign aid recipient was Israel, the Security Council member who would veto all those resolutions and protect it at the UN, the request to sell missiles to Iran.

But, now, the President of the United States had just put our national security in danger by giving another nation 'blackmail' material, as it had participated in an illegal activity.

And so Reagan 'owed' Israel for their help - and Israel's interest was to invade Lebanon.

Now, this gets to some speculation as to how much Israel's role on the illegal missile sales might have influenced Reagan's willingness to send US Marines into Lebanon with the Israelis to help them. But it's reasonable to suspect it - and regardless, it's clear the inappropriate incentives were there. And this resulted not only in the US participating in a very dubious Israeli act - but Lebanon resisted with the killing of 249 US Marines with a bomb. At this point, Reagan quickly withdrew, again avoiding the 'bad politics' of staying.
.

Total BS. The MNF including USA was put there at behest of Saudi lobby because Israel was about to wipe out the PLO in Lebanon once and for all.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
You can think whatever makes you happy. The OP asked a question, I provided an answer.
The Iran-Contra scandal essentially went away because the people supported the contra's (as opposed to the usual group of idiots in DC). The public did not approve of how they were funded.
I guess the best thing about Reagan was watching the stupid leftist media and other leftist groups agonize over how to bring him down, and yet fail miserably. They tried every single day to bash him on TV, provide nothing but negative coverage, tell the voters how bad he was, only to get crushed again when election time rolled around.
He was not called "the great communicator" for nothing. He was able to convey ideas to the general public very effectively, and the media could not stand the fact that he could do that without needing them.
I never denied the Great Prevaricator's ability to snow the American public. President Reagan could take a band of drug-dealing reactionary Somozista butchers and present them as the Washingtons, Jeffersons and Franklins of Nicaragua with such heartfelt sincerity that you still believe it.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
To be fair, though, note the difference between your position based on those reasons, and the views of the anti-amnesty crowd.

That crowd isn't making any of the distinctions you do - they're against amnesty for other reasons, including Xenophobia, and by THEIR standards, Reagan is on the wrong side.

Not once are you likely to hear at a tea party rally against amnesty, the speaker say "now, if we had higher employment, unstrained social services, I'd be for it, but not now'.

True. Another reason I'm not sure it's a great Idea is these immigrants seem not to be politically active in their own countries (mexico mainly) to change things for the better. I mean Mexico is a right wing paradise. Whites run the place and you get nothing no loans no jobs etc unless you're in the right/white cliq. Can we expect same indifference?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Total BS. The MNF including USA was put there at behest of Saudi lobby because Israel was about to wipe out the PLO in Lebanon once and for all.

If you're right, and it's plausible you are, it doesn't change pretty much anything I said about the history of Israel playing that role with Iran and the bad position it put us in as a result.

It just adds an important part of the rest of this history of the invasion of Lebanon. Our support for the Saudis from Nixon/Kissinger to the Bush family's long ties is its own topic.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
True. Another reason I'm not sure it's a great Idea is these immigrants seem not to be politically active in their own countries (mexico mainly) to change things for the better. I mean Mexico is a right wing paradise. Whites run the place and you get nothing no loans no jobs etc unless you're in the right/white cliq. Can we expect same indifference?

I watched a great documentary on a murder case in Mexico exposing a terrible justice system (we should be proud), but some dark humor was when I watched a suspect asked to describe the murderers of someone in Mexico City, and pretty much his entire description of a guy was that he had 'brown skin'.

As for being politically active - I'm not too well informed on Mexican politics, but the decades-long monopoly in government of one party seems broken in recent years.

When there was a close election, there was massive protest in the streets, IIRC.

While there are still huge problems there with all those things including concentration of wealth (it says something for the richest guy in the world to be from small, poor Mexico), they were a lot more involved against the political problems then than our own country was in addressing the wrongful awarding of our presidency in 2000, in which most took a 'it's better not to talk about it and just pretend it was ok' position.

At least our president's brother wasn't implicated in assassinating his main opponent - our president's brother (Neil Bush) was merely involved in causing the Savings and Loan scandal.:)
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
If you're right, and it's plausible you are, it doesn't change pretty much anything I said about the history of Israel playing that role with Iran and the bad position it put us in as a result.

It just adds an important part of the rest of this history of the invasion of Lebanon. Our support for the Saudis from Nixon/Kissinger to the Bush family's long ties is its own topic.

Well when Saudi can cripple US economy as leader of OPEC and all the petro dollars washed back in through powerful contractors you got to walk a tightrope between Ideological Israeli support and monetary Saudi support. That's that happens when we have no energy policy.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Well when Saudi can cripple US economy as leader of OPEC and all the petro dollars washed back in through powerful contractors you got to walk a tightrope between Ideological Israeli support and monetary Saudi support. That's that happens when we have no energy policy.

Jimmy Carter:

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" —except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.

The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood —which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel— to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.

The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history...

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems —wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

Ronald Reagan:

'Tear down those solar panels on the White House!'

Bushes, Texas oil industry insiders and longtime Saudi partners, you have to be kidding.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
So you're blaming the crack outbreak on the war on drugs, rather than a lack of effective law enforcement and weak sentencing guidelines for drug dealers?

I blame the crack outbreak on the CIA, under direction from Reagan's White House (in this case, most likely former CIA director and then-current Vice President, GHWB).
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Why? Because he was an extremely convincing liar, telling people what they wanted to hear, and because his PR team could spin a turd into a truffle. Like this-

http://www.kirktoons.com/june_2004/cartoons.html

Now that his presidency is well behind us, the right has eulogized him into the stuff of legend and myth. It's so bad that they rave about Obama for doing the same things as Reagan wrt strategic arms control. Ronnie's convenient memory is apparently contagious.

His greatest accomplishment wasn't in forcing the Soviets to change, a hogwash proposition, but in recognizing that they had, and in over riding his own advisors to accept part of what Gorbachev proposed at Reykjavic. Those proposals were even more sweeping than the agreements that were finally made, and Gorbachev basically threatened to implement the Soviet side unilaterally if the US wouldn't agree. An incredible PR dilemma...

Much to his credit, Ronnie found the right answer.
 

Generator

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
793
0
0
What was the right before Reagan? Just beat up fat kid under 30 years of 'libruh' Congress. Sure they had some President, but the Gipper? Golly he brought "Morning to America" again. He made it alright to think the way they think. Barbarous thinking that it was, at least they didn't need to feel ashamed no more. Liberating, fucking liberating!

The white man such a gloomy guss. As if they had real problems back then. Morning in America...the imagery of it, hell just saying it. Make me smile the right wing can't live without that hokey shit.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Why is Obama a hero to the left :)

He's not. He's kinda like Clinton- more of a Republican than we'd like, but not a rightwing sockpuppet, either....

He'll never have to apologize to Limbaugh to hold his base, bet on that.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Pretty good read by Liberal Peter Beinhart for those who thinks Reagan was some hawk/warmonger.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again_ronald_reagan?page=full

Little snip
No, actually, you're not. Today's conservatives have conjured a mythic Reagan who never compromised with America's enemies and never shrank from a fight. But the real Reagan did both those things, often. In fact, they were a big part of his success.

Sure, Reagan spent boatloads -- some $2.8 trillion all told -- on the military. And yes, he funneled money and guns to anti-communist rebels like the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan mujahideen, while lecturing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. But on the ultimate test of hawkdom -- the willingness to send U.S. troops into harm's way -- Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totaled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war -- the 1986 bombing of Libya -- was even briefer. Compare that with George H.W. Bush, who launched two midsized ground operations, in Panama (1989) and Somalia (1992), and one large war in the Persian Gulf (1991). Or with Bill Clinton, who launched three air campaigns -- in Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), and Kosovo (1999) -- each of which dwarfed Reagan's Libya bombing in duration and intensity. Do I even need to mention George W. Bush?

In fact, Reagan was terrified of war. He took office eager to vanquish Nicaragua's Sandinista government and its rebel allies in El Salvador, both of which were backed by Cuba and the Soviet Union. But at an early meeting, when Secretary of State Alexander Haig suggested that achieving this goal might require bombing Cuba, the suggestion "scared the shit out of Ronald Reagan," according to White House aide Michael Deaver. Haig was marginalized, then resigned, and Reagan never seriously considered sending U.S. troops south of the border, despite demands from conservative intellectuals like Norman Podhoretz and William F. Buckley. "Those sons of bitches won't be happy until we have 25,000 troops in Managua," Reagan told chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein near the end of his presidency, "and I'm not going to do it."

Nicaragua and El Salvador weren't the only places where Reagan proved squeamish about using military force. In February 1988, federal courts in Florida indicted Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega for drug smuggling. With the U.S. media in a frenzy over drug addiction and Noriega virtually imprisoning Panama's elected president, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams -- backed by his boss, George Shultz -- began pushing for a U.S. invasion. Reagan refused and instead tried to convince Noriega to relinquish power in return for having the charges dropped. When the deal fell through, Abrams redoubled his push for war. Reagan, however, adamantly rejected any action that would require him to "start counting up the bodies." It was left to his supposedly "wimpy" successor, George H.W. Bush, to depose Noriega with 27,000 U.S. troops.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Because he could say, "Well... there ya go again" like no other person on earth!

With out question he caused something good to happen. Not sure what it is or was but Tip O'neill found him funny so he had that going for himself...
Oh... and both My Wife and Ann Coulter have had their picture taken with him and each other... and that is a plus...
He married Jane Wyman Before Nancy Davis... I think that was a good thing...
And he starred as a Submariner... so he knows about war stuff..
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Because he could say, "Well... there ya go again" like no other person on earth!

Which, as a reminder, came from a debate where Carter brought up Reagan's historical opposition to Medicare, and Reagan used the line - which he'd been saving since a practice debate for great effect - to counter the point, which it did, but the point happened to be correct - Reagan implied he would not cut Medicare, and then as President quickly pushed a cut to Medicare, IIRC. Another example of his 'spokesman' win a debate ability used for wrong.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Mainly because of ending the cold war and cleaning up Carter's mess. People's lives greatly improved during the Reagan years like no other time before. That and his staunch defense of the freedoms America stands for.

Staunch defense of freedoms? It was the most corrupt administration of all time.

More accusations and more convictions than any other admin in history...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,754
6,766
126
Which, as a reminder, came from a debate where Carter brought up Reagan's historical opposition to Medicare, and Reagan used the line - which he'd been saving since a practice debate for great effect - to counter the point, which it did, but the point happened to be correct - Reagan implied he would not cut Medicare, and then as President quickly pushed a cut to Medicare, IIRC. Another example of his 'spokesman' win a debate ability used for wrong.

Reagan resonated with Americans because both he was and they are stupid. Like calls to like.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Reagan resonated with Americans because both he was and they are stupid. Like calls to like.

If you could animate him he'd win in a landslide today. IMO only his economic policies didn't bear fruits for everyone. But really - that's no different from Clinton or Obama today, both deceivingly right wing economically. Least Reagan talked of preserving SS for future gens instead of setting up a secretive commission to figure out how he's going to cut it like Obama has to take heat off him or slash welfare like Clinton did.