February 7, 2012

"Profs Criticized for Insufficient Love of Reagan."

Hmm.

75 comments:

edutcher said...

Greatest?

No, but in the top 10 certainly, simply for taking down the USSR.

Dead Julius said...

Americans rate Ronald Reagan as the greatest president...

That is some strange propaganda. It's right there in the first sentence of the "Young America's Foundation" piece (isn't that grammatically incorrect?), right next to a chart that says that Bill Clinton was rated better by Americans.


Thanks to the propaganda machine, some people actually believe we had piece and prosperity under the Serial Rapist In Chief.

(and, yes, it's a very apt metaphor...)

NYTNewYorker said...

Bill Clinton....yeah, sigh.

Jay said...

Reading the comments over there makes for some hilarious reading.

shiloh said...

"And no, I also failed to rank Reagan in the top 10… he had to give way for minor presidents like Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR."

btw conservatives, Dutch is still dead! Sorry.

Jay said...

he had to give way for minor presidents like Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR."



Well, that is 3.

Then what? Or is that an "argument" in liberal land?

shiloh said...

Thanx, Ron!

Ah, the memories ...

Jay said...

By the way, anyone putting FDR in the "greatest" needs their head examined.

His policies exacerbated the great depression and he clearly acted outside of the constitutional limits placed on his office. Not to mention instutionalizing the coming default of America debts with the Social Security Ponzi scheme.

It would be more appropriate to rate him in the top 5 worst Presidents.

Robert Cook said...

Correlation is not causation. Reagan did not bring down the Soviet Union. The USSR collapsed due to its own internal instability, as every empire does, sooner or later.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...That is some strange propaganda. It's right there in the first sentence of the "Young America's Foundation" piece (isn't that grammatically incorrect?), right next to a chart that says that Bill Clinton was rated better by Americans..."

The chart represents college professors grading, not representative of the electorate.

shiloh said...

Indeed, the Soviet Union imploded from within, the framework of (40+) years of U.S. foreign policy.

rsb said...

The USSR took down itself.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I remember well how liberals admired the Soviets and kept insisting how the West should just accept their eventual domination.

Now the tune is, well it would never have made it anyway.

Robert Cook said...

"Now the tune is, well it would never have made it anyway."

Rather, the tune is: every empire collapses eventually.

Dead Julius said...

@Hoosier Daddy -

The chart represents college professors grading, not representative of the electorate.

Oh I see that now. It's not clear at all. If you put a chart on a piece, it should apply to your main premise. Then put another chart in if you want to show a distinction.

William said...

Some time back there was a survey of English historians. They were asked to name the greatest Prime Minister of the 20th century. Their choice: Clement Atlee. It speaks for itself......Time diminishes the stature of Democrats. Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, and soon, FDR have seen their reputations go down several notches. Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, and, now, Reagan have seen their reps increase substantially with the passage of time.

caseym54 said...

Looking several links deep into the underlying Gallup poll, and noting that recent presidents get enormous bumps (Clinton, GWB, GHWB, Truman and Carter(!)), I have call Chronic Perspective Loss.

Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, both Roosevelts and now Reagan, fine. But Truman, who left office more despised than Nixon? Carter for gawdsakes? Clinton who was only better than mediocre? Even the disaster Lyndon Johnson has a better claim.

And poor Gerald Ford not even listed although Nixon is.

MadisonMan said...

Reagan did not bring down the Soviet Union. The USSR collapsed due to its own internal instability, as every empire does, sooner or later.

Give Reagan credit for being in the right place at the right time, and for doing things that helped speed the collapse.

shiloh said...

"Time diminishes the stature of Democrats."

Indeed, as Truman had a 22% job approval Feb. 1952 and is now ranked 7th greatest president by historians.

Dutch is ranked 8th by the latest poll.

edutcher said...

Lefty history,

The USSR went down as a result of 40 years of US policy, not because Reagan engaged them in an arms race that destroyed them, but the New Deal policies killed the Depression.

Suuuure.

PS s/b peace, not piece - although that works for Willie, too.

PPS Diogenes looked at MadMan, blew out his lamp, and went home.

shiloh said...

Regardless of your current fantasies edutcher, Reagan is still dead.

But on the bright side, you now have mittens! to lead you to the promised land.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
The USSR collapsed due to its own internal instability, as every empire does, sooner or later.


The USSR was an "empire" in the 20th century?

Really?

No mention of your preferred governance structure, communism in the fall.

Funny that, huh?

Matthew said...

"Regardless of your current fantasies edutcher, Reagan is still dead."

Camelot is dead too, but it gets trotted out routinely to inspire the faithful.

... Was that too harsh?

machine said...

President Reagan would not even win the nomination in 2012...he would be a RINO....

Matthew said...

"President Reagan would not even win the nomination in 2012...he would be a RINO...."

Because, Romney? Oh, wait.

shiloh said...

"... Was that too harsh?"

No, as I'll trade a Dutch deflection for your JFK deflection.

Usually conservatives resort to FDR whining deflections, but JFK is acceptable, too. :D

William said...

Truman, what with his support of loyalty oaths and strong, if belated, anti-Communisn was not loved by the left. I was just reading a collection of essays by Murray Kempton, one of the esteemed elders of the American left. In one essay, he compares Truman with Henry Wallace and speculates upon what a better world it would have been had FDR chosen Wallace as his running mate. The increase in Truman's stature is another example of a conservative President increasing in stature after he leaves office.

Matthew said...

"No, as I'll trade a Dutch deflection for your JFK deflection.

Usually conservatives resort to FDR whining deflections, but JFK is acceptable, too. :D"

Meh. I never understood why FDR got so much buzz. He basically took some of Hoover's ideas and cranked them up to 11, where Hoover wanted the private sphere to handle the problems, FDR used the power of government. FDR, mediocre to above average.

... a solid B+

William said...

I wonder if JFK's pimping out of a nineteen year old intern will, at long last, lower his reputation among those who called Reagan the Teflon President.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Oh I see that now. It's not clear at all..."

It was pretty clear to me when I read the accompanying article.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Usually conservatives resort to FDR whining deflections, but JFK is acceptable, too. :D.."

JFK is an excellent example of liberals being enamored with the myth versus who the man was. Ironic that liberals revere the man who essentially commited us to a ground war in Vietnam and took us to the brink of nuclear war and worst of all made huge tax cuts.

Matthew said...

"JFK is an excellent example of liberals being enamored with the myth versus who the man was. Ironic that liberals revere the man who essentially commited us to a ground war in Vietnam and took us to the brink of nuclear war and worst of all made huge tax cuts."

So, what you're saying is, President Kennedy would never win the 2012 nomination for Team Blue?

ricpic said...

I really don't see what the descendants of Professor Woodrow Wilson are upset about, given that Reagan was no more than a blip in their ongoing and manifestly successful professorial assault on the benighted and incompetent *ugh* lower orders.l

Shawn L. said...

This reminds me of some music lyrics:

"Heaven forbid, I be criticized.
Heaven forbid, I be ignored."
-One by Alanis Morrissette

n.n said...

There are no mortal gods. Reagan was a good leader, but was also mortal and imperfect. His confrontation and containment of totalitarian regimes was his key success. Unfortunately, in order to carry out his prime directive, he was required to make some undesirable compromises.

We should respect him, but it would be weird to "love" him.

Alex said...

JFK might be able to win the 2012 GOP nomination.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... So, what you're saying is, President Kennedy would never win the 2012 nomination for Team Blue?.."

Pretty much. Heck Truman nuked two Japanese cities and dragged us into the Korean War and somehow his stock is selling high for liberals.

edutcher said...

FDR is still dead, too, but it doesn't stop the Lefties from acting as if everything he did worked when, in truth, almost nothing did.

And the Lefties are still waiting for GodZero to get it right.

shiloh said...

"Time diminishes the stature of Democrats."

Indeed, as Truman had a 22% job approval Feb. 1952 and is now ranked 7th greatest president by historians.


Only because he called Nixon a "shifty-eyed goddam liar". In the same breath, he couldn't wait to tell everybody about Kay Summersby, too.

Class act, ol' HST.

mccullough said...

It's really all about important presidencies.

FDR was President during two major events, the Depression and WWII. He also initiated and oversaw the expansion of the federal government.

Reagan was President during economic turmoils and the U.S. reeling from the 60s and Vietnam. He oversaw the turnaround and the implosion of the Soviets. These are also major events.

Truman, LBJ and W. also had important Presidencies.

It really depends on when you were President and how it turned out, regardless of how much influence the President had.

In this regard, FDR and Reagan were both great Presidents because things worked out well.

Neither of them was half the man of Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln.

themightypuck said...

More than anyone, Gorbachev brought down the USSR by loosening the grip on the Eastern European clients and making it clear the Red Army wasn't in play. Once the dominoes started to fall it was all over. The US military buildup might have been a factor in Gorbachev's calculations but there is no evidence of this that I'm aware of. I suspect the real lucky break was the rapid deaths in succession of 3 of the old guard. Brezhnev died in 82, Andropov in 84 and Chemenko in 85. Totalitarian states have a way of hanging on (look at Cuba or North Korea or China for that matter where they were shooting people in Tianamen square in the same year the Berlin wall fell.)

Seeing Red said...

Correlation is not causation. Reagan did not bring down the Soviet Union. The USSR collapsed due to its own internal instability, as every empire does, sooner or later


What he did do was shake up the intel gatherers tell them to look at things a different way and pushed. Along with Maggie & Pope JP.

Star Wars, one of the best cartoons ever. Gorby Got a light? RR takes out the remote ZAP!

Nathan Alexander said...

Reagan didn't do anything to bring down the USSR?


That's only true if you also claim FDR didn't do anything to stop Hitler because the Nazis just experienced the inevitable collapse of trying to fight the whole world with a limited resource base, and that Lincoln was just in the right place/right time to preserve the Union of the United States.

But honesty, integrity, logic, and consistency aren't the strong points of an ideology whose most advanced thoughts fit on bumper stickers.

The fact is, Reagan did many great things as POTUS, but none of them were things that liberals value.

Lieberals didn't want an economically strong US with self-confidence and innovation leading to increased wealth at all economic levels, a strong military that can defend and expand freedom worldwide, leadership to economic and political freedom for the whole world, and the discrediting of totalitarian socialism/communism.

So of course they don't rate him highly. Reagan was very good for the US and liberty, worldwide and domestic. Those who don't want a militarily and economically strong US or increases in worldwide liberty will naturally dislike Reagan, and attempt to minimize or dismiss his accomplishments.

Hence, derisive comments from Shiloh, Robert Cook, and the other anti-liberty lefties who usually post here.

Seeing Red said...

In this regard, FDR and Reagan were both great Presidents because things worked out well.


Not the social net, $48K per newborn to the debt.

Sofa King said...

Correlation is not causation. Roosevelt did not bring down the Axis Powers. The Axis collapsed due to its own internal instability, as every empire does, sooner or later.

:eyeroll:

Meh. I never understood why FDR got so much buzz. He basically took some of Hoover's ideas and cranked them up to 11, where Hoover wanted the private sphere to handle the problems, FDR used the power of government.

That is the popular myth, but it is not borne out by an examination of the facts. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover's administration, real per capita federal expenditures increased by 88 percent. Under President Roosevelt's administration from 1933 to 1940, just before World War II, they increased by only 74 percent. So to the extent that Roosevelt spent more than Hoover, it was pretty much entirely due to WWII.

shiloh said...

"conservative President"

Yea, that's why Truman desegregated the military when public opinion and military opinion was totally against it.

Robert Cook said...

"Hence, derisive comments from Shiloh, Robert Cook, and the other anti-liberty lefties who usually post here."

There are two errors in this sentence, at least as regards me. One of them is that my comments here regarding Reagan are "derisive." While I certainly think Reagan's presidency deserves derision, my statement that he did not bring down down the USSR is not derision, but a neutral statement of the facts as I see them.

ricpic said...

Cookie and the other lefties can't bring themselves to admit that the Soviet Union's attempt to keep up with Reagan's Star Wars initiative broke it.

Quaestor said...

Robert Cook wrote:
The USSR collapsed due to its own internal instability, as every empire does, sooner or later.

Standard mindless boilerplate. And just what "internal instability" sank the CCCP? In 1981 the standard mindless boilerplate was "Communism is the inevitable destiny of the industrialized West, so we might as well surrender now." Ten years later it was "The Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight" or something similar.

Conventional wisdom is so easy, just parrot the NYTRB editorial and -- voila!-- instant ideological cement.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What was funny about the Star Wars issue were all the leftists claiming it couldn't work, waste of money, etc. But it sure was a sticking point for the Soviets.

I don't even argue Reagans contribution to bringing down the Soviets (Thatcher and Pope John Paul being major players) because the facts bear out.

Robert Cook said...

"And just what 'internal instability' sank the CCCP?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

"In 1981 the standard mindless boilerplate was 'Communism is the inevitable destiny of the industrialized West, so we might as well surrender now.'"

According to whom?

jeff said...

"Regardless of your current fantasies edutcher, Reagan is still dead."

I'm unaware anyone thinks otherwise.

"But on the bright side, you now have mittens! to lead you to the promised land."

only a idiot would confuse Reagan with Romney.

""conservative President"

Yea, that's why Truman desegregated the military when public opinion and military opinion was totally against it."

Oh, I see. You ARE a idiot. If you don't think Truman was a conservative president, then you know absolutely nothing about the man.

shiloh said...

"only a idiot would confuse Reagan with Romney."

No confusion as I was sarcastically stating a fact ie mittens is your nominee.

Idiot indeed!

Matthew said...

"No confusion as I was sarcastically stating a fact ie mittens is your nominee.

Idiot indeed!"

Not yet. At least let us have that cold solace. Not yet.

Robert Cook said...

"What was funny about the Star Wars issue were all the leftists claiming it couldn't work, waste of money, etc. But it sure was a sticking point for the Soviets."

Of course, "Star Wars" was a waste of (our) money, (as so much of our military spending always is) and it was deemed unworkable.

If the Soviets found it a "sticking point," it simply demonstrates they were as easily beguiled by foolishness, paranoia, and fear as we are.

shiloh said...

"Not yet. At least let us have that cold solace. Not yet."

No problem, and please, keep hope alive! :D

Matthew said...

There's always SMOD.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... "In 1981 the standard mindless boilerplate was 'Communism is the inevitable destiny of the industrialized West, so we might as well surrender now.'"

According to whom?.."

I take it you're fairly young or just forgetful.

Nathan Alexander said...

@ Robert Cook:
One of them is that my comments here regarding Reagan are "derisive." While I certainly think Reagan's presidency deserves derision, my statement that he did not bring down down the USSR is not derision, but a neutral statement of the facts as I see them.

Identifying your propaganda as derision is a neutral statement of fact.

Your seeing your own comment as neutral is itself leftwardly-biased.

Robert Cook said...

"... "In 1981 the standard mindless boilerplate was 'Communism is the inevitable destiny of the industrialized West, so we might as well surrender now.'"

According to whom?.."

I take it you're fairly young or just forgetful.


Neither is the case, but, assuming either were the case, what could you tell me to answer my question?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Neither is the case, but, assuming either were the case, what could you tell me to answer my question?.."

Guess it was the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact that caught the entire world, except you, by surprise.

You really do occupy a different realm.

Cedarford said...

edutcher said...
Greatest?
No, but in the top 10 certainly, simply for taking down the USSR.

==============
If we are honest, we have to throw out the simplistic notion that the Great Single Man Bestride the Annals of History alone DEFEATED the Soviet Union...much as we properly reject that Black Messiah "took down" bin Laden. Or Nixon, alone, landed men on the moon.

The defeat and downfall of the Soviet Union was a complicated process of Soviet missteps, and a series of fortunate outcomes and leaders that go from Truman, Churchill, and George Marshall through critical events like Eisenhower and Adenauer strengthening NATO, the West Europe economic miracle of the late 50s and 60s, the 2nd way Euro socialism path that dampened communisms allure, JFK's inspiration to Europe, the true deathblow of Nixon's detente and triangulation strategies, the rise of labor and religious fervor behind the Iron Curtain. Backed by a Helsinki human rights agreement the Soviets got roped into that blocked another Hungary or Prague Spring suppression.
The internal miscues of the Soviets included never being on the forefront of new things created of value because command markets didn't work as well as free markets - and devoting far too much of their wealth to the Red Army, nation-building, military adventurism that gained no wealth to the Soviets.

Reagan was on the tail end, added a few things, and was lucky enough to have a VP that became President that graciously gave Reagan the lions share of the credit when the Wall came down, the CIS replaced the Soviet Union - instead of hogging it for himself.

We also have to be honest and look at Reagan in the long term on domestic matters. While he boosted the US economy, he also set up much of the manufacturing destruction hitting America through Free Trade, the Fiscal mess & Great Recession a generation later with Voodoo Economics. Which will lower his ranking.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"Guess it was the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact that caught the entire world, except you, by surprise.

"You really do occupy a different realm."


Being surprised at the abrupt fall of the Berlin Wall or the disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact is hardly the same as holding the assumption that "Communism is the inevitable destiny of the industrialized West, so we might as well surrender now."

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Communism is the inevitable destiny of the industrialized West, so we might as well surrender now.".."

Whether you believe it or not, it was the prevailing belief of academia as well as the liberal elite here and especially in Europe.

Just look today at an OWS protest and there is no lack of communist imagry and rhetoric on display. Our sitting President admitted in his bestseller he was attracted to radicals and Marxists in college. Two of his inner circle admitted his affinity to communism and another that Mao was her favorite 'philosopher'.

So despite the Soviet's inevitable downfall, their decrepit ideology still thrives among the ignorant who still believe its a better way of life.

Robert Cook said...

That there are many in the West who are now or who have been in the past attracted to Marxism in no way supports the ludicrous (even if only rhetorical) assertion that "In 1981 standard mindless boilerplate" was that "Communism is the inevitable destiny of the industrialized West, so we might as well surrender now."

The claim might have been more fairly made that "among certain academics and others along the leftward extremes of political thought it was assumed that Communism is the inevitable...yada yada yada."

But that's not what was claimed.

(Although, by as late as 1981, I'd bet only a very small cohort of diehards still believed in the inevitability of the triumph of communism in the west.)

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... The claim might have been more fairly made that "among certain academics and others along the leftward extremes of political thought it was assumed that Communism is the inevitable...yada yada yada.".."

That basically was the claim. The so called intellectual elites beloved it quite fervently. I was still hearing the tired tripe in college right before the Berlin Wall came down.

"... That there are many in the West who are now or who have been in the past attracted to Marxism in no way supports the ludicrous (even if only rhetorical) assertion that "In 1981 standard mindless boilerplate" was that "Communism is the inevitable destiny of the industrialized West, so we might as well surrender now.".."

Actually it certainly does. Twenty years after the USSR collapsed and there is no shortage of deluded masses who proudly wave the hammer and sickle and sport Che t shirts demanding and end to free markets.

William said...

A few points of information: Although Truman signed the order desegregating the armed forces, that order was spottily observed. It was Eisenhower who made it a reality. It was also Eisenhower who eliminated the Jim Crow laws in public places in DC. These ordinances had been dropped by Lincoln but re-instituted by Wilson. The intervening Presidents, including FDR and Truman, had let Wilson's ruling stand. Eisenhower actually had a pretty good civil rights record, and the fact that he is not given credit for it, speaks more to the prejudices of liberals than to the prejudices of Republicans.

William said...

Right up until the very end, 20 to 30% of the electorate in Italy and France voted the Communist ticket. Their supports included a huge swath of well informed, well read, forward looking intellectuals.

Robert Cook said...

"...twenty years after the USSR collapsed and there is no shortage of deluded masses...."

Where are these "masses?"

Nathan Alexander said...

@Robert Cook,
Where are these "masses?"

Down the Memory Hole, which you are doing an admirable job of demonstrating.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Where are these "masses?".."

Take a look at your OWS movement. Never a shortage at any anti war protest, hold a WTO conference and they come out like locusts.
Heck even the Obama posters in 2008 were nostalgic of the old Soviet propaganda posters. All they needed was HOPE spelled in Cyrilic to complete the look.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Wait till Castro assumes room temperature. There will be no shortage of the wailing and gnashing of teeth when he's gone. Plenty of Western leftists have cooed over that monster for decades.

Evidently hating America and providing free health care is leftist absolution for a totalitarian state.

Alan said...

While we're on the subject of the Cold War, here's a blast from the past - the 1990 Quote of the Year from Media Research Center's Best of Notable Quotables:

"Few tears will be shed over the demise of the East German army, but what about East Germany's eighty symphony orchestras, bound to lose some subsidies, or the whole East German system, which covered everyone in a security blanket from day care to health care, from housing to education? Some people are beginning to express, if ever so slightly, nostalgia for that Berlin Wall."
-- CBS reporter Bob Simon on the March 16 Evening News.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/notablequotables/bestof/1990/best19-21.asp#quote

Matthew said...

It's interesting that "modern historical perspective" always undermines conservative leaders and victories, yet reinforces liberal leaders and victories.

Robert Cook said...

"It's interesting that 'modern historical perspective' always undermines conservative leaders and victories, yet reinforces liberal leaders and victories."

I guess this just proves Colbert's observation that "facts have a liberal bias."

Robert Cook said...

"Take a look at your OWS movement. Never a shortage at any anti war protest...."

How do you know what the political beliefs are of the myriad folks who appear at OWS or anti-war rallies?

And besides, I thought it was axiomatic among those on the right that the numbers of those attending OWS rallies were pathetically few. How can these scant few be considered "masses?"

Face it...you're reaching. There is no broad support in America today for communism, and such support as exists is noticeably thin when compared with pre-WWII America.

Rightwing ideology is a negative ideology: it cannot be for something, but can only thrive in opposition to a perceived (or invented) "great enemy," be it communism, jihadism, pacifists, or poor people.