Huh? Fiscal conservatism? Where? Emptying the treasury and lowering taxes is fiscal teenagerism. Republicans are now all about "don't tax and spend big".

tipcat wrote:With Bush, we have all the plop plop fizz fizz of fiscal and social conservativism, but with none of the economic relief.

Marlowe wrote:Huh? Fiscal conservatism? Where? Emptying the treasury and lowering taxes is fiscal teenagerism. Republicans are now all about "don't tax and spend big".

This may be intentional. Run up the deficits so high that they reach crisis levels. Then the alternatives are moderate tax hikes or huge spending cuts, and they're betting that people will accept huge spending cuts. Grover Norquist said that he doesn't want to abolish government, he just wants to reduce it to the size where he can drag it in the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. Perhaps this is the quickest way to get there.

The French philosopher Alain badiou talks about the neo-liberal era (seventies>>) as the "Reformation." This seems so apt to me. Most of us have been living in reactionary times all our life. When I was a kid reading Mad Magazine and listening to DK (I had a good older brother) I was sure no US president would be worse than Reagan. What a shitshow.

Shit, I remember this thread. Back when it was hard to figure out who was the worse president. Throw into the equation those bullshit signing statements, refusing to immediately call for a ceasefire in Lebanon, along with 17 more months of the same dishonesty, incompetence, etc., and...

Congratulations, Ronald Reagan! You are now the second worst postwar American president! If only he could have lived to see it.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Congratulations, Ronald Reagan! You are now the second worst postwar American president! If only he could have lived to see it.

The writing was on the wall in neon letters, legible even to a man that had lost his mind.

I have voted Bush, but Regan sure does have a lot to answer for. Bush II's ascendency owes that adminstration everything.

Consider a few things:

The obvious is that had Bush's dad not been VP and P, Bush II would still be running failed companies. Nepotism happened. W likes to talk about being a "Washington Outsider" but when you had a key to the Whitehouse for 17 of the last 25 years, you're about as inside as it gets.

Bush's cabinet is a damn timewarp in effect.

Regan formed the first real true Republican/Evangelical bond. That was some serious road paving.

And subtley, but most important of all, Regan made America feel OK about being selfish.
I point straight to him when I consider the sense of entitlement that US citizens have. The most telling thing is the repal of the Estate Tax.
"Taxin' people for dyin' is just *wrong*!" say the detractors.
What, being able to die with $2m in the bank tax free isn't enough? The idea behind the estate tax was to prevent mini monarchies from sprouting up. Also, when people get that rich, it's with *our* roads, *our* airwaves and labor trained in *our* schools. Give something back!
If Jr. can't make it on the $1m you left him, he deserves to be broke.

Even though this tax affects .02% of the country, people are afraid that it might get them one day. After all, they are probably going to be filthy rich one day, right?
My favorite stat is that 20% of all Americans think they are in the top 1%.

In my mind, a slow shift occured starting in 1980. There was no longer any pride in being Middle Class. That made a spoiled, rich, prick, C student from Texas (actually New England) a suitable choice to run the free world.
It's also a reason why Jimmy Carter is often looked at as the Best Ex-President ever. People are looking back on that guy and saying, "wow, I'm not so sure about his 4 years, but ever since he left office he's put his money where his mouth is."

I used to think that the best way for the Dems to get back in the game was to be moderate. I don't think that way anymore. It will be hard, but they need to restore the dignity of being Middle Class, and make that socioeconomic status an honorable and acheivable goal.

Regan may have redefined what a successful life is, but if we're lucky, all of the crap that Bush II is responsible for might swing us back to normalcy after 28 years. One can hope.

-A

Reagan did a lot that I'm not a fan of, but at least he seemed to actually believe in the idea of small government and, as has already been pointed out, agreed to raise taxes once the need became obvious. He also was by no means a social conservative; nor did he try to cynically manipulate those who are for electoral success as Bush/Rove have done so well. And though Reagan was, and still is by some, castigated as being not too bright, he was light-years ahead of Dubya as the 2003 book, Reagan: A Life in Letters , demonstrates. He was also - having been an actor in Hollywood probably helped - not at all intolerant of homosexuality.
Bush, on the other hand, has combined the worst aspects of pretty much everything: record deficits, tax cuts for the rich, pandering to the most extreme intolerance, complete incompetance in the execution of the war in Iraq, toleration/embrace of torture as a legitimate information gathering method, abuse of civil liberties, ignoring constitutional checks and balances on Executive power, increasing subsidies to corporations while preaching the virtues of the "free market"... The list goes on and on. Rolling Stone a few months ago had an article entitled, "The Worst President in History" and I absolutely agree; Buchanan, Johnson, Harding, Reagan had nothing on this guy.

Though having spent some time in Central America, Andrew, I have to say that not all people there view Reagan negatively. While in Nicaragua I, in fact, met quite a few people who were none too happy with the Sandinistas and thought that, while far from perfect, the Contras (who, contrary to popular belief, were not even a majority made up of ex-Somoza National Guards, included many Indigenous people fighting against forced-communalization and even one ex-Sandinista higher up horrified at Cuban and Russian dominance of the post-revolution government) were fighting for a worthwhile cause. I even met one guy who's friend had named his two sons Ronald and Oliver after Reagan and North. An interesting visit it certainly was...

Bush, hands down. During the Reagan years I was aged 8-16 and what I remember most was the nuclear threat. But I don't recall the Reagan administration milking that threat as much as Bush/Cheney milking this terror business.

In my book at least.

1000s of Soviet nukes > Terrists

I wasn't an adult in the 80s so maybe I should talk to my parents for some Reagan years perspective on the nuke threat.

Also, I have been laid off four times since 2000. I know it's kind of dumb to blame a pres for something like that so take that as you will. I feel like there is NO job security anywhere these days.

BUSH=CRAPPIER

I dunno, but the whole thing where Reagan refused to address the insane AIDS
problem of his era was pretty fucking lame. Lame as an administrator, lame
as a father and lame as a human. It just seems to me that refusing to even
say 'hiv' or 'aids' indicates far more personal problems then what W. can
muster. Though it seems plain that W. has serious problems with how he
perceives race, he hasn't yet forsaken an entire class of people as vigorously
as Reagan did.

I gotta vote Reagan right now, though in 10 years my tune might change...

Incornsyucopia wrote:He was also - having been an actor in Hollywood probably helped - not at all intolerant of homosexuality.

This is a quibble, because i agree with the majority that Bush is way worse than Reagan, but how do you figure? It took Reagan a long time to even acknowledge the AIDS crisis in the US, and my impression was always that it was because of the notion that it was a "gay disease."

DrAwkward wrote:

Incornsyucopia wrote:He was also - having been an actor in Hollywood probably helped - not at all intolerant of homosexuality.

This is a quibble, because i agree with the majority that Bush is way worse than Reagan, but how do you figure? It took Reagan a long time to even acknowledge the AIDS crisis in the US, and my impression was always that it was because of the notion that it was a "gay disease."

I believe he never even said the words 'hiv' or 'aids' during his presidency. He
very well could have during a personal conversation...

...brb. Checking my 'facts'. Been a long time...

...k. He first addressed the AIDS epidemic in October 1987. I'm searching for
the translated speech right now. So, as it stands, Reagan allowed the AIDS
epidemic to go on for about seven years without a gov response.