If the measure is how much harm their cluelessness and ineptitude caused, George W. Bush's administration was the worst ever. If adherence to the principles established at the Nuremburg war crimes tribunal is the measure, the Bush administration might be the worst too. Bush's only serious rival would be Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, we will never know the full extent of either one's criminality because Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be brought to justice; and because Barack Obama, in a spirit of "forward-looking" generosity, and perhaps also in anticipation of doing more of the same, decided early on that Bush era war criminals would never be called to account. However on the scale of historical villainy, Bush and Nixon are small potatoes. By that measure, the worst administration without a doubt is the one that nowadays receives bipartisan adulation -- Ronald Reagan's.
Like Bush, the Great Communicator was ignorant and lazy. It is therefore unclear how much of the harm done in his name was actually his doing. It is also unclear how much of a role Reaganites played in initiating "the Reagan Revolution." Arguably, it began in the waning days of the Carter administration; incontestably, its basic features were perfected in Britain by Margaret Thatcher's government more than a year before Reagan took office. Nevertheless, it is fair to call Reagan's a "transformative presidency," as candidate Obama did (reportedly to get a rise out of Hillary Clinton). For three decades, it has deformed our politics.
It was the Reagan administration that established the principle that taxes should only go down, the better to assure a permanent fiscal crisis, the better to stifle constructive social spending. It was under Reagan that ways for putting "the Vietnam syndrome" to rest were contrived: finding soft targets with leaders who could be easily demonized; out sourcing tasks that would normally fall on conscripts; funding proxy armies to fight proxy wars, and so on. It was under Reagan too that ways were found to mobilize "populist" and evangelical fervor on behalf of the interests of the super rich, and that "Big Government" - the state's regulatory apparatus -- became "the problem." In countless other ways, it was Reagan who launched the undoing of the New Deal and Great Society - a retrograde process continued by all American presidents ever since.
Reagan's purported role in bringing down the "Evil Empire" was in reality minimal, but he did contrive a substitute, should our military, industrial and national security complex require one, as it did shortly after he left office. The Reaganites were never quite able to launch a war on terror because the facts on the ground couldn't be spun enough to sustain one. But they laid the foundation. Then, when the seeds Reaganites planted in Afghanistan and elsewhere bore poison fruit, the facts became more obliging. It is therefore largely thanks to them that Islamic terrorism was able to take the place of the Red Menace. For scaring people and turning democracy on its head, this new bugbear has proven remarkably useful.
This is bad news at a time when capitalism is in a period of profound turbulence, and as increasingly severe environmental catastrophes loom. Now, more than ever, "we, the people" should be facing reality boldly and imaginatively, not cowering before phantasms. The very last thing we need is more Reaganism.
Reagan rules is a subtler way as well. Before he took office, it was the left that was radical; it sought to transform institutions fundamentally for the better. The right was conservative; its goal was to maintain existing arrangements or, when unavoidable, to modify them as little as possible. Now it is the reverse. The left has become conservative, and the right is radical. This was Reagan's legacy.
Those who nowadays call themselves "conservatives" may blather on about "free markets" and adherence to the letter of the constitution, but their aim -- revealed by what they do, not what they say -- is to take the authoritarian, neo-liberal model of government that the U.S. installed around the world in the twilight of the Cold War and adapt it to conditions at home -- for the benefit of their paymasters, the economic elites who ultimately call the shots. If, in the process, they exacerbate "savage inequalities" and diminish traditional liberties (though not, of course, "the right to bear arms"), then, as in Central and South America decades ago, it's just too bad.
Back in the day, Bertram Gross called Reaganism "friendly fascism." Times have changed largely thanks to Reagan's successes. Crushing the labor movement, an objective of all past fascist movements, is therefore no longer the priority it was. But Gross's description remains apt. The most enthusiastic Reaganites today are radical, nationalist, racist and xenophobic; just like the fascists of old. And because Democrats lack the courage and conviction to stop them, they drag our politics rightward, regardless of who sits in the White House or which party controls Congress.
These circumstances have forced the left or what remains of it into a defensive mode -- struggling, often in vain, to retain as much as possible of the social, political and economic progress gained before the Reagan era began. Not in the Tea Party sense, but according to the real meaning of the word, it has made conservatives of those who would otherwise be struggling to make a qualitatively better world.
For many, Obama, the Rorschach candidate, conjured up hopes of putting an end to this sad state of affairs, putting progress back on the agenda. But, as Reagan's screenwriters might have had him say, "boy, were they wrong!" Under Obama as much as under Clinton or either Bush, Reagan rules.
Thank you, Mr. Levine!
It is absolutely correct to label Reagon, and the current bunch of Republicans as radical and extreme. They are certainly not conservative. It is unfortunate that as they move towards extremism, the Democrats follow them towards the right.
The liberal parties across the world have been constantly afraid of being wedged by divisive issues such as race, and Government regulation, etc. In this way they have paid lip service to the mythological constructs of the extremist right so they could try and play both sides of the fence. It is time for liberals to stand up for what they believe in.
These days there are not many socialists. The basic ideology of liberalism is pragmatic evidence based policy that seeks to remove entrenched disadvantage. Compassion for those who are unwell, or in financial trouble are also core to liberal values. A final core value would be to not believe in the inherent superiority of any particular culture or system of beliefs, and therefore to not interfere in peoples choices, so long as those choices don't impinge on others welfare.
The Democrats need to stop playing the right's game, and tell us the way they see it.
I read a CATO report that said two things - in summation 1) Milton Friedman’s trickle down supply side Reaganomics never intended NO regulation and 2) That Reagan himself came to see the unsustainability toward the end of his terms.
To number 1) - Of course they are backpeddling.
As to number 2) - was Reagan really as senile as we were led to believe? I hate to sound conspiracy (actually I like a conspiracy uncovered) - but in light of the CATO Article - and I would put nothing past the Bush crime family - Preston Bush did after all plan to knock off Roosevelt - was it all just to keep Reagan quite or "disbelieved"? Perhaps we should study everything Reagan said the last 2 years he was in – it might be enlightening.
I take offense to the notion that Obama “wants” or intends to do more of the same as Bush. Lack of breaking through and correcting Bush is a long way from intentionally continuing Bush – is as simply pure conjecture with no basis. Perception only becomes reality if we allow it, if we make it so. 40 years of mess cannot be addressed in 20 months! So I will support him, with continued pressure. Come 2012 I'll evaluate then - not before.
Otherwise good Article.
Q. What was Reagan's message he was sending by starting his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, were the civil rights workers were lynched?
A. That he was going to be the "anti-civil rights" President, which indeed he was, with such fervor.
The reconstruction amendments were ratified to integrate the slaves into the American polity.
The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, etc. were passed 100 years later to make the amendments reality.
That's how long it took to beat back the vicious, crazy, rabid racists who thought and think that America belongs to white people.
After the civil rights movements political wins, and the coming integration of America, no separate facilities, integrated workplaces, restaurants, stores, movies, schools, etc., the white supremacists wanted "their country back" and thus the election of the anti-civil rights candidate, the racist Ronald Reagan.
Without the appeal to the white supremacists, and the vicious reaction from them, Reagan would have been a footnote in history as the second rate actor, subpar governor of Cali. and rukedup human being he was.
And his legacy would have been messing up only California, and not the U.S. and it would have taken longer to move the racists in the Democratic Party over to the Republican Party.
Republicans are now the party of white supremacy, his true legacy.
I remember the impeachment hearings for Iran Contra and the Salvadoran death squads Negroponte ran...and everybody got off the hook to harm America some more.
We keep recycling criminals and Obama is just as guilty with Geithner and Bernanke being rewarded for taking down the economy.
Interesting points on who's radical and who's conservative. All I know is the radical right scares the bejeezus out of me. Unfortunately, it looks as if they are winning;
I refer you to this HuffPo blog:
Washington's Deficit Games
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-choate/washingtons-deficit-games_b_679011.html
Particularly true if you consider that he had severe Alzheimer his last two years.
At one point looking out the window at a tree, and swearing that it was a penguin.
Reagan was too old to be President. McCain would have been even older after eight years.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20587
Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable.
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263
The only thing that I can think of that Obama can admire about Reagan, is that people might have been more relaxed and secure in his time. This would be largely due to an economic recovery that occurred during Reagan's period, and perhaps his always telling America how good they were. Nevertheless, perhaps he feels like invoking feelings from that period without thinking much of Reagan or his Government.
BTW. The number of federal employees increase by 8% under Reagon, as did the federal deficit, moving the US from the world's number 1 creditor nation to the world's number 1 debtor nation.
Like Bush, Reagan often put the good of the Republican party above the good of the country. They may not have been aware enough to tell the difference.
Unions made sense 75 years ago, when a relatively small number of corporations -- oil and coal companies, steel producers, car makers -- controlled a vast segment of the work force and when government was a comparatively anemic enterprise.
In recent decades, however, as technology has reshaped the economy, more and more Americans have gone to work for smaller or more decentralized employers, or even for themselves, while government has exploded in size and influence.
The last hold of Unions is government employees, and that is destructive to America.
It's not so much that they made sense back then, but they had a much greater capability of organising, and exercising power. In particular, Unions in essential industries like Oil, or power are always vastly more powerful than unions like a shop assistant's union.
And, he had little or nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin wall and the demise of the USSR.
He was pretty good at reading scripts that his handlers wrote for him - all that practice with his roles in those "B" movies he was in helped him with that, no doubt.
Margaret Thatcher summed it up pretty well: Poor dear, he had nothing between his ears.
just a few Radical ideas:
-small government will prevent BP gulf disasters
-small government can deal with huge disasters
-small government can counter the special interest of huge corporations
-unregulated companies will sacrifice profit over the public good
-for profit health care will lower health care costs
- Small Government is actually achieved by slashing services domestically, and increasing spending on the military, whilst going into debt to pay for it.