ext_274066 ([identity profile] chessdev.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2011-02-09 06:56 am
Entry tags:

The GOP's selective memory on Ronald Reagan

The GOP's selective memory on Ronald Reagan

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
As we mark the centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth, one of our major political parties has become imbued with the Gipper's political philosophy and governing style. I mean the Democrats, of course.

Ronald Reagan: Actor, president, statesman

The Republican Party tries to claim the Reagan mantle but has moved so far to the right that it now inhabits its own parallel universe. On the planet that today's GOP leaders call home, Reagan would qualify as one of those big-government, tax-and-spend liberals who are trying so hard to destroy the American way of life.

Some Republicans, I suppose, might be so enraptured by the Reagan legend that they are unaware of his actual record. I hate to break it to Sarah Palin, but Reagan raised taxes. Often. Sometimes by a lot.

When he took office as governor of California in 1967, the state faced a huge budget deficit. Reagan promptly raised taxes by $1 billion - at a time when the entire state budget amounted to just $6 billion. It was then the biggest state tax increase in history. During Reagan's eight years in Sacramento, the top state income tax rate increased from 7 percent to 11 percent. Business and sales taxes also soared.

When Reagan moved into the White House, he brought with him a theory that critics derided as "voodoo economics" - the idea that the way to balance the budget was to lower taxes, not raise them. Reagan quickly pushed through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a tax cut of about $264 billion. Republicans seem to rank this event alongside Columbus's discovery of the New World as one of the great milestones in human history.

What eludes the GOP's selective memory is that Reagan subsequently raised taxes 11 times, beginning with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. All told, he took back roughly half of that hallowed 1981 tax cut. Why? Because he realized that the United States needed an effective federal government - and that to be effective, the government needed more money.

Republicans laud Reagan's unshakable commitment to smaller government. Yet federal employment rolls grew under his watch; they shrank under Bill Clinton. Reagan had promised to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, but he didn't. Instead, he signed legislation that added to the Cabinet a new Department of Veterans Affairs.

On social issues, Reagan advocated a federal ban on abortions, the legalization of organized prayer in the schools and an end to court-ordered busing to achieve racial balance. He accomplished none of this. In his personal life, by all accounts, Reagan was a live-and-let-live kind of guy. He did, after all, spend much of his adult life as a denizen of - cover your ears, Republicans - evil Hollywood.

None of this is to suggest that the patron saint of modern American conservatism was some sort of flaming liberal, just that he was a pragmatist who respected objective reality. In a big state or a big country, big government was a given. When taxes needed to be raised, the thing to do was raise them.

Even though Reagan knew that ideology had its limits, I don't doubt that he truly believed the ideology he espoused. His biggest impact on domestic politics was that the center of gravity shifted to the right - enough, in fact, that what once were extreme views have become orthodox.

Democrats sound and act almost like Reaganites. It was Clinton, remember, who balanced the budget and ended welfare "as we know it." President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class, and Democrats couldn't even manage to reverse tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that might have made even Reagan blush. Obama based his health-care package on Republican ideas - including the individual mandate, which had been proposed by conservative think tanks and implemented by Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has lost its mind. The GOP argues for deep across-the-board budget cuts of a kind that Reagan ultimately rejected. Party leaders denounce the belief that government can do any good for anybody as "socialism."

Here's a quote that might have come from a Democrat during last fall's tax-cut debate: "We don't seek to aid the rich, but those lower- and middle-income families who are most strapped by taxes and the recession." In fact, Ronald Reagan said those words in 1983, when he was arguing for tuition tax credits. Remind me: Who are the Gipper's true heirs?

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020704538.html


[chessdev]  So when you hear cries of "Socialism" and "Big Government"  from the same people who post images of 'Thanks Dutch'  and proclaim Reagan as one of the greats ... remember this.

This is also one of the reasons I get annoyed at all these cries of "Socialism" from the conservatives out there about Democrats and Obama --- who implemented a good number of Republican ideas,  as well
as those who talk about the Economic propsperity Reagan gave us as a "counter-point" to Obama...

Most of the arguments along these lines strike me as fairly revisionist -- and thus dishonest or disingenuous.   Why exactly do we hear people proclaiming Reagan's greatness....without those same
people remembering he raised taxes, increased government, and did massive deficit spending?

Or are things "good for the economy" ONLY good when a Republican does it?  Thoughts?

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:27 am (UTC)(link)
Weeee!

Image

Re: Say what?

[identity profile] geezer-also.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:28 am (UTC)(link)
Oh is that what the pundits are referring to when they say Obama is Reganesque? :P

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:28 am (UTC)(link)
You really really need to re-study the era. The Republicans certainly were not the ones saying that the USSR was here to stay and we just need to accept it.

Re: Bullshit:

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:29 am (UTC)(link)
Who was President in December 1991? You do realize that the USSR made it through the entirety of Reagan's term intact? And that the Soviet Union's disintegration was due to trying to maintain a global empire with the military eating 80% of its budget, not due to the United States, which the USSR would have walked right over at that point in a conventional war, eh?

And frankly, I've read those editorials by George Will and other concerned members of the Conservative movement. Sorry, the whole "Always at War with Eastasia" bit doesn't work with me.

Re: Say what?

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:29 am (UTC)(link)
Ron Reagan has bumbled so many of his claims from the era and said things provably false yet his other son who hadn't screwed up in his recollections has all of Reagan's doctors on his side.

Ron Reagan is still mad about being left next to nothing in the will.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:30 am (UTC)(link)
Actually the ones who believed Moscow's party line the most were the Far Right. They got a massive dose of egg on their face when the USSR disintegrated and pretended they never did believe this.

Re: Bullshit:

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:30 am (UTC)(link)
Oh, it's gonna be one of these arguments again.

Stop with the military lecturing. Seriously, just stop.

OK, then:

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:31 am (UTC)(link)
You're willing to believe Obama's not a US Citizen but not that Reagan had Alzheimer's even though he very much couldn't remember his lines in the end of his second term. Sure.

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:32 am (UTC)(link)
You know most people from that era are still alive, right?

So you can drop the "I read an article about it and am an expert on what you believed during that era" act.

Re: OK, then:

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:33 am (UTC)(link)
What? What? You're just making shit up now about me and Reagan.

I'm backing out of this thread because there's no sense in talking with you if you're going to be this daft.

Sorry, I should know better than to use facts:

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:34 am (UTC)(link)
Because you never refute any of them.

This has been acknowledged since the end of the Cold War. SDI was a sci-fi movie produced by Ed Woods. It would not have erased that in the 1980s the post-Nam Malaise meant that the Soviets would have drubbed the USA all the way to the Pyrenees, at which point Cerenkhov radiation would have lit the USSR up at night.

And again, who was President when Yeltsin dissolved the USSR in December 1991?

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:42 am (UTC)(link)
Given that George Will claimed when Reagan left the September 1987 Summit that was when the USA lost the Cold War, I call bullshit. And as usual nothing but ad hominem one and two liners.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:46 am (UTC)(link)
Anybody remember when the INF Treaty was the moment we surrendered the Cold War to the USSR and the Red Hordes would be ruling the USA in the next fifteen minutes?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DD163FF934A25752C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:51 am (UTC)(link)
And anyone remember when we gave arms to that charming and lovely representative of Middle Eastern Freedom! (who was steadily reducing his population in human wave offensives at the time) Ayatollah Khomeini to back the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers?". I'm sure Washington and Jefferson would be honored to be compared to nun-raping mass murderous assclowns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/269619.stm

[identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:51 am (UTC)(link)
Fascinating - I'd like to know what you find out.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:52 am (UTC)(link)
And for that matter anybody remember the last time we de-regulated the savings and loans industry and encountered what happens when "Greed is good?".

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/

Indeed, so much from the Reagan Administration to emulate. Moral surrenders to the Evil Empire, cutting and running from Islamists, selling arms to the Ayatollah......

Re: Sorry, I should know better than to use facts:

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:54 am (UTC)(link)
Sdi was a host of technologies where most of them weren't implemented during the era. It's always been acknowledged that a war would annihilate both nations so don't tell me you're foolish to still believe the soviets would win.

Why do you believe so strongly that using proper nouns is all you need to display a knowledge of history. Because your idea themselves on what occured are just amazingly wrong.

Speaking of Rightie-Tightie Admiration for Reagan:

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 02:54 am (UTC)(link)
Well, Reagan presided over the greatest moral surrender since the Sudetenland, the one that led the USSR to overwhelming victory in the Cold War:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DD163FF934A25752C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 03:25 am (UTC)(link)
Since I actually took the time to read the article you linked to, I recommend you read it as well.

It doesn't say what you're saying it says. The most vocal critic it cited worth any clout was Helms, who stated it may cause us to not be able to defend Europe. The next prominent names was Dole, who supported it, and most others were skeptical the Soviets would actually honor it. The article does try hard to make it seem like there was a solid bloc saying that Reagan goofed. But when you have to cite a group that has mailed out only 300,000 pieces of mail against it, you're not going to get much mileage.

This wasn't very difficult. You should give it a try before gnashing.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 03:25 am (UTC)(link)
That would be "University of Negroes and Communists" Helms?

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 03:45 am (UTC)(link)
Sloppy sloppy sloppy history.

George Will remarked that historians may conclude that this was the administration that lost the cold war. It's attributed to his book "The New Season" which was written itself in 1987. The book itself was more about the Reagan presidency and looking ahead to the 88 election. IT seems extremely unlikely that he'd comment on a current event that had little to do outright with the election so I find the cite dubious.

The only other quote I can find in an internet search has almost the same line verbatim from Will in 1984 about the lack of a response to the Soviets flagrant acts. More than likely he was referencing actions the administration took and not the treaty itself.

Every citation of Will that I've found on the internet goes back to the same cited source which states similar to your statement. So am I to believe you actually read the book and came to the same conclusion this one single possibly faulty reference on the web came to, or am I to believe that in your mad scramble to get criticisms of Reagan you grabbed one that you got on the internet and hyped it.

I'm going to go with, you got your learning on the internet and only care about citing things that are factually nebulous to the argument though may be bluffed into appearing to agree.

[identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 03:47 am (UTC)(link)
That would be "what the fuck are you talking about... stay on subject and stop leaping around when you embarrass yourself... deal with he goddamned issue raised about your shoddy research" Helms.

[identity profile] geezer-also.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 03:50 am (UTC)(link)
Mostly what I found out was that he died in 2005, which explains why I hadn't really heard much about him recently :D If you Google Dr. Gene Scott, there is an amazing amount of stuff.

[identity profile] stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 03:58 am (UTC)(link)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020704538.html

Thanks for mentioning the Washington Post. I'll probably get flamed for this, but to me, it seems like the most centrist and non-biased of the major newspapers I've seen.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-02-10 12:09 pm (UTC)(link)
This was Jesse Helms' grand idea when he used those terms, he was actually a radio broadcaster who developed all these themes, just like the Founder of the so-called "Moral Majority" saw MLK as an agent of the Soviet Union:

Image

Page 5 of 6