Paul Krugman: Don’t Cry for Reagan

Paul Krugman says there's no reason to shed any tears over Reagan's lost legacy:

Don’t Cry for Reagan, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: As the Bush administration sinks deeper into its multiple quagmires, the personality cult the G.O.P. once built around President Bush has given way to nostalgia for the good old days. The current cover of Time magazine shows a weeping Ronald Reagan, and declares that Republicans “need to reclaim the Reagan legacy.”

But Republicans shouldn’t cry for Ronald Reagan; the truth is, he never left them. There’s no need to reclaim the Reagan legacy: Mr. Bush is what Mr. Reagan would have been given the opportunity.

In 1993 Jonathan Cohn ... published an article in The American Prospect describing the dire state of the federal government. Changing just a few words ... makes it read as if it were written in 2007.

Thus, Mr. Cohn described how the Interior Department had been packed with opponents of environmental protection, who “presided over a massive sell-off of federal lands...” that “deprived the department of several billion dollars in annual revenue.” Oil leases, anyone?

Meanwhile, privatization had run amok, because “the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned... Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.” Holy Halliburton!

Not mentioned..., but equally reminiscent of current events, was the state of the Justice Department under Ed Meese, a man who gives Alberto Gonzales and John Mitchell serious competition for the title of worst attorney general ever. The politicization of Justice got so bad that in 1988 six senior officials, all Republicans, ... resigned in protest.

Why is there such a strong family resemblance...? Mr. Reagan’s administration, like Mr. Bush’s, was run by movement conservatives... And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.

In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.

If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be “loyal Bushies.” ...

Still, Mr. Reagan’s misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush’s. As a result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high as ... Bill Clinton... But the key to Reagan’s relative success, I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.

Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress — and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.

Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure its position.

But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it’s the movement, not just one man, that has failed.

_________________________
Previous (3/12) column: Paul Krugman: Overblown Personnel Matters
Next (3/26) column: Paul Krugman: Emerging Republican Minority

Comments

[calmo]

Didn't Bush's own personal biographer dismiss this claim: [darn if I could find google it up, but I think I cam by this delicious factoid right here in River City]There’s no need to reclaim the Reagan legacy: Mr. Bush is what Mr. Reagan would have been given the opportunity. by writing (yes as clearly as Moore did about Kuklow's perfect fit as Bush's replacement for Sec Treasurer Snow) that GWB was 2/3 of a Ronnie? I think the fan club speaks for (ok, at most 2/3 for) itself.

[calmo]

PK, here:In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. lets me know I am just such a tyro cynic.
Imagine the lambs that think these guys were just incompetent officials who were just short of tools and good help, (beset by trying circumstances...including a previous history of performance by predecessors)?
Like I'm doing such a lousy job here as a Bushofficial in the hopes that it goes private, self-regulating private.
I don't think this ideology (catching up to PK's cynicism) has the strength to look even that far ahead. The claims on privatizing SSTF were not for rescuing the country from some crisis in 2042, but for an immediate grab, and an immediate legacy.
This "conservative movement" --is it as coherent and unified as a "movement" (That should put me in the cynicism lead and erase most of the tyro in me)?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/l19krugman.html

Waiting Out a Presidency

To the Editor:

“Department of Injustice,” by Paul Krugman:

I believe that I speak for the majority of Americans when I say that we are angry, and standing by and waiting out the days of this presidency, watching the revelation of corruption and damage into each and every sector of our government, the Constitution ... and the list goes on.

This presidency is a great lesson to Americans who don’t believe that government affects their daily lives of the real impact a leader has on a country in multitudes of ways. And in the end, we are living it.

Aaron Greene
Santa Monica, Calif., March 9, 2007

[maria]

I am not at all comfortable with the idea of smearing Reagan with the evils of Bush II. Reagan could get most of what he wanted and I don't recall his wanting any of the worst of Bush II. He certainly didn't start a full scale stupid war, he didn't turn our Middle East policy over to Israel, and his tax reforms, as I recall, were not so obscenely geared to the rich. His persistent popularity is a good indication of his differences from Bush II.

[maria]

Don't know where to put this, so here it is:

Tale of two polls:

1. Iraqis happy
By PETER MARCUS - March 18, 2007
In the midst of a national emotional debate over continued United States military presence in Iraq, most Iraqis believe that life is getting better, according to an opinion poll released yesterday.

Twice as many Iraqis believe that current American-led military operations now under way in Iraq will disarm all militias, reports the poll conducted last month by Opinion Research Business.

Despite startling statistics which indicate that one in four Iraqis have had a family member murdered and that one in four Baghdad residents have had a relative kidnapped, most Iraqis are happier with life.

Of the 5,000 Iraqis surveyed, the majority are optimistic, despite suffering fueled by sectarian violence.

2. A new survey paints a pessimistic picture of Iraqis' confidence in their own government and in coalition forces.

Only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops, while opinion is almost evenly split on whether to have confidence in Iraq's government.

About 86% of those questioned expressed concern about someone in their household being a victim of violence.

More than 2,000 people were questioned. The poll was commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today.

The survey was conducted by D3 Systems.

I suspect that in a situation such as that that prevails in Iraq, you can get about any poll result you want with a bit of skewing.

[anne]

When I find more than what seems a mere handful of conservative Republicans who regret nothing of the last 6 years beyond the Republican loss of control of Congress, then I will agree there is any difference between conservatives now and conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s. What is regretted by conservatives about the last 6 years is not policy but implementation of policy and little enough of even such regret.

[BiJian Feng]

President Bush the ideal conservative? Hardly. You can't get approval ratings of 30% unless you manage to piss off everybody.

The problem with Bush is that he is conservative on some issues (foreign policy, tax cuts) yet very liberal on many others (huge medicare benefit, uncontrolled spending, amnesty for illegals, an open border). He is neither here nor there, which is why he is despised by the left and shunned by the right

[anne]

Please set down reference links when possible, which makes context so much easier to come by.

[BiJian Feng]

Whatever you think about Reagan's policies, he was one of the greatest presidents in our nation's history. Just consider the state of our economy and nation when he took office, compared with our country when he left office.

I recently had this discussion with a friend who is a very liberal history professor (surprise, surprise) at Cal State Pomona. I stated that Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. Even if you believe FDR was the greatest, Reagan can't go below #2, just as FDR can't be anything other than at least #2. He agreed after some thought.

By the way, as for Bush, he ranked Bush as one of the very worst (top 5) presidents ever. I said we have to wait for the outcome of his foreign policy before we can decide, but so far I have him in the bottom 3rd. Comparing Bush to Reagan would be like comparing Carter (the worst president of the 20th century in my opinion) to FDR.

[anne]

Notice, by the way, how whenever a radical-conservative criticizes George Bush for spending, never ever is the criticism related to spending $2 trillion on the war in and occupation of Iraq. Never ever a criticism of the direct $14 billion a month spending on Iraq or the coming $622 billion defense department budget.

Spending is bad bad bad for radical-conservatives, but never ever bad for war and occupation and the military.

[ilsm]

Anne,

The profit skimmed off the $2T is good for the sellers.

War is profitable.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html?ex=1331438400&en=b451250c7648123b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 13, 2007

Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?
By ANTONIA JUHASZ

San Francisco

TODAY more than three-quarters of the world's oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn't always this way.

Until about 35 years ago, the world's oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They are among the world's largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.

Iraq's oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to."

A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq's oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force), which included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq's economy, democracy and sovereignty.

Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president's benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.

The administration has highlighted the law's revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law's many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq's oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.

The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.

The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/l19oil.html

War, Benchmarks and Iraq's Oil

To the Editor:

I didn't think that the Bush administration was capable of appalling me any more than it already has, but "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?," by Antonia Juhasz, proved me wrong.

So one of our vital "benchmarks" for Iraqi progress, a measure by which we determine when to bring home our brave service members, is to allow multinational oil companies to take control of Iraqi oil, thus increasing their already burgeoning profits while reducing the amount of oil revenues available for Iraqi national reinvestment?

Remember those antiwar protesters and their signs that read "No Blood for Oil"? Remember how they were derided as anti-American and antimilitary? It appears that those protesters spoke the truth.

This is just another example of Big Oil's dominance of American foreign and domestic policy, right alongside the administration's refusal to take meaningful action to combat global climate change.

Dan Browning
Decatur, Ga., March 13, 2007

[spencer]

I believe that Krugman is right about the way Republicans run an administration.

But who would have though they would apply this strategy to running a war and the military.

[anne]

"But who would have though they would apply this strategy to running a war and the military."

But, privatisizing the military and war and occupation is precisely in keeping with conservative Republican ieas and policy. This is conservative Republicanism.

[maria]

FDR was most probably the #1 President of the 20th century. I am not sure about Reagan being #2. There is also Harry Truman who ended up very unpopular, but who did great things (Marshall Plan, etc.) and was wise enough to put first rate people in important positions. The Korean War was thrust upon him and he responded well. He had the courage to sack MacArthur regardless of the political cost. Eisenhower and Clinton were lucky Presidents; the times were good and they just let them roll. I can't see Carter as worst by any means. He was unlucky and maladroit but not stupid or evil. There is no competition for the last place in my mind. Bush II is stupid, evil, sleazy, and almost any other disgusting thing you can think of. None come close to his awfulness.

[anne]

Ah, and by the way, the problem with the war in and occupation of Iraq was definitely not execution, but that fact that there was a war and there was and is an occupation. Strategy was never and is not the problem or the point. The problem and point are the needless death and woundings and material destruction and $2 trillion tragically squandered. The problem and the point is that we are still in Iraq and many including the leading Democratci candidate for president intend to keep us in Iraq.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19herbert.html

March 19, 2007

Death of a Marine
By BOB HERBERT

Jeffrey Lucey was 18 when he signed up for the Marine Reserves in December 1999. His parents, Kevin and Joyce Lucey of Belchertown, Mass., were not happy. They had hoped their son would go to college.

Jeffrey himself was ambivalent.

"The recruiter was a very smooth talker and very, very persistent," Ms. Lucey told me in a call from Orlando, Fla., where she was on vacation with her husband and their two grown daughters last week. The conversation was difficult. Ms. Lucey would talk for a while, and then her husband would get on the phone.

"We see him everywhere," Ms. Lucey said. "Every little dark-haired boy you see, it looks like Jeff. If we see a parent reprimanding a child, it's like you want to go up and say, 'Oh, don't do that, because you don't know how long you're going to have him.' "

The war in Iraq began four years ago today. Fans at sporting events around the U.S. greeted the war and its early "shock and awe" bombing campaign with chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

Jeffrey Lucey, who turned 22 the day before the war began, had a different perspective. He had no illusions about the glory or glamour of warfare. His unit had been activated and he was part of the first wave of troops to head into the combat zone.

A diary entry noted the explosion of a Scud missile near his unit: "The noise was just short of blowing out your eardrums. Everyone's heart truly skipped a beat. ... Nerves are on edge."

By the time he came home, Jeffrey Lucey was a mess. He had gruesome stories to tell. They could not all be verified, but there was no doubt that this once-healthy young man had been shattered by his experiences.

He had nightmares. He drank furiously. He withdrew from his friends. He wrecked his parents' car. He began to hallucinate.

In a moment of deep despair on the Christmas Eve after his return from Iraq, Jeffrey hurled his dogtags at his sister Debra and cried out, "Don't you know your brother's a murderer?"

Jeffrey exhibited all the signs of deep depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Wars do that to people. They rip apart the mind and the soul in the same way that bullets and bombs mutilate the body. The war in Iraq is inflicting a much greater emotional toll on U.S. troops than most Americans realize.

The Luceys tried desperately to get help for Jeffrey, but neither the military nor the Veterans Administration is equipped to cope with the war's mounting emotional and psychological casualties....

[ken melvin]

Take a way the manufactured myth and there's not much Reagan left. Take away Meese, Baker, Deaver, and maybe Schultz and there's nothing. America changed the day Reagan took office. A new meaness, a new if you ain't rich you ain't nothingness, a new it's the victim's fault, ... This attitude prevailed thru B1, abated some during Clinton, then came roaring back with B2; saying that it represents the supporters of Reagan and the Bs. Krugman's right. It's the doctrine that is flawed.

[lonesome moderate]

I agree with almost everything Krugman wrote above--the glorification of Reagan is for the most part ridiculous. I will give him credit for one thing, though; when the real world told him that he had made a mistake, then he would respond. He sent the Marines into Lebanon without a real mission (supposedly they were "peacekeepers" in the middle of a civil war), which was idiotic. But, after more than 300 of them were killed by suicide bombers, he simply bailed--they were all withdrawn very quickly after the last attack. Obviously, Bush wouldn't have done that.

[bakho]

Tax cuts, excessive defense spending, abrasive foreign policy. Ticky tacki cuts that negatively impact important agencies and huge increases for defense spending. Iran-Contra implosion. S&L mess (is it paid off yet?). Moving backward on energy policy. Increases in SS payroll taxes. Tripling the national debt.

Wasn't Reagan bailed out in the end by having to get rid of some of the crooks (like Regan, Abrams, Meese, North...) and bring in Howard Baker to run things and right the ship?

Bush II could be fixed by a similar receivership and bringing in Hagel or other half-way decent Republican to babysit junior.

[Barry]

Posted by: BiJian Feng:

"President Bush the ideal conservative? Hardly. You can't get approval ratings of 30% unless you manage to piss off everybody."

Um, elementary school arithmetic tells me that a 30% approval rating means that Bush has pissed off 70% of the American people. That is most decidedly not 'everybody'. After six years of unmitigated corruption, arrogance, incompetancy and failure, about 1/3 of the American people support Bush.

"The problem with Bush is that he is conservative on some issues (foreign policy, tax cuts) yet very liberal on many others (huge medicare benefit, uncontrolled spending, amnesty for illegals, an open border). He is neither here nor there, which is why he is despised by the left and shunned by the right"

Conservative on foreign policy? Have you not noticed his foreign policy? Every frickin' bit of it is radically unconservative - hardcore right-wing - except for serving Israel.

Uncontrolled spending is not liberal - it depends on (1) what is being spent upon and (2) in what manner. Note that the drug program was designed primarily to give as much money to pharmaceutical companies as humanly possible.

Immigration - it's always been a conservative policy to use illegal immigrants as cheap labor. Economically elite conservatives, that is. It's been going on for many decades.

[evagrius]

I've always considered Reagan to be a "happy nihilist", a nihilist who denies any value to the great questions of Life and Death, who dismissed moral questions about economic, social or political equity with a wave of the hand, who invokes emotions at the drop of a hat, and who was content to let money and power be the defining elements of life.
He gave the U.S. a wonderful illusion, allowing it to avoid those questions, questions that had come to the fore a decade or so before his election.
As a result those questions have not been answered, merely postponed, and they've gotten larger, more pressing.
His inheritors still dismiss the questions but now, they're no longer "happy nihilists" but angry ones.

[ken melvin]

Eva - bang on. 'Twas a time when the problems were coming to the fore, Reagan denied them which was just what the people wanted to hear. From this stemmed the blame the victim shtick.

[calmo]

Looks like this thread has become a 'Rate the Presidents' note, but PK was trying to suggest that these Republican actors were groomed and selected by the "conservative movement" --that less emphasis could be put on the office holders.
But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it’s the movement, not just one man, that has failed.
And it is interesting to note that Nixon was groomed and selected by members of that conservative movement that included GWB's grandfather. Not exactly a family movement, but sometimes it's worth listing some of the principal members of that "movement".

[Bruce Webb]

"Just consider the state of our economy and nation when he took office, compared with our country when he left office."

Yes high unemployment and low deficits when he took office, high unemployment and high deficits when he left office. Of course you could give statistics and links. Like this one:
http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp

He inherited 7.18%, he left 5.49% unemployment, okay not a terrible number. The problem is that he drove it to 9.6% in between.

Reagan's second term only is recalled as an improvement when measured against his disasterous first term.

________

And this gives Reagan too much credit:
"He sent the Marines into Lebanon without a real mission (supposedly they were "peacekeepers" in the middle of a civil war), which was idiotic. But, after more than 300 of them were killed by suicide bombers, he simply bailed--they were all withdrawn very quickly after the last attack. Obviously, Bush wouldn't have done that."

It kind of leaves out the fact that after the Marines were in the United States took sides and started shelling Lebanon from the battleship New Jersey.
http://www.liberty05.com/civilwar/civil3.html

At which point those Marines were transformed from putative peacekeepers to legitimate targets of war. They either should have hardened their position immediately or been withdrawn immediately. Instead they were left essentially unprotected. This may have been the most botched military exercise in recent US history, paralleled somewhat by the fiasco that was Grenada.

Two battalions of militarized Cuban construction engineers should have been overrun on the first day considering the forces we put in. That this took as long as it did, that Navy Seals were left unsupported for as long as they were holding out at the Governor General's place, the communication failures, the failures to actual locate and secure the American students. The whole thing was totally FUBAR. If you were paying attention to the details.

Reagan was all surface and no substance. In my opinion one of the worst Presidents we ever had. Unless you were wealthy in which case he was fabulous.

Lets not even get started on the wisdom of selling surface to air missiles to Iranians while simultaneously supplying targeting information for chemical weapon attacks to Iraq. There really is not much about Reagan foreign policy that wasn't botched.

Bitberg cemetary anyone?

___________________________

[maria]

evagrius says...

I've always considered Reagan to be a "happy nihilist", a nihilist who denies any value to the great questions of Life and Death, who dismissed moral questions about economic, social or political equity with a wave of the hand, who invokes emotions at the drop of a hat, and who was content to let money and power be the defining elements of life.

I really wonder what you think Reagan should have done? Most Presidents feel themselves lucky to get through four or eight years without major upheavals and crises. I doubt one can expect them to go out on limbs to solve "the great questions of Life and Death." Come on, be fair and reasonable. He restored the economy after the severe 1980/81 recession, cut taxes in a reasonable fashion, and finally produced the implosion of the USSR. (I don't buy the idea that his policies didn't bring that about.) The "evils" of his Presidency were minor compared to those of Nixon (who let Kissinger drag out the Vietnam war to exercise his skills at "negotiation") and trivial compared to Bush 2. Meese doesn't come close to the skullduggery of the Justice Dept. under Bush 2.

[PSP]

"after more than 300 of them were killed by suicide bombers, he [Reagan] simply bailed--"

And immediately proceeded to invade that danger to the entire western hemispere called Grenada.

[maria]

I forgot to add that the Reagan administration was the first to be headed by a woman as President. Nancy called a lot (most?) of the shots, I suspect, and should go down in History as our first female Chief Executive. LOL.

[lonesome moderate]

I think Reagan's main saving grace was that he was not nearly as competent at being incompetent as Bush has been. He wanted to do a lot of ridiculous things, but because he was such a weak manager he found himself constrained and undermined at every turn by leaks and obstrucionism within the White House. Bush, though, has been ruthless and efficient when it comes to making sure that the people he appoints do what he (and Chaney) want--anyone who doesn't get with the program is quickly fired or marginalized.

[maria]

And immediately proceeded to invade that danger to the entire western hemispere called Grenada.

Well Reagan understood the value of a bit of pretty harmless theater. If only Bush 2 had decided to fight "terrorism" by invading Martinique, think how much better off we'd be.

[evagrius]

maria-

Reagan studiously avoided the real deep political, social and economic problems of that period and that are still with us.

No, I don't think he was capable of "solving" the problems of Life and Death- but he had this tremendous capacity to deny their importance, ( typical of U.S. culture in that it has no "sense of tragedy"- see Unamuno).

It's under Reagan that income inequality began rising, educational achievement declined, and de facto segregation rose.

It's under Reagan that the environmental crisis, which was acknowledged by Carter, was ignored. It's with his presidency that the the U.S. avoided energy conservation. It's with his presidency that the U.S. expanded its gas-guzzling ways with SUV's, urban sprawl, etc;

It's also with his presidency that poverty, ( linked to minority groups), began its slow but sure increase.
It's with his presidency that the rise of obesity, especially among poor people, can be noticed.

It's also with his presidency that the trade and budget deficits increased massively. It's with his presidency that he rise of the credit economy began.

It's also under his presidency that the rise of a rather vicious type of politics, exemplified by talk radio etc;, began.

He's not "personally' responsible for all this, of course. But his lack of focus on the problems and challenges, his denial of their importance and his evocation, through a well-modulated, well trained actor's voice, demeanor and body motions, of a false, cheery "optimism" hypnotized the U.S. into thinking that there were no problems save that of becoming more rich.

[lonesome moderate]

Maria,

Whenever the subject of Latin America or the Muslim world comes up, you often pin a very large part of the blame for these region's problems on American imperialism (your words, not mine!). Why then, do you not consider it a significant part of Reagan's legacy that he was so aggressive about interfering in those parts of the world? Do you truly consider this to be "minor"?

[bakho]

Reagan also ignored the AIDS epidemic early on.

[ken melvin]

Evagrius you good. You da man.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Sorry, but Krugman should stick with economics, his attempt at historical commentary is not so good.

[ig]

BiJian Feng says...
Whatever you think about Reagan's policies, he was one of the greatest presidents in our nation's history. Just consider the state of our economy and nation when he took office, compared with our country when he left office.

"I recently had this discussion with a friend who is a very liberal history professor (surprise, surprise) at Cal State Pomona. I stated that Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. Even if you believe FDR was the greatest, Reagan can't go below #2, just as FDR can't be anything other than at least #2. He agreed after some thought."

what policies? My dog could have quadrupled the deficit and grown the economy.

I watch conservatives eyes glaze over when his name is mentioned. ahhhh...S and L, Iran Contra BCCI. the 91-2 jobless recovery.

It should go down as the most naive administration in history.

"But we all felt better about america?"

Tell it to the Bank!

[ken melvin]

A hundred years ago, when I was 'at university' having a conversion with a Formosan was to have a conversation with a brain washed nut. Today, 'tis true for Taiwan and Hong Kong, two of mankind's greatest disaster areas. Grub and greed be the creed.

[Memory Hole]

"Whatever you think about Reagan's policies, he was one of the greatest presidents in our nation's history. Just consider the state of our economy and nation when he took office, compared with our country when he left office."

Iran Contra fed the Constitution to a paper shredder. No to mention that Iran reversed-engineered the missiles and is currently supplying them to Hamas.

I've heard it said that he would have been impeached except that 1) it was near the end of his term, and 2) he was senile by then anyway.

He would certainly have deserved it. In the history of the US, IMHO, four Presidents have deserved impeachment: Andrew Johnson (it's a great tragedy that his impeachment failed), Richard Nixon (who looks GOOD compared to GWB), Ronald Reagan, and our current clown. Great company; they deserve each other (for instance, they were all racists (except possibly for W, who may merely exploit racism)).

Reagan did have one genuine achivement to his credit; he was willing to cooperate with reformers in the Soviet Union when the right-wing CV said that it was all a charade. This probably helped end the Cold War. That puts him one up on W.

[kthomas]

I'm no fan of Ronald Reagan, but in his defense, he was no racist.

At worst, he was gullible. But he was no racist.

He was a nice old man, but I rather despise the way conservatives whorship his image. They way I despise Democrats doing the same for JFK.

[ig]

Its getting so bad for the cons that they are claiming JFK was supply side conservative.

What do you expect from an administration that has its core economic plan scribbled on a napkin.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18herbert.html?ex=1279339200&en=22332b810284bb75&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

July 18, 2005

An Empty Apology
By BOB HERBERT

The Southern strategy meant much, much more than some members of the G.O.P. simply giving up on African-American votes. Put into play by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon in the mid- to late 1960's, it fed like a starving beast on the resentment of whites who were scornful of blacks and furious about the demise of segregation and other civil rights advances. The idea was to snatch the white racist vote away from the Democratic Party, which had committed such unpardonable sins as enacting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and enforcing desegregation statutes.

The important thing to keep in mind was how deliberate and pernicious the strategy was. Last month a jury in Philadelphia, Miss., convicted an 80-year-old man, Edgar Ray Killen, of manslaughter in the slaying of three civil rights workers - Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney - in the summer of 1964. It was a crime that made much of the nation tremble, and revolted anyone with a true sense of justice.

So what did Ronald Reagan do in his first run for the presidency, 16 years after the murder, in the summer of 1980? He chose the site of the murders, Philadelphia, Miss., as the perfect place to send an important symbolic message. Mr. Reagan kicked off his general election campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, an annual gathering that was famous for its diatribes by segregationist politicians. His message: "I believe in states' rights." ...

[Duder]

I heard Nixon was a pretty bad President.

[fiskhus jim]

BRAVO, Paul!

Once again pointing out the (ought-to-be) obvious to those who are so blind they cannot see.

The poverty of the ideological neocon movement is rooted in it's [parity with organized crime - it is, at most, only cvalid as a response to corrupt government. When the movement becomes a corrupt government - a goal of the Bush family for some 70 years - then it is deprived of any legitimacy and credibility it may have ever had.

[ed]

Timeless debate topic:

Who's stupider: Reagan or Bush, Jr.?

[evagrius]

Who's stupider: Reagan or Bush, Jr.?

Dubya- because Reagan knew the difference between his ego and the persona he projected, ( being an actor).

Dubya can't tell the difference.

[Hederman]

"It's under Reagan that income inequality began rising, educational achievement declined, and de facto segregation rose."

Really? According to the Digest of Education Statistics, educational achievement continued to increase during the 1980's? For some groups, like blacks, the college graduation rate rose even faster.

"It's under Reagan that the environmental crisis, which was acknowledged by Carter, was ignored. It's with his presidency that the the U.S. avoided energy conservation. It's with his presidency that the U.S. expanded its gas-guzzling ways with SUV's, urban sprawl, etc;"

What in the world does the President have to do with Urban Sprawl? Surely urban sprawl had been going on since aMericans moved en masse to urban areas.
SUVs had been around before Reagan. Why not blame JFK and LBJ for gas guzzling muscle cars?

"It's also with his presidency that poverty, ( linked to minority groups), began its slow but sure increase.
It's with his presidency that the rise of obesity, especially among poor people, can be noticed."

Really?, according to the Bureau of the Census's official poverty measure, poverty declined during Reagan's tenure in office.

I think you left out the part that during the Reagan presidency, puppy dogs turned evil and kittens learned to cry.

[maria]

Eva: replying to your long list of the sins of the Reagan administration is quite a task, but I will make a start on some of them. I don't think Presidents look for problems unless they see a political benefit in "solving" them. Reagan didn't have much to gain by agonizing over poverty, etc., etc., and I don't think it reasonable to expect him to have done so. Carter was much more of the handwringer and Reagan could see where that got HIM, and avoid it. Income inequality began to rise at the end of the 1960s. The low point of the Gini Index came in 1968 and has been rising ever since, so you can't say that the rise began under Reagan. As for his intervention in Latin America and Lebanon. In retrospect I think the alarm over "Communism" in Central America was foolish. Yet one needs to remember that at the time the Soviets still seemed expansionistic and the US policy since Truman had been to drive them back wherever possible. This was nothing like the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Or Afghanistan, for that matter. Once the USSR had collapsed there was no need for more US "imperialism" but that is just when it began to be the most virulent. I would have to check back to your post to find more to answer but these points are the ones I recall and on which I disagree.

[maria]

Eva: What I do agree with you on is Reagan's guilt in allowing Americans to become obese. He should have put everyone on a diet and had the FBI make sure we did as we were told. Not doing this is an eternal black mark on his Presidency and he should burn in Hell for it. LOL.

[evagrius]

"I don't think Presidents look for problems unless they see a political benefit in "solving" them. Reagan didn't have much to gain by agonizing over poverty, etc., etc., and I don't think it reasonable to expect him to have done so. Carter was much more of the handwringer and Reagan could see where that got HIM, and avoid it. Income inequality began to rise at the end of the 1960s. The low point of the Gini Index came in 1968 and has been rising ever since, so you can't say that the rise began under Reagan."

The point of being a political leader is to anticipate problems and begin to do something about them, not derive some political "capital" from them. That's a very cynical view and is typical of those who don't have a good concept of what politics and leadership entail.
As for the Gini index, yes, it did begin to rise before Reagan but it sure got a big boost from his lack of attention.

I don't get it. What do you think political leaders are supposed to do? Do they lead or do they follow? Do they initiate discussions or merely go with the flow?

Politics in the U.S. has deteriorated to the point that its basically an exercise in seeing who can pander to the most powerful and important groups.

It takes courage to anticipate problems, begin discussions, propose solutions and initiate them.

I haven't seen too much of that in the last 25 years or so in the U.S.

[Memory Hole]

Anne:

Thanks for the post. It was right on target, as yours so often are. I was going to point out Reagan's vicious use of racism for political purposes, but you saved me the trouble.

[Martin]

Readers,

Please read the anthology 'Reagan: In His Own Hand', a collection of the hundreds of 15 minute radio talks Dutch gave for O'Connor Media between 1974 and 1980.

They display a very profound, and humane, grasp of both economics and public policy.

Dutch wanted America to be at peace, and prosperous. He got peace, for sure; and he might just have left it in better economic condition than he found it.

[evagrius]

Did Reagan write those talks?
Or did he merely recite them as another "acting" job?

[anon]

I am no fan of Reagan, but he was far better than either Bush I or Bush II. Reagaon did one big thing right (decide to deal with USSR under Gorbachyev and help wind down Cold War), and he could admit a mistake and change course when evidence dictated it was the right thing to do (reversing the supply side tax cuts). He did not surround himself with only yes-men as advisors, or 100% political hacks (ie, Roves). As CA governor, Reagan's rhetoric was much more conservative than his actions. I'm not sure how much of the conservative Reagan myth is due to Reagan's true beliefs, and how much due to Reagan's acting ability and canny political sense.

but, as a moderate liberal, I won't argue with many of above lists of Reagan's demerits points off for wrong headed policies and bad management, and pandering (initial denial of AIDS epidemic)

[maria]

Eva says:

I don't get it. What do you think political leaders are supposed to do? Do they lead or do they follow? Do they initiate discussions or merely go with the flow?

I don't think Presidents can do much to alter large social trends of a society. They mainly react to problems; that is job enough, they hardly want to go out to look for them. FDR reacted to a depression already underway. Truman was obligated to create the Marshall Plan by circumstances. Now, Johnson was proactive and got us into the Vietnam war. Is that what you call "leadership?" Nixon had to try to get us out, and did a feeble job of it. When Carter told us all to turn down the thermostat he got kicked out of office for his unwelcome advice. Excessive "leadership" is a good way to serve only one term and you can't expect President to like that idea. Now Bush 2 decided to lead us in a crusade against "terror" by starting a big war and has us mired in Afghanistan and Iraq. You like that "leadership"? Going with the flow in an intelligent fashion has much to say for it. And if income inequality upsets you, you need to admit that no President has done much of anything about it, and what it would require would be a program of "socialism". That would, at the present time, finish off any President in a very short while. Remember Hillary and universal medical care?

[cl-Oregon Girl]

BiJian Feng says...

"Whatever you think about Reagan's policies, he was one of the greatest presidents in our nation's history."

Let me point out a few things that might tarnish the Great One title for Ronnie.

!. AIDS -- the utter lack of response to it.
2. Iran Contra -- We sold weapons to our enemy Iran...
3. James Watt and the gutting of the Interior Department
4. The Savings and Loan Scandal - led by the conservative charge to deregulate everything
5. Little wars where the big bad US could kick butt --Grenada and Panama -- and accomplish nothing
6. Just say NO drug policy -- how's that goin'?
7. Big Deficits, spurred on by Big Tax cuts
8. Beruit -- talk about cut and run

[calmo]

See, it's hard not to rate the Presidents.
How much fun is it to talk about nebulous un-named (for the most part) "conservative movements" or political forces behind any of these office holders, when all you really want to do is rank w as the worst ever (BDL) or only 2/3 of a Ronnie, (his biographer) or a Nixon with a rotten and complicit press...or?
Is it basketball season or something?
Maybe Krugman could have identified principals in this conservative movement which I think does span decades and may not be confined to the GOP...or was that too large an ideological step for the NYT editorial board?

I figure we share this failure in getting past the Beauty Contest in the same sort of way that this does not really succeed either:But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it’s the movement, not just one man, that has failed. Hard to see this very robust, very wealthy, very powerful movement as a political failure.

[Matt]

In fact, Bush, like Reagan created a tidle wave of new, expanded government that we simply cannot manage it all.

Oregan Girl, do not forget Nastional Missile Defense, the half trillion dollar conservative boondogle.

Anon:

"(reversing the supply side tax cuts)."

Paul Krugman's point, Reagan self corrected or he would have been even more Bush-like.

By the way, another name for Reagan tax cuts is the Reagan government expansion binge.

[evagrius]

"I don't think Presidents can do much to alter large social trends of a society. They mainly react to problems; that is job enough, they hardly want to go out to look for them. FDR reacted to a depression already underway."

Not true. They can act since they have the largest "bully pulpit" around. They can quite a bit but they have to be the ones to see.
FDR was elected on the basis that he would change the situation with creative leadership and he did.

Truman didn't "have" to create the Marshall plan. That he did is evidence that he saw a bit more clearly than his critics who wanted to do nothing.

As for Johnson, basically he got tricked into the war.
It was tragic since he had provided the leadership to push through civil rights.

As for Carter, he was treated as a Cassandra by the press...and he was right. His tragedy was that he didn't have the "charm" Uncle Ronnie did.

( By the way....the rise in obesity is linked to the introduction of high fructose corn syrup into food processing. Go look it up).

I wrote that leaders have to anticipate problems. I didn't argue that they have to create them. Bush II created a problem without resolving the one in front of him. Great avoidance technique.

As for income inequality...if there isn't anything done about it, it will destroy the U.S. Guaranteed or your money, what's left of it, back.

[Bruce Wilder]

maria: "And if income inequality upsets you, you need to admit that no President has done much of anything about it"

I will admit nothing of the sort. That's just ignorance of the rankest, most pointless kind.

FDR led a great political effort, which greatly reduced income inequality. LBJ's Great Society programs and Civil Rights initiatives were the key to a massive reduction in poverty. Nixon ended the Great Society programs. Reagan initiated tax changes and anti-union policies, which had a huge effect on income inequality. The great Savings and Loan debacle was an enormous transfer of income and wealth. The California Electric Deregulation ripoff transfer billions from California ratepayers and utility shareholders to friends of George W. in Texas. The Iraq Reconstruction transferred billions to Halliburton; the Vice-President alone has made over $7 million from the deal!

Large and small, in a great many ways, Presidents and Congresses affect the distribution of income and wealth. To a large extent, that's what politics is all about. That awareness and memory of such things is regularly dumped down the memory hole in favor of "process" analysis and smart-aleck remarks in the press about a candidate's foibles in speech or dress is very much to be regretted.

Don't pretend even for a moment that politics don't matter to the distribution of income and wealth.

[maria]

Bruce: my point was the no President has done much about it since 1968 when it began to rise. I was not talking about the New Deal period. And did the New Deal in fact reduce income inequality? I will check to see if the Gini Index series goes back that far.

Eva: well I guess we have Ronnie to blame for everything. Somehow I think Bush 2 deserves a bit of the blame for things as they are, but maybe he is blameless and Ronnie is the culprit. LOL. I do think Johnson's "leadership" got us into Vietnam. Presidents are supposed to be smart enough not to be "tricked."

[maria]

Actually the poverty rate began to drop before Johnson and continued to drop under Nixon. I don't think the facts fit the idea that Johnson lowered these rates and Nixon raised them. It is all to easy to want to believe that politics can change society at will. I don't buy that idea.

http://www.census.gov/
hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html

[Martin]

Evagrius,

My copy indicates that he wrote the vast majority of the talks himself.

Oregon Girl,

"AIDS -- the utter lack of response to it."

More than made up for by the private and charitable sector, to the extent that, less than two years ago, no lesser a celebrity HIV case than Andrew Sullivan defined it as now being akin to diabetes.

"Iran Contra -- We sold weapons to our enemy Iran..."

How much Reagan, or indeed anyone else outside of the North/Ledeen/McFarlane/Ghorbanifar loop, knew what was going on is debatable. Remember George Shultz's testimony to the Senate, countering North's description of it as 'a neat idea' - 'Lord preserve us from such neat ideas'.

"James Watt and the gutting of the Interior Department"

I might be wrong, but didn't he fire Watt?

"The Savings and Loan Scandal - led by the conservative charge to deregulate everything"

Or by the participants' greed, the 'root cause' of most financial scandal, whichever you prefer.

"Little wars where the big bad US could kick butt --Grenada and Panama -- and accomplish nothing"

Panama was a Bush I effort. As for Grenada, if memory serves there was an issue of American medical students being held hostage - wasn't there?

And incidentally, the invasion of Grenada, a member of the British Commonwealth, was undertaken in the face of extremely strong opposition from the Thatcher government of the United Kingdom. With the possible exception of Bush II and his butler Blair, no President and Prime Minister have ever been closer than Reagan and Thatcher - Roosevelt and Churchill were scorpions in a bottle in comparison. R & T were not really ideologically close - R was an American patriot in a way that T, an avid disciple of Hayek's hubris, could not be described as a British patriot - but they did connect.

"Just say NO drug policy -- how's that goin'?"

I think you're being harsh. Who is ultimately responsible for what we put into our bodies? We are - aren't we? Isn't it a good idea to teach those most susceptible to narcotics' blandishments, teenage children, that they can choose NOT to score dope/smack/coke/crack if they don't feel like it?

"Big Deficits, spurred on by Big Tax cuts"

Again, you're being unfair. The Reagan deficits were incurred for a reason - according to a televised address Reagan gave about a month after taking office, when he entered the White House the Federal government was within two months of going bust; indeed, he almost apologised for having to ask Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

To actually deliver the platform on which he had been elected, the continuation of the peace, he needed money to build up the military. To all intents and purposes his were vastly more productive deficits than Bush II's.

If you don't think so, ask the Poles. Or the Russians, for that matter.

"Beruit -- talk about cut and run"

Yeah, perhaps cut and air strike might have been a better idea - but without wishing to divine the will of the dead, Dutch most likely thought of Beirut as a very unwelcome sideshow to the bigger game (or greater policy goal) of taking down the USSR.

Which he did, brilliantly.

It is disappointing, extremely disappointing, to see such a talented scientist as Paul Krugman engage in this sort of ideological BS. His prodigious gifts (I have never read a better analysis of why the Bush II tax cuts were enacted than that provided by Krugman in 'The Great Unravelling') are best deployed when criticising the faults of the living, not the dead - and by spitting on a dead man's grave he demeans himself, his university and his profession and reinforces the prejudice that, of all sciences, economics is the easiest one for politicians to buy and sell.

Bruce writes that,

"Don't pretend even for a moment that politics don't matter to the distribution of income and wealth."

Absolutely true - just as understanding politics is integral to understanding economics.

Or economists.

[maria]

The Census Bureau does a poor job of providing the data since 1913 when it began. But here is what happened to the Gini ratio under various Presidents since Johnson. Rose from .391 to .395 in Nixon years. Went from .402 to .403 in the Carter years. Went from .406 to .426 during Reagan years (8). From .431 to .433 under Bush 1. And from .454 to .462 under Clinton. No Democrat President reversed the rise. If the nation wants to lower the ratio, I think the only means would be a big rise in taxes, especially on the "rich" but also the less than rich and programs of redistribution. How eager do you think the nation is for that? I don't see the Democrats suggesting anything of the sort.

[maria]

One other odd little fact. The poverty rate in 2005 is lower than it was during most of the Clinton administration.

[maria]

And the lowest poverty rate in recent times came in 1973 and 1974 under Nixon!

[SanFranciscoJim]

Edwards proposes reversing the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy.

[SanFranciscoJim]

The poverty rate declined every year that Clinton was in office and has increased every year that Bush has been in office:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130002

[maria]

Well not exactly: Census Bureau statistics give the following poverty rates for the following years.

12.3 (1993) declining to 10 (1998) and then to 9.3 (1999) and 8.7 (2000). 2001 saw a rate of 9.2 rising to 10.2 in 2004 and then dropping back to 9.9 in 2005. The rate was 10 or above for 6 of Clinton's 8 years and for two of Bush II's years. The average rate for Clinton's eight years is 10.5 and the average 2001 to 2005 (last year available) is 9.78. So on average it has been lower during Bush II (up to 2006) than during Clinton.

[maria]

Since this topic has become mainly a Reagan bashing exercise, I might point out that Reagan left office in 1988 and since then the nation, and the Democrat party, could have certainly changed what he did if they had wanted to. Reagan's "sins" were not written in stone. So if things today are bad because of Reagan I would suggest the blame lies with those who have lacked the courage to change them after his exit. The Democrat party has not shown much guts as far as all this is concerned. Just as today it is gutless re Iraq and not doing much at all, except dithering, to stop the war. So I would say "don't blame Reagan, blame the toothless, gutless Democrat party that can't lead the US out of the messes Reagan and Bush II got us into." (Pat Buchanan has a good piece now on Pelosi's lack of spine re a possible war on Iran. She in effect has given Bush the green light for it.)

[maria]

Here is the link to Buchanan on Pelosi:

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10701

[BiJian Feng]

Amazing the amount of hate towards a man who ended the Cold War and left America in much better shape than when he first took office. Many of the attacks against Reagan are just nonsense. A president doesn't have total control over EVERYTHING that happens. For example, how was Reagan responsible for the S&L crisis? He would have to first, know that S&L's were making bad loans, and then somehow stop them from doing so. The Federal Reserve has the power to cut funding and kick out banks and S&L's from the Federal Reserve system, not the president as the FED is independent. Also, the decision to bail out the S&L's lies with Congress, not the President who doesn't have that power. Wow.

Also many people here seem to blame Reagan for poverty? The fact is that there's NEVER been a country without its share of the poor. That's because poverty is relative. When Reagan left office, the "poor" were better off than they EVER were as real incomes rose for everyone.

Secondly, it's a proven fact that government initiatives to eliminate poverty don't work and only serve to increase poverty. The ultimate extreme is communism where the government takes as much as possible from the rich and gives it to the poor with the effect that everyone becomes poor as there is no more incentive to work and become rich. Income inequality cannot be eliminated without everyone becoming poor!

The proven method to reduce poverty is to foster growth through the private sector. This is the policy China, Vietnam, Russia, India, and all those exploding economies are using today. The result has been that poverty is way down and yes, income inequality way up, but that can't be avoided, but just ask the poor if they'd want to go back to being even poorer under communism with NO chance of ever becoming rich (as it is illegal to be rich under communism). How many times dose this lesson have to be repeated before leftists understand that they are wrong? Why are they so hostile to PROVEN methods that actually work to reduce poverty? Maybe it's so ingrained that it's become a religion, not based on anything occurring here on Earth, but somehow works in a spiritual nirvana where government policies to help the poor end up eliminating poverty once and for all. How come no matter how many billions we spend, the poverty rate stays about the same? The poverty rate only changes with economic conditions. Good economy = lower poverty. Bad economy = higher poverty. Thus, the trick is to help the economy grow, like what China, etc. are doing, which will reduce poverty. So simple, so true, so proven...

[reason]

Martin,
I think you misunderstand PK.

It is unfortunate, that everything here concentrates on individual personalities. I doubt that Reagan was very closely involved in the government at all (for the second half of his reign he was probably incapable). When he did interfere he showed at times pragmatic good sense.

But the movement of which he has become the mythological figurehead is still in charge of GOP and it is this movement that is PK's target not he man (or rather the myth).

[ig]

"For example, how was Reagan responsible for the S&L crisis? He would have to first, know that S&L's were making bad loans, and then somehow stop them from doing so. "

Reagan, Stockman and the rest of the administrations pushed for massive de-regulation. Sure the S and L's had some ethics problems. It was Volcker that put the hammer on them.

I am amazed what people choose to forget about the Reagan years.

"Secondly, it's a proven fact that government initiatives to eliminate poverty don't work and only serve to increase poverty."

What?!
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

take a look at page 20. The govt had nothing to do with reducing poverty?

"he proven method to reduce poverty is to foster growth through the private sector. This is the policy China, Vietnam, Russia, India, and all those exploding economies are using today. The result has been that poverty is way down and yes, income inequality way up, but that can't be avoided, but just ask the poor if they'd want to go back to being even poorer under communism with NO chance of ever becoming rich (as it is illegal to be rich under communism)."

There it is! the default argument. You are either 110% pro-market or you are a communist. Markets can become capx adverse and inefficient. Regulation is required. The 80's taught us that. The 90's definitely taught us that. and the housing bust will teach us that yet again. But not before, somewhere along the line, the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

[maria]

What?!
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

take a look at page 20. The govt had nothing to do with reducing poverty?

There is some confusion generated by the fact that the percent in poverty varies whether you are talking about "people" or "families". Page 53 and page 65 are involved. The rate is higher for "people" than for "families." Still the average rate was as high or higher during the Clinton years as during the BushII years. If the US really wants to reduce income inequality or poverty it will have to institute aggressive "socialist" programs of redistribution. The Democrats do not seem interested in doing that any more than do the Republicans.

[anne]

Oh dear, economic growth through the Reagan years was not only below the average of the last 50 years but was much below growth during the Clinton years. The Reagan years were economically mediocre at best, from productivity to employment, in all but investment market growth.

[anne]

Also, the Reagan years were notable for limitation on unions which has been an equity problem ever since. There is a reason return to capital or profits have grown so relative to wages.

[evagrius]

Amazing how many people seem to forget what Uncle Ronnie represented, ( I mean the style of thinking; the approach or non-approach to problems, the solicitude or disdain for certain groups within society, the attitude towards wealth and its proper goal, etc;).
In all this, and more, Reagan, as symbol, communicated a certain attitude that was called "sunny optimism" but really was a facile acceptance of cliches.
He communicatd the comfortable middle-class virtues, just like Thatcher. And Like Thatcher, knew nothing about nor cared for some of the deeper questions that face current society, ( not that I expect political leaders to do so- it's rare to have a Lincoln or FDR as a political leader).

Defending Reagan is easy, just as attacking him, ( or rather pointing out that he was not the great leader that's often touted), is easy.

I still argue that much of what he did and didn't do has left the U.S. unable to face its deep internal problems. That's because that "sunny optimism", which is really just a type of naivety, has blinded its citizens to the point of hypnotism.

[ig]

"Also, the Reagan years were notable for limitation on unions which has been an equity problem ever since."

I remember the ATC Strike. It was more than that though. It was the age of Friedman. The stock market leads the economy! Too much money chasing too few goods! De-regulate. Junk Bonds, M and A and downsizing oh my!

Those ideals have never left. Clinton wasnt exactly pro-regulation and the stock market did lead. and just as it did in 29 and 87 it lead us right off a cliff. Good thing we put in all that fibre optic capacity though. Someday we'll find a use for it.

so much for the effciency of markets

[anne]

Thank you, Memory.

Ah, IG, investment market leading of the economy is an interesting idea, of which I never thought. But, 1987 seems to me to have been of minimal economic importance and almost as little investment importance while the bear market in stocks from 2000 to 2002 has a more important but seemingly not lasting effect.

[Forgive me, Dean Baker.]

[maria]

A previous commentator remarked that Reagan was able to change course when he realized he had taken a wrong turn. Unlike Bush II. I think this is an important characteristic in a President. He needs to be vain enough (or sensible enough) to be worried about his image, his popularity. Reagan did want to be liked by the public and this caused him to pay attention to its opinion of him. Disaster comes from a President like Bush who answers only to "his" God (in short himself) and, aside from just before an election, cares nothing about what people think of him. This is the only explanation for his present insane continuance of a lost war. "Leadership" is fine when properly used, but when it becomes immobile self-righteousness trouble is at hand.

[Bugboy]

*ONE-ADAM-TWELVE, TWO CARRIER GROUPS DOUBLE PARKED IN THE PERSION GULF, PLEASE ADVISE, OVER*

[maria]

What you get with a "leader" in the White House like BushII is a guy who is now "warning" the Democrats to do what he tells them to, or else. And the rattled, feeble, scatterbrained Democrats can't fight back. Too cowardly. If you want to straighten out the USA you need to get a party with some cojones and some guts. Not the Democrats at present.

[Memory Hole]

It's been shown around here that there is a remarkable correlation between political party in power and direction of income distribution. Look it up. The contention that government policy doesn't influence inequality directly and quickly is a crock.

Lyndon Johnson's role in Vietnam was quite complicated. It's likely that the crucial commitments were made by Kennedy and even Eisenhower. I remember reading that a professor of public policy at one of the elite schools assigned his students the job of writing the speech Johnson might have delivered announcing our withdrawal. Even with full knowledge of the outcome they found it amazingly difficult to do. The "who lost China" BS is easy to forget now, but much harder then. Johnson himself complained that he was in a war he couldn't win and couldn't quit.

Etc., etc., etc..

[BiJian Feng]

People should read today's USA Today for their poll of Iraqi citizens. The United States enjoys overwhelming support in the Kurdish north and the majority of Iraqis do not want us to leave. Only the Sunnis want us to leave so they can continue their terror operations uncontested. US forces have the support of both Kurds and Shiites who make up the bulk of Iraq.

Of course, USA Today presents a negative view, as expected, which serves to distort the picture and guarantee defeat, the only place it can occur, here at home.

With only 3500+ dead in Iraq, how long can we stay? The answer is forever. The only way we can ever be defeated is here at home, with a forced surrender of our troops which have suffered minimal losses compared with all other wars in past history. The 3500+ dead would be considered light for any major BATTLE much less an entire war. Let's keep perspective folks.

[reason]

BiJian Feng...
nice to know you're volunteering then. Very public spirited of you.

[maria]

Final comment: If you detest what Reagan did, then the solution is to undo or reverse it. And for that you need a political party capable of doing so. The Democrat party today is so wimpish it cannot even get us out of a overwhelmingly unpopular war, cannot even confront an overwhelmingly unpopular President, in fact cannot do much except fuss and dither without getting much of anywhere. The first order of business for the anti-Reagan people should be to give the Democrat party some backbone, some principles, and some guts. It could start by impeaching this President now, but it is too cowardly to do so.

[anne]

"With only 3500+ dead in Iraq, how long can we stay?"

"With only 50,000+ wounded in Iraq, how long can we stay?"

"With only 600,000+ Iraqis dead in Iraq, how long can we stay?"

"With only $2 trillion spent on Iraq, how long can we stay?"

As long as we wish this insane immoral tragedy to continue.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19herbert.html

March 19, 2007

Death of a Marine
By BOB HERBERT

Jeffrey Lucey was 18 when he signed up for the Marine Reserves in December 1999. His parents, Kevin and Joyce Lucey of Belchertown, Mass., were not happy. They had hoped their son would go to college.

Jeffrey himself was ambivalent.

"The recruiter was a very smooth talker and very, very persistent," Ms. Lucey told me in a call from Orlando, Fla., where she was on vacation with her husband and their two grown daughters last week. The conversation was difficult. Ms. Lucey would talk for a while, and then her husband would get on the phone.

"We see him everywhere," Ms. Lucey said. "Every little dark-haired boy you see, it looks like Jeff. If we see a parent reprimanding a child, it's like you want to go up and say, 'Oh, don't do that, because you don't know how long you're going to have him.' "

The war in Iraq began four years ago today. Fans at sporting events around the U.S. greeted the war and its early "shock and awe" bombing campaign with chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

Jeffrey Lucey, who turned 22 the day before the war began, had a different perspective. He had no illusions about the glory or glamour of warfare. His unit had been activated and he was part of the first wave of troops to head into the combat zone.

A diary entry noted the explosion of a Scud missile near his unit: "The noise was just short of blowing out your eardrums. Everyone's heart truly skipped a beat. ... Nerves are on edge."

By the time he came home, Jeffrey Lucey was a mess. He had gruesome stories to tell. They could not all be verified, but there was no doubt that this once-healthy young man had been shattered by his experiences.

He had nightmares. He drank furiously. He withdrew from his friends. He wrecked his parents' car. He began to hallucinate.

In a moment of deep despair on the Christmas Eve after his return from Iraq, Jeffrey hurled his dogtags at his sister Debra and cried out, "Don't you know your brother's a murderer?"

Jeffrey exhibited all the signs of deep depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Wars do that to people. They rip apart the mind and the soul in the same way that bullets and bombs mutilate the body. The war in Iraq is inflicting a much greater emotional toll on U.S. troops than most Americans realize.

The Luceys tried desperately to get help for Jeffrey, but neither the military nor the Veterans Administration is equipped to cope with the war's mounting emotional and psychological casualties.

On the evening of June 22, 2004, Kevin Lucey came home and called out to Jeffrey....

[anne]

Now, that is just 1, just 1 marine, just 1 family. How long then can we stay in Iraq? What is a soul worth? What after all is the life of just 1 marine and $2 trillion+++++ spent on Iraq?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/opinion/l12herbert.html

Is This 'Supporting the Troops'?

To the Editor:

My 20-year-old son is nearing the end of his first deployment to Iraq with the United States Marines. Only a few days ago, we learned that he received a commendation for initiative and bravery for pulling wounded and dead Iraqi soldiers out of a bus hit by a roadside bomb during a recent midnight convoy.

Specifically, he was recognized for "tirelessly moving multiple wounded Iraqis to the casualty collection point and loading them on the medivac helicopters ... and also volunteering to help collect the dead and ensuring that they were evaluated."

It's bad enough that my son is risking his life fighting a war that was waged on lies and deception. How infinitely more galling it is to realize that his value to the Bush administration wouldn't even merit decent care at Walter Reed if he were wounded or disabled.

Bob Herbert is right about the troops being shortchanged: it's something I never thought that America would do either.

My son has been commended for extending a degree of professionalism, respect and devotion to duty in aiding wounded Iraqi soldiers that the United States government doesn't extend to its own troops.

The horror, the horror.

Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, March 8, 2007

[anne]

Yes; how long can we stay in this insane immoral tragedy that we were driven too by fear and deception? How long can we stay?

[anne]

"Let's keep perspective folks."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/opinion/l10iraq.html

This Time, a True Strategy for Iraq?

To the Editor:

"Quagmire of the Vanities":

Paul Krugman is right: gambling on the Iraq war is much easier "when the lives at stake are those of other people's children." Except that it is my son, a 20-year-old United States marine stationed in Falluja, whose life is being gambled with.

It is my son whose blood may yet protect the egos of men who won't admit that they were wrong. And it is my son whose 3,000-plus comrades-in-service have already paid the ultimate price for fighting another nation's civil war.

After four years of pointless, fruitless, uninstigated combat, if President Bush indeed escalates the "sacrifice" of other parents' beloved children — against all reason, against the will of the electorate and without any personal sacrifice to call his own — it would not be vanity. It is called tyranny.

Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, Jan. 8, 2007

[calmo]

I need to join anne here against Bijian'sWith only 3500+ dead in Iraq, how long can we stay? The answer is forever. The only way we can ever be defeated is here at home, with a forced surrender of our troops which have suffered minimal losses compared with all other wars in past history. The 3500+ dead would be considered light for any major BATTLE much less an entire war. Let's keep perspective folks.
The (toy soldier/armchair general) perspective we are supposed to keep is that the casualties are light (but long term disabilities not so light) compared to previous wars. We are supposed to ignore the anecdotal (and mostly civilian motherly) reports about those casualties. And if we do, as Bijian seems to be able to do, we can stay there forever...or until your draft number is called (as 'reason' suggests).
Bijian, champion of perspectives, and possibly parent of a future casualty, needs to take that other step now of recognizing the place that numbers have in a Battle that is totally unworthy of a single casualty.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/l21iraq.html

Bush's Call for Patience on the War

To the Editor:

"Don't 'Pack Up,' Bush Says After 4 Years of War":

After four years of a war brazenly launched by a large United States bombardment, President Bush and his administration seem audaciously indifferent to the morass and suffering in Iraq that American actions and presence worsen each day.

There is no good that can come of a continued United States troop presence in Iraq. Rather than stemming terrorism, American military might and bases are fueling a maelstrom of hatred and determination that merely give rise to terrorism.

What is unconscionable is that Mr. Bush claims sole authority in this matter. It is little wonder, then, that no mention was made of democracy in this war anniversary speech. It has been useful as a war slogan, yet discarded as a guiding principle to abide.

Democracy's erosion is a threat that whittles away at us by bits and pieces, until our voices are neither heard nor heeded, and a war we decry rages on with no end in sight.

Nancy Dickeman
Seattle, March 20, 2007

[maria]

Anne is right. We need to simply get out of Iraq now. But we need the Democrats to use their power to accomplish this and they are waffling and prevaricating. Gutless wonders. They will rue the day they did not force Bush to lose his war. If they inherit it they will "lose" it and suffer for it.

[anne]

Yes; Maria and Calmo, interesting and helpful points.

[ig]

"People should read today's USA Today for their poll of Iraqi citizens. The United States enjoys overwhelming support in the Kurdish north and the majority of Iraqis do not want us to leave. Only the Sunnis want us to leave so they can continue their terror operations uncontested. US forces have the support of both Kurds and Shiites who make up the bulk of Iraq."

we've always had overwhelming support in the Kurdish region. With the no-fly zone in place the region flourished. The occupation hasnt made their lives any better.

The "official" wounded total is around 25K. Thats a relatively high number by any standard.

Since the iraq War is nothing more than a very hostile corporate takeover, 3500 is a very high death toll. regardless of the perspective you want to take

[anne]

No; there have been more than 100,000 disability awards already made to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, and there have been more than 50,000 soldiers wounded in various ways in Iraq as the Veterans Administration had made clear till ordered to change the figure to include only those wounded directly in combat.

Also, there are more than 75,000 soldiers alone who have claimed psychological wounds from service in Iraq. How they will be counted is not clear to me.

[anne]

We will be years in understanding just how extensive and enduring the physical and mental harm suffered by soldiers in Iraq has been. And, the suffering has been tragically needless.