Forum Thread

six ways you didn't realize how Reagan ruined the country

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 5 Posts
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    for some reason, Reagan is usually ranked favorably in the lists of best Presidents ... however, the article below, if broadcast more widely, would likely change a few opinions:

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-objective-reasons-ronald-reagan-was-our-worst-president/

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    You know how they say your first choice is probably the correct choice ? Too bad Reagan didnt know that before he started to decimate California's systems.

    "I think taxes should hurt," said California's Governor Ronald Reagan in 1966
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Arizona --- Thanks for sharing the article. For many of us, Ronald Reagan ranks amongst one of the worst presidents in history, and I hate the homage paid to him by Republicans and even some Democrats. Some of this is pandering I suppose. Here's another article of interest by Robert Parry:

    Consortium News: Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

    "...there’s a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan’s presidency. There’s also a grudging reassessment that the “failed” presidents of the 1970s Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country, despite their other shortcomings as leaders."

    Parry covers a range of topics in which Reagan should be judged harshly, but the media and politicians including President Obama obligingly give him a pass. Parry concludes:

    "Despite the grievous harm that Reagan’s presidency inflicted on the American Republic and the American people, it may take many more years before a historian has the guts to put this deformed era into a truthful perspective and rate Reagan where he belongs, near the bottom of the presidential list."

    I agree with both articles.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The only argument I have is that Bacevich notes the Carter Doctrine re: oil security was the start of the most recent long war in the Middle East. Taking aside the west's creation of artificial countries because of oil and the witless overthrow of Mossadegh the U.S has been at war in what Bacevich calls the greater Middle East (North Africa through the Middle East up to the Balkans and the Horn of Africa) for going on 50 years. And we have no sign of cessation or success. Reagan's stunningly stupid contribution resulted in the comment as to what was more important, the fall of communism or some Arabs. Well, the west including the U.S. phucqued up the results of the break up of the USSR by pushing a radical privatization agenda whose end result is Vladimir Putin and then of course there was OBL and al-Qaeda.

    we sure know how to screw things up.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The greater Middle East has hardly been stable for a long time. As one looks at cause and effect, certainly the CIA's Operation Ajax and the overthrow of the democratically elected President Mossadeq in Iran was a major shift of alliances and the attitudes towards Americans.

    However, one can go even further back in time perhaps all the way to the assassination of Ali in 661 and the great schism between the Shia and Sunni factions of Islam.

    BBC News: Sunnis and Shia: Islam's ancient schism

    To the extent that the Middle East conflicts are driven by the Shia Sunni divide within Islam, no Christian nation is going to be an effective arbitrator of peace.