Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General "Reagan Principles"

It is not so confusing as you imagine. The soviet Union was an incredibly successful nation based on the principals of scientific socialism. This colossus could only have been stopped by an even greater person, who, virtually by himself destroyed this implacable evil juggernaut.

Everyone is getting in touch with their inner "Irked"!

TAT

Pres. Reagan knew that communism was/is a flawed economic system that was ready to collapse under its own weight. Rather than continue to prop it up as had our country's policy under detente Reagan started to push the USSR towards its inevitable collapse. He did so with the denial of providing help to build an oil pipeline that would have provided the USSR with much needed hard currency. Without that influx of hard currency the inevitable came sooner than expected.

Just a side note but how long you figure we've got before the US needs an influx of hard currency that may not be forthcoming?

The reason I have such a visceral and negative reaction to "Reagan" is that he purported to be a man of principle, and was, in fact, the opposite. He had neither acumen nor honor, but was perfectly willing to take responsibility for anything that happened to be in his favor, whether he had anything to do with it or not. He was the consummate hypocrite and cared not a whit for others, he just played that role, and often did the opposite of what he claimed.

The policies that he allowed to be put in place during his watch have been disasterous for the country, almost without exception (indeed, I can't think of one, but I am allowing for the possibility). The idea that he "saw" the fall of communist Russia and "pushed" them toward bankruptcy is unsupportable historically. (Mikhail Gorbachev was the true achitect, although even he did not envision the breakup as it occurred.) It is a myth that was created after the fact, like most of his "history."

I had never really examined this assumption. But it does seem that you have a point. After all, even after the Soviet Union had collapsed, the hawks within the Reagan admin were all saying it was a trick to get us to let down our guard. There was no consensus at the time that the dramatic rapid collapse of the evil empire was possible. Everyone just assumed that this cold war confrontation would go on forever (plus or minus a century)

By that do you mean he was "a politician"?

Steve, you may be too young to remember, but Ronald Reagan was more than a mere politician. So. Much. More.

of the least principled sort.

What Ardy and Fermi have pointed out is that he was so much more than "just" a politician. There are many kinds of politicians, and there are many honorable and decent people who take their responsibilities as our representatives quite seriously and solemnly. I will never castigate all of them as a class. Collectively, however, they are not doing well. But Reagan was a special case, as is the current Bush. They are politicians with an ideological bent that is inhumane, not in a general way, but toward specific people: Americans. They are craven and only beholden to the moneyed class. "Average" Americans (that is, the other 99%) are beneath their consideration. Remember the whole "Welfare Queen" story? That was typical Reagan: Tell a whopper of a lie, denigrate a whole class of people, and make it look like you are a populist. Why be specific and accurate when you can paint with a broad brush and condemn anyone who is close at hand? Ronald Reagan was simply more talented than Hitler and Bush. He hid his evil better.

If that is what you think of Ronald W. Reagan then you do not know the man. I have suggested some books about Reagan for people to read. Have even thought to read any of them, NW? Or do you prefer to keep your opinion of Reagan unchallenged by people who have a positive opinion of him?