Talk:Ronald Reagan

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Where's the "St."?[edit]

I thought he was canonized?~~ C®acker 16:13, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I forgot, I'll fix it. Anyway, it's "ray guns", not cannon. humanbe in 17:02, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Didn't he suffer from alzhiemers while in office, making him a massive liability to America? I suppose puppets are easier to control when they have no mind of their own.DSFARGEG 19:59, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, and I think GW Bush is proof of that. Carptrash 20:34, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Anyone else think the conservative adoation of Reagan is about two steps away from becoming outright worship? Ebon 02:31, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Didn't we cover that pretty well? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:47, 12 February 2009 (EST)


I've taken out the homophobia category after reading this, if anyone finds any counter-evidence we can thrash it out here. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This Article[edit]

I think this article is pretty poor, and should lose the bronze brain. It's all snark and no content. If I knew nothing about Reagan's presidency, then after reading the first three sections, I'd still know nothing. By the end, I'd know he was considered a neo-conservative, that he was against abortion and gay rights, that his response to AIDS was very poor and that his wife was into the woo. I'd be up for editting it a lot, if people don't object here... or if anyone else wants to mess with it, go for it.. DalekEXTERMINATE 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


this. Any USian want to use it? 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC) SusanG Toast

None of those things are really a mystery to anyone who lived through the Reagan administration or studied actual histories of it. Alternate universe small gummint Reagan only exists in the minds of wingnuts and those with very selective memory. Kind of surprised they don't mention the massive S&L bailout, though. That was kind of a big deal too. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC) rebuts, point by point. Blue Talk 21:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hot Air is an appropriate name for that site. Like how they cite World Nut Daily as a source too. Usual stuff about "Democrats did it, they did all the spending!!!" even though the Democrats only controlled the House while Republicans controlled the Senate until near the end of Reagan's last term. So "the Congress (i.e., Dems) controlling the purse strings" is plainly horseshit. There's also this handy chart showing that the proposed budgets and spending were fairly close, with some cases of Congress overshooting the proposal and other cases of Reagan asking for more spending. I'll give them that the Osama thing is a bit of a stretch. Might as well have gone after an easier target like the administration's weapon sales to Saddam Hussein or their backing the military dictatorship in El Salvador.
Also, that part about SDI being an integral part of our defense system is a joke, right? (Hint: It's even listed under "Abandoned Military Projects" at Wiki. Basic fact check fail. Guess they "selectively forgot" that.)Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Jon Chait at TNR points out some of the problems with the current revisionism, ideologically speaking. The nut of his rebuttal:
The trouble with the conservative view of Reagan as internal dissident to the Reagan administration ... requires us to construct an alternate definition of "Reaganism" that is defined by diary entries and other expressions of Reagan's private thoughts, as opposed to the actual Reagan administration policies.--ADtalkModerator 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reagan was a good president![edit]

I may be a socialist liberal, but I think Reagan was a good president. He stopped the Cold War, he did what he thought was best for the people, not corporations. He had flaws, but he was good! Colbert|FanI am a Marxist... I follow the teachings of the Marx brothers 03:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No. He did not "stop the Cold War." Are you being sarcastic here? Blue Talk 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I guess not. *sigh* Read the article. Blue Talk 04:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Buh? Gorbachev ended the Cold War, not Reagan, and the bastard made the rich richer while undermining workers' rights at every turn. He did nothing for "the people"--except maybe the people on Wall Street.--Filby (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
And started a 30-year slippery slope to theocracy, the MIC, and economic collapse. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Colby is mercifully gone, and this was one of his less bizarre views. TyTy 11:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Won the Cold War. Why not mention that?[edit]

The Soveits enjoyed the 1970's. After the US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973 the Soveits got to walk all over the world and no one would stop them. They sponsored Wars of National Liberation all over sub-Saharan Africa, and South and Central America. They deployed SS-20 short range ballistic missles in Eastern Europe which could destroy every NATO capital in a matter of minutes. They surpassed the US in number of nuclear warheads in mid 70's and had new ICBMs like the SS-18 "Satan" which could carry 10 warheads. They threatened to invade Poland and DID invade Afghanistan. Nixon/Ford had a policy of detente and Carter had a policy of neo-isolationism. These policies failed and weakened the US.

Things changed when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. He doubled the defense budget and rebuilt the American military. Reagan began a massive re-armament based on high-technology that obsoleted a generation of Soviet weaponry. The defense upgrade would include a 600 ship Navy, new Army divisions, tanks, planes, and missiles including the development of the B2 Bomber, F22 Raptor, B-1 Lancer, MX Peacekeeper, M1 Abrams Tank, and Humvee. reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative which was never put into use but frightened the Soviets even further about US technology.

The Soviets saw all of this as a threat to be countered and increased military spending by 45% in 1984. The Soviet economy was only 1/5th the size of the US and could not handle these increases. They were spending 25-40% of GDP on the military while the US was only spending 6-8%. They were bankrupting themselves.

Reagan confronted the Communists in Central America, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Horn of Africa, and Central Asia. He deployed Pershing II missiles to Western Europe to counter the SS-20s and gave the Poles and Afghans moral and material support. Hundreds of Soviet aircraft and veichles were destroyed by Afghan freedom fighters using American weapons and CIA training.

Reagan also devised a plan to bankrupt the Soviets financially. He made an oil partnership with Saudi Arabia. The Soviet Union's hard currency came from a single source: its mineral wealth of oil and gas. He got the Saudis to triple oil production wgich cut prices by fifty percent. This was a crippling blow to the struggling Soviet economy.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

HE won the cold war? really???Pink mowse.pngGodot I hate sluts 02:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
[Citation needed] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content<sup> 02:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
By the late 70s and early 80s the Soviet economy was already crumbling and stopped matching the US with military production (cite the 45% increase or its bullshit). That leaves your entire argument pretty much invalid.
And that same defence spending spike by Reagan (and Carter) helped cripple the US economy in itself 30 years later. Karma, eh? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Huh? 1980s-era government deficits are not generally listed among the causes of the current recession. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It started the trend, no Republican would ever balance the budget since. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Except for those late-1990s budgets. But what have the deficits to do with the economic downturn in the first place? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't start egging them on. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I fail to follow. Where were government deficits mentioned there? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"In late 1984, the Kremlin incorporated a 45 percent increase in military spending into its next five-year plan."

False. The US econmy is in the gutter because of an inflated housing bubble caused by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, barney Fwank and Chris Dodd. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2011-12-07T21:14:10

[1] Osaka Sun (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

reagan was the best. Moonshot926 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Greatest president ever?[edit]

Maybe George Washington. I don't know. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A question[edit]

If he's the least stingy of presidents after Dubya when it comes to government spending, is he really a fiscal conservative, or just a false idol, like his right-hand man and successor Papa "No new taxes" Dubya? (talk)

AIDS Denialism[edit]

I know that it does get mentioned in one sentence. But I think that this ought to have its own section. Two things to look for, Data, and a confirmed source of what his Attorney General said about why they didn't address the problem earlier. This is paraphrase: "It was at the time seen as a homosexual disease, so the thought was that this was just people getting their just deserts." — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

You can try and write said section, then.
Additionally: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Nullahnung (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

removed (and reverted) graphic[edit]

The removed graphic is wrong, but for its vertical axis scale/labelling. It's been a long time since US budges were less than $1 billion. The proposed alternate source? Not as credible ... albeit with the right number of digits to the left of the decimal. MarmotHead (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Reagan Quotes[edit]

Reagan had a wonderful sense of humor, and some of his quotes are classic. But then this article is devoted entirely to just smearing and bad mouthing him; which is a shame, and also a huge turn-off. Here is just one of his many great quotes:

"One way to make sure crime doesn't pay would be to let the government run it." Slings and Arrows (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ash heap of history[edit]

It was not his "ash heap" comment, but the exercise Able Archer 83, that really heated up the paranoia-meter at the Soviet side a few degrees.--Arisboch (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bon's 'homophobia was a myth a myth[edit]

Was it? The current claim is sourced so I have reverted. Please discuss here firstAMassiveGay (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

While Reagan is undoubtedly massively overrated and there are many legitimate reasons to hate him, this site is very unfair to him[edit]

First off: re the "Great Obfuscator" bit-yes, Reagan just read off teleprompters in his speeches. So did Eisenhower, so did Kennedy, so did Lyndon Johnson, Ford, Carter, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama. The only President who could have used a teleprompter but didn't was Nixon. That's not because elections are "symbolic activities", it's because the President has to memorize a lot of long speeches in a limited amount of time, and sometimes they need a little help.

Secondly, re the "Angel of Death": Reagan's inaction regarding AIDS was, in my opinion, by far the most shameful part of his legacy and I will make no attempt to defend it. However, I would point out regarding his support for Pinochet, Saddam, apartheid, etc. that every Cold War president supported anti-Communist tyrants. I'm unwilling to say I agree with Reagan's invasion of Grenada, but it was certainly no worse than the actions of Eisenhower in Iran and Guatemala, Kennedy in Cuba, Johnson in Vietam, Nixon in Cambodia, or Bush I in Panama. Less than 100 people died and civilian casualties numbered 24 in total; as far as US military interventions go, that's nothing. Furthermore, Reagan at least had the decency to allow a democratic government to form once he had deposed the old one instead of propping up a puppet dictator like, say, Eisenhower might have done.

As for the Cold War, while there's no doubt that the right tends to give him too much credit, I do think he was important, and nearly all historians agree that at least in his second term he handled the situation incredibly well. Crediting him with merely being "in the right place at the right time" seems rather bizarre given that the events he is credited for happened while Bush I was in office. Yes, the Soviet economy was down the drain, but it had been for decades, and even if it was just failing, so what? North Korea has shown us a good example of how a collapsed economy does not mean a collapsed regime to a leader who will do anything to remain in power. It's important to understand the historical context in which Reagan came into power. Nobody really thought at the time that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. The USSR was gaining effective control of territories at a rate of more than one country per year while never losing an inch to the West. During Reagan's term, this slowed to negative one country per decade. The nation when Reagan took power was divided between "doves" who supported a policy of détente and "hawks" who wanted to build up military spending to deter Soviet aggression, but both sides were in agreement that the USSR was here to stay, whether as potential ally or unbeatable adversary. Ronald Reagan criticized Communism and socialism harshly, not just because he felt they were immoral, but because they were impractical. Reagan was one of the few who actually believed that the USSR could be defeated, and to him the question was not of whether the USSR would collapse, but when. This was reflected in the changes in foreign policy he saw: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson had focused merely on containing Soviet influence, while Nixon, Ford, and (up until the invasion of Afghanistan) Carter sought to build friendlier relations. Reagan implemented a new strategy: he set out not just to resist Communism in areas it hadn't reached, but to support anti-Communist movements in places that had already been taken over by Soviet influence; this was the motivation behind invading Grenada and illegally supporting rebel movements in Communist countries, and whatever one thinks of the methods, it did work. The article makes the claim, common in America at the time, that Reagan's arms race and rhetoric nearly led to disaster (the implication, I assume, being that they nearly caused a nuclear war), but I would debate this. Quotes from USSR officials like Yuri Andropov and Andrei Gromyko after Reagan ramped up defence spending show that Reagan was fully correct in his assessment that another arms race would ruin the Soviet Union and win the Cold War for America, and the Soviets knew it.

Those who seek to deny Reagan any credit often seek to credit Gorbachev as the real hero. Let me ignore for the moment that Gorbachev was actually seeking to preserve Communism and the USSR. The article discounts this by saying Gorbachev's attainment of power put Reagan in the right place at the right time, but then refutes itself in the next sentence. Most of Reagan's administration did not see Gorbachev as a genuine reformer and staunchly opposed any negotiations with the Soviets. William F. Buckley compared Reagan's decision to forging an alliance with Hitler. Reagan, despite his not-entirely-undeserved reputation as a bumbling idiot, was able to recognize that Gorbachev really was different in a way that many on the right didn't. At the same time, he maintained the belief that Gorbachev's ultimate aim of creating a functioning democratic socialist state was impossible, something many on the left held Gorbachev as a disproof of. Gorbachev, and the rest of America, soon found out that Reagan was right on both counts. That said, Reagan did not completely abandon his earlier foreign policy. He made it clear to Gorbachev that the latter had two options: resume the arms race they both know he would lose, or give up the struggle for global hegemony and establish peace with the West. The strategy worked, and in 1987 Gorbachev agreed to the INF Treaty. This was a historic moment-for the first time, the US and USSR had agreed to ban a specific type of nuclear weapons. Those who remained mistrustful insisted Gorbachev was sacrificing a pawn, but Reagan understood that he was really giving up his bishops and queen. At the same time, Reagan never forgot that his goal was to defeat the USSR. He encouraged Gorbachev's reforms against the advice of the hawks, but refused to reward Gorbachev with economic concessions as the doves wanted for fear of restoring the health of the "sick Soviet bear".

It is true that there were many factors involved in the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is true that, without someone like Gorbachev coming to power, Reagan may not have been able to peacefully resolve the Cold War. But I remember once my history teacher told me, while we were reading Winston Churchill's warnings about Adolf Hitler, "Boy, I would love to be that right about something", and I get a similar feeling reading Reagan's comments on the USSR. It is also true that a President who did not have the understanding of the situation Reagan had, and that most of the nation did not, wouldn't have been able to take advantage of being in the right place at the right time the way Reagan did. [EDIT: And I think this is shown very well by the fact that, when they talk about what ended the Cold War, both Reagan and Gorbachev emphasize primarily the actions of the other.]

Also-why the heck is he under "Crimes against humanity"? I don't see how even the worst of his acts fit the definition of the term.

I am not in the business of writing hagiographies. I am disgusted with the whitewashing of Reagan's faults that the right and even some on the centre-left, like Hillary Clinton, have perpetrated. I think Reagan did some horrible things and I hate the philosophy that he popularized. I believe he was one of the top Presidents and that his overall influence was positive, but I can understand how one could disagree. But this site holds him to a blatant double-standard because of his association with the current Republican Party.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Oh yeah, and also, the claim that Reagan vilified organized labour is pure partisan bullshit. Reagan spoke repeatedly as President of how unions and collective bargaining were an essential part of democracy and had greatly improved the country. He gets far too much blame for what happened with PATCO: whether or not one thinks that public sector workers should be allowed to strike, KENNEDY was the one who banned it, Reagan was only enforcing pre-existing laws. The link used to prove Reagan (paraphrased) "started a downward spiral that tore apart wages" shows wages beginning to stagnate in the 1970s or 2000s depending on what metric you use. There isn't a single word in the article about Reagan.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Right, so this has been up for a few weeks now and is at over +7000 and nobody has offered a counterargument, I think it may be time to start working on a rewrite.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Liberal Bias in This Report[edit]

(Echoing my post on the Margaret Thatcher page.) While I appreciate the fact that RationalWiki is most likely to engage a liberal attendance, I believe any source that slants too far in one direction is not likely to be taken seriously by the very audience the source intends to inform. Note: I have not read through all edit histories and the like and I suspect the bias apparent in this article is a symptom of an abundance of liberal and a lack of conservative input. Also note: I am a well-informed lay history buff with a primary focus on martial history and a secondary focus on global socio-economics and politics. I appreciate Reagan's reputation from both a conservative and liberal perspective, but this page appears to be a sort of "booger wall" where every left-wing pundit has dumped snot on this personage. Again, I'm a newbie to RW, but it seems the site should have some editorial policies in place (along with personnel to apply such policies) to prevent this sort of bias from running rampant. For example, focusing the discussion on his hammy picture roles and his Alzheimer's (shame on you) is too easy. At the same time, positing a purely negative discussion of his military and economic policies without remarking on the effect these policies had on "spending the USSR to death" also seems to present dubious value to any discussion of the man (of course, you may believe destruction of Soviet Communism was a net-negative, which position I find difficult to support). I wonder what would happen, were I to find and here post a dozen POSITIVE things to say about this man... however maligned, he was also a great example of change (positive AND negative) and he played a pivotal role in improving American's self-image in many ways. Any response?--Epsilon3 (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The simple fact is that any contribution Reagan made to the collapse of the USSR was negligible, a fact which is widely acknowledged outside the Reagan fellatio conservative (or European style liberal) circles. This page is a useful reminder of what Reagan actually did and a necessary counter to the saintly image that has inserted itself into much of the public consciousness through massive promotion by right wing political parties, think tanks and media.
I find it interesting that you emphasise Reagan's "pivotal role in improving American's self-image" because that is, to me, his most insidious legacy: The ability to ignore his appalling right wing foreign and domestic policies in favour of feel-good reverence and nostalgia. The fact that it doesn't matter if Reagan put a hammer to the vestiges of New Deal controls on jungle capitalism or social support for those who lose out in its tooth and claw struggle, that deficits ballooned (as everyone had warned they would) due to Reaganomics, or that Reagan illegally supported death squads using funds obtained through arms deals with a hostile country in contravention of both a Congressional ban and the Constitution; that's all okay as long as people "feel good about themselves". ScepticWombat (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Reagan had a number of centre-left social and economic policies? Which ones?[edit]

"Reagan had a number of centre-left social and economic policies that would not fly with today's far-right conservatives" claims RW editor Darth Ravigious. What were these and are they more an indication of how much the US political spectrum and the Overton windowWikipedia has shifted to the right, rather than Ronnie's leftie credentials? ScepticWombat (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • First off, it is obvious, if one has a basic understanding of Ronald Reagan, that he was nowhere near as crazy as today's conservatives. Despite this being basic common sense, I am aware that evidence is necessary. I will go and find some citations later if you would like, but, to remain brief for the time being, I will say that this notion has been proposed by various political scientists, as well as many left-wing politicians. Both left and right in the United States hold Reagan in esteem as being one of the most impactful leaders of the late 20th century. Although a conservative, he supported and acted upon a number of policies now associated with the American left.

1. As governor of California, he signed a liberal abortion law. He was known to be a supporter of Roe v. Wade in his earlier days, although, once elected president, he rarely talked about abortion, most likely indicating that he remained pro-choice, but, due to his large support by the conservative right, knew that it would hurt him politically if he were to include it on his social platform.

2. Towards the end of his presidency, Reagan raised taxes after realizing that cutting them was a mistake and would ultimately do damage to the economy, thereby rescinding the economic platform that he initially ran on.

3. He offered amnesty to five million Mexican immigrants, being pro-open borders.

4. Despite his early support of the arms race, Reagan was, for the most part, anti-war, taking the initiative in order to ensure further nuclear proliferation. Both he and Gorbachev established a working relationship to dismantle almost all active nuclear weapons in both countries.

5. Following the murder of Americans in Iraq and Iran, Reagan stood against the hardcore neocons in congress who were in favor of war against both countries. His vice president just so happened to be one of those neocons, and eventually did the opposite of what Reagan wanted to do. This, of course, was taken to an even more violent extreme by the vice-president in question's son.

6. He believed in climate change. He dedicated certain funding to help reduce carbon emissions.

7. Reagan tripled the federal deficit.

8. Reagan increased the size of the federal government. He did not believe that states should have more power than the central government, unlike most of today's Republicans.

9. Reagan was a staunch supporter of the anti-apartheid movement, and close ally of Mandela.

10. He supported gun control.

11. Aside from being a critic of medicare, he was a fiscal centrist and, while a strong capitalist, did not believe in the unlimited power of large businesses.

12. He did not combat gay marriage. Similar to abortion, he did not include his stances on homosexuality on his platform and did NOT discuss it while president. He was a social liberal in Hollywood, and it is doubtful that he switched his view altogether. That aside, while not a vocal supporter, he was critical of those who were against it.

This would have made him only a tad bit to the right of Bill Clinton on the political compass. Compared to the conservatives today, he seems pretty damn liberal. Darth Ravigious (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Could also been an compromise to appease the left in Cal.
7. Reagan tripled the federal deficit. <- that is pretty conservative see Dubya
6. Thats not a believe. That is a scientific fact. and no that doesn't make you left.
4.+5.+9. that isn't leftist but basic human decency a trait (i hope ) humans share beyond the political divide
11.Contradicts his Trickle-down economics
12.that only serves as a point that he had centrist policies. --Benaresh (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but "basic human decency" these days is generally seen as a "leftist trait", compared to most conservatives these days. And I am specifically referring to his later days as president for number eleven. And still...appeasing the left and signing a bill that does so is still embracing a liberal ideology, whether they believe in it on a personal level or not. It is still clear that Reagan would NEVER be elected by today's own GOP. As for climate change, yes, it is a fact, but it has since become a politicized issue. You cannot deny that. And it has since been more ingrained within the platforms of the left, or, at least, environmental preservation efforts, which were not only encouraged, but also supported by Reagan. Whether you like him as a president or not (I personally think he's one of the greatest presidents of the late 20th century. Obama is the best president we have had since Reagan). You cannot say that everything that I have stated are not liberal ideologies. They are, and always have been, attributed to the left. Darth Ravigious (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As an opponent of basic human decency, let me ask about #2. Were the tax cuts on individuals rescinded? Specifically, which taxes were raised? Oh, and RW has an article on Reagan's environmental policy, Trees cause pollution. nobs 14:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
When conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world’s ‘largest tax cut’ and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. Did he rescind it on individuals? I do not know. But that is a bit of a red herring, as it does not change the fact that he had liberal policies. And we ALL know that he would NEVER get elected by today's GOP. The Republican Party has become so radical, that those who would have been considered staunchly conservative yesterday are now centrists by today's standards. Take a look at John Kasich. Back in the 80's, he'd be considered more conservative than Reagan. Now, he's a centrist and one of the few reasonable Republicans left (was kinda rooting for him to get the Republican nomination, and for Sanders to get the dem. nomination. Either result would have ended well, but that is beside the point). I still do not understand the hate for Reagan here. I understand this is a leftist wiki, but it almost seems as if every aspect of conservatism is bashed, including rational fiscal ideologies. The last thing this wiki needs is to become the liberal conservapedia. Darth Ravigious (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
My question is a bit of a technical one, and not intended to be demeaning personally, but this claim is little more than a cut n paste talking point from somewhere. The question has to do with tax increases in the aggregate, I.e., the revenues collected by the government. It would be false claim indeed to make the claim Reagan rescinded the personal tax cuts implemented in 1981. Yes, there was a further Democratic tax reform measure in 1987, the Bradley-Gebhardt (so-called) "Flat Tax" that reduced the rate schedules from 9 to 5 "flat tax" rates (interestingly enough, Donald Trump's first foray into Republican presidential electoral politics was an attack on how the Bradley-Gebhardt bill effected real estate investment). There were no individual rate increases until 1993, when the Democratic Congress and Clinton raised the top rate from 36% to 39.6%. Bottom line, it's categorically false claim to say Reagan rescinded his individual tax cuts. nobs 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me explain this a bit further. Aspects of the original Reagan program encouraged commercial real estate construction and development. By 1986, when the Democrats retook control if Congress, along with their cries to "tax the rich", vacancy rates among newly completed commercial properties were somewhat high by historical standards. The Democrats had enough sense to not tamper with individual tax rates, but targeted real estate investment so they could go back to the voters and claim they stuck it to the rich (real estate investors typically have little regular ordinary income and sometimes can wait for years to have any income at all from the sale if a property). This is when Trump first actively became involved as a candidate himself to take his message to the public, but few voters had sympathy for a whiney rich guy. nobs 18:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Not saying there is anything wrong with it, but you sound like a bit of a Trump apologist. Kind of surprising coming from a site like this. Darth Ravigious (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm just an historical chronicler with bias. Never cared much for Trump but I had to vote for him to stop Hillary. Since his election, I'm still waiting for him to pursuede me on anti-free trade, immigration, and foreign policy. At this point, it's a matter if him trying to convert me to positions long held by Ross Perot and labor unions that contravene the economic policies implemented by Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. nobs 23:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Fellow libertarian? O_o Darth Ravigious (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
FYI: Darth, you're discussing with this guy. I'd advise you to proportion your intended goals with said discussion accordingly. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yikes. I would not have expected a CP user to be an editor here at all. Darth Ravigious (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
He's a bit of a beloved novelty around these parts. Just don't base your life on what he tells ya. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Are there many classical liberals on here, by the way? Darth Ravigious (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Getting back to the original topic.
Of the entire 12 point list only the first and the last (abortion and gay marriage) are arguably indicative of "leftism" and even they can be grounded in libertarianism, making point 10 (gun control) probably the best argument of all those listed, and it still has to be viewed in the context of prevailing views on gun control at the time to see if it is merely indicative of a shift of the Overton window.
The rest are simply not indicative of leftist views as they can be equally defended from a right wing perspective (e.g. amnesty for migrants) or are simply common sense (as in trying to reverse an idiotic fiscal policy you've introduced, not getting into middle eastern wars, and reversing your sabre rattling to avoid raising the risk of a US/Soviet nuclear confrontation).
Point 11 (Reagan as a fiscal centrist) is simply flat out wrong as an indication of Reagan's leftism and instead illustrates how far right the US Overton window has moved rightward since 1979: Then Republican nominee contender George H. W. Bush and several commentators lampooned Reagan's economic plans with Bush Sr. labelling them "voodoo economics" (and the critics were right, btw, leading to point 7 and necessitating point 2). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Inslaw affair[edit]

This article mentions that Inslaw was never investigated (by the Democratic Congress, no less). Here's why.

  • Hillary Rodham Clinton became the intellectual property lawyer for the company that the Inslaw pirated software was sold to;
  • DNC fixit man Clark Clifford was Chairman of the Board of the bank that used and distributed the pirated Inslaw software;
  • John Kerry investigated Clark Clifford and Hillary's bosses;
  • Robert Fiske was Clark Clifford's defense attorney; Fiske later was appointed Special Prosecutor for Whitewater by the Clinton Justice Dept. and eventually removed when his conflict of interest was exposed, that he was empowered to investigate the same people he defended related to the Inslaw scandal, BCCI, and Arkansas money laundering of drug profits in the Iran/Contra scandal.

Should we leave it as such, or expand upon with the missing information? nobs 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Was Regan secretly a commie?[edit]

I can't help but believe that in the future we'll see in the United States and throughout the Western World an increasing trend toward the next logical step: employee ownership. It's a path that benefits a free people.
—St. Ron himself (@1:35)
ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 02:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If he were president today, and the Iran-Contra Affair were more recent, his own party would probably all turn on him, turning it into another Benghazi[edit]

Pardon my cynicism, but can we be sure of this? Remember, it's OK if you're a Republican. Boredatwork (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that Hillary is more or less where Reagan used to be, yes, they would burn him at the stake (metaphorically one would hope) for doing any business with Iran. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hillary who? I'm talking about the current president. Anything Trump does is fine by the GOP, anything a Democrat does is treason that will destroy America. Right and wrong for them is strictly party political. Boredatwork (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


So one section mentions that Reagan's defense spending helped the collapse of the USSR, while the very next basically says that he didn't have that much to do with it, and that the majority of the causes of the USSR's collapse were present before Reagan. So, which is it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Late to the party, but it's definitely the latter. "We spent them into the ground" implies our spending has any control over another nation's. It's bad reasoning. The supporting evidence that the problems predated Reagan is good, but the argument the the right leaning people make about it make no sense on just a moment's thought. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Presidential Pardon[edit]

A man was convicted of murder at the state level and sentenced to death. However, he was given life imprisonment at the federal level for other charges. Since the federal sentence must be served before the state sentence, he was safe from execution. Until Ronald Reagan pardoned him of the federal sentence, allowing (forcing?) him to serve his state sentence.

My searches are not revealing the identity of this man (and obviously no source), so I'm not ready to include it in this article. I could only find the full list of 406 pardons Reagan granted, but it doesn't catalog exactly which crimes were pardoned and thus finding the information I need would be very tedious. If anyone else has heard this story and could help, please let me know. --Vital Forces (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfocused article[edit]

This is an uncharacteristically unfocused article. The first few paragraphs awkwardly hot potato between "Reagan was a terrible president" and "Reagan was good, but it's because he was liberal," all in this smug tone that sounds hollow and rushed with no actual confidence in its point of view to back it up. Also, what's with the article taking three separate stances on Reagan's role in the USSR's collapse? It seems to me like the article's editors are wrestling in their heads with the overwhelming consensus that Reagan was a good president, which the introduction just sort of brushes over in a one-liner, with their ideology that requires them to think everything this man did was evil. It's like a libertarian writing an article on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Also, regarding the section about Reagan's foremost electoral impact being the Republican takeover of "evangelicals," "gun nuts," and "white nationalists--" he won 49 states during reelection. 49. If he moved the country rightward, it's probably because he sold them on his economic policies, not because he was a gun-slinging evangelical white nationalist. Msdalr1 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)