Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

[Controlled Chaos]

Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

Thomas Sowell (back to web version) | Send

 

 

June 8, 2004

 

 

There are many ways to judge a President or anyone else. One old-fashioned way is by results. A more popular way in recent years has been by how well someone fits the preconceptions of the intelligentsia or the media.

 

By the first test, Ronald Reagan was the most successful President of the United States in the 20th century. By the second test, he was a complete failure.

 

Time and time again President Reagan went against what the smug smarties inside the beltway and on the TV tube said. And time and again he got results.

 

It started even before Ronald Reagan was elected. When the Republicans nominated Governor Reagan in 1980, according to the late Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield, "people I knew in the Carter White House were ecstatic." They considered Reagan "not nearly smart enough" -- as liberals measured smart.

 

The fact that Ronald Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter by a landslide did not cause any re-evaluation of his intelligence. It was luck or malaise or something else, liberals thought.

 

Now the media line was that this cowboy from California would be taught a lesson when he got to Washington and had to play in the big leagues against the savvy guys on Capitol Hill.

 

The new President succeeded in putting through Congress big changes that were called "the Reagan revolution." And he did it without ever having his party in control of both houses of Congress. But these results caused no re-evaluation of Ronald Reagan.

 

One of his first acts as President was to end price controls on petroleum. The New York Times condescendingly dismissed Reagan's reliance on the free market and repeated widespread predictions of "declining domestic oil production" and skyrocketing gasoline prices.

 

Within four months the price of gasoline fell by more than 60 cents a gallon. More luck, apparently.

 

Where the new President would really get his comeuppance, the smart money said, was in foreign affairs, where a former governor had no experience. Not only were President Reagan's ideas about foreign policy considered naive and dangerously reckless, he would be going up against the wily Soviet rulers who were old hands at this stuff.

 

When Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," there were howls of disapproval in the media. When he proposed meeting a Soviet nuclear buildup in Eastern Europe with an American nuclear buildup in Western Europe, there were alarms that he was going to get us into a war.

 

The result? President Reagan's policies not only did not get us into a war, they put an end to the Cold War that had been going on for decades.

 

Meanwhile, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the media's idea of a brilliant and sophisticated man, had a whole Communist empire collapse under him when his policies were put into effect. Eastern Europe broke free and Gorbachev woke up one morning to find that the Soviet Union that he was head of no longer existed -- and that he was now a nobody in the new Russian state.

 

But that was just bad luck, apparently.

 

For decades it had been considered the height of political wisdom to accept as given that the Soviet bloc was here to stay -- and its expansion was so inevitable that it would be foolhardy to try to stop it.

 

The Soviet bloc had in fact expanded through seven consecutive administrations of both Republicans and Democrats. The first territory the Communists ever lost was Grenada, when Ronald Reagan sent in American troops.

 

But, once again, results carried no weight with the intelligentsia and the media.

 

Reagan was considered to be completely out of touch when he said that Communism was "another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." But how many "smart" people saw the end of the Soviet Union coming?

 

Ronald Reagan left this country -- and the world -- a far better place than he found it. And he smiled while he did it. That's greatness -- if you judge by results.

[soxman352000]

Great man, Great article the last line is so true

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

Thomas Sowell (back to web version) |  Send

 

 

June 8, 2004

 

 

There are many ways to judge a President or anyone else. One old-fashioned way is by results. A more popular way in recent years has been by how well someone fits the preconceptions of the intelligentsia or the media.

 

By the first test, Ronald Reagan was the most successful President of the United States in the 20th century. By the second test, he was a complete failure.

 

Time and time again President Reagan went against what the smug smarties inside the beltway and on the TV tube said. And time and again he got results.

 

It started even before Ronald Reagan was elected. When the Republicans nominated Governor Reagan in 1980, according to the late Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield, "people I knew in the Carter White House were ecstatic." They considered Reagan "not nearly smart enough" -- as liberals measured smart.

 

The fact that Ronald Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter by a landslide did not cause any re-evaluation of his intelligence. It was luck or malaise or something else, liberals thought.

 

Now the media line was that this cowboy from California would be taught a lesson when he got to Washington and had to play in the big leagues against the savvy guys on Capitol Hill.

 

The new President succeeded in putting through Congress big changes that were called "the Reagan revolution." And he did it without ever having his party in control of both houses of Congress. But these results caused no re-evaluation of Ronald Reagan.

 

One of his first acts as President was to end price controls on petroleum. The New York Times condescendingly dismissed Reagan's reliance on the free market and repeated widespread predictions of "declining domestic oil production" and skyrocketing gasoline prices.

 

Within four months the price of gasoline fell by more than 60 cents a gallon. More luck, apparently.

 

Where the new President would really get his comeuppance, the smart money said, was in foreign affairs, where a former governor had no experience. Not only were President Reagan's ideas about foreign policy considered naive and dangerously reckless, he would be going up against the wily Soviet rulers who were old hands at this stuff.

 

When Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," there were howls of disapproval in the media. When he proposed meeting a Soviet nuclear buildup in Eastern Europe with an American nuclear buildup in Western Europe, there were alarms that he was going to get us into a war.

 

The result? President Reagan's policies not only did not get us into a war, they put an end to the Cold War that had been going on for decades.

 

Meanwhile, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the media's idea of a brilliant and sophisticated man, had a whole Communist empire collapse under him when his policies were put into effect. Eastern Europe broke free and Gorbachev woke up one morning to find that the Soviet Union that he was head of no longer existed -- and that he was now a nobody in the new Russian state.

 

But that was just bad luck, apparently.

 

For decades it had been considered the height of political wisdom to accept as given that the Soviet bloc was here to stay -- and its expansion was so inevitable that it would be foolhardy to try to stop it.

 

The Soviet bloc had in fact expanded through seven consecutive administrations of both Republicans and Democrats. The first territory the Communists ever lost was Grenada, when Ronald Reagan sent in American troops.

 

But, once again, results carried no weight with the intelligentsia and the media.

 

Reagan was considered to be completely out of touch when he said that Communism was "another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." But how many "smart" people saw the end of the Soviet Union coming?

 

Ronald Reagan left this country -- and the world -- a far better place than he found it. And he smiled while he did it. That's greatness -- if you judge by results.

That is indeed a fine article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Texsox]

I find it amazing that the Dems get zero credit when the GOP did not have control of both houses. Without the social spending, the feel good wouldn't have. It was democracy at it's finest.

[JUGGERNAUT]

In this country of now 290 million people I find myself ripped between two ideologies: social conservatism & economic liberalism. As much as I identify with Ronald Reagan on the first I now adamantly disagree with him on the second. I believe economic conservatism worked when the economy was driven by America. An America that by & large played by the same rules: min wage, subsidies, etc. But that is no longer the case & Reagan's policies are partly to blame.

 

I can hardly call them Reagan's because they have been shared by every president since including Clinton. The quick embrace of the global economy left America with a decimated manufacturing base & now we are beginning to see the same effect in back-office services. The bulk of America's economy is supported by back-office services. I remember the arguments back in the late 80's when the manufacturing losses were a trickle. I remember the pundits saying don't worry it's not going to have much of an effect. Today are manufacturing base is 1/2 of what it once was. Ten's of millions of jobs have been affected.

 

It's not the fall of the Soviet empire that Reagan should be exalted for. It's the initiatives he put in place & Bush Sr carried through that have helped the Soviets embrace democracy & capitalism. It's the speed at which this has taken place that we should marvel at. But there has been a very heavy cost. One that will either prove to be our ultimate downfall or our ultimate success. Reagan bet that capitalism & democracy would eventually creep into China. He firmly believed it's impossible to have one without the other. China is trying to do just that. If Reagan is proving wrong then eventually "China's Iron Hand" driving it's capitalistic markets will crush America. If things remain as they are America is destined for a 2nd great depression that might last for decades instead of years. If Reagan is proven right then capitalism will inevitably create a spirit of freedom & choice for which no govt will be able to suppress. That would earn him a spot on Mt Rushmore.

[1549]

That would earn him a spot on Mt Rushmore.

 

I don't see his face coming out well on rock.

 

I agree for the most part, but I think the transition in Russia oculd have been smoother. There was a good article in National Geographic a year or two ago that showed the positive aspects and negative aspects of life in Russia now. It showed both a struggling economy, and a large number of people who want to see communism restore the glory to the mother russia.

 

I often think of the older people who were no longer working and lived off the state. They really got screwed when communism fell.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I don't see his face coming out well on rock.

 

I agree for the most part, but I think the transition in Russia oculd have been smoother.  There was a good article in National Geographic a year or two ago that showed the positive aspects and negative aspects of life in Russia now.  It showed both a struggling economy, and a large number of people who want to see communism restore the glory to the mother russia.

 

I often think of the older people who were no longer working and lived off the state.  They really got screwed when communism fell.

Well considering Chicago is now considered the #1 heroin spot in America capitalism will always have it's share of legal & illegal businesses. I was shocked to read that they estimate no less than 300K gang members in the Chicago met. That includes all major popul centers. Russia & even Iraq will be no different. So in that respect you swap state sponsored terrorism of citizens with gang driven terrorism. That's just part of the game.

 

From what I read of China even under a communist regime organized crime as already taken solid roots in it's capitalistic economy. This has proven many a socialist wrong who always believed that crime was the result of democracy & freedom. The gang problems in China are growing worse. A million man army can not police a nation of a billion. Likewise, China's wealth is slowly eroding from the communists to the capitalists. The wealthiest persons in China are those at the top of the communist pyramid & foreign investors. The trickle down theory is not working well there.

So they may be experiencing double digit GDP yr after yr but their buying power & consumerism is growing at a crawl.