Here’s to Reagan: his kind light up our political world

Anthony Painter pays tribute to Ronald Reagan; though a right-winger, one can admire him as a leader if not admire him for his politics.

In the hit 1985 time-travel blockbuster Back to the Future the veracity of Marty McFly’s claims to be from the future are tested by a doubting Dr Emmett Brown:

Emmett Brown: “Then tell me, “Future Boy”, who’s President in the United States in 1985?”

Marty McFly: “Ronald Reagan.”

Emmett Brown: “Ronald Reagan? The actor? [chuckles in disbelief] Then who’s VICE-President? Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady! And Jack Benny is Secretary of the Treasury!”

And much of the world still has the same attitude. It is as unbelievable that Ronald Reagan could be president as the suggestion that George W Bush could be. That says more about us than him. Reagan was president. And he was successful.


The easy thing is to go with your political convictions in assessing the standing of a president. The left likes Kennedy and Roosevelt (Franklin); are ambivalent about Johnson (Vietnam) and Clinton (a triangulating politician and flawed man who could nonetheless make us swoon); Carter is ignored and deliberately forgotten (a better ex-president than president); Truman launched Enola Gay; and the jury is out on Obama (oh, how we crave betrayal.)

Bush, Bush, Nixon, and Reagan are generally placed in the political dock. That leaves Eisenhower: more an independent than a Republican and he called out the Military-Industrial Complex and sent the troops in to de-segregate Little Rock Central High School so had his good points.

Much of this is perfectly justifiable. With Reagan though there’s something unsatisfactory about it. There is an important contextual point that must be made: it is possible to disagree with someone politically and yet admire them as a leader. And on his own terms, Reagan was a successful leader. His record though is rightly and heavily contested.

He had two focuses for his presidency: peace and prosperity. On the economic front, he reduced tax rates across the board, he stemmed the increase in federal spending (and shifted it towards defence), de-regulated the US economy and got a grip of inflation through control of the money supply. By the time he left office the top rate of tax was 28% rather than 70%; the top rate of corporation tax was 34% rather than 48%.

Of course, deregulation had some disastrous consequences such as the savings and loans financial crisis.

Productivity increased, unemployment fell, inflation fell, but inequality increased and a federal deficit remained despite economic boom times. In 1980, Reagan had campaigned on the question:

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Watch it:

By 1984, he was proclaiming that it was morning again in America in this iconic commercial:

There are interesting parallels here in today’s British political context. Essentially, the 2015 election will be a battle between Reagan 1980 and 1984. Labour will be asking: “Are you better off now than in 2010?”; the Conservatives will wish to do a Reagan 1984. Reagan’s statue was unveiled today. His political messaging defines our own political times.

But it was his presence on the global stage that has led to his memorial in Grosvenor Square. He insisted that Mr Gorbachev “tear down this wall”:

His aggressive rearmourment is seen as being the hammer blow that broke the Soviet economic back. His promise of the “advance of human liberty” was a siren call that beckoned the Soviet Union towards the rocks. Crushed by economic power and seduced by freedom the Soviet bloc crumbled.

There is more than a dash of mythology in this popular narrative. Leon Aron contends this the conclusion that the Soviet revolution was externally caused in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine. Like the Arab Spring, the Soviet spring had it roots in domestic corruption. Life in an autocratic state gets you down over time. The Tunisians cried: “Dignity before Bread.” And so did the Soviets and others across Eastern Europe.

And no account of Reagan’s actions on the world stage would be complete without mentioning the small matter of the Iran-contra affair where cash from arms sales to Iran (!) was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan’s administration was no means ethically pure.

Reagan’s record will be debated endlessly. Each side will approach him coloured with their own political hue. But there is something magnificent about him. He had a moral clarity of voice, a wit, a warmth, a charm, a comforting story-telling manner, and a glint in his eye. It’s easy to see why Dr Emmett Brown scoffed. It’s also important to understand why he was wrong.

There have been two legendary post-founding father presidents: Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Reagan is not in that category. He’s not really close. However, he certainly is one the most important 20th-century US presidents. We can admire him and question him in equal measure. He is worthy of his statue in Grosvenor Square. Here’s to the Gipper: his kind light up our political world.

51 Responses to “Here’s to Reagan: his kind light up our political world”

  1. Billi

    The pressure on the USSR was economic. No matter how powerfull they were, militarily, at home they lived in slums. Reagan forced them to the table by betting they would “Jaw Jaw” before war. Team Freedom won.

    You ‘marxist maggots’ failed in Eastern Europe for the same reason you failed in Cambodia.

    “You have Nothing to offer Humanity”.

    Starvation, supression, humiliation, slavery (in camps), poverty and Death.

    Marxism is a Death Cult. It has nothing to offer. History Shows That !

  2. Jamie

    @billi Reagan did not force anyone to do anything. The Russians wanted to negotiate after they accepted the U.S.S.R. was falling apart. As for Marxism the Soviet Union was not Marxist neither is China, Cuba, Venezuela or anywhere else. History tells us little about Marxism. For the closest things to Marxism in action (although really anarcho-syndicalism which is very similar) see anything about the Paris Commune,Kibbutz or Anarchist Catalonia. Interestingly in anarchist Catalonia during the civil war they were attacked by “communists” backed by the Soviets (who were broadly speaking closer to Stalinism not Marxists) None of these examples are perfect or a society I would neccisarily want to live in. But rather than being a “death cult” in Anarchist Catalonia productivity and general well being is believed by most scholars to have increased quite substantially compared to pre-civil war Catalonia.

  3. George Hallam

    @Billi “The pressure on the USSR was economic. No matter how powerfull they were, militarily, at home they lived in slums.”

    A slum: a run-down area of a city characterized by substandard housing and squalor and lacking in tenure security. UN-HABITAT ( United Nations agency) definition.

    Soviet tenants has security of tenure.

  4. Anon E Mouse

    matthew fox – For once I agree with you. I believe you REALLY don’t understand why he got a statue…

    Jamie – All you’re doing is making excuses. No sensible person wants Socialism irrespective of how you try to sugar the pill. The idea of Socialism sucks…

  5. Jamie

    @anon e mouse – So again no mention of Reagans record. I don’t know if you’re not aware of it (although there’s been much discussion of it above) or you think it’s such a good record it’s not worthy of mention.

    I also like your finessed argument “The idea of socialism sucks…”. It would be easier to take your argument seriously if you hadn’t confused socialism with what the Soviet Union practised earlier. I’m not excusing in anyway the Soviet Unions crimes. They were horrendous. But they weren’t Socialists. I only ask you at least recognise what Reagan did (whether you think it’s right or wrong). Arguing from apparent ignorance both of history and even what is or is not socialism then referring to others as being unreasonable,inexperienced and making excuses while not responding seriously to any points yourself is confirmation of either inability to debate, accept facts that contradict your point of view,a lack of understanding of basic political theory (high school level) or all three.

    So that was fun. First time i’ve ever commented on any blog post. it certainly lived up to my expectations of informed and reasonable debate. won’t be doing this again………..

Comments are closed.