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”
Anon E Mouse
Jamie – Your socialist bias it clearly evident in every response you make. That aside, what Reagan did was change the “tone” of thinking in America in the same way Thatcher did over here.
Pre Reagan, America had hardline left wingers and he moved them towards the right – seemingly permanently. Thatcher moved Labour the same way here from a childish party with silly left wing aspirations, to an electable popular movement of winners under Tony Blair.
At some point the Labour Party in this country will wake up, ditch Miliband and shift rightwards again like the whole of the planet seems to have gone.
In my opinion the world’s “right shift” started under Reagan and despite a few hiccups it’s back on track again.
As for reasonable debate if you read some of the previous articles on this fine blog you’ll realise it may a forlorn hope…
Paul Odtaa
Reagan was just a figure head. He acted his part well while behind the scenes the representatives of corporate America quietly looted the country.
The arms spending, which supposedly brought the USSR down, was a major part of the looting process. The Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse anyway and it would have fallen apart anyway.
Regan’s legacy is:
– the fact that unregulated corporations and rich individuals rule the world and if they get it wrong the ordinary citizen bails them out, loses their jobs etc
– that these rulers don’t pay their fair whack of tax and their globalised companies destroy small business and bring down the standard of living of the majority.
– that both in America and Russia there is a military imperative – where there is too much power in the military lobby which leads to wars like Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya and draconian power for state organisations in the ‘War on Terror’.
– and let’s not forget his role in under-mining democracy and people’s rights all over the world.
Richard
“And (working on the assumption you’re not an American) what business is it of yours what another country chooses to spend it’s own money on?”
Ancd what business is it of yours, Mickey Mouse, what Jamie decides to make his business. Keep your nose out and stick to your scrounging.
Richard
“On the economic front, he reduced tax rates across the board, he stemmed the increase in federal spending”
I can’t believe you’re perpetrating that myth, Anthony, and didn’t do some fact-checking beforehand. As the historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s diaries, said: “There’s a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn’t happen that way. It’s false.”
After Reagan’s first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. Throughout his presidency, federal spending grew by an average of 2.5% a year. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today’s 40-year average of 20.7%,
And he raised all manner of taxes (Reagan in fact raised taxes in seven of his eight years), most famously the 1983 Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll taxes. All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation. By the end of his presidency, annual federal tax receipts averaged 18.2% of GDP, very slightly above the 40-year average today. Furthermore, blue and white collar workers were paying a larger proportion of their income in taxes than when he entered office.
Then there is the matter of the national debt. When he took office, it stood at $700bn; when he left, $3 trillion.
By the standards of today’s Republicans, the Gipper would be crucified as a RINO.
Anthony Painter
@Richard. I most definitely did fact check. Look at what I wrote and look at the statistics you’ve quoted. There is no contradiction at all. I talked about spending- you are talking about deficit/debt. Different things. And I didn’t say he reduced spending. I said he’d stemmed the increase. I quoted very specific tax rates- though things like excise duty increased and social security taxes increased (as a result of a law passed in 1977 before he was president). On the debt I say:
“but inequality increased and a federal deficit remained despite economic boom times.”
Yes, there was more data I could have put in. I chose not to in the interests of avoiding a 5000 word essay. What I did include gives a fair overview.