General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums10 Reprehensible Crimes Of Ronald Reagan
10 Throwing Mental Patients Onto The Streets
Reagan’s mass purging of mental health hospitals first began when he was the governor of California. As governor, Reagan threw more than half of the state’s mental health patients out of hospitals and onto the streets. He abolished the hospitals’ ability to institutionalize patients with severe mental illness. With nowhere else for these mental patients to go—most with disabilities that prevented them from working—they simply became homeless.
http://listverse.com/2015/01/15/10-reprehensible-crimes-of-ronald-reagan/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Many on DU like to pretend otherwise.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)That's just not the Presidential thing to do.
And besides, what Obama said about Reagan was the fact that his term in office was a transformative one. Which, I suppose is the very reason why we're having this discussion about him now. It was a true statement by Obama, whether we like Reagan or not.
Now, none of us have forgotten that Reagan was a Republican and that Obama is a Democrat, right?
If Obama said to the Republicans that he wished his own term in office to be just as transformative as Reagan's, wouldn't that actually mean that his own transformative term in office would be one in behalf of Democrats instead?
In a way, you can say that Obama had declared himself, in a round about way, to be the Anti-Reagan.
If anything, I'm quite sure that the Republicans themselves had that very thought when they heard his name come out of the mouth of the very person that they hate so much. What were they supposed to say then... That they were against the transformative nature of Reagan's presidency simply because Obama referred to it?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)You don't praise the guy who turned America onto a path of destruction. There are PLENTY of very successful DEMOCRATIC presidents to emulate. LOTS. Hell, you could reference Clinton or Carter and you would still be talking about the most successful presidents in the modern era. You don't need to praise or emulate fucking evil. That sort of logic you are using is completely twisted.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)The Presidency is like a fraternity and in it it's completely unheard of to refer to one's predecessor or successor negatively. Even a partisan like Shrubya will refuse to violate that unwritten rule.
The problem that Obama had early on was that he knew that had to eventually deal with the Republicans who would be hellbent on canonizing Reagan as a foil to himself had he won the Democratic nomination. So, in light of that, how would Obama "praising" Clinton or Carter counter any efforts by the GOP in Reagan's name? If he wanted to become the "Anti-Reagan," promoting Democratic policies, what better way than pointing out to his opponents that he would be Reagan's foil instead?
How could Obama OWN the Republicans? He would do that by away THEIR symbol. Now you call it "praising," but he chose his words carefully when he described Reagan. He merely called Reagan "transformative." Faint praise, but an accurate description of Reagan's impact.
Now if you think that what I've written represents twisted logic, check out this post from The Obama Diary website:
By Chipsticks 118 Comments
by Japa (@deaconmill)
In 2008, during the primary campaign, in an interview, then Senator Obama talked about how Reagan had been a transformative President and how he hoped to be the same. He was immediately attacked by many, included his main opponent as being supportive of Reagan’s policies. That attack, like many others before and since (clinging to guns and religion, they didn’t build that, etc.) was, of course, based upon a deliberate misreading and misinterpretation of what he said and meant.
If it isn’t obvious to everyone now, and it should be, President Obama represents the antithesis of everything President Reagan stood for. He has repeatedly called out the GOP for continuing the failed policies of Reagonomics. His approach to immigration reform is radically different than Reagan’s blanket amnesty with no follow-up policy. He does not see foreign policy as a case of who can puff up their chest the biggest, like Reagan and his successors did. He supports unions. He supports all human rights. He abhors the policies of racism. He truly recognizes the difficulties and nuances of decision making.
Yet, as much as Reagan Presidency was transformative in a negative way, President Obama’s is becoming transformative in a uniquely positive way. In fact, it may end up being the most positively transformative Presidency in the history of our country. And this is not due to specific legislation passed with his urging, although much of that legislation will impact this country and how it views the government’s role in helping its citizens for decades to come. Nor is it due to the fact that he is, probably, one of the top three President’s in terms of rhetorical skills. Nor is it because he is the first black President. All of those are important to his legacy, but they are not transformative in terms of how the country is run or how the President interacts with the other branches of government.
Earlier, Liberal Librarian posted a piece about how the President’s recent address on national security disavowed the concept of eternal war. As has become expected, that post was incisive and caught the point of an important aspect of that speech. It turns a corner in what, for many Americans, has been the major focus of this country for much of their adult lives.
I want to focus, for a minute, one the other important aspect of the speech, the part that to me shows how transformative this President is. Throughout the history of this country, President’s have consistently been ceded powers by the Congress, especially in the military realm, but in other areas as well. This culminated under the Bush administration with the AUMF and the Patriot Act. The Congress, representing us, gave Bush and his cronies unprecedented powers which they used to the utmost. It was, rightfully, called The Imperial Presidency.
However, that Imperial Presidency could not have happened if over the decades and centuries prior to that, Congress had not given, or at least looked the other way, the Presidency increasing powers. Oh, there were times, during our country’s history, when Congress would try to take back some powers or take the President down a notch or two. But the general pattern has always been increased Presidential powers which the Oval Office clung unto, passed to the next in line, and worked very hard not to give up.
Until May 23, 2013. For probably the first time in history, a President actually came forward and requested that Congress take away some of his powers. This is a President who realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. And it isn’t that President Obama is afraid to take on responsibility, but he realizes that having that much power placed in the hands of one person is dangerous and can easily lead to abuse of those powers. Some would say he has abused those powers already, especially those who say they speak for the “left”. I would argue that point, but this is not the time to do so.
Rather, I would point out that this is a transformative moment, piled on top of other transformative moments throughout this Presidency. This is a man, a constitutional scholar, who deeply respects the separation of powers as delineated in the Constitution. He has, sometimes to a fault perhaps, respected that separation. He has seldom tried to strong arm legislation through (not that he would have been successful anyway considering the current insanity of the Republican Party).
Even yesterday, he made sure to emphasize that in regards to certain things, such as Guantanamo, that it is up to Congress to do the right thing and allow him to end that stain on the American character. And he has done this repeatedly. Congress has its role and the Executive Branch has its role to play and they should not get confused and tangled up with each other.
But for a President to voluntarily request that powers already ceded to him by Congress be taken away is as transformative as it is unprecedented. It says to the world that the President of the United States believes in a process that should not be abrogated at a whim. And it says to the nation that, hopefully, we will not, due to fear, make the same mistakes again in the future. It is still too early to see if some of these transformational moves stick in our body politic, but one can hope. And isn’t it with that very thing this all started.
Hope and Change, or more accurately Hope can lead to Change.
http://theobamadiary.com/2013/05/24/a-transformative-president/
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)11 Dimensional Chess apologia.
When someone asks Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders about Republican ideas, they say, "I think those ideas are wrong and here's why." If the idea is that you can't badmouth a former president (which is a whole lotta bullshit because they were always making cracks about Carter) then you just answer like a politician. When asked about Reagan or conservative ideas, a Democratic president should say, "I think Democratic ideas are great for the country and here is why." You don't praise Republicans. You don't praise their ideas which are killing people and changing the US into a second world country. You don't kiss their asses or give everything away in the name of bipartisanship. You don't build up the sainted leaders who were nothing more than corrupt, greedy, evil, scum.
ALL DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DO IS TELL THE TRUTH. The truth is on our side. Traditional Liberal/Democratic Party ideas have always been and demonstrably are better for the country as a whole. PERIOD. There is no need to run away from them and there is no need for prop up the people who are doing the opposite. No reason in the world.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I am tired of convoluted reasoning used to explain away Republican-like behavior.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Albeit a negative one and one where where Republican policies were promoted… I think that all of us here know that THAT has exactly happened over the last thirty plus years.
You may think that he was praising Reagan when he acknowledged this fact, but think about the context of the conversation. It was clear in that interview that he indicating he understood Reagan's impact on the course of America:
To me, clearly what he was doing there was simply indicating what he would be up against, an America transformed in Reagan's wake, and thus, was giving notice that he intended his own terms of office to be transformative as well. You may not like the way he stated his goals, but quite frankly you know, as well as I that Obama is not the kind of person to refer to his opposition as "corrupt, greedy, evil, scum."
As a Democrat, he was indicating that his term in office would be a transformative one as well, where he would promote Democratic policies. His point was that he was intent on doing the very thing you wanted… He just didn't say it in the way you'd like.
And as far as Obama transformative presidency, no less than Paul Krugman as stated he is a more successful president than either Clinton or Reagan himself.
http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2014/10/13/145280/krugman_obama_more_transformative_than_clinton_reagan http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008
Eugene Robinson also noted Obama's transformational role as well:
Eugene Robinson: Obama’s transformational presidency
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obamas-transformational-presidency/2014/05/08/d30a7190-d6e6-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html
Here, check this out… Obama's reply to people who said that he was "praising" Reagan:
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/1194817092473/barack-obama-on-ronald-reagan.html
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)To this day, I think of his praise for Reagan as one piece of cloth with his use of Rick Warren, Donnie McClurkin and all of those other vicious, hateful preachers he called his brothers.
It's a gay thing. You would not get it, don't expect you to. But the preaching about it is tiresome. When Obama failed to criticize Reagan, he failed my people full tilt.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)And the most immediate expansion of marriage equality ever.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)“The conservative revolution that Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight - that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing the pie - contained a good deal of truth.”
― Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
And for those who choose to be obtuse, let's parse this statement. It contains:
Liberal Welfare State
Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing the pie
Contained a great deal of truth
So liberals, Democrats = BAD
Conservatives, Reagan = GOOD
This isn't about that stupid trope that he can't bash a former president. This is because he bashed liberals (he loves to punch left) in order to praise conservative devil Reagan.
What part are you defending?
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)And in that statement you've quoted from his book, it's clear that he was citing Reagan's own perspective. Where does it say that he shared the same feelings about the "so-called "Liberal Welfare State?" Clearly what Obama was talking about was Reagan's ability to tap into the discontent against Democrats during the 1980 election in order to win his landslide. Even, so much so that Democratic voters themselves became Reagan Democrats.
This goes hand in hand with Obama's statement that Reagan's term in office was a transformative one… Because Reagan exploited Democratic weakness at the time and benefited from general disillusionment against Democrats.
He noted this because, as he was coming into office, the American people expressed general disillusionment against Republicans. And Obama, as did Reagan had the opportunity to recruit Republicans over to our side. That's always been his theme.
The result: He done two elections.
The difference however between Obama and Reagan was that:
A. Reagan didn't have to contend with things like Fox News and talk radio.
B. Campaign finance reform which allows rich donors to buy elections.
C. Gerrymandering.
D. Crazy people like those suffering from ODS.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... negate the point Scorpion made...
None of the presidents bash the former presidents:...
Hitler was transformative... that word doesn't mean anything in the context of good or bad
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Reagan ignored it, and so do his defenders.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)and don't go the stale route from 2008. That would mean you have a comprehension problem.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Takket
(21,635 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)What gives?
hunter
(38,328 posts)It's a very sad state of affairs.
Reagan, like George W. Bush, was the venal and willing meat puppet of our vile economic system.
I can say this because I'm not the President of the United States. I live in a political system where I'm free to say anything I like so long as my words gain no significant traction. But bad things frequently happen to those whose words do gain traction.
It's how political power works in human societies. Some governments have a very low threshold of retaliation against dissent, North Korea would be an extreme example of that. Some governments have much higher thresholds, Western European nations would be among those. But all nations will also have hot-button issues, where government retaliation is almost guaranteed.
In the U.S.A. those who leak the dirty secrets of our Military Industrial Complex are frequently punished severely.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)if they put a bullet in my head tomorrow. But if we can see it, the whole world is aware of the duplicity.
erronis
(15,355 posts)Witness trying to be a good nazi sympathizer in Deutchland. Still pretty taboo but will eventually change.
Religious headdress in France? Women in Saudi Arabia? Women in many/most countries? Minorities in the US (or everywhere)? Black Panthers, Malcolm X, Occupy? Palestinians, Chechnians, Tibetans, Native Americans?
In the US we mainly retaliate by ignoring, avoiding, shunning, not hiring and then firing, segregating, banning, and slamming our doors (literally and figuratively.) We rarely issue edicts from DC that imply so-and-so can't say such-and-such. I don't remember a recent case where someone was prosecuted for "inciting against the government." I'm sure there are some very quiet disappearances, but how would we know?
Unfortunately in this world of interconnection, owning/controlling the connections allows US to do most of these retaliations behind the curtains of "business practices" or "national security".
Fortunately, the US does not yet own/control all of the channels. This is also what lets hate groups (ISIS, Koch/TeaParty) to spread their messages. I say fortunately because this also allows us to be able to exchange information.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)They say that elections do matter, and that there are real differences between Republican and Democratic presidents. But backing up the view to 30 years, that difference looks a lot more like continuity, both at home and in America's global empire.
By Bruce A. Dixon
Black Agenda Report managing editor
The answer is yes to all three. Ronald Reagan hasn't darkened the White House door in decades. But his policy objectives have been what every president, Democrat and Republican have pursued relentlessly ever since. Barack Obama is only the latest and most successful of Reagan's disciples.
SNIP...
In Barack Obama's case all he had to say was that he wasn't necessarily against wars, just against what he called “stupid wars.” Corporate media and “liberal” shills morphed that lone statement into a false narrative that Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq, making him an instantly viable presidential candidate at a time when the American people overwhelmingly opposed that war. Once in office, Barack Obama strove mightily to abrogate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq which would have allowed US forces to remain there indefinitely. But when the Iraqi puppet government, faced with a near revolt on the part of what remained of Iraqi civil society, dared not do his bidding, insisting that uniformed US troops (but not the American and multinational mercenaries we pay to remain there) stick to the withdrawal timetable agreed upon under Bush, liberal shills and corporate media hailed the withdrawal from Iraq as Obama's “victory.”
Barack Obama doubled down on the invasion and occupation of large areas of Afghanistan, and increased the size of the army and marines, which in fact he pledged to do during his presidential campaign. Presidential candidate Obama promised to end secret imprisonment and torture. The best one can say about President Obama on this score is that he seems to prefer murderous and indiscriminate drone attacks, in many cases, over the Bush policy of international kidnapping secret imprisonment and torture. The Obama administration's reliance on drones combined with US penetration of the African continent, means that a Democratic, ostensibly “antiwar” president has been able to openly deploy US troops to every part of that continent in support of its drive to control the oil, water, and other resources there.
The objectives President Obama's Africa policies fulfill today were put down on paper by the Bush administration, pursued by Bill Clinton before that, and still earlier pursued by Ronald Reagan, when it funded murderous contra armies of UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambque. It was UNITA and RENAMO's campaigns, assisted by the apartheid regimes of Israel and South Africa that pioneered the genocidal use of child soldiers. Today, cruise missile liberals hail the Obama administration's use of pit bull puppet regimes like Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda, all of which shot their way into power with child soldiers, to invade Somalia and Congo, sometimes ostensibly to go after other bad actors on the grounds that they are using child soldiers.
CONTINUED...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/barack-obamas-2nd-term-it-bill-clintons-3rd-or-it-ronald-reagans-9th
"Cruise Missile Liberals" says a lot, unfortunately.
underpants
(182,913 posts)He was the right's effort to suck some of the air out of the room when FDR or JFK were being remembered.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Reagan did an amazing job creating long-term changes in the direction of the country, and managed to make those changes last much longer than the vast majority of presidents. I'd argue only FDR and Lincoln had more of a lasting effect.
At the same time, that effect is pure, unmitigated evil. Utterly destroying what made out country great. Almost enough to make me believe in religion, so that I could be comforted by the idea of Reagan spending eternity in hell.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,145 posts)He makes it clear for all to see.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)
kairos12
(12,875 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)"That's the one thing you have to remember about WASPs: they love animals and hate people." -- Gordon Gekko, Wall Street
tecelote
(5,122 posts)They believe in states rights as long as gay marriage and legalizing pot isn't in to the mix.
They want immigrants and Muslims to "fit in" until they do.
The hypocrisy is amazing.
jalan48
(13,888 posts)
Auggie
(31,196 posts)The City changed virtually overnight. It was bizarre.
radhika
(1,008 posts)I'm tossing out these two - I'd love to hear others as well....
Shutting Down Air Traffic Controller's Union PATCO
Sluggish response to HIV/AIDS which emerged as a plague in his term (including not using that term)
Duval
(4,280 posts)was in graduate school, living on the Miami River close to the airport, and shuddered every time a plane took off or landed! I remember one time in particular when it flew so close, I said "well, come on in and I'll give you some coffee" as a way to quell my anxiety.
lastlib
(23,309 posts)...would be vastly offensive to shit. I have a bottomless, seething hatred of that basturd.
mountain grammy
(26,656 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)and a disaster as President. I was dumbfounded when he was nominated!
braddy
(3,585 posts)stage left
(2,966 posts)And not for joy.
handmade34
(22,758 posts)WHEN Donald Regan became President Ronald Reagan's chief of staff in 1985 he remarked, “I'll be doing the whole thing now.” The “whole thing” that Mr Regan had in mind was to be in charge of the president's public life. It had been usual before he was appointed for the president to have a circle of close advisers, each in an important-sounding job and each competing for his ear. But Mr Regan, a former businessman, believed that the White House urgently needed one strong manager who would give the president dependable support.
He said that Mr Reagan, a former film actor, “regarded his daily schedule as being something like a shooting script in which characters came and went, scenes were rehearsed and acted out, and the plot was advanced one day at a time.” The chief of staff, Mr Regan said, had to make sure that “the star had what he needed to do his best”, guided by a “crew, invisible behind the lights, watching the performance their behind-the-scenes efforts made possible”...
certainot
(9,090 posts)killing the fairness doctrine in 1987 made it possible to create a media-dominating buzz machine/monopoly of 1200 coordinated radio stations that give the corporate plutocrats the ability to short circuit democracy and prevent and obstruct the remedies a healthy democracy would use to fix what he did in the first place.
ironically, the talk radio empire is what has allowed the teabagger loon faction (talk radio base/dittoheads) to take over and destroy what little legitimacy and respectability and rationality the republican party had. it turned the party of linoln into the party of limbaugh.
another death that may be attributed to reagan's friends was that of samantha smith, the 11- 13 yo who was becoming a very costly long term anti MX missile, anti star wars, anti nuke PR disaster for the reagan team and the MIC (and future republican vote counters), until she was wiped out of most people's consciousness when she died in a plane crash much like that of sen paul wellstone.
samsingh
(17,601 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)U.S. v Ronald W. Reagan & George H.W. Bush. Treason, People's Exhibit Number One:
Warpy
(111,359 posts)11. Rigging the tax code to transfer wealth wholesale from labor to a few rich men.
12. Ignoring the AIDS epidemic because he thought it killed all the "right people."
That last is what I will curse that man's memory until I slide into my grave. I was a nurse in Boston at the height of it when there was nothing we could do but try to make beautiful young men comfortable while we watched them die.
Deinstitutionalization was a worldwide movement and it looked great on paper, get rid of the big warehouses, reintegrate patients into the community, provide small community resources for mental health, including hospitalization as needed, to keep them connected with family. What happened is that they were thrown on the street and mental health was completely defunded, the jails becoming the replacement for large mental hospitals.
The old system didn't work, at all. The new system might have if politicians had bothered to fund services for the most vulnerable people among us, those will diseases of the brain.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)as thousands died. They re-elected him with thousands dead. He was a vile excuse for a human being. Those Republicans who voted for him twice were selfish, ignorant bigoted racist money grubbers of the very worst sort. Laughing about the deaths of their fellow Americans. Despicable people.
These days, some of his devoted loyalists claim they voted for him purely because they supported his economic policies. Of course those policies destroyed the American middle class. So when someone excuses themselves for voting for Reagan and Bush by saying they supported their fiscal policies around the markets, remember what those policies did, the Unions that were busted and the pensions that were raided.
And remember, Ebola fans, that AIDS is actually the number one cause of death in Africa, 1.5 million last year alone. 36 million people have died around the world from a disease that the Reagan Republicans allowed a 7 year head start. When Reagan finally did mention AIDS in 1987 this is what that fuck wad said:
"How that information is used must be up to schools and parents, not government. But let's be honest with ourselves, AIDS information can not be what some call 'value neutral.' After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons."
http://www.actupny.org/reports/reagan.html
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)by RW revisionism.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)also the Contras--same death rate as ISIS, but without the ability to hold any land
byronius
(7,401 posts)Such a solid American Demon. My first election. I felt that shadow cross my nation's path and shivered.
He was the embodied Worst Of Us.
bhikkhu
(10,724 posts)...that would be on my list.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/times-the-reagan-white-house-press-briefing-erupted-with#.kq6goEnpDQ
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
jmowreader
(50,566 posts)It's a good list.
jomin41
(559 posts)Y'all are validating Mr Scorpios point. Reagan(barf) had a huge impact on this country that continues to this day. That is NOT a compliment.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)My recollections was it started before Regan and this NY Times piece confirms started before;
community center legislation in 1963, agreed that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were to some extent misled by the mental health community and Government bureaucrats.
37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967
We can come up with a hundred faults without having to bend the truth. If it wasn't for the Con's idolation of him would anyone bother to try and link him to such?
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html?pagewanted=1
On edit link
nirvana555
(448 posts)I said HAD many male gay friends. One of my best friends lost her precious brother. I would guess that AIDS touched most American's lives in some way; and that horrific excuse for a human being DID NOTHING.....
