Why is Reagan a relatively popular President?

[skipos]

I know DUers hate him, but he does pretty well in the public polls I have seen. He beat Carter by @10%, Mondale by about @18%.

Three Presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt—are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Usually ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining "top 10" ranks are often rounded out by Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and James K. Polk. In recent polls, James Monroe, James Madison, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan have sometimes been ranked in the "top 10".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

So why do so many Americans think he was a good, if not great, President?
I'd prefer thoughtful answers as opposed to "because Americans are stupid."

[Fresh_Start]

1. Americans think that Reagan destroyed the USSR

single handedly: conveniently ignoring 30+ years of history, corrupt government, lech walesa, pope, war in afghanistan, etc.

[TomInTib]

2. Hype. Feed 'em the Pablum and they will spit it right back out.

Reagan was a disaster.

But that was pre-internet and the stoopids just sucked up whatever swill they were fed.

[Amy6627]

3. Brainwashed by the MSM-- Can be the only answer. He was possibly

the worse prez until dubya came along.

[Joe Fields]

4. He's the only thing the repubs can cling to. Pathetic, isn't it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Good PR and he was also able to

craete his destruction and make people feel good about

He is also the penultimate of backlash ideology and that ideology still holds sway

[annabanana]

6. state assisted amnesia. . . . . n/t

[HowHasItComeToThis]

7. PROPAGANDA

It is really simple!!!!:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[saltpoint]

8. Because U.S. voters are a relatively stupid electorate.

[BlueStater]

9. He has an undeserved reputation for ending the Cold War

Right-wingers were able to rewrite history and by this point it's really too late to do anything about it. Fortunately, the same thing will NOT be happening with the Chimp.

[Ignacio Upton]

53. The only war he really "won" was that pissing contest known as Grenada

Until Gorbechev came into power in 1985, U.S.-Soviet relations were still just as icy as in previous years. Also, there was the need for other charismatic figures, such as Welesa, Havel, and Pope John Paul II. Reagan also ignored AIDS and did nothing to fight it during his first term.

[Ganja Ninja]

10. It's all been based on hype from the right wing media machine.

He was less then mediocre but the media made him into some kind of savior while demonizing Carter. I lived through both his terms and believe me when I say that financially they were the worst years of my life.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Flouride in the water??

[geardaddy]

22. Oh no!

My precious bodily fluids!

[Selatius]

12. He appealed to American nationalism, had a grandfatherly image, and some say he won the Cold War

That's how I see it.

[Straight Shooter]

13. Because ignorance is bliss. Reagan was all style, no substance.

"Morning in America," what a crock. He was a fuggin' actor, for crying out loud, and people actually thought he was sincere. :eyes:

[bdamomma]

19. he did nothing for the AIDS epidemic either.

[CottonBear]

14. Because many Americans totally believed the Reagan propaganda.

The repeal of the fairness doctrine and the rise of talk radio let the GOP and conservatives catapult the propaganda very effectively.

Also, most Americans are not inquisitive. They believe whatever they see and hear on the internet, TV and radio. They do not question or investigate and research on their own. Many may not know how to do so.

[Jane Austin]

15. Because the MSM never stopped talking about how "authentic" he was.

Despite all the instances of his recounting bits of movie plots as real, true, heroic exploits. And despite his just pulling stuff directly out of his ***.

And all through the fifties and sixties I had thought he was a crummy actor, when he obviously had that being authentic thing down great.

[bdamomma]

16. I never cared for him.

[NightWatcher]

17. because everyone was coked up during the 80's

He's seen as a great man because the economy was doing well following a downturn in teh late 70's complete with a gas crunch. This is similar to the reason that Clinton was so popular during the booming 90's economy.

[Ignacio Upton]

55. Honestly, I think that Iran-Contra and Monica's BJ

Would have brought down both of them had it not been for the economy. In the case of Reagan, while economy overall still sucked in the '80s, it was doing better relative to the horrible years of stagflation and gas crunches, so people just turned into a bunch of Gordan Gekkos and Pat Robertsons and took in Reagan's faux bliss.

[jeffrey_X]

18. He had a huge affect on the white middle class...

made them believe they were more like the upper elite rather than lower class

made them believe white was better than black.

He made it okay to be racist again. stopped all racial progress from the 60's and 70's.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. Indeed. He kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi,....

...a hotbed of white supremacists and the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.

Did Reagan speak about the brutal deaths of three young people seeking social justice? Of course not. His speech was about "states rights", which was a code word for retaining segregation. The audience read him loud and clear. It was blatant symbolism, raw meat for racists.

[charlie]

20. He's not

Or at least, his relative popularity isn't especially notable. His reputation as the Teflon President and the Most Popular of the 20th Century (really!) started long before he had numbers that could remotely justify the claim. It was engineered and is now received wisdom.

[bigscott]

21. many people

feel sorry for the mentally ill.

[ToeBot]

23. About half those names are also on "Worst President" lists...

it's a matter of perspective. Give it a few years, when Reagan's supporters start dieing off and an objective history is written, St. Ronny will be put in his rightful place.

[lapfog_1]

24. Reagan was a conservative myth

All one needs to ask is "what did 8 years of Reagan administration ACCOMPLISH?" and about the only thing that comes back is "well, he defeated Communism" (which, when one looks into it objectively, is false... The Soviets defeated themselves, and many US Presidents helped, starting with Truman and Ike and so on... not only that, but if Communism is defeated, how does one explain that China is STILL communist AND that China is floating the US currency and economy?). In any event, there isn't much else to point to. Reagan certainly didn't enact many conservative philosophy goals or even set the stage for them.

In reality, Reagan only "talked the talk". He ran up the debt and was one of the worst at deficit spending, he didn't reduce the size of government, he didn't end the "war of poverty" (though he did empty out the mental hospitals and we've had a large and noticeable homeless problem ever since).

Reagan and W are almost polar opposites...

Reagan talked the conservative message but governed more from the middle. Bush talked about compassionate conservatism but has governed from the extreme right. Reagan could give very effective speeches without either talking over people, Bush cannot remember what to say or what word to use. Reagan was very charming and friendly even to his political enemies, Bush exudes a hatred of almost everyone that isn't as far right as he is. And on and on.

The real question is why the same people that want to make a saint out of Reagan (rating him the best President ever) also think Bush is the second coming of Jesus.

[stanwyck]

46. nailed it. n/t

[SoCalDem]

25. Republicans controlled the media during his "post" presidency years

and since he left "ill", and stayed out of the limelight, he became mythologized. Anyone who was an adult during his 2nd term, knows that he had Alzheimer's, THEN...

Reagan was a media-creation, and once ill, no one dared to speak out against his presidency, for fear of being accused of attacking a sick old man..

It's what republicans DO.. They never acknowledge any failings, but emphasize every positive ....to the hilt..

It as also important to demonize any subsequent democratic administration, so that Reagan/Bush appeared to be even MORE effective than it was. They did this with "help" from a democratic congress, though. Until '94 , the congress was still "ours"..

Iran Contra fizzled because our own side was reluctant to "pull the trigger", and all the roaches scurried for cover...to live another day..THEY are the infestation we are suffering from now.

Also, where ARE those official papers from St.Ronnie's administration?? Under lock & key..just like George, the first's papers. Imagine all the stuff that's been
cleansed" over TWO decades.. Reagan left office in 1988, and his administration has YET to be scrutinized by historical scholars.

The FIRST executive order by a democratic president, should be to RELEASE...in full.. Reagan & Bush papers.

I am a firm believer in full disclosure, and think that their papers should be public as soon as they leave office, so they CAN be questioned about things that happened.

Hiding these papers away until they are too old, frail, or DEAD to answer for missteps, does us all a disservice.

[blm]

64. BINGO! BINGO! FOCKIN' BINGO! Now let's follow that with WHY the media COULD do it

and get away with it.



http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.
>>>>>

Parry allows DU to repost the article in its entirety, but, I'll be mindful of bandwidth. The entire article is a must read to understand the importance of accountability and prosecuting crimes of office. Democracy demands it and needs it to continue in any healthy form.

[Madspirit]

26. ...because our country has an abundance of STUPID PEOPLE...n/t

[mitchum]

27. Because the number of fools is infinite

[Zywiec]

28. Didn't he win 49 out of 50 states in a landslide in 1984?

Surely there must have been some appeal to Reagan, rather than just everyone was stoopid or it was the MSM.

[Straight Shooter]

48. A lot of people were voting *against* Carter, or didn't vote at all.

Many people were simply bamboozled by a fuggin' actor. They still don't understand he was faking it all along.

[Zywiec]

57. Ummm, in 1984 Carter wasn't running.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. Sure, there was huge appeal.

The US had just righted itself after the economic and political disasters of the 70s. Added to that, he was a very good politician, and very effective at conveying the "larger than life" image he chose to inhabit. Carter, for all of his good policies, was not a very effective President. Ford was a joke, and before him there was Nixon. Reagan had a political gift for being the right person in the right place at the right time. Also, the economy was relatively good. At least if you were middle class and white. That never hurts. He also helped to catalyze the conservative movement in a way that someone like Nixon, who was too self centered, or Ford, who was too ineffective and "moderate," never could. That gets him half of the population right there.

[Swamp Rat]

29. He is not.... it's an M$M illusion.

The 'morans' desperately need a father figure. :eyes:

[WI_DEM]

30. Media hype same as with JFK

JFK was an okay president but because he was killed he became a martyr and is considered a great president by many people. Reagan and JFK had two important things in common 1) they were both handsome and charismatic and 2) they were both excellent public speakers. They looked presidential. The media also loved them both and build up their historical reputations.

[rasputin1952]

32. One must think of where he came from, right out of the fantasy

capital of the world, Hollywood.

All one had to do was give him a script, he'd practice for a bit, and out would come the "kind grandfatherly Reagan" that people wanted to see, (that is the key, one needs to be willing to see what they want as opposed to reality, again, what Hollywood is all about).

Reagan was semi-popular during his hey-day in Hollywood, and the whole "nice guy/hero" stature stayed w/him into politics. Someone like Bogart would never have been elected, too much "bad" in his movies. Reagan had crummy films, but he was always portrayed as the "good guy", like John Wayne.

So it all comes down to image as opposed to substance. The image was already established, all Reagan needed was a script...the conservatives served it up w/whipped cream and a cherry on top.

Reagan was not even a "good" president, he took credit for things others had done prior to his presidency,such as the fall of the USSR, which was begun by Truman, and sealed shut because Reagan was in office at the time. The only thing he did to help the USSR to break apart was outspend them, putting us in a precarious position financially while doing it. Right place, right time...happens a lot.

When history is finalized, he will drop down to where Polk, Taft, Harding, Coolidge and Andrew Johnson reside, at the bottom of the heap. FWIW, I didn't include Hoover w/the group at the bottom, as he was the fall guy for poor performance by his predecessors, Harding and Coolidge. Hoover redeemed himself many times over during crisis as time went on. Hoover wasn't a "good" president either, but he was a great organizer and did many things such as food drives and WWII organizationals that he rarely got credit for.

[jaysunb]

33. MSM......

as commanded by their corporate masters.
And it doesn't help that many bigoted blue collar democrats found Reagans underhanded racism very appealing, even after they realized it was a ploy to help destroy unions and thus the middle class of America. They are now "stuck" with their mistake & too proud to admit it.

[Marr]

34. I think it's hilarious that the only GOP politician of the last 20 years that

conservatives can point to and praise was mentally incapacitated throughout his second term, and possibly a good portion of his first.

Reagan was our first PR president. He was GW Bush v.1.0. He was more of a spokesman than a president- he was the genial, public face of the same faction that's currently in power.

[EstimatedProphet]

35. Because he told shitheels what they wanted to hear

1) that they really were better than everyone else;
2) that the problems with the country are really due to lazy black people;
3) that capitalism was great because America used it;
4) that all you had to do was just wish hard enough and all your real worries would go away.

Reagan was basically Rush Limbaugh as president, without the Obama the Magic Negro song.

[tabasco]

47. Exactamundo!

He fed right into the freepers' need to blame it all on somebody else.

[JVS]

36. According to a friend "He played the part well"

he made this comment in 1999 when another friend and I were griping about reagan

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Reagan had the good fortune of OPEC collapsing

And so he could take credit for all of the economic growth that was mostly due to chance.

[kenny blankenship]

44. energy policy is a very good way in to explaining Reagan's popularity

specifically by contrasting Carter's and Reagan's approaches.

Carter: we have a problem we must face and solve together. Oil production in the US (lower 48 states) is declining, and oil production from foreign sources is largely in the control of nations with grudges against us and/or a desire to wring extortionate profits from us the largest purchaser of their product. We need to soberly face the problem's danger, which is crucial and foundational to our country, to our economic mode, and to our very civilization. We must conserve energy usage, and explore new technologies for hydrocarbon fuels extraction, or else we shall become more and more captive to the politics of foreign countries and less and less the masters of our own destinies. Our cars for example must become smaller and more fuel efficient. Our factories must become more efficient and at the same time less pollutive.

Reagan: Government is the only problem that I see heree. If people wanted smaller cars, Detroit would be building them already. Let there be a 6 liter V8 engine in every garage! If there is a future need for change, the last thing Detroit needs is the federal government telling them what kind of car they should be building. Cut regulation and the auto industry will become more responsive to the dictates of the market--as will any and all other industries we cut environmental redtape regulations on. Meanwhile my administration will foment a war of aggression between Iraq and our arch-enemy Iran, so as to encourage OPEC nations to cheat their own production limiting rules. War is my energy policy. And to spread the love to the USSR, I will start a war on their southern Muslim frontier--war will be my policy there, as well. Hey America, don't worry about these wars --it won't be your kids dying. Don't trouble yourself with the possible consequences of spreading instability and mayhem in the world's OIL PATCH. It won't "follow us home" or blow back in our faces. The worst that will happen is that you'll get cheaper gas for a while, then pump prices go back up. You can live with disappointment like that can't you? I knew you would say yes! So go ahead and buy that 14MPG SUV you always wanted and stop worrying: there's no energy problem, there's no environmental problem, nor is there any AIDS pandemic problem; or if there is a problem, there's certainly no need for us to try to take "collective action" now to do anything about it. Enjoy your unfettered, wide range of consumer choices in the NOW, the future will bury the future. Remember: if you worry, the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS will have won.

It's not hard to see which approach will appeal to consumers-- uh, I mean will appeal to voters.

[Decruiter]

38. Cuz he took a bullet for the team...

...and it didn't kill him. Only made him stronger.

[HughBeaumont]

39. Because historians bullshat his legacy quite well.

And his bought-and-paid-for media trumpeted his corporate-favoring carcass like no other before him. One could only wonder what the jizzfest would have been like if Faux "News" existed back during the St Ronnie 80s.

See, the media loves Repukes. Unbridled-corporatist Repukes make them tons-o-cash. That's why Bewsh had such a lapdog bunch of TV execs on his side during his first term. Unfortunately, the Failure Fuhrer carries a stench worse than a common New York street in the 1870s nowadays, so some of the dogs have left the lap.

[blm]

65. They will do the exact same thing in ten years with the Bushboy Decider.

Because some Dumbass Democrats protect Secrecy and Privilege and will NOT open the books on BushInc when given the access and opportunity to do so.

[maveric]

40. When repuke stell you that Reagan did a lot of good things, ask them to name one.

If it werent for the "He ended communism" BS, they really cant name anything.
I've asked people that and they say that he did many good things but cant think of any right now.

[chaska]

41. Cause people are stupid and easily fooled by apperances.

[zbdent]

42. Because 51 hostages and an Ayatollah were his unofficial

running mates ... and Carter got the hostages home with minimal bloodshed, and not provoking Russia to step into the middle of the Middle East conflagration which would have ensued ...

[kitkat65]

43. Forgetfulness n/t

[Zhade]

45. Lies and ignorance.

NT!

[Jcrowley]

49. Millions of dollars in propaganda

The truth is that upon his departure Raygun had the lowest ratings of any two-term President in history and one of the lowest ever of any President.

Well guess what happened. The Conservative propaganda machine went into high gear in every way you can imagine spending millions of dollars in every possible media and educational outlet to prop up the sagging image of the Rhinestone Cowboy. It worked.

[Breeze54]

78. Exactly!! Raygun was MOST HATED!!!!

;)

[symbolman]

50. It's a LIE. I was THERE.

For your Listening Pleasure, PINK FLOYD and for your Viewing Pleasure:

"Mourning FOR America" (Or Reagan starved MORE People than STALIN)

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=20040618050418549

[smalll]

58. "Reagan starved more people than Stalin"?!?

Are we ready for another "kulak" thread?

[Breeze54]

83. Reagan was a huge cause of homelessness & hunger!

When President Reagan "reinvented government" by drastically slashing assistance to the poorest of
the poor, he played a major role in reinventing homelessness so that it re-emerged in modern America.

Comment on Reagan's economic plan:

"Workers and the poor take the lion's share of the risk.
The only sure winners are the wealthy, whether they are individuals or corporations."

America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End

By Dean Baker, AlterNet. Posted April 27, 2007.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/51086/?comments=view&cID=645378&pID=645279

Reagan's election changed the political reality. His agenda was rolling back the welfare state, and his budgets included a wide range of cuts for social programs. He was also very strategic about the process. One of his first targets was Legal Aid. This program, which provides legal services for low-income people, was staffed largely by progressive lawyers, many of whom used it as a base to win precedent-setting legal disputes against the government. Reagan drastically cut back the program's funding. He also explicitly prohibited the agency from taking on class-action suits against the government -- law suits that had been used with considerable success to expand the rights of low- and moderate-income families.

snip-->

The net effect of these policies was that union membership plummeted, going from nearly 20 percent of the private sector workforce in 1980 to just over 7 percent in 2006. Inequality soared, as the vast majority of the gains from economic growth over the next quarter century went to high-end wage earners (e.g., doctors, lawyers, CEOs) and profits. The wages of typical workers increased little from 1980 to 2006.

Margaret Thatcher once said, “Poor dear, there’s nothing between his ears,”

Reagan's AIDSGATE

1987



http://www.actupny.org/reports/reagan.html

41,027 persons are dead and
71,176 persons diagnosed with AIDS in the US.

After years of negligent silence, President Ronald Reagan finally uses the word "AIDS" in public.
He sided with his Education Secretary William Bennett and other conservatives who said the
Government should not provide sex education information. (They are still saying it!)

Although AIDS was first reported in the medical and popular press in 1981, it was only in October
of 1987 that President Reagan publicly spoke about the epidemic. By the end of that year 59,572
AIDS cases had been reported and 27,909 of those women and men had died. How could this happen,
they ask? Didn't he see that this was an ever-expanding epidemic? How could he not say anything?
Do anything?

A headline you won't see in the butt-kissing revisionist mainstream press:

Ronald Reagan, Apologist for Apartheid, Champion of the Rich and Big Business,
Ignorer of AIDS, and Funder of Death Squads, Dead at 93.

[librechik]

51. looked good on a horse

otherwise he was an idiot and a tyrant, just like the rest of his traitorous kind.

[Sapere aude]

52. The Reagan that they like is a myth. That Reagan never existed. It might have just as well been a

virtual president or one from a novel.

[Cleita]

56. I think it was because he was a silver tongued communicator.

Most people sat spellbound over what he said without analyzing his words, which basically said nothing. What is a shining city on a hill anyway? Otherwise like other Republicans he appealed to their fears and hatreds (remember the welfare queens remark). It works everytime.

:shrug:

[Ignacio Upton]

60. This was a man who thought he witnessed a WWII battle, but was just part of a movie

n/t.

[hellbound-liberal]

59. Think how stupid the average American is and then realize that half of them are stupider than that

Reagan got all of the lower half and a good bit of the upper half because he told people what they wanted to hear and because that big meanie Jimmy Carter asked people to sacrifice for the greater good.

[Zywiec]

61. Poor Mondale, no one seems to remember him

[BlooInBloo]

62. Zing! lololol!

[The Count]

63. He was the first to effective hijack the "librul media" (post-Nixon revenge)

The brainwash worked better - as it was fresh.

[earth mom]

66. I don't know anyone who liked Reagan.

:puke:

[Wiley50]

67. When He was the "Acting" President, He De-Reg'd the Media

So they made him a god

[uppityperson]

68. Timing, propaganda, King actor,selective memory loss (public)

Carter did very good for having the USA be part of the World. However, things, economically, at home were not great, though they got worse during Reagan and his propaganda team spun that. The timing also included the collapse of USSR and (oh dang my memory) Iran hostages, much of which was set up for Reagan to take advantage of. Reagan was an actor, could repeat lines and look Kingly, something many people want (that save us Big Daddy problem). Under Reagan the rich got richer, poor got poorer, USA lost status in the world except for dictators and terrorists and their ilk.

Selective memory plays a big part.

[UTUSN]

69. Because the public is largely ignorant. Poll respondents routinely list

RAYGUN and JFK as "greatest presidents" far above such people as FDR, HST, and others. These are not INFORMED opinions.

[jgundrey]

70. Because - whether you were for or against his policies...

...he made you feel good. His speeches made many people feel good about being an American. He was a cheerleader for America. He seemed to have a positive attitude most of the time. Plus, looking at the current state of the Republican party and their policies, anyone looks good by comparison. The substance of his policies rubbed my fur the wrong way. But I'd take Reagan over Bush/Cheney any day. On the whole, I'd rather have Truman back.

[Big Blue Marble]

80. I was so very much against his policies...

and I never felt good about him once. I always saw through his phony facade. Of course in retrospect
and relatively speaking compared to *, he does not seem as bad as perhaps I thought!

[Beelzebud]

71. Because we live in the United States of Amnesia

[spanone]

72. bu$h* 41 & 43 have proven that America loves brain-dead presidents.

[Zorra]

73. After a great deal of reflection on the actions and policies of Ronald Reagan

during his tenure as President, and the repercussions of those policies that are affecting our nation to this day, I have no other choice but to conclude that Ronald Reagan is held in high esteem by many Americans because these Americans are relatively ignorant, and very easily deceived.

The Reagan era was one of the most socially, politically, and environmentally regressive eras in American history, and, in retrospect, could be considered economically regressive as well.

[PaDem]

74. I think at the end of the day, he made people feel good..........

He could spin a line and declared that it was "Morning in America". Sadly the American electorate wants their president to be an entertainer, someone who can lift their spirits and make them feel proud to be an American. That's all that Reagan offered as far as I can see. We saw a similar phenomenon with Bush as he was the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with.

[Solly Mack]

75. I can't think of a single rational reason why anyone liked Reagan

So....

[Breeze54]

76. Because the RW skewed the polls!! He was probably

"most hated"!

Now * gets that honor!!

[mdmc]

77. He did not mean the meanness of his views

:kick:

[leftofthedial]

79. propaganda works

[ComerPerro]

81. "because Americans are stupid" is a thoughtful answer, actually

he was popular and loved because Americans are stupid, and his handlers knew that. Reagan told the kind of lies Americans wanted to hear, and his legacy is perpetuated by the same group of lying assholes.

[Greyhound]

82. Raygun was popular for many reasons. I believe the most significant one was that he said

to the American Middle Class/Silent Majority (code for white bigots), that is was OK to to be bigots again.

You must consider that by 1980, in addition to the economic troubles we were enduring, a sizable portion of the "greatest generation" and many of their boomer offspring were chafing under the new consciousness. The 60's and 70's made it seriously uncool to be openly prejudiced, to speak your thoughts openly on "the niggers, spics, and hebes" would get you ostracized or shunned, if not punched in the mouth, so they learned to keep their mouths shut. They were the Archie Bunkers that Norman Lear turned into objects of ridicule (remember that he was called king Lear for most of the decade as most of the top 10 shows on TV were his).

In the election of 1980 Jimmy Carter was not a popular man, he failed to understand or submit to the inside the beltway power structure and he also failed to recognize that the public is much less concerned with substance than appearances, and while he had the country on the right track in many ways*, he created enemies on both sides through his consistent moderation, the old line Democrats hated him because he resisted their back room deal making and the Republiks hated his failure to acquiesce to the corporate overlords. He was a former military officer that reigned in the infinite expansion of the MIC, and a southerner that didn't believe the south had a right to dominate their under class. In short, he was a good man, but not a good politician. So when the election rolled around and John Anderson failed to win the nomination, he ran as an independent against Carter and ensured a victory for Raygun.

Raygun, OTOH, was a professional actor and an American Icon to the generation in the waning days of their power. He knew how to work a crowd and deliver a line like no politician before or since (and this does include Bill Clinton). His handlers had an unsurpassed ability to touch hot-button issues and to create code words and phrases that let the uncomfortable white middle class know, in no uncertain terms, that he would restore their fantasy world of safe superiority. At the same time they signaled corporate America that they would no longer have to worry about unions, EPA, anti-trust laws, foreign competition, or social responsibility, and they let the MIC know that he would institute an unprecedented military build up and dismantle government oversight.

IOW, he turned the jackals loose to loot and pillage like no time since the 19th century, and they loved him for it.

* altering the economic model we operated on, promoting our independence from imported oil and advocating the development of alternative energy sources, acting as a fair broker in the pursuit of peace, eschewing jingoism, and worst of all, he challenged our belief in the inherent superiority of America and listened to the opinions of other nations.

[kwassa]

84. George Will trashed Reagan in this column, believe it or not

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901931.html

The Limits Of Sunniness

By George F. Will
Sunday, February 11, 2007; Page B07

In this winter of their discontents, nostalgia for Ronald Reagan has become for many conservatives a substitute for thinking. This mental paralysis -- gratitude decaying into idolatry -- is sterile: Neither the man nor his moment will recur. Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism cannot define conservatism.

That is one lesson of John Patrick Diggins's new book, " Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History."

(jump)

Diggins says Reagan imbibed his mother's form of Christianity, a strand of 19th-century Unitarianism from which Reagan took a foundational belief that he expressed in a 1951 letter: "God couldn't create evil so the desires he planted in us are good." This logic -- God is good, therefore so are God-given desires -- leads to the Emersonian faith that we please God by pleasing ourselves. Therefore there is no need for the people to discipline their desires. So, no leader needs to suggest that the public has shortcomings and should engage in critical self-examination.

(jump)

As Diggins says, Reagan's "theory of government has little reference to the principles of the American founding." To the Founders, and especially to the wisest of them, James Madison, government's principal function is to resist, modulate and even frustrate the public's unruly passions, which arise from desires.

"The true conservatives, the founders," Diggins rightly says, constructed a government full of blocking mechanisms -- separations of powers, a bicameral legislature, and other checks and balances -- in order "to check the demands of the people." Madison's Constitution responds to the problem of human nature. "Reagan," says Diggins, "let human nature off the hook."

"An unmentionable irony," writes Diggins, is that big-government conservatism is an inevitable result of Reaganism. "Under Reagan, Americans could live off government and hate it at the same time. Americans blamed government for their dependence upon it." Unless people have a bad conscience about demanding big government -- a dispenser of unending entitlements -- they will get ever larger government. But how can people have a bad conscience after being told (in Reagan's First Inaugural) that they are all heroes? And after being assured that all their desires, which inevitably include desires for government-supplied entitlements, are good?

Similarly, Reagan said that the people never start wars, only governments do. But the Balkans reached a bloody boil because of the absence of effective government. Which describes Iraq today.

[candice]

85. Americans have a short memory and Reagan was a good B actor...

he can read his lines much better than Shrub, and before he was mentally compromised could put sentences together, such as "If you have seen one redwood, you have seen them all."

[Blue_Tires]

86. ttt nt