Reagan Remembered: The Failed Legacy Of Our First Corporate Politician

Started by skews13

This political chat room is for serious debate, where there will be ZERO tolerance for trolling. A ghost thread will be created in NHB that is open for all to participate in. To post in this forum, request to join the Profundum group in the User Control Panel.

View posts by: Cannonpointer, RichClem, skews13
2 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by skews13
  2,617 08 Feb 2014, 6:18 pm

skews13 User avatar

Posts: 2,714
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 2,617.12

Log in or register to remove this ad..


January 20 marked 25 years since Ronald Reagan left the Presidency. And February 6 marked the 103rd birthday of the former sports announcer, actor, governor of California, and 40th president of the United States of America. Reagan's economic legacy is one of failure, but in another way it could be argued that he was genuinely transformative: as the first celebrity politician for the modern corporate state.

Every president is ultimately judged on great ideas, visions, and responses to historical forces. Some of the forces which shaped the Reagan presidency could be seen with the unaided eye, like the fall of Communism (a long-developing trend which came to a head during the Reagan Administration). Others were less visible but nevertheless shaped his Presidency.

It's ironic, given his professional history, but Reagan may have been less of an "actor" in the historical sense than any president of modern times. He was acted upon, by economic interests and social forces toward whom he demonstrated neither the ability to understand nor the willingness to learn.

That's not to say he was without gifts. Ronald Reagan was intelligent and articulate. (His posthumously published letters should end any doubts on that score.) He was an extraordinary communicator. And he was, at least in his public persona, eminently likable.

In other words, he was a great salesman.

And Reagan, who would have been described in modern parlance as a "B-list celebrity," had the good fortune to demonstrate some A-game sales skill just as the modern American corporation was coming into being.

As host of the "GE Theater" in the 1950s, Reagan was the public face of a rapidly expanding manufacturing company. GE would soon become a multinational corporation, poised to benefit from the pro-business trade policies Reagan and his successors were to pursue. Like some sort of corporate shapeshifter, GE even formally became a bank -- just in time to benefit from the Wall Street bailouts.

Reagan, who would mock "special interests" in his first inaugural speech, then became a spokesperson for one of the most powerful of them -- doctors. He deployed scare tactics, hard-right imagery and merciless Red-baiting in a failed attempt to defeat Medicare.

That program, along with Social Security, is one of the most successful and popular government programs in American history.

Then came Reagan's nomination speech for Barry Goldwater. Goldwater, like many conservatives of his time, had a grim and joyless affect. But the assembled business leaders and political bosses saw that Reagan was, at least outwardly, a new kind of conservative: sunny, funny, and light on his feet. Ronald Reagan was a closer.

And yet, for all the lightness of his bearing, Ronald Reagan could sound as extremist as today's most irrational gun-toting Tea Partier.

In his Goldwater nomination speech, for example, Reagan said that "The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people ... when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."

With rhetoric like that, is it any wonder that 44 percent of today's Republicans believe that "in the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties"? This brand of far-right extremism believes that government itself -- democratically elected, fully representative government -- is fundamentally unjust unless that government serves the far right, and only the far right.

This ugly remnant of the Reagan legacy constitutes a grave threat to peaceful democratic process.

The avuncular Reagan could also be consummately, shockingly mean-spirited, as when he said in endorsing Goldwater: "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet."

Mean-spirited, and not very funny.

Reagan used the same speech to argue for the privatization of Social Security. Put it all together and you have the record of a man who: changed his opinions to those of his well-paying sponsors, however sincere that change may have been; stood in opposition to two highly popular and successful government programs; mocked the hungry and poor; repeatedly Red-baited his opponents (he routinely warned of "a thousand years of darkness" if his opponents prevailed); and fueled a growing movement of rage-filled anti-government extremism.

All this, and we're only up to 1964.

After the "Time of Choosing" speech, Reagan was quickly asked to run for governor of California by well-heeled and powerful backers. He was a national figure by 1970, when future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce detailing a plan to capture a wide range of American institutions for big business and wealthy individuals.

Ronald Reagan was now the man of the hour. In 10 years he would become president. And what of that presidency?

The economic data demonstrates the depth of Reagan's failure. (See the Reagan page at the Campaign for America's Future for more, including Robert Borosage on Reagan's Ruins, Dave Johnson's analysis of Reagan's impact on America's infrastructure, and a slideshow presentation on the harmful economic effects of the Reagan Revolution.)

Undeterred by reality, the ideology which Reagan espoused has captured the GOP and continues to leave devastation in its wake -- unless you're wealthy, in which case the ongoing "Reagan Revolution" has been (or should have been) a literal embarrassment of riches.

That's a lot of failure. But when will our capital's political perception catch up? Inside the Beltway, they still revere Reagan's broken legacy.

You'd think Reagan's ideological opponents would be making hay out of this record of failure. Instead there have been echoes of Reagan rhetoric in the speeches of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Although they've fought some aspects of the Reagan legacy, his Democratic successors have embraced others -- on deficit spending, deregulation, downsizing government, and the often-mythical "power of the free market."

If Bill Clinton and his economic team had not done so, we might have avoided the financial crisis of 2008 and today's ongoing misery. Instead, many members of the Clinton team went on to lead Obama's economic efforts. Why aren't more powerful Democrats willing to challenge the Reagan record?

At his Inauguration 25 years ago, Reagan spoke those famous words, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

"Government is the problem"? Tell that to the millions of senior citizens who are being lifted out of poverty by Medicare and Social Security.

"Government is the problem"? Tell that to the generations of middle-class Americans who prospered because American leaders invested in their nation -- including Republicans like Dwight D. Eisenhower, who built the Federal highway system.

"Government is the problem"? Tell that to anyone who learned to read because of a caring teacher.

"Government is the problem"? Tell that to the young American veterans who went to college on the GI Bill after World War II, helping their families -- and their nation -- enjoy decades of prosperity in the process.

The problem isn't government.

The problem is that too many politicians and media figures refuse to see the Reagan legacy for what it is: a successful sales campaign for yet another lousy corporate product.

In the end, a salesman is only as good as the goods he sells. That, and that alone, should define the Reagan legacy of failure.
Log in or register to remove this ad..

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 09 Feb 2014, 1:00 am


Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.22

skews13 » 08 Feb 2014 5:18 pm wrote:
Reagan Remembered: The Failed Legacy Of Our First Corporate Politician....

In the end, a salesman is only as good as the goods he sells. That, and that alone, should define the Reagan legacy of failure.

Where's Cannonpointer to condemn and reject this Disinformation as an invalid source?

To ridicule the imbecile who cited it?

You people are hopelessly clueless. :loco:

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,242 20 Feb 2014, 3:23 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 69,320
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,241.57

RichClem » 09 Feb 2014 12:00 am wrote:

Where's Cannonpointer to condemn and reject this Disinformation as an invalid source?

To ridicule the imbecile who cited it?

You people are hopelessly clueless. :loco:

Here is Cannonpointer. You have more, at this stage, to concern yourself with than not liking his source, son.

On the main board now are three threads. One compares Carter to Reagan on a broad range of issues mostly centering on the economy. Reagan is doing badly. Another is more specific, comparing just the jobs records of the two men - again, Reagan fails miserably against Carter. The third uses your own words - words taking umbrage at me for the SPECIFIC crime of "using only raw data" to form my OWN conclusions, and not "accepted opinion" from the talking heads to whom you kowtow and from whom you derive every "opinion" that you hold. It uses those words of yours to expose you for a hack.

So you are harrumphing and harangueing in three different threads, and in all three you are being beaten soundly. In the one centered on your own character, the vvote is 11 to 1 against you - and I strongly suspect that one vote belongs to you.

I have beaten you badly in the past. But this particular three-front ass-whipping has been most satisfying, son. And I have you to thank for it - it was you who got me to googling the Carter vs. Reagan issue. I had accepted the conservative msm narrative along with everyone else, until you ballyhooed one too many lies on the subject. Tell me, Clem: How do words taste?

Return to Profundum Disputatio

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

Who has visited this topic