2
   

An Intellectuals appraisal of Reagans legacy

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 08:23 pm
Did Gorbachev eventually become top leader from among the three or not? Where is the lie?
It is wrong to oppose abortion when you have the bully pulpit, since it creates a continuance of the mindset that would overturn a woman's freedom to control her own biology.
There were times Democrats went along with Reagan's spend as fast as you can write the checks policies, but he didn't put up any real resistance to any of it.
0 Replies
 
billy falcon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 09:19 pm
perception

In responding to gala you wrote:

"you could say that but I'm not sure you're correct but I would ask you which is more important: a few more dollars in the pockets of us poor people or to have the threat of Nuclear doomsday removed?"

To this I answered:

At least you have some idea whose back was burdened to help the demise of the Soviet Union - the American poor. And the legacy carries on. Got a debt problem funding the Iraqi war? Solution? Give the rich billions of dollars in tax cuts and then cut aid to the destitute.
Everyone gets a cut!

You then exhibited your "excretment" (sic) talent:

"Billy
I think you're viewing reality thru brown colored glasses (Brown as in excretment) Until you take those brown filters off I can't help you."


Thank you for your tentative offer of help. However, I discovered I don't need brown filters to read your postings.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 10:13 pm
Edgar, slavery was abolished under the leadership of a Republican President. Work on the Equal Rights Act was begun under Eisenhower, was proposed by John F. Kennedy who was assassinated before he could finish work on it. It was continued by Lyndon Johnson who was unable to rally enough Democrats despite a substantial majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate. When almost all--it may have been all--Republicans voted for the act in the house it narrowly passed. The Democrats in the Senate attempted to filibuster it to death and it was the quiet strong voice of the late Everitt Dirkson, R-Illinois, who broke the filibuster. Dirkson was able to rally the Republicans who again all or mostly voted for the measure or it would have failed as a large number of Democrats opposed it. It did pass however and became the law of the land.

The last impediments to African Americans voting--removal of tests, poll taxes etc and affirmative action came under Nixon and again with a majority vote of the Republicans.

Don't tell me that the Republicans have never done anything to help black Americans take their rightful place as full citizens with all the rights enjoyed byeverybody else.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 11:10 pm
The truth of the Reagan years is that his policies generated an almost unprecedented influx of cash into government coffers. But, partly because of rebuilding the military (that had been sadly decimated under Carter) and saber rattling that undid the Soviet bloc, plus a huge chunk of pork and social spending initiated by congress, Congress spent three dollars for every two that came in. So the deficts did rise.

Looking back now at all those countries who were once behind the iron curtain and are now free, and the threat the U.S. that no longer exists, was it worth it?

You better believe that it was.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 02:13 am
Fox:

Of ocurse you need to remember that Democrats of that day were like Republicans today.

Also, here's an interesting assessment of Reagan from a peace activist in my area who has also run for offfice as a Green.

Quote:

Friends,

The passing of any person warrants some assessment of life. All week Ronald Reagan will be lionized by his idolaters who believe the smaller a democratically elected government, the better. But I believe in a government so democratic and huge that it would encompass all 280 million people. I do not think we should diminish the size of democracy, either by defunding its services or by calumnizing its champions.

Ronald Reagan captured the funny bone of America, not its soul. With his ability to "aw shucks" the worst truths and make them seem trivial, he was able to diminish our collective sense of responsibility and replace it with an enthusiasm for raw personal success. No small achievement, handing out confidence like chocolate from a Whitman Sampler. But as a definer of national character, all but the most avid capitalists could feel their teeth ring and their blood sugar peak and their energy slump at so saccharin a version of national sustenance.

Reagan worshipers at The National Standard magazine and the American Enterprise Institute think tank will chant and weep at his passing, intoning the great lessons of the "great communicator" as if the "Gipper's" words were American Scripture. But his lessons were not so in-tune with the America that Americans with a real commitment to our people and our ideals would recognize as traditional and abiding.

Although Reagan would claim he had experience in labor unions and respected workers' rights, he was a champion of corporate discipline and at every opportunity favored the management side in a dispute over the workers. The firing of thousands of striking air traffic controllers was the crowning achievement of his anti-labor career as president. Emblematic of his embrace of power over common workers, he was championed as a tough cookie, a no-nonsense ideologue. The Hollywood never left him. He was a showman first, a politician second, and an American leader when he got around to it.

Claiming to be a "Lincoln Republican, " it is clear he seldom read the words of Lincoln, who wrote in his first address to Congress in 1861: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Reagan's complicity in many Central American deaths, his dishonesty over the Iran-Contra shadow government that circumvented congressional rules and flaunted anti-democratic policies, his flippant disregard for laws passed by the representatives of the American people suggest a justifiable interpretation that his actions fell short of heroism and in fact participated in the criminal.

In falsely remembering Ronald Reagan as a "great" president, we go too far in trying to share in his amnesia, his false Americanism. We, the People are not the trivial caricatures and false backdrops on a Hollywood set that makes for a good story and the warm fuzzy feeling of having someone likable tell it.

This is America and honesty trumps sentimentality. Ronald Reagan was a charismatic persuader, fully in tune with the consumer side of a devalued citizenry. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.


May he and his victims rest in peace.

Ben Price
Carlisle Peace College
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 02:29 am
Professional Historians have already given their appraisal of President Reagan.

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp

In the C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership- completed by professional historians, President Reagan was ranked Eleventh while Bill Clinton was ranked Twenty-First.
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 02:40 am
I don't think that Edgar Blythe ever heard of the Civil Rights act of 1964.

He apparently doesn't know that President Johnson pushed for the passage of the act and was afraid that SOUTHERN SENATORS( overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT at the time would defeat the bill so he made a deal with Everett Dirksen, the GOP minority leader in the Senate to get the measure through for a key amendment which SPECIFICALLY AND DELIBERATELY FORBADE RACIAL QUOTAS.

We all know what happened to that!!!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 04:43 am
I think everyone knows that southern democrats are not what we think of as liberal democrats of today who champion such things as civil liberties. The democrats of today are completely different than they were. That is a fact so to keep bringing up past democratic votes and values is false and misleading in connection with today's democratic party with the exception of a few southern democratic hangers on who are only democrats in name only.

I think once all the hoopla has died down and people get back to remembering that life goes on and there is other news more relevant to us today all this reagan stuff and his policies will just be quietly laid to rest along with reagan. So, I am done with talking about it and I'll just let it play its course.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 04:54 am
I said that Republicans voted for the bill, but they did not do the work of bringing these issues to fruition. The real work was done in the trenches by the black Americans themselves with the help of white liberals. The Republicans voted that way in the face of overwhelming public support, based in part on the passing of Kennedy. Republicans also had a splinter suedo liberal constituency, led by the like of Nelson Rockefeller. The Democrats then were not the identical party of today, because they were all inclusive due to the coalitions built under Roosevelt. The conservatives and Jim Crow backers by and large became Republicans as the Republicans became more and more the party of the south. Bottom line, without the sacrifices of progressive minded liberals and the black Americans themselves, none of the civil rights laws would have seemed important enough to even be voted on.
Bringing in Lincoln is like bringing in John Smith or Chris Columbus - They have no relevency to the political parties as they operated in the 20th Century.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 04:56 am
I picked this up somewhere but lost the link.


One thing I'm not looking forward to is the orgy of conservative mythmaking about the Gipper that had already begun but was retarded by the inconvenient fact Reagan was actually still alive. Now that that's taken care of, it'll be full speed ahead, and these twits won't be happy until the man is on every single possible thing it is possible for him to be plastered on. Someone's going to have to beat these dudes back, with heavy rebar if necessary. For this reason alone, I wish Reagan were still alive. But he's not, and now we'll have to deal with his blubbering, calculating acolytes. Poor us.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 04:58 am
Professional historians can be as biased as anyone. The true historical place for Reagan cannot be decided by his contemporaries. It may take a full century or more before people are willing to look beyond the mythmaking of today.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 05:05 am
What was achieved in Truman's presidency with regards to civil rights legislation?

his administration published "To Secure These Rights" in 1947
a drive was started in 1948 to end discrimination in federal employment
in 1950, the Supreme Court all but overturned what is referred to as Plessy v Ferguson. These were a series of laws dating from 1896 which effectively approved the "Jim Crow" segregation laws that characterised the South. The laws introduced the "separate but equal" philosophy of the south - but with the backing of the highest legal body in America.
These were major achievements in the history of the civil rights cause. So why did they take place during the presidency of Truman who was born in Missouri where racism was rampant and where Truman would have experienced racial practice and been part of it ?

Truman's background:

Truman was born in 1884 and it would have been natural for him to be a racist as it was part of southern culture then. He lived his early years in Independence, Missouri which was a city rife with racism. Any elderly African Americans who lived in Independence had been slaves before 1865 and whereas the well-to-do whites of Independence lived in pleasant tree lined avenues, the African Americans lived in the hovels one associates with the treatment of African Americans at that time. Such poverty and squalor lead to the African Americans there getting involved in crime if only to exist. But their involvement perpetuated the myth of Jim Crow - that these were untrustworthy, uncivilised people who did not deserve anything decent. The whites of Independence referred to the African Americans as "niggers", "coons" or simply as "boy" - regardless of the age of the person being spoken to.

Truman's ancestors had owned slaves. His first recollection of African Americans was a household servants within his family - and he did not come from a prosperous family. While he was dating his future wife Bess, she claimed that he told her that he felt that one person was as good as any other as long as they were not black. He also criticised the Chinese in America, the Jews - to whom he referred to as "Kikes" and the Italians in America who he called "wops". Hence, Truman's background produced what one would have expected and the young Truman would have had the same views as most other youths in Independence. When he got involved in politics at an early age, he did what any aspiring politician did in the South, he paid $10 to join the KKK.

Public office changed Truman. Why ? Did he feel that America could not claim to be the democratic capital of the world while African Americans were treated thus ? Or were his motives political ? The African American population was big enough to have some political clout. Was he out to fish for their votes with his adoption of the civil rights cause ?

Truman and civil rights legislation :

Before he became president, Truman show demonstrated that he had some civil rights credentials. In his campaign to be re-elected senator for Missouri, he said the following in 1940:

"I believe in brotherhood….of all men before the law….if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race……and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety…….The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this."

At the time, this was a very radical thing to say in Missouri especially as his audience was predominantly white. When appointed vice-president by FD Roosevelt, it was mainly because FDR saw him as being reasonably liberal for a Missouri man. FDR died in office in 1945 and as the Constitution decrees, Truman took over the position of president without being elected to it.

To start with, Truman did nothing of importance to advance the cause of the African Americans. Why, if this man was so liberal for a Missouri man?

The answer is relatively simple. His country was involved in the final stages of the wars in Europe and the Far East. Some domestic issues had to take a back seat and civil rights was one. Also immediately after the end of the European war, Truman was faced with the greatest of dilemmas - do you use the atomic bomb or not ? Following this, his main priority was attempting to deal with Stalin and the USSR in the start of the Cold War. In terms of time, 1945 to 1946 did not present Truman with many opportunities to advance the cause of civil rights - foreign policy dictated his agenda.

As an example. In 1945, the Fair Employment Practices (FEPC), which in theory tried to end racial discrimination with regards to the hiring of labour, was involved in a case against a Washington DC transportation company. The FEPC had been set up by Roosevelt and it had been successful in a number of northern cities already. However, in 1945, Truman did not give the FEPC any support over this issue and nothing was done to enforce the will of the FEPC in this instance. Truman could not even persuade Congress to finance the FEPC - but his time was occupied with world-wide issues and perhaps his mind was on more international issues than this one in Washington DC.

In 1946, Truman did establish a civil rights committee whose task was to examine violence against African Americans within America itself. This committee was filled with known liberals who Truman knew would produce a report that would and should shock mainstream America. The report was issued in October 1947.

The report was called "To Secure These Rights". It was highly critical of a nation that appeared to tolerate the way African Americas were treated at a time that the nation also claimed to be the world's leading light of democracy and protecting the world against the evils of communism which destroyed the individual rights of the people under the tyranny of communist governments. The report wanted

the federal government to use its authority to end segregation in America
lynching to be made a federal offence
the poll tax to be abolished
voting rights introduced for African Americans which guaranteed their right to vote in elections free from threats of violence
the FEPC to be made a permanent feature in America
an end to discrimination in interstate travel
an end to discrimination in the armed forces
the powerful Justice Department in Washington to have a permanent Civil Rights section
government financial backing for law suits taken by African Americans or others in favour of civil rights when heard in a federal court
the creation of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
These were revolutionary demands in a nation where the South had state laws that legally kept whites and African Americans apart. In the north and west, there were no state laws enforcing racial separation, but segregation was a fact of life anyway. For its time, the committee's report was quite extraordinary. Truman called for the implementation of all the recommendations in his State of the Union speeches of 1947 and 1948. In the latter speech, he used the background of the Cold War to urge Congress to assist him in pushing through the report's recommendations. He claimed that the world was being given a choice between Soviet-style dictatorship or American-style democracy. Where did civil rights fit into this ?

In 1948 - election year - Truman issued two Executive Orders banning segregation in the armed forces and guaranteeing fair employment practices in the civil service. The military took two years to push through the law and very few African Americans became officers. But the number of front line troops who were African American did increase in the Korean War when compared to the Second World War. In the civil service, the Federal Employment Board was created in 1948 to give minorities equal treatment in federal employment agencies. However, it was short of money from the first and many in federal agencies were far too conservative to give it their support. However, the Executive Order had set a precedent about the desire to have equality.

In 1951, Truman introduced another Executive Order which established the Committee on Government Contract Compliance. (CGCC). The desire here was to use the power of federal purchasing when buying defence equipment to ensure that any company which wished to be considered by the government for supplying military equipment to the armed forces had to have an equal policy towards minorities. That the federal government could make or break a major defence company, meant that in theory, the companies would adhere to Truman's wishes. However, CGCC had no power of enforcement which infuriated African American leaders, but it was a forerunner of much more potent federal legislation to come.

Not all that Truman did succeeded. His urban renewal programme did backfire. The programme was designed to make squalid urban areas more pleasant to live in which meant knocking done substandard housing estates and building more open public housing estates. His idea was to make more pleasant what had been previously ghettos. However, fewer houses lead to many African American families becoming homeless. The programme built fewer homes than it knocked down.

But Truman was the first president since Lincoln to address the civil rights issue. His inauguration in 1949 was an integrated celebration and he could not undo in a few years the culture of the South that had been developed in the previous 150 years. Segregation remained even at the end of his presidency. Laws had been passed but without the desire to implement them in the states they targeted, the laws remained a fact on paper but not in day-to-day life in the South.

For Civil Rights Index - click here

Revised May 2002

[email protected]
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 06:11 am
I haven't hit on the evolving nature of the two parties that much, because to me it is really about a cultural war that has raged since this nation was founded, bubbling along regardless of which parties dominate the political landscape. Until the neocons stepped into the picture it was a conservative/liberal helix. When I speak of our struggles against racists, I generally don't identify progressives as "Democrats" but as liberals. This ties in with the fact that many Democrats, like the Republicans, have no real commitment to such a concept. While Republicans did vote for the 64 Civil Rights Act, few of their succeeding actions showed real commitment to the struggle, which is why black Americans still overwhelmingly vote Democrat. To insult them by saying that Jesse Jackson and liberal news makes them do so is hogwash. After all these years the most gullible of people would have seen through a ruse like that long before now.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:01 am
Again I will respectfully disagree Edgar. So many so-called compassionate programs have destroyed important black institutions, have decimated the black family, and have consigned a whole generation to a welfare mentality. I don't call that compassion. I call that pimping for votes. I believe that Republicans have been far less guilty of that kind of 'crime'.

Because the media is vastly liberal, anti-Republican, anti-conservative however, and because so many don't read beyond the headlines for their information or education, the perception of what Republicans are and stand for is often far different than the reality.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:06 am
God, I see the ways of my wrongs Foxy. You are so right, the instititutions are all so wrong - we need to go back to the good old institution of slavery.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:17 am
Geez Bill. Read. Read Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Willam Raspberry (who is liberal by the way), or any of the great black thinkers out there and understand what they understand about so-called compassionate government policies to 'help' black Americans.

Every one of these gentlemen, by the way, agrees with 99.9999999% of white Americans that slavery was terrible and there is nothing to commend it. Every one of them also acknowledges that they personally are better off because some slave trader dragged their ancesters over here instead of them being born in Africa.

In other words they are proud to be Americans and are of the opinion that a government who thinks they are somehow still so substandard that they require special government help to succeed is doing them no favors.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:24 am
I've become a neocon, there is no changing me, blind allegience is my only principle.......
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:25 am
One thing I dont understand...
People are already bringing up the fact that ge decertified PATCO,and fired the air traffic controllers.They say it like it was a bad thing.Why is that?
PATCO went on strike,VIOLATING THEIR CONTRACT.They had a no strike clause in the contract,because they were civil servants.Their own contract said it was illegal to strike.
They went on strike,Reagan gave them 48 hours to return to work.They didnt,he fired them.They tried to call his bluff,and paid for it.
Now,how does this show that he was anti union?
He did exactly what he said he would do,after PATCO broke the law.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:35 am
Bill, if Neocon means not accepting blind allegience to failed policies, looking for the good and positive and/or the possibilities and opportunities, refusing to be negative and pessimistic about everything, then welcome aboard.

And MM, Reagan was not anti-union for the sake of being anti-union. He was anti union anarchy and anti destructive union policies. And he was tough enough to act on his convictions. Another reason so many of us loved him.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:42 am
See, blind the a "T", it works - at least for the faithful.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 05:33:30