As an American living in the UK – Reagan was our Thatcher. He is just as divisive a figure there as Thatcher is here.

Being on the Left, and from a family of farmers who Reagan screwed over – I can’t say what I really feel about this man as it is not very polite.

‘The right see Reagan as the architect of the return to free market economics, the victor in the Cold War, and an all-round conservative Republican icon, and ask themselves what’s not to like.’

The Right are clearly deluded then, because Reagan was a protectionist who invested massively in the arms industry. Reagonomics was corporatist, not free market, whatever the libertarian rhetoric.

The love affair with Reagan tends to be based on myth. He raised taxes and during his tenure the national debt tripled. The military-industrial complex was massively increased like never before and that increased military spending is not what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The disintegration of the Soviet Union was a by-product of the 1985 collapse in the crude oil price.

The Reagan administration did collude with Saudi Arabia to ramp up Saudi oil production ( increased fourfold) and the oil price collapsed. The temporary loss to Saudi Arabia was appealing because it allowed them to gain market share. Moreover, marginal oil fields in other parts of the world became uneconomic at the low price and were abandoned. Furthermore, the low oil price stopped the ongoing drive for energy efficiency and use of energy alternatives that had been underway in the West since the first oil shock. A good deal from a Saudi Arabian perspective.

The Americans real target was Iran as they hoped the fall in price would provoke the collapse of the Iranian regime. As it turned out it did more damage to Iraq that they never recovered from and was a major factor in their invasion of Kuwait many years later. An additional factor from the American perspective is it helped to reduce their inflationary expectations.

The by-product of the oil price collapse was coincidentally Soviet agriculture was suffering from catastrophic crop failures through droughts and inefficiency making them a net grain importer. They needed foreign exchange to import the grain. The oil price collapse meant that they lost $20 billion per year in oil export earnings. They either had to introduce food rationing or borrow the money from the West. After a few years the consortium of banks led by Deutsche Bank told them they would get no more funding from commercial sources and negotiate directly with Western governments. Maybe the US and co. leaned on the banks, but the funding was just disappearing into a black hole propping up a failing system. The Western governments answer was for a system of politically motivated credits forcing reforms on Gorbachev. He needed the money and had nothing to negotiate with and the Soviet Union was doomed.

So, indirectly the Reagan administration policies did lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it was a by-product of their geopolitical strategy. Moreover, it was not for the reason of the expanded military-industrial complex that the neo-con hawks claim.

@2

Yep. Pretty accurate summary.

Can’t really say whether or not he’s respected – that depends on who you talk to.

I can however say that I’m annoyed by the way that both Sky and the BBC have reported that the statue was unveiled on the 100th anniversary of his birth.

Ronnie wasn’t born on the 4th of July – Independence Day, he was born on the 6th of February. What they mean of course is in the centennial year of his birth, BUT, it still bugs me!

I suppose this kind of sloppy reporting is was we’ve come to expect from our media nowadays.

Don’t I sound like a pedantic old fart eh?

The irony as others have pointed is that small government conservatives revere a man who presided over essentially a successful Keynesian reflation of the US economy. If only the current incumbent could get the same leeway.

Of course on foreign policy he should probably have
been impeached.

@6 Jimmy,

I think you’ll find Obama does get similar treatment to Ronnie. in this latter case, people who opposed the war-mongering bastard Bush avert their eyes at Obama’s continuation of the same policies.

@TT

I meant domestically but I take your point. I was referring to the deficit hawks who revere him.

I’ll forgive Ronnie just about anything for that Berlin Wall speech.

“Tear down this wall”.

Yup, damn right. The rest is details.

This could mean a statue of Blair , in America after all he was Bush’s Poodle

If I want to see a stiff, lifeless reproduction of Blair, I’ll watch PMQs thank you.

Let’s not be altogether uncharitable. My initial reaction to the news this morning was to speculate whether the statue had been part funded by the Alzheimer Society as a bold tribute to what can be achieved by a victim of that terrible affliction.

“My initial reaction to the news this morning was to speculate whether the statue had been part funded by the Alzheimer Society as a bold tribute to what can be achieved by a victim of that terrible affliction.”

And therefore why it’s so important to find a cure?

“Mass opposition took the form of hundreds of thousands of people – including the younger me, embarrassing Morrissey haircut and all – participating in marches against the siting of US cruise missiles in the UK.”

Me, too. Then I grew up.

@13: “And therefore why it’s so important to find a cure?”

Yes, of course. There are many reports in the news of promising drug treatments but nothing definite as yet. This is the special reason for concern in the present context:

“Ronald Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer’s while still in office, according to his son Ron Reagan.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2011/01/president_reagan_suffered_from.html

Btw I would have thought that Gorbachev could have been given some personal credit here for dismantling the Soviet empire and ending its tyranny. When the late Georges Marchais, Secretary General of the Communist Party in France (1972-94), was pressed for comment on the crumbling Soviet empire c.1990, he replied: “I tell you, they didn’t arrest enough. They didn’t imprison enough. If they had been tougher and more vigilant, they wouldn’t have got into the situation they are in now.” [Jonathan Fenby: France on the Brink (1999)]

He isn’t popular with me, he was a disaster globally. The high interest rates that dominated the early eighties ushered in the debt crisi which has had a devastating effect on the developing world and its environment. He was a complete f——-
idiot.

There is a trend at the moment to deify some of the protagonists of the failures of the 1980′s – Reagan’s economic policy was a disaster whilst to suggest that he brought about the end of the cold war is an extremely simplistic re-writing of history which fails to understand the role of Gorbachev, who took the much braver step of changing his country’s entire economic, political and social philosophy, as opposed to Reagan who, in reality, just spent a lot of money on arms.

http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2011/07/should-we-celebrate-ronnie-reagans-centenary/

Reagan’s increasing incapacity from Alzheimer’s while in office brings into sharper focus an unresolved important issue about whether the US Constitution makes adequate provision as to procedures for the President to step down in the event of “disability”. The issue was ostensibly dealt with in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

What is not clear enough is whether the appropriate steps will be taken to cause a president to step down if he becomes incapacitated. Reagan is not the only occasion when this became an issue in the last century. A notorious previous case was that of President Woodrow Wilson who was incapacitated by a massive stroke on 2 October 1919:

“With few exceptions, Wilson was kept out of the presence of Vice President Thomas R. Marshall, his cabinet, and Congressional visitors to the White House for the remainder of his term [which ended in 1921]. His wife, Edith, served as his steward, selecting issues for his attention and delegating other issues to his cabinet heads. Eventually, Wilson resumed his attendance at cabinet meetings, but his input there was perfunctory at best. This was one of the most serious cases of presidential disability in American history and was later cited as an argument for the 25th Amendment. The full extent of his disability was kept from the public until after his death on February 3, 1924.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

We like to pride ourselves that our system of cabinet government is more flexible and more responsive but I’m unconvinced that confidence is altogether well founded:

“Despite suffering a stroke in 1953, Churchill remained as head of the government until April 1955, when, aged 80, he resigned. He was succeeded by his ambitious protégé, Sir Anthony Eden, who finally reached the post he had coveted for so long, although his administration was to last for less than two years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Government_1951%E2%80%931955

Hard to see why he’s so popular the other side of the Atlantic, as the author of one of the greatest security own goals in history in the shape of airport deregulation. After all, what can those pesky unionised security staff do that minimum wage contract staff can’t?

NB, Before you start, I’m NOT saying Reagan was responsible for 9/11. The arseholes who flew the planes were responsible. But he made their plan one heck of a lot easier.

“Airport deregulation”?

What? The majority of US airports are State/City owned. What deregulation of airports?

Airline deregulation yes: but that was Jimmy Carter, before Reagan.

Are you sure you’re not thinking about air traffic control? Which wasn’t deregulated, just the union ones fired for going on strike.

@TimWorstall

I’ll forgive Ronnie just about anything for that Berlin Wall speech.

“Tear down this wall”.

Yup, damn right. The rest is details.

Support for Saddam Hussein = “details”.

Support for the Contras (and various other Latin American terrorists and despots) as they murdered, tortured and mutilated civilians = “details”.

Support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, also including the large-scale butchery of innocent people = “details”.

Not regrettable necessities, you understand. Not policies that, despite the tragic human costs associated, were nevertheless justifiable for various reasons. No. “Details”.

I cant respect a man who thought, while president thought this would be a good joke:
“I’m pleased to announce that I’ve signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

Reagan is the man who screwed the US economy.

Sure, the left don’t see him as their hero…..but he was, after all….*right*.

Reagan was a very complex figure and in many respects not as right wing as people think.

His speech at the 1976 Republican convention shows his dislike of nuclear weapons:

“And then again there is that challenge of which he spoke that we live in a world in which the great powers have poised and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction, nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each other’s country and destroy, virtually, the civilized world we live in.

And suddenly it dawned on me, those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired”

During his presidency, Reagan’s dislike of nuclear weapons was boosted by popular protests and by changes in the Soviet Union. His willingness to eliminate
nuclear weapons, almost agreed at the Reykjavik summit, deeply alarmed many of his officials plus Margaret Thatcher.

Many of Reagan’s officials gradually came round to the idea of eliminating nuclear weapons. However, such a worthy goal can only be achieved by public pressure.

I’m with the pigeons:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-daily-cartoon-760940.html

My favourite Reagan quote was when he called astronaut John Glenn a ‘celuloid hero’ following The Right Stuff.

@23: “Reagan is the man who screwed the US economy.”

Really? Compare this:

“The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States. A savings and loan or ‘thrift’ is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members—a cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society. ‘As of December 31, 1995, RTC estimated that the total cost for resolving the 747 failed institutions was $87.9 billion.’ The remainder of the bailout was paid for by charges on savings and loan accounts—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

That a terrible actor, a warmonger whose actions had awful consequences in Central America and the Middle East, a cretin whose actions began the ruination of his own country’s economy and a breathtaking hypocrite is revered by anyone outside those he enriched is another milestone on the road to civilisation’s collapse.

I suppose in ten years we’ll be putting up a statue of George W and proclaiming him a towering figure of dazzling intelligence. Blair will be demanding one twice as tall made of solid gold, encrusted with sapphires and equipped with ruby laser eyes.

I remember a Spitting Image sketch that parodied those annoying Victor Kiam Remingtom ads of the time.
Reagan: “Great Britain. I liked it so much I bought the country”
Thatcher (simpering): “And I liked him so much I gave him a discount”

I have to admit that I got seriously worried after reading this in the news in May 1988:

When the news broke last week that Nancy Reagan regularly consulted a woman astrologer about the President’s schedule, reporters immediately scrambled to discover the mysterious seer’s identity. Who was this “Friend” from San Francisco who had so much influence in determining when the President of the U.S. would — or would not — hold press conferences, deliver speeches, journey abroad?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967410,00.html

28 BobB

Yep, Savings & Loans was Reagan’s credit crunch.

Funny how financial catastrophes always seem to occur under Republican presidents.

@31: “Funny how financial catastrophes always seem to occur under Republican presidents.”

This is not a coincidence IMO. One reason is the regular “Deregulation” mantra of Republican administrations. As recently mentioned in another thread here, Andrew Mellon – US Treasury Secretary 1921-32 – remarked on the stock market crash of 1929:

“‘It will purge the system,’ said Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon to President Herbert Hoover after the stock market crash of 1929. ‘…High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder and lead a more moral life. Values will be adjusted and enterprising people will pick up from those less motivated.’”
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/963/understanding-economic-cycles

Some purging. By 1933, the height of the Depression, unemployment had risen from 3% to 25% of the nation’s workforce. Wages for those who still had jobs fell 42%. GDP was cut in half, from $103 to $55 billion. This was partly because of deflation, where prices fell 10% per year. By 1933, world trade plummeted 65% as measured in dollars and 25% in total number of units.

Another aspect is the standard aversion of Republican administrations to mainstream competition policy – hence, the GW Bush administration stopped the anti-trust case of the Department of Justice against Microsoft started during the Clinton administration.

Another is a willingness to impose unilateral trade restrictions regardless of multilateral international trading agreements and notwithstanding the advice of leading Republican economic advisers – hence:

“The Section 201 steel tariff is a political issue in the United States regarding a tariff that President George W. Bush placed on imported steel on March 5, 2002 (took effect March 20). The tariffs were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. The temporary tariffs of 8-30% were originally scheduled to remain in effect until 2005. They were imposed to give U.S. steel makers protection from what a US probe determined was a detrimental surge in steel imports.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff

The speed with which that unilateral steel tariff was dismantled is some indication of the extent and strength of international repercussions – including the critical representations by the Blair government.

We all remember Ronnie, the ‘John Wayne’ president. Here was a man who became famous for starring alongside a primate, then reaching the highest level of global politics, then ‘joking’ about bombing a fellow nuclear power. I remember various commentary from the time, some saying he was ‘obviously not serious’, others saying ‘do it! press the fucking button, blow the commie bastards off the planet!’ The warmongers and sycophants were by and large from the right, The left were much more critical, pointing out that the Soviets were not only a nuclear power, they were also closely allied to states like North Korea and China, states with certifiably insane leaders, who, given the chance, would have definitely used nukes against the west. Reagan was dangerous because he could’nt see beyond the interests of America, no matter what the cost to others. Warmonger, gun-runner, environmental vandal.