basskisser wrote:

I know, I know, all of you conservatives are too blinded to even KNOW
when you are duped by president who wasn't really that great.

You just couldn't be more wrong.

I don't like a lot of what Reagan did, and I consider
his political career to have ended in failure -
Iran-Contra - despite the very high approval ratings he
had from the public at the end of his term.

The greatness of a political leader is NOT determined
by whether or not you like the things he did.
Greatness is determined by measurable and lasting
impact he makes. Reagan was simply a giant.

This small statement in an analysis piece last Sunday
by Ronald Brownstein, the lead political writer for the
L.A. Times, explains why:

During the New Deal period ushered in by Roosevelt,
"the burden of proof was on those who tried to argue
that government should not act," said veteran
Democratic strategist Bill Galston. "But in the era
of Reagan, which I think we are still in, the burden
of proof is on those who think the government should
act. And if you bear the burden of proof, you have
the problem."

http://tinyurl.com/23vdq

I regard Reagan's achievement in shifting the burden of
proof as great for two reasons. First of all, it
really did happen, and he was almost singlehandedly
responsible for it. His statement in his first
inaugural address, "Government is not the solution to
our problem; government is the problem", galvanized the
supply-siders and other intellectuals, and absolutely
reversed, at the national level anyway, a 50 year
monopoly on opinion-making held by the
statist/collectivist heirs of FDR. It was a rout.

Secondly, I LIKE that result. I think it is great in a
*normative* sense, in addition to the factual sense.

You may disagree with me on the second; there is no
rational disputing of the first.

Let's look at a few of the specific things you don't
like about the Reagan legacy, as opposed to the
sea-change in attitude I've elaborated above.

"Runaway" deficits:

Your guy writes,

But runaway deficits do have consequences. They can
lead to higher
interest rates, exacerbate high debt-servicing
costs and cause funding
to dry up for important social programs, such as
education and health
care.

Let's focus particularly on "cause funding to dry up
for important social programs, such as education and
health care." THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT!!! That is
PRECISELY why they did it. I support that. I don't
think the government should BE in the business of
providing health care or education. Verdict: great
achievement.


Homelessness:

Reagan did not cause this. Your guy's statement that
mentally ill people had been released from state
hospitals "as a cost-cutting move" is a lie. The shift
in treatment mental defectives from state hospitals to
outpatient community centers began in the 1950s, and
became official federal policy in the adminstration of
"Saint" John Kennedy.


AIDS:

No defense required. People have AIDS as a direct and
easily avoidable result of deeply irresponsible
*choices* they make. Nothing similar can be said about
most forms of cancer, kidney failure, multiple
slerosis, muscular dystrophy, and most other ailments
on which federally funded research is done.

I'm not suggesting homosexuals and drug-abusers
"deserved" AIDS, but neither did the public "deserve"
to get saddled with billions of additional dollars of
taxes in order to research a disease that is EASILY
avoided. Or, are you and your guy suggesting that
money should have been shifted from research on breast
cancer, prostate cancer, MS, MD, Alzheimer's and other
diseases that DON'T result from personal choices, and
been spent on AIDS instead?

We all know the real reason your guy is upset:
homosexuals are one of the "darling" groups of liberals.


Economists make a distinction between "positive" and
"normative" economics. Positive refers to things that
are posited, while normative refers to what is believed
"ought" to be done according to norms of value. In
this positive sense, Reagan was one of the greatest
presidents of the 20th century. I personally believe
there were five objective greats: both Roosevelts,
Wilson, Johnson and Reagan. I would rank Reagan #2,
behind FDR. Normatively, I don't like much that FDR
did at all, but there is no disputing that he did it,
and changed the political landscape in fundamental,
enduring ways.