This is an interesting article from the NY Review of Books about some recent books that re-evaluate Reagan’s legacy and contain some high praise from unlikely circles.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19910
In particular, John Patrick Diggins, a well-regarded intellectual historian from the CUNY Graduate Center comes to the conclusion that Reagan, far from being a conservative, was actually an Emersonian radical optimist and “the great liberating spirit of modern American history”. The review’s author, Russell Baker, muses that, “Apparently Democrats and his old intellectual and liberal critics needed to experience the autocratic and bellicose Bush before they could see what a prize statesman the nation once had in Reagan.” Will Reagan eventually rank with the top few widely acclaimed Presidents in American history?
he probably already does. that doesn’t mean he didn’t do a bunch of bad shit but the public opinion of him is very high and always has been
Fuck that; without Reagan, worse presidents like Clinton and Dubya wouldn’t have been possible.
What? Reagan: Not So Bad Compared To Bush ?
What next? “Actually, Margaret Thatcher wasn’t so bad after all, no really...”
“Apparently Democrats and his old intellectual and liberal critics needed to experience the autocratic and bellicose Bush before they could see what a prize statesman the nation once had in Reagan.”
haha. “You know, based on that Caligula guy, you now have to admit that Nero was quite the astute and great leader”
Reagan was no Thatcher
I’m not saying they’re apples and oranges but hey
haha OTM
he probably already does. that doesn’t mean he didn’t do a bunch of bad shit but the public opinion of him is very high and always has been
That’s true that he has always been very popular with the general public. However, respect from “historians” is a different thing—though perhaps not uncorrelated. That review discusses many original and interesting points that Diggins makes—such as contrasting Reagan’s Emersonian spirituality with the Puritan sternness that had gone before him (and that continues on to some degree in Bush).
haha. “You know, based on that Caligula guy, you now have to admit that Nero was quite the astute and great leader”
Well, to be sure, Diggins goes a lot further than favorably comparing him to Bush. In fact he favorably compares him to just about every American 20th century President, save FDR and possibly Truman.
Harry Truman, strategic incinerator of Japanese civilians, also “widely acclaimed”
Also architect of the rebuilding of Europe.
And Lincoln presided over the scorched earth tactics of Sherman.
And the architect of the GI bill and thus race-based housing discrimination and suburban sprawl xpost
FDR? Knifed hobos in his spare time.
Claimed it a wonderful way to take his mind off the war.
Was the war already won, and did Lincoln say “I slept well”
And Lincoln presided over the scorched earth tactics of Sherman.
Does anyone have a link to that chart showing logarithmic death tolls for various conflicts?
Was the war already won, and did Lincoln say “I slept well”
It’s arguable whether or not the war against Japan was already won—what remained was possibly the most difficult part of all—the invasion of the mainland.
And the sleep habits of a President are neither here nor there in any serious evaluation of historical legacy.
this thread title reminds me of The Reincarnation of Peter Proud
Anyway, this thread is about Reagan not Truman.
xpost
And whereas Lincoln, FDR, and Truman had to fight brutal wars for human liberation, “Reagan alone succeeded in liberating people from tyranny without going to war, and he did so through conversation and dialogue.”
- from the article
I just hope we don’t find ourselves saying “compared to ___, G. W. Bush was quite the thoughtful leader,” someday.
“Reagan alone succeeded in liberating people from tyranny without going to war, and he did so through conversation and dialogue.”
discuss: Russia under Putin more tyrannical than Gorbachev’s USSR
“Reagan alone succeeded in liberating people from tyranny without going to war, and he did so through conversation and dialogue.”
discuss: Russia under Putin more tyrannical than Gorbachev’s USSR
Unclear but its clear that the pendulum is swinging back but with the control being less overt.
George Will’s column this Sunday reviewed the book; he also warned mordern conservatives that there’s nothing particularly Reaganite about their behavior (wishful thinking, George).
Didn’t the Reagan rehab start with the publication of his radio addresses and speeches a few years ago?
Unclear but its clear that the pendulum is swinging back but with the control being less overt.
Actually, a recent New Yorker article argues that Putin ain’t hidin’ anything.
what remained was possibly the most difficult part of all—the invasion of the mainland.
A carefully constructed myth.
BOXCAR
Actually, a recent New Yorker article argues that Putin ain’t hidin’ anything.
I read the New Yorker too.
I already posted my thoughts on Truman on The Real ILE a few days ago, but I’ll say again: every post-FDR president has been repellent or worse, beholden to the National Security Act.