Starting with the clinton library. : )
Posted on 06/13/2004 9:57:43 AM PDT by new cruelty
When Harry Truman left office, few could have predicted that 50 years later, his reputation would soar into the stratosphere. In 1953, Truman's approval ratings hovered in the 20s, the Korean War had bogged down, and labor unrest and soaring inflation dogged his reputation. Now, however, Truman is a beloved, folksy figure who, it is said, saved America from communist aggression and expanded civil rights and health care to millions nationwide.
So, it is fair to ask: What will be the future of Ronald Reagan? It is unlikely to look as rosy as it has over the last week. Reagan's former aides and fellow conservatives have, as we've all heard, portrayed Reagan as a sort of political deity who ended the Cold War, cut government waste, and inspired an era of optimism, reinventing America as a "shining city on a hill." Reagan's winning personality and formidable communication skills have received so much attention that they have become cliches.
Such mythologizing ignores the debates about Reagan that lie ahead, in the '20s, '30s and '40s of this century. As is typically the case with the hero - or villain - of one moment, a more realistic portrait will eventually take hold. Defined by the issues that emerge in the mid-21st century, Reagan's reputation will almost certainly take two big hits - on foreign affairs and domestic entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare.
While Reagan will continue to receive credit for winning the Cold War, by 2050 his achievements will have been put into their proper historical perspective. The archives from the former Soviet Union will have become more widely available, and Americans will have a more ample record of their own Cold War foreign policies. The clearer light of history should show that Reagan was, for the most part, standing on the shoulders of five decades of America's containment policies. In the coming decades, Americans will recall that John F. Kennedy was tougher on the Soviets than Reagan, and that Richard Nixon, another outspoken anticommunist, deserved at least as much credit as Reagan for negotiating with the Soviet Union (remember SALT I?) - in fact promoting the detente that made possible Reagan's nuclear-arms-reduction treaties and the eventual fall of the Berlin Wall.
As terrorism becomes the issue driving America's foreign policy, historians and ordinary citizens will examine many administrations, from Dwight Eisenhower's on, and see a policy of benign neglect in which policymakers failed to foresee the nature of the threat. Citizens will fault the generation of late-20th-century leaders for focusing like a laser on the Cold War but failing to recognize the forces breeding terrorism then bubbling up in the Middle East and across the world. Reagan, who cut and ran when 241 Marines were killed in the barracks bombing in Lebanon, will fare no better on stopping terrorism than his predecessors or successors.
By 2050, there is a fair chance that Social Security and Medicare will be bankrupt, victims of a sea of red ink. And surely by then citizens will have joined historians in realizing that that sea was born of a recurring political imperative to cut taxes. As the first modern president to use tax cuts to "starve the beast," Reagan will be criticized for touching off this mid-21st-century governing crisis.
Finally, Reagan's reputation among Democrats and Republicans will be a complicated one. Democrats, ironically, will credit Reagan with forcing their party to rethink its foreign policies, become a model of fiscal responsibility, and reclaim a pro-growth, tough-on-crime agenda.
Republicans will also hail Reagan, but for much different reasons. Though intra-party skirmishes between movement conservatives and libertarians will continue, at midcentury Reagan will be the man who led the party out of the wilderness, putting a genial face on right-wing ideology and making the GOP synonymous with a strong military and patriotic foreign policy. It's not unreasonable to speculate that the party of Lincoln will have been supplanted by the party of Reagan.
Of course, those Americans judging Reagan in 2050 will have no direct memory of the 1960s. Their opinions of Reagan will hinge on social and political events that occurred no earlier than the 1990s and the first part of this century. George W. Bush's presidency will factor in. From terrorism to Iraq to a new round of tax cuts followed by massive deficits, Bush is claiming Reagan's pedigree. To the extent that Bush does or does not succeed by winning a second term or stabilizing Iraq, Reagan's reputation will flourish, judged in light of what came after him in the Republican Party.
What we do know is that reputations evolve - witness Truman. And that the Ronald Reagan of 2050 will not be what we saw on television in the last week.
More AIDS dementia from the left.
Perhaps the Ronald Reagan of 2050 will be memorialized even more than he is today. (GASP!)
"SALT II (too)"
Yes, indeed-I needed several grains of that as well as a pitcher of koolaid to choke down this article...
History judges Presidents on major changes that occurred on their watch and because of their actions that dramatically affected the future. Reagan will look good.
Clinton will be forgotten except for impeachment. How could our Country have ever elected someone who acted as if he was more important than the country he pretended to serve.
Oh come on! This is coming from the same crowd that excoriates Truman for his decision the end the war with Japan by the decisive application of atomic weapons.
And if the liberals don't succeed in destroying what Bush is trying to do, he will be regarded as one of the great visionaries of the presidency, trying to bring democracy to a backwards region.
Starting with the clinton library. : )
Resentment seeps through the Left's careful wording. Without their old monopoly on the media, liberals are intellectuallly frightened children.
The nation saw something profound this week. It cannot be explained away by the progressive elite. They seethe.
Adolation for Reagan will only grow!
When eastern europeans become more global in media and business, his legend will take on near-mythological proportions.
The author has a good point. As I recall, President Johnson's idolization fell away within minutes.
Ronald Reagan has so much respect for the Presidency he would not remove his jacket when in the Oval Office while Clinton would not even keep his pants on.
This writer seems to be saying, "I didn't see what I saw, and didn't hear what I heard." Please make this nightmare go away."
By 2050, there is a fair chance that Social Security and Medicare will be bankrupt, victims of a sea of red ink. And surely by then citizens will have joined historians in realizing that that sea was born of a recurring political imperative to cut taxes.Ridiculous. Dallek is obviously a committed socialist, who cannot see that the death of Social Security grows from its very foundation--in the Ponzi Scheme of more people paying in to then pay out to those receiving benefits, and in the fact that a declining birth rate has left us with too few paying in to keep the system afloat.
His suggestion that folks aren't being taxed enough to keep its coffers inflated is empty-- the mathmatics and amount of money being sucked out of people's pockets to pay for their 'golden years' quickly gets past the level of feasibility. Reagan had nothing to do with it.
He might as well try to make the case that Churchill is best remembered for the growth of British socialism after the war....it just doesn't add up.
Of course, no one will question the premise and expectations of these two fine programs.
Truman was strong on national defense and created the CIA and the NSC. He was tough on communism and stood up against the Soviet Union. But Truman retired at the height of the Korean War, in which the US was pitted against Red China. He ran away from a fight. That isn't the mark of a great leader. He also had the lowest ratings of any POTUS in the age of modern polling. Even lower then Nixon!
Truman was also a social liberal. His Fair Deal policy agenda built on FDR's New Deal programs. At the core of Truman's Fair Deal, was a national healthcare program. Pure socialism.
I'll take Reagan and Eisenhower, and let the Librats have Truman and JFK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.