Skip to main content

View Diary: Is President Obama the Democratic Reagan? (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Such analogies are meaningless. (3+ / 0-)

    Ronald Reagan was an ideology-driven empty suit who unleashed a crime wave in American government.  Barack Obama has far more in common with FDR than with Reagan, even if the divergence from the status quo is less stark - an eloquent, moral leader who provides a real vision rather than just rhetoric and image.

    "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

    by Troubadour on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:27:29 PM PST

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, Uncle Moji

      I think Reagan's importance is vastly overstated.  I think Obama and Clinton are both already more important presidents.

      •  Clinton? ... Absolutely not (0+ / 0-)

        He basically accepted the Reagan framing. His neoliberal agenda simply gave us Reagonomics with some compassion. He certainly didn't significantly change the direction of any policy, domestic or foreign.

        President Obama? ... The jury is out. We will see what his second term brings.

        A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

        by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:28:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg

          Clinton may have been a bit more centrist than many around here, including myself, would have liked.  But the reality was that the old FDR/Truman/Johnson version of liberalism had become outmoded.  Clinton essentially provided a modernizing direction for liberalism, and Obama has continued that legacy.  

          Just to clarify: are you really arguing that Reagan was a greater president than Clinton?  Or are you just suggesting that Clinton is overrated by current liberals, like me?  If it's the former, I can't imagine how you arrive at that conclusion; if it's the latter, I can at least see your point, though I disagree with you.

          •  Again I am not suggesting that Reagan (0+ / 0-)

            was in any way a great President. He was, unfortunately, very influential and had a much greater impact than Clinton.

            To use an extreme example, Joseph Stalin had a tremendous influence on the course of the Russian Revolution. His impact was enormous. Was that a positive thing? Absolutely not. But one can not deny the impact he had.

            Reagan wasn't Stalin, but his impact on the United States and on the world was decidedly negative. But to deny his influence would not only ignear reality, but IMO hinder our attempts to move the country away from Reaganism.

            While Clinton was a better president, he was not a game changing president in the manner of FDR or Reagan.

            NotGeorgeWill argues in the comment just above that Clinton, in accepting the Reagan framing,  may have simply made the best of the situation he inherited.

            Even if that is true, it simply reinforces the point that Clinton worked within the Reagan paradigm. It also shows how important it is for  Democratic president to be transformational.

            A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

            by slatsg on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:51:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, the subject is not meaningless. (0+ / 0-)

      Reagan was a transformational president. The results were a disaster for the middle and working classes. Clinton accepted the basic premise of Reagonomics and set the table for Bush Jr.

      If President Obama can truly change our governing philosophy, he will influence the next President, regardless of political party.

      As for morality, Carter was considered by most to be very moral, and also regarded by most as a more effective ex-president than president.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:03:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Carter was a moral man, not a moral leader. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uncle Moji, arabian

        He failed in his capacity as a leader.  He didn't understand what was going on in the country or how people felt about it.

        "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

        by Troubadour on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:15:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site