Who was worse: Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

[Kievan Rus]

I firmly think Ronald Reagan was the worse of the two; hell, I think he's the worst President that America has ever had. That man did more to hurt this country than King George III, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler, Hideki Tojo, Mao Tse-Tung, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden all did combined, in my honest opinion.

So many people are losing their jobs right now...and I think a lot of it goes back to Reagan's "trickle down" nonsense; hell, even Dubya's own father referred to it as "Voodoo Economics." The term "supply-side economics" or "trickle down" are just more politically correct terms for the mass redistribution of America's wealth to the already filthy rich, while the Average Joe gets screwed. Reagan vastly increased the power of corporations and gave "union" a connotation as negative as if one was using the f word in church during the Eucharist. As brilliantly stated in Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation," government regulatory power over corporations was dramatically cut down per Reagan's "smaller government" ideology (read: rich people get more money). Environmental regulation was cut down dramatically so large corporations could pollute our streams and skies. He gave a voice to "pro-life" fundamentalists that are vehemently against abortion, but could care less about what happens to a child in a poor neighborhood when it is actually born. The rich getting richer and everybody else getting screwed started a lot with Reaganite economics; and we're seeing it now as so many people lose their jobs and lose their homes. Reaganites are vehemently opposed to any government involvement with healthcare in this country, primarily just because they don't want the rich to pay more taxes. Reagan escalated the idiotic "war on drugs," which has wasted trillions of dollars, ruined the lives of millions, and is nothing more than a sequel to Prohibition. Reagan gave rise to hypocritcal conservative fundamentalists who fervently believe in an oxymoronic mixture of fundamentalist Christianity and a "screw the poor" attitude, in spite of Biblical verses in nearly every part of the Bible such as the Torah (first few books of the Old Testament), the books of Hebrew prophets, the four Gospels and the Epistles mandating believers help the poor and support social justice.

His foriegn policy was not much better. He was very confrontational with an already collapsing Soviet Union; fortunately, his Kremlin counterparts were either bordering on senility (Brezhenev, Andropov, Chernenko) or were willing to work with him (Mikhail Gorbachev). His SDI "Star Wars" plan was unrealistic and very dangerous. Soviet leaders (and the Russian czars that preceded them and the Russian Presidents that followed them) were rather paranoid and often feared an Anglo-Sino-American threat to their country; many of them felt SDI was intended to allow as U.S. first-strike on the Soviet Union, in which the United States could intercept the Soviet counter-attack and wipe out the Russians; considering this, there was always the possibility that the Kremlin could have ordered a nuclear attack on the United States, fearing that an American attack was imminent once SDI became active, and that they had to strike first to stop an attack on their own country. Reagan was supportive of the absurd notion of "tactical" nukes, to be used in the event of a conventional superpower war breaking out, which would rapidly escalate into an all-out nuclear war. Had their been an equally confrontational CPSU General Secretary at the time, such as Nikita Khrushchev, the world easily could have descended into a hellish United States vs. Soviet Union nuclear exchange. And lest we forget, Reagan's vehement and often blind anti-Iranian and anti-Soviet ideology ended up helping a lot of raving psychotics that we should have known better not to support. Aid was given by the Reagan government to Saddam Hussein, in spite of the fact that intelligence knew he was a homicidal maniac and was even using poison gas against the Iranian army and even his own people. In sub-Saharan Africa, Reagan supported corrupt dictators such as Mobutu of Zaire and P.W. Botha of apartheid South Africa. In Nicaragua, he supported the Contras, a bunch of psychos that committed a plethora of horrible atrocities such as torture, arson and gang rape. In Afghanistan, Reagan was very supportive of the sometimes psychotic Afghan resistance, who, in a preview of things to come, shot down a CIVILIAN airliner in Kabul in 1985. One of the guys he helped out was none other than Osama bin Laden, whom went on to create the al-Qaeda network; and many of these other guys became instrumental in al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or both.

I don't doubt that Dubya did a lot to hurt the middle class in America, and I would pin some of the blame on him for why our economy is where it is, why life is so hard for the lower and middle classes, and why so many people are losing their jobs and their homes. But Dubya was simply following in the footsteps of his father and ultimately, Ronald Reagan. And that's why I think he was the worst President that we have ever had.

[lindisfarne]

1. Ahh but we haven't got the full story on * yet. Which would you prefer to have cut off-R or L leg?

[obliviously]

2. G.W.B. by far N/T

[ControlledDemolition]

3. Both Bush's were worse than Reagan. Without the attempted hit early on, Ronald...

... may not have been as bad as he was. HIs shooting effectively gave 'Pappy' over ten years in office.

With the attempt on Reagan's life ask yourself, "Who benefits?'.

(Edit: Fix typo.)

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Chimpy was worse

Neither of the two were ever really in charge of shit, but at least Reagan could ACT the part.

[Mind_your_head]

5. OMG, I was just about to 'give you hell' for not breaking

into 4 sentence paragraphs.

I'm *horrified* at myself. I could/can read long tomes, as well as short stories.

[Yukari Yakumo]

6. Chimpy by a mile.

Reagan, despite his many many faults, at least accomplished a few things.

Duh-bya accomplished nothing.

[ruggerson]

7. Reagan n/t

[scheming daemons]

8. Reagan begat Bush. It's like asking which is worse, Satan or his spawn?

[madamesilverspurs]

9. Without Reagan there would have been no W.

[EFerrari]

22. Exactly. n/t

[Sherman A1]

25. Precisely

Well Said and right on point.

[Liberal_in_LA]

10. Bush

[Historic NY]

11. Well we had the actor & the frat a--hole, they did nothing to help.

[Arctic Dave]

12. What's worse, "Death by rusty knife or claw hammer"?

They wre both horrible people who did everything in their power to destroy civil society.

[ControlledDemolition]

19. I'd prefer the claw hammer, probably quicker. But let us not forget where GHWB was on 11/22/63! n/t

[TexasObserver]

13. Bush. Reagan had some redeeming qualities, as bad as he was.

[scheming daemons]

14. Reagan started the dismantling of everything that was great about America

He hired the people that later became the neocons that worked for Bush.


Because he had a friendly smile, he had redeeming qualities?



He created the hellhole that we're trying to dig our way out of!

[TexasObserver]

21. Bush. Reagan had some redeeming qualities, as bad as he was.

[seabeyond]

15. at least reagan just slept, bush just dumb. n/t

[OHdem10]

16. Together they have shown us the benefits(sarcasm) of Conservatism

Regan got the train rolling and Bush did not stop until he
had it completely over the cliff.

[omega minimo]

17. Head and ass of same monster. Reagan's worse for making it all possible. Brainwashing complete. Game

over.

[gleaner]

18. :Your post is well reasoned.....

and articulate. I still think that Bush is the worst of the two. Reagan and his staff put forward the economic policies that Bush followed to grind us into the dirt, but Bush took it much further.

He ignored the Constitution and engaged in widespread domestic surveillance on more of us than we will ever know. He considered torture a viable tool for foreign engagements after the USA had helped write the Geneva Conventions and define crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. Bush pursued the vicious wars that Reagan only dreamed of while making our troops do without basic necessities or providing them with sufficient medical treatment when they were injured.

What I dislike even more than our present economic hardship and the loss of stature we endure as a nation and a people, is the fact that we may become a nation tolerant of torture and atrocities both at home (Katrina) and abroad and let Bush and his cohorts get away with murder without any accountability at all. If that happens we will be morally bankrupt as well as financially bankrupt. Which is worse?

[troubledamerican]

20. GHWB was running the Reagan show. And GHWB ran the Cheney show...

[TheWatcher]

23. There is a saying that most of Americans believe we only had one term of H.W.

When in fact, if one digs deep enough, we find that we actually had three.

No, I won't elaborate.

But I think that answers the question of the OP, at least for me.

The First Bush was a MONSTER.

His son belongs in Prison.

Fuck that whole family.

[Joe the Liberal]

24. For me it's W hands down....

I never lived through the Reagan years but was here for Dubya's regime and he is by far the worst imo. At least Reagan was subtle about fucking up the country but Bush jr just went in there and went hog wild and didn't care who saw.

[Aragorn]

26. that's a hard call

since Reagan era started things but gwb pushed it so far. How about the people who REALLY voted for either? Don't they deserve some blame?

Reagan was a very public spokesperson against socialized medicine long before her ran for any office. Guess that tips the scale to him being worse.

[santamargarita]

27. Signed 130 death warrants and bragged about it...

ruined the World economy, killed thousands and was never elected - guess?

[mp9200]

28. Both were odious SOBs

Although Bush was more public about his dirty deeds.

[SoCalDem]

29. Kind of like choosing.. brain tumor or alzheimers

:(

seriously though, If we had not had reagan, we would have NEVER had Bush..either one of 'em..

[ThomWV]

30. Reagan was the worst - there never could have been a Bush had there not been a Reagan.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

31. You make a compelling argument

But I think ultimately Dubya was worse than Reagan, at least in terms of foreign policy. Reagan definitely started the rot and we are still cleaning up the messes from many of his domestic and foreign policy decisions. But Dubya has made the situation much, much worse and, as a 28-year old, I think I will have died before we fully clean up after the consequences of his disastrous foreign policies -my hypothetical grandchildren may live to see it if we don't have any more disastrous Republican Presidents of his calibre (which is probably a forlorn hope)

You make the point about Reagan's relationship with the USSR. Yes, he is fortunate to have had such weak Soviet leadership at the helm during his first term in office and such conciliatory leadership in office during his second term in office. I agree with you -someone like Stalin or Khruschev and it could have been a disaster. But here's the fundamental difference between Reagan and Dubya. Reagan could have rebuffed Gorbachev's overtures and continued repeating the same mistakes he made during his first term in his relationship with the Soviet Union but instead he was prepared to set aside his ideological prejudices and differences and to negotiate in good faith with Gorbachev. For all his faults, he actually put the long term foreign policy interests of the nation and the world ahead of his own ideological prejudices and that was something that Dumbya was never able to do, even during his second term. Whereas Reagan learned from SOME of his mistakes and proved to be more conciliatory in foreign policy during his second term, Dumbya continued repeating them and leading the country into disaster after disaster in its foreign relationships as well as in its domestic policies.

Yes, Reagan's policies in Afghanistan were disastrous and his black and white view of the world blinderd him to the true agenda of some of the anti-Soviet forces. But what Reagan did in terms of damage in this regard is nothing in comparison to the legacy that Dumbya has left behind. Dumbya has galvanized support for Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific and elsewhere to unprecedented levels through his arrogant Mideast policies and the way his administration treated Arab detainees. He's also set the cause of peace back in so many other regions. By his belligerent and warmongering attitude toward North Korea and Iran, he undermined the cause of moderate/progressive forces in both countries and hardline, reactionary regimes have once again taken control and are inflicting untold damage in terms of domestic and foreign policy that will haunt us for generations to come. His mishandling of the Mideast peace process has ensured that relations between Israel, the Palestinians and other Arab countries in the region are at their lowest point in decades (Reagan spent most of his administration pussyfooting around on the Mid-East peace proces but he actually did succeed in achieving some minor success on the issue toward the end of his term). So, while Reagan did immense damage in foreign policy, Dumbya has essentially left behind a foreign policy quagmire which has left the world at perhaps its most unstable since the end of World War II

In domestic policy, Reagan did a lot of bad here -he essentially made it OK to be sexist, racist, anti-environmentalist and the like and Bush largely continued that trend. Reagan also abolished the Fairness Doctrine and allowed for the rise of the flawed media system that we have today among other things. On the other hand Bush allowed for, through the sloppiness and incompetence of both himself and his national security team, the worst attack ever on American soil in terms of loss of life to happen. He had the warnings, he had the intelligence and he did nothing. One doesn't know how Reagan would have done in the same situation but this is definitely an immeasurable mark against the Bush Administration. And his handling of Hurricane Katrina was an unmitigated disaster. The nation suffered immensely in the short term under Bush much more than it did under Reagan. In the long term? Well it is too soon to judge. Hopefully Obama can turn things around at least to some extent

I see where you're coming from and I think to some extent comparing the destructiveness of Reagan and Bush is very difficult because they both did so much damage. But I think I'd give it to Dumbya, albeit narrowly

[Echo In Light]

32. Like Cheney in the shadow of Bush, so was Bush the elder w/Reagan

So in an odd way maybe it's sort of a draw/six of one, half a dozen of the other. Same shadowy MIC connections and global schemes that this group of far right fundies and corporate pirates serve.

[reflection]

33. W was so much worse than Reagan, IMO.

The USA wasn't nearly as despised around the world then as we are now. At least I don't think we were. I was younger then...

[trayfoot]

34. BUSH!

[zbdent]

35. Dumbya ...

I mean, we were able to recover from Reagan ... I don't know if we'll ever recover from * ...

[mmonk]

36. Bush, no question.

[tavalon]

37. They were awful in different ways

I think we are going to have to wait for the middle of the century to get a handle on who was objectively worse. They were both figureheads who allowed those around them to rob us blind and create a very dangerous world.

[caraher]

38. Bush was worse

But Reagan was more harmful, if that makes any sense.

Bush had no Cold War to manage and inherited a good economy (though in hindsight it as never as strong as the Wall Street watchers thought). The only serious challenge of his time was climate change, and he did nothing but harm to that. A corpse would have managed that more effectively!

The terror attacks were the other obvious challenge, but as horrible as they were Al Quaeda never did and never will pose a serious "existential threat" to this country or any other in the Western world the way both global warming and the Cold War are/were. The terrorists were a deadly nuisance, and I was initially impressed by the apparent progress in Afghanistan. But we all now know the tale of how he dropped the ball, losing the trail on bin Laden after toppling the Taliban in order to foment his own war in Iraq. He managed in a very short time to take us from a world where there was universal sympathy for America and resolve to exterminate the perpetrators of 9/11 to making America a global pariah.

If Bush were selected in 1980 we would all be dead today under smoldering radioactive ruins. The man was in way over his head, but the immediate stakes were far lower in 2001-2009. We still have a lot more dying to do for his blunders, both in Iraq and Afghanistan and over the coming decades due to environmental disasters his negative leadership worsened.

Reagan actually did things like talk to Gorbachev and had a genuine revulsion to nuclear war (even if it took wacky forms like SDI and "peace through strength"). I'd have to rank anyone who has the basic sense to talk to our rivals far ahead of a blind ideologue who can't get past his own rhetoric long enough to inform himself and initiate a dialogue. But Reagan opened the floodgates for nearly 3 decades of unchecked right-wing rule (Clinton was barely a speedbump, if that, as far as the dismantling of good government). The Reagan legacy is what made Bush possible, which to me means that while Bush was a worse president, over the long run Reagan's presidency harmed the country - and the world - more.

[tabbycat31]

39. from my perspective Bush

but that was because I was very young when Reagan was in office and don't remember anything about him. I was in 3rd grade when he left office.

[newportdadde]

40. Both are bad but we need another 15 years or so after W to help compare.

I look at it like Reagan gave the US a terminal disease and W more like beat the US with a bat for a few minutes. W's was quicker and hurt more but we might have recovered, in the end though Reagan will get us.

The real problem is that Reagan planted seeds in the 80s and they have just kept growing in amazing ways. The biggest of these was the attitude toward the American worker, he pitted us again each other, this inflation of the late 70s and early 80s was the fault of 'greedy unions' etc.

[Chisox08]

41. I say Saint Ronnie boy.

Only because he planted the seeds that lead to GWB. If He was never elected Bush the First wouldn't have been elected nor Bush the Stupid. His trickle down economic plan has done a lot of damage to this country and every president since has followed this failed theory.

[LynneSin]

42. If there was no Reagan there would have never EVER been a George W. Bush

Bush owes his career to members of team Reagan like Cheney & Rumsfeld who needed a name that could run for president - a puppet who could be the face of the administration.

[steelyboo]

47. Ding!

I'd say between Reagan and GWBush, that the worst was neither, it was Nixon. He gave Cheney, Rumsfield, and GHWBush their first real taste of power, and likely introduced them to each other, helping to form their cabal. Reagan and W were nothing but puppet figures as Lynn said.

[felinetta]

43. G W Bush - For starters he stole the election, didn't read PDB 8/6/01

[WI_DEM]

44. Bush

[Jennicut]

45. Reagan because he has never been fully discredited. Most Rethugs run screaming from Bush's legacy

but not Ronnie's. So in a way he is more dangerous to us now since some people out there still think his policies were good.

[UTUSN]

46. As the great Jack BENNY said, "I'm *thinking*!1 I'm THINKING!1"

When the mugger demanded, "You're money or your life!1"