"...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America..."

[laststeamtrain]

"...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." - BO

Those 'excesses' of the '60s & '70s like feminism, consumer rights, civil rights, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement?

I'm sure glad we're over that bunkum & back to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that's been missing.

[timeforpeace]

1. Now that is ironic. When did he say that? During the campaign or lately?

[laststeamtrain]

8. He said it talking to the Reno Gazette editorial board in January '08. n/t.

[roguevalley]

21. I remember watching that with my jaw on the floor.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. The 1990s was an incredibly entrepreneurial decade. The '80s not so much.

The fact Obama was running against a Clinton obscured his real thinking -- did he trash the 1990s out of his sincere Reagan admiration or just because he was running against Hillary and thus it served him to minimize the '90s?

I have memories--more like flashbacks, actually--of the endless battles I got in back in the day about how dangerous the quote in the OP was if Obama actually believed any of it. My thesis was that he is a surprisingly open book, and that anyone who actually thinks in terms of the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, the period of the greatest step forward in human rights in our nation's history, is not my kind of person.

[DURHAM D]

16. +1000. "is not my kind of person" nt

[bluestateguy]

3. If you cannot calmly see the intellectual point he was making then I cannot help you

Once again this was a case of Obama saying something that was clearly true, but was a little too academic for most people to understand. His mistake was saying that, though the substance of what he said was flatly correct.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Please list, calmly and intellectually, the excesses of the 1960s-1970s that make the quote sensible

[bluestateguy]

We've already had that debate

and I consider the matter closed.

[jobycom]

15. Intellectually and historically, he was just as wrong.

Obama recited the rationalizations of the media for Reagan's popularity, but there's little to no historical objectivity in that. The fact is that Reagan barely won the election in 1980, and he won largely because of issues in Iran, and some of them may have been staged. A week before the election Carter was ahead in the polls. That doesn't indicate any major trajectory change. And Reagan's biggest issue was tapping into the fear of Russia and nuclear war--that's what Cheney and Rove modeled Bush's fear campaign on. And there was the Southern strategy, which had a lot more to do with racism and desegregation than with the size of government. There was anger at the size of government just as there always is, but that was just Reagan preaching to his base. The people who swayed the election were motivated by other factors. Plus, Reagan grew the government more than any other president had.

Reagan had a 32% approval rating in 1982. That doesn't indicate some major trajectory change, either. He won in 84 partially because the economy had begun to improve, and partly because Mondale made some key mistakes.

One could just as easily point to Clinton as channeling disgust at the excesses of the 80s, or to Clinton as inspiring and creating entrepeneurship and dynamism, since the econmy shone under Clinton in ways it never came close to under Reagan. In liberal ways, too, as small businesses increased their share of the national economy, as wages rose at the lowest levels, as more people fell through the cracks OUT of poverty under Clinton. Clinton shifted us from a supply-sided economy that favored large corporations most, to a more diverse economy relying on technology and small business innovation, reversing the corporate merger and buyout mentality of the 80s. Corporations did well under Clinton, but small businesses did better, and drove the boom. Clinton wasn't perfect, but he could just as easily be seen as changing the trajectory of this nation as Reagan could.

Obama several times made comments praising Reagan, and modeled his campaign on Reagan's (this according to Obama and Axelrod). He went out of his way to avoid praising anything Clinton did, and to dig at Clinton every chance he got, for fear of engendering fondness for the Clinton name. That's all that statement was about. There was no intellectual subtlety or integrity to it, nor anything other than popular myth-building. I don't believe he really liked Reagan all that much, I think he was just trying to use Reagan to make people like him better.

[paulsby]

17. possibly the most blatantly error laden rubbish post i have read in weeks

let me quote

"Obama recited the rationalizations of the media for Reagan's popularity, but there's little to no historical objectivity in that. The fact is that Reagan barely won the election in 1980,"

bwahahahahahahahahaha!

ok, now that i've stopped laughing. you say Reagan BARELY won the election in 1980?

Reagan Popular Vote: 43,903,230
Carter Popular Vote: 35,480,115

the popular vote thus broke down to 50.7% to 41% lol

electoral vote: 489 to 49

lolol. yea, he BARELY won.

in the same election repubs also won majority control of the senate for the first time in 28 years. many experts (and god know you aint one) think the "reagan revolution " played a big part.

sorry, but you are wrong on the facts. inarguably wrong. and by a huge margin.

[apocalypsehow]

25. You beat me to it. I've been frankly astonished at some of the sheer intellectual dishonesty I've

seen lately from DU'ers who are angry at the current president of the United States and the leader of our party for their own impatient, selfish reasons.

This OP, which rehashes an issue from almost two years ago, is another pearl of such dishonesty: that reply to the poster you gave above was a necessary correction to yet more dishonesty in support of it. And what is "it"? "It" is trashing President Obama.

Excellent reply, but I bet you get no response. Facts are pesky like that for those caught misrepresenting them.

[paulsby]

36. you are so right

would the OP have intellectual honesty and simply respond to a post where it is clear (these are statistics that are not doubted by ANYBODY) that he/she made a mistake and say "my bad. i was wrong"?

god forbid

i don't know what it is about the internet, not to mention political discussion boards on the internet where most people feel the ultimate sin is to NEVER admit you are wrong. what's the point of having a DISCUSSION if you aren't ever willing to learn something new, correct yourself when you are wrong and be open minded to that fact?

there is no belief i hold that is not open to discussion, and i would hope i would have the honesty to say "my bad:" when i'm clearly wrong and/or change my political stance based on evidence and reflection. actually, i HAVE said "i was wrong" when i was wrong. it feels good. are people's egos THAT fragile?

in the case where you admit you are wrong, there is one very positive effect: you learn something new AND decrease the # of false notions floating around your head. that's a good thing.

was it will rogers jr. that said something to the effect of, it's not the the things we don't know, it's the things we know that aren't so... or something like that.

[apocalypsehow]

27. Yoo-hoo! Post #17 awaits your refutation - oh, wait: bare facts are not things easy to refute.

Never mind...

[PurityOfEssence]

23. If you can't see deliberate sucking up to selfish neo-feudalism here, you're missing the point

Hitler did a lot of good things, too, like the autobahn, but to praise certain things he did, although undeniably true, is to also ameliorate a record that is overwhelmingly bad. Why do this?

Hiding behind the sneery, offhanded dismissal that anyone who can't see the truth of this is just a dolt is to completely avoid the fact that he's PRAISING selfishness here, and cozying up to an egocentric reactionary mindset. This isn't merely academic identification of a pivotal moment in our cultural history, this is approval of it. Every time he sucks up to St. Ronnie, he simultaneously attempts to slake his need for conservatives to love him and to rub liberals' noses in it.

Dynamism and entrepreneurship are code here for personal virtue, with concern for one's fellow man being tantamount to stagnation. Me good; us bad. Fuck the rest of you. There is nothing moral or ethical in this statement, and it's certainly not merely an acknowledgment of some historical movement: it's an endorsement of selfishness and a depiction of Reagan's "success" as something deserved not just because its time had come, but because it was honorable and good.

This literally reeks of pandering to the monarchists, and it is beyond what even the most short-sighted tactical maneuverer should be tolerated for, much less praised.

My blood boiled when I heard such praise for Ronald Reagan from this man's mouth, and it boils today as it does from his apologists.

To use the hoary insult of this great, nuanced wisdom simply being intellectually beyond anyone who would dismiss it is lazy puffery of the worst sort.

[apocalypsehow]

26. So, President Obama was engaged in the moral equivalent of praising Adolf Hitler. It that it?

Fer fuck's sake, I've literally seen it all on DU from the Obama-haters now. What a disgusting thing to say.

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Crush all opposition, stoop to the lowest form of character assassination and feign indignation

The poster being rebutted was claiming that Obama's statement that Reagan was more successful in changing the direction of the American people was a morally neutral neutral observation of fact, and that anyone who couldn't see this was somehow inferior. That poster was sneering at anyone who couldn't see the sheer logical genius and truth of the statement, and was absolving Obama of any value judgment of Reagan's exaltation of selfishness. I merely pointed out that praise for an individual's actions carries the taint of that individual, and even truly horrible people did some good things along the way. Even if it's unintentional, and one is simply praising tactical effectiveness, the impression remains that one is endorsing the person's beliefs. That's not what Obama was doing, though, he was sucking up to Reagan-lovers and playing cheap love-games with the conservatives for personal gain.

That poster was dismissing criticism of Obama's praise for Reagan's effectiveness as if Obama was only stating the fact of that success, whereas the very words from Obama's mouth are an endorsement of the sentiment as well. It was NOT dispassionate acknowledgement of successful tactics, it was also a greasy bit of praise for Reagan's having tapped into a human truth of the time. There is a cost for endorsing the actions of individuals, and that cost is to be seen endorsing the person's goals and ethics as well as the tactical success.

Your response was just to scream down any dissent by labeling someone who disagrees as saying that Obama is a Hitler-lover. By your same logic, Obama OBVIOUSLY loves everything Ronald Reagan stood for, and thus you, in turn also believe in throwing the mentally ill onto the street, increasing taxes on the working poor, crowning the rich with unassailable aristocracy, crushing workers, destroying the environment and allowing our very financial institutions to be playthings of the monied elite for their own reckless adventures at the rest of our peril. By your very own logic of saying I label Obama as a Hitler-lover, you completely define Barack Obama as a proud partisan of the Reagan revolution and throw your lot in with the ugliest neo-feudalists among us.

Then again, when you're justified, anything's fair game, isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

4. We've already had that debate.

Ronald Reagan did change the trajectory of America, in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not, if you didn't know that.

All one has to do is count how many years Democrats have been in power compared to how many Republicans have been in total power since. And then look at our tax codes, government involvement and regulations, and everything else.

And Obama was correct in stating that the majority of Americans voted against what they perceived were the excesses of the 60s and 70s.

If you want to ignore the fact that Clinton, a Democrat, campaigned for smaller government, than be my guest.

If you don't see the facts, then you have not looked at what has happened in this country since Reagan.....and that would make you less than informed on commenting on this subject.

[dionysus]

5. wow, recycling poutrage from the primaries.

:rofl:

HE LUVS TEH REAGAN!!1!1!1

[laststeamtrain]

12. I've never understood what you pinheads mean by 'poutrage'.

I know it's always people who strike me as stupid that say it but I really don't know what it means.

Is it some subcultural thing?

[dionysus]

14. you're pouting and outraged. and peddling some dishonest crap.

:shrug:

[jobycom]

6. That comment made it harder for me to vote for Obama than anyone I've ever voted for before.

I literally voted straight ticket just so I didn't have to cast my vote directly for him, then I went through the rest of the ballot and voted specifically for every Democrat on the ballot.

Better than McCain by a long shot. Glad he won. Expect he'll get better as he learns his job. But no liberal should praise Reagan the Racist in any way.

[polichick]

10. That comment was a big red flag that really upset me...

...along with his dissing the boomers of the 60s - whose activism made it possible for him to even be considered for prez.

Both made me feel sick, but he was better than McCain. (And still is.)

[treestar]

18. It is not praising Reagan to intellectually discuss why he won

This country was very liberal in the 60s and 70s. Then it became very conservative. It is an intellectual question to ask why. Entire books have been written on it. Someone as intelligent as Obama would have an opinion on it, of course. It doesn't mean he is praising Reagan.

[paulsby]

19. this from a guy who said

"reagan barely won in 1980"

lol.

obama can at least count.

here's a hint.

when somebody gets 43.9 million votes and another guy gets 35.5 million, he did not BARELY win.

when a guy gets 489 electors to 49 electors he did not BARELY win

how absurd it is that you make all these comments about obama, when you can't even get the basic facts right.

[andym]

9. Reagan was incredibly fortunate that Paul Volcker (Jimmy Carter's man at the Fed)

stopped Stagflation and stabilized the American economy. Reagan (who kept Volcker on) tnen got the credit.

Unfortanately that meant his ideology was accepted as well. Economically, the US is far more conservative then before Reagan.

[AllentownJake]

11. He's right for the wrong reason

Ronald Reagan embraced fascism in all its forms and changed the GOP from the party of Lincoln to the party of Mussolini.

[opihimoimoi]

13. The GOP owned Ronnie....he made GREED OK...many corp takeovers, borrowed

to build 600 ship navy, the Nat debt went from 350 Billion to 3.5 TRILLION....all his spending made things look rosy...untill the termites came to eat Bushies attempt at success....

Ronnie set in motion a death spiral...and it is here for all to see and feel...

Americas Blue tent cities are growing...and growing...all because of them GOP mfkrs

[Starbucks Anarchist]

20. Yes, he was mocking civil rights.

Because the first black president hated the whole civil... oh, wait.

:eyes:

[m3e92man8850]

22. towards the toilet

[Deja Q]

24. Impossible when big corporate blobs smother small businesses and entrepreneurs

[HughMoran]

28. That's a misreading

...but you knew that.

[JVS]

29. Nixon definitely changed the trajectory of America.

He initiated a continuing stream of insanely corrupt leaders.

[freddie mertz]

30. This was an important signal of what was to come.

I was very much upset by it at the time, and turns out I was right to be.

[Honeycombe8]

31. This is over the line. I'm upset, too. But logo that he's an asshole is over the line.

Besides, wait and criticize what someone says AFTER you understand it. Excesses of the '60's & '70's....like the Vietnam War and the bubble economy that lead to double digit inflation. I remember the '70s well. The interest rate to buy a house was at one time over 20%.

He was saying that there was a dearth of clear, decisive leadership, and Reagan provided that. That's hard to argue with. Reagan was popular with Democrats, too, for that very reason.

His economic policies sucked and caused harm to many. But he was a likeable, optimistic, clear, decisive leader in the first term. And Americans seemed to want that. He won by a landslide, with much help from Democrats.

[LWolf]

32. One of my favorite Obama quotes.

The other being the one about how republicans are better than democrats on education.

Oh, and the one about willing to unilaterally invade Pakistan as part of the bogus "war on terror."

I knew he'd never be on MY dance list when I heard it at the time.

[secondwind]

33. DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY!..........

[AnnieBW]

34. He did.

For the worse.

[girl_interrupted]

35. K&R