NationStates Jolt Archive


Reagan vs. FDR

Raysian Military Tech
09-06-2004, 00:35
Why Reagan Tops Roosevelt's Legacy
By Tony Snow

The big story in Washington this week – the only story, for all intents and purposes – is that Ronald Reagan, after a long and withering struggle with Alzheimer’s and a longer and glorious life as the greatest leader of the 20th Century – died Saturday at the age of 93.

Many obituaries place him on equal footing with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but Reagan deserves to stand alone atop the podium. Consider the men’s different records and approaches.

Roosevelt inherited an economy just plunging into recession and recommended a “cure” that didn’t work – larger government, make-work projects, etc. (I will not rehearse the economic data that undergird my claim; suffice it to say that Roosevelt was more effective in rallying the nation through rhetoric than he was in reviving the economy through Keynesian “stimulus.”) World War II did what the New Deal could not: It fueled an economic and national revival.

FDR also practiced considerable legislative chicanery. His economic policies bore little resemblance to the program he promised on the stump – and he often did things he had promised as a candidate never to do.

When it came to fighting a war, Roosevelt entered the fray when it was politically uncontroversial, not when it was obviously necessary. He didn’t issue a call to arms when German u-boats sank American ships on the high seas. He moved only when Pearl Harbor created public rage sufficient to overcome America’s pacifist/isolationist leanings.

Finally, Roosevelt was eloquent, but not especially warm. Some of his speeches are a wonder to this day, and his fireside chats pioneered new terrain in establishing a link between a chief executive and the vast American public. Nevertheless, he seemed at times distant, almost regal. Despite these cavils, he was a very great man.

Reagan enjoys several slight advantages over his one-time hero. First, he governed according to the blueprints he presented to the electorate. His tax cuts delivered the economic growth he promised and the gusher of federal revenue he predicted. (Congress, of course, spent at an even more dizzying pace.) The Kemp-Roth tax cuts revived a moribund economy and revolutionized economic theory.

He also risked censure by promoting a foreign policy that scandalized the diplomatic establishment – one that aimed at the seemingly impossible goal of crushing communism. Again, his instincts proved wiser than professorial prejudices. Reagan strengthened the American military, used diplomacy to persuade wavering European allies to place new nuclear weapons on their soil, and promoted relentlessly the ideal of freedom.

This last mission may have been the most important. Like America’s founders, he regarded liberty and virtue as inseparable elements of one another: no liberty without virtue and no virtue without liberty. He also believed liberty/virtue would triumph over tyranny/evil. He was optimistic, and he was right. Reagan’s words didn’t merely inspire people laboring under communist subjugation. They made captive nations think, and dream – and act.

Unlike Roosevelt, Reagan had to persuade a wary nation that it was at war and that the enemy meant business. Jimmy Carter warned against “and inordinate fear of communism,” and Reagan’s detractors accused him of courting an apocalyptic nuclear exchange. But Reagan understood the conflict against communism as a battle between good and evil, and he was right.

Finally, Reagan forged a more direct personal relationship with the electorate than any modern president. He told jokes, shared stories, spun tales – and in the process made big, bold truths seem comfortable and comforting.

While visionaries usually stand alone on their soapboxes, thundering with aloof passion, Reagan talked like everyone’s best buddy – the national guy-next-door. He bypassed the national media because the press corps was too conventional and timid to appreciate his then-radical views, and talked directly to the public – a practice that infuriated the press and thrilled the vast majority of Americans.

To summarize: Reagan completed the two great projects started by Roosevelt – the struggle against fascism and socialism, and the quest for an economic policy that would unleash the enterprise and enthusiasm of the American public. And that’s why I think he stands alone among the 20th century’s great American leaders.

*Edited by Nationstates Moderator. (It looks better this way)
Colodia
09-06-2004, 00:37
aye, but Roosevelt is a bastard for considering war on Colombia

or am I missing something?
New Foxxinnia
09-06-2004, 00:39
aye, but Roosevelt is a bastard for considering war on Colombia

or am I missing something?You're missing something. Terribly.
Kwangistar
09-06-2004, 00:43
aye, but Roosevelt is a bastard for considering war on Colombia

or am I missing something?
Other Roosevelt
Incertonia
09-06-2004, 00:45
Sorry, but Snow gives Reagan way too much credit for the situation he faced as compared to the one FDR faced. Not surprising, considering that the Republican party is trying to practically deify Reagan, but the comparison isn't close.

FDR took an economic situation that no one at the time understood, and while he wasn't able to make great headway against it until WWII, was able to make some without any real regulatory power. Reagan had a much better situation economically, and what he accomplished with it is more than a little overblown by pundits.

FDR tackled a situation with WWII where the future of western civilization was literally at stake and helped us get through it. Reagan saw that Gorbachev was a guy who could be worked with and may also have suspected that the Soviet Union wasn't the threat it had been, but the fate of society wasn't at stake.

But here's the real crux of the matter--great men are defined by their times. FDR was a great man at a crucial time. Reagan didn't govern in a crucial time--that's not his fault, but it is the truth.
Spoffin
09-06-2004, 00:52
Sorry, but Snow gives Reagan way too much credit for the situation he faced as compared to the one FDR faced. Not surprising, considering that the Republican party is trying to practically deify Reagan, but the comparison isn't close.

FDR took an economic situation that no one at the time understood, and while he wasn't able to make great headway against it until WWII, was able to make some without any real regulatory power. Reagan had a much better situation economically, and what he accomplished with it is more than a little overblown by pundits.

FDR tackled a situation with WWII where the future of western civilization was literally at stake and helped us get through it. Reagan saw that Gorbachev was a guy who could be worked with and may also have suspected that the Soviet Union wasn't the threat it had been, but the fate of society wasn't at stake.

But here's the real crux of the matter--great men are defined by their times. FDR was a great man at a crucial time. Reagan didn't govern in a crucial time--that's not his fault, but it is the truth.I'd also argue that FDR had a better plan for long term growth, while Reagan had a band aid for the problems of the time. There are also those who will suggest that Reagan didn't actually have that great an effect on bringing down the Soviet Union (some give fair credit and say that he undoubtably brought it 10-14 days faster than it would have happened without him), whereas the same cannot be said for FDR and Naziism.
Trotterstan
09-06-2004, 01:01
Roosevelt inherited an economy just plunging into recession and recommended a “cure” that didn’t work – larger government, make-work projects, etc. (I will not rehearse the economic data that undergird my claim; suffice it to say that Roosevelt was more effective in rallying the nation through rhetoric than he was in reviving the economy through Keynesian “stimulus.”) World War II did what the New Deal could not: It fueled an economic and national revival.


War is an extension of Keynesian economics.

Government spending on public works (guns/boats etc) and public employment programs (army), deficit spending, increased taxation. Sounds pretty Keynesian to me.

Anyway, you have failed to mention the massive destruction Reagan tolerated and encouraged in central America nor do you note the Mujahadeen he created in Afghanistan that are now attacking the US. All these negative popints have been mentioned by so many other posts I wonder how you could have missed them.
Nothern Homerica
09-06-2004, 01:07
Oh, come on. Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (a man who practically revered Reagan as a God) said in an interview with Sean Hannity yesterday that he thinks Reagan is the 2nd best president of the 20th century. The first, he said, was clearly FDR. You really have to give the man credit. Even though he was practically a socialist, he is still held in high esteem by staunch Reaganite republicans. As for Reagan, I do not with to belittle the man, but his economic achievements are rather exaggerated. Supply side economics have never worked.
Nothern Homerica
09-06-2004, 01:10
Oh, come on. Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (a man who practically revered Reagan as a God) said in an interview with Sean Hannity yesterday that he thinks Reagan is the 2nd best president of the 20th century. The first, he said, was clearly FDR. You really have to give the man credit. Even though he was practically a socialist, he is still held in high esteem by staunch Reaganite republicans. As for Reagan, I do not with to belittle the man, but his economic achievements are rather exaggerated. Supply side economics have never worked.
Nothern Homerica
09-06-2004, 01:11
Oh, come on. Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (a man who practically revered Reagan as a God) said in an interview with Sean Hannity yesterday that he thinks Reagan is the 2nd best president of the 20th century. The first, he said, was clearly FDR. You really have to give the man credit. Even though he was practically a socialist, he is still held in high esteem by staunch Reaganite republicans. As for Reagan, I do not with to belittle the man, but his economic achievements are rather exaggerated. Supply side economics have never worked.
Kleptonis
09-06-2004, 01:21
First of all, it'll take 25 years before Reagan gets on any money. Roosevelt led us through World War 2. He didn't needlessly risk human lives until we absolutely had to, which is a good thing. In 1940, he did send all possible help to Great Britain short of military involvement. He also helped unite the world under the United Nations. Not only this, but while suffering from polio throughout his life. Lathough Roosevelt was never "warm" as the article put it, Reagan was too. Although he did often joke during his speeches, his children were never very close to him. It has been said that. I think that what this great support for Reagan is is a desperate try to find a great modern president. Unfortunately, there aren't any that have been great in a long time. If you're going to try to get Reagan on some currency, try someone like Grant or Jackson. Jackson was famous for his terrible treatment of Native Americans, and Grant was too drunk to do anything, and had his aids make the decisions for him. If anyone, we should replace one of those two with Reagan.
Myrth
09-06-2004, 01:32
Reagan == bad.
BLARGistania
09-06-2004, 01:35
Its true that FDR's economic programs are debateable in wether or not they did anything useful, but one must take a look at not only the economic effect, but the general effect. FDRs programs did nothing in actauality to spur the economy up, not like it was his fault though, President's have almost no control over the economy. What his programs did do though was instil some sense of optimism into the American people. The make work programs such as the TVA and CCC provided a steady paycheck to people who otherwise got no money, a very important psychological factor. Men felt like they could provide for their families which made a huge difference. The fact that he was able to pass so much legislation through in the first hundred days was a testimony to his perseverence for providing a better America. Unfortunatly, the market forces were against him and the economie left at a standstill so his programs had no visible effect.

In regards to WWII, the American isolationist movement was pretty powerful politically. Their agenda was pressed in the senate and so kept America out of the war. Roosevelt expressed much sympathy towards the Brits and tried to help them out by going around the neutrality acts that had been signed by Wilson. Programs such as Lend-Lease and the Destroyer Deal were cut to try to help Britian while Roosevelt had his hands tied by congress. When Pearl Harbor finally happened, the isolationist movement was stopped and America was able to fully engage in the war which is what Roosevelt had wanted.

The author of the article seems to do a good job looking at only the facts and leaving contect out of the picture. If one looks at the context under which Roosevelt acted, one can see how much he actually did. I would post more about Reagan, and what he did (good as well as bad) but I really don't have the time or energy. He played with the FDA a little too much, but other than that, I don't have time.

~BLARG!
BLARGistania
09-06-2004, 16:34
oh, c'mon! I know there's more than has been presented here.
Min-Max
10-06-2004, 07:49
Meh.. James K. Polk was better than both of them combined. He did all he said he was going to do, and then left.
Niccolo Medici
10-06-2004, 11:02
FDR was a lesser president than Ronald Reagan? I see.

Well, I'll say this much. From what I know of history, the facts don't fit with Tony Snow's argument very well.

I would hasten to point out that FDR's four terms of office were not marred by convictions of its upper-level officials; something Reagan's administration cannot claim.

Reagan did very important things for the US as a whole; to overblow his contribution to the nation is somewhat understandable. It is good to remember those who died in a favorable light; but to place Reagan above all others is simply ignoring all that which history has to say on the matter.

Wait 50 years before assuming you know what Reagan's policies did or did not do to the economic well-being of the US. That time would best be spent figuring out how to get our debt load down a bit.
BackwoodsSquatches
10-06-2004, 11:07
Wow...A Conservative journalist given Reagan way too much credit....

Who'd a thunk it?