So-called economist Paul Krugman, whose sinecure at the Gray Lady entitles him to speak without thinking, today uses an entire column to assert that Ronald Reagan did nothing good for the economy.
As facts, he cites such things as a statement made by Bill Clinton during his 1992 presidential campaign. He also brings to bear the much-disputed "real wages" calculations oft maligned by this blogger, not least when someone like Krugman does not reveal the precise demographic whose real wages he is allegedly citing.
To the columnist without an idea, we make the following declarations:
We came of age in the 1970s. We experienced double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. We remember when money market funds were earning about 17% and no one would have considered investing in businesses. We remember a DJIA that had only three digits before the decimal. Our generation left high school expecting that we would be competing for a slice of an ever-shrinking pie.
Then came Reagan. Inflation was tamed, employment skyrocketed, the economy grew, the stock market rose. And the lunchbucket crowd (the "Reagan Democrats") whom you claim didn't do any better gave him a second term with a landslide vote far eclipsing anything else in the 20th century, including FDR's 1936 election. SWNID, hardly a plutocrat, did better under Reagan than he imagined was possible before Reagan. So did most other folks. That's why we like him still. That's why Obama wants to invoke his legacy, just as Republicans will invoke the legacy of Harry Truman, who so savagely beat their party as "do-nothings" in 1948. Over time, we realize what fine stuff these Presidents accomplished, despite the partisanship that disputes their legacies.
Reagan's revolution was carried on by Bush I, Clinton (yes, Clinton, who supported trade agreements and welfare reform) and Bush II. His measure is not just the achievements of 1981-89 but the legacy of a changed political discourse in all areas, domestic and foreign, for both parties. Like FDR, he fundamentally changed the way people think about their government. That is, he changed the way people with the exception of you and your fans think.
Keep harking back to the days of stagflation, Mr. Krugman. Your job is secure, at least until the Gray Lady finally gives way to the competitive pressures of electronic journalism. The rest of us will enjoy the liberty and prosperity of human creativity unleashed by Ronaldus Magnus.
What bugs us about you, Mr. Krugman, is not just that you have it wrong about Reagan. It's that by asserting that we're all so wrong about him, and have been for so long, you come across as mightily condescending. We poor middle class folks are just too stupid to realize that we were better off before Reagan became President, mesmerized as we are by right-wing propaganda. Thanks for that. We'll give back our bigger homes, our fuller grocery carts, our fatter retirment accounts. Let's get back to what we discussed in the 1970s: gas lines, meat substitutes, extended unemployment benefits, expanded food stamp eligibility, wage and price controls. Those were the days!
And so we say again, Viva la Reagan Revolucion!
7 comments:
Yeah, the 80's were a great time to be American.
North American.
Meanwhile down south of the border Reagan funded death squads killed upwards of 35,000 civilians in El Salvador, The Honduras, and of course Nicaragua.
You'll forgive me, I hope, if I read Krugman's article with more sympathy than you do, and if I continue to not lionize Reagan.
Also your link to Krugman's article is messed up.
Link fixed.
Krugman doesn't address foreign policy, only economic.
We offer no defense of death squads in Central America or the Reagan administration's involvement with them. We will note, however, that those countries were embroiled in nothing less than a struggle with the threat of socialistic totalitarianism exported from Cuba and the Soviet Union, a reality that can't be dismissed as a Red scare now that we have access to the records of the Soviets.
We note as well the open question whether right-wing death squads in Central America were more or less active than they would have been without United States involvement in the region in the 1980s. Carter's hands-off approach did zero to reign in the dirty war in Argentina, as a point of contrast.
As a further reference point, how many has Fidel killed in the meantime?
I don't understand what Fidel has to do with anything...? Where are you going with that?
Re: "We will note, however, that those countries were embroiled in nothing less than a struggle with the threat of socialistic totalitarianism exported from Cuba and the Soviet Union,"
I can only reply that the Sandinastas held free and open elections in Nicaragua in 1984 that were unofficially certified by over 400 foreign observers including American and British citizens.
So, from 1984 onwards the US was essentially involved in overthrowing a democratically elected government.
How is the President and his staff permitted to support a terrorist group in Central America to overthrow a government that was apparently welcomed by its own people as an improvement over the previous totalitarian dictatorship that had been supported by the US?
I realize that Krugman was talking about economic policy and not foreign but with Reagan these things are pretty inseparable. Its the only way to keep the man in some kind perspective.
At home it was free markets, slashed government spending, tax cuts, and economic revitalization.
Abroad it was the financial sponsoring (out of our growing deficit) of some of the worst totalitarian dictatorships and terrorist groups in the 20th century.
Its a hard pill for me to swallow.
Since I don't comment here to argue, but rather to debate/discuss/learn I'll offer this in the spirit of intellectual honesty.
Ronald Reagan was the only republican my dad ever voted for in his entire life. Dad was a labor union organizer.
The reference to Fidel is to note where things might have gone in Central American without American involvement. That was no merely theoretical possibility in the 1980s.
You're right about the Sandinistas having been freely elected. So let us make the obvious point: winning a free and fair election does not in and of itself make a government democratic. Would it be too obvious to recall that Hitler was elected freely and fairly? Or that the Federalist Papers warned about the tyrrany of majorities? Or that Venezuela recently stepped back from the same precipice, narrowly rejecting a totalitarian future? Chavez essentially put to his nation a referendum that would have been Venezuela's last real election, had it passed. The election of the Sandinistas would likely have been the last in Nicaragua had it not been for the pressure exerted by the Contras.
The legacy of the Cold War was that both parties endorsed the support of right-wing dictators to prevent the rise of Communist dictators. The rationale was that a right-wing dictatorship could eventually be reformed, while a Communist regime was essentially permanent. What Reagan did in foreign policy was to press both fronts. The enemy of our enemy (the Soviet Union) remained our friend, even if undemocratic. But Reagan proceeded with the notion that Communism could not just be contained, its expansion slowed or checked, but actually rolled back.
Our view is that history will not judge kindly the general Cold War policy of making friends with anticommunist dictators. N.B. that the first Bush administration made the decisive, post-Cold-War move in Panama, against a right-wing dictator. The second Bush now operates with an altogether different policy of seeking democratic transformation more aggressively than the old Cold Warriors: that's a lesson applied (and one that the old Cold Warriors are not comfortable with). However, it does no good to ignore the very real, very difficult choices that lay before politicians dealing with a totalitarian superpower committed to global expansion of its absolute rule.
You say that Reagan's economics cannot be separated from his foreign policy. Granted that both comprise his legacy, what logical connection is necessary between them? It wasn't necessary to fight the Sandinistas in order to cut taxes, for example. The policies are entirely separable and deserve separate evaluation.
Do we judge FDR not to have defended democracy by fighting WWII because he also interred Japanese-Americans? Those two actions have a much closer relationship that Reaganomics and Reagan's foreign policy.
Let us suggest a larger paradigm that is at work in our discussion: the difference between an outlook on foreign policy that prioritizes doing no harm tactically versus and outlook that prioritizes taking action, often risky, to accomplish good strategically. Carter exemplifies the former: we will not be tainted by association with governments that do not promote human rights. Reagan exemplified the latter: we will actively roll back totalitarian Communism. Carter's work proved ineffective. As we noted before, Argentina didn't end its dirty war because Carter carried on a PR campaign for human rights. Yet today, many of the countries where Reagan was involved enjoy greater liberty, democracy and prosperity than they have at any point in their histories.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your statements, something that we generally eschew on this blog. Your thoughts are substantial.
Dr. Weatherly, thanks much for your response.
This is particularly insightful:
"Let us suggest a larger paradigm that is at work in our discussion: the difference between an outlook on foreign policy that prioritizes doing no harm tactically versus and outlook that prioritizes taking action, often risky, to accomplish good strategically. Carter exemplifies the former: we will not be tainted by association with governments that do not promote human rights. Reagan exemplified the latter: we will actively roll back totalitarian Communism. Carter's work proved ineffective. As we noted before, Argentina didn't end its dirty war because Carter carried on a PR campaign for human rights. Yet today, many of the countries where Reagan was involved enjoy greater liberty, democracy and prosperity than they have at any point in their histories."
I really want to respond at length to this, and also to why I don't/can't separate Reagan's domestic/foreign policy but I am crushed with work and family responsibilities.
For now let me ask this two questions:
1. Are you satisfied that these were the only two choices open to the US at the time?
2. And are you really satisfied that the reason the US became involved in the 70s, 80s in Latin America was because of a real marxist totalitarian threat, or was it because US economic interests were threatened by the plans of these marxist revolutionaries?
(Yes, I realize the above question is a tin foil hat kind of question. In hindsight, perhaps no more so than those that believed that underfunded marxist revolutionaries in banana republics actually posed a threat to America the homeland rather than merely a threat to Chiquita Banana Co's bottom line.)
We {continuing with the plural style of this blog, and the blogger is SWNID: who is this "Weatherly" whom you address?) believe that there are various degrees to which the approaches of diplomacy and warfare can be applied in any situation, but they represent essentially the two choices available. To put it differently, a country can exert persuasive pressure on another country either by nonviolent means or violent means, or some combination.
Nonviolent means of persuasion are not always effective against the ruthless. Quite the contrary, in fact. And communist totalitarians are ruthless by ideology and experience. Carter showed the limits of that kind of thing.
It is possible endlessly to second guess decisions to use violence. But those who are charged to make such decisions haven't the luxury of waiting until they find precisely the right degree of response. They use the means available at the moment, and often they err on the side of protecting their own citizens.
Now, as to Reagan pursuing his Latin American intervention less to contain global communism than to protect American business interests, the answer there is clear. Reagan wanted to promote business, but above all he wanted to roll back communism. From the comfortable position of the present, it's hard to remember just how considerable a threat was posed by the Soviets and the ChiComs and their minions. The interests of Chiquita weren't a drop in the bucket compared to the prospect of facing a southern border where Cuban and Soviet military personnel were welcome.
Now, you use the word "satisfied." We stress that there's not a thing about any of this that satisfies us. This was a miserable situation with nothing but miserable choices. But that's the nature of a fallen world. Evil is ruthless. Evil people can generally be contained only by force (Rom 13). Using force in such situations is awful, terrible, but grimly necessary. We don't express satisfaction with it, but neither do we deny the grim realities. To do so would be to consign much of the world, and eventually ourselves, to live under brutal tyrrany, which we would agree would be worse than death.
Post a Comment