Was Reagan Great?

Note: Last night Paul Ramsey and I did a livestream on Reagan, so it is a good companion to this post. YouTube or Rumble.


If you were alive and following politics in the middle of the 1980’s, one of your base assumptions would have been that you were living through one of the great presidencies in American history. Ronald Reagan was a massively popular figure because he was credited with pulling the nation out of the tailspin that began in the cultural and political radicalism of the 1960’s. It was morning in America again and every normal person credited Reagan for it.

Forty years on and the only people who mention Reagan are the yesterday men of what is left of Conservative Inc. In fact, their mentioning of him is usually a trigger for people to heap abuse on them. The same can be said for Bill Buckley, who was similarly famous in the 1980’s. William F. Buckley was the intellectual engine of the conservative movement and Ronald Reagan was the man who made it possible. Like conservatism itself, Buckley and Reagan are fading from our minds.

One cause of this is generational. You must be over fifty to have a clear memory of the Reagan years. That is a lot of people, but younger people tend to drive the debate on the internet. They are going to be much more focused on the present. At the same time, the populist movement is to some degree a revolt against what is viewed as baby boomer culture. This is the singular focus on the economy and the stock market at the expense of cultural and demographic issues.

Another cause is that the big issues of this age have their roots in the 1980’s and may have been caused by Reagan. Immigration is the easy one. Not only did Reagan sign off on open borders policies like amnesty, but he was also instrumental in the romanticization of immigration as a core American value. The same can be said for the toxic individualism that has come to define the white middle-class. Of course, it was the Reagan military buildup that made possible the forever wars.

Of course, recency bias plays a role. In the Clinton years, there were people claiming that Bill Clinton was a great president. These were mostly sociopaths, but there were probably some people who believed it at the time. The biggest example of this is Barak Obama who was treated as black Jesus. Now he is forgotten. The importance of Reagan on the present has faded, so his grip on our minds, even for those alive back then, has loosened a great deal.

While all of this is true, it is generally true for every president. No one alive today remembers FDR. Obviously, no one is reminiscing about Lincoln or Grant, but we still talk about some presidents long after they are gone. Other than the yesterday men of conservatism, you never hear much talk about Reagan. There are far more references here to the Clinton years than the Reagan years. The 1992 election remains an important turning point in our politics.

One possible reason for why Reagan has faded is that the things he ushered in have become so normalized that people just assume they are the natural state of things, rather than an innovation of the 1980’s. Everyone just assumes the stock market is an important part of the American economy. Personal debt is just a normal part of life that one must manage. The dominance of the American military and its respect with the America people is just the way it has always been.

That is why you would have Reagan on the list of great presidents. The things he ushered in have stuck with us and are the new normal. Even though Nixon was president at a critical juncture in the development of what would become the Blob, his policies have had no lasting impact. The same can be said for Clinton, who was the first post-Col War president. While his presidency was an inflection point, no one can remember anything he did while in office¹.

On the other hand, this line of reasoning would put Lyndon Johnson on the list of great presidents because we still suffer from his blunders. The Vietnam war still haunts our foreign policy establishment. The civil rights act continues to torment us. It was Johnson who helped turn the Israel Lobby into the mind-altering force we see today. The fact is, the Lyndon Johnson administration is a nightmare from which we can never awake, so maybe the greatest American of the 20th century was Oswald.

As an aside, Lee Harvey Oswald is another example of how history can often pivot on the actions one anonymous man. Like Gavrilo Princip, Oswald changed what people assumed to be the flow of events in a terrible way. Most think that if he had missed and Kennedy had survived, the 1960’s would not have led to the cultural catastrophe that still haunts us today. Many argue the same with regards to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Speculative history aside, what seemed certain in the 1980’s and into the second Bush presidency, that Reagan was one of the great presidents, is now more open to debate, assuming anyone thinks to debate it. That is one of the most intriguing aspects of Reagan right now. Hardly anyone talks about him. There is more time spent on Clinton, Nixon, or Obama, and no one thinks they were great presidents. Reagan and the 1980’s have become a forgotten bit of our history.

That said, this may be the prelude to a revival of interest in Reagan. Once the geezers leave the scene and the remnants of conservatism are swept from the stage, a new set of eyes can examine that time without the bias of having experienced it. The first passes at history are always self-serving and flattering to the winners. Later passes turn the near past into justification of present agendas. It is further down the line that you get a more candid view of events.

Even if in the fullness of time Reagan is on the list of great presidents and the 1980’s are studied as an important time, what will be lost is the impact the man at the center of that age had on the people. Reagan was a towering figure who changed the culture simply by setting an example with his public presentation. It is a thing to keep in mind as we watch the final act of Donald Trump. Great men are great men because they inspire the great men of their age.

¹Get your mind out of the gutter.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


To keep Z Man's voice alive for future generations, we’ve archived his writings from the original site at thezman.com. We’ve edited out ancillary links, advertisements, and donation requests to focus on his written content.

Comments (Historical)

The comments below were originally posted to thezman.com.

241 Comments

Bartleby the Scrivner #447647 March 13, 2025 8:42 am 59
When I think of the Reagan years, it pains me, and is embarrassing, to remember just how naive and gullible I was with regards to politics, and how the world worked in general.I got married at the tender age of 21, and had a job as a draftsman. $253.00/week take home, and I was on top of the world.My wife and I stayed up to watch Dennis Conner try to get the Cup back from the Aussies. We stayed up till 1:00AM to watch.For me it was a simpler, straightforward time.I guess I didn’t know what I didn’t know.
Eloi #447656 March 13, 2025 8:51 am 38
I don’t care for Bob Seger, but he does have a great line: “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.”
Bartleby the Scrivner #447667 March 13, 2025 9:14 am 34
Another song reference that comes to mind is,”don’t know what you got, till it’s gone”. It may be a cliche’, but if anyone is postponing anything they want to do with any loved one, do it while you can. There has been quite a few deaths in my life lately, and regret is a horrible state.
Tars Tarkas #447707 March 13, 2025 10:30 am 2
That was art imitating life. You don’t know what you got until it’s gone was an old saying when Cetera sung that line.
BigJimSportCamper #447712 March 13, 2025 10:34 am 5
I thought it was Joni Mitchell?
Tars Tarkas #447744 March 13, 2025 11:06 am 2
I forgot about big yellow taxi a decade and a half before hard habit to break. But I think it was old hat even in 1971 or whenever BYT came out.
Ostei Kozelskii #447753 March 13, 2025 11:18 am 7
Paved paradise, put up a parkin’ lot…
Wolf Barney #447816 March 13, 2025 1:35 pm 7
….because of mass immigration! I gotta feeling Joni never made that connection though.
pyrrhus #447849 March 13, 2025 5:55 pm 1
They paved Paradise…created a massive bubble
NoName #447861 March 13, 2025 8:25 pm 1
Bartleby the Scrivner: “There has been quite a few deaths in my life lately, and regret is a horrible state.“I’ve been warning peeps that there will be millions upon millions of v@xxinated Boomers & Xers, WITHOUT WILLS and WITHOUT TRUSTS who will be dying of “Suddenly“.And that means millions upon millions of Estates left Intestate.For the legalistic swine, known as JDs, working the civil courts,Estates left Intestate are like Thanksgiving Dinner, or like openingPresents onChristmas morning [respectively “Hanukkah” presents for our friends in the ancient Mesopotamian Death Cult].My guess is that a pureblooded JD, with a specialty in Estates left Intestate, working the estate courts from, say, 2025 to 2040, could easily amass a fortune of tens of millions of dollars in those 15 years.EASILY.There is gonna be a literal Mount Everest of paperwork needing to be paper-worked onceSuddenlykicks in and all the surviving descendants start fighting over the loot.There’s even gonna be an yuge business in settling the estates ofSuddenlydeaths where there are NO SURVIVING DESCENDANTS WHATSOEVER.Just millions upon millions of dollars of property, with 3rd & 4th & 5th cousins fighting tooth & nail over who gets the Cat Ladies’ Intestate Estates.cf Dickens, Charles,“Bleak House”
whatever2020 #447866 March 13, 2025 10:23 pm 1
Yeah, climate change is a bitch.
NoName #447869 March 13, 2025 11:18 pm 1
I’m guessing either “climate change” is supposed to be humorous, or else you meant to post to someone else.But I’m very serious about “Suddenly” and millions of Boomer/Silent Cat Ladies who don’t have proper Estate Planning.As the Cat Ladies start dying of “Suddenly”, they will leave behind almost unimaginable wealth, tied up in the legalistic nightmare of Estates left Intestate [because the Cat Ladies are simply hopeless when it comes to managing their own affairs].If you have some free time, take a look at the news concerning the Lipid NanoParticles and the Plasmid DNA Contamination:https://tinyurl.com/hhdktue8Then take a look at Excess Death statistics:https://tinyurl.com/m7pbkvrwThe fully v@xxinated Cat Ladies are going to be leaving behind hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of estates intestate.Maybe trillions of dollars’ worth.
whatever2020 #447872 March 13, 2025 11:59 pm 0
My mention of “climate change” was an attempt at humor, making reference to precisely this being an amusing excuse for all the dying of “Suddenly” actually pushed hard by legacy media for a while. They actually did this a while back. Ed Dowd talked, and laughed, about this at one point. Thanks for the links. i haven’t updated myself on this stuff for a long time and so need to.
David Wright #447758 March 13, 2025 11:21 am 3
What’s a draftsman?
Bartleby the Scrivner #447796 March 13, 2025 12:21 pm 8
A draftsman makes pictorial drawings of houses, machine parts, etc. This was before Cad/Cam. With pencils and paper, that were turned into blueprints for the shop floor. Ammonia was used as a fixer. Good times!
David Wright #447810 March 13, 2025 1:05 pm 8
Of course I’m kidding. Old enough that I took a few courses way back. Still have my Tsquare, french curve, compass, mechanical pencil and especially my Pink Pearl eraser.
Dutchboy #447840 March 13, 2025 4:31 pm 6
My engineer brother remembers when the first Texas Instruments hand held calculators were on sale at his university’s book store (Cal Poly SLO) in the 70s. The $100 slide rules went to the clearance rack at $1.99 each.
Gespenst #447811 March 13, 2025 1:15 pm 3
The modern world was built from the engineering designs that draftsmen put on blueprints and, much later, diazo reproductions.
NoName #447870 March 13, 2025 11:19 pm 0
Drawing on paper is approximately infinitely easier & more fun & more productive than any possible computer program could ever be.
LineInTheSand #447809 March 13, 2025 1:03 pm 3
“Running Against the Wind” is a great song. Soulful and full of bitter wisdom. Give it another try.
Filthie #447694 March 13, 2025 10:03 am 15
It WAS a different time, fellas. Hindsight is always 20/20. What are the Dissidents going to look like in 40 years?A lot of today’s filth and corruption didn’t exist – or at least, what there was of it was carefully locked in the closet. I remember watching 60 Minutes back in the 80’s. They would take some controversial subject, gather all the evidence to support one camp of popular thought, and then do the exact same thing for the other side of the debate. Usually the result with the viewer was vapour lock because those issues were controversial for a reason – because there was two ways the intellectually honest critical thinker could look at them. Today they are a cheap Chinese hatchet you might find in the bargain bin of a discount camping store.Are the Dissidents populists?
Jack Dobsen #447747 March 13, 2025 11:09 am 16
Populism is the vehicle. As for your rest, yes. Before the Woke Curtain fell on the West, academics referred to “presentism,” which meant viewing historical events in terms of today’s morality. I am as guilty of this as the next guy at times. Reagan was responding to half a century of unchecked and unquestioned managerialism, and someone had to go first and that took a spine.
Mycale #447768 March 13, 2025 11:26 am 13
We aren’t meant to care about the goings-on in Washington DC and national politics. The fact that it has become both a ridiculous TV show and something we need to care about is evidence that the system has failed. The way the system was set up was that we little people care about what happens in our communities, towns, and states, with those layers taking care of the politics above them (e.g. state legislature selects senators).I think national politics started becoming like this when the carnival show known as the Bill Clinton administration swept in. Of course, the GOP was happy to go along with it and play their part.
Marko #447780 March 13, 2025 11:42 am 1
I was a standard center-left guy well into my 30s. I voted Obama in ’08. I read a lot of politics, but they were of the mainstream type. Perhaps it’s good that you do a tour of the mainstream before you get into the stuff on the other side of the Great Divide. It’s probably bad for your mental health that you would be introduced to Jared Taylor at 18 rather than Ross Douthat or Ben Shapiro.
Ostei Kozelskii #447827 March 13, 2025 2:29 pm 13
Voted for BO. **smh** That kind of mistake is tough to bounce back from.
Ivan #447865 March 13, 2025 9:53 pm 1
White guilt
Moran ya Sis ba #447846 March 13, 2025 4:50 pm 5
Being naive and drinking the cool aid are early waypoints on the dissident journey
pyrrhus #447848 March 13, 2025 5:54 pm 8
In some ways, Reagan was a total disaster…Very bad was the Illegal alien amnesty bill….but even worse, the 1986-87 tax bill which unConstitutionally removed the good will capital of the S&Ls, originally given to induce them to acquire other troubled S&Ls, and caused many of them to become insolvent…That bill handed the country over to the giant banks, and the Wall Street Ponzi schemers….
NoName #447873 March 14, 2025 12:09 am 6
Bartleby the Scrivner:When I think of the Reagan years, it pains me, and is embarrassing, to remember just how naive and gullible I was with regards to politics, and how the world worked in general.In retrospect, what shocks me is how benign our enemies were in the Cold War.Gorbachev was secretly a devout Christian who forged a phenomenal relationship with Reagan, and Gorbachev was so moved by his friendship with Reagan that he literally WEPT at Reagan’s Funeral.Fast forward a few decades, and suddenly our enemies aren’t closeted Christians, like Mikhail Gorbachev, but instead our enemies are now cold-blooded serpents such as Klaus Rothschild Schwab, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Albert Bourla and Robert Langer, all of whom fully intend to sterilize and/or murder us.I have no recollection of Gorbachev ever telling anyone that they would have to rent everything, eat the bugs, and be thankful.I have no recollection of Gorbachev cutting off little boys’ penises & testes, nor of Gorbachev ordering radical hysterectomies for pre-pubescent girlsOur 21st Century enemies areINFINITELY MORE EVILthan anyone whom you could have possibly associated with Mikhail Gorbachev’s Inner Circle, back in the day.
Citizen of a Silly Country #447644 March 13, 2025 8:39 am 47
As Z noted somewhere, Reagan may well be remembered for allowing the system to stumble along for another 40 years. What should have been a reassessment – and, ultimately, rejection – of the cultural and legal changes of the 1960s and 1970s was put off. Reagan brought back normalcy but didn’t put a stake in the heart of feminism, the Civil Rights Act, Melting Pot, etc., and other 1960s and 1970s lunacy.
Bartleby the Scrivner #447651 March 13, 2025 8:45 am 23
He kept the spell going.
Compsci #447710 March 13, 2025 10:32 am 12
So did every other president that followed him. You might as well cite Carter and then Nixon and then LBJ for creating, and expanding and extending the cancer. When the time was not right for change—and it wasn’t—nothing could be expected. Reagan is being analyzed in the great post modern (Leftist) deconstructionist tradition—and just as such always is—incorrectly.
Ostei Kozelskii #447766 March 13, 2025 11:25 am 18
Carter was a Leftist who fully supported the cultural rot of the 60s. LBJ was one its architects. The putrifying process was too new for Nixon to have grasped it. Reagan, however, as a man of the right who came to power late enough to recognize the horrendous consequences of pomo Leftism, failed to do so. Now I don’t hate Reagan, but his critics certainly have a legitimate beef.
Steve #447781 March 13, 2025 11:43 am 10
Yeah, I think that’s a fair take. The only objection I have to that is Reagan prioritized what he thought was the hottest iron in the fire, then moved on. At the moment, our biggest problems were economic and the Cold War. So tax cuts and letting interest rates rise were essential. The buildup of tanks and missiles in West Germany had to stop, because Germany could no longer control it’s people’s objection to it. Democrats applied the lessons they learned from Watergate to make Reagan’s second term inconsequential, which they repeated for Trump’s first.
Dutchboy #447841 March 13, 2025 4:35 pm 6
Reagan had the same problem as Trump: a Republican Party and bureaucracy committed to the 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘰. Reagan could not overcome that roadblock. It remains to be seen if Trump can.
Vizzini #447800 March 13, 2025 12:30 pm 17
The last Presidents that really rolled back the progressive project were Harding and Coolidge, but even then, their gains didn’t last, and we got progressives Hoover, FDR and Truman one right after the other.
Jack Dobsen #447677 March 13, 2025 9:32 am 19
Reagan still was a product of Con, Inc., and saw his role as to defend the system even as the cliff’s edge came into sight.
Citizen of a Silly Country #447691 March 13, 2025 10:03 am 38
Yeah, he was a reform the system kind of guy. Given his age and the fact that the country seemed in good shape, I can’t blame him. Of course, the counter to that argument is that Pat Buchanan did see what was happening. Once again, Buchanan is shown to the greatest of that time.
The Infant Phenomenon #447706 March 13, 2025 10:28 am 14
“Once again, Buchanan is shown to the greatest of that time.” Exactly. And Ron Paul.
Mr. House #447787 March 13, 2025 11:56 am 17
And Ross Perot Funny how none of them ever got elected to the highest position. I remember the crowd in 2012 booing Ron Paul when he spoke against military intervention in other countries. We are not worthy of the good people who try to fix things, too many bad people. We will get what they deserve.
Compsci #447717 March 13, 2025 10:37 am 9
OK, here’s the challenge: name one modern president from Kennedy on—excluding Trump—who was in your opinion a president we should admire and whose policies we should promote? That’s the trouble with the DR, it’s all or nothing. Hence always nothing. It’s not the man, it’s the society. Until the people wake up, the pol’s will simply reflect our degeneration.
Jack Dobsen #447719 March 13, 2025 10:41 am 4
I largely agree but did my comment indicate otherwise? If so, hope this clarifies it.
Vizzini #447802 March 13, 2025 12:33 pm 21
Reagan was one of the first guys I remember saying something like “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” That was regarded as a positive statement at the time, but think about it. If he didn’t change positions, that means the Republican party moved to where he was — a conservative ’80s Republican was a ’50s Democrat. :/ Now a lot of the progressive Johnny-come-latelies to the Trump train, including some very influential voices, are saying the same thing. So Trump MAGA Republicans are, sadly, early-2000s Democrats.
Dutchboy #447842 March 13, 2025 4:36 pm 5
Elon Musk!
Nick Noltes Mugshot #447720 March 13, 2025 10:42 am 26
Like Regan, Trump has a chance to make a lasting change in this country. It is still early in Trump’s administration and we will have to see what he ultimately accomplishes. The 2016 Russian Hoax which hamstrung his first administration and the 2020 blatantly stolen Presidential election were legitimate coup attempts. If he lets the perpetrators slink off into the shadows with their stolen billions unpunished then I will consider him to have failed.
Steve #447754 March 13, 2025 11:19 am 14
Since there is zero probability of reforming the courts fast enough to render a guilty verdict to anyone left of center, I’d settle for wetwork and white hats stealing all the assets back.
stranger in a strange land #447761 March 13, 2025 11:23 am 2
If that’s the criteria for failure – Trump will be a failure (although I’ve rarely hoped as much to be wrong).
Tars Tarkas #447722 March 13, 2025 10:43 am 12
Reagan was a great force culturally, but his economic policies were terrible. Though the decline started before Reagan, it is absolutely undeniable that the rate of decline picked up under Reagan. He appointed probably the worst Fed Chair in history who transformed our industrial economy into a bubble machine. Reagan’s tax cuts were insane, just like the amnesty. Like the amnesty, he gave the award before achieving the necessary conditions for the tax cuts and amnesty by securing the border and cutting spending. We also got Martin lufer Kang day under Reagan. His building up of the military is a bit overstated though. He wasted a lot of money on things like SDI.
Steve #447786 March 13, 2025 11:51 am 3
Leftist control of the education system is tough to fight. True that Greenspan turned out to be the worst, until each of his successors unseated him. But Greenspan’sbona fideswere pretty good — he was in favor of a gold standard, and it was widely thought he would bring an end to the Fed. Same with tax cuts. The Left hated the idea of the middle class keeping more of their paychecks. Even though the rich were stuck paying even more, the leftist class warfare types managed to demogogue the issue to people in their formative years.
Tars Tarkas #447798 March 13, 2025 12:27 pm 7
Reagan promised to end the then new Dept of Education and was unable to fulfill the promise. The borg defends everything like its life depends on it.You cannot have tax cuts without spending cuts. Nobody wants to stop spending, so we need higher taxes. I support a “progressive” tax code. The ultra rich in America are a parasitic class, most of whom made their money being traitors. They support every evil we oppose. Eff em. The idea that higher taxes harms the economy is bunk. The best economy we ever had was under the progressive tax scheme in the post war period. While I would never say the taxes caused the good economy, it obviously didn’t hurt it to any real extent. The high taxes with the tax code write-offs kept the economy pretty modern. Improvements in capital equipment for the deductions kept productivity high. If you are faced with a choice of giving the money to old Uncle Sam or investing in better plant and equipment, plant and equipment will win every time.While it is true that Greenspan was somewhat overshadowed by his predecessors, it is he who started the trend. He kind of boxed in what they could do besides. Raising rates was made much harder. This is likely why Powell stopped at 5 point something.
Steve #447807 March 13, 2025 12:44 pm 3
“You cannot have tax cuts without spending cuts.” Agreed. Tip reneged on the 2-for-1 deal. “Nobody wants to stop spending, so we need higher taxes.” No, we need people who want to stop spending. “The idea that higher taxes harms the economy is bunk.” Margin analysis was one of the greatest insights of economics in history. Morality aside, telling a man that you will steal his money if he doesn’t spend it the way you want is almost a guaranteed loser. Government cannot have the special knowledge required to know whether a given investment makes sense right now.
Tars Tarkas #447819 March 13, 2025 1:39 pm 9
Let theory remain silent when experience shows it’s wrong.The government did not require anyone to make specific investments.“No, we need people who want to stop spending.”Good luck with that. We’ve been talking about cutting spending for 80 years. Every year, line go up.The wealthy in America should consider themselves lucky if all that happens to them is they get taxed at a higher rate. What they deserve is far, far worse.Talk about morality…. The wealthy and powerful have a duty to the rest of the nation. They have shirked that duty for decades and many of them are not even American.
Steve #447823 March 13, 2025 2:08 pm 2
“Let theory remain silent when experience shows it’s wrong.” Absolutely! Every tax cut has had the effect of making the code even more steeply progressive, and, apart from the Reagan cuts, by shrinking the middle class. The same for every tax hike. An empiricist would say there’s something else afoot, while an ideologue would argue to stick with something that’s already proven to fail. That’s why I said Z’s essay on the death of ideology was premature — most are not even aware they are ideologues.
Tars Tarkas #447829 March 13, 2025 2:37 pm 3
I am not pro-tax through ideology. My ideology is generally with the conservatives and the low tax thing. It is reality that made me change my mind. The top marginal rate was 90 percent just before the war into the late 70s. Absolutely nobody can argue this was a dark period for the US economy (though it weakened in the 70s). I grant there are many other reasons for the great economy including the lack of competition.The libertarians played a huge role in wrecking the US economy with their retarded free trade, free capital and free movement of people ideology. Not only has this wrecked the country from without, but from within too. We have huge swaths of the country where there used to be industry that is now wreckage. Communities destroyed. The few people left hooked on drugs or committing other crimes.Steve Keen et al have shown free trade for the nation wrecking model it is. Without the free trade model, the US would likely still be the leading manufacturer in the world. (I don’t oppose trade, just free trade).Modern economics is garbage. The more we implement their recommendations, the worse things become. If not for USD hegemony, we’d be a poor backwards country without any real economic power.
Steve #447855 March 13, 2025 8:07 pm 1
“The top marginal rate was 90 percent just before the war into the late 70s. Absolutely nobody can argue this was a dark period for the US economy (though it weakened in the 70s).” That’s where most analysis ends. Leona Helmsley’s claim to fame was pointing out that taxes were for the little people. That’s also why Reagan’s tax cuts alone of all the tax cuts did not shrink the middle class, but instead grew it.
Steve #447826 March 13, 2025 2:23 pm 2
“The government did not require anyone to make specific investments.“ Not important. The only thing that mattered was the timing of the investment. “Make that investment this year regardless of whether it is good for the company” is the mentality that financialized production, and forced companies to look not at the long term, but on this quarter’s figures.
Vizzini #447803 March 13, 2025 12:36 pm 11
…he was in favor of a gold standard, and it was widely thought he would bring an end to the Fed. And that’s what people get for trusting what a smol hat says.
Ostei Kozelskii #447757 March 13, 2025 11:21 am 12
Reagan and Con. Inc. were focused on global communism to the exclusion of all else. They were astigmatic. Fatal flaw, and we’ve all been paying for it ever since.
Alzaebo #447853 March 13, 2025 7:15 pm 2
Horace finally expained the Cold War: Stalin’s Communism, no longer under control of the masters, became a threat to their assets.
Jack Boniface #447655 March 13, 2025 8:50 am 32
Reagan was the greatest president because he eased us out of the danger of nuclear annihilation, very real in the mid-1980s until he signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Gorbachev. Then both sides started cutting the number of nukes, from 35,000 then to under 6,000 each today. The worst president was Biden, who started the Ukraine War and until Jan. 20 was lobbing missiles deep into Russia, risking retaliation on U.S. bases in Europe, bringing on nuclear war. If Trump ends the Ukraine War and works out some deals on nukes with Putin, he will be the second greatest president. The most important polcy is avoiding global nuclear annihiliation. Everything else is a footnote.
MikeCLT #447661 March 13, 2025 9:03 am 10
The mostly peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union was a great achievement by Reagan and his successor Bush. We should all be thankful for the removal of that threat of nuclear war. We lost a great chance to reset the course of the country when Bush lost to Clinton. A pity.
Horace #447673 March 13, 2025 9:26 am 29
Bush had no intention of “resetting the course of the country” to anything other than going back to raping the American working class after his owners realized that they didn’t need us to protect their property from Soviet Communism. Evil with dignity is not to be preferred to evil without dignity, because the latter at least wears less effective camouflage.
The Infant Phenomenon #447734 March 13, 2025 10:54 am 14
Bush threw the election away. Period. “Read my lips: no new taxes.” It’s important to keep campaign promises. Trump should take note. Soon.
Tars Tarkas #447801 March 13, 2025 12:31 pm 4
Yeah, because he might not get re-elected!
MICoyote #447834 March 13, 2025 3:21 pm 5
It was actually the “Assault Weapons Ban” that lost him the election. Even vets that thought highly of him for GW1, were very pissed at him for the ban. As much as Con Inc. said it was “the read my lips thing”. I can remember everyone talking about the ban, not taxes.
Compsci #447742 March 13, 2025 11:03 am 7
This is probably the better interpretation. Clinton’s followup to the collapse of the USSR was the greatest failure in geopolitical terms so far made. Trump may match this wrt to China.
Mr. House #447792 March 13, 2025 12:04 pm 6
The way to have handled Russia after the USSR fell apart was how we handled Japan after WW2 or Europe. Instead we did it more like the treaty of versaille. We installed compliant oligarchs and locked out anyone else. Makes you wonder about the people who are super rich and the face of industry here………..
Gespenst #447814 March 13, 2025 1:30 pm 3
Japan is a small country and was militarily defeated country at the end of WWII. Russia at the fall of the Soviet Union was a continent-sized country with nuclear weapons and a functioning military of sorts. The former USSR could never have been occupied and treated like Japan.
Ostei Kozelskii #447830 March 13, 2025 2:38 pm 12
True, but it could have at least been treated with honor, respect and dignity. Instead, AINO treated it shabbily, hautily and contemptuously.
Mr. House #447832 March 13, 2025 3:06 pm 3
exactly!
Dack Thrombosis #447874 March 14, 2025 6:41 am 4
I’ve been saying this for years. We treated Russia like a vanquished enemy instead of a potential friend who fell on hard times and needs help to get better. If we’d put together some type of Marshall Plan assistance we might’ve been able to build up a lot of good will with the Russian people. Instead they used NATO to constantly harass Russia. Anyone with a functional memory probably recalls the brouhaha that resulted during the Dubya years when NATO was pushing to put missiles in Poland. The Russians freaked out about it because of course they did. It was a direct threat to them. Now that’s never mentioned at all. The plot is that Russia, for no reason at all and just out of nowhere, decided to attack Ukraine. People aren’t getting the backstory here.
Tars Tarkas #447804 March 13, 2025 12:39 pm 4
No it wasn’t. Reagan and Bush had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. People act like everything was going swell in the Soviet Union, but then the mean old RR showed up and suddenly everything went to pot. The neocons always played up the increase in defense spending on boondoggles like SDI as the primary reason the CCCP fell. They were always loaded with inefficiencies and problems they could no longer deal with because, among other things, low oil prices, not to mention Afghanistan. Perestroika was a total failure too.I couldn’t say if the pressure of the cold war sped up the process, but it highly unlikely the CCCP would have existed much longer. They were falling further and further behind with every passing year.
Chris #447837 March 13, 2025 3:55 pm 5
Hmmmm, I remember watching a special on Reagan’s presidency many years ago and it focused on his meeting in Reykjavik with Gorbachev. Gorbachev himself said, “The cold war ended in Reykjavik over SDI and the United States won.”One can argue over how badly in decay the Soviet system was at that point in time, but those were Gorby’s own words.
Luthers Turd #447968 March 14, 2025 3:49 pm 0
Until the neocon element is totally erradicated, the threat of nuclear war still lingers. Luthers Turd
Mycale #447663 March 13, 2025 9:05 am 17
At the same time Trump is trying to wind down this nonsense in the Ukraine, he is seemingly empowering Our Greatest Ally with its secret nukes to be more aggressive and trigger a massive conflict in the Middle East. So, I don’t really know what to make of that.
Intra #447725 March 13, 2025 10:45 am 11
I don’t see how the Ukraine war is good for Israel in any way. Ammunition,attention, and money being diverted; potentially provoking Russian hostility on their borders,empowering Turkey,reinforcing the relationship between Russian,Iran, and China,strengthening the argument in US politics that foreign wars are bad… Shut it down.
The Infant Phenomenon #447741 March 13, 2025 11:02 am 12
That is a great danger, to be sure. But the greatest danger is our open border, and he is not fixing that. The cartels have missile batteries (from what Biden gave to the Ukraine) about 200 yards from our border. They have an unknown number of soldiers inside “our” country. They have lots–lots–of FedGov officials in their pay. They control the Mexican State.Trump must deploy army regulars to the border and SECURE it. That is a far greater and more immediate threat than any European war. Yet he does nothing. He fiddles with a European war where NO American interests are at stake while America burns.Speaking only for myself, my patience is wearing thin. And the mid-terms are closer today than they were yesterday.
Compsci #447743 March 13, 2025 11:05 am 2
If by “secret nukes” you mean supplying such, no. Israel has its own and those are even more useful than what we have in stock. If you mean emboldening their use, who knows.
Vizzini #447805 March 13, 2025 12:40 pm 2
By “secret nukes” he means it is an open “secret” that Israel has nukes. Israel has never formally acknowledged it and they are not “officially” counted as a nuclear-armed country. FromList of States with Nuclear Weapons “Israel is also generally understood to have nuclear weapons, but does not acknowledge it, maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity.[3] Israel is estimated to possess somewhere between 90 and 300 nuclear warheads. [4][a] One possible motivation for nuclear ambiguity is deterrence with minimum political friction.[5][6]”
The Infant Phenomenon #447732 March 13, 2025 10:51 am 16
“If Trump ends the Ukraine War . . . .” IF. It ain’t lookin’ good. He is all over the map. One day, it’s “no more stuff for the Ukraine.” Next day, it’s more stuff for the Ukraine AND Russia mist sign a cease-fire deal while on the verge of total victory. And that was the day *after* the Ukrainians had killed civilians in Russia’s capital city with drone attacks. Deportations? Stopping the war in Europe “on Day One”? Normal relations with Russia? The Epstein files? The JFK assassination? The Middle East? No, it ain’t lookin’ good at all.
Mycale #447735 March 13, 2025 10:54 am 9
The problem for Trump, with regards to Ukraine, is that Putin is the one who actually holds most of the cards. He doesn’t really need to sign a ceasefire on a war he is winning, with a bunch of two-faced liars on the other side of the table. He doesn’t really need to cede anything in these negotiations unless he felt that the US was going to send its army to go fight his directly, and obviously there is less than zero appetite for that.
Steve #447856 March 13, 2025 8:15 pm 2
“No, it ain’t lookin’ good at all.” Nonsense. Not more than a dozen people in the whole world will remember his words or his shifting positions. What they will remember is, if Ukraine has the sense to acknowledge the inevitable, that peace came during Trump’s term.
David Wright #447642 March 13, 2025 8:33 am 27
Remembering Reagan buddying up to Gorbachev and at the same time demanding an end to Soviet dominance ant the communist system. He did add his shoulder to the push. Trying hard to think of more though. Deficit spending expansion and the astronomical debt legacy we have now. Immigration? Well we know he failed miserably on that. Final note. Does anyone remember when he left office and received $200,000 for a speech in Japan? The uproar about politicians selling out was huge. Seems quaint now.
Arshad Ali #447645 March 13, 2025 8:40 am 25
“Does anyone remember when he left office and received $200,000 for a speech in Japan?” My wife used to work for a British insurance company that held an event in LA and paid Reagan $80,000 (I think) for a speech back in 1990 or thereabouts. Of course Bill and Hillary Clinton converted this into an industry, their day jobs.
Compsci #447730 March 13, 2025 10:51 am 13
When Bush I left office, within 2 months my wife’s company paid him $1M for a speech at their annual meeting. Reagan was small potatoes. This nonsense permeates the entire political spectrum—Dem and Rep.
Cal #447674 March 13, 2025 9:29 am 11
What’s not well remembered about Reagan is that he was a Hollywood movie star before going into politics. His political career was made possible by (((Hollywood producers))) who financed him and cleared the path for him to become governor of CA. Needless to say, that made him beholden to our greatest ally and their interests. I think that explains the catastrophic 1986 illegal amnesty law, among other disastrous decisions.
Jeffrey Zoar #447687 March 13, 2025 9:56 am 11
Reagan getting blamed for amnesty is like Reagan getting blamed for the world being round. If it hadn’t been him, it would have been the next president. Or the next one. Not to absolve Reagan, but rather to emphasize his inconsequentiality.
Compsci #447739 March 13, 2025 10:57 am 11
The amnesty was for 7M aliens and in exchange for a future overhaul of the system (which never happened). If Reagan had one fault, it was for signing off on such “futures”. His other big one was a “two for one” tax raise in exchange for spending cuts. Taxes happened, cuts did not.
Dack Thrombosis #447971 March 14, 2025 6:01 pm 1
Reagan’s popularity helped him personally but Congress was controlled by Dems for his entire terms, especially the House (which wouldn’t finally change hands until the Gingrich revolution in the 90s. The Dems controlled the House for 40 plus years). There’s only so much you can do in that situation. I can remember the Dem House blocking any funds to the Contras. This ultimately led to the Iran-Contra Affair and televised hearings that ran all summer. Since this occurred back in the days before politics took over everything the hearings all boiled down to Fawn Hall and people being pissed that they couldn’t watch their soaps.
Cal #447790 March 13, 2025 12:02 pm 3
He could have vetoed it, I don’t think that they had to votes to override it. But his masters wouldn’t allow it. But as you say, he was mostly a placeholder and remained an actor just like in his good old days.
Steve #447795 March 13, 2025 12:19 pm 5
As mentioned earlier, Reagan thought his enemies wanted the best for America. They were just confused in how to go about it. Tip was an honorable man generally, but showed no mercy on this upstart who wasn’t a professional politician. He reneged on every deal he made with Reagan. Had the border been truly closed and welfare ended for illegals, that would have been worth the amnesty.
Mycale #447695 March 13, 2025 10:07 am 13
Well, it’s not like a lot of Hollywood actors became president, and it’s my understanding that he was a largely an effective governor. I am not an expert on the illegal immigration amnesty law but I was always of the understanding that, unlike the 1965 immigration overhaul, it was largely driven by big corporations who wanted cheaper labor. There were of course provisions to enforce restrictions against employers and to “secure the border” but these were forgotten as they always are.
The Infant Phenomenon #447718 March 13, 2025 10:39 am 20
True, and Reagan’s main failure was a failure of imagination. He could not imagine the outright colonization of “our” country by the Third World, but most other people couldn’t either. Nor could most Americans at that time have imagined that *both* political parties would cooperate for decades to enable and then support the colonization of the country by the Third World, although millions of us did know what the Hart-Cellar Immigration Reform Act of 1965 would mean. It’s hard to imagine the unimaginable, especially when simple vanity requires that the country be opened to Third-World colonization so that certain people can feel good about how generous and liberal they are. Look at Europe for even more evidence of that. Plain old vanity.
Compsci #447736 March 13, 2025 10:55 am 7
Reagan was also the president of the screen actors guild. He was a political animal before CA Governor. If one wants a more outlandish example of the level of political decay, then look no further than Trump—who stepped into the ring with Vince McMahon in a WWF smack down challenge. I believe he broke a chair over McMahon. “Bedtime for Bongo” has nothing on Trump.
Ostei Kozelskii #447774 March 13, 2025 11:32 am 8
What I wouldn’t give to see him bust a chair over Hakeem Jeffries…
Steve #447858 March 13, 2025 8:16 pm 1
I’d like to see him bust a pick handle over the guy’s head.
Compsci #447729 March 13, 2025 10:47 am 8
During the entire Reagan administration, the entire debt he added to the country was *less* than $2T! That amount is what Biden was adding every year and we now spend as current deficit. Uncorrected for inflation.Reagan made a deal with the devil. He got increased military expenditures in exchange for matching welfare spending, but no increase in taxes. That is his legacy. But to judge the effects of such policy in today’s economy and deficit level is absurd. What he started was never moderated—even when the effects proved positive under or future president Clinton. Clinton had a golden opportunity to right the ship in an era of balanced budgets, but didn’t. So who’s at fault here?
Mr. House #447789 March 13, 2025 12:00 pm 5
Yes, he and thatcher dismantled the industrial base (got the ball rolling) and replaced it with consumer credit. Also the 80’s was a lot of defaults on pensions and the beginning of making the stock market americas retirement account.
Mr. House #447794 March 13, 2025 12:10 pm 8
It’s funny, shock doctrine was ok in the 80’s. Because it was the working class, but in 08 everything was too big to fail and we must have bailouts.
Dack Thrombosis #447972 March 14, 2025 6:11 pm 1
He ran large deficits to beat the Soviets. Unfortunately that set a precedent where the government acts like a ditz with Daddy’s credit card.
Mycale #447660 March 13, 2025 9:01 am 25
Yes, Reagan proves that time matters. His greatest achievement – winding down the Cold War in a peaceful manner, and stepping back from the brink of nuclear war – is largely forgotten. Nowadays people look back to the “duck and cover” days with amusement and nostalgia, not the existential threat it actually was. Also, it needs to be said, the people who have been running our foreign policy since are mostly lunatics from the Pale of Settlement who hate Russia and actually want a war with it. They see the ending of the Cold War as a bad thing.At the same time, his immigration amnesty so obviously sowed the seeds of our current nightmare yet I am sure few people realized it at the time. Maybe Pat Buchanan, I don’t know, but considering our country is now collapsing into a third world horror show because of mass immigration, I would argue his support of immigration amnesty absolutely disqualifies him to be a great or even good President.
Horace #447672 March 13, 2025 9:23 am 9
If the Democrats are fresh wet dog sh!t, Reagan was dried up dog sh!t. Sure, he stank less, but the pathogens (normalized immivasion, etc) he spread to the body politic were no less lethal to it than those of his opposition.
Compsci #447740 March 13, 2025 11:00 am 2
So the presidents that followed Reagan had no effect on today’s condition? You like the ad hominem I see, but the logic does not follow.
Ostei Kozelskii #447777 March 13, 2025 11:34 am 1
If a forever Cold War was in the interest of the omnipotent Finkels, why was it allowed to end?
Mycale #447799 March 13, 2025 12:28 pm 7
Who says they’re omnipotent? Not me. After the USSR collapsed they looted the place and when Putin put a stop to it they started working to bring NATO armies to their doorstep. Their ancient grudges never went away.
Arthur Metcalf #447664 March 13, 2025 9:09 am 24
I was part of Pat Buchanan’s staff in NH in 1991/2 and then in 1996 for his national campaign. My memories of December 1991 up in New Hampshire in the snow, campaigning with Pat and Terry, will always be with me.Writing this just to note one thing: I honestly don’t recall Reagan having much of an impact on that campaign or even that period. I was a very young man, but Reagan had dominated my teenage years, yet by the time I was getting out of college, his impact on American life had already begun to fade. Both movies, music, and culture in general moved very quickly out of the 1980s after Reagan left office in January 1989. Very fast.Perhaps the main reasons for this were two: (1) the Berlin Wall coming down in 1989, and (2) the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991. By the time Reagan gave his last public speech at the GOP Convention in Houston in August 1992, the Rodney King/LA Riots had also intervened to deepen the memorial divide between 1992 and 1989.At the convention, I was on the floor when Pat’s speech pushed Reagan’s speech past the 11 o’clock TV hour on the East Coast, and heard the cursing and muttering from the old Reagan guard and delegates as Pat kept talking. I personally had no interest in hearing from Reagan at that point, however, and neither did most of the younger guys around me. His actual time was over in a blink of an eye, to be honest, but somehow, it managed to freeze half the people I knew in place for the next 30 years.
thezman #447680 March 13, 2025 9:38 am 12
The thing is though, Buchanan existed as the proposed antidote to the betrayal of Reagan conservatism. Without the enormity of Reagan, there is no Buchanan in 1992 or even a Ross Perot. You raise an interesting issue though. There were people who were all in on Buchanan and really thought he would change things, but there were also people like me who knew it was a doomed fight. It would, at best, plant the seeds for future fights.
Arthur Metcalf #447686 March 13, 2025 9:55 am 18
We knew 1992 was doomed, definitely.The idea was to stop Bush from handing the US over to China, and then, NAFTA. It was about sovereignty more than Pat Buchanan.I can tell you personally that Buchanan never once thought he would be president. He did not run for that reason. He knew that it was not his time historically. Never for a moment.It was an attempt to throw a wrench into a moving train’s wheels. A last gasp. It failed. We all knew it likely would. I can look myself in the mirror as a middle-aged man now and say that at least I tried. No one else took that chance electorally to stop what was coming except Buchanan. He went mute forever two years ago. That ought to tell you something.
thezman #447705 March 13, 2025 10:28 am 18
I volunteered for Buchanan in NH, so we may have met, but I was just a body handing out flyers and holding signs. One of my memories was of people who really thought if Pat won the NH primary, the Bush campaign would collapse. I was already heading down cynicism road and that experience convinced me that Republican politics was hopeless. This is a good topic. Might do a show on it.
Wolf Barney #447711 March 13, 2025 10:33 am 6
Yes, NAFTA was a big issue. Buchanan tried to appeal to the large “Middle American Radicals” that Sam Francis strategized about. Briefly, I recall, there was hope he could win the nomination. He won New Hampshire, and the next test was Arizona, I believe. Hopes were high, but unfortunately he lost. And that was it.
Jack Dobsen #447728 March 13, 2025 10:47 am 6
It wasn’t as directly stated as it would be today, but many of us at the time saw NAFTA and so forth as a precursor to the erasure of the white working class. Like others here I worked on the Buchanan campaign in 1992 and saw enough to realize there was no reversal of the coming betrayal. Clinton actually saw the opening in New Hampshire and forged a patently fraudulent but ultimately successful way to incorporate some of the rising and fully justified resentment.
LineInTheSand #447716 March 13, 2025 10:36 am 10
“It failed. We all knew it likely would.” I greatly admire your activism, even if you knew that you would lose. Thermopylae! I was a very young adult at that time and I had no idea of the truths that you were grappling with. “It was about sovereignty more than Pat Buchanan.” Thank you. I hope that your activism then, and our efforts now, as doomed as they may seem, eventually turn the tide.
christian Schulzke #447824 March 13, 2025 2:19 pm 7
I was at Whittier College in 1992 and I went to listen to Buchanan speak. The gym was packed and I remember being transfixed on him speaking. He is a lot more engaging and electrifying in person.
Zulu Juliet #447769 March 13, 2025 11:26 am 8
I was there, too. Buchanan was an antidote to Bush. Bush was to Reagan as Pence was to Trump.
RealityRules #447669 March 13, 2025 9:16 am 22
I remember in my old AP History class that nobody took any history seriously for at least one generation, and even then it was too small a period of time to evaluate a presidency. I remember the 80s. Even then it felt like a disaster. The rise of the credit card and conspicuous consumption and materialism. The normalization of aliens coming in and taking any and all opportunity, buying our companies and real estate (opening America and Our countrymen to international predation).There was Donald Trump and the rise of the service economy and celebration of wealth no matter how it was begotten. The hardening of no-fault divorce and latch key kids. Empty patriotism as chants of USA and flags and symbolism, but. Cheap theatrics like the Libya bombing, and the rise of militaristic pageantry/theatre on TV and in the news. The mythology of Reagan ending the Cold War – the war that we fought that destroyed the country. Consolidation of the porn industry and the rise of, “Hey! <insert-business-activity> it is good for the economy and creates jobs!” American industries capitulating to Japanese competition by becoming consumer lending institutions.The acceleration of the destruction of the family through no-fault divorce and the normalization of latch key kids. Sweeping the reality of race and multi-racial societal problems under the rug. Conservatives cowering and running from the issue. The rise of finding a black man with a pulse as a front man to prove they aren’t racist and making it normal – normalizing white humiliation and subjugation in effect.My synopsis: an epic disaster.What is most interesting is how every epoch is defined by the Presidency. We don’t study history and archive it by the Nth Congress. We certainly don’t do it by the Nth year of bureaucrat #9983-Z2D as we should. In any case, we lay the good and the bad at the feet of a President. Clearly these guys don’t run things. At the same time, none of them were great men because none of them rose up and got Napoleonic, Augustinian Bismarcian … and shattered a dead system and gave rise to something new at least headed in a better direction.Time will tell if Trump can do something meaningful. The first 45 days of executive orders that are well aligned and on the good path are nice. However, making real reforms and doing it in a way where people and institutions are left behind that can carry it forward is another. Everything here hinges upon Demographic Restoration. Do you think that Howard Lutnick, Alex Karp, Peter Thiel … … give a single fuck about demographics? It isn’t at all likely. I am already sick to death of Lutnick’s obnoxious chuckles in situations of tremendous gravitas beneath the roofs and within the walls of our most hallowed and august buildings. Gold Cards for sale!!!! Absolutely ridiculous.The significance of Trump will be if he clears the way for young Heritage Americans to get a toehold within massively reformed or entirely new institutions and that are positioned to do ever greater things over the next 40-100 years. If Trump fails at mass deportations via financial starvation and physical removal, in-gathering in preparation for a new country is the sole option.The deportation/demographic restoration is the perfect cornerstone project. You have a massive emotional rallying cry for young Heritage American men. It is a defining moment in our history where we fought off the most evil, malevolent crime in human history – mass population replacement. There is massive hard work that is military in nature that must be done. Rather than video game recruiting ads, you recruit young White men to do something real – to restore our Homeland. It is a New Founding in truth. This is when we returned to America and channeled the spirit of our ancestors and chased the invasion off of our shores and beyond our borders. That is not a myth but an epic story in the history of a nation and a civilization. Songs and epic poems can be written about it.Finally, you identify and fortify our most patriotic young men. The alphas will self select and huge tight bonds of brotherhood and patrimony will be forged as they rally around the project of reconquering our Homeland. This mannerbund forged around this existential moment will propel us forward for several generations.This is the project and this is the moment. Trump can be an American God if he chooses to fix this. Musk could go all the way and be the same if he chooses to emphasize this. If they do not, then the legacy will be a lot of bluster where Reagan was on steroids and Trump simply got on board with Biden’s Finish The Job project. The final story is that Trump sells off what remains of America because America is just a market whose sole measure is GDP.
Jeffrey Zoar #447682 March 13, 2025 9:41 am 11
I will give Reagan and Ed Meese a little credit for at least attempting to fight what turned out to be an ultimately futile rear guard action against the relentless onslaught of porn
Wiffle #447765 March 13, 2025 11:24 am 6
If the state governments can lock us all in our houses for 18 months straight over the sniffles, they can do something about porn. It doesn’t have to be perfect. They don’t want to. In the world I live in “I can’t do it” is respectable cover for “I don’t want to do it.”
Wiffle #447767 March 13, 2025 11:25 am 5
Might be a dup, sorry:If the state governments can sentence all of society for 18 months straight over the sniffles, they can do something about that issue. It doesn’t have to be perfect. They don’t want to. In the world I live in “I can’t do it” is respectable cover for “I don’t want to do it.”
Hemid #447813 March 13, 2025 1:27 pm 4
I always tell our guys who remember that aspect of Reaganism fondly to go back andreadthe “Meese Report.” It was not a conservative or rightist document. Its rhetoric was left-feminist, Dworkin/MacKinnon-style Women Against Pornography stuff, speech-as-literal-violence, photography = misogyny, etc.So it was just like all the other “Christian right” censorship campaigns of the era. They weren’t last stands against degeneracy. Theyweredegeneracy, what we’d now call “woke” Christianity, animated by the leftist idea that Enlightenment-/Constitution-style rights arewhite male perversion, an oppressive imposition on women and minorities. (True in a sense.)If nothing else, remember that it was a “bipartisan effort”—as only truly evil shit is.
Steve #447859 March 13, 2025 8:20 pm 0
And? Judicial fights are seldom about morality, but rather about legal. The sole exception is when one can somehow make a current-culture referent to why the judge should rule in his favor, even though it does not cohere to the law.
whatever2020 #447868 March 13, 2025 11:15 pm 0
This, right here. This is a good reminder that the “Christian right” tradcuck problem is nothing new; it’s been around for decades, quietly yet consistently inflicting severe damage upon society, and under its razor-thin veneer to disguise its leftist and radical feminist actual nature this crew steadfastly contributed to the makeover of our society into AINO. I can’t remember all the articles I’ve read over the decades lauding some “bipartisan coming together” to enact “crucial legislation” to meet a “critical need of women” (read: enact yet another precious princess entitlement obviously corrosive to any hope of a cohesive and healthy society). There were lots of these, dozens of them and over decades, too many to remember, up through Trump tax code changes of 2019 and the sweet ‘n sour sniffles post 2020, to ensure women got extra special stimis and gibs. It just never stops.For a good recent example of this “Meese report” type of “analysis,” check out the Tucker Carlson video (one of his last at and so uploaded by Fox) with his rant about the “what is a woman” joke of a questioning session for that absurd Supreme Court nominee (in 2022, I believe). I clicked on it, expecting at least a few laughs from an entertaining mocking of the disgracing of this aspect of constitutional process with such childish and outright insane (literally) content, ultimately brought on by the equally and extremely insane kowtowing to fags, fairies, trannies, other assorted circus freak show specimens, etc. But no! Tucker’s (Cucker’s??) issue was that the break down of a hard legal distinction between men and women could lead to women losing their precious princess level privileged and entitled treatment under the law as exists at present. Seriously, and while coding his language a little (only a little), he made this quite clear. He literally channeled the TERF talking points position on this, loudly and emphatically so. He was lit up. I made it about 3 minutes, literally could not stomach it and was so disgusted that I clicked away. This is the exact same mind virus disease as the Meese report, still going strong 40 years later!Speaking of precious princess privilege and entitlement within the legal framework, with all the noisy crap that commies, hippies, and all the forebears of woke were unleashing in the late 1960s, Saint Ronnie, then as California governor, was quietly yet vigorously working on — the foundation and framework of the present “no fault” family law/divorce system we now all enjoy in all 50 states, with all the punitive and grotesquely usurious “support” payments, coddling each and every false accusation tantrumed out by princess without evidence and no matter how absurd, etc. Add this to his contributions to all the wondrous immigration that has enriched us so much for 6 decades now, and yeah …Thanks Ronnie!! Thanks a lot. The fact that any of us have any positive thoughts about Ronald Reagan is so outside the pale it just leaves me shaking my head. It’s mind boggling, and it’s very discouraging.
The Infant Phenomenon #447751 March 13, 2025 11:17 am 3
Great post! Made me want to stand up and cheer!
Carl B. #447697 March 13, 2025 10:08 am 21
Ronald Reagan was also a hard-nosed governor of California. He was shaped by the Depression and WWII. And he was a former Democrat. I know he was a great President because: A – Only the Eisenhower/Kennedy era equalled the optimism and energy of the Reagan Years. B – The Left/Liberals hated Reagan as much as they hate Trump today. C – Reagan’s funeral was one for the ages. He is still missed by many of us who were there.
Hi-ya #447875 March 14, 2025 6:59 am 0
I went to that funeral and got a picture of the reversed boots on the horse
Johnny Ducati #447654 March 13, 2025 8:47 am 16
I own a hagiography of Reagan written by Buckley. I once thought highly of both men, not so much since I left conservatism.
Arthur Metcalf #447670 March 13, 2025 9:16 am 16
It makes it all seem totally pointless. All of the debates, all of the panel discussions, the millions of work hours put intoFiring LineandNational Review, all of those boozy 1:30 a.m. arguments in upper East Side paneled libraries in tuxedos in 1971 over the latest essay inCommentaryorPartisan Review— what a lark it all is now! The savages will eat it all!Christopher Buckley paints an unflattering portrait of his father pissing on the side of the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut — or somesuch road — in his Years of Lead in the 2000s, shaking his penis in rage, shortly before WFB appeared on the Charlie Rose Show mumbling about how he was ready to die now. But at least he settled the question whether Pat Buchanan was an anti-Semite.
Wiffle #447760 March 13, 2025 11:22 am 8
High brow discussions about nothing mark the end of empires.
Zorro the Lesser Z Man #447818 March 13, 2025 1:38 pm 3
But at least he settled the question whether Pat Buchanan was an anti-Semite. Unfortunately, that is the only question of importance under ZOG.
Zulu Juliet #447752 March 13, 2025 11:18 am 15
No one talks about Reagan anymore because the America of which he was president is long gone, swept away by the great brown and yellow flood. He was a great man, and I miss voting for him, but this is a different country in which his ideas and policies are inapplicable, sadly.
The Wild Geese Howard #447844 March 13, 2025 4:43 pm 3
Correct. Depending on the stats you believe, the US was still 85 to 90% white in the early 80s.
One_After_909 #447746 March 13, 2025 11:07 am 15
I was 42, with a young family, new house and burgeoning career when I saw Clinton run, win, and inaugurated. I lost 30 pounds worrying about what the effects on the country and on my family would be. I was not to be disappointed.Clinton’s effects on the culture, normalizing perversion, and his effects on the body politic, normalizing and commoditizing corruption are now in full flower.DOGE notwithstanding, with $37Tr in Debt and the Second Color revolution against Trump in full flower, I see little hope for any n ormal people in the United States.
fakeemail #447701 March 13, 2025 10:20 am 14
Well. . .Reagan’s pros:1) cut taxes very high tax rates which seemingly helped the middle class at the time and overall economy2) re-built military and defeat USSR3) incredible presentation and communicator4) implicitly White/Christian for then a still 80%+ majority country that still made great music and other things that make life liveable.5) Said “well” a lotHis cons:1) AMNESTY! surrendered his own CA and that would happen quickly to rest of country2) Did not stop hollowing out of manufacturing/middle class3) Didn’t shrink govt in the slightestThere’s nothing he could’ve done to reverse the feminization, multiculti, pornification of culture. The dye was cast and the unimedia was all powerful and unopposed then. The 60s counter-culture and the LBJ welfare/”civil rights”/stolen election era proved to powerful to overcome and that BY FAR is the the world we still live in.Reagan was great in his time, BUT ultimately just a pawn of greater power like other presidents. TPTB decided Americans must never be unified and happy again after Reagan, and quickly flushed him down the memory hole as we were quickly thrust into HW Bush New World Order, giant sucking sound and Rodney King land.
Tarl Cabot #447676 March 13, 2025 9:31 am 14
Reagan (and the microprocessor) saved a system that should have collapsed 40 years ago. He defeated the communists but we foolishly let them live, so they went crypto and burrowed into the that very system, determined to subvert it from within. Except for certain technological enhancements, our society, and certainly our culture is by all measures more pathological than it was, and the problems more intractable. Still, I should probably thank him. Because of Reagan I did not have to become The Road Warrior. More’s the pity.
Hun #447688 March 13, 2025 9:57 am 13
Reagan didn’t defeat the communists. That’s a bizarre American myth that refuses to die.
Steve #447709 March 13, 2025 10:32 am 2
He was just the man in the seat at the time. Since America has to be front and center in everything good, it’s natural Reagan gets the credit. Who else could you possibly argue? Tip? Reagan gets credit for my first plunge into political and economic thought. He had the right answer. You can’t print your way to prosperity. And then he got played by Tip and the boys. In pretty much everything. He also popularized the “innovation” of controlling the states via withholding highway funds.
Hun #447779 March 13, 2025 11:38 am 6
It wasn’t the US that brought down communism, assuming we are talking about the Soviet block. That is a feel good myth, but it has no basis in reality.The eastern block was stagnating, but it wasn’t terribly indebted and it was capable of going on for many more decades. However, there was a young aspiring elite, mostly children of the older secondary elites. They studied at the prestigious universities in Moscow. They had the ability to travel the world and see the opportunities they were missing under the commie system. These people, along with certain elements from the communist security agencies, brought down the system. Many of them later became “respected” entrepreneurs (looters and oligarchs).
Steve #447797 March 13, 2025 12:23 pm 3
??? I was agreeing with you. America was only tangentially involved, but the zeitgeist was that America must be portrayed as the central character in everything good that happens.
Hun #447806 March 13, 2025 12:43 pm 3
OK, maybe I had an autistic moment. Sorry.
The Wild Geese Howard #447698 March 13, 2025 10:16 am 8
Pretty sure the commies burrowed into the USA in the 1920s and 30s. Note how many commies emigrated to Stalin’s USSR and volunteered for the Spanish Civil War.
Jack Dobsen #447715 March 13, 2025 10:36 am 8
The Fifth Column aspect, even if not the same ideological one, is reflected in today’s support of Ukraine. Much of that support is due to the deleterious effect that shitshow has on the West. It is more PoMo than MLism these days but with the same goal.
Alzaebo #447713 March 13, 2025 10:34 am 0
We missed our chance!Damn, would I have looked good in a pair of assless chaps.And mohawks were a thing!
Steve #447860 March 13, 2025 8:21 pm 0
Sheeit, most women don’t look good in assless chaps.
Thomas Mcleod #447662 March 13, 2025 9:04 am 13
I watched the Buckley/Reagan interview on the ye olde intertubes a few weeks ago, and was pleasantly surprised with Reagan’s grasp of conservative ideas. Given that I was four years old when this happened, I had never seen it. They both, as an example, wanted all U.S. Bonds to be paid back in the future value of the dollar to restrain spending/inflation. Reagan wanted to end the Department of Education and return the federal overreach to the states. Did he achieve ANY of this? No, but the Democrats had controlled the House from 1954 to 1994. Amnesty was a deal that Reagan made with Tip O’Neill for border security that Tip reneged on. Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Obama, on the other hand, were confidently stooooooopid.
thezman #447679 March 13, 2025 9:35 am 21
Reagan was a very smart man, but he was happy to let people think he was dumb. Going back to his Hollywood days, associates marveled at how he would let people talk themselves into his position. Reagan wrote his own speeches, but people took credit for them. He would write the speech outline and then handed to the writers. They would fill in the blanks with the required stuff. He would then edit and rewrite it. I doubt any pol does that these days.
The Wild Geese Howard #447703 March 13, 2025 10:21 am 7
Well, Reagan did earn a degree in Economics in a time when American universities were far more serious, rigorous institutions.
Jeff Albertson #447764 March 13, 2025 11:24 am 4
the great Phil Hartman as Reagan as Machiavellihttps://youtu.be/b5wfPlgKFh8?si=qBWLbkj9FZWvk74R
Marko #447784 March 13, 2025 11:48 am 3
I thought of this very skit
Steve #447773 March 13, 2025 11:30 am 5
What’s even more amazing is that he somehow managed to come to the conclusion the then-current rage in the profession, Keynesianism, was complete hogwash. Most very smart people never did. The closest they would get is coming up with a Neo-Keynsian framework that let them continue in their push to centralize power in DC.
Pozymandias #447808 March 13, 2025 1:02 pm 5
Keynesianism might have worked just fine if anyone had the discipline to do “the other part”, which was raising taxes and cutting spending when the economy was good so that there would be a surplus available when the economy was bad. In actual practice it just created the situation we have now where deficits never end and the government spends like a teenager with her first credit card.A lot of what’s going wrong in general today is that deals are made where one side concedes something now, while the other side is allowed to just make a promise of doing something later. You see this especially in the Ukraine war. The Minsk deal was like this and Zelenskyy’s insane calls for a truce where Russia lets Ukraine re-arm and re-group is another.People still want to operate in the 20th century framework where even one’s opponents were men and thus could be counted on to feel shame for brazen lying. In the 21st century everything is run by crazed women and unserious, hedonistic men. Nothing anyone says should be trusted. No one can be counted on to follow through on any promise over a time scale longer than a few hours never mind the years that would be needed to make something like Keynesian economics viable.
Steve #447825 March 13, 2025 2:19 pm 3
“Keynesianism might have worked just fine…“ Maybe, but for the reason you cite, we would never know. Austerity measures when things are going great? I think the knowledge problem sinks the Keynsian strategy. Think of how difficult it is to tell if we are in a boom or a bubble. Even if it were possible to distinguish in advance, do you really trust the guys who have an incentive to lie? That their answer to the Goldilocks question is the right one?
Pozymandias #447836 March 13, 2025 3:49 pm 2
You probably can’t tell a legitimate boom from a bubble these days if it was ever possible. I think youcantell a boom from a bust though. Keynes’ ideas were always probably utopian and relied on the existence of some ethereal class of philosopher-kings to manage things. Today’s Clownworld is as far from that as you can imagine of course. Personally, I would default to assuming that any boom today is some sort of a bubble simply because so little of our economic activity represents anything of any lasting value. It’s Ponzi schemes all the way up or down.
Arshad Ali #447828 March 13, 2025 2:29 pm 0
“What’s even more amazing is that he somehow managed to come to the conclusion the then-current rage in the profession, Keynesianism, was complete hogwash.” Wasn’t him. There was a ruling-class consensus by 1970 that Keynesianism was played out. The question was what to replace it with. It took a number of fumbling steps over a decade before a new consensus was arrived at.
Steve #447831 March 13, 2025 2:42 pm 2
Not by 1970. Stagflation was a new thing, and poorly understood at the time. The Phillips Curve should have held. But it didn’t. Fisher hadn’t published his analysis until ’77, ’78, somewhere in there, and it was a lonely article. The early neo-Keynsianism it foreran was a crude form of supply side economics — cost-push inflation, basically. Then when Reagan tried to sell his supply side ideas, NKs had to figure out a way to distance themselves from their own ideas, but were confident would lead to disaster. Reagan Derangement Syndrome.
Hemid #447817 March 13, 2025 1:35 pm 8
The U.S. national politician with the most prestigious economics degree today is […drumroll…] AOC. Totally a real discipline—and the educated truly are our rightful masters.
The Wild Geese Howard #447843 March 13, 2025 4:41 pm 2
I understand the point you’re making. However, AOC is a person who was spoon-fed a degree at an unserious institution in an unserious time. There is also some evidence that AOC is also an actress.
Wolf Barney #447737 March 13, 2025 10:55 am 6
The consensus opinion of Reagan was that he was a great speaker. He was called “the Great Communicator.” No doubt being an actor played a part in that, but he would say it was also his common sense ideas that appealed to so many people that made him connect with his audience.
usNthem #447648 March 13, 2025 8:42 am 13
Practically the only thing anyone remembers about slick Willy is, “it depends on what the definition of is, is.” That and his tryst with Lewinsky…. As for Reagan, he was certainly a breath of fresh air after Carter and Ford, but as often is the case, the passage of time dims the former rose colored glasses as we’re now living with the results of some of those questionable policies.
Wolf Barney #447727 March 13, 2025 10:46 am 9
To me, Clinton is a very memorable president. Certainly Monica and his “definition of is,” but also his pushing of NAFTA, talking about his underwear on a late night talk show, the Arkansas crime scandals while being governor, and the Clinton Body Count. There also was Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the OKC bombing which occurred then. There was a lot of bad stuff going on in those eight years.
Zulu Juliet #447776 March 13, 2025 11:34 am 6
Don’t forget federal agents in with submachine guns raiding a trailer home in Florida to snatch a screaming child from his relatives to ship him back to Cuba.[after the poor kid’s mother died trying to bring him to freedom].
Arshad Ali #447641 March 13, 2025 8:32 am 12
“As an aside, Lee Harvey Oswald is another example of how history can often pivot on the actions of one anonymous man.”It pleases you to jest with us. Oswald did not pull the trigger. The assassination was in the words of Peter Dale Scott a “deep event”, carefully orchestrated by forces planning the trajectory of imperial USA.But returning to Reagan. Reagan presided over a transitional period, when the USA moved from a Keynesian and liberal nation to something whose contours became very different. That’s why we only half-joking call Nixon the last liberal/ Keynesian president. A ruling-class consensus developed in the late ’70s that the old model had to be supplanted by something different and Reagan and the team behind him was the embodiment of it. Somthing similar today as an elite consensus of multi-billionaires is behind Team Trump and one can see the agenda unfolding on multiple fronts — foreign policy, culture, economics. If Trump 1 was that of a lone maverick who against his own expectations had been catapulted to the highest office, Trump 2 is a very different kettle of fish. This too is a transitional period and I would argue a more profound one than that of Reagan.
Bitter reactionary #447785 March 13, 2025 11:49 am 11
Can anyone really imagine that a second Carter term would have been preferable to Reagan? The growing despair in the late 70s was palpable.America’s death was already locked in early in the 20th century when women gained political power, then economic independence, and the (((wreckers))), epitomized by the Frankfurt school scumbags, were given the chance to mold young minds. So, I think the presidents must be judged by whether they slowed or accelerated the disease, whether it would have been realistic to imagine and implement a better course than the one they chose, and by how good or bad an example they set. Sometimes all you get is a set of bad options. I can’t give Reagan an honest judgment because my feelings toward him remain positive. But I think few people running against him in the primaries could have done better in the role. Americans made the best choice they could from what they were given
Miforest #447658 March 13, 2025 8:54 am 11
Oswald never shot at anybody
Barney Rubble #447689 March 13, 2025 9:58 am 4
He was a patsy. Ted Cruz’s father, however….
Mr. Blank #447863 March 13, 2025 8:53 pm 9
Oh man, Z, you’re really gonna make this old Gen Xer get up and defend the Gipper, huh? 🙂 Okay, here goes.First, Boomer worship of Reagan was always stupid (believe me, I grew up hearing it), but you can kind of understand where it comes from. For a lot of Boomers, Reagan made them rich — in many cases, richer than they could have ever dared to dream when they were younger. Even if they didn’t get rich immediately in the 1980s, it was mostly due to Reagan that they ended up rich later. If you’ve ever listened to some old Boomers talk about where they came from versus where they ended up, it really does seem like a fairy tale, with Reagan as the magic Fairy Godmother. No wonder so many of them think he walked on water.But this new fashion of casting Reagan as Satan is a ridiculous overcorrection. Reagan has to be understood in the context of the two enormous shadows that loomed over nearly everything at the time: The Cold War, and the legacy of political and cultural chaos from the 1960s and 1970s. Reagan was the man who finally put a stop to both (though alas, only temporarily, in the case of the second). And like Trump, he did it after nearly all the experts, including most of the people in his own party, had given up and said it could never be done. If you didn’t live through it, it’s nearly impossible to convey how these two festering wounds just drowned out everything else in politics, and how refreshing and liberating it was when they were gone.And that’s why I get frustrated with people dinging Reagan on immigration. Yes, his immigration amnesty was a blunder, but again: Context is essential. The immigration crisis only achieved catastrophic proportions thanks to the fecklessness and sociopathy of Reagan’s successors, the Bushes and Clinton. At the time, Reagan’s amnesty was not hugely controversial, and most people barely noticed. Most saw it as a quickie deal he made with some stubborn lawmakers so he could get on to other things (and they stabbed him in the back after it, too — a lot of people forget that part).And whywouldit be a big deal? Back then, the only immigrants most Americans outside of California, New York and a few big cities had ever met were invariably hardworking, well-behaved refugees from various communist or Third World hellholes, who were generally ultra-patriotic and endlessly grateful to their new country. The idea of malls in Minnesota being overrun with feral Somali youths was something that for most people was beyond the realm of the craziest science fiction; I doubt you could have found 1 American in 1,000 in 1986 who even knew Somalia existed. If you’d told Reagan to reconsider his amnesty because decades later we’d have a congresswoman in freakingMINNESOTApledging loyalty to some strange African desert clan, he’d have looked at you like you were from Mars.And again: All of this was occurring at a time when the Cold War was almost all anybody could talk or think about. People who lay the whole blame for the immigration mess at Reagan’s feet (and yes, he does deserve some) are suffering from severe hindsight bias.There’s plenty else you can criticize Reagan for, but again, the thing to keep in mind is that Reagan was a guy from another time in America, and he was focused on a different set of problems than what we face today. Like Nixon (another president who was judged unduly harshly for a time, but who many people are finally coming around on), Reagan has to be seen within the context of his time, and the constraints he was working under. Many of his bad decisions were actually made far, far worse by the people who came after him. In many cases, these were things he could not have reasonably foreseen, and it’s unfair to hang all of those sins on him.I guess I’m just prickly about this because, as an old guy, the confident hindsight judgments of the young get on my nerves. Of course, I was exactly the same way when I was their age, so hey. I’m just here to let them know that things aren’t always as blindingly obvious when you’re in the thick of things as they look decades later when you read about them from the comfort of your armchair. 🙂Oh, and yeah: Reagan was terrible, absolutely terrible on guns. I’ll give you that one. And he didn’t have an excuse for that one — on guns, he was just a rich California liberal. But even there, he was probably better than any realistic alternative at the time.
Hi-ya #447878 March 14, 2025 7:25 am 0
Good comment. However it might not have been the amnesty numbers themselves, ie the number of brown people, but the principle that an American was a nobody. In his acceptance speech at the rnc and his final speech he said the same thing: if you think you are an American you ARE an American. It’s that devastating error that led to feral Somalis in lily white Minnesota
Hun #447646 March 13, 2025 8:40 am 9
¹Get your mind out of the gutter. What? Clinton was famous for playing the sax. Is that it? What’s the big deal?And I think he had an intern playing some other instrument.
karl von hungus #447652 March 13, 2025 8:45 am 11
the intern was a skilled flautist
mikebravo #447683 March 13, 2025 9:47 am 5
Bit of a dribbler though!
Johnny Ducati #447733 March 13, 2025 10:52 am 11
I went to the information desk at the Clinton Library once and asked why they didn’t have the infamous blue dress on display. The lady angrily stated that there was no such dress in their collection.
karl von hungus #447640 March 13, 2025 8:29 am 9
reagan was non compos mentis his second term, which set a precedent for biden. all in all he was a good president (first term) with lots of failures to go with the triumphs. his illegal immigrant amnesty alone is enough to DQ him from greatness.
I.M. #447653 March 13, 2025 8:46 am 40
Reagan at his worst was still sharper than Biden ever was.
Arthur Metcalf #447668 March 13, 2025 9:14 am 13
The madness with Israel started in Reagan’s 2nd term when he checked out. Bush and Baker tried to instill some sanity into it after Reagan was gone, but the damage had been done and DC was fully captured just a few years later.
Jack Dobsen #447681 March 13, 2025 9:40 am 10
I try to attach a date to the Israeli power grab. As much as I loathe the Bushes, Poppy did have the presence of mind not to kill Saddam. Shortly thereafter that reasoned decision would have been impossible due to Our Greatest Ally’s assets installed in the right places, so shortly thereafter 1991, which was in the time of Bush I and after Reagan’s first term, is my guess as to when Israel First became a thing. We are watching the Puritans split from the Judeo prong now, so that potential death grip was/is in place for in excess of thirty years. I catch flak here for stating it, but the Puritans never really lost full control to their junior partners but the last three decades came close and that is being closed now.
Arthur Metcalf #447685 March 13, 2025 9:53 am 20
Bush and Baker came from a generation that did not regard people like Shamir and Begin as their equals. They saw them as cheats and sneaks, which they were. The constant lying about settlements led to a very public rebuke from Bush. Bush was dealing with the ascension of Ralph Reed and the Southern Baptists and their Israel First policies, and those folks eventually swallowed the Congress and then the presidential nomination process. Puritans, interestingly enough, were the ones who let Jews back into England.
Jack Dobsen #447696 March 13, 2025 10:08 am 10
When people announce “we need a Cromwell” (which is generally true) I remind them of that unpleasant last fact you mentioned. The political influence of the SBC has waned greatly over the last few years. Israel First may remain GOP policy for a while longer but there is a split also opening on the Right over Middle East policy. Never again will we have what we once did but reality is reasserting itself all over the place of late. As you note, one of those realities was fully apprehended by George HW Bush and James Baker.
Steve #447700 March 13, 2025 10:19 am 7
I never objected to the idea, but rather the term you chose to assign to it. The problem with the WASPs was not their Puritanism, but rather their Damn Yankeeism. Southerners will understand.
Jack Dobsen #447704 March 13, 2025 10:24 am 7
I am Southern and certainly understand, but disentangling the Yankeeism and Puritanism is above my pay grade and I would guess impossible.
Wiffle #447759 March 13, 2025 11:21 am 3
Coming from the region but also being a relative outsider to it, it’s impossible to untangle Calvinistic viewpoint from the culture. It still exists to this day despite a collapse in the practice of the formal religion itself.Protestantism produces an impluse to direct all criticism at Catholics. “What ever else is going on, the Catholics are wrong” is a unifying dogma, in groups where there are precious few agreements. .Given a cage match between Purtians and Anglicans alone, the fight is quite impressive. Once we get other religions and particularly Catholics in the mix, they’re best buddies again (sort of). Thus the Southern tendency to over look the religious mindset that saw them as a nail to be hammered down in the War Between the States.Hilariously some US based Calvinists will focus on the Huguenots being done wrong while forgetting they are in the US thanks to persecutions by the Church of England.
Steve #447791 March 13, 2025 12:02 pm 2
“What ever else is going on, the Catholics are wrong” is a unifying dogma…” Ha, ha, ha, ha! Thanks for lifting my spirits with a good laugh. Most of us don’t spend any time thinking anything about Catholics. That’s projection, my friend. To the extent we do, it’s to note that Catholics, too, have an obsession with hats, but big hats in their case. Psychoanalyze that.
The Infant Phenomenon #447748 March 13, 2025 11:11 am 4
It was the Puritans who allowed (((them))) to return to England after Edward III (I think) had expelled them in the 14th century.
Jack Dobsen #447778 March 13, 2025 11:37 am 3
That’s right.
Gespenst #447812 March 13, 2025 1:17 pm 3
The madness with Israel started in 1947 when Harry Truman recognized the place as a country.
karl von hungus #447692 March 13, 2025 10:03 am -2
biden isn’t the test
Lakelander #447833 March 13, 2025 3:11 pm 8
“At the same time, the populist movement is to some degree a revolt against what is viewed as baby boomer culture. This is the singular focus on the economy and the stock market at the expense of cultural and demographic issues.” This is 100% the problem I have with Boomers. I think about it anytime I see that human tapeworm (Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick) leering over Trumps shoulders.
My Comment #447738 March 13, 2025 10:56 am 8
Given that the future US will be primarily run by Jews, Indians, blacks and strong, independent women, Reagan will likely not be seen in a positive light. He will be viewed as yet another patriarchal, white supremacist oppressor. FDR, Lincoln, Clinton and Obama likely have the best shot of being viewed positively (at least by academics and the press) 50 years from now.
Wiffle #447772 March 13, 2025 11:29 am 11
It will be run by those people until the collapse of the US. Then something else will happen. Trump to me is the red gaseous stage of both Boomer and American leadership. Thus the chaos and uneven temperature.
My Comment #447783 March 13, 2025 11:48 am 5
The something else will be shaped by the nature of the majority non white rule. Given the maliciousness of the Biden Jews I imagine it will be closer to South Africa and Zimbabwe than Brazil.
Jack Dobsen #447815 March 13, 2025 1:32 pm 5
The numbers don’t allow the United States becoming South Africa. Also, the Biden Jews will suffer no lesser of a fate than their oppositional Tribal brothers and sisters; their mass migration plan bit them on the ass. The United States will fracture–it is happening now–and ethnic warlordism will prevail at least for a time.
Jeffrey Zoar #447678 March 13, 2025 9:32 am 8
I don’t recognize very much agency in any of the modern presidents. All of them are credited with (or blamed for) things that would have happened anyway if someone else was president instead, processes that had begun prior to their terms. Such as LBJ and the CRA and Great Society (and Vietnam), Nixon and the opening to China, Carter and inflation, Reagan and the military buildup and modernization that actually began under Carter, Reagan and financialization, Reagan and amnesty, Clinton and the advent of neoliberalism. All of that is stuff that would have happened anyway no matter who the president was. But Reagan was great at communicating, as per his nickname. Whatever he was doing, he could sell you on it.
Paintersforms #447671 March 13, 2025 9:16 am 8
The 80s formed me. I was lucky to have survived them. Free range is both good and bad, like deregulation. Right now, I’m putting away the bad parts.
Gaiseric #447665 March 13, 2025 9:09 am 8
Don’t forget the war on drugs and the militarization of our police. Another legacy of the “great” Ronald Reagan.
karl von hungus #447690 March 13, 2025 9:59 am 4
The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres.Richard Nixondeclared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” and increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and drug-treatment efforts.
Alzaebo #447699 March 13, 2025 10:18 am 1
Hel-lo, asset confiscation!
Steve W #447854 March 13, 2025 7:46 pm 7
Haven’t read any comments, just wanted to give my two cents as one of the late boomers who matured in the 1980s. First, it is difficult to explain to anyone who didn’t live through it, just how depressing the Carter years were. That depression was generated in no small part by Carter himself, a dour, moralizing prick. Sure we had “stagflation” and military humiliation, the seeming invincibility of the USSR, cities declaring bankruptcy, shitty cars coming out of Detroit, crime, drugs, all that — none of which was Carter’s fault. But Carter, instead of offering some alternative to this apparent decline, embraced it, epitomized it, and eventually symbolized it. He was a feckless, vain man who won by dumb luck in 1976, narrowly, against Gerald Ford, the Millard Fillmore of his day.Reagan won in 1980 because (a) Carter was terrible, both as a President and as a personality, (b) he brought optimism and pride back to the American voter, something that had not been seen since JFK, and (c) he was a master politician in the media age, an updated version of FDR. His long experience in Hollywood served him well.Everything seemed like shit in the late 1970s. Then Reagan comes along, and in the 1980s, things don’t seem like shit anymore. Inflation tanked, patriotism became cool again* the Russkies were suddenly backing off, “Reagan democrats” were a real thing, and in general, life just seemed awesome again. Even cars got better.That’s the problem for me, to judge Reagan’s presidency dispassionately. Yeah, life was awesome, but I was in my twenties, started a family and bought a home and was making grownup money. Was that Reagan, or my being in my twenties? Or that we stopped losing sleep overThe Day Afteragitprop? Or what? I can only say that,something changed, and it was good.That said,Richard Nixon thought Reagan was lazy and uninformed. So there’s that. Say what you will about Nixon, if there was anything he wasn’t, it was lazy and uninformed. And just look at where that got him, politically. So who knows?I will always treasure the Reagan years because they were a great time to be alive. But when it comes to greatness in American presidents, I rate RN above Reagan, #4 in the AP poll, behind (1) Washington, (2) Coolidge, (3) Cleveland. Trump? Let’s wait and see. According to my metrics, he’s pushed ahead of James Polk, and is in hot pursuit of Andrew Jackson. If he goes balls to the wall for the next year or two, he’s got a shot at the #2 slot.*Reagan trolled both Sting and Bruce Springsteen, which is awesome. Thanks Gip!
Moran ya Sis ba #447847 March 13, 2025 4:59 pm 7
I’ll say one thing about Reagan, he was prudent and adult about the thousands of thermonuclear warheads in America and Russia pointed at each other. Avoiding getting the northern hemisphere blown to pieces was not a bad thing. The recklessness of recent years on that count has been nauseating. If Putin had been ten percent the aggressive maniac they say he is, we’d all be several months if not years into the afterlife by now. They took us to the edge, not having a F-ing clue what they were doing. That is also something to be angry about
Fakeemail #447851 March 13, 2025 6:10 pm 3
Damn right. They were normalizing major cities getting nuked! They don’t give a shit if we all fry
TempoNick #447770 March 13, 2025 11:26 am 7
Re: JFK If you listen to Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Chris Cuomo, Tucker seems to be on the “our greatest ally” was responsible for whacking JFK bandwagon. He doesn’t come right out and say it, but he asks a certain rhetorical question two or three times during the interview. If you see it, you’ll get the idea. It’s the only thing that makes sense. They wouldn’t be protecting people long gone from government. It has to be Israel they are protecting.
Steve #447793 March 13, 2025 12:09 pm 4
“It’s the only thing that makes sense. They wouldn’t be protecting people long gone from government. It has to be Israel they are protecting.” False dichotomy. Plus, if the Agencies were involved, they have just as much incentive to keep that covered up as they would if it were small hats.
Hemid #447820 March 13, 2025 2:03 pm 4
Just as likely that Tucker is being protective of his people (American intelligence). Children aren’t taught that Oswald, weird communist/glowie, killed Kennedy. They’re told that he shot him. They’retaughtthat “Dallas”—right-wing racism, American whiteness—was the killer, in preemptive revenge for the Civil Rights Act. That was the story on day one. It’s not a story ’60sIsraelwould have invented. It’s a local production.
Alzaebo #447857 March 13, 2025 8:16 pm 1
?? They were setting the stage for the Civil Rights and Immigration Acts. They killed him to clear the way to the Great Replacement.
Dutch #447763 March 13, 2025 11:24 am 7
Reagan allowed other issues to mostly percolate along while he prosecuted the destruction of the Soviet block. Doing so served the interests of the Military-Industrial complex (Star Wars and a rebuilt military create a lot of MIC bucks in a lot of pockets). The trade-off and letting domestic politics mostly go on as usual may have bought Reagan space and time to do his international thing.The three presidents who have tried to break up the see-eye-eh and what we now call the bureaucratic “Deep State”, JFK, Nixon, and Trump, all have suffered greatly (assassination, legal shenanigans, and assassination attempt with legal shenanigans). Reagan did not pursue the breakup of D.C. business-as-usual, for the most part, so he was free to do his thing.One can argue that the USSR would have fallen anyway, but Reagan gave it a great big shove (supported by a “color revolution” in Poland, ironically—that stuff does occasionally serve our interests). That will always be Reagan’s legacy. Whether anyone will value it, in hindsight, that’s a different matter.
NateG #447714 March 13, 2025 10:35 am 7
Good article, Z-man. Yes, LBJ was the worst. He allowed the neocons to get their foot in the door, and they’ve been smelling up the room since.
Ploppy #447835 March 13, 2025 3:22 pm 6
As an overweight bearded man I find it curious that all my favorite political bloggers turn out to be overweight bearded men once I finally get a look at them on video. Perhaps ideology ultimately means nothing in the face of beardliness.
Hi-ya #447877 March 14, 2025 7:18 am 0
He’s not that overweight! I’m just amazed he’s peeking his nose out into the sunshine. Maybe it’s a sign things are thawing, or maybe he’s just sick of being anon.
dearieme #447693 March 13, 2025 10:03 am 6
Nixon: “his policies have had no lasting impact”. I doubt that. Decoupling the dollar from gold surely does? Reagan: he set out to end the Cold War. He succeeded, indeed he even won it. That should have been the invitation for the USA to shrink back from an Empire to a Republic. But it wasn’t. Can Trump pull it off?
thezman #447708 March 13, 2025 10:30 am 8
Nixon had no choice but to close the gold window. The French were staging a run on the gold supply. The result was the dollar becoming the global currency backed by energy. Those agreements were hashed out after Nixon.
Steve #447721 March 13, 2025 10:43 am 10
Nixon indeed had lasting impact. OSHA, EPA, CWaterA, CAirA, Endangered Species Act and the God Squad, 55 MPH speed limit, CAFE standards, DCA and the consequent War on Drugs, and that’s just a start. He presided over the greatest centralization of power in DC since at least FDR, maybe in all of US history.
karl von hungus #447650 March 13, 2025 8:43 am 6
Trump, for better or worse, has taken over the GOP and remade it into MAGA. he has started a real and enduring movement. he has ideas and the will to act on them. Ayn Rand would be writing the sequel to Atlas Shrugged if she were still around. Reagan did none of these things, he was just a figurehead. Which really is par for the course, so not a knock.
The Infant Phenomenon #447762 March 13, 2025 11:23 am 5
“Trump […] has started a real and enduring movement.” That remains to be seen. As of now, that is not at all clear.
Southron #447756 March 13, 2025 11:20 am 5
I think Reagan and Trump are similar in that they both were optimists, and truly care about the country. They’re also both a little naive about what the true intentions of their domestic enemies. Trump seems to have partially remedied this in his second term, but Reagan thought his enemies just had a different point of view instead of them wanting to flush us down the toilet.I know Reagan gets blamed for amnesty and the debt/deficits. The criticism is valid, but I don’t know many who would have imagined we’d be where we are today. Pat Buchanan definitely did which is why he was ostracized.As far as Vietnam goes, I don’t think that is still a concern of the foreign policy establishment. It was up to the Gulf Wars, but once they got their feet wet again there, it’s been wall to wall wars ever since. You could see some hesitation by Reagan and Bush I as well as Clinton to putting “boots on the ground”. Once Bush II hit, wars were back on the menu. They’ve invaded or wanted to invade half the middle east and now they want to fight Russia. I’d say they aren’t concerned about a quagmire anymore.
Zulu Juliet #447782 March 13, 2025 11:43 am 7
Clinton was fine putting America into third world squabbles: Somalia, Kosovo, Sudan. Sure, a lot of it was just dropping bombs and cruise missiles, but that only was because he was too busy having himself serviced in the Oval Office and killing children at Waco to get involved in a ground war.
Wkathman #447684 March 13, 2025 9:50 am 5
“Even though Nixon was president at a critical juncture in the development of what would become the Blob, his policies have had no lasting impact.”Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Affirmative Action (AA) officially come in during Nixon’s administration? AA eventually morphed into Diversity Inclusion Equity (DIE — I refuse to refer to it as DEI). We’re only just now seeing significant pushback against DIE. Under Nixon, the War on Drugs was also ramped up considerably and, whatever one may think about that, the policy has certainly had a lasting impact.Just nitpicking a bit. I was 11-years-old when Ronald Reagan left office, so I have little to say about the man — except to point out that his policies especially as California governor and even as U.S. president were more progressive than a lot of folks remember. Reagan was a faux traditionalist at best.
thezman #447702 March 13, 2025 10:21 am 6
The term “Affi89rmative Action” comes from a Kennedy EO. Johnson then turned the aspiration into a program and it was off the races.
Wkathman #447723 March 13, 2025 10:43 am 4
You got me on that one, Zman! At the very least, though, the AA policies were expanded and accelerated during Nixon’s time as president (see Philadelphia Plan;Revised Philadelphia Plan – Wikipedia). But you’re right that the concept did not originate with Nixon’s administration. Kudos!
Jack Dobsen #447731 March 13, 2025 10:51 am 18
Yes. I think I’m fairly informed on these matters and was shocked when Trump last month ended Johnson’s1963EO mandating AA. Nine presidents, including True Conservative Republicans, left it intact. None of these people are our friends. Ever.
Dutchboy #447839 March 13, 2025 4:27 pm 4
Paul Craig Roberts identified the Reagan accomplishments as slaying stagflation and ending the Cold War. We no longer worry about stagflation but the slow motion economic destruction of the American working class continues and Reagan bears some blame. The 1986 immigration “reform” he signed opened the doors to a massive legalization of illegals and a furtherance of illegal immigration. His successors fueled the outsourcing of the economy and also undid his Cold War accomplishment by instituting a new Cold War. Reagan was obviously losing his grip in his second term and his subsequent diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease explained why. Fundamentally, 1980s America is a country that exists only in the memories of us old folks who lived in it and Reagan’s part in it no longer has much relevance.
Ostei Kozelskii #447745 March 13, 2025 11:07 am 4
I’m agnostic on the matter of Reagan and his real or ostensible greatness. However, regarding LBJ I have no such ambivalence. That sorry polecat is the worst president to ever sully the White House. And it causes me no little shame that he hailed from my home state.
Jeffrey Zoar #447771 March 13, 2025 11:28 am 3
It’s questionable if LBJ is truly a political product of Texas. Considering the elections he stole
karl von hungus #447775 March 13, 2025 11:33 am 2
LBJ is quintessential texan
Jack Dobsen #447675 March 13, 2025 9:29 am 4
Funny footnote.I caught the replay of you and RamzPaul. It is a very good conversation and a fun podcast and I hope you two continue it. Mention was made there about the role the Internet has played in the Cult o’ Trump and you both speculated on how it would have effected Reagan. It is a good question so let me suggest it might have hurt him. Many of the problems he caused, primarily through illegal immigration and rampant militarism, were analyzed solely through the prism of Conventional Wisdom, so an actual nationalist perspective might have been quite negative outside of the shared hatred of international communism. I even suspect his Administration would have been just as censorious as the Biden Junta was as a direct result of the negativity and possibly just as prone as to cite the evils of racisms. It is an interesting thought experiment, anyhow.
Paintersforms #447666 March 13, 2025 9:12 am 4
I just knew the footnote would be a cigar joke lol.
Ted X #447643 March 13, 2025 8:35 am 4
The right tends to idolize certain figures like Reagan and Lincoln because collective memory works like grandmas photo album not a newspaper. Grandmas album only keeps the best moments from the past not the actual daily news from that era which is always a mix of good and bad. After enough time passes grandmas album seems like a true account of past history.
Bartleby the Scrivner #447649 March 13, 2025 8:43 am 15
It’s hard to believe that most people are still so uninformed about Lincoln. The information is there; one just has to read it.
Eloi #447657 March 13, 2025 8:53 am 4
You can say this about nearly everything…
Hokkoda #447871 March 13, 2025 11:22 pm 3
Reagan gave us Trump.And the end of the Cold War.And people started to love their country again.Reagan will be remembered as a Top 5 President.It’s easy to blame Reagan for what followed, but what followed was not Reagan. We got GHWB who didn’t like voodoo Reagan. Other than some very minor skirmishes, we didn’t get the crazy wars from Reagan.He got some things wrong, for sure. But most of us would kill to have our kids experience life in America in the mid-late 1980’s.Alan Greenspan was probably his most consequential error.Really, the best thing to happen in the past 10-15 years is all the Reagan satellites have aged out or died. Peggy Noonan’s insufferable lectures, for example.And there’s nothing wrong with individualism. We didn’t get whatever “toxic individualism” is from Reagan. We got that from divorce, broken families, digital isolationism, and unfiltered internet avatarism. We did that to ourselves and we squandered what was left us.
Ishabaka #447822 March 13, 2025 2:05 pm 3
“Toxic individualism”? Is that like toxic masculinity? Glad to learn that collectivism is the way of the future…
TempoNick #447755 March 13, 2025 11:19 am 3
Three points:1. You forget that Reagan put us on this trajectory of deficit spending. The geniuses thought it was 4D chess to bring the government to its knees. Never happened. We just got used to living high on the credit card.2. You’re right about the stock market. I was watching an old movie where the police were interrogating the wife of a bank teller suspected of taking $50,000. They asked for the usual questions, whether they are deep in debt, whether he has a drinking problem, whether he has a woman on the side, gambling problem … The one that surprised me was asked whether he plays the stock market. I forgot the name of the movie. It might have been “Loophole.” Barry Sullivan was one of the actors.3. There are certain things Nixon did that have left along lasting impression, the biggest being the EPA. I know people on this side of the political spectrum generally despise the EPA, but at the time, it was a completely necessary move. We also learned some other lessons from the Nixon presidency about being skeptical of our government and don’t you dare ever try wage and price controls.
dbriz #447867 March 13, 2025 10:29 pm 2
“Even though Nixon was president at a critical juncture in the development of what would become the Blob, his policies have had no lasting impact.” Perhaps it’s how “policies” are defined. Nixon cancelled Bretton Woods, established the petrodollar, created OSHA and established relations with China. Seems like plenty of lasting impact from here.
A Bad Man #447838 March 13, 2025 4:04 pm 2
Honestly, during the ‘Raegan years’ I could give a shit. I do recall thinking he was a fake, simply due to switching parties, making a movie with a monkey and his plastic wife. But otherwise, girlfriends, cruiser bike, summer, college years, fishing, skiing, etc. etc. Who really gave a shit?
Alzaebo #447862 March 13, 2025 8:34 pm 2
It was “girlfriends, cruiser bike, summer,” etc. because we weren’t being drafted.Remember that magic “window” of not needing to apply for Selective Service?
Marko #447788 March 13, 2025 11:56 am 2
LBJ was a terror in the Senate. He also held meetings in the loo while he was taking a shit.I know he’s behind JFK’s killing, Hart-Celler, and Vietnam, but he had some major alpha energy. Hard to imagine a Democrat with that kind of energy these days. He may have been America’s most alpha president after WW2.
Moran ya Sis ba #447845 March 13, 2025 4:48 pm 1
There’s a far greater discrepancy between how a leader looks to his contemporaries and how he looks decades later, than I would have intuitively imagined. Lincoln’s decision to arm black troops in the civil war made the original plan to ship them to Liberia impossible. The fundamental fact of 10 percent blacks in America and America’s later taking over leadership of the European derived nations, is probably very central to the side of multiculturalism. Blacks in America was the thin end of the wedge. And here we are
Tim Condon #447750 March 13, 2025 11:11 am 1
LBJ didn’t inspire the great men of his age but he did leave a mark.
Ketchup-stained Griller #447659 March 13, 2025 8:54 am 1
Did Z choose to put up a piece about Presidential rankings or is it just a hardwired reaction to a slow news day?
Alzaebo #447724 March 13, 2025 10:44 am 3
This week has been a review of the past, that is, of how we got here.The Zman is examining the 20th Century that the 21st is trying to break free of.
Compsci #447749 March 13, 2025 11:11 am 3
Read the blog longer. Reactions to today’s news is not the norm. Seems Trump’s speed at trolling everyone has changed that a bit.
Ketchup-stained Griller #447821 March 13, 2025 2:04 pm 1
It was reference to yesterday’s “Choosing” piece. Sometimes my thoughts run longer than a day at a time.
Yman #447984 March 15, 2025 4:53 am 0
after 1932, every president of us owned by Jews, work for Jewish interests If Franklin D. Roosevelt didn’t send negro to Detroit, Chicago for labor shortage he createdDetroit, Chicago remains as great white city, and member of ford family wouldn’t marry negro
William Quick #447852 March 13, 2025 7:12 pm 0
Nixon created and established the petrodollar system. Nothing any of the others you mention ever did had such major and lasting impact on America and the world.
Steve #447864 March 13, 2025 9:18 pm 0
I think the effect of the petrodollar is overstated. All it accomplished is a month, month and a half of float while oil made the transit from the ME to Europe. For the first month and a half. After that, it’s already in the cash flow. The only difference will be that they might need float their increases in oil purchases.Any green eye shade worth hiring had already figured out how to price the float in, and how to shift the volatility onto the futures market. Which we know they did. Or oil futures wouldn’t even be a thing.The Narco-Dollar was a much better deal for the US.
Panzernutter #447850 March 13, 2025 6:03 pm -2
I spend several days a week dealing with E1’s ( so called head engineers) in commercial buildings in California who received amnesty during the Reagan regime. Every one of them are idiots and get pissed when I point out they don’t have a license to work on the equipment I’m responsible for. I find drill bits in disconnects instead of fuses 80 to 100 amps, they hire relatives in the country illegally and carry their cellphones in a holster made of tooled leather from Mexico.I didn’t wear a tuxedo to the prom in 1981,I didn’t go to the prom, I was wearing Levi’s and a black tee shirt with a cigarette pocket on it and rode my FLH to the silver dollar tavern to hang with my friends and drink beer , drinking age was 18 back then.We all knew Reagan RAY-GUN was a clown, Koch was a clown and the cops were to be avoided. This preppy admiration was cringe back then and it’s cringe today. We all learned a trade and lived mostly comfortable lives ,listening to great music with our girlfriends and raising families. Fuck Regan.all due respect.


Back to top