Thread: Is Ronald Reagan the best President all time?

Originally Posted by ConsvLiberal

But if you say "all time" the most mean "the last 50-60 years".

Ah, so you mean in living memory. But that doesn't rule out Johnson or Obama, so state your case.

Originally Posted by ConsvLiberal

Ronald Reagan won the most states.

Well, that one metric, I'll concede. I think I'll go with Obama's victory as the greatest, since there are numerous ways of defining the 'greatest' victory. You pays your money, you makes your choice.

Public opinion polls mean very little, especially when it comes to history. I would say that Reagan was the best president in my lifetime. I remember how miserable the Carter days were. Reagan inherited a mess. He had the ability though to talk to the American people and inspire them, both with confidence, humor and policy. His administration turned the economy around, even though congress fought him. He led the country through economic good times and peace. Clinton did much the same and in hindsight, compared to what followed him, my view has changed about his presidency. Clinton's economy was pushed by the internet and computer revolution, even though the bubble burst late in his presidency. He balanced the budget grudgingly at the insistence of Kasich and Gingrich.

Greatest president of all time? Probably not the greatest. Lincoln comes to mind, Washington didn't suck. I don't know much about our first president John Hanson.

Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra

uhhhh............. this is some amazingly whooshy conflation of positions, but even if one were to accept it, he wouldn't be the first by that metric.

Bet you had to use your google mastery to look him up.

Originally Posted by LeoVlaming

This may come as a surprise to you but the rich (and talented) have the habit of making themselves richer. They don't need a President or a government for that.

Being rich often has little to do with being talented. While being exceptional can make a person rich, the usual method is to be born rich and simply be average, and then stay rich.

Originally Posted by joG

Just because he fundamentally strengthened the economy, won the Cold War and had a wonderful voice?

Neither he nor his policies did either of those things. Our economy is far far weaker for enacting supply side economics, and no one "won" the Cold War. We are still suffering for having fought it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Paschendale

Being rich often has little to do with being talented. While being exceptional can make a person rich, the usual method is to be born rich and simply be average, and then stay rich.



Neither he nor his policies did either of those things. Our economy is far far weaker for enacting supply side economics, and no one "won" the Cold War. We are still suffering for having fought it in the first place.

In capitalism supply side is the only side. The cold war was over until a very weak administration allowed lesser powers to restart it. Smart foreign policy understands the proper use of power, both politically and economically. The last seven years have been a text book lesson in what not to do with power.

Originally Posted by Middleground

I will add that his leadership skills were greatly emphasized by his natural charisma.

Absolutely. The guy had a way with people. He had humor and was inspirational when he spoke. So was FDR.

That's important with a leader. Both were very good leaders. When in public both knew how to turn on the charm.