A few days back on a topic devoted to Ronald Reagan's memory, some people posted that he was just an "average" president. I disagreed and said it wasn't the appropriate time or place to discuss it. Since President Reagan has now been buried and full honors rendered, please explain what you mean by "average" President and what exactly is the criteria for such a conclusion.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Cal., we all have our own opinions. Average means average, not the best and not the worst.
Former President Reagan was a great "communicator"....and I will give him credit for sticking to his guns. He did a lot in stopping the cold war. As for his domestic policies, I didn't care much for them.
An avergage President? I don't believe so. Average implies doing pretty much the same things as others with pretty much the same result or lack there of. Mr. Reagan achieved results far beyond those of his predecessors working with pretty much the same tools. Some of the things he accomplished were, without doubt, controversial such as the handling of the air traffic controllers strike. One must admit that while devastating to individuals, it saved an industry and probabaly our economy which was still reeling from the inflation and high interest rates (when Carter left office home mortgage rates were running at 20%) left over from Carter and other prior administrations. Speaking of interest rates and inflation, these too were brought under control by his domestic policies. He inherited a tax situation where taxes were high and collections were about 500 Billion a year. He cut taxes (a la John Kennedy) and when he left office, revenue was 0ne trillion a year.
He was presented with an international situation dominated by the "Cold War" which was a cold war only to those not involved in the day-to-day fighting of it. He recognized the great weakness of the U.S.S.R. being thier economy and capitalized on that to defeat them with no lives lost.
As for his policies in Central and South America for which many on the left blame untold numbers of deaths, given time and the continuation of those policies, I believe that area would be more stable today than it is. Left unchallenged and unchecked, the Contras and other "Revolutionary" (spelled C O M M U N I S T) organizations would have killed far more than they did and have set up camp quite uncomfortably close to our own borders.
I have not mentioned the Iran hostage situation on purpose because there has never been any concluusive proof (that I have seen) that shows why the Iranians relesed those people as they did on the eve of Reagans inauguration. Whether it was done solely as a final embarrassment to Carter (a totally embarrasing President) or due to some other reason I do not know.
This is NOT the record of an average President, but rather a record of success and above average results based on sound policies and an unwavering dedication to the United States and the citizens thereof.
Location: The place that Harry Henderson calls home....
Posts: 1,672
RE: Definition of an "Average" President
Average...does the job with no lasting legacy.
I don't consider any President in history to be "average". They all had strengths, they all had weaknesses, and they all left a lasting impression.
It is how we, as individuals or even groups, view that impression as how we define the individual's persona and legacy.
One aspect that is definitely subjective is a President's appearance, oratorship, and attitude. As a brief generalization, to me personally Democratic Presidents appear sincere, give long-winded well-written speeches, and appeal to the lower classes. Republican Presidents often seem smug, business-like, give short and crass speeches and appeal to the more successful classes of society. In conclusion, Democrats like to talk big and appear upbeat, whereas Republicans like to talk simple and appear REAL.
Perception is all about "what did they do for me", even though each President in history has passed many bills that affect us all, at some point in our lives.
__________________
"The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight." Theodore Roosevelt
The absolute thing about opinions is that they can be put in their proper place. They carry only the weight of the credibility of the individual stating them.
What difference does it make what someone on this forum thinks or states about history when viewed throught the glasses of paritsan politics. The evidence of history speaks for itself. Their opinion is limited to their loyalty of political views and belifs not the facts.
The masses made their statement about President Reagan over the last week. How they lived through and now view history. Even the likes of the most liberal gave him his due. Reagan was, in the majority of informed persons belief, a great president.
FDR was a great president even in the eyes of the most conservative anti socialist believer. Yet FDR was a welfare big government socialst believer. It is what he did, when he did it, not his beliefs that made him great just as is President Reagan.
It is sometimes hard to be honest and give a man his due when you feel you are on the losing side of the issues. Men over come that and become better men for just that reason.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
Ah comeon Cougar Mag, don't you want to come out and play? There is a lot to be learned on this topic and we can all enjoy the learning. I personally think most of us tend to focus only on the things we don't like about any particular president and thus don't see the full measure of any particular president's presidency. Same thing for those we like because they are on our political side.
Saying average just means average and letting it go at that is like defining hunting as just being hunting and a person should be able to infer the full meaning from such a cryptic phrase. Well, we all know that hunting in far more complex than just a word and means very much to us. we could describe its' full meaning in many paragraphs or possibly even pages but not in just a single word. To describe any particular president's term or terms as evarage is in some ways a copout as we aren't actually examining their accomplishments or lack thereof and therefore aren't making squat as to an argument for or against their being "average."
Coastie, you brought up many excellent points and were unbelievably fair regarding the iran hostages incident.
Strut&Rut, you have suggested an outstanding definition for average--"does the job with no lasting legacy." You have probably nailed it with your extremely perceptive comment that a Presdient's appearance, oratorship and attitude are subjective to people and that most people's opinion about a President being average is based on their perception" of what that particular President "did for them." Although we would all like to reap some kind of benefit from any President's policies, that individual is also responsible for doing what is best for our country as a whole and thus not always able to tailor their policies to benefit just us as an individual.
Logs, great post as usual. I know it is history that will ultimately judge President Reagan but that isn't nearly as much fun as us arguing it out on this forum.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
I was Just starting High School when Reagan first took office and at that time could have really cared less about politics, much less, reagans political agenda,s. even today at age 40 I am not a very political man.
My opinions on Reagan are simple...I believe he was a decent average president. I lost what admiration I had for the man when he fired the Air traffic controllers. I believed that action alone undermined and weakened the foundations of all the unions, not just the air traffic controller union. I didnt care much for his trickle down economic theories(hogwash) gramm-rudman personaly affected my life in a negative way, and like many others, I feel that reaganomics was just a cover up for the huge spending on defense.
I dont believe he was deserving to have a aircraft carrier named after him, I damn sure dont believe he is deserving to have his image on US currency.
I believe that he was a better actor in Washington than he ever was in Hollywood.
I do believe he was good hearted person...But a great president...No, he wasnt.
As logs so graciously put it, its just my opinion folks.
__________________
Rico, The fastest Bow in Texas.
The absolute thing about opinions is that they can be put in their proper place. They carry only the weight of the credibility of the individual stating them.
So what are you saying Logs?
About FDR, I do agree with Logs that it was what he did it when it was done. It was necessary at the time because of no employment, bread lines, the morale of the American people, etc. Building dams and resurrecting jobs was only a tool at the time. One thing that is seldom mentioned about Social Security is that at the time of its origins, people didn't live as long as today. That in itself is the biggest flaw of SS.
Quote:
It is sometimes hard to be honest and give a man his due when you feel you are on the losing side of the issues. Men over come that and become better men for just that reason.
Personally I am being honest. I have great respect for President Reagan, but I am not ready to proclaim him as one of our greatest presidents.
Rico, I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree with your reasoning on this issue.
The ecomonic matter would take forever to debate and never be settle to either of our satisfactions.
The matter with the Air Traffic controllers to me is a very clear one. They had a job that involves public safety much like Firefighters or LEOs. None of them have a right to strike. They know that when they are hired or at least they should. I believe he did the right thing by firing them. I don't think it hurt the trade unions one bit.
If nothing else would be considered, the actions that he put into motion that brought down the USSR in themselves are enough to hold him well above average.
You and I see it differently and I don't have a problem with that at all.
Cougar, What Im saying is exactly what is typed there. It seems very clear to me. How can I make it clearer for you?
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
The fall of the Berlin Wall was a big thing, but it was not the biggest. Before President Reagan took office, there were two world "Super Powers." Shortly after he left there was only one.
To me, hardly an average President.
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
Definition of an "Average" President
There is a lot to be learned on this topic and we can all enjoy the learning. I personally think most of us tend to focus only on the things we don't like about any particular president and thus don't see the full measure of any particular president's presidency. Same thing for those we like because they are on our political side. 
