A critical look at Ronald Reagan
Of the premier U.S. politicians in recent history, Ronald Reagan is the best example of symbolism over substance.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t hate Reagan. The man did a few good things from a libertarian perspective during his presidency.
And he wasn’t nicknamed “The Great Communicator” for nothing. His warm, avuncular demeanor clearly annoyed liberals seeking to portray conservatives as cold and heartless.
What’s more, as a former president, Reagan’s death demands a degree of reverence. Most of his harshest critics are properly biting their tongues until well after his passing.
But the amount of adulation heaped on Reagan since his death has been truly astounding. On television, radio, and the Internet, parades of praiseful people are falling all over themselves to glorify the Gipper.
Of course, many of the Republican faithful have idolized Reagan for a while. Now that he has passed, his adulators seem to be so intent on canonizing him that they largely ignore his actual presidential record.
Here are most of the good things that Reagan did in office:
Reagan lowered income tax rates. He fired striking air traffic controllers. He fought for a missile defense system (although we still don’t have one). He lifted price controls on oil. He oversaw banking and shipping deregulation. He ended the “fairness” doctrine for the media.
Moreover, Reagan gave clearly pro-freedom speeches. He said, “The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” and also remarked, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Some might ask: Didn’t he also cause the collapse of the Soviet Union?
I don’t believe that Ronald Reagan was a decisive factor in the demise of the USSR. Such a claim reminds me of liberals who somehow credit Bill Clinton with the rapid high-tech growth of the ’90s.
Yes, Reagan was often critical of the Communist behemoth, famously dubbing it “the evil empire.” And he did engage in an arms race with Soviet leaders.
But, as nearly all economists agree, a full-blown socialist economy is internally unstable. So it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union collapsed–with or without Ronald Reagan in the White House.
Now for most of the bad parts of Reagan’s presidency:
He signed a major tax increase in 1982 and raised taxes again in 1983. He also signed a massive increase in the Social Security payroll tax and supported a new tax on gasoline.
He greatly ramped up the Drug War. Under Reagan’s instruction, U.S. attorneys imprisoned many thousands of nonviolent Americans on drug-related charges.
Reagan helped to boost foreign aid. He also pushed through an $8 billion increase in America’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund, a global welfare agency.
He appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Justice O’Connor often sides with the left-leaning judges on the court (three of whom–Kennedy, Stevens, and Souter–were also appointed by Republicans).
Reagan was hardly a friend of free trade, an issue many libertarians hold dear. The imports under trade restriction doubled during the Reagan Administration.
President Reagan attacked other countries. His excursion into Lebanon ended shortly after a bombing in Beirut killed hundreds of U.S. Marines, and his attack on Libya was avenged by a plane bombing that killed nearly 200 U.S. civilians.
He presided over large budget deficits throughout his tenure. Don’t try to blame those all on congressional Democrats; Reagan had a Republican Senate in six of his eight years.
And don’t forget the things Reagan had promised to do but didn’t: He didn’t terminate Selective Service registration. He didn’t do anything about proliferating health and environmental regulations. And he didn’t fight relentlessly to eliminate a single agency.
Compared to George W. Bush, who seems bent on expanding government more than any president since Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan might seem like a libertarian hero.
But the truth is that Reagan’s record is mediocre–at best.
A prominent libertarian has said, “No one is ever as bad as the media portray him to be, and no one is ever as good as the media portray him to be, either.”
In the case of Ronald Reagan, that’s a point worth remembering.
Jonathan Trager is a staffer at the Cato Institute.
8 Comments - add your own
David Freddoso — June 14, 2004 at 1:44 am
I apologize for the long post that follows, but I think this is a discussion worth having:
It would be hard to disagree with Jonathan about Sandra Day O’Connor. Nonetheless, I submit that the Soviets would have found a way to keep themselves going had Reagan not gotten cooperation from the Saudis to keep oil prices low (making Russian wells unprofitable), resisted them in proxy wars in Central America, Angola and Afghanistan, and forced them to spend billions competing in weapons production and in the great unknown factor of SDI.
Socialist economies–although they may be doomed to collapse in the long run–have a way of keeping themselves going in the short run in ways non-economic, through violence and coercion. With our weak, soft-socialist economy of 1980, they may have been able to outlast us with their violence, had they not hit the brick wall of Ronald Reagan. They may have collapsed in the long run, but that “long run” could have included our destruction as well.
Jonathan Trager — June 14, 2004 at 11:28 am
The Soviet Union was already 70+ years old by the time it finally collapsed. The Soviet economy had been dying a slow death for a while, well before RR. Of course, I don’t expect any of his fans to ever concede that point. Crediting him with single-handedly ending the Cold War is one way to minimize all the other major drawbacks of his presidency.
bill wald — June 15, 2004 at 5:34 pm
“He also signed a massive increase in the Social Security payroll tax. . .”
Which is nothing but a capped, flat income tax that is and always was spent for current budget needs.
That being said, SS is the most successful universal welfare program in recent history. Something like a third of retired people rely upon SS and other forms of welfare for their existance. without SS they would be living in the streets. Prior to FDR and WW2, half of all Americans lived in poverty.
I laugh at my fdellow Libertarians who claim that they would be rich if not for SS and the income tax. This is nothing but an excuse for making bad decisions. Would like to see a poll indicating that Libertarians have a higher personal savings rate than the general population. Fat Chance!
Jonathan Trager — June 16, 2004 at 11:10 am
That depends on what you mean by “successful.” If you measure success by the number of people who are dependent on government handouts, then yes, SS is successful. If you judge success by the financial (or self-reliance) benefits that people get from SS, it’s not successful. A typical no-risk, bank savings account has a better rate of return than SS does.
Also, I’ve never heard of a “libertarian” who thinks FDR and WWII saved half of all Americans from living in poverty. That’s bizarre, to say the least.
James N. Markels — June 16, 2004 at 12:51 pm
Yeah, that’s got me puzzled as well.
And while liberatarians might not have a higher personal savings rate (I have no idea one way or the other), the difference is that we won’t blame other people for our failures or insist that others fund our retirement. Personal responsibility doesn’t mean that you make all the correct choices, merely that you own up to them.
Andy Spackman — June 17, 2004 at 4:57 pm
I think giving Reagan some credit for the USSR’s fall is unavoidable. Yes the USSR had already begun “dying a slow death.” But that death was certainly hastened by Reagan’s escalating the arms race.
Moreover, the Soviet economic decline would not necessarily have ended the Cold War. If, instead of the revolution it experienced, the USSR had adapted its economic model as China now is, the Cold War might still be with us–and we’d be facing a more potent adversary. Reagan’s pushing the Soviets accelerated the decline sufficiently that China-style adaptation was not possible (even if the Soviets had wanted to adapt).
But Gorbachev’s political reforms–intentionally or not–deserve equal credit. They allowed a climate in which the economic difficulties Reagan exacerbated could lead to popular and (mostly) peaceful revolution. Under the old climate the outcome would have been something else entirely.
In the end it’s all useless speculation. But I can’t help but think that things would have turned out very differently if it hadn’t been both Reagan and Gorbachev at that particular time.
Jonathan Trager — June 25, 2004 at 1:28 pm
I didn’t say that Ronald Reagan had zero impact on the Soviet Union. It’s possible that he helped to hasten its inevitable collapse. What I reject is the notion that RR faced a well organized, seemingly invincible foe and single-handedly brought it to its knees. Similarly, Bill Clinton reduced the capital gains tax rate, the single biggest impediment to business investment, but I definitely wouldn’t give him most of the credit for the enormous U.S. economic boom of the ’90s.
Selma Prager — June 29, 2004 at 10:32 pm
I am trying to source a quote which I read was said by Ronald Reagan,”Social Security and Medicare is just poor people looking (or waiting) for a handout.” I would like to know if he said it, and, if possible when.