[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: The Most Consequential Elections in History: Ronald Reagan and the Election of 1980 The Most Consequential Elections in History: Ronald Reagan and the Election of 1980 Reagan gave conservatism a pleasant face and an appealing voice. By Kenneth T. Walsh The stakes in this year's presidential campaign are high. But that's nothing new. There have been many other pivotal presidential elections in our history, some that set an entirely new course for the United States and a few that were crucial to the very survival of the republic. To put the current campaign in perspective, U.S. News's White House Correspondent Kenneth T. Walsh, author of four books on the presidency, examines the 10 most consequential elections in American history--the races that produced the biggest change and had the most lasting impact. An installment of this 10-part series will run on the U.S. News website through September. This is the 10th in the series. Dangerous cowboy. B-movie actor. Intellectual lightweight. Heartless right-winger. The epithets thrown at Ronald Reagan over the years were sometimes insulting, but he never seemed to mind. Instead of getting bitter or frustrated, he pursued the presidency with a special brand of good cheer and optimism that impressed the American people, if not the liberal intelligentsia. Reagan fell just short of the Republican nomination in 1976, when President Gerald Ford narrowly beat him. But Ford went on to lose to Democrat Jimmy Carter in the general election that November, opening the way for Reagan to try again four years later. By the time the 1980 campaign had begun, the country was increasingly dissatisfied with liberal, Democratic big government. As the months rolled by, the nation was wracked by high inflation and unemployment, gasoline shortages, and a hostage crisis in Iran in which more than 50 Americans were held captive by radical Muslims. Carter seemed weak and powerless, and voters felt down on their luck and deeply worried about the future. Reagan proved to be the antidote. He urged Americans to believe in themselves again and declared that the United States was a "shining city on a hill" whose best days were still ahead. Many people thought that he was too extreme and simplistic, but opposition to the status quo ran so deep that the electorate decided to give the former movie star a chance in the White House. He defeated Carter in a landslide, winning 44 million votes, or 50.7 percent, and 489 electoral votes to Carter's 35.5 million votes, or 41 percent, and only 44 electoral votes. It marked a historic departure from the path that Franklin Roosevelt set toward ever-bigger government and shattered FDR's political coalition that had dominated American politics for most of the previous half-century. The irony was that Reagan had been a Democrat and a fan of Roosevelt in his younger days. But as he studied politics and government, Reagan grew more conservative and eventually became a Republican. Despite his political shift, he never forgot his middle-class roots. On Election Day, as his huge victory was becoming clear, a journalist asked Reagan what Americans saw in him. "Would you laugh if I told you that I think, maybe, they see themselves and that I'm one of them?" he replied. "I've never been able to detach myself or think that I, somehow, am apart from them." Many Americans were familiar with the actor from his frequent appearances in the movies and on television. He also honed his speaking skills as a spokesman for General Electric. Most important, Reagan gave conservatism a pleasant face and an appealing voice. This was central to his success. His critics never gave him enough credit for his pragmatic skills as a two-term Republican governor of California, but he was more conciliatory than his adversaries supposed. He also was constantly underestimated by his critics, who never understood that his mellifluous voice, his reassuring manner, and the skills he learned as an actor would make him an unparalleled success as a communicator on TV, the dominant medium of the age. At 68, he was the oldest person ever elected president for a first term, but in the end Americans didn't seem to mind because he was in such good health and looked much younger. In any case, his political approach seemed fresh and new. From the start, President Reagan set a clear direction for the country—roll back communism where possible, strengthen national defense, cut taxes, and stop or slow the growth of government. Even though many disagreed with the specifics of his policies, they accepted the direction he was setting and liked his brand of sunny, decisive leadership. He rose to near-heroic status, at least briefly, when he showed grace and strength of character after a would-be assassin nearly killed him in early 1981 Overall, says Frank Donatelli, Reagan's political director at the White House, "It was the first serious effort to rein in the welfare state. And President Reagan engaged the Soviet Union and communism successfully." On the political front, Donatelli adds, Reagan's ascent "coincided with the rise of the religious right"—the millions of Christian voters who held the balance of power in many states and who, under Reagan, became much more active in politics. Says political scientist Alvin Felzenberg: "Of all who served as president of the United States, none came to office with a more clearly articulated vision of where he wanted to take the nation than Reagan. Like Jefferson and Jackson, Reagan came into office universally known as a spokesman for a significant political movement. If his two nineteenth-century predecessors promulgated their ideas through partisan newspapers and personal letters, Reagan's preferred medium was speeches. . . . Reagan offered nothing less than a complete reversal in the direction in which the nation had been headed prior to his inauguration as president. On the domestic front, he sought major reductions in marginal tax rates and fewer regulations on the economy. He argued that such measures would unleash the creative entrepreneurial impulses of the American people. Internationally, Reagan sought nothing less than having the United States prevail in the Cold War." Under Reagan, the growth of government was slowed (though not stopped), taxes were reduced, the economy boomed, and the nation was at peace. In March 1983, Reagan made one of his most memorable declarations when he called the Soviet Union "an evil empire." Yet, in a strange twist, during his second term, Reagan entered into a strategic partnership with a dynamic new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, a reformer and a strong leader in his own right. By the end of his eight-year presidency, Reagan said the U.S.S.R. that he once denounced had become his partner in seeking East-West accommodation. Despite his popularity with voters, Reagan's critics never stopped their attacks. They argued that he was too conservative, wasted billions of dollars in a vast military buildup, allowed social problems to fester, and lacked an understanding of his own policies. They redoubled their criticism during the Iran-contra arms-for-hostages scandal in his second term. But Reagan recovered his popularity, and, by the end of his administration, most Americans told pollsters they liked the job he was doing. Perhaps most important, Americans got their confidence back; and that was due in no small measure to the man nicknamed "the Great Communicator." Poster Comment: Just a reminder how the left, Europe and the rest of the world wept, quaked and gnashed their teeth over the thought of an actor being elected POTUS. A cowboy with his finger on the button? We are doomed as doomed can be. Do you remember?Now they are doing the same thing over Trump. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: SOSO (#0)
(Edited)
The idea that being an "actor" is an issue is not the point. It is about the candidate's suggestions as objectives. It would be nice if America had a few details about Trump's campaign promises; as an example: "Apple products shall be manufactured in the USA." How is Trump going to accomplish that objective?
He was also the head of the screen actors guild ,a political position where he worked to purge the union of communist influences . By the 1950s he was well on his way on his path to conservatism. He was not a johnny -come-lately convert in the 1970s . By then he had actively supported the Ike ,Nixon (for whom he made more than 200 speeches in 1960 ) campaigns before becoming a Republican. His conservative views evolved over 20 years ,not 20 days .His conservative speech for Goldwater ,"Time for Choosing” was delivered in 1964 ....12 years before his run for the Presidency. He was also a 2 term Governor of one of the biggest industrial states in the union prior to running for President. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Yet all of that didn't matter one bit to the left. To them, especially socialist Europe, he was just a cowboy that can only shot from the hip and destined to get the world into WWIII. They were convinced of it. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It's tempting to compare Reagan (DC outsider) to Trump (DC outsider), but we should resist the comparisons. America 2016 is as different from America 1980 as America 1980 was from America 1946. They might as well be two separate countries with two completely different electorates. Second - Reagan was steeped in ideology. He was a conservative, and had a record to back it up. Trump - though a successful businessman - is mostly a deal maker. Reagan was ready to walk away from a bad deal with the Soviets in Iceland. Would deal-maker Trump have done the same? This is not to say there are not similarities. The "Ruling Party" (establishment) hated Reagan and it hates Trump. Both were/are charismatic leaders. But in the end, the establishment always gets its way, and I suspect it will this time. The price for the establishment "allowing" Reagan was Bush. And look where that has led. What will the price be if/when the establishment allows Trump? "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
it shows a complete lack of understanding how Apple products are made . Just the IPhone alone has a supply chain for parts from 27 nations. He thinks IPhones are tee shirts. The majority of their parts are made in China ...so to assemble Apple products here would require moving the assembly away from the largest number of suppliers in the chain ,or finding American suppliers for 349 parts from China alone. Here are the nations where other parts come from :Japan 139 ,USA 60 ,Taiwan 42 ,South Korea 32 ,Malaysia 29, Philippines 24, Thailand 21 ,Singapore 17, Germany 13, Vietnam 11 ,Mexico 7, Indonesia 6, Israel 6, France 5, Czech Republic 5 ,Belgium 3, Italy 3, Ireland 3, UK 3 ,Brazil 2, Costa Rica 2, Austria 2, Netherlands 2 ,Canada 1, Portugal 1, Spain 1 . As you see ,China is centrally located near most of the IPhone's supply chain. And it is not just cheap labor (although that of course is a factor) ;it's also a lack of skilled labor .The emperor asked Apple this question once before ;what would it take to make their products here ? Apple had made computers in California and it almost destroyed the company .Tim Cook said that there were major problems . Chinese factories can scale up and down much faster because their employees essentially live in huge company dormitories . But the education of the workforce was the killer . Apple's executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufacturing iPhones. The company's analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States. In China, it took 15 days. Chinese schools graduate roughly 600,000 engineers a year, versus about 70,000 in the United States. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
The only comparison I intend to make is how the left, including socialist Europe, were apoplectic over the idea of cowboy Reagan as POTUS. They are acting the same way over Trump. Otherwise I do not equate Trump with Reagan. Dollar Donald is not much more than a con artist. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|