Your views of Ronald Reagan are certainly colored by your political perspective. The truth is that propping up right-wing dictators certainly did not start with Ronald Reagan's adminstration. Every president has made political and other critical blunders. The difference between Reagan's blunders and that of someone like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton is that after the adminstration was over, America could look back and say that there were many more good results that came out of that adminstration than were failures.

Your views of Ronald Reagan are certainly colored by your political perspective.

As are yours. As are everybody's. What's your point? That ones perceptions of a politician's legacy are affected by ones political stance isn't really a novel or insightful observation.

propping up right-wing dictators certainly did not start with Ronald Reagan

No, of course not. But it sure did accelerate during Reagan's tenure and he's the one we're discussing. At least the ones coming before him didn't fund their proxy wars by selling arms to nations that regarded us as the Great Satan, and in blatant contradiction of American law. You're correct that he didn't start the practice, but "they did it, too" is a poor defense.

As to your last statement, that judgment is "colored by your political perspective," my friend. I see precious few good results from Reagan, you see precious few from Clinton. That's the way it goes, I suppose, but at least Clinton left some dollars in the treasury on the way out, and a much, much smaller trail of corpses. In the end, Reagan accomplished very, very little that he set out to do, aside from funnelling enormous amounts of money into weapons programs.

Perhaps if you named a few of those accomplishments, we'd have something to discuss, though I'm sure you know we'll not see eye to eye on many of them.

My comment was designed to agree that Reagan made mistakes, not to justify his propping up right-wing dictators. I see that as a little more fairer look at Reagan than you are presenting. While I think he accomplished alot, but made some mistakes, you think he made many mistakes and can't acknowledge any accomplishments. Maybe that is why I think you column is not much higher standand than Rush Limbaugh.

I can think of two accomplishments that have benefited the world. First, Reaganomics made the economy strong which continued on until 2000. There was an important decision made by the Republican Congress with the assistance of President Clinton (much to the dismay of liberal Democrats) in 1995 when they voted to overhaul the budget and the welfare system. This decision made the benefit of the economic recovery begun in the Reagan years to continue longer than normal as far as economic cycles go.

The second accomplishment was the fall of the Soviet Empire. Now I do not give all the credit to Reagan. Certainly credit has to go to Gorbachov who made critical decisions that other Soviet leaders had not made. Certainly the people of individual countries need to be recognized for the courage and stand in bringing down regimes in numerous countries. Another credit must go to the free market economy that we have that is certainly superior to a communistic, socialistic system. As someone has said, the first economy can afford guns and butter, the second economy can only afford either. But,thankfully, there was a leader named Reagan who was in charge when the critical time came that forced the downfall of communism in almost all corners of the world. Give him credit where credit is due.

At this time of Reagan's passing, I am reminded of another passing a famous politician, a man I could not stomach, who served as my Senator. Hubert H. Humphrey passed away in 1979 (or 78). I recall listening to WCCO radio that night as they recounted his political career. I had never voted for him nor liked his policies, but that night I gave honor to the passing of him as the Senator from MN. At that time, I didn't believe that I needed to remind all my friends about his short comings. I respected him enough to let him lie in peace.

I urge you to give a short positive respectful statement on your blog about President Reagan, naming one positive accomplishment. As funny as it may sound, some on TV, have stated that while they didn't agree with much he did, they respected him for how he conducted himself or the humor he emplyed. Can't you even go that far?

Sigh. Where to begin? I write to present my opinion. If you believe that my opinion slants too heavily toward my opinion, well, there isn't much I can do about that except to award you the merit badge for tautology.

Reaganomics made the economy strong which continued on until 2000

Unless you take into account that inconvenient recession that took place during Bush I's term. We will vehemently disagree about the effect of Reaganomics. I can make my economic situation look pretty good, too, if I charge up a few trillion dollars on my MasterCard. But the bill comes due eventually, as it did in the early '90s and continues today. Reagan, like Clinton, also benefitted from the business cycle. It's tempting to blame Carter for the economic conditions that prevailed during his administration and Reagan for the recovery, but that ignores the plain fact that every other economy in the world was suffering the same conditions, except the oil producers. And they almost all began expanding again once the oil shocks passed, whether they employed Reaganomics or not. The cause and effect there are pretty obvious.

made by the Republican Congress with the assistance of President Clinton (much to the dismay of liberal Democrats) in 1995 when they voted to overhaul the budget and the welfare system. This decision made the benefit of the economic recovery begun in the Reagan years to continue longer than normal as far as economic cycles go.

It's pretty widely accepted that what turned the economy around was the '94 budget agreement that passed without a single GOP vote. It was a serious stab at deficit reduction for the first time in years, and allowed Greenspan to loosen the monetary supply. To posit that the recovery from the Bush recession should be credited to Reagan is, at best, disingenuous. And again, there is the business cycle to credit.

As for the welfare reform, the results of that are decidely mixed and still being tallied. If your sole criterion is numbers of bodies removed from the welfare rolls, then yes, Clinton was entirely more effective at that than his GOP predecessors. But given the tiny sliver of the budget that welfare represents versus interest on the debt, i.e., the largest single line item in the budget, to credit welfare reform with any part of the recovery (which began long before a single person was removed from the rolls) sounds like you are the one reaching for ideological conclusions, not me.

there was a leader named Reagan who was in charge when the critical time came that forced the downfall of communism in almost all corners of the world

Let's see, Eastern Bloc nations had their governments fall in '89, the USSR in '91. No Reagans were in charge then, and none were assisting the internal revolutions that began in Germany and spread through the Eastern Bloc. I respectfully submit that if you told the Poles or the Czechs or the Russians or the East Germans that Reagan brought down their governments, they would laugh. I will give credit, as I did in the post, for Reagan accepting Gorbachev's invitation to back away from the brink.

As for the differences between the two governmental systems, I don't give Reagan credit for inventing the free market. You shouldn't either. And I can point to plenty of free market economies that are abject failures and plenty of "socialistic" ones in the First World. Pointing to those, however, proves exactly as little as yours.

I respected him enough to let him lie in peace.

I'm not disturbing Reagan's body or his soul. I'm commenting on his political legacy. But congratulations on your high-mindedness.

they respected him for how he conducted himself or the humor he emplyed. Can't you even go that far?

Very well, by all accounts, since I never met the man, he was a charming and personable fellow. I'd call that damning by way of faint praise, though, as the same holds true for 'most all of my friends, as well.

Look, I find very little to praise about Reagan, the president. He may well have been an excellent husband, father, and friend, but I'm hardly in a position to say. I don't feel the need to go about searching for the few policy decisions I find creditable; the ongoing blizzard of hagiography will do that just fine without me. You can consider that an indication of my essential nastiness and unfairness if it pleases you to do so.

As thousands died in NYC as a result of an organization created as part of the zeal to oppose the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by Reagan, and Reagan provided Saddam with WMDs, I don't think much of his policies.

If "Star Wars", Reagan's missile defense shield, had looked possible, Soviet military doctrine would have required a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US.

Hundreds of Marines died in Lebanon for no reason on another of Reagan's misadventures.

Reagan engineered the biggest payroll tax increase in US history, and Paul Volcker's monetary policy had more to do with the economy that Reagan's smoke and mirrors.

And if you think this is a political attitude, you're right, as an admirer of Barry Goldwater, I was appalled by what Reagan did to the Grand Old Party.

I wore a Goldwater button around my high school in 1964. I heard the advertisements that Reagan made for Goldwater. I was an admirer or Goldwater, and I believe that Reagan lived up to much of those principles.

My question, Bryan, is did you have a change or heart about Goldwater policies.

I know I have. I have mellowed much in the latter years, obviously not so much in the area of economic policies but in the social aspects. But then Goldwater was very tolerant towards gay issues in his latter days.

Russ, I'll accept your faint praise of Reagan as a man of integrity. I didn't know if you could bring yourself to do it. My hat is off to you.

I think it would have been nice if some of Goldwater's basic tenents had at least been tried, rather than simply using the name "conservative" as people mounted a campaign of "borrow and spend". If you Stockman's book on supply-side he makes it clear that you have to reduce spending along with cutting taxes.

While politicians enjoy cutting taxes, they always refuse to cut spending.

The Reagan family is going to a period of grief and should be left alone. Even with the help that Nancy Reagan undoubtibly had, the process of Alzheimers is a terrible thing to witness, especially for people who have been married for decades.

Ronald Reagan's administration did a lot of very dangerous things and many of the people who advised him are again in positions of power.

Russ, I'll accept your faint praise of Reagan as a man of integrity. I didn't know if you could bring yourself to do it. My hat is off to you.

Far be it for me to put words in apostropher's mouth, but he didn't say anything about integrity. He called Reagan "charming and personable". Integrity is defined as a firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values. That's a nice stretch from "charming and personable".

I think we could all agree he and his administration had more integrity than the current one... but that's the very definition of damning with faint praise.

I voted for Reagan first time around, but started to shy away from him when the religious right adopted him. I never quite understood that, since Reagan himself was never very religious. The final straw was the Republican National Convention when both Pat Roberston and Pat Buchanan spoke about a cultural war against, well, me and my values.

But, back to the man. As is usually the case, the ideals he represented were very wonderful, and I thank him for that. Unfortunately, some of the implementations left something to be desired, but that is always the case, isn't it?

So I give him credit for representing to the world, at least for a time, the good of what America can be. He brought us back from the Carter malaise. It is a shame we over reached and those times didn't last longer.

The civic piety of mourning Reagan is completely different from what would be expected when somebody lost an uncle. I understand that we're expected to refrain from speaking ill of the dead as a matter of courtesy, but Reagan's family didn't ask to be left alone -- they asked for a state funeral with all the trimmings. In the atmosphere we can expect to wade through for the next week (which will no doubt seem a bit overblown even to many of Reagan's admirers), it's perfectly reasonable to reflect on his accomplishments and his failures.

Of course the pageant of national mourning expresses America's none-too-well disguised longing for the simplicity and grandeur of monarchy. My fun for the day was NPR's correspondent slipping in a description of Nancy Reagan's outfit and pearls at the (nationally televised) "private" ceremony held today in California.

great debates here, share you views at the link above. R.Reagan was all about pushing his evangelistic views on the US masses and his own agenda.

I hated Reagan. I didn't know the guy and I was a child for much of his administration, but I hated him nonetheless. As a child at the start of his administration I found him vaguely frightening. As a young adult at the end of his administration, I hated him for the culture of conformity and repression and hostility to diversity which he seemed to have helped create. I'm simply never going to like the guy who referred to AIDS by saying, "You mean that faggot disease?" To dilute or otherwise soften those feelings on his death, for the benefit of people who will never hear me anyway, would be to lie outrageously and lying never makes anything better. I think it's far more admirable to be honest no matter what.

This is a trick I see played out on more blogs than this, though: the neocon/conservative troll/compassionate conservative/rational rightist/(insert conservative template here) who pops up and trolls looking alternately to (a) change the subject, (b) troll for responses, (c) try to shame everyone with their "you meanie, narrow-minded lefties, I though you were here to share ideas," or (d) any or all of the above. The Poorman's been swamped with them, mostly of the (b) variety. Joy Paul seems to be of the (c) variety: see, I'm a conservative but I try to sound rational - don't you all feel guilty now?

To continue in what appears to be my self-chosen theme as a comment-monkey (that of the kneejerk leftist child), I say: lame, lame and more lame.

I get so tired of debating plitics with conservatives. Their narrow-mindedness will never allow themselves to see the world from the other side. And yes, Liberals do! In fact, we live on that other side.

Apostropher, that was an incredible post - i agree so much with all you said.

I can't see how anyone could ever look back at conservative or Liberal policies and say: 'Yes, i agree with all that those conservatives stood for.'

Humanity is always built from the left. For those who believe in religion and God, can u see the free market at work in heaven? Or are u more likely to be told to respect your fellow man?

someone please help me remember!! ---did reagan or not pass a bill that restricts retired persons from recieving social sec. & railroad retirement benifets that they earned ,to be called double dipping & not legal....

I lived in Central American During the 80's, in El Salvador to be exact. I remember everything, the war...with bullets flying over my 7 year old head IN A MALL. Escaping over dead bodies. Hearing about negihborhood KIDS being kidnapped by soldiers into the ARMY. My own dad being kidnapped, my mom running after the soldiers and them telling her to go home before she gets taken too. I laughed when I heard about Reagan health and death, and I'm still planning on spitting on his grave.