Debunking the Reagan Myth - By Paul Krugman

After reading this article I am very upset with Obama even though I support him. I am a little befuddled that Krugman didn't mention Hillary's website suggesting her praise for Reagan though I know Krugman loves Hillary. That is not fair to Obama. Still his article makes some very important points. It's time for both Obama and Hillary to cool the fucking Reagan praise. As Krugman pointed out we should be pointing out the failures of the Reagan years especially after Bush has attempted the trickle down economics again leading us into another recession. Bush's economic policy's (just like Reagan's) have been a complete disaster!



Debunking the Reagan Myth

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?ref=opinion

"Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?"

Interesting reading.

"Do you believe Reaganomics was a failure and would you promise not to enact similar economic policies and if you do will you agree to resign?

The top thread on Editorals and Articles forum already has this story.

as a reality check for those claiming Obama was not currying favor with GOP ers.

Welcome to DU, by the way. Does Obama pay well?

I don't support Obama.
But chaos shouldn't reign here. Those who post articles in GDP do so because they know E$A has very few viewers.

Why do we have the Editorials and other Articles forum then? What is its purpose?

as well as editorials for the reason you cite. Not many people go to that forum and this topic is of general interest.

...from now on.

I was a bit confused about the rules.
I thought articles and editorials should be posted in that other forum, but thanks for clarifying. I will now copy and paste them here, along with a little comment about it, to make it a discussion.

Cheers.

I would not have been upset if Obama had said he admired Reagan's ability to communicate his ideas.

What upset me was Obama's comment about Reagan being for entrepreneurship when Reagan was for the opposite (corporations). I was also upset when Obama referred to the excesses of the 60s and 70s. Those decades brought us the voting rights act (thanks King AND Johnson--both men were necessary for that act to get passed); women's rights; and anti-Vietnam marches. I don't understand how anyone who is anti-Iraq could object to anti-Vietnam marches.

Also, I was upset that Obama didn't defend FDR and Harry Truman for their work in strengthening the middle class. Reagan was all about undoing that work. We can see the result clearly because the gap between the top and the bottom is reverting to what it was before FDR.

I wonder if Obama said what he did to win rural votes in Nevada. If so, he succeeded. But, I went from leaning to Obama to leaning to Edwards or Hillary.

I will still support the Dem nominee because I think the Dem will be better than the Repub.

:hi: