Five Reasons Reagan Was a Better President Than Dubya
In honor of Ronald Reagan’s 92nd birthday, I challenged myself to come up with something nice to say about a president I was none too fond of when he was in office. Most of my memories of the Reagan era were of being terrified that a nuclear war would break out any minute, and of wondering how, less than 10 years after Watergate, people like Oliver North, John Poindexter and William Casey were able to run their own evil little empires inside the US government. Nevertheless, if I had the choice between our current administration and Reagan (first term), I’d very reluctantly choose the latter. Here’s why:
- Reagan had genuine life experience, having grown up in humble circumstances, lived through the Depression, and managed to have a varied and interesting career in Hollywood before entering politics. Although this did not give him much sympathy for the plight of impoverished people, at least he had some idea what they were going through. GWB was born into privilege and coasted from one silver-platter opportunity to another, often in an alcoholic haze.
- Reagan’s much more substantial prior government experience as Governor of California better prepared him for the presidency than Bush’s as part-time Governor of Texas. Reagan managed a contentious legislature, proposed complex budgets and dealt with difficult issues. Say what you want, it took some courage to be the most conservative politician in America during the 1960s, governing the state that was ground-zero for the counterculture.
- There is some evidence that Reagan was actually intellectually engaged in the issues he advocated. During the late 70s, before he ran against Carter, Reagan wrote and delivered weekly radio broadcasts proclaiming his views on a wide variety of issues. His positions were often wacky, but at least he thought them through for himself and was not exclusively a mouthpiece for special interests. There is no evidence that GWB can think through or articulate a position on anything without cue-cards in front of him. The idea of him writing his own speeches is laughable.
- Reagan was poised, articulate and charming, even when the words coming out of his mouth were bellicose threats or ill-conceived policy ideas. Bush is thoroughly inarticulate and comes across as defensive, shifty, and completely without connection to the words he is saying. This is extremely disconcerting, especially when he’s being threatening or trying to explain some weird proposal.
- Reagan actually won two presidential elections and could claim a genuine mandate for his platform. Bush has yet to win one.
In spite of these important differences, it’s amusing to see how often GWB is compared to the Gipper by misty-eyed conservatives harking back to the good old days. Actually, from what I’ve read, the best historical comparison for Bush junior combines the endearing charm of Woodrow Wilson with the intellectual substance of his successor, Warren Harding. Go ahead, look it up…
11:26:06 AM 
|
|
