You might, but most people are quite aware that Reagan was apartheid's biggest supporter in the Western world. They also recognize a cheap political stunt when they see it.
Washington Post. No friend to Reagan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...andela-was-on-a-terrorism-watch-list-in-2008/ While the Reagan administration’s official goal was to end apartheid, and while it consistently called for South Africa to free Mandela, the U.S. dragged its feet on the crucial issue of economic sanctions. ... http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/u-s-lionizes-mandella-death-treated-terrorist-life.html CIA involved in his arrest in 1962. ... Now, what right do we have, period, to intervene in another nation's affairs? I have no beef with the people uprising and instituting government of their choosing. Economic warfare is still warfare. Reagan was a lame duck. He could have appointed an ambassador who shared some mythical views you suggest he held. There was no need for a political stunt or any real point to one.
There's a big difference between what a president's official policy is and what they actually do. Speeches and appointing of ambassadors only go so far. Reagan wanted it both ways. The CIA being "involved" in the arrest of Mandela in the 1960s doesn't mean that JFK gave both Mandela and the ANC the terrorist label. Reagan did that. Cool. I'm not suggesting he had any view point except for not being a fan of Mandela. I would guess that Perkins wasn't a fan of Mandela either since at the time Mandela was being painted by the American right wing as the leader of a communist political group looking to overthrow a staunch U.S. ally through armed insurrection. I don't get why you think Reagan was anything other than a typical U.S. politician.
I don't think Reagan was a typical US politician. He was a true conservative, of which I can count a handful. William F Buckley, PJ O'Roarke, Barry Goldwater come to mind... Conservatism is based upon three principles: Libertarianism, anti-communism, and tradition. He spoke like a Libertarian. Government isn't the solution, it is the problem. He built up the military, but didn't use it to wage war. He made outright peace with our most mortal enemy, and came very close to eliminating the nuclear arsenals in the world at the summit in Iceland. At least they were greatly reduced and multiple further reductions enabled. The tradition and anti-communism bits don't interest me much, nor disinterest me. Factor them into his policies and they make sense. He wasn't right wing or left wing. He drew votes from republicans because of the R next to his name, but wasn't part of the republican establishment (GHW Bush, voodoo economics, etc.). He drew votes from Democrats, too. He was a Democrat and union leader. He and JFK were quite similar. If you liked one, you're a hypocrite to not like the other.
It's funny, Denny. I view Reagan almost exclusively in his role as a political touchstone. To me, Reagan was the guy who: -- Perfected the Southern Strategy of racial infighting -- Introduced the idea that the country can run large deficits during peace time where revenues are not roughly equal to expenditures -- Aligned the Republican party with the emerging Christian Right -- Developed techniques to incite the middle and upper class to turn on the poor I mean, this is the blueprint for the Republican party and how they kicked the Democratic party's ass for a good couple of decades plus. None of these things, with the exception of running deficits, is popular, or morally or socially acceptable now, but at the time, they were groundbreaking.
Wait. You're saying that Reagan figured out how the middle and upper classes could titillate those less fortunate than themselves?
And like a typical politician, what he said didn't match what he did. It was politics. He raised taxes over and over after the disastrous cuts of 1981. He increased the defense budget to Vietnam-era levels. He added federal agencies after promising to cut them. The national debt sky rocketed. El Salvador, Libya, Egypt, the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras and Panama. I don't know enough about Kennedy to compare the two.
I know very little about pre- and post- apartheid SA, which is to say, I know enough to understand that Mandela neither "freed the blacks" nor allowed "socialism to be the dominant force." But if you did believe that -- which again is incorrect -- how on earth would you still be able to debate whether he still was a net positive or net negative? Freaky, freaky stuff.
He did not wage war. He did retaliate and contribute peacekeeping troops. Some of those countries you list weren't Reagan. His deeds did match his rhetoric. The tax cuts raised revenues 2x, while democrats declared his budgets DOA and increased spending 3x. I enjoy the fiction, though.
JFK? He ran to the right of Nixon, bashing him for lack of military spending by Ike's administration. Very anti communist. Ever hear of the bay of pigs? He cut taxes. Elected via the southern strategy. Irish like Reagan, too. He was also buddies with Joseph McCarthy.
I, for one, am at least a little proud of the board for the Mandela thread having double the responses of the Walker thread.
