On Feb 7, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> People compare BHO with Reagan. But with Reagan, there was some
>> actual
>> political substance behind his slick exterior. You knew pretty
>> much what he
>> stood for, and what he was likely to do. It was a coherent
>> ideology presented
>> at a historically propitious moment.
>
> Yes and no. Reagan's ideology was certainly clear -- it was the John
> Birch ideology he'd had since the John Birch society was born. But
> when
> he got into office, that wasn't what he did. He vastly increased
> the size
> of government and signed SALT treaties with the Soviet Union -- the
> two
> main things he was supposed to be against.
Given the constitutional strictures on radical political changes in the U.S. - divided government, the Senate, etc. - Reagan's transformation of U.S. politics was remarkable. Sure he signed the SALT treaties, but he crushed the Nicaraguan revolution and did more than a little to bring down the USSR. Firing PATCO was the signal to begin open season on unions. There was a transformation of domestic priorities. And he transformed the "common sense" of the masses - the day to day understanding of how they live their lives. It was all real stuff, and mostly predictable. In fact, the transformation is probably so complete that you're not fully aware of it anymore.
Doug