The Most Consequential Elections in History: Ronald Reagan and the Election of 1980
Reagan gave conservatism a pleasant face and an appealing voice
Says political scientist Alvin Felzenberg: "Of all who served as president of the United States, none came to office with a more clearly articulated vision of where he wanted to take the nation than Reagan. Like Jefferson and Jackson, Reagan came into office universally known as a spokesman for a significant political movement. If his two nineteenth-century predecessors promulgated their ideas through partisan newspapers and personal letters, Reagan's preferred medium was speeches. . . . Reagan offered nothing less than a complete reversal in the direction in which the nation had been headed prior to his inauguration as president. On the domestic front, he sought major reductions in marginal tax rates and fewer regulations on the economy. He argued that such measures would unleash the creative entrepreneurial impulses of the American people. Internationally, Reagan sought nothing less than having the United States prevail in the Cold War."
Under Reagan, the growth of government was slowed (though not stopped), taxes were reduced, the economy boomed, and the nation was at peace. In March 1983, Reagan made one of his most memorable declarations when he called the Soviet Union "an evil empire."
Yet, in a strange twist, during his second term, Reagan entered into a strategic partnership with a dynamic new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, a reformer and a strong leader in his own right. By the end of his eight-year presidency, Reagan said the U.S.S.R. that he once denounced had become his partner in seeking East-West accommodation.
Despite his popularity with voters, Reagan's critics never stopped their attacks. They argued that he was too conservative, wasted billions of dollars in a vast military buildup, allowed social problems to fester, and lacked an understanding of his own policies. They redoubled their criticism during the Iran-contra arms-for-hostages scandal in his second term. But Reagan recovered his popularity, and, by the end of his administration, most Americans told pollsters they liked the job he was doing. Perhaps most important, Americans got their confidence back; and that was due in no small measure to the man nicknamed "the Great Communicator."
More from our Most Consequential Elections series:
George Washington and the Election of 1788
Thomas Jefferson and the Election of 1800
Andrew Jackson and the Election of 1828
Abraham Lincoln and the Election of 1860
Abraham Lincoln and the Election of 1864
Theodore Roosevelt and the Election of 1904
Woodrow Wilson and the Election of 1912
Franklin Roosevelt and the Election of 1932
Lyndon Johnson and the Election of 1964
Reader Comments
Why Gov. Reagan was not recalled--from an insider
I worked hard to Recall Reagan, so my name was in the papers as I sought people to circulate petitions for signatures. I did it because RR, as a Regent, began tuition at our Land Grant colleges for the first time. He closed many public health agencies & his pals built their own. They benefited from govt. paid medical bills. Notaries by law had to notarize free the petitions. Many carriers told me notaries refused to notarize or charged as much as $10 a page. Some county clerks closed offices at odd times to prevent presentation of completed petitions. At that time, each signature had to have the precinct number with it. Many signers omitted that, invalidating their signature. In the last weeks, I went to LA County courthouse with others and used heavy registration books to fill in precinct numbers. The Recall failed. A student borrowed my notes & files for a doctoral dissertation. I'm told his work led to a change in the law so it's OK to omit precinct numbers. RR said his presidency was guided by the Vatican. As a Ban-Abortionist, RR increased Big Government by having so many people enforce church law banning abortion. Bush son did the same.
Not an Explanation of the Financial Crisis
Ah, Daniel, a well-written piece, but not an explanation of the financial crisis of today. My point is not all government is bad. Some government in the form of regulation and oversight is necessary, especially in the financial sector. Regulation and oversight are necessary, or unrestrained greed and corruption will take over, as they have today. Greed is what drives Wall Street, but it must be regulated, or unbridled speculation will be our downfall. Research the combined effect of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the 2000 Commodities Act (put in at last minute by Phil Gramm)--I was wrong about the dates-- and laws written by lobbyists for special interest groups, and see what effect that had. You cannot-- as Phil Gramm did-- put out into the public arena those off-the-books "credit default swaps" with no oversight from either the SEC (Securities exchange Commission) or the CTFC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission) without an eventual disastrous result. John McCain, Phil Gramm, and Allen Greenspan caused the majority of this mess by installing deregulation and no oversight under the guise of less government. REPUBLICANS REMOVED THE SAFETY NET FROM THE CIRCUS SWING THAT IS THE GAMBLE OF WALL STREET. I am just an average citizen who can read and research for myself --then hopefully --in a way the average person can understand-- set forth the main reasons for the incredible financial mess we are in today. Facts tell me deregulation and no oversight caused most of this financial crisis. Facts also tell me John McCain played a big part in it, and as President he will be just "more of the same." As I said before, at your own peril, vote Republican.
Limited Government, Not Less Government
Dorothy, you are mistaken. Its not totally your fault, though, the Republican Party has lacked the ability to eloquently explain and defend its views for a very, very long time. Perhaps they've forgotten their foundations all-together. As I understand it, what true conservatives value and strive for is Limited government. We believe that government is not bad, on the contrary, it is necessary, but only within the very specific limits of the Constitution. In this day in age, the federal government has overstepped its lawful bounds in so many ways, it is easy to understand how a conservative can sound like an anarchist.
Take the Department of Education: The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to administer a national public education system. This is a role better left to individual states and local communities. It would give you more of a say in the specific educational needs felt in your hometown, in your family. As it now stands, the federal government, far removed from you in Texas, dictates your local curriculum. A very unflexible system.
Another example is the financial industry. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to regulate (let me explain) the markets. It does give Congress the authority to regulate the value of your currency (and your dollar has been steadily losing purchasing power through monetary inflation since 1913) and international trade and administer justice in federal courts of law. Giving people individual freedom and responsibility naturally results in free marketplaces, where people can buy and sell goods and services with other willing parties. Of course, contracts must be upheld, theivery punished, unsafe products proclaimed. This is justice, and these your safeguards. But regulation infringes on individual freedom and opens the door to a flood of inintended consequences.
On the other hand, the Federal Government has some very important roles, which should be administered efficiently, skillfully, and strongly. These include foreign diplomacy, national defense, Federal courts, the coining/printing of money, the regulation of international and interstate commerce, and several others (see Article 1, Section 8). The Constitution is clear that those powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved for the States and the People. This is why conservatives strive for limited government. It preserves freedom, by putting most power in the hands of the states and local communities.
If you disagree with those powers, then the Constitution needs to be amended.
advertisement
