Agree and disagree. A POTUS is evaluated at the current time for their time in office. Currently we can evaluate Reagan. Currently we can evaluate Clinton. But it should be the people that matter in those evaluation now and in the future... Not a couple nerd PoSci dudes on a zoom call.
in fairness, Democrats had large majorities in the house during the entire Reagan term. There is no way he could have unilaterally cut non defense spending if he wanted to. His increases in defense / Cold War spending amounted to an increase of a little more than 1% of gdp vs years prior U.S. Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024 Interest rates were increased by Volcker dramatically starting in 1979, and did not go below 10% until 1986 Market Yield on U.S. Treasury Securities at 10-Year Constant Maturity, Quoted on an Investment Basis As a result interest as a percent of gdp went from about 1.5% of gdp to 3.0% of gdp by mid 80s. Market Yield on U.S. Treasury Securities at 10-Year Constant Maturity, Quoted on an Investment Basis So IMO the assertion that Reagan was a big spending lib at best lacks nuance.
Nobel laureate Milton Friedman credits Ronald Reagan for the success of both the Reagan and Clinton economies. Clinton gets little if any credit. Reagan deregulation and tax rate cuts helped the Reagan and Clinton economies. Unlike what most any other president would do, Reagan backed Fed chairman Volker's tough monetary policy in order to beat inflation, even as it led to recession and pushed Reagan's approval ratings into the 30's. Reagan decreased government spending as a percent of GDP after inflation was brought under control Over the last 6 years of Reagan's term annual GDP growth averaged 4.5% Average GDP growth during the Clinton administration averaged 4%. Friedman credits Reagan's tax rate cuts and deregulation and the excellent job done by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan for the Clinton economy. Greenspan was appointed by Reagan in 1987 What credit should Clinton get? Friedman says that because Clinton was a Democrat he couldn't get a lot of new spending passed by the Republican congress and that was good for the economy. The stain of docspor's remarks on Reagan have hereby been eradicated Reagan's number one economic advisor, Uncle Miltie:
...or it proves how low down the list Biden should be, which is more to my point. A majority think Trump is/was a better potus than Biden and that is the only "ranking" that ultimately matters. If Biden was a better Potus than Reagan, his VP would have won
40-45% of voters always vote republican. 40-45% of voters always vote democratic. It is generally independent, low engaged swing voters who swing it one way or other. So you are saying those voters are the best historical judge of performance?
Not exclusively... Im saying that historical polls still show Reagan as a great POTUS. (Non engaged people font take part in those polls.) And yes i absolutely yhink elections are indicators. 20M (or whatever the number landed at) people on his side think the admin sucked so bad they didnt even vote against Trump. This "Biden is a great potus" perception doesn't show up in any meaningful data point outside of these " scholars". Wanna talk Obama...or Clinton...I'll listen. But Biden?...and his two coherent years? C'mon...no stinking way
Not really. A potus ranked that high ...while still in office ..could not be unable to run again and would at least carry his VP to victory. Instead, even his own side didn't turn out. Thats a pratty low mark for a sitting POTUS.
He isnt better than average, but they considered him a better option than Kamala and probably Biden too in this current moment in time. Once again (sigh), I'm not saying Trump is a good potus at all. Not even close...I am saying Biden isnt better than Reagan, and so do the American people by their approval ratings. (Then and now)