Ronald Reagan was a better President than FDR

I will rebut Pro’s case using his argument structure. At the top I would also like to make a point about reliability of sources. Pro is relying heavily on conservative sources while I am making use of respected historians, economic papers, and neo-liberal economists. Ronald Reagan I. Economic Policy I have not conceded this point. My argument is that Reagan’s economic policies were simply in line with the economic trends of his time and an extension of existing policy. Ford initiated the era of deregulation with rail reform in ’76 and Carter continued to push for deregulation of the transportation and energy sectors. Put simply, deregulation wasn’t a Reagan policy, it was a long-term trend in U.S. domestic policy. Pro also doesn’t refute that most of the credit belongs to Carter-appointee Paul Volcker, which stabilized price inflation [1]. Additionally, the economy was coming out of a recession just as Reagan took office, demonstrating that the Reagan expansion was part of a natural business cycle boom [2]. Finally, Pro glosses over the fact that Reagan tripled the national debt and took the U.S. from being a creditor to debtor nation by noting that it was mostly military spending. [3] This hardly changes the fact that Reagan birthed the chronic national debt problem and FAILED to meet his own goal of decreased government spending. II. The Cold War First, Pro’s whole argument is that Reagan outspent the USSR, forcing economic collapse; his argument wholly contradicts the D’Souza quote. Pro’s D’Souza quote is an excellent example of why D’Souza is not a respected historian. There are many, many examples of economic collapse ending regimes- one example would be the Bolshevik revolution that freaking put Stalin in power Third, I list multiple reasons why the USSR was crumbling, including imperial overstretch on top of social unrest and instability. Sort of like the causes of the revolutions in US or India. Finally, my argument isn’t that Reagan had zero impact on the fall of the USSR- it is that Reagan’s escalation was unnecessary and drove the country into debt. Even if Reagan pushed up USSR collapse by a few years, this is a negligible gain compared to the 20% GDP debt run up and destruction of US credit. The Carter Doctrine was a declaration of US interests in the Persian Gulf followed by deployment of naval forces to the region. This combined with the ramping of military forces and the boycott of the 1980 Olympics mark the end of Cold War détente and the start of hard line US policy. Again, Reagan’s policies were really Carter’s! Citing conflicts that took place pre-Carter doesn’t refute my point. Afghanistan actually demonstrates that escalation took place pre-Reagan, as it was Carter that provided military aid to the Afghanistan muhjadeen, forcing the Soviet spending Pro claims won the cold War. Pro concedes SDI failed at its expressed purpose of creating a missile defense shield and basically just collapses it into an example of Reagan’s unnecessary military spending. Reagan could have at least spent the money on something useful for defense like FDR did when he created the A-bomb. III. Iran-Contra Pro just tries to dodge responsibility for Reagan- but the bottom line is the buck stops with the president. The Tower Commission may have found no evidence of Reagan’s knowledge, but it heavily criticized him for his failure in leadership. Pro ignores the illegal sale of arms to a State Sponsor of terrorism and the lasting damage the incident did to U.S. credibility. If you buy Pro’s responsibility dodge then you ought to let FDR off the hook for Japanese internment as a case of deferring to military command. IV. Savings and Loan Pro doesn’t address my argument that Reagan’s poorly constructed tax changes caused a banking crisis and a recession. The salient point here is that while Reagan wasn’t responsible for most of the economic growth, it was undoubtedly his policy that caused this crisis. Additionally, the banking crisis was resolved by the FDIC, an organization put in place by FDR. Reagan should thank FDR for preventing a small crisis from turning into a serious one. FDR! I. New Deal First, Pro misses the heart of my argument- arguing about whether or not the New Deal was an optimal economic policy is arguing around at the fringes of the issue. The New Deal prevented the collapse of capitalism in the U.S., occurred during the largest period of economic growth in U.S. history, and was followed by the rise of U.S. economic supremacy. Pro ignores my points about the crisis of capitalism- food riots and violent civil unrest organizing behind revolutionary politicians- and the clear immediate effect the New Deal had in saving the market-economy system. The true New Deal victory is resolution of the immediate crisis facing the country. Pro misrepresents my evidence- 51% disagree that the New Deal hurt the Great Depression, 27% agreed, and 22% agreed only if they could add modifying statements. The clear consensus is in favor of the New Deal, with a group taking issue with certain aspects of it. My source also shows a consensus that the economy showed less volatility following the New Deal, suggesting economic reform helped create long term stability. Neither side is going to provide a convincing argument on such an involved topic. Economists still debate the issue and this debate does not afford enough space to flesh out solid arguments. My tactic here is to point out the clear New Deal successes- the points that even neoliberal economists can get behind- rather than argue at the margins about what policies might have worked a little better. Compare the U.S. post-New Deal economy to any other country in the world and come back and tell me what a failure the policy was. II. Banking Security Pro ignores my argument that banking reform a) had the immediate effect of restoring confidence in the financial system and b) was crucial to long term economic stability. Economists can’t predict events like bank runs that dependent on market confidence. FDR headed off a possible crisis- his policies resulted in the largest Wall Street gain on record. Even neoliberals like Friedman agree that the banking reform was sound monetary policy that was desperately needed. Alan Greenspan testified “it is clear that deposit insurance has played a key--at times even critical--role in achieving the stability in banking and financial markets that has characterized the past almost seventy years.” [5] Cross-apply my R2 [1] that consensus is post-New Deal economy is more stable. Banking reform is a greater success than Reagan’s economic policy because it represents a fundamental change to how the global economy operates that resulted in economic stability. III. Social Security Pro offers no evidence about the harms of Social Security. I have evidence that it helps reduce elderly poverty. Additionally, Social Security provides an increased quality life through the financial security is guarantees individuals in our society. People value the program, which is why Americans overwhelmingly oppose cutting benefits [4]. The American people support Social Security, which is probably why the American people hold FDR in such high regard. IV. He did so much! Pro says he “could” list pieces of historic legislation by Reagan but doesn’t. My point is over 13 years, FDR amassed a huge legacy of important legislation that pushes him over the top in this debate. V. Court Packing Pro gives no explanation of how the Court Packing had adverse effects. Extend my argument that the failed scheme was actually good since it killed the tactic for future generations. VI. GI Bill Pro drops this point. This bill changed college from an institution for the wealthy to a widely accessible program to develop a highly trained and skilled workforce. The program sent 8 million veterans to further education, created a housing boom, and drove the movement of low wage farmers to better paying jobs in towns and cities that fueled the post-war boom. The G.I. bill also set the U.S. economy up to win the Cold War by prompting a switch to innovation-driven professional markets, exactly the economic sector the USSR couldn’t compete in. As the global economy shifted toward a focus on technology, the momentum towards a highly educated populace provided by the G.I. Bill proved invaluable. VII. Atomic Bomb The atomic bomb cemented the U.S. as post-war superpower and eventually global hegemon. FDR gave us the greatest military superiority in the history of mankind. Russia had committed to attacks on the Japanese homeland, but Truman was able to win the war before mobilization could take place using the atomic bomb. Considering how the iron curtain fell across USSR occupied post-war Europe, USSR troops in Japan likely would have given control of Asia to the USSR drastically altering the course of the Cold War. FDR BEAT HITLER FDR not only ended the worst war in history and preventing a genocidal empire from achieving global hegemony, but did so while positioning the U.S. to come out as the victor among victors. Pro doesn’t contest any of my analysis, so go ahead and credit FDR with everything that happened thanks to Hitler not winning. This is the biggest impact in this debate. Even if I concede every point about Reagan, Reagan’s achievements will never match winning WWII. Had the Nazi’s won, we would have seen mass genocide across Europe and Africa. The U.S. would have been encircled by Nazi Europe and a Japanese Pacific, leaving global markets in the hands of the Axis powers. The U.S. would have wound up a minor and broken country, bending knee to the Fuhrer in the West and the Emperor in the East. 1 http://econpapers.repec.org... 2 http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 http://www.cbo.gov... 4 http://www.gallup.com... 5 http://www.banking.senate.gov...