Ronald Reagan hurt America, more than he helped it.

First let me get this out of the way: I am a libertarian, not a Reaganesque conservative. Indeed, I do not believe that Ronald Reagan was a good president. However, I do believe that President Reagan was a net positive on the United States. First let me say that I agree with your first two points. The foreign policy of Ronald Reagan was wickedly counterproductive in both Latin America and the Middle East. He pushed forward a policy of supporting one evil (the Contras and Mujahideen) to defeat another evil (Communism). In Latin America this has had the very unfortunate effect of hindering "gringo" market reforms- reforms that are crucial to lifting Latin America out of poverty. In the Middle East, supporting the Mujahideen and the dictatorships of Iraq and Iran has indeed led to a great deal of anti-Americanism that, very likely, led directly to 9/11. With that, how could I possibly argue that Ronald Reagan had a net positive effect on the United States? First off, I would argue that one of his domestic achievements alone counterbalances the negative effects of the above: he gave Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker the green light to fight the 13.5% inflation that the Reagan administration inherited. Just take in that staggering figure for a second. Every year everything would, on average, get 13.5% more expensive. Retirees' savings were wiped out, unemployment was high and the banking system itself was on the verge of collapse. Combating inflation required very drastic, politically unpopular action. Interest rates eventually rose to over 20%, creating short-term unemployment and an even deeper recession. Without this painful crunch, however, the "stagflation" that Reagan inherited would have continued. Because Reagan resisted political action against this shock therapy, the United States economy was literally saved. After his first two years, inflation was tamed with unemployment lowering. Reagan's attitude of "if not now, when?" was a positive departure from the "quick fix" solutions of Nixon, Ford and Carter. Indeed, this departure was literally responsible for the remarkable rebound of the American economy. When Reagan left office, even taking into account the relatively mild recession that followed, the United States was a more stable and prosperous country. You correctly criticize the deficit spending that occurred under the Reagan administration. However, most of that responsibility lies in the fact that congress was unreceptive to cutting domestic spending. Part of the blame lies in Reagan's inability to convince Congress to do so, but there was only so much he could do with a solidly Democratic Congress. Also, are you seriously going to argue that cutting the top income tax rate from 70% to 50% was a net negative on the American economy? Reagan did underachieve in pushing the free market reforms he advocated so eloquently, but he did change the ideological balance of power in this country. After all, how many politicians today are advocating price controls and nationalizing industries? Finally, Reagan did have a positive impact on opening up the era of globalization that has positively impacted the living standards not just of Americans but foreigners. Reagan and his ideological ally Margaret Thatcher represented a sea change away from the interventionism of Keynesian economic doctrine to more free market approaches. The impact of this ideological shift could be seen at the time in the rejection of socialism by Eastern Europeans and afterwards by their remarkable growth under free market policies advocated by Reagan. Estonia, the "Baltic Tiger," is the best example of this. In short, Reagan was not what I would call a good president. However, he had a net positive impact on the United States by sacrificing political capital to defeat inflation, rejecting the interventionist Keynesian doctrines that had decimated the American economy during the 70's and helping lay the ideological foundations for the globalized economy. These outweigh his unwise policies in Latin America, the Middle East and his domestic failures.