Ronald Reagan was a better President than FDR

Overview: Even if I concede pro-Reagan points, FDR was still more successful. Defeat of Hitler and positioning of the U.S. as the #1 superpower vastly outweighs the importance of winning the Cold War. Permanent structural reforms in banking created 70 years of economic stability that the Reagan tax cuts don’t even come close to matching. The G.I. bill set the innovation-driven trajectory of the U.S. economy and had a far greater impact than any of Reagan’s deregulation. Reagan is beaten before we even consider Social Security, the resolution of the Great Depression crisis, or creation of the atomic bomb. Voting Junk: I actually don’t think either side should get the sources vote. My point is only that Pro’s views are supported by a very narrow perspective, e.g. Pro’s R2 sources: a GOP politician, the Heritage Foundation, and three neoliberal economists. I also don’t think either side should get conduct- but since Pro mentioned it: It is unfair to post sources in the comments. I had to edit down my arguments to make room for including my sources, Pro should too. Pro engages in gutter tactics by calling FDR an anti-Semite. 1930’s America was heavily anti-Semitic with stringent/racist immigration laws, little FDR could do little under political circumstances. He used executive authority to alter immigration quotas to allow 50,000 Jews to immigrate, allow residents to support relatives on visas, and allowed 15,000 Jewish tourists to overstay expired visas – all before WW2. FDR had Jews on his cabinet and actual anti-Semites called him “Rosenfeld” while deriding the “Jew Deal.” Sorry for “parading around the numbers”- I only do so to refute Pro’s ridiculous claim that the Cold War was more serious than the deadliest conflict in history.Since Pro posted new arguments in the final round, I will too. Ronald Reagan I. Economic Policy Pro’s description of the 80’s recession is in line with mine (note his unemployment chart doesn’t show how unemployment had been falling as Reagan took office). My source describes the recession as a W-shaped recession caused by stagflation. Volcker’s monetary policy, combined with a natural uptick in the economic cycle, reduced inflation and caused the expansion. Again, most of the credit is due to Carter appointee Volcker’s monetary policy reducing the inflation that had been hindering the 70’s economy. Pro has never addressed this point. I don’t know what to make of Pro’s argument that Carter didn’t deregulate. It is a simple historical fact that deregulation started under Ford with the Railroad Reform Act and Carter continued it by deregulating airlines, trucking, and removing oil price controls. That the economy of the 70’s underperformed the 80’s does not change these historical facts. Moreover, it makes sense that the benefits of deregulation would not be seen immediately but would only appear as industry adjusted to new policies. II. Cold War All I need to do to prove revolutions are caused by conditions other than war is provide historical examples. Pro never refuted my examples of American and Indian independence, two revolutions that happened in the absence of existing war. Modern revolutions in Egypt and Syria also prove the case. On top of this, the final collapse of the Soviet Union wasn’t caused by War! There was no violent confrontation that brought on the collapse of the USSR! Even CIA 1970’s-80’s intelligence at the time described USSR economic collapse as “inevitable,” predicted deeps structural reforms, and foresaw that Soviet decline was “potentially more significant for the 1980s than ‘anything the regime has had to cope with in the past three decades’”[2]. Pro’s account is incoherent: according to him the USSR was just fine until Reagan launched SDI, at which point the USSR got scared and decided to pre-emptively dissolve their empire. Pro isn’t even making the argument that most pro-Reagan advocates make! The fact is the USSR was crumbling under its own weight. The USSR could never have survived because their command-economy couldn’t compete with Western market economies. In this respect the economic course set by FDR’s G.I. Bill did more to win the war than Reagan. On top of this, the USSR was plagued with social ills like rampant alcoholism and a declining life expectancy. On top of THAT the country was struggling to keep control of its vast array of discontented satellite states- again, 10% of Poland was part of a formal anti-USSR party. Reagan’s policy was a failure because he needlessly turned the U.S. from largest creditor to the largest debtor nation in the world. III. Iran-Contra Pro doesn’t dispute the Tower Committee’s conclusion that Reagan ought to have known about Iran-Contra. At best the incident shows that Reagan ran his administration so poorly an international crime that would hurt U.S. credibility for decades could occur without his knowledge. IV. Savings and Loan Bush tax cuts have nothing to do with S&L. The Reagan tax cuts were written so that they eliminated a tax break that S&L institutions relied on. S&L institutions failed, creating a crisis that cost taxpayers $150 billion and a recession in the early 90’s. Fortunately the banking reform FDR put in place contained the crisis and prevented it from causing economic meltdown. FDR I. New Deal Pro may not think the U.S. was on the brink of Revolution in 1932, but the Hoover administration sure did. A 20,000 man army sat outside D.C. When MacArthur violently displaced them using the Army, he said the mob was animated by “the essence of revolution.” Nebraska farmers threatened the governor “200,000 of us are coming to Lincoln and we’ll tear that new State Capitol Building to pieces” States were maintaining order using the National Guard. The U.S. was on the brink of collapse and FDR regained public trust and confidence. Pro tries to pick one random economic study to prove his point. I am aware some economists hold his view, but I have already shown that the consensus does not. Pro wrongly adds the poll numbers. “Agree with proviso” means respondents had enough reservations not to back the statement- their provisos could totally counter the conclusions Pro is trying to draw. Even if it was appropriate to add the numbers, it would only show there is no consensus and the issue becomes neutral with respect to this debate. Finally, claims that the Great Depression would have resolved itself assume that no further bank runs occurred and civil unrest did not prevail. In the absence of New Deal programs like the Bank Holiday, which spurred a massive return of capital to banks, other crises could have happened. Again, the New Deal success is the stabilization of a crisis situation and prevention of further economic free-fall. Pro’s unemployment chart shows unemployment increasing up to the New Deal and then immediately declining, this seems to suggest the New Deal was effective. II. Banking Security Pro doesn’t address the bulk of my points, that Banking reform created 70 years of economic stability. For the record the largest single day gain on Wall Street was March 15, 1933- the day after the bank holiday ended. III. Social Security Extend my unrefuted study showing S.S. reduces elderly poverty. [9] Pro is correct that the Gallup poll shows people think the program needs reform, but it also shows that 60% of people with benefits rely on it as a major source of income, and that people want to see balanced reform of benefit cuts combined with tax increase. People want and enjoy Social Security; they just recognize it needs reform. For a 70-year old social program this can be considered a fantastic success. IV. He did so much! Pro’s claim people rank Reagan as the greatest president but offers no citation. Aggregation of a wide range of polls shows FDR consistently in the top 3, among both conservatives and liberals. Reagan occasionally makes top 10. [1] Extend that FDR cured polio, repealed prohibition, and can walk on water. V. Court Packing Pro says Court Packing was bad because it prevented New Deal legislation, but Pro also says New Deal was bad- Pro’s argument is incoherent. At any rate, extend my argument that Court Packing was good because it killed the tactic for future presidents. VI. World War 2 Pro’s only argument here is that Hitler would have lost the war because he was a bad commander. Yet Hitler conquered continental Europe. No matter how bad a commander Hitler was, he would have won the war if Britain and/or Russia had run out of ammunitions, ships, money, or food. U.S. supplied Britain with 25% of their munitions. German U-boats were sinking British ships 3 times faster than Britain could replace them, nearly cutting off Britain from the Allies. Only U.S. B-24 bombers were able to reverse the direction of the battle for control of the sea. Britain was broke before the U.S. even entered the war- only FDR’s Lend Lease and Destroyers for Bases plan enabled Britain to maintain the war effort. Assume the war would have been won without the U.S. This would have happened by Russia reconquering Nazi occupied Europe – recall that the only reason there were U.S./British troops in the West was because FDR pushed for a second front. The war would have ended with a Soviet controlled Europe- the Cold War would be over before it began with Russia as global hegemon. WWII has two sides- FDR not only defeated Hitler but positioned the U.S. to emerge from the war as the premier superpower. G.I. Bill and Atom Bomb Pro doesn’t even try to refute these points, he just concedes that FDR set the economy on an innovation-driven path that would eventually outpace the Soviet economy and that FDR created the greatest weapon for maintaining U.S. security and military supremacy, the atomic bomb. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.cia.gov...