Ronald Reagan was a Better President than FDR

1. ECONOMICS Pro's case today is based on the notion that Reagan's policies grew the economy. No argument here. However, the crucial issue here is that FDR's did so as well, and more successfully. GDP grew consistently over the course of the Roosevelt Presidency (with a small dip in 1937), and at the end of the President's second term, stood at $126.7 billion, more than twice what it had been when he took office.[1] This, by anyone's yardstick, is a spectacular economic success. By contrast, the economy in Q1 of 1989 when Reagan left office was just under 30% larger than in Q1 of 1981 when he took office. Not unimpressive, but it is clear which President's economy generated more growth. Pro supplies us with a quote that lists a number of government interventions in the economy introduced under FDR which are still in place, without giving us any reason why these policies are be bad things in general, let alone in the specific context of FDR's administration. Pro asserts that FDR's policies only create growth in a 'Magical liberal fairytale -' I have shown how, in the real world, more growth occurred under FDR than Reagan. Roosevelt also had more success in tackling unemployment than Reagan. Unemployment in 1932 (the last year of the Hoover administration) stood at 23.53%. By the end of FDR's second term, it had fallen to 9.66%, a 59% reduction. The fall under Reagan was 24%. Even if we discount the later years of the Roosevelt administration on the grounds that preparation for WWII rather than the New Deal was responsible for the growth (and we shouldn't, for the precise reason that they demonstrate conclusively that government spending can grow the economy) then the reduction in unemployment during FDR's first term alone, 1933-37, is substantially greater (40%) than during the entire eight years of Reagan. [2] Pro also points to Reagan's success in restraining inflation, but in the economic climate FDR inherited, the problem was the opposite - not one of inflation but of deflation. Banking and currency crises in 1931 led to nations rushing to increase their gold reserves until, as Bernanke and Carey [3] argue, "Individual countries were only able to escape the deflationary vortex by unilaterally abandoning the gold standard and restoring domestic money stability." FDR therefore deliberately encouraged inflation through measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. As a result, the change from severe deflation to consistent mild inflation under Roosevelt was a good thing. Therefore, Roosevelt increasing inflation while Reagan lowered it should not count in favor of the latter, because in both cases the change in the rate of inflation was beneficial to the US.[4] 2. FOREIGN POLICY Pro, as with many conservatives, credits Reagan's policies for bringing about the end of the Cold War. Even if this were true, the two foreign policy records would be essentially a wash, since FDR's policies also led directly to the fall of an evil dictatorship. However, I will demonstrate that the credit Reagan receives for the role he played in the fall of the USSR is massively overblown. As Alexander George [5] explains, "The increase in the relative power advantage enjoyed by the United States... was of quite limited and indirect value in explaining the transition in US-Soviet relations." The primary driver was the "Abysmal deterioration in the performance of the Soviet economy." Christopher Xenakis [6] notes that "Most American Sovietologists miss[ed] the sure signs of Soviet change that were evident during the 1970s and 1980s." In other words, the inefficiencies and internal contradictions of the communist system were there all along and doomed the Soviet project to failure. Wolf [7] noted that in 1980, the costs of the 'Soviet Empire' ie the nonmilitary cost of maintaining control over its outer republics and satellites came to over 38 billion rubles (up to $35bn in 1985 dollars) and had grown at a rate of 12% over the course of the 1970s, massively outstripping Soviet GDP growth. This was clearly not sustainable, whoever was in the White House. Reagan's foreign policy record also contains many episodes of questionable judgement. He committed American marines to a UN Peacekeeping force in the Lebanon in 1982 without, in the words of then-Congressman John McCain, "Any obtainable objectives." 241 Americans were killed when their barracks were bombed by Islamic Jihad operatives. Reagan was then forced to withdraw, meaning those American lives had been lost for no tangible gain whatsoever. Senior members of the Reagan administration were also involved in selling guns to the Islamist regime in Iran in order to fund the supply of armaments to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, in direct contravention of Congressional resolutions demanding that support for the Contras be cut off entirely. The Contra rebels were described by Human Rights Watch [8] as "Major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict." The evidence is unclear as to whether President Reagan was actively aware that money was being diverted to the Contras, but he is known, in the words of his national security adviser, to have asked that the Contras be kept 'body and soul together.' Eleven members of the Administration were convicted for their part in the affair. At best, Reagan was guilty of gross negligence. At worst, of directly breaking US law in support of a group known for launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians. 3. MORAL LEADERSHIP On this matter, I will first attempt to contextualize the examples presented by my opponent. I will in the second round supply evidence of how Roosevelt took important action on civil rights in the face of opposition from his own party, and how Reagan failed to take action to save American lives during the AIDS crisis because he was in thrall to extremist Christian elements. On the subject of the Supreme Court, my question here is, who was actually harmed by this episode? More supreme court justices is not, in itself, a bad thing. Yes, the appointees would likely have been liberals, which again is not inherently bad (if one accepts the premise that liberals are inherently bad, there is no debate here). This is a purely procedural issue, of almost no relevance to the actual lives of Americans, which FDR clearly improved. With regard to Japanese internment, I have no desire to defend the practice. It is a black mark against FDR's record. I ask however that voters take into account Reagan's many failings that actually cost lives at home, in Lebanon, and in Nicaragua, and to consider the importance of victory over the evil regimes in Tokyo as well as Berlin, and how that may have made it more difficult to say no to any measure which might have assisted in American success against said forces. [1]Johnston, L, and Williamson, S (2011) "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?" MeasuringWorth. Accessed from http://www.measuringworth.com... [2] http://www.u-s-history.com... [3] Bernanke, B, and Carey, K, (1996) Nominal Wage Stickiness and Aggregate Supply in the Great Depression. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111(3): 853-883. [4] http://www.tradingeconomics.com... [5] George, A, The Transition in U.S.-Soviet Relations, 1985-1990: An Interpretation from the Perspective of International Relations Theory and Political Psychology. Political Psychology 12(3): 469-486. [6] Xenakis, C (2002): What Happened to the Soviet Union? How and Why American Sovietologists Were Caught by Surprise. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. [7] Wolf, C, The Costs of the Soviet Empire. Science (New Series) 230(4729): 997-1002. [8]http://www.hrw.org...