Ronald Reagan

Transformative Presidents In Diplomacy And Foreign Affairs

Ronald 3 Comments

With Presidents Day coming up on Monday, this is a good time to assess the Presidents who were transformative in diplomacy and foreign affairs.

The Presidents who truly made a difference in foreign policy would include the following, chronologically:

Thomas Jefferson—who presided over the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 negotiated with France, and the handling of the Chesapeake Affair of 1807, avoiding war with Great Britain, but causing decline in public opinion about Jefferson as he left office, due to the economic decline caused by the Embargo Act.

James Monroe—who, with the brilliant leadership of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, was able to gain control of Florida in 1819, settle much of the Canadian boundary in the same time frame, and promote the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, a major part of American foreign policy in the future.

James K. Polk—under whom the Pacific Northwest was gained by negotiation with Great Britain, and the American Southwest and California by war with Mexico between 1846 and 1848.

William McKinley—under whom Hawaii was added as a territory, and America gained an “Empire” by engagement in the Spanish American War in 1898.

Theodore Roosevelt—under whom America fully engaged with the outside world, including foreign crises and wars in Europe and Asia, as well as growing intervention in Latin America between 1901-1909.

Woodrow Wilson—under whom America fully entered into international war involvement in the First World War in 1917, and then rejected internationalism as Wilson left office in 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt—who took America out of isolationism in the late 1930s, and presided over our involvement in World War II between 1941-1945, and the growth of America as a super power by 1945.

Harry Truman—who led us into the Cold War with the Soviet Union after 1945, with transitional foreign policy leadership that set the mold for the next half century until 1991.

Richard Nixon—who moved America toward detente with the Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, and opened up to mainland China between 1969 and 1974.

George H. W, Bush—who smoothed the end of the Cold War, was receptive to a unified Germany as a result, and created a coalition to prevent Iraqi domination in the Middle East in the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

Other Presidents who had an impact on diplomacy and foreign affairs in a major, if not transformative manner, would include:

George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Sadly, Lyndon B, Johnson and George W. Bush were mostly negative forces in foreign affairs; Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were mixed in their results; while George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy were much more positive.

Time To Raise Minimum Wage, Way Behind Cost Of Living!

Ronald 10 Comments

President Barack Obama has proposed raising the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour to $9.00, and immediately the Republican Party comes out strongly against it.

If a person is making the minimum wage full time, he or she is earning an annual income of about $15,000, while if the wage is raised to $9.00, the annual income is about $19,000. Neither is an adequate income for anyone to live on, but it is a step upward toward leaving poverty over time, as one, hopefully, moves up at work, and gains a higher wage with growing responsibility on the job!

When the minimum wage was passed into law in 1938, under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation known as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the pay was 25 cents per hour.

Wage increases kept up with the cost of living until 1981, when Ronald Reagan worked to lower the minimum wage, and failing at that, refused to sign an increase in the minimum wage. And George W. Bush did not sign an increase for the first six years of his Presidency.

As a result, the minimum wage fell behind the cost of living, and if it was to match the level it had been from 1938 to 1981, it would now have to be $13.00, or an annual income of $27,000.

Can anyone, realistically, live on even $27,000 and be able to pay one’s every day expenses? The answer is NO, so raising it to $9 an hour is far from bringing back the cost of living to what it had been, but it is an important first step, and would increase purchasing power and aid the growth of the economy, and would only increase costs to consumers by one to two percent, in the estimate of most economists.

A popular idea, it is time for the Congress to do what is right, and help low wage workers to help themselves! It would actually improve the image of the Republican Party among such workers, and would help to revive the chances of the GOP rising from the ashes of losing the popular vote for President five of the last six Presidential elections, and its low ratings among the American people in public opinion polls.

Total Poverty, Deprivation, Lack Of Safety Net For Substantial Numbers Of Americans The Reality: The “American Dream” Denied!

Ronald 12 Comments

Despite the denial and lack of concern of many conservatives and Republicans about the tremendous maldistribution of wealth which has developed in the thirty two years since Ronald Reagan came to the Presidency, new statistics indicate just how desperate many Americans are, and how that desperation is particularly obvious in the South and in the Southwest parts of the United States.

Nearly half of US households, containing about 132 million Americans are in a dire situation, where they do not have any emergency funds for as little as three months, if a natural disaster, medical emergency or sudden unemployment occurred.

Think of the mental anguish these people go through if any of the above emergencies suddenly arise, with a feeling of no hope, and the possibility of homelessness, total destruction of personal credit, and the likelihood of becoming sick from stress itself!

Thirty percent of Americans do not have a savings account, and eight percent do not have any bank account at all.

In ten states, the poverty and hopelessness of a substantial part of the population is most evident, including in order:

Nevada
Georgia
Mississippi
Florida
Arkansas
North Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Arizona
Louisiana

Notice also that only three states of these ten listed are “Blue” or Democratic (Nevada, Florida, New Mexico), while the other seven are “Red” or Republican.

With so many people in these states and others having little or no health insurance coverage, and low wage jobs predominating, and high credit card debt levels, one wonders how these unfortunate citizens cope with waking up daily, with such gloom and doom on the horizon! The “American Dream” is being denied!

As John Kerry Becomes Secretary Of State, An Assessment Of The Most Influential Secretaries Of State In American History

Ronald 25 Comments

With Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department, and John Kerry becoming the 68th Secretary of State, it is a good time to assess who are the most influential Secretaries of State we have had in American history.

Notice I say “most influential”, rather than “best”, as that is a better way to judge diplomatic leadership in the State Department.

Without ranking them, which is very difficult, we will examine the Secretaries of State who have had the greatest impact, in chronological order:

Thomas Jefferson (1789-1793) under President George Washington—set the standard for the department, and was probably the most brilliant man ever to head the State Department.

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) under President James Monroe—brought about the Monroe Doctrine, treaties with Canada, and the acquisition of Florida.

William H. Seward (1861-1869) under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson—brought about the neutrality of Great Britain and France in the Civil War, and purchased Alaska from Czarist Russia, a fortunate development.

Hamilton Fish (1869-1877) under President Ulysses S. Grant—involved in many diplomatic issues in Latin America, had America become more engaged in Hawaii, and settled differences with Great Britain, and often considered the major bright spot in the tragic Grant Presidency.

James G. Blaine (1881, 1889-1892) under Presidents James A. Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur briefly, and full term under President Benjamin Harrison—helped to bring about eventual takeover of Hawaii, and promoted the concept of a canal in Central America.

John Hay (1898-1905) under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt—-involved in the issues after the Spanish American War, including involvement in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and a major influence over TR’s diplomatic initiatives in his first term.

Elihu Root (1905-1909) under President Theodore Roosevelt—-a great influence in TR’s growing involvement in world affairs in his second term in office.

Robert Lansing (1915-1920) under President Woodrow Wilson—a major player in American entrance in World War I and at the Versailles Peace Conference.

Charles Evan Hughes (1921-1925) under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge—-had major role in Washington Naval Agreements in 1922.

Henry Stimson (1929-1933) under President Herbert Hoover—-was a major critic of Japanese expansion, as expressed in the Stimson Doctrine of 1932.

Cordell Hull (1933-1944) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt—-was the longest lasting Secretary of State, nearly the whole term of FDR, and very much involved in all of the President’s foreign policy decisions.

Dean Acheson (1949-1953) under President Harry Truman—-involved in the major decisions of the early Cold War, including the Korean War intervention.

John Foster Dulles (1953-1959) under President Dwight D. Eisenhower—had controversial views on Cold War policy with the Soviet Union, including “massive retaliation”.

Dean Rusk (1961-1969) under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson—highly controversial advocate of the Vietnam War escalation, but served under the complete terms of two Presidents, and never backed away from his views on the Cold War.

Henry Kissinger (1973-1977) under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford—-easily one of the most influential figures in the shaping of foreign policy in American history, earlier having served as National Security Adviser.

George Shultz, (1982-1989) under President Ronald Reagan—-very close adviser to the President on his major foreign policy initiatives.

James Baker (1989-1992) under President George H. W. Bush—very significant in Persian Gulf War and end of Cold War policies.

Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) under President Bill Clinton—-first woman Secretary of State and played major role in many issues that arose.

Colin Powell (2001-2005) under President George W. Bush—-involved in the justification of the Iraq War based on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which undermined his reputation because of the lack of evidence on WMDs.

Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) under President George W. Bush—second woman Secretary of State and intimately involved in policy making.

Hillary Clinton (2009-2013) under President Barack Obama—third woman Secretary of State, and hailed by most as a major contributor to Obama’s foreign policy initiatives.

This is a list of 21 out of the 68 Secretaries of State, but also there are 15 other Secretaries of State who were influential historical figures, including:

John Marshall
James Madison
James Monroe
Henry Clay
Martin Van Buren
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
James Buchanan
Lewis Cass
William Jennings Bryan
George Marshall
Cyrus Vance
Edmund Muskie
Alexander Haig
Warren Christopher

So a total of 36 out of 68 Secretaries of State have been major figures in American history, and contributed to the diplomatic development of the United States in world affairs!

Poverty Level In US Higher Than Any “Developed” Nation

Ronald 11 Comments

After nearly thirty years of the “Reagan Revolution”, the triumph of the conservative movement,. America ends up, in published data, as the worst nation on its poverty level of any “developed” nation.

The Economic Policy Institute has published data that show the following:

22 nations in Europe, plus Canada, and Australia and New Zealand and Japan, have a lower poverty rate, with the US having a 17.3 percent rate.

25 nations have a lower child poverty rate, with the US having a 17.1 percent rate.

America has a more stratified class system than any of the other democracies, and we always hear that we do not wish to be like Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

Certainly, we have a lot to be proud of in our history, but we also have to recognize that the standard of living has declined under the “Reagan Revolution”, and now we are trying to dig ourselves out, and to refuse to recognize the high poverty rate, and particularly its effect on children, we are harming the future of our nation!

178th Anniversary Of Andrew Jackson Assassination Attempt Reminds Us Of Constant Threats Against Life Of Barack Obama

Ronald 4 Comments

On this day in 1835, America witnessed the first assassination attempt against a President, as Andrew Jackson subdued his own assassin, Richard Lawrence, who fired two weapons, both of which misfired, the odds of such an event being estimated at one in 125,000 attempts!

Sadly, we have witnessed four Presidents assassinated in office—Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. We have seen two Presidents wounded in assassination attempts—Theodore Roosevelt out of office and Ronald Reagan. We have also seen Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Gerald Ford shot at, with the assassins missing their mark. And we have had direct threats against Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, and other, more indirect threats, against other Presidents.

But Barack Obama has had the greatest number of threats of all, averaging 30 per day, according to an an article in the Huffington Post!

So on this anniversary of the first assassination attempt, a prayer for the safety of our President is in order!

Age Vs Youth: Will The Republicans And Democrats Be Switching On Their Presidential Nominees In 2016?

Ronald 2 Comments

When one analyzes the two major political parties in the past forty years, it has been a general reality that the Republican Party has run Presidential candidates who tend to be much older than the Democratic Party nominees for President.

Witness Richard Nixon, nine years older than George McGovern in 1972; Gerald Ford eleven years older than Jimmy Carter in 1976; Ronald Reagan thirteen years older than Jimmy Carter in 1980; Reagan seventeen years older than Walter Mondale in 1984; George H. W. Bush eight years older than Michael Dukakis in 1988; Bush twenty two years older than Bill Clinton in 1992; Bob Dole twenty three years older than Clinton in 1996; John McCain twenty five years older than Barack Obama in 2008; and Mitt Romney fourteen years older than Obama in 2012. Only in 2000 and 2004 did we see George W. Bush older than Al Gore by only two years and in 2004 actually younger than John Kerry by three years.

This phenomenon is maybe just a coincidence, but it has often been said that the Democrats go for youth and the Republicans for experience in their Presidential nominees.

Well, if that is the case, it is about to be switched dramatically in 2016 if one assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden are the likely front runners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as Hillary will be 69 in 2016, and Joe will be 74 in 2016. Clinton would be the second oldest first time nominee, behind Ronald Reagan, and Biden would be the oldest first time nominee.

The Republicans are certain to nominate a candidate decades younger, such as Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz, all born in the early 1970s, being therefore mid 40s in 2016. If you consider Chris Christie, Scott Walker, or John Thune, they were born in the 1960s, so would be in the mid 50s. Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann all were born in the 1950s, so would be in their late 50s or in the 60s. There is no candidate born in the 1940s seriously mentioned, unless one expects Newt Gingrich to try again for the Presidency, being just a year younger than Joe Biden and four years older than Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats have alternative possible candidates in Martin O’Malley and Amy Klobuchar born in the early 1960s, so either would be mid 50s in 2016, but Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner, born in the mid 1950s would be nearing or at the age of 60 when running in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren, born in 1949, would be 67 in 2016, only about two years younger than Hillary Clinton.

So we are seeing a likely switch from an older to younger Republican nominee, and a younger to an older Democratic nominee, and the difference in years could be massive, as it was in the past forty years in most Presidential elections.

A final thought: In the nine elections between 1972 and 2012 when the GOP nominee was always older than the Democratic nominee, the Republicans won the election four times, and the Democrats five times, so basically, trying to determine whether age or youth are an advantage is clearly a pure guessing game!

Republican Persecution Complex: A Serious Disease!

Ronald 6 Comments

The Republican Party has caused its own downfall with its mean spirited, nasty campaigns, and its unwillingness to separate themselves from the power and influence of Fox News Channel, the right wing talk show hosts, and the rhetoric of their own reckless candidates and office holders, and powerful lobbying groups.

Portraying their party as victims, Speaker of the House John Boehner says Barack Obama wants to “annihilate” the Republican Party, and Paul Ryan, the House Budget Chairman and 2012 GOP Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, said on Sunday that Obama wants to “conquer” the opposition party, rather than compromise.

Somehow, they forget that George W. Bush was out to promote his own program after reelection in 2004, not in the mood for compromise.

The Republicans have not been willing to compromise for four years, and now they are using the psychological term called “projection”, accusing the President of what they have been doing, out to defeat the President and compromise on nothing. It is a despicable trick which no sane person will agree with, as they have shown total intransigence, and threatened anyone who diverts from orthodoxy that they will have the opposition of powerful interest groups, and Tea Party opposition for renomination.

The only way the Republican Party has a future is to modify their ideas, come back to the moderate center, become the party of the 1960s and 1970s, before Ronald Reagan and conservatives “hijacked” the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower!

The Smearing And Character Assassination Of Bill Clinton And John Kerry Reversed: The Rewriting Of History By The Right Wing

Ronald 12 Comments

Many people have very short memories, and many Republicans and conservative right wing activists have the amazing ability to rewrite history, and make former “demons” suddenly seem acceptable.

So is the case with President Bill Clinton and 2004 Presidential nominee John Kerry, both of whom have suddenly become “acceptable” and “mainstream”, as the smearing and character assassination of Barack Obama continues in earnest!

Bill Clinton was savaged, accused of every scandal imaginable, brutally mistreated by the opposition party for eight years, and put through the torment of an impeachment, which everyone knew would NOT lead to removal from office, but was designed to besmirch his historical accomplishments.

John Kerry was bitterly attacked, his record distorted, his Vietnam War service trivialized because he had the gall to challenge the war as a mistake, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 42 years ago, and made out to be an unpatriotic American, while his opponent, George W. Bush, sat out his military service in the National Guard reading magazine, and often not showing up at all, all due to family connections.

Now, suddenly, you cannot hear enough praise about the Bill Clinton Presidency, including Paul Ryan this morning saying how different things would be now if only Clinton was President. This is an amazing statement, but only the most recent of laudatory comments by Republicans and conservatives toward the 42nd President.

And, suddenly, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry is nominated to be Secretary of State, the praise and compliments from his former Republican enemies is overwhelming, and he faces little opposition for confirmation. Nothing is said about his supposed “anti American” statements on the war in Vietnam before the committee he now heads, and how he will now be leading our foreign policy, an idea which would have shocked his critics just eight years ago.

The right wing is rewriting history, hoping that the memory and ignorance of most people about past events is forgotten.

Instead, the attention is given to making Barack Obama a demon, a threat to the nation, to make him out as a man unwilling to negotiate, when it is the opposition which has been intransigent for the past four years, and is still engaged in smearing and character assassination greater than either Bill Clinton or John Kerry experienced!

One would have thought any greater assault was not conceivable, but here it is in full throttle!!

And since Obama will not be coming back for a third term, one can already see the revival of the attacks on Hillary Clinton, as the Benghazi, Libya tragedy is politicized for all it is worth. And since she is a woman, of course she must be trashed, destroyed, eviscerated as the likely future enemy, as the right wing assault machine goes into full gear to elect someone they want, to reverse things back to the “good old days” of Ronald Reagan!

But of course, Chris Christie, by working with Barack Obama, is also, already, being smeared and trashed, because he actually has some “moderate” elements in him, and some views on some issues that does not fit the mold of the far right. Chris Christie, if he runs for President in 2016, will discover just how venal and vicious the attack will be on him for being a “traitor” to the cause, just as much as Colin Powell has been experiencing recently, because of his view that the Republican Party must change its tune, its views, its image, its principles, or face extinction.

It is often said that the media are tilted to the left, when in reality, the right wing media is very much in a time of prosperity and growth, with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden helping to energize their conspiracy theories, the image that the Republic is in danger of destruction all because we have a person of color, a woman, and a man of principle and convictions, playing major roles in the development of our domestic and foreign policy!

The Reagan Era Is Over: Obama Agenda Makes That Perfectly Clear!

Ronald 4 Comments

The Reagan Era, which lasted from 1981-2009, is over, and will be seen as constituting those years in the history books! This would include the time of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, as well as Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan promoted the idea of distrust of government; of greatly increased federal spending on defense and national security, while cutting domestic spending: helped to undermine labor rights and minority rights; allowed corporate dominance to grow without federal regulations; undermined the environment and consumer safety; engaged America into a major role in the Middle East, therefore promoting anti American terrorism; and caused through their taxation cuts on the upper class and their wild defense spending to cause most of the increase in the national debt from $1 trillion when Jimmy Carter left office to $10.5 trillion when George W. Bush left office.

Even Bill Clinton, the one Democratic President, accepted the idea of smaller government and less regulation, while, however, having the success of adding less to the national debt and having balanced budgets for several years, something that the Republican Presidents—Reagan and the two Bushes—were unable to accomplish during the 20 years out of 28 total in the era they were in charge.

And one must recall that Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-1987, and from 1995-2007, except for the last half of 2001 and 2002. And they controlled the House of Representatives from 1995-2007. So they had an impact on policy making for a majority of the years of the Reagan era.

Barack Obama represents a diametrically opposite viewpoint on all of the characteristics of the Reagan era. While he will not be able to accomplish all of his goals in the second term, with the GOP control of the House, and the ability to use the Senate filibuster in the upper chamber, the Obama era can now be seen as a path breaking event, similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan representing fundamental change in their times!