Hacker News Reader

Comment by hga | Hacker News Reader

Specifics, please?

I was around for all of these presidents, and I don't remember even a "nattering nabobs of negativism" from Team Reagan (although I'd be happy to be corrected there), let alone declaring that opposition was inherently illegitimate and the organs of the state then acting in congruence with that.

Reagan was focused on two particularly broad things, that I'll also note were stunning successes: rescuing the economy and government fiscal situation (e.g. the prime rate was around 20%), and ending the Evil Empire. Both required working with Democrats in the Congress (Republicans only held the Senate in the beginning) and in the permanent bureaucracy.

View on HN

Wow, thanks! It was like the liberal skies over HN cleared when I read you comment. I remember what it was like during the Carter years. The economy was in the toilet. Reagan took the reins, Iran immediately released the hostages which had been a saga played out every day in the news, counting each day they were held. People started to have real hope again. Was he perfect or a perfect president? No, but he did do some real, tangible and historically significant and positive things that liberals (today's liberals, not the real ones from the distant past) dismiss.

You're very welcome.

For those of you who weren't of political age during the '70s and especially the Carter Administration, it really was a time of losing hope. I don't know of anyone including myself who thought Reagan could put the nation out of its tailspin, and while the medicine was plenty bitter (helped by the idiots in the Congress insisting on phasing in the tax rate cuts), he truly did save the nation.

Another way of looking at it is to ask which recent president Obama compares himself to: it's Reagan, the most recent who was significantly consequential, just like Obama has been consequential (I mean, the Democrats have been trying to achieve government health care since Truman (that's 1945-52), and Bill and Hillary! famously flamed out on it). Obama does not dismiss Reagan ... I guess he is smarter than the average bear....

I was too young to remember his presidency. But my understanding was that he started the war on drugs as a major component of his platform.

I could see his war on drugs falling under economic rescue, although my understanding is that this effort has had serious deleterious economic effects in the U.S.

While the "war" long precedes him, it was Nixon in 1971 who coined it as such. From Wikipedia, which I wouldn't expect to be overly friendly to Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs):

"Although Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971, the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914. Less well-known today is that the Nixon Administration also repealed the federal 2–10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand reduction programs and drug-treatment programs. Robert DuPont, the "Drug czar" in the Nixon Administration, stated it would be more accurate to say that Nixon ended, rather than launched, the "war on drugs". DuPont also argued that it was the proponents of drug legalization that popularized the term "war on drugs"."

I can remember creating in 3rd grade in 1969-70 in class (along with everyone else) a workbook detailing all the common illegal drugs of the time, names, effects, and why they were bad for you, etc.

And as you probably know it continues to this day, the Obama Administration has been a terrible disappointment to those seeking decreased restrictions on marijuana (harsher than Bush? I forget). This has long been a Progressive cause (remember Prohibition?), and most don't know or remember that Nixon was a Progressive domestically, a long Republican tradition. EPA, OHSA, there's a whole list of things like that that Nixon signing into law and supported.

You are right, of course. Some simple research would have enlightened me. Appreciate the detailed response.

I think my memory is being influenced by what I remember vs. what I read in history class. Reagan did say "We’re taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts; we’re running up a battle flag", and he did increase funding (including a big jump in the late 80s). Still, it's clearly not accurate to state he started the war (although I think he helped/supported/funding the militarization of that issue).

Please consider my incorrect view of history to be amended.

Well, in the '70s the Democrats were perceived as weak on drugs, the party of "acid, amnesty and abortion" circa McGovern's run in 1972. And the Supreme Court delivered on abortion in 1973's Roe v. Wade, and Carter on amnesty for Vietnam era draft dodgers on his first day in office in 1977.

But I don't remember any president in my politically aware lifetime really being "weak" on drugs (any more than they were weak on crime, that is). And by the same token, opposition to the War On Drugs is not particularly ideological, it's a requirement for libertarians, lots of notable conservatives including William F. Buckley have opposed it ... overall it's a colossal mess.

Although I'm entirely uncertain a complete reversal would be better for anything but civil rights, especially since efforts in that direction in other First World countries have not worked well to my knowledge. And there are worrying studies that indicate marijuana might kindle schizophrenia, which we as a society no longer handle well at all.

Me, I said prior to all we've learned in the last few months that make it look like a sideshow, that we could have a free society or a war on drugs, pick one. This made no impression on parents I've discussed it with, they are terrified their kids will be harmed by them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com