MovieChat Forums > Reagan (2011) Discussion > I hope this film doesn't try too hard to...

I hope this film doesn't try too hard to be 'fair and balanced'

posted 13 years ago by Rupert__Pupkin
31 replies | jump to latest

Because Jarecki (the director) has a history of taking more progressive stances, I could see him bending over backward to make a movie that doesn't appear too anti-Reagan. But sometimes we just need to call a spade a spade.

I could make a movie about Bernie Madoff and focus on his devotion to his wife and children, his complex personality, his unlikely rise to sucess, and his troubled upbringing, without mentioning the fact that he lied to thousands of people and robbed them of their retirements and savings. I know I'll get a lot of flack from so-called conservatives, but anyone who says Reagan was good for this country either doesn't know history or doesn't understand it. I hope Jarecki remembered that when he made this documentary.

[–] pcp747 13 years ago

If Reagan was not good for the country, then why do you think he was bad for it?

[–] pcp747 13 years ago

And yes -- for the sake of argument, I'm a "so-called" conservative. Are you a "so-called" liberal? Or just a liberal?

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

I say "so-called" because today's conservatives (in the style of Reagan) are only conservative on select issues. They don't care one bit about fiscal responsibility. And they don't care much for individual rights either (advocating for censorship, banning abortion, criminalizing all drug possession, etc.). They want less gun control, less government (but more defense spending), less gay rights, and more God in the schools. Other than that, they don't seem to stand for much. True conservatives (Nixon, Goldwater, Buchanan) are a dying breed. Does that clear things up?

[–] scorp123-1 13 years ago

(advocating for censorship, banning abortion, criminalizing all drug possession, etc.). They want less gun control, less government (but more defense spending), less gay rights, and more God in the schools. Other than that, they don't seem to stand for much. True conservatives <snip>

And just like that, you just demonstrated that you have no idea what conservatism is. So, stick to things you know and don't try to tell a conservative what "true conservatism" is.

~I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong~

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

...you just demonstrated that you have no idea what conservatism is.
____________________________________________________________________

Hey, I guess I have something in common with Congressional Republicans then.

[–] scorp123-1 13 years ago

Hey, I guess I have something in common with Congressional Republicans then.

Not entirely... there are true conservatives in congress, just like there are a bunch that make me wince (liberal republicans pretending to be conservative).

I just found it amusing that you, an obvious liberal, was trying to define what true conservatism is when you obviously don't know the first thing about it.

~I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong~

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

I wasn't defining true conservatism. I was defining what current conservatives are trying to pass off as conservatism. I agree with you that there is a big difference.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

Liberal Republicans? I'm drawing a blank. Surely you don't mean senators like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

[–] pcp747 13 years ago

So you're saying Reagan wasn't a true conservative? He's about the closest we've ever come as president since Calvin Coolidge.

I hate this argument that raising the military budget is somehow wasteful spending. It's along the same lines of the argument for the new health care law in that we're already forced to buy things through taxes so why are people complaining.

The difference is that with military spending, it's for something that serves everybody in the country. If we don't want it at all, and want to be sitting ducks and be attacked, then fine -- let's cut it entirely. But if we want a military, then we want a military. Same goes for local protection in the police. Don't like paying taxes? Fine -- who's going to help when something terrible happens?

My point is that there's a major difference in forcing you to buy health insurance and requiring a tax for military and local governments. People have said that "everyone is forced to buy car insurance -- how about that?" like it's some "Gotcha" when the plain fact is that no one is forcing you to buy a car.

Rupert Pupkin, you started out bashing Reagan and ended up talking about other "conservatives." That's not a very good argument if you ask me. It would be like me saying that Obama is a "so-called" liberal because he kept the Bush tax cuts and not including that he also added spending which practically nulled them. Along with many other things that he's done that "aren't" socialistic.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

pcp,

You made one good point. Obama is not a true liberal.

[–] pcp747 13 years ago

hahaha

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

pcp,

That's a fair question, but unfortunately, one that could fill a book. Here's a good article that can help you get started.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/03-8

I will say one thing about Reagan supporters. When you listen to them, you will notice that they speak a lot about Reagan's character, personal charm, charisma, sense of humor, passion, and dedication to his values. These vague descriptors can be used to describe vitually any tyrant or world leader. However, Reagan supporters have virtually nothing to say about his policies or administration. Reagan fans love the man but know very little about the President. They sometimes cite amazing accomplishments like, "He ended the Cold War," and "He salvaged our military after it was depleted." If a Reagan supporter is especially desperate, he/she will say things like, "He helped restore faith in America" and "He made Americans feel proud again." Again, we're back to the meaningless platitudes.

I hope you read the article. It should answer a lot of your questions.

[–] Bree_33 13 years ago

So, ending the cold war was meaningless to you?
and it is mainly because of this and resurgence in the American economy that he is considered to be a great president.

Brilliant spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

Solita,

Thank you for proving my point. You just set me up for the perfect slam dunk.

Ending the Cold War was a decades-long process. It started with the Truman Doctine in 1947 and didn't actually end until George H.W. Bush was in office. Reagan played a role in the Cold War, but so did Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and Carter. Attributing the fall of the Iron Curtain to Ronald Reagan is simple historical ignorance. That's like saying the New York Yankees were the best baseball team of the 20th century because they had Lou Gehrig, but failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Joe Dimaggio, and Yogi Berra.

Next you cite the "surging" economy of the 80s. Again, this is overly simplistic. During Reagan's first term, we experienced a huge recession (1982). The economy eventually recovered and we saw inflation level out (which was good), but other aspects of the economy suffered. For example, during Reagan's 8 years, the gap between the rich and the poor grew tremendously, and many of our manufacturing jobs were sent overseas. Reagan also busted up unions, which hurt every day workers trying to make a decent wage with healthcare benefits and a retirement package. Reagan helped the rich a great deal, but the middle class and poor got screwed. Unemployment numbers didn't skyrocket on Reagan's watch, but what that number doesn't explain is that a lot of people lost good union jobs and had to take lesser paying jobs with no benefits.

Reagan's theory of supply-side economics (i.e. trickle-down economics) has been proven to be ineffective and damaging to the economy. His experiment to give the rich a ton of extra money in the hopes that it would create prosperity for the poor and middle class was an outright failure.

While it's true that some econonic numbers improved in the 80s, Reagan substantially increased government spending (despite his rhetoric about smaller government) and decreased taxes on the rich. He was the President that turned deficit spending into an acceptable practice, later adopted by Bush 41, Bush 43, and now Obama. Clinton was the only guy that tried to get us back in the black (and did!).

The two reasons you cited for Reagan being a great President (ending the Cold War, presiding over a thriving economy) have both been debunked. Do you still think Reagan was a great President? And if so, I would love to hear why.

[–] nyccma1974 13 years ago

***applause***

I don't have to add anything else to that because you pretty much summed it up. What Reagan did to the economy back in the 80's we are feeling right now. I love Obama and what he is trying to do for this country (healthcare, middle-class taxcuts, etc.) but I see a lot of Reagan in him when it comes to the economy. It's scary.

"Honestly it's not mine!"

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

daugiec,

Thank you for the support. I have a lot of conservative friends and can certainly understand and even support some conservatives positions. But nothing ruffles my feathers like a conservative bloviating about the greatness of Ronald Reagan.

I wish I could share in your enthusiasm for Obama, but he's been a giant disappointment for me. The tax cuts for the top 1% in December put me over the top. I hope Obama gets a primary challenger next year, but he won't.

I find it amazing that conservatives despise Obama when he is so much like Reagan, particularly when it comes to his economic policy like you said. I sincerely hope it doesn't have to do with racism, but after reading these boards (and others), the truth is becoming quite clear.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nyccma1974 13 years ago

It is racism because in no way is he this radical liberal at all. He may have had liberal ideas but has not been able to implement them at all. And now with the House being Republican, none of those ideas will ever happen.

And though I loathe keeping the tax cuts for the richest 1%, I can't fault Obama for extending it. It's the only way he was able to keep our (and by our I mean the middle-class) tax cuts. This group of Republicans right now stand by their party line no matter what and were not going to let the middle-class keep the tax cut if Obama didn't extend the wealthy tax cut. He had to negotiate a deal. He was a lawyer after all. Negotiations should be his forte.

"Do not speak of this. If you do, they will find you."

[–] pcp747 13 years ago

I love how liberals state half truths and frame them as truer. Just like Michael Moore.

Paraphrase: "If Congress wants to send our kids to war, then maybe they should send their own. Only (low number) percent of Congressmen's children fight in this War."

True statement.

Not valid or thought out though. The whole story is that there's a higher percentage of congressmen children in the military than average citizen's children in the military.

Same goes for similar comments about Reagan.

"It was many administrations that led up to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not just Reagan."

True, but this leaves out the fact that Reagan was the one who actually said, "Tear down this wall!" I find it funny that Carter was in the same sentence as Reagan in regards to this considering his reputation for bowing to certain foreign leaders.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

You wrote a lot but said extremely little.

Let me get this straight. Reagan's contribution to ending the Cold War was when he said, Tear down this wall"? That's it?! If you want to give Reagan credit for ending a war that lasted over 40 years, you better have a helluva a lot more than a single sentence from a single speech.

[–] pcp747 13 years ago

It doesn't take a genius to see that I was saying he was the one strong enough to SPEAK up about it.

If you're going to play dumb, that's fine. I shouldn't have to say that I was referring to the symbolic power of a President doing that. He didn't use military power -- he used the power of what America could do and actually SAID something.

Much different than the current President who plays all sides. But of course, it's funny because if Obama spoke in clear terms like Reagan did about the current situation in Egypt and it led to some good, you'd be praising him for the same exact reason that you discredit Reagan as being a do-nothing.

Obama has so many chances to use our clout through words the way Reagan did considering how similar our world situation is to back then. Example -- he could have said "Absolutely not" to O'Reilly's Super Bowl interview question about whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood should come in to power in Egypt. He didn't. He dodged the question and said there need to be free elections there. He played both sides. Thus, instead of being hated and respected under Presidents like Reagan and Bush, we're laughed at and disrespected.

Another key reason Reagan was a great president.

And if your comeback is something terse and near-sighted along the lines of "you think being hated and respected makes a good president?" I'll just say yes to piss you off. It is better.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

Thank you for the diatribe bashing Obama. You obviously think that's going to get under my liberal skin and spin me into a world of rage. Think again. I'm the biggest critic of Obama's you'll find. I agree that he has been bad for this country, and I have no intention of voting for him in 2012. His handling of the economy, healthcare reform, and now Egypt has been terrible. So we can find some common ground there.

Back to Reagan. When Reagan made the "Tear down this wall" speech, the Soviet Union was all but destroyed. Reagan's speech is similar to a kid running up to a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, putting in the last piece, and then saying, "Look what I did." Reagan demanded the fall of a wall that was already crumbling. Do you really think a speech in 1987 is what lead to the fall of the Soviet Union? Seriously? Are you really going to disregard the prior 40 years? Technically speaking, the Berlin Wall didn't actually fall for more than two years after Reagan's speech, well after Reagan left office, further evidence that Reagan was only one of many pieces that eventually lead to the end of the Cold War.

Finally you made the inane statement that Reagan didn't win the Cold War with military power. First of all, you're right when you say Reagan didn't win the Cold War, but you're completely out to lunch when you say Reagan didn't use military power. During his presidency, Reagan increased military spending by nearly 50%. Don't gloss over that number. The defense budget is our biggest budget expenditure, and Reagan increased it by 50%. That's huge. Reagan stockpiled nuclear weapons, invested in the silly Star Wars program, and spent billions on weapons research. Basically he won an unnecessary dick-waving contest with Gorbachev. Everyone who understands economics knows the Soviet Union was collapsing under its own weight in the 1980s for a lot of different reasons, none of which Reagan was a part of. The Soviet Union was going to collapse regardless of Reagan's speech.

You can compare Reagan to other presidents and say he's better than President so and so, but that's stupid. On those grounds, I guess I could say Warren Harding was a great president because he was better than James Buchanan.

So can you explain to me again how Reagan was a great president? And this time, can you give me something more than, 'He wasn't afraid to speak his mind'?

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

http://hnn.us/articles/2732.html

Don't take my word for it. Check this out.

[–] pcp747 13 years ago

This honestly is just a difference of philosophies and I'm OK with that. We're both going to be right from our point of views no matter what we say to each other. I don't find increased military spending or "dick-waving" to be a bad thing because that's what our national government is supposed to be spending money on.

I'm glad we can agree on Obama and I find your posts to be witty and on point.

All I can say is that the reasons I've stated for him being a great president are obviously opposite or at least close to the opposite of what you believe. And that's fine. This is admittedly an unwinnable argument.

My philosophy is that a President is supposed to be a great spokesperson for the country. And I think Reagan was an outstanding spokesperson who boosted morale amongst most of the voters in most of the 80s. He didn't win 49 of 50 states for no reason.

It really is just a difference in philosophy. I believe national government should be less in as many social ways as possible and be left to the local governments and others think the national government should take care of almost everything.

Difference of philosophy, not "inane."

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

This isn't a matter of different philosophies. It's about facts. In each of my posts, I have been careful to include supporting evidence to back my statements. (If you find evidence to counter any of my statements, I would certainly reassess my position. This is always my stance.) Each of your posts speak vaguely about Reagan's character without providing any tangible evidence that he was good for this country. You said he provided Americans hope, but as someone that lived through the 80s, I can tell you that a lot of people were devastated when he won. A lot of Americans lost hope.

I don't mind different perspectives, and I think conservatives, moderates, and liberals can certainly co-exist peacefully. Heck, that's what a democracy is. I don't mind that you support increased military spending. I am perfectly content with opposing views and politicians with different ideologies.

Here's where I get ruffled. According to your post, you believe a US President should be a spokesperson who provides citizens a boost in morale. To me this falls way short of the goal. A president needs to promote policies and back legislation that improves the position of the country. We can argue about what those policies are, but the fact remains that the president needs to move the country in a valued direction, be it education, healthcare, counter-terrorism, job creation, manufacturing, whatever. A president can either botch this job or do a great job at it. In my opinion, FDR was the best at this job. Calvin Coolidge was awful.

From your description, it sounds like you've reduced our president to a king, basically a figurehead that goes around making speeches and shaking hands. I think Reagan was a fantastic politician for the reasons you stated above (outstanding spokesperson that filled people with hope). However, these traits didn't make him a great president.

So far I think Reagan and Obama are amazingly similar. They'll be remembered as great speakers that inspired a lot of people and gave a lot of Americans hope. But they were utter failures in the White House.

If you truly believe Reagan was a great president, I would be interested in hearing what he actually did to make our country great. If filling people with hope is your criteria, wouldn't you agree that Obama is equally great?

[–] Bree_33 13 years ago

I don't agree with you about Reagan as a President. One thing: a friend of mine has compared Reagan to Kennedy not Obama. What do you think about that?
Kennedy represents to liberal what reagan to conservatives???

I think agreeing to disagree is one of the best ways that we can use to be tolerant of others...

I think you are polite.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 13 years ago

Solita,

Thank you. I try to remain polite (although in weak moments I can be quite unpleasant).

You (and others) on this board seem to be very interested in comparing Reagan to other presidents (Kennedy, Obama, etc.). I would like to encourage people to not get sucked into the comparison game, but rather evaluate each president on his own merit. This means looking at each president's accomplishments, policies, and failures.

I try to rely on facts to support my beliefs. For example, when discussing Reagan's failures, I cite the growing disparity of the rich and poor; wide deregulation of business; mishandling the Iran Contra Affair; sinking the country into unprecedented levels of debt; ending public programs to treat the mentally ill and seeing our homeless population skyrocket, etc. People who support Reagan continue to talk about his personality, charisma, and likeability factor. Or they compare him to another president. This is all meaningless. The focus needs to stay on the facts.

If you or anyone else is going to insist that Reagan was a good president, I'm going to have to insist on facts to support this. If you cannot come up with facts, then I don't think you can honestly say Reagan was a good president. Maybe a more accurate statement would be, "I don't know enough about the Ronald Reagan presidency to make a decision." If you don't know enough, I suggest you learn more.

In terms of the Reagan/Kennedy comparison, I'm not sure what we're comparing. Reagan certainly had a much larger impact on this country than Kennedy. He had 8 years in office. Kennedy had 2 years and 10 months. You said that Kennedy is to liberals what Reagan is to conservatives. I disagree. FDR is the liberal icon and rightfully so.

[–] marydonna1131 11 years ago

Please don't compare Reagan with Obama in regards to public speaking. Reagan was the "great communicator" and as a public speaker ran circles around "staccato" Obama.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

I agree that the comparison is unfair. Obama is a far-better communicator than Reagan. The only reason Reagan got hit with the "Great Communicator" moniker is because he was the first Republican in recent memory who had any ability to connect with voters verbally. The last 20 years, they'd been listening to Nixon, Goldwater, and Ford. Reagan was good only compared with them.

[–] edlitz36 13 years ago

This honestly is just a difference of philosophies and I'm OK with that. We're both going to be right from our point of views no matter what we say to each other... I'm glad we can agree on Obama and I find your posts to be witty and on point. -pcp747

OH, so when it's a debate on a president that YOU oppose, you just say "yea, he's terrible -- I'm glad we agree." But when you're backed into a corner with valid, unbiased, FACTUAL criticism of a president you SUPPORT, then it's just "a difference of philosophy making it an unwinnable argument".

You're just a pathetic, deluded sheep who refuses to face the reality that your favored corporate shill greatly accelerated the economic downfall of this nation.

Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David