Opinion
Reflections on the late
Ronald Wilson Reagan
Heather Mupita
Ebbtide Correspondent
The death of former President Ronald Reagan on June 5, at age 93 has drawn mixed reactions from people here at Shoreline Community College. Reagan fought Alzheimer’s disease for many years, which he disclosed to the public in November 1994.
Some felt that the former president was a good and kind man who gained considerable respect. “One of our better Republicans, he seemed a kind president and did not scare me like Bush does, he was genuine and he was liked and respected,” said one person.
Another person, however, said “Reagan was more like an actor, the smiles, and the look. It was like a front and he was never himself.” Another person said that when elections were held leading to the Reagan administration, she happened to be in England. She told her English friends that she knew him as an actor. “I was surprised and disappointed when he was elected,” she said. However, when he was elected she discovered that he was much better at his public official duties than she had anticipated.
Another person, although she was in grade school at the time of his presidency, said, “One thing I remember was seeing him on television talking about improving the educational system in the country. He started the ball rolling by introducing the high stakes tests in every state; this made a full circle to the whole concept of education.”
One person just had one vivid memory: “He was shot once and he went big the first year.”
Another individual had this to say: “I liked Reagan better than I like Bush and I do not agree with the present situation; therefore for me any president is better than Bush.”
Misgivings were expressed on whether Reagan had good economic policies; most people interviewed believed that his system created a great divide between the rich and the poor. One person said, “I disagreed with him on economic policies which widened the gap between the rich and the poor, although he treated everyone with respect.”
Some felt that the Reagan administration was insensitive to the needs of the middle class and only catered to the rich. “Reagan wanted to wipe out the middle class and taxed them out of existence,” one person declared vehemently. She remarked that the situation was also made worse by the deficits in the economy and that the economy seemed to serve the conglomerates better. “For business, it was good but it wasn’t the right way and it did not value people at the lowest economic status,” she said.
To some, Reagan was involved in political mistakes that had serious consequences to the environment. One interviewee stated that, “As an environmentalist, I was disappointed Reagan did not see the value of wetlands and their importance, and we lost a lot of wetlands during his term. His policies destroyed the animals’ sources of nourishment and survival.”
His military policies also do not appear to have much support; some people thought that the government spent too much on the arms race against the then Soviet Union. This was also coupled with dissatisfaction over the handling of the Iran- Contra affair. “The affair raised trust issues between the President and the people and was not a good reflection. I believe the president knew what was happening and approved the operation,” said one person.
What could be the explanation for all the differences in opinion? One person pointed out that this might reflect polarization of political issues within the United States. She held that “U.S. politics is divided and there are now more differences between the political left-wing and the political right-wing.”
A brief history of Ronald Reagan
Tirzah Fogassy
Ebbtide Correspondent
What was remarkable about President Ronald Reagan was not simply that he was president of the United States; Reagan was more than a president – he was truly a man of the people. Not since the early days of democracy had a president been so beloved, so universally popular.
He was a consummate politician, deftly crafting his platform to fit exactly the needs and fill the hunger of an angry and tired post-Vietnam America. The country, under President Carter, had also just seen its first major oil crisis and was economically depressed and politically uninspired.
Enter Reagan, stage right. With incredible charisma and all the right lines, Reagan was elected president in a landslide election – winning 489 electoral votes while incumbent Jimmy Carter was only able to capture a paltry 49. Reagan, in his blue jeans and cowboy boots, presented himself to Americans as one of their own; a clean-cut, hardworking, honest American. When Americans had been flattened by war and pinched by economic hardship, Reagan swept in with promises of a bigger, better America.
“Reagan had an amazing sense of optimism,” remembers Julie Kemp, Professor of Ancient and Medieval History at SCC. He made himself the people’s champion and advocate – crusading for limited government, lower taxes, an end to the Cold War and breathing life back into Republican politics.”
On March 30, 1980, just 69 days after being sworn in as the 40th President of the United States, Reagan was shot by John W. Hinckley, Jr. Even those who didn’t vote for him wept.
“Even people who didn’t like him as a president still liked him as a person; he was so charming,” recalls Kemp.
Like most presidencies, the Reagan administration was not without its blemishes. The press christened Reagan “Teflon Ron” for his ability to successfully navigate the treacherous shoals of political scandal that surrounded the Iran-Contra affair and accusations of fiscal irresponsibility, yet emerge unscathed.
Few presidents in history have been able to capture a nation the way Reagan did, to transcend partisan boundaries and unite rather than polarize the sentiments of the country. He immortalized himself in the hearts of the American people not just as the president, but as an American icon. With his “Four Pillars of Freedom,” he left behind a legacy of individual liberty, economic opportunity, global democracy and national pride.
Bush going down the tubes
and taking us with him
Carol Brocker
Webmaster
“We need an energy bill that encourages consumption” -President Bush Bush vs. the Environment
Environmentalists have spent over 35 years cleaning up our planet. But, since President Bush has taken over he has trashed the environment worse than a teenager trashes a room.
According to the Sierra Club, “The Bush administration has systematically undermined environmental laws, weakened pollution and public safety standards, cut funding for enforcement agencies and programs, and nominated agency and judicial appointees that are openly hostile to environmental and public health protections.” Air and water-pollution laws and regulation have been muddied, parts of our protected old growth forest have been clear cut, and the Environmental Protection Association has lost $2 billion a year (6 percent) from their budget.
On Bush’s website he states, "When government and landowners and conservationists and others work together, we can make dramatic progress in preserving the beauty and the quality of our environment.” But Bush is doing just the opposite; he has the one of the worst environmental records of any President in the history of the United States.
Most the rest of the world is working on cleaning up the environment. What is wrong with Bush and his administration?
National Debt
Ever since Bush was elected president in 2000 I knew this country was in for trouble. He has taken this country from a stabilized national debt to the highest in the history of the US. Before he took office, our debt was $5,656 trillion. Today it is $7,200 trillion, up 1,500 trillion dollars this fiscal year alone. Check it yourself on the National Debt Clock web site at www.toptips.com/debtclock.html.
Soft Job Market
Since Bush took office, our jobs have been going to third-world countries without new jobs being created to take their place here at home. Why not stimulate new jobs by working to improve our environment and to develop and implement alternative energy? This would be an excellent place to start.
As a college student, the job market changes faster then I can change my major. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not begrudging any country the chance for an improved economy and a livable-wage jobs. But, having to train someone from another country to do your job in order to get unemployment benefits is not right.
I have yet to find anything that Bush has done while in office that really benefits anyone but the wealthiest Americans. Bush shows a blatant disregard for the health of this nation, our children and our grandchildren.
Gas prices are up;
will they come down?
Daniela Mayer
Ebbtide Correspondant
Higher prices at the pump. Fears about foreign dependence on oil.
Accusations that OPEC has us over the barrel … Is this a replay of the 1970s? No, it’s not. In this remake of “High prices at the pump” OPEC does play a part, but it is merely a supporting actor and not the leading role. The leading role this time goes to two different characters, China, and the decrepit refineries in the United States.
The primary cause of the surge in worldwide oil prices is the increase in demand generated by China’s phenomenal economic growth. From 1980 to 2002 China’s increase in demand has gone up 196 percent. These increases have put a strain on the world’s oil-production capacity and caused prices to soar. OPEC has recently admitted that all of its members are already producing far beyond their official quotas and all but (possibly) Saudi Arabia are completely maxed out.
Here at home, our industries have actually become more efficient (40 percent more) since the last oil crisis. This means we need much less gas for each dollar of output, which is good news for the economy (and the environment). However, our economy has grown and our taste in cars did not follow the same efficiency trend, so our overall demand is greater. But this is only part of the domestic reason for higher domestic prices.
The other reason is that our standards for gas are much higher – we use a cleaner and better quality gas; a quality that only our refineries (and Europe’s) are capable of producing. But the U.S. refinery capacity has shrunk over the past 20 years. No new refineries have been built since 1976 and a number of old ones have shut down.
Finally we have to factor in that, generally speaking, the majority of oil is located in unstable countries. This does result in some security costs, which are passed on to us. However, speculators drive the price even higher because of their fear that the geo-political destabilization in the Middle East will disrupt supply. They claim this fear is supportable given that Iraq now supplies 1 million barrels per day less than before the war, and that Saudi’s recent terrorist attacks were conducted by insiders.
So where is the good news in all this? The good news is that the high prices at the pump are going to help us reach our long-term goals of less dependency on oil and the development of viable alternatives.
High prices are creating incentives to enter the market. Not only are new refineries being built (and the contractors are being offered huge incentives to finish fast), but alternatives that are available right now – biodiesel or hybrid cars for instance – have become viable economic alternatives. Up until now, the difference in price between gas and alternative fuels always gave gas the competitive edge. No longer. And the oil companies know it. According to Standard & Poor’s analysis of Chevron and Texaco’s financial reports, both companies are forecasting a loss of 6 percent revenue for next year. They predict this because they know that at these high prices, they are going to lose market share to efficiency and alternatives.
Ironically, the oil price we are seeing today when adjusted for inflation is actually 26 percent less than what we paid in 1981 ($1.38 cents per gallon in 1981 equals $2.84 in today’s dollars). But the sticker shock of seeing the non-inflation adjusted price above $2 has a large psychological impact, which has us searching for viable alternatives.
Will prices come down? Probably. By many estimates world demand accounts for only $30 to $32 of the current $41.14 per barrel. The balance consists of geo-political nervousness, irrational speculators and the refining crunch.
If industry numbers are correct, then we will probably begin to see a reduction in prices sometime after the summer driving season. Still, prices proably won’t sink to their previous lows. The increase in demand from developing countries that are improving their standard of living is not likely to decrease in the near future. The net result, however, will be positive as the higher prices will continue to motivate us to consume less and to seek alternatives.
This is a change that we know we should have made a long time ago, but true to our nature we were never motivated to pursue until it hit us in the pocketbook.
"Trade Debate"
Why OffShoreing isn't All Bad
Daniela Mayer
Ebbtide Coorespondent
“Protect our jobs!” “U.S. out of the WTO!” “Stop off shoring!” John Kerry and George Bush, are you listening? Then consider this – according to a recent report by McKinsey Global Institute, for every dollar diverted abroad, we receive $1.14. Wait a minute, more comes back? That’s not what you expected to see, is it? No, it’s counterintuitive.
But the truth is that in this age of globalization, off shoring makes good business sense, is beneficial to us as a whole, and is inevitable. Attacking cheap imports makes no more sense than ranting against the productivity gains that actually displace more workers – both of these ultimately benefit us.
Yes, there will be winners and losers; just like there were when we transitioned from horses to automobiles or from oil lamps to electricity. Candle makers and blacksmiths may have been displaced, but was it really bad for us as a whole? Protectionism is not the answer.
Today’s transition is from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-sector economy. Those prepared to participate in the highly educated service sector will be the winners and the manufacturing sector will be the losers. We simply cannot compete against the lower wages of the developing nations – nor should we. Our efforts would be better spent helping those who are displaced by this transition and strengthening the institutions so vital for our success.
We can, of course, choose to protect our existing jobs despite the cost. We have that option. But this comes at an expense: In the frozen orange juice industry we choose to protect workers from job loss by slapping a 30 percent tariff on imports - which translates into $461,400 for each job saved. And in Indiana when Gov. Joseph Kernan found out (much to his chagrin) that a firm in India was processing state unemployment claims, he demanded the contract be annulled. Surely our state money should not go overseas! Perhaps, until you learn that the second lowest bidder came in $8 million higher than the firm in India did. And then all of a sudden you have to make a choice – do I divert $8 million from education or health care in order to have those form-processing jobs stay stateside? If we as a society want to make a choice to save an industry, so be it – but we must recognize that it comes at a cost. A cost the whole society pays.
In the end it will not help the industry we are trying to protect – just as steel tariffs implemented by George W. Bush did not prevent several steel companies from going bankrupt. As I stated above, we are transitioning from a manufacturing-based economy into a service-sector economy. Our only productive point of dialogue right now is how we want to handle this transition.
Bush and Kerry know this, but they also know that promising to protect Uncle Ray’s job is more likely to get them votes. This is called pandering and it will bring us no closer to a smooth transition. What we need now is creative thinking and guidance, not more photo–ops with factory workers.
Tools are available to politicians to ease this transition and to ensure long-term prosperity, but they require more effort than slapping a tariff on a foreign product. We are experiencing a structural shift in our economy –and we need our politicians to rise to the challenge of making this inevitable process less painful in the short-term, to share more of the wealth created, and to make investments in the areas that give us a competitive edge.
Displaced workers need good social programs to cushion the blow and education and retraining to re-enter the market. In recognition that not all jobs created in the service sector have livable wages, perhaps those who most benefit from the transition (i.e., society as a whole) should begin subsidizing the wages of the unskilled. And finally, if we want our citizens to be able to benefit from this transition, we need to be willing to invest in the two areas guaranteed to increase our competitiveness: high quality education and improvements in our infrastructure.
Indulging in protectionist rants will do little to help us create the win-win solutions that can ensure that everyone benefits from this inevitable structural change. John Kerry and George Bush, are you listening?
Ronald Reagan returns ad nauseam
Vox Clamatis…
Chris Jones
Managing Editor
Between June 5 and June 12, national news broadcasters did little other than broadcast endless praise for Ronald Reagan. If it had been George Washington himself who had passed away the coverage could not have been more extensive or more extravagant in its praise. Perhaps the most extreme example of this fulsome praise occurred on “Charley Rose” when William F. Buckely claimed that the Reagan’s historical importance exceeded that of either Roosevelt or Churchill. If you were born after the Reagan presidency you might have gotten the impression that Reagan was the most beloved of presidents and that his presidency brought a myriad of benefits to the American people. The truth is quite different: the Reagan years were a disaster for the American People and Reagan was, with good reason, thoroughly despised by huge sectors of the populace.
First off, let us state something that is obvious but seldom if ever said: Ronald Reagan suffered many of the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease well before his term ended. By the time Howard Baker replaced Donald Regan as Chief of Staff (after a fight with Nancy Reagan) Reagan was already withdrawn and inattentive. It hardly mattered though; Reagan had never been in control in the first place. The press barely noticed- Reagan’s distance from the day to day business of the country. This inattention to business was portrayed as “delegation of authority,” a marvelous feature of Reagan’s supposed genius for management.
Ronald Reagan was many things, but a great president he was not. He was a B-film actor whose most frequent co-star was a chimpanzee. He was a stooge for J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI during the McCarthy era. His economic policies which tripled the deficit and vastly increased the gap between rich and poor were aptly described by his own vice-president as “voodoo economics.” His Secretary of the interior, James Watt, was a religious nutcase who began an assault on the environment that has resumed under Bush II. Reagan’s destruction of the flight controller’s union began a decline in union strength and influence which is part and parcel of the proliferation the low-wage non-union labor force we see today.
Reagan’s trade policies so favored the Japanese that, upon leaving office, he proceeded directly to Japan where he received 2 million dollars. When terrorists killed 243 marines in Lebanon, Reagan folded like an old umbrella in a strong breeze and withdrew all troops.
It is widely claimed that Reagan restored America’s confidence. After the trauma of Vietnam, the disgrace of Watergate, the disruptions of the Arab oil embargo and the humiliation of the Iranian hostages it is true that the American psyche was in pretty poor shape. Reagan did bring about a change on the psychological front, but instead of a realistic assessment of the causes of these failures, he led the country back into hubris and jingoism. Rather than a return to confidence it was more like a relapse into psychosis.
Then there was the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or “Star Wars,” an anti-missile defense program which was strategically insane and technologically improbable. Promoted by “Dr. Stangelove” himself, Edward Teller, SDI was roundly condemned by defense theorists as profoundly destabilizing and by the scientific community as virtually impossible. Billions upon billions of dollars were larded into the pockets of defense contractors in pursuit of this magical mystical missile shield which today is still incapable of reliably shooting down even one missile much less the multiple warheads of the current arsenal.
After vowing never to negotiate with terrorists, Reagan approved the sale of arms to Iran in order to obtain the release of hostages. To his credit, he later apologized for this lapse but, in another example of mental confusion, claimed that he still couldn’t believe that it was true. James Baker, speaking on National Public Radio recently, claimed that Reagan was not to blame for the Iran-Contra scandal, that he had been sold a bill of goods by his staff. “He was easily convinced,” said Baker. The American people had no reason to feel sorry for the officials who lost their jobs over Iran-contra – most of them would later either be hired by Fox News or be re-hired by George W. Bush.
Claiming that Reagan brought about the fall of the Soviet Union is perhaps the biggest lie perpetuated by the right wing and their media poodles. The Soviet Union fell of its own weight, corruption and incompetence. If Reagan had had any clue that the Soviets might collapse we could have saved a few billion dollars on Star Wars. If Reagan was so prescient about the fate of the Soviets you’d think he might have had the courtesy to notify the CIA; but they didn’t have a clue either. What exactly did Ronald Reagan do to bring about the end of the Soviet Union? Compared to Truman and the Korean War and the Berlin Airlift, Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Johnson and the War in Vietnam, Reagan’s contribution to fighting communism consisted of helping to jail and blacklist a few left-wing screen writers.
"Ronald Reagan was a figurehead, an amiable doofus of a front man" who had the added advantage of being an experienced actor. With all the publicity surrounding Reagan’s funeral the Republicans are doing all they can to paint “W” has the heir to the Reagan legacy. They are correct in one sense: “W” is the latest iteration of the “amiable doofus for president” strategy which worked so well with Reagan. The only fly in this particular ointment is that since 9/11 the American people are waking up to the fact that, when the chips are down, there are some advantages to having a president with a functioning intellect.