I agree that Reagan would not like the current foreign policy.
The idea that his domestic policies are working well is funny to me. Disparity between rich and poor, failure of the health reforms, removal of children from health care rolls, housing market slumps, tax burdens of the middle class increasing while the rich and big business pay less...etc.
2006-12-08 06:41:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by RJ 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Bush's foreign policies actually mirror Ronald Reagan's to a great degree. Both believed in intervention in the Middle East. What's interesting is that pre-9/11, despite rumors that Bush wanted to invade Iraq then, George Bush was for the most part a traditional Republican who believed in isolationism. 9/11 has been seen as the precursor for a radical shift in current foreign policy, although there were many economic precursors for the current war in Iraq.
I think the main difference between the foreign policies of Reagan and Bush lie in the men in their administration. Reagan's military staff were far more pragmatic and capable of forseeing the difficulties of extended conflicts. That's why Reagan was very much against being openly involved in nation-building.
Bush, to his credit, is trying to rebuild Iraq more properly instead of funding various factions to kill one another. The problem is that he did not look into the costs of the war, and now that these costs are seeing the light of the public, his popularity is waning. Furthermore, it is questionable about how stable the government of Iraq will be, and whether it will be able to survive a civil war, if one ever occurs.
Overall, I think Reagan would say that Bush had the right idea from the neoconservative standpoint, but was not honest enough to talk about the costs. I believe that had the American public known about the costs of the war, they would have made a much more informed opinion rather than engage in vitriolic partisan sniping.
As for domestic issues, the two are very distinct. Reagan had the support of the scientific community for various things such as the Star Wars bill whereas even Reagan's family believes that the suspension of stem cell research is very stupid considering that fertility clinics will incinerate these spare embryos anyway. Reagan, despite being back-biting, was willing to work with liberals on certain issues whereas Bush was uncompromising. It is said that this was a positive character trait of his, althought it would depend on your viewpoint.
2006-12-08 14:49:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mangalita 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
He would make the immediate suggestion to bring the Iraqi death sqauds into line and begin supporting them, you know, just like Reagan did in Latin America in the 80s. As far as domestic policies, Bush is as much the failure as Reagan.
2006-12-08 14:48:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
truer words have never been spoken. LOL
As Bush continues to dig himself deeper, Reagan's legacy improves. Selling weapons to terrorists (Iran) and providing the money to terrorists (Contras) and then lying about the fiasco appears lightly compared to the civil-war in Iraq, er, explosion-filled misunderstanding.
2006-12-08 21:08:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Probably something like... "Too bad he didn't think to threaten all media outlets that did not support his agenda with The Communications Act of 1934 , then he too could have had control of what the American people heard and saw. Look what a great job the socialist and liberals did at controlling the media outlets and by doing so have gained control of the minds of so many.. Its like sitting back and watching the Pied piper at work.."
2006-12-08 14:46:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by bereal1 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Reagan would have talked to Iran and Syria. They would have buckled to him just like the Soviet Union did. Bush Sr. and Clinton both follwed the Reagan philosophy of diplomacy first. W does not seem to get it.
2006-12-08 14:36:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by txwebber 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
If he could even remember what happened and realize whats going on he would have to say o well we all mess up some times in our lives look at what i did when i was in office people think im the Antichrist.... and to the answer above me before you say any thing about the economy realize what your talking about...
2006-12-08 14:37:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lab Runner 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
His domestic policies cannot be criticized. Look at the economy, unemployment, taxes, social security reform, Dept of Homeland security, two supreme court judges. Look and think before you speak.
2006-12-08 14:37:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
Reagan would have fought the war to WIN it, not just to "stablize" Iraq and then get the hell out.
2006-12-08 14:38:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by C = JD 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
Nothing. He wouldn't be able to recall any of it.
2006-12-08 14:35:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋