Who was the more divisive president - a question for historians?

[kentuck]

Ronald Reagan or George W Bush? Those same people that cut their teeth on politics in the 1980's and became Reagan disiples, are the same ones that are pushing the Bush agenda today. Reagan was called the Great Communicator - he was also the Great Divider. He spoke in terms of they vs us, when he talked about anyone that did not fit in his vision of America.

Up until George W Bush, no one had divided this nation as much as Ronald Reagan. When Dubya came along, he had the political power and the means to put Reagan's agenda into action - something Reagan had not accomplished. He came into office in the most controversial manner imaginable - appointed by the US Supreme Court - and started executing his office as if he won a major landslide victory. He was the Great Divider that Reagan aspired to be.

This is not an explanation for the hate that some people show toward Ronald Reagan but a perspective that might assist younger posters in understanding just how divisive a character that Reagan truly was in the eyes of many. He was not the lovable grandfather-type that was portrayed on the television screens.

So the common ground that we should all be able to agree upon is that we have no duty - quite the opposite - to mythologize Ronald Reagan. It is probably good that they know we are no longer going to play that game with them. They can celebrate his life and his part in starting the new conservative movement but we do not have to be a part of their celebration. We do not have to hate the man but we do not have to celebrate him either.

[mike_c]

1. you know, that is a good question....

I think it's clear that the nation is more polarized under Bush than it was during the Reagan presidencies, but I don't know whether that's really attributable to either of them or their administrations directly. I mean, in Bush's case the nation was highly polarized going into his residency, and that has only increased, IMO. Of course, his administration has only aggravated the situation since 2000.

[HootieMcBoob]

2. Good question

I'd have to say W without a doubt. When Reagan was elected there were tons of problems, inflation being probably the biggest. A lot of people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And remember he won his second term in a landslide. When * was selected the country was in the best shape it had been in decades. Shrub took that opportunity to destroy everything that had been accomplished in an astonishingly short period of time. * is without doubt the most divisive of the two.

Since it's only between these two we can't include the others and the obvious choice of Lincoln as most divisive of all. The Freepers and Republicans of today would have hated Abe.

[H2O Man]

3. bush.

Reagan was a terrible politician. He was cruel, and often verged on evil. bush is worse. I think Reagan realized he was acting a role, in order to further his agenda. bush believes he is the real deal. bush's religious preoccupation makes him far more dangerous.

[kodi]

4. you have to be kidding, if reagan had had a GOP congress like bush has?

oh man, come on.

that comparison isn't in the same ballpark here, its a completely different game.

don't think for one minute that reagan would not have done a hell of alot more damage than bush has if the GOP held congress 1981-89. as it was reagan had to raise taxes and go behind the back of congress to fund wars. if he had the current gop congress reagan would have destroyed much more than he did.

on the other hand, bush with a democratic congress would be in jail by now.

[xcentrik]

5. Easy! W wins by 10 lengths.

Having lived through both of them, a few differences:

1. Reagan won by a landslide, and for better or worse, really had a mandate.

2. Unlike W, he was a genuinely self-made person, and didn't have the world handed to him on a silver platter in his youth (even though the silver platter was handed to him big time later in his life.)

3. He really smiled, instead of smirking.

4. He included religious references in his speeches, but seldom bashed us over the head with them like W.

5. He served in wartime, even though he was limited to public relations, which in WWII, was damn important.

[playahata1]

6. History will out W in the end.

Even with all the damage he has done, even with the country so deeply divided over him, I don't think that 3 1/2 years has been time enough for anyone to get some sort of historical perspective on him. Reagan has had enough time; hence the polarization when it comes to him.

And what we have witnessed -- and participated in -- on DU this evening is the nation in a nutshell, no matter what the Reaganites would have us believe.

[RoyGBiv]

7. I think it is too early to tell...

I know people don't like that answer, but it happens to be the correct one for most situations like these. The depth of a President's influence on the body politic is often not felt for a decade or more after his term(s). Consider FDR, for example. During the 30's, contemporary critics felt he was taking an already troubled nation and thoroughly destroying it. Republicans weren't just spouting rhetoric when they roared in opposition to the Tennessee Valley Authority. They really believed it was socialism at its worst, that it would turn the country socialist, and that this would destroy it.

My point is that the criticisms of a President can change based on the long-term effects of his policies. In Dubya's case, I only see those criticisms becoming worse, but whether he proves to be a more divisive influence than Reagan is another issue. One result of disastrous policies is that they can unintentionally unite groups that were once far apart. This has happened several times in the nation's history. Even absent WWII, what is apparent now is that FDR in fact united disparate groups, some of which had had no previous voice in government, into a new political coalition that changed the nation for the better. Few would have said this at the time, not even many of his supporters.

Also consider Lincoln. On one level, it is very clear he was the most divisive President in our history, literally. On another level, he was also one of the most unifying political personalities in history as well. The nation survived because of him, but it could just have easily died because of him.

In any case, if one needs evidence of the current state of divisiveness inspired by Presidents, look at DU. Discussion of which subject has divided us in the last 24 hours?

[Yupster]

8. Agree RoyG

I often find I do agree with you. The first thought that came to my mind was neither of those two was in Lincoln's league as far as divisiveness goes, and history treats him pretty well.

I was going to college in Europe while Reagan was president, and as bad as Europe hates Bush, they hated Reagan worse.

Anyone remember the nuclear freeze movements? The massive marches on the streets of every European capital against Reagan and his missiles.

I remember the Germans with the "Nuclear - nein danke" happy face buttons they wore.

If you think this is odd for Europe to hate an American president, you're too young to remember Reagan.

[RoyGBiv]

9. Agreed...

I agree with you more than it may seem I do. I think we just got off to a bad start in that one thread. I sometimes have a bad habit of wording things too forcefully when giving a historical opinion, and I come off sounding condescending. It is truly unintentional.

Anyway, I remember the Reagan years well, and I agree with your observations.

I also remember a friendship I had with a Russian woman in the late 90's. The one stumbling block to our friendship was Reagan. Even though I was highly critical of him and that whole era, it was a very touchy subject for her, and if I didn't take great care in choosing my words, she easily misunderstood my intent. Because of Reagan, she grew up truly believing Americans wanted her dead, and it was a hard thing for her to forget.