Admit it. You thought Ronald Reagan was just another dead white male. But the truth is he’s actually a rich source of fun facts!
Tim Russert: “the Republicans achieved control of the United States Congress for the first time in 70 years, of both houses, under Ronald Reagan.”
No wait, that was Bill Clinton.
Bloomberg: “He left office … with the highest approval rating of any president since Franklin Roosevelt.”
No wait, that was Bill Clinton. (details)
Fox News: “Reagan was the most popular president ever.”
No wait, Bill Clinton was more popular (among many others). (details)
New York Times: “Reagan presided over the longest economic expansion in history”
No wait, that was Bill Clinton.
NPR: “He shrank government.”
No wait, that was Bill Clinton. (details)
NPR: “There is no question he cut taxes”
Reagan did preside over what was at the time the biggest tax cut in history but it was almost instantly followed up by the biggest tax increase in history. (details)
Bill Clinton: America mourns losing you.
(More fun facts from Ruben Bolling.)
posted June 15, 2004 09:48 AM (Politics) (5 comments) #
β’Reagan was the most popular president ever.’
No wait, Bill Clinton was more popular.”
This is true, but slightly misleading. Reagan, according to the graph, was less popular than five other presidents, three of which were also ahead of Clinton. Even though the real lie is Fox’s statement, your wording incorrectly implies that Clinton was the most popular.
posted by Adam at June 16, 2004 01:32 PM #
βHe left office β¦ with the highest approval rating of any president since Franklin Roosevelt.β
That’s true. When Reagan left office, he had the highest approval rating upon leaving since FDR. Only later did Clinton come around to beat that.
It’s like saying GHW Bush had been the tallest President since LBJ, even though Clinton was taller. Or that Taft had been the fattest since Cleveland, even if Clinton was fatter. OK, he was not fatter thank Taft, but I think it’s funny to think of him that way. :-)
Also, I am unconvinced that some other approval rating measurement didn’t place Reagan higher than Clinton, but since I couldn’t care less about approval ratings (as you’ll note in a moment), I won’t even bother to check, but I say it for anyone else who might care to.
“No wait, Bill Clinton was more popular”
That’s false (the “No” part, anyway). Approval ratings are not the same thing as popularity. The fact is, “popularity” is an inspecific term and as long as you can justify it in some way, the statement is as true as is possible.
There’s no reasonably objective and meaningful measurement of “popularity” apart from election results, and Reagan had the best election results in the last century after FDR (and if you average them out, he might even beat FDR, I can’t recall). And election results are not a great measurement for overall popularity, because they only happen once every four years, rarely more than twice for any given man, and only more than thrice with one man I can think of (again, FDR … off the top of my head, Jefferson and Nixon both had three elections).
And, of course, elections are full of error (for these purposes) because a vote in one state is not equal to a vote in another state, because of our electoral college and the different pressures in different states or districts. So in the case of President, elections just aren’t a good measurement, either.
But they’re still better than approval ratings, which have nothing directly to do with popularity. I like Bush and mant of his policies and I will vote for him again, but I disapprove of his budget priorities and deficit spending, and I very well may show up on the negative side of a Bush approval poll, depending on the questions asked. So is he “popular” with me, or not? I think he is, but a pollster might disagree. They aren’t the same thing.
I am not saying Clinton was not more popular than Reagan, I am saying it is wrong for you to say Reagan was not more popular than Clinton, because by some reasonable measurements, he clearly was. I won’t further argue that approval ratings are not reliable, if you wish to assert it, only that you can’t reasonably dismiss other indicators.
A similar line of reasoning goes for “economic expansion” and “shrank government.”
“Reagan did preside over what was at the time the biggest tax cut in history but it was almost instantly followed up by the biggest tax increase in history.”
That’s exceptionally deceptive, moreso than what you decry when people call Reagan popular. Of course, you’re referencing Krugman, so that it is deceptive is a given. But saying it is the biggest tax increase by measuring it in terms of percentage of GDP is a weak analysis at best; further, payroll taxes are — for the people most affected by them — more an investment than a tax, and comparing them to income tax is comparing apples to oranges.
posted by pudge at June 21, 2004 12:27 AM #
