Probably my least intellectual regular reader, a guy who uses the moniker "ryecatcher" (doesn't he realize Holden Caufield was a bit of an idiot?) over at the Gang of Four blog seems to think I'm vulnerable to criticism for saying that Ronald Reagan was the best president of my lifetime. (Ryecatcher can't spell "Reagan", so that already says a lot about him.)

It's been amusing to see him bring up in every moronic comment he makes that I have a generally high opinion of Reagan, not that he was perfect, regardless of the topic of the note which the comment was attached to.

So it was with particular interest that I noted an article and a poll last week which both explain to a large degree why I think Reagan was an excellent president and demonstrate that a great number of Americans agree with me.

First, this excellent article by the generally excellent Peter Ferrara:
see "Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics", WSJ, 2/11/09

Ferrara points out that "even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government relative to the economy." He also notes that Obama's plans don't contain any of the essential elements of Reagan's successful economic strategy and "this is why America seems so hopeless right now, and so depressed. We are stuck going in exactly the wrong direction on economic policy because of currently dominant ideological fashions."

And second, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of naive liberals who can't see past Iran-Contra or some other straw man used to claim that Reagan wasn't on balance a great president, is a new poll from Gallup showing Reagan's esteem among Americans. In fact, even the Gallup organization (betraying a bit of liberal bias) can't stand to say it, so here's their headline: "Best President? Lincoln on Par With Reagan, Kennedy"

The headline seems intentionally designed to mask the fact that in a poll of over 1,000 adults across the nation, Reagan got the most votes for "best president" at 24% while Lincoln and Kennedy tied at 22%. (FDR and Washington were the other two nominees.)

It's true that Reagan's "victory" came from tremendous support among Republicans. But it's also interesting that among Independent voters, all 4 choices other than George Washington received between 19% (Reagan) and 22% (Lincoln). Of course liberals don't like Reagan. He supported everything they oppose, like economic liberty, limited government and the low taxes that accompany it, and national security.

Again, it's true that Reagan wasn't perfect. But I defy anyone, even an idiot like so many liberal commenters over at the Gang of Four site, to make a cogent explanation of who has been a better president during my lifetime, i.e. since the mid-1960's. Those Reagan denigrators have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

It will be very interesting to look back 20 or 30 years from now to see where Obama ranks on these lists. People will want to rank him highly because he's the first black-looking president (as opposed to Bill Clinton, "the first Black president.") And indeed they may. But I maintain my believe that the only reason FDR isn't viewed as a villain is because of World War II. His economically disastrous "experiments", his frontal assault on the Supreme Court, and his legacy of quasi-socialism all earn him my everlasting enmity. No, you politically correct liberals out there, I don't go easier on him because he was a cripple. The bottom line is that unless there is a new major war, Obama's rankings will be determined by economics, much like Herbert Hoover. While part of me would love for the socialist Obama to be as reviled as Hoover, the greater part of me doesn't want him to fail because that would mean the entire country goes through serious suffering. The question is whether we'll do OK in spite of Obama because I'm absolutely certain we won't do well because of him.