Well, at least you are honest.

True. Reagan defended the filming industry. This came after Truman's establishment of a loyalty program for federal employees which resulted in 90 organizations considered Communist subversives and 2,900 resignations and 300 dismissals from various federal agencies. So, there definitely was an element of Communism alive and operating.

I was trying to make the greater point that Reagan was against the evil of Communism which began when he was an actor and carried through into his governorship and presidency.

Grambo_Bastille posts:

It's already been pointed out that Reagan defended his union and may not be charged with guilt of helping with the blacklist. But, that's not to say that Hollywood didn't have a Soviet whiff about it...it certainly did. That means some weren't innocent. The American Communist Party was an arm of Stalin's Soviet Russia and now, that previously unavailable interviews and archives have been opened, books have been written exposing there were and are Communist spies still being outed...remember Robert Hanssen? I think it was Carl Bernstein who wrote in his autobiography that McCarthy was right and Arthur Herman's book puts it all in perspective.

The best book on the Hollywood Ten is that of Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley, Hollywood Party: The Untold Story of How Communism Seduced the AMerican Film Industry in the 30's and 40's". Billingsley uncovered the true face of Hollywood Communism and revealed how the Party through muscle of the trade unionists, celebrated writers, like Dalton Trumbo, and directors like Elia Kazan, "helped to support an oppressive regime." Ronald Reagan had a key role in fighting it.

This should give us pause for something similiar is still about today. Notice how the Hollywood Left has "respect" for bad guys like Saddam Hussein? Or that Kerry romanced Daniel Ortega's Red regime in Nicaragua and endorsed the despot Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti? Most of the liberals in Washington have a fatal attraction for Castro as well.

Not much has changed and Barack Hussein Obama is farther left than Kerry....what are his attractions with Marxism, Red revolutionaries, and Islam radicalists?




Your statement has me shaking my head in wonderment....do you know anything about atheistic Communism? Have the crimes of Communism vanished from modern memory? Afterall, it was one of the most bloody ideologies in all of human history...and, lest we forget, it's an evil that still exists in Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea. These countries are in a hellish, despotic state. Something tells me you would not like living there.

Communism is an extreme and radical kind of socialism exalting materialism, denying God, and betraying human rights. It holds that the state is supreme and it uses totalitarianism in dealing with the people. It puts the state above the individual and the family, and is a rejection of God and His relationship to mankind. Karl Marx was a primary force behind this movement with his theories on social organization, holding of property, and economic position.

Much of the indoctrination was carried out in Communist "re-education" or concentration camps. Marx said, "Man was destined to find fulfillment in a new world order in which conflict would be eliminated and socio-economic harmony at last achieved. The wars, oppressions, miseries and spiritual illusions of previous ages would dissolve into Communist peace, which was the goal of history."

The spread of Communism brought immense suffering. About 60 million people in the USSR alone died as victims of fanatical Communists. 100 million total. They were merely expendable creatures in a quest for a classless society.

Does that sound like something that should be allowed to go unchecked in the USA?

I stand corrected on my statement about the witch hunt ..... but I stand by statements that Reagan wasn't as influential in the fall of Eastern European communism as he is credited with.

Regarding the above statement, I hope you don't shake your head too much. Should it go unchecked? Perhaps not, but until GW came along, I still thought we were living in America where one is allowed to believe in whatever they want and to say so without any repercussions.

And you use the word "atheistic" as if it is wrong .... and it is "radical and extreme" to deny god? Sorry bud, but now you are treading on dangerous grounds.

Your statements about Communism are typical for someone trying to make a point ..... I agree that radical Communism is an evil, but the world is not all black and white .... not all people who believe, or did believe, in Communism advocate the slaughter of innocent people. Back in the fifties, it was considered by many to be a vehicle to redistribute the wealth .... yes, maybe it is ideological, but as an American, if I were to believe in Communism I again state that I should be allowed to without being blacklisted or jailed (for the record, I am not a Communist). Go back and read what I said, and not what you wanted me to say - I was not defending Communism, just the right to believe it in this country.

By the way, as many crimes were committed trying to expunge Communism than Communism itself. Case in point - Korean War and Vietnam Conflict .... how many of our troops died or were changed forever by those engagements? The good ol' US going to faraway lands to fight those evil Communists (unsuccessfully) when we should have just minded our own business.

Funny i'd of gone for Dwight Eisenhower myself, but then again he was not the focal point of a Fox News propoganda campaign, so i can understand how you may have overlooked him.

A simple question if i may, why Regan? What did he do for you that was so great?

Under Reagan's leadership, America was respected around the world. Reagan truly served the people. No other President has done so since.

I think he championed conservative principles and led from inner strength and character that didn't change with the political wind.

He respected God, loved our country, was truly patriotic, and understood the importance of a strong family. For Reagan all life was sacred.

All that just came naturally...as well as did his work in the COld War struggle for freedom. Margaret Thatcher, another one of my favorite politicos, credited him with winning the Cold War "without firing a shot".

Then you to get back to the books and study some real history...From this and other comments you've made, it sounds like you've been duped with the revisionist crap that's being taught in high schools and colleges nowadays.



Both North Korea and Vietnam today are under Commmunism. The people live in a police state with no freedom. Life is grim for ordinary people living there. These countries have been totally left behind in the Asian economy. North Korea is in the news today.

Check out of your local library, IN DENIAL: HISTORIANS, COMMUNISM AND ESPIONAGE by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr if you want to learn about enormous human cost and crimes of atheistic Communism.



It is wrong. You do believe in freedom of religion, don't you?

YOu are confusing issues. First, who determines that one life is more important than another? After all, the communist started both conflicts. And they were and are still killing thousands. The killing done on the other side was to prevent the spread of it. One successful, the other not. However the deaths were not caused by trying to stop the communism, but by the communism itself.

Your statement could just as easily have been made about Nazi Germany. Look how many lives were lost trying to stop the spread? If we had failed, I guess there would be many today equating the action to stop it with the action to spread it. A nice propaganda coup, but hardly an honest comparison.

On the other hand, Lulapilgrim, Reagan did a lot of things that didn't serve the people. He was a union-buster (hardly serving "the people" there) and, I believe, began the trend of outsourcing American jobs. He also, through his economic policies that have been worsened by every Republican president since then, resulting in our potentially catastrophic deficit under Dubya. His attack on the Constitution called Iran/Contra was pretty awful, and going to Bitberg Cemetery to lay a wreath where Waffen SS members were also buried was something of a national embarrassment. If he ever took the side of "the people" over corporations, I don't remember it.

However, he was a breath of fresh air after the indelibly dreary Jimmy Carter. He got a lot of Americans to feel good about the country again, and that was important. As for ending the Cold War, while I take no credit away from Reagan, I also give a lot to Gorbachev.

I would say his legacy is mixed.

An honest evaluation. But then looking at the legacies of presidents since then and (other than a few minor accomplishments) immediately prior to him, he stands head and shoulders above all of them in that he at least accomplished great things. The rest of the cast has been just a bunch of self inflated minor bureaucrats that looked to preen their tail feathers rather than address tough issues.

We are claiming that Reagan was great, in the title, KFC called him the best, not perfect.



Ditto.




What do we know of the AMerican trade union movement during Reagan's time?

That Communist Party members held leadership positions within the ranks of the CIO and had powerful influence in building up unions.

Was it Reagan or Phil Murray who purged the CIO of its Communist members?

Name one union or industry that is unionized in the country that is productive, effecient, and competitive in the world market.

Hi, Lulapilgrim -

Screen Actors' Guild - Directors' Guild of America - Writers' Guild of America - all other film or television unions. I think it is safe to say that the United States still leads the way in these forms of entertainment, almost always in terms of profit, and sometimes even in quality of product.

I'll spend some time later in the day and see if I can come up with any others.

Back to Reagan - the Constitution that any president swears to uphold is supposed to "provide for the general welfare", among other things. In layman's terms, this means "take care of everybody". I maintain that because the number of Americans living in poverty went up under Reagan, he was not successful at this. Republicans since (and including) Reagan have consistently favored corporations over working people, and this preference shows when you compare corporate profits (which go up) to real wages (which go down, or up only a very little, or remain the same) under Reagan, Bush I, and this putz.

How about the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, who build Boeing aircraft? More to come, but that's four so far.

Well, the government would disagree since the "poverty" rate (actually just the lower percentage of americans since real poverty is virtually non-existant) did not change during his tenure. But why let stats get in the way of a good arguement?

Hi, Lulapilgrim - All unions listed currently work, or have worked, for General Dynamics, one of our biggest defense contractors. I think it is a given that our weapons and weapons systems are among the best in the world. I therefor believe that they are "productive, efficient, and competitive in the world market", as you put it.

United Mine Workers of America - Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America - United Auto Workers Union - Metal Trades Council of New London, CT - Office and Professional Employees International.

I don't know about you, but as a general rule for me, the more important something is (example - the airplane in which I am a passenger at 35,000 feet), the more I want it to be made by a happy, healthy, well-rested, well-fed, well-insured (along with his family), stress-free union worker rather than a wage slave with no health insurance, paid sick time or vacation time.

Stats on poverty under Reagan are somewhat confusing, as there are different figures quoted by different sources. Got mine from Cato, taking issue with a Paul Krugman column. According to them (it?), poverty went up under Reagan, peaking in '83, then fell, but was higher at the end of his presidency than it had been at the beginning.

Why then are the unions complaining that Hollywood is taking their business to Canada, Ireland and countries like New Zealand?



Wasn't it the wages of unions that drove some airlines into bankruptcy?


Let's talk about education in this country....What has the NEA, the teacher's union done for education in this country? Where does American education rate in the world? What are our standings in Math and Science?




Do you feel safer in an American car? Do union workers deliver better quality? How come Toyota is noted for its better reliability, safety and econmonic performance?

What company leads the way in Hybrids? It's Toyota isn't it? What's the most reliable cars in America..the muscle cars that Ford, GM and Chrysler are coming out with?

Auto unions are more competive....would you buy GM stock or Toyota stock?

Just curious what do you drive?

If auto workers are so productive and unions are so wonderful, why did BMW, Honda, Mercedes, and Toyota settle in the South instead of the North and not use union auto labor?

Ever notice when foreign companies come to the US, they don't use union workers..Why not?

How come union workers get special treatment getting paid $50./hour and only pay taxes on half of that?

And speaking of taxes, the US Post Office is unionized and tax exempt..and it still can't compete with Fed Ex and UPS. They can't compete with those even though they are subsidized by the government and have tax free status.

Hi, Lulapilgrim -

Hollywood shoots movies overseas (or in Vancouver) or in certain parts of the United States because the countries you mentioned and Vancouver and certain locations within the U.S. give them financial incentives to do so. The labor on an American film is always union, regardless of where it is shot. However, when a film shoot occurs overseas, a lot of the minor acting work can be done by "local hires".

As for union costs driving airlines and other companies into bankruptcy, I believe that has more to do with health insurance costs than anything else. Right now the insurance lobby is one of the most powerful in the United States, and will fight tooth and nail against any form of single-payer, government-run health insurance, which is ultimately going to happen here anyway, just as it has in most of the rest of the developed world. A worker doesn't automatically become incompetent because he is a member of a union.

Public education in this country is indeed a mess, but I don't see how you can lay that at the feet of unions. Would you explain that one to me please?

As to the automakers, I think most of the blame for the decline of the American car comes from management, not labor (leaving aside the issue of health care costs). The United States segment of the auto market is noted for large vehicles - pickup trucks, SUVs, and large sedans (Cadillac, Lincoln, and so on), and, indeed, "muscle cars". These for me are out of my price-range (I'm a public school teacher) or not suitable to my needs or wants (I live in urban Los Angeles). Since moving to California, I've driven a Toyota Tercel, a Honda Civic, and now a Honda CRV. I might just as well have bought a Ford SUV (they have one that is practically identical to the CRV), except I'm engaged in a lifelong boycott of Ford going back to the issue of the Pinto gastank.

I'd buy stock in Toyota over GM, but not because of the quality of labor involved. GM's philosophy has been wrong for the last twenty years, and now that the price of gas has skyrocketed, they're in biiiiig trouble. Is that the fault of the workers or management? I think management.

As part of globalization, whenever foreign companies come here they use non-union labor because our government allows them to, and they want to maximize their profits. Unions do take away from profit because they insure that workers share in the company's success.

I think the Postal Service competes just fine. I will always use Express Mail over either FedEx or UPS.

You know, labor unions were originally formed, I believe, to combat abuses in the workplace on the part of owners and management. Much union activity is involved with insuring safety in the workplace. Are you against safety in the workplace? Do you think it's right and fair for corporate profits to skyrocket while wages stay stagnant? Have you read about how workers were treated when the transcontinental railroad was being built? Have you followed the struggles of the people who pick our crops? Where, exactly, does your hostility towards unions come from, if I may ask?

I don't know of any union that only pays taxes on half its income, so please clue me in.

HI Catguy,



What? Since when does upholding the US Constitution mean taking care of everybody?

The Constitution defines the Presidential branch as having limited, delegated powers and it surely isn't being a "nanny" taking care of everybody. Where does taking personal responsibility for oneself fit in your plan if the government is to take care of everybody?


As far as I know the US Constitution says nothing about job creation, public education, medicare and other government run retirement programs, rather it expressly charges the federal government with the defense of the nation against enemies foreign and domestic, granting reprieves or pardons, negotiating treaties, and making executive agreements with foreign powers.



Gee whiz...who hires the unions if not corporations? Who creates the jobs which give the people those real wages if not corporations?

Unions tend to promote mediocracy and union workers are over paid for work they do.
That in turn drives costs of doing business up and that translates to the consumer. It has to come from somewhere and it's either the consumer or the taxpayer it seems who is always getting the short end of the stick.



Sorry Catguy, no sale! The decline of the AMerican car is because they don't last and have defects...in short, on the whole they are not reliable...this is union workers, not management.



So you're a big union guy, but you personally drive a non union product. I realize there is a rationale behind why you drive what you drive, but I can't help but laugh that you like so many others don't practice what you preach!



Again, the most reliable cars in the US are not made from union workers.

And btw, have you heard about the quality of labor from union workers in Boston's Big Dig?



Ya, for a tax exempt monopoly that loses money each year!




Yes, I am aware of the first labor unions and the reasons why they were formed. But that time has well passed..there is no need for labor unions today.

Welcome to the 21st century...A majority of the American workers are not unionized and getting along just fine...when need be...fighting their own battles. America doesn't need corrupt unions that are really just an arm of the Democrat Party machine.




That's because unions don't consider benefits as income. Union workers are not paying taxes on health benefits or retirement pension.

Yes, I'll be happy to lay out my case against the NEA.

Hi, Lulapilgrim -

True, "provide for the general welfare" is open to interpretation, and like much of the rest of the Constitution is not specific. I choose to look at the population as a whole, and have given you my interpretation, with which you disagree. Fair enough.

True, workers are hired by corporations, and corporations frequently take advantage of them, in general by forcing them to increase their productivity (I think American workers are, by and large, the most productive in the world) while not awarding commensurate benefits in pay or anything else for their increased productivity. You're not particularly concerned with fairness, though, are you?

You say unions tend to promote mediocrity and union workers are overpaid. Both statements are generalizations and opinions, reflecting your beliefs, which I do not share. I belong to the United Teachers of Los Angeles, and work both in the classroom and occasionally for the union. All the work I do for the union involves making sure that no teacher's rights as written in our contract with L.A. Unified School District are violated. Do you believe in contracts and enforcing them? I certainly don't feel that I'm a mediocre teacher or that I am overpaid.

My experience with American cars is that they are too darn big and get too little mileage. For you to say they don't last, have defects, and aren't reliable is, again, your opinion. For you to lay that at the union workers who assembled the cars, and further to apparently try to make the case that they would be better workers if they weren't in the union, is, to me, quite a stretch. The Pinto gastank, referenced earlier, wasn't the fault of a union assembly-line worker, but of the designer of the car. And there are quite a few foreign cars around that, according to the Consumer Reports, are not a prize.

While I am a believer in unions, I am also what used to be called a "conscientious consumer", and drive the car that meets my needs best while keeping me and my family safe. I would be foolish not to.

The Big Dig? Total fiasco. So what? Empire State Building, built long ago. Still standing, even after being hit by an airplane.

Postal service, while being a "tax-exempt monopoly", is also part of the Federal Government, and does not necessarily exist to turn a profit. It used to, and it would be nice if it did now, but it doesn't have to.

You are perhaps the only person in America right now that thinks that a majority of American workers are fighting their own battles and getting along just fine. Forgive me, but are you paying the least attention to the disastrous economy this President is presiding over? Oh, yeah, that's really good for the American worker, many of whom have had their old jobs (the ones that paid well) outsourced and sent overseas. Based on the last eight years, unions (at least in this country) are as necessary as they ever were.

For you to say "corrupt unions" as though that were a given had to come from somewhere. It strikes me that the most corrupt organization in the United States in the last eight years is the Republican Party.

Again, I ask you, where does your hostility towards the idea of unions come from?

Anyway, don't let the last couple of posts distract you from my original point. The film and tv unions all meet your challenge. The unions that construct commercial airliners and work for General Dynamics all meet your challenge.

You're very sharp, Lulapilgrim, and you have very strong beliefs, most of which I find myself in disagreement with. But you are civil, and I appreciate it, as so many on this site (on both sides) are not. I'm sure our discussion on public education will be worth having.

Liberal interpretation. conservative interpretation - Take care of the country, not the individual. And if you read the other papers of the founders, you will find my interpretation closer to their thinking than the newspeak of today.



Why go to 3rd parties? Go to the source. The government has stats on poverty for every year (and it is not poverty again - that is just an inflamatory word). You will see that the absolute number went up during his term - as it did during Bill Clinton's - only because the Population went up. The percent as a total remained virtually unchanged.

Hello Catguy,

Throughout this discussion, I keep going back to what you said:



I can assure you if the tables were turned and you were self-employed (a "wage slave"), you wouldn't be pro-union, no matter what!

Besides that, with all due respect, you are missing the big picture..the forest for the trees so to speak.

Back to the auto industry...the American companies would still be trolling along had it not been for Japanese industry competition.

It's the marketplace and not the unions which forces all around improvement. Plain and simple, across the board, when unions are involved there is no competition.




Yes, I think unions in general have become political and therefore corrupt and are doing a great disservice to the country, the economy, etc. That's not to say there aren't good union workers...there most definitely are.



Thank you. I, too, appreciate a good, civil discussion. How else would we learn anything?

Re: the National Education Association...the NEA ...I say the NEA is nothing other than a honey pot for hyper-liberal political causes that has nothing to do with teaching or the welfare of students.

Do you think it's right and proper for non-profit unions such as the NEA to use its tax exempt, tax payer money to help influence the election of Democrats in public office?

Wow, where do I start?

1) Why should I read about history? I was there when it happened. I VOTED for Reagan. Smoke and mirrors. Better than some, not the best
2) Thanks for the recommendation on the book. You do realize that most books slant things toward the opinion of the author, right? I hope so for your sake, but I doubt it.
3) Yeah, I belive in freedom of religion. I also believe in the freedom to deny that god exists, that the bible is crap written by human beings trying to keep people in line, etc., etc. So, freedom of religion extends to freedom to believe that religion sucks. I grew up Christian, drank the kool-aid, tried it again as an adult and guess what, it is just as accurate as any other mythology. And this is America, so I "should" be able to express that thought without repression. Yes?