Alan Greenspan, Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Dies at 100 Alan Greenspan’s death at 100 closes the chapter on a central banker hailed as a genius and blamed as an architect of crisis—often by the same commentators. The competing narratives around his legacy expose a deeper divide over whether markets mostly self-correct or must be aggressively restrained.

Liberal-leaning outlets emphasize the contradiction between Greenspan’s celebrated “Great Moderation” and the turmoil that followed. CBS notes that his 18-year reign coincided with a period “marked by low inflation, stock market gains and strong economic growth,” but also with repeated financial crises and policies later “linked to the 2008 global financial crisis.” The Economist’s post‑crisis assessment, cited in that coverage, is blunt: Greenspan was “a naive believer in market efficiency,” too reluctant to “pop bubbles” or “regulate the financial sector properly.” CNBC similarly stresses that his “loose hand at the central bank is sometimes cited as a cause of the 2008 financial crisis,” even as it concedes that he “helped lead his country through almost two decades of prosperity.”

Conservative outlets share the basic facts but adjust the balance of praise and blame. The Blaze highlights that “many credited his economic policies for the prosperity of the 1980s and ’90s,” while acknowledging others “blame him for the” financial crash and noting his later admission of errors about banks’ self‑interest. The Washington Examiner foregrounds Andrea Mitchell’s personal tribute, calling him “a giant of a man who helped shape the U.S. economy for decades under presidents of both parties, but was always honest in acknowledging his mistakes,” and lingering on his “irrational exuberance” for sports and jazz. The Washington Times offers a more stripped‑down notice, underscoring his institutional role rather than re-litigating his record.

Across the spectrum, then, Greenspan is remembered as powerful, consequential, and fallible. The real split is over emphasis: liberals turn his legacy into a cautionary tale about deregulated finance, while conservatives more often treat him as a flawed but fundamentally successful steward of American prosperity.