Reagan

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by JohnT
I am an admirer of Bill Clinton. [/q]

So am I

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
anyone remember "reaganomics"?

Yes. The Reagan boom was and is legendary.

Do you deny that it occurred?

[Imran Siddiqui]

He had a solid group of core Republican advisors, but not the ability, the desire, or the will to question their direction.

I wonder why this falsity gets repeated so much? Reagan challenged his cabinet all the time. If he didn't we'd have a national ID card already. It's my favorite story: Reagan's entire cabinet was talking about issuing national ID cards (because of some crisis or another) and EVERYONE agreed. Reagan listened to everyone and then said in his regular joking manner "Why stop there, why don't we just put numbers on people's arms". Everyone in the room gasped, and 2 seconds later, no one wanted an national ID card anymore .

[-Jrabbit]

If this story is true, maybe I raise him to a 3...

[Q Classic]

Well, why not ask Gorbachev? Of course the USSR was being bled dry by Afghanistan and by the arms race with the US. Then came the Solidarity phenomenon in Poland that was reinforced by the Pope. This lead to democracy in Poland and then to democracy in Russia. The USSR then collapsed in the face of great pro-democracy leaders from within, like Walesa and Yeltsin.

in regards to the arms race, it was simply because they did not have the economy to compete.

that said... if you're aware of all of these internal and a few external problems in the eastern block which led to the downfall of the soviet system, how can you say that reagan won the cold war? he didn't. he was simply just another guy who happened to have the fortune of leading the us at the time--and that makes him responsible for defeating the cold war? especially when it fell one and three years after his departure?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
You didn't address my point that he made Americans feel good again through his perceived leadership. Which was my only point. I admit that he made mistakes. I'm just saying that the feel good thing was really important to the country at the time, and unless you were around, you probably don't realize how important it was.

Ok -- I suppose Raegan did make Americans feel good -- the same way using dope can make you feel good, but it would still be bad for you.

[rah]

good one.
Yes, there's some truth in that, but overall I think the good outweighed the bad.

RAH
Yes, quite good.

[MrFun]

thanks -- I try

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Dissident
I used to think he was a pretty good president. But I really was too young, and I didn't remember some of the things that happenned.

He talked tough against the russians. but when you think about it, he was all talk and no action.

The point was the Soviets believed he would take action, after all he was a cowboy. Remember the 'we're gonna bomb Moscow in 5 min quote'. His policies hastened the end of the soviets

Sure it invaded grenada. But that wasn't much. A couple minutes of action. And lobbed a few bombs on Libya.

Libya has been pretty much quiet as a mouse since the F111 attacks and the actions by the SAS.

What upsets me is Beirut. Terrorists and people in the middle east found out it only took one bomb to drive the americans away. They still think this today. This is why they are trying to drive us out of Iraq. They are certain a few bombs will drive us away.

Reagan shouldn't have left Beirut go unpunished.

And what about Iran? He did nothing after that did he?

Yes I know the russians were the greater threat at the time, and he had no way of knowing what threat terrorism would pose to the U.S. in the future. But any attack on the U.S. should have been dealt with harshly- no matter who perpetrated it.

As for his domestic policy, well- I'm not overly impressed.

face it, Reagan was average at best.

I wont say much about the Beirut bombing since I was on duty that night. Lets just say it was a fiasco with a lot of causes but Reagan wasnt responsible (aside from trying to help the situation in Beirut by sending troops as peacekeepers).

Action was taken against the perps but it wasnt 'wave the flag'-type stuff.

I gave 'Dutch' a 10.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

Well, why not ask Gorbachev? Of course the USSR was being bled dry by Afghanistan and by the arms race with the US. Then came the Solidarity phenomenon in Poland that was reinforced by the Pope. This lead to democracy in Poland and then to democracy in Russia. The USSR then collapsed in the face of great pro-democracy leaders from within, like Walesa and Yeltsin.

in regards to the arms race, it was simply because they did not have the economy to compete.

that said... if you're aware of all of these internal and a few external problems in the eastern block which led to the downfall of the soviet system, how can you say that reagan won the cold war? he didn't. he was simply just another guy who happened to have the fortune of leading the us at the time--and that makes him responsible for defeating the cold war? especially when it fell one and three years after his departure?

Well, Q Cubed, you do seem to admit, in a backhanded way, that Reagan help cause the failure of the USSR. Reagan accellerated the arms race and the USSR tried to keep pace. It couldn't keep up, you say, because it did not have the economy. But had Reagan not accellerated the arms race, perhaps the USSR would not have had to spend so much on defense and perhaps they could have invested more into their economy thus forestalling citizen anger. Think about it.

[realpolitic]

3 - Compared to Bush, he's a saint.

[Q Classic]

Well, Q Cubed, you do seem to admit, in a backhanded way, that Reagan help cause the failure of the USSR. Reagan accellerated the arms race and the USSR tried to keep pace. It couldn't keep up, you say, because it did not have the economy. But had Reagan not accellerated the arms race, perhaps the USSR would not have had to spend so much on defense and perhaps they could have invested more into their economy thus forestalling citizen anger. Think about it.

even without the reagan spending on the military, the infrastructure was not present in soviet russia to increase light industry by any appreciable margin. the soviets had blown all their money on heavy industry back in the 60s and 70s, meaning they'd either have to upgrade those, which was more likely, or write them off entirely to make light industry.

the system just plumb never worked, and by the time the 80s rolled around, the dry rot had set in to such an extent that reagan or no reagan, they would have gone the way of the dodo barring a huge miracle (like, aliens invading and wiping out the entire western world) within twenty years.

so i still don't see how reagan gets credit here. he didn't win the cold war; you can't pin that victory on one man.

why did america have such a huge economy? sure as hell wasn't reagan. not unless you want to shortchange the working man and say all of his efforts are worth something only because of some politician who got into office because he was better than that other guy.

face it. reagan's spending just didn't have much to do with the soviet collapse. it was the success of the american/western system and its people, not the leaders who were lucky enough to be around at the time.

[MrFun]

Let me try ONE MORE TIME . . . . .


Reagan does not deserve credit for the fall of the Soviet Union -- putting credit on one single person for the fall of an entire regime is ridiculous and extremely ignorant.

The Soviet Union fell for a variety of reasons -- which included poor economics, and of the Russian people themselves revolting against communism.

[Ned]

Q Cubed, do you expect the same collapse from Cuba?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun
Let me try ONE MORE TIME . . . . .


Reagan does not deserve credit for the fall of the Soviet Union -- putting credit on one single person for the fall of an entire regime is ridiculous and extremely ignorant.

The Soviet Union fell for a variety of reasons -- which included poor economics, and of the Russian people themselves revolting against communism.

It would have been a better comment without the histrionics, but you're correct, no one man caused the fall of the soviets. I'd like to point out, however, that prior to Reagan there was no evidence that the SU would collapse. Their military was at the height of their power and (potentially) an unstoppable threat to western europe (had they attacked). They had invaded Afghanistan, presumably enroute to a port on the indian ocean. In addition, they continued to fund the Cuban government and the Cuban military exploits throughout the region and in africa. The weak-kneed placating of the soviets by President Carter did nothing to weaken the hold of the communists on the SU and I dont recall ever attending 'a meeting' where "the russian people revolting against communism" was ever seriously discussed (at least not up until 1984 when I went back to uni). So I wonder what you base your comments on?

[notyoueither]

MrFun, and whoever else may be interested

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998
From: Albert Weeks
Subject: Books on the Soviet demise

'Transition's' Peter Rutland did an admirable exposition of the books on
the Soviet collapse written Brown, Hough, Kotz/Weir, Kontorovich/Ellman,
and Kagarlitsky.
However, a curious omission--a vacuum undoubtedly stemming from the books
themselves--leaves me and perhaps other Russian specialists suspended in
mid-air on the hook of a large question mark.
Namely: Why didn't the authors whom Rutland reviewed assess the
"dissolving" factor of U.S. foreign policy, and specifically the policies
adopted by President Reagan, especially in his first term, as catalyst for
the Soviet demise?
Virtually every memoir I've read--whether in English or Russian--written
and published by former Soviet officials themselves, civilian and military,
attribute so much of the fall of communism in the "Soviet bloc" and in
Soviet Russia itself to Reagan's "propaganda/information offensive" against
the Soviets beginning in 1981. His speech to the British Parliament is a
good example. This offensive, moreover, was backed by an impressive
military buildup already partly in place under the "deutero"-Carter of
1979-80 following the shock of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The
Reagan offensive cannot be ignored or discounted as potent, perhaps even
crucial factor leading to disarray and moderation of policy--foreign and
domestic--in Moscow.
I do not make this claim as a mere badge of courage to pin on Mr. Reagan.
Still, I suspect the neglect of a full-blown appraisal of his policy toward
the Soviets is more than partly responsible for some of the above authors'
penchant to shy away from the proposition that Reagan's policies in any way
abetted the Soviet collapse. It is a well known fact that most of these
American authors in their previous writings of the early '80s had accused
Reagan of prolonging the Cold War. Which was such nonsense that I suspect
they would just as soon forget this earlier position of theirs and relegate
it to a private Memory Hole.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2011.html

Completely denying credit to a person who's policies played a role in an event is equally ridiculous and monumentally ignorant. However, a lot of people who hate Reagan and most of what he stood for will persist in trying to deny him that credit.

[notyoueither]

This one's also interesting.

Justice to Ronald Reagan

By Dinesh D'Souza
Posted: Thursday, November 6, 1997

ON THE ISSUES
AEI Online (Washington)
Publication Date: November 6, 1997

Many eminent commentators derided Ronald Reagan's policy toward the Soviet Union during his presidency. But events vindicated President Reagan's confidence that communism was failing, and history will credit him over all others for helping to bring about its demise.

Our current economic boom is in large part a legacy of the end of the Cold War, which confirmed the triumph of capitalism over socialism, opened up world markets for American investment, and enabled the sharp reduction in military allocations that has helped bring the budget virtually into balance.

Yet many historians and pundits refuse to credit Ronald Reagan's policies for helping to bring about the Cold War victory. Rather, they insist that Soviet communism suffered from chronic economic problems and predictably collapsed, as Strobe Talbott, a journalist at Time and now President Clinton's deputy secretary of state, put it, "not because of anything the outside world has done or not done . . . but because of defects and inadequacies at its core."

If so, it is reasonable to expect that the inevitable Soviet collapse would have been foreseen by these experts. Let us see what some of them had to say about the Soviet system during the 1980s.

In 1982, the learned Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University wrote in Foreign Affairs, "The Soviet Union is not now nor will it be during the next decade in the throes of a true systemic crisis, for it boasts enormous unused reserves of political and social stability."

This view was seconded that same year by the eminent historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who observed that "those in the United States who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse" are "wishful thinkers who are only kidding themselves."

John Kenneth Galbraith, the distinguished Harvard economist, wrote in 1984: "That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene. . . . One sees it in the appearance of solid well-being of the people on the streets . . . and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops. . . . Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower."

Equally imaginative was the assessment of Paul Samuelson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a Nobel laureate in economics, writing in the 1985 edition of his widely used textbook: "What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth. . . . The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth."

Columnist James Reston of the New York Times in June 1985 revealed his capacity for sophisticated even-handedness when he dismissed the possibility of the collapse of communism on the grounds that Soviet problems were not different from those in the U.S. "It is clear that the ideologies of Communism, socialism, and capitalism are all in trouble."

But the genius award undoubtedly goes to Lester Thurow, another MIT economist and well-known author who, as late as 1989, wrote, "Can economic command significantly . . . accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the Soviet Union suggests that it can. . . . Today the Soviet Union is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States."

Throughout the 1980s, most of these pundits derisively condemned Mr. Reagan's policies. Mr. Talbott faulted the Reagan administration for espousing "the early fifties goal of rolling back Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," an objective he considered misguided and unrealistic. "Reagan is counting on American technological and economic predominance to prevail in the end," Mr. Talbott scoffed, adding that if the Soviet economy was in a crisis of any kind, "it is a permanent, institutionalized crisis with which the U.S.S.R. has learned to live."

Foreseeing the End of Communism

Perhaps one should not be too hard on the wise men. After all, explains Arthur Schlesinger in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, "History has an abiding capacity to outwit our certitudes. No one foresaw these changes."

Wrong again, professor. Ronald Reagan foresaw them. In 1981, Mr. Reagan told the students and faculty at the University of Notre Dame, "The West won't contain Communism. It will transcend Communism. We will dismiss it as some bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."

In 1982, Mr. Reagan told the British Parliament in London: "In an ironic sense, Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis. . . . But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union." Mr. Reagan added that "it is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying freedom and human dignity to its citizens," and he predicted that if the Western alliance remained strong it would produce a "march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history."

In 1987 Mr. Reagan spoke at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin. "In the Communist world," he said, "we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards. . . . Even today, the Soviet Union cannot feed itself." Thus the "inescapable conclusion" in his view was that "freedom is the victor." Then Mr. Reagan said, "General Secretary Gorbachev . . . come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Not long after this, the wall did come tumbling down, and Mr. Reagan's prophecies all came true. These were not just results Mr. Reagan predicted. He intended the outcome. He implemented policies that were aimed at producing it. He was denounced for those policies, by Mr. Talbott among many others. Still, in the end his objective was achieved.

Margaret Thatcher remarked a few years ago that Mr. Reagan would go down in history as the man who "won the Cold War without firing a shot." Perhaps it is too much to ask the wise to admit their errors. But it's only right that we who are enjoying the benefits of the post-Cold War boom should give Mr. Reagan due credit during his lifetime for his prescient statesmanship.

Dinesh D'Souza is the John M. Olin Research Fellow at AEI. His book Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader was published last month by the Free Press.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

[Ned]

NYE, yes, after reading those articles, it does look like Q Cubed and other Reagan haters are students of those who in the 80's saw the USSR as everlasting and who, at the time, criticized Reagan's effort to resist it as pointless and provacative.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH


It would have been a better comment without the histrionics, but you're correct, no one man caused the fall of the soviets. I'd like to point out, however, that prior to Reagan there was no evidence that the SU would collapse. Their military was at the height of their power and (potentially) an unstoppable threat to western europe (had they attacked). They had invaded Afghanistan, presumably enroute to a port on the indian ocean. In addition, they continued to fund the Cuban government and the Cuban military exploits throughout the region and in africa. The weak-kneed placating of the soviets by President Carter did nothing to weaken the hold of the communists on the SU and I dont recall ever attending 'a meeting' where "the russian people revolting against communism" was ever seriously discussed (at least not up until 1984 when I went back to uni). So I wonder what you base your comments on?

Ok, I see your point -- and now that I think about it some more, the Russian people themselves really did not do anything to change their government.

[Oerdin]

I gave him a 7. He did great as far as the cold war was concerned but he got marks down for poor fiscal policy and for lying to Congress & the American people. I have to admit that he nailed the perfect stance to take against the Soviet Union and all the lefties who called him a war monger who was out to destroy the world couldn't have been more wrong. Will they ever apologize for slandering him and admit they were wrong? I doubt it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
NYE, yes, after reading those articles, it does look like Q Cubed and other Reagan haters are students of those who in the 80's saw the USSR as everlasting and who, at the time, criticized Reagan's effort to resist it as pointless and provacative.

I don't read QCubed as being a Reagan hater. He has been influenced by those who do, no doubt. However, he is not wrong that things beyond Reagan had a lot to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union as well.

Put it this way, Sovietologists are still arguing over who and what played which role. The 'truth' is a lot more complex than a simple he did this or such and such caused the that.

There are those who want to mythologise Reagan. There are those who want to dismiss him as a buffoon who never did a good thing. Unfortunately, the later have been at it since the day Ronnie took office and they dominate many of our campuses.

[Ned]

NYE, if Q Cubed truely believes it was the communist system that collapsed of its own accord, then Cuba should (soon? eventually?) collapse as well. But, he never answered my question as to whether Castro's Cuba would collapse. Clearly, the people in Cuba struggle daily for existence just as they once did in the USSR. How long can this go on until someone in Cuba says enough is enough.

I would accept Q Cubed saying that the collapse will come with Castro dies, because, until he does, no one can act to make the system better by ending communism. But, all we get is silence.

[Ramo]

The Soviet Union fell because of Gorbechev and his perestroika and glastnost. Reagan not only didn't contribute much to the fall, he almost undermined it by being so unreasonable to Gorby wrt things like arms control agreements, thereby undermining him vis a vis the Politburo who were on the verge of replacing him with a hardliner. Just as Kennedy undermined the relatively liberal Kruschev only to see the Politburo replace him by Brehznev, hardliner. And if a hardliner took control of the Soviet Union, it might've puttered on for a few more decades.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Soviet Union fell because of Gorbechev and his perestroika and glastnost. Reagan not only didn't contribute much to the fall, he almost undermined it by being so unreasonable to Gorby wrt things like arms control agreements, thereby undermining him vis a vis the Politburo who were on the verge of replacing him with a hardliner. Just as Kennedy undermined the relatively liberal Kruschev only to see the Politburo replace him by Brehznev, hardliner. And if a hardliner took control of the Soviet Union, it might've puttered on for a few more decades.

I remember sitting in an economics class in 1985. The class was "The Political Economy of the USSR" The instructor regularly consulted with the White House on Soviet economic matters as he was considered one of the west's experts on the subject. He told us unequivocally that the USSR would fall in 10 years or less. He said it was an economic inevitability. Everything he taught about what we would do...we did. Every result he taught us about...happened.

I was there...I saw it. That is the truth of that time, not the opinions you have been led to believe.

(Interestingly enough...this guy was Greek. Not that it matters...just thought it was interesting.)

[Ramo]

1. A regime could go on for years with a declining economy if it's authoritarian enough. Specifically, Gorby's extremely rapid dismantling of large parts of the Soviet military and arms industry destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs, dealing the final blow to the Soviet economy. Thanks to Gorby's reforms with regards to broader freedom of information and expression, the people were able to capitalize on it and totally dismantle the USSR. If the Politburo succeeded in replacing him with someone like Brehnev, I'm not convinced that the Soviet Union wouldn't still exist today.
2. Other people who apparantly saw the other truth of the time would disagree.

[johncmcleod]

... of course I think Americans were certainly ready for it. I don't pick Yanks to be too enthusiastic about taking second place to anyone for very long. After Vietnam and Watergate they were generally beat though. Carter was a very good man, but he didn't have the stuff to make Americans forget. Reagan was the right man at the right time.

At least that's what it looked like to me from where I sit.

OK, Reagan used his good rhetorical skills to feed Americans the propaganda they wanted to hear. They didn't want to know that we were bad. So, he got the whole country thinking America was so great, and it made the American public stop questioning things and allowed the government to get away with a lot more. It also led to even less vigorous political participation (by participation I mean researching the issues, listening to the viewpoints of different perspectives, and actually thinking about the decisions the US was making) which is never a good thing in a democracy.

So, it ended up leading to Americans feeling better about themselves and the rest of the world made worse from suffering the problems of US intervention because Americans couldn't question their government and stop it from doing it. I don't see how that makes him a good leader.

I have never been able to get a clear, well supported opinion of how good Reagan's economic policies were. When people talk about it they are always very vague and don't back up what they're saying with specific examples.

I was born in 87, but from what I know Reagan cut services that really helped people, and then cut taxes that put us in a deficit so terrible it could have caused some gigantic problems but we got lucky and lived through it. He also gave big tax breaks to the corporate billionaires who have never worked a hard day in their live and make ridiculous sums of money from brainwashing people to buy their product, not to mention all of the unethical business practices, all while there are people who live in ghettos and are lucky to graduate from high school. Is this the kind of society we want? Reagan than simply made himself look good by saying that the money would trickle down to the poor, when he really could have not made the tax cuts and let the people keep the services they really needed.

Reagan also caused a whole lot of people to be oppressed and a whole lot of violence down in Central America by backing terrorist wars and other atrocities to help out American businessmen. I believe he also backed UNITA and Renamo terrorists in Mazambique and South Africa that caused an estimated 1.5 million and 60 billion dollars worth of damage. He also wholeheartedly supported the genocide of the East Timorese and also gave the Indonesians the weapons (some chemical) to do so, though Carter did more of this than Reagan. He also supported the Baathists, and I think he was the one that gave them the list of thousands of 'Communists' that were then murdered. He also backed brutal terrorist/fascist organizations in Eastern Europe to help destroy the USSR, not to free its people but merely for US interests.

And I must say, Mr. Fun-your quote is a classic! It's sig material and I would put it in my signature but it doesn't have any more room.

[Ned]

John, may I ask, where did you learn all this about Reagan since you were born in '87?

[Theben]

nye: Why did you bother to post those articles? The 1st has no useful info whatsoever, while the second is written by a partisan hack who made a career out of worshipping Reagan. Nor does his Reagan quotes point out anything other than the usual diatribes that could be expected to be said to a target audience. Not unlike Bush Jr. saying "We'll win the hearts and minds of Iraqs in 1 year," and if we do, Bush=genius, but if not, Bush=dumbass. Just a roll of the dice turned events Reagan's way.

NYE, yes, after reading those articles, it does look like Q Cubed and other Reagan haters are students of those who in the 80's saw the USSR as everlasting and who, at the time, criticized Reagan's effort to resist it as pointless and provacative.

Brilliant deduction. Do you contribute articles to the National Review?

[notyoueither]

Theben,

Why didn't the authors whom Rutland reviewed assess the
"dissolving" factor of U.S. foreign policy, and specifically the policies
adopted by President Reagan, especially in his first term, as catalyst for
the Soviet demise?
Virtually every memoir I've read--whether in English or Russian--written
and published by former Soviet officials themselves, civilian and military,
attribute so much of the fall of communism in the "Soviet bloc" and in
Soviet Russia itself to Reagan's "propaganda/information offensive" against
the Soviets beginning in 1981. His speech to the British Parliament is a
good example. This offensive, moreover, was backed by an impressive
military buildup already partly in place under the "deutero"-Carter of
1979-80 following the shock of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The
Reagan offensive cannot be ignored or discounted as potent, perhaps even
crucial factor leading to disarray and moderation of policy--foreign and
domestic--in Moscow.

I don't know. Perhaps you'd like to argue with the Sovietologists. According to many of them Reagan's policies had a lot to do with what happened in the Soviet Union that led to its collapse.

Of course the second guy is a hack and to be dismissed. He states facts that have Reagan being a positive influence on some world events. Anyone who says that Ronnie was anything other than a moron must be suspect, right?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Who wants to open the discussion on Dissident running away?

Kind of reminds me of Bill Clinton during Vietnam.....

At least Clinton didn't don a flight suit and strut around pretending he was some sort of military type like a certain Nam-dodging chicken hawk recently inhabiting a certain white house ...