Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

The two things aren't comparable at all. Putting a guy on the moon is an engineering puzzle. No offense to engineers. The moon didn't play defense. Ending the Cold War on favorable terms was the central political concern of the free world in the 2nd half of the 20th Century.

Responding to your skepticism will be easier if I know what the argument is. How, again, did Reagan end the Cold War?

Yeah, they are different. Defeating the Soviet Union was much more difficult and dangerous. I posted a six graph explanation of my position; my recommendation is to read it rather than reacting with textbook anti-Reaganism. I have neither the time, the inclination or ability to write a doctoral dissertation on this subject but numerous others have written books about it, having come to the same conclusion. You might try reading them. But simply denying Reagan credit is so much easier, isn't it?

 

[Patman]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

The two things aren't comparable at all. Putting a guy on the moon is an engineering puzzle. No offense to engineers. The moon didn't play defense. Ending the Cold War on favorable terms was the central political concern of the free world in the 2nd half of the 20th Century.

Responding to your skepticism will be easier if I know what the argument is. How, again, did Reagan end the Cold War?

By "ending the cold war" you mean "defeating communism and ending oppression in europe", yes?

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Yeah, they are different. Defeating the Soviet Union was much more difficult and dangerous. I posted a six graph explanation of my position; my recommendation is to read it rather than reacting with textbook anti-Reaganism. I have neither the time, the inclination or ability to write a doctoral dissertation on this subject but numerous others have written books about it, having come to the same conclusion. You might try reading them. But simply denying Reagan credit is so much easier, isn't it?

I'm not reacting with textbook anti-Reaganism. I'm not denying Reagan credit. And you should know better than to cite the existence of dissertations "proving" your point. Plenty of dissertations don't. The only thing that dissertations in history and politics ever prove is that the dissertation committee no longer has an accute fear that the student will fall on his or her head professionally, to the detriment of the degree-granting department.

I promise you (and Patman and Bakunin) that you haven't the slightest idea where I stand on foreign policy and int'l politics. I don't mix work with USCHO, and I'm not going to start now.

You may have written 6 paragraphs, Pio, but 5 of 'em say nothing about how Reagan defeated Communism. I guess I was asking if para4 was the key claim. That Reagan defeated Communism by outspending it. Is that the argument?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I'm not reacting with textbook anti-Reaganism. I'm not denying Reagan credit. And you should know better than to cite the existence of dissertations "proving" your point. Plenty of dissertations don't. The only thing that dissertations in history and politics ever prove is that the dissertation committee no longer has an accute fear that the student will fall on his or her head professionally, to the detriment of the degree-granting department.

I promise you (and Patman and Bakunin) that you haven't the slightest idea where I stand on foreign policy and int'l politics. I don't mix work with USCHO, and I'm not going to start now.

You may have written 6 paragraphs, Pio, but 5 of 'em say nothing about how Reagan defeated Communism. I guess I was asking if para4 was the key claim. That Reagan defeated Communism by outspending it. Is that the argument?

Thank you for the unwanted biographical data. What Reagan did to bring down the Soviet Union was in all the papers. And it's your privilege to downplay it if you wish. I think you were able to understand graph 4. Now just to anticipate the next reactionary response, of course that wasn't all of Reagan's efforts, but it was a major part. He confronted them and opposed them wherever and whenever possible. You'll recall Jimmy Carter stood up to the Soviet Union by boycotting the Moscow Olympics (now there's a setback!). Reagan also confronted Khaddafi (sp) and authorized the naval maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra that chicken bleep Carter had cancelled because of threats from that Libyan clown. And when Khaddafi sent up his Migs to attack our Tomcats Reagan ordered our naval aviators to splash em. And when Khaddafi bombed a diso in retaliation and killed some GI's Reagan tried to whack him (came darn close) and sent the message that there's more where that came from.

In the final analysis the person who actually precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union was Pope John Paul, who told Brezhnev through an intermediary that if the Russians did to Poland what they had done to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, he (John Paul) would lay down the Crown of St. Peter and return to Poland to lead the resistence. That led Brezhnev to turn to Yuri Andropov and say (in effect) "can no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" The next thing you know, John Paul is shot in St. Peter's square by a Turk who'd been given his orders by the Bulgarian KGB. So credit should also go to the College of Cardinals, for electing a Polish Pope.

The American left never understood Reagan, which is why he was able to beyatch slap them just about whenever he wanted. We obviously disagree on the importance of his role in ending the cold war. But I believe history will treat him very kindly. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

 

[Patman]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I promise you (and Patman and Bakunin) that you haven't the slightest idea where I stand on foreign policy and int'l politics. I don't mix work with USCHO, and I'm not going to start now.

Then why even speak about the cold war?

By the way... denouncing communism and admitting that Europe should be free shouldn't be a contentious issue amongst any party in modern civilization... unless there's something else you want to say.

BTW, I'm going to take this as "I work for the State Department" for the time being. That's about the only place where such a statement would be controversial.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

You're welcome, Pio. The bio was just to serve notice that I'd be arguing ideas, not personalities. Unusual for USCHO, I know. Hell, it's unusual for me. But I think it's an interesting enough question to take seriously, even if I'm alone in holding that opinion.

Anyway, it looks like we agree that there were a bunch of things that contributed to ending the Cold War, as your anecdote about John Paul suggests.

You also suggest that JFK deserves credit for the Appollo mission, even though the landing occurred long after he drew his last breath on Earth. He gets credit because he authored the idea, and set into motion the policies that made the mission possible, and ultimately successful.

There is an American who played that role with respect to defeating the Soviet Union. He argued that the Cold War was a real war, and the survival of the free world depended on their ability to recognize that fact, and respond to it. He rejected isolationism, rejected peace through accomodation, and rejected the fundamentally defensive strategy of "containment" originally articulated by George Kennan.

He argued that the only way to defeat the USSR without the Cold War turning hot would be for the U.S. to quickly and dramatically increase defense spending and power projection capabilities. He also recognized the limits of negotiating with the Soviet Union, arguing that any negotiated peace would probably be with a successor state, rather than with the Kremlin.

He recognized that differences in standard of living would make it difficult for the U.S. simply to spend the USSR into submission, since the latter could always avail itself of lower and lower standards of living for its citizens.

So for that reason, he argued that sustained economic expansion in the U.S. was also a strategic imperative. Not just to overcome the USSR's built-in "advantage" of authoritarianism, but also to put extra political pressure on the USSR, forcing them into ever more extreme measures to pacify a population that knew it was falling behind.

Sounds pretty good, huh? If I were going to make the claim that it was the one-two combo of rapidly expanding U.S. military capabilities and flourishing free markets that provided the necessary conditions for the U.S. to defeat communism, I would probably want to give him a lot of the credit. Not only did he have a persuasive vision, he had the clout to turn it into U.S. policy.

But that guy wasn't Reagan. It was Paul Nitze. In 1950. He didn't voice that vision on the campaign trail, he did it by chairing a National Security Council working group tasked with assessing the Soviet threat and coming up with a strategy for U.S. security in a nuclear world.

If the circumstances of the Soviet Union's demise vindicate anyone, they vindicate him. Reagan does get credit. He was a faithful steward of that policy for 8 years.

There are tons of people who deserve credit for helping to defeat communism. I'm not comfortable singling any one individual out. But if we're going to give credit to the one person who's more responsible than any other for coming up with not just the policies but the vision for defeating Communism . . . we should at least get the history right.

<s>$.02</s> $.37

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

You're welcome, Pio. The bio was just to serve notice that I'd be arguing ideas, not personalities. Unusual for USCHO, I know. Hell, it's unusual for me. But I think it's an interesting enough question to take seriously, even if I'm alone in holding that opinion.

Anyway, it looks like we agree that there were a bunch of things that contributed to ending the Cold War, as your anecdote about John Paul suggests.

You also suggest that JFK deserves credit for the Appollo mission, even though the landing occurred long after he drew his last breath on Earth. He gets credit because he authored the idea, and set into motion the policies that made the mission possible, and ultimately successful.

There is an American who played that role with respect to defeating the Soviet Union. He argued that the Cold War was a real war, and the survival of the free world depended on their ability to recognize that fact, and respond to it. He rejected isolationism, rejected peace through accomodation, and rejected the fundamentally defensive strategy of "containment" originally articulated by George Kennan.

He argued that the only way to defeat the USSR without the Cold War turning hot would be for the U.S. to quickly and dramatically increase defense spending and power projection capabilities. He also recognized the limits of negotiating with the Soviet Union, arguing that any negotiated peace would probably be with a successor state, rather than with the Kremlin.

He recognized that differences in standard of living would make it difficult for the U.S. simply to spend the USSR into submission, since the latter could always avail itself of lower and lower standards of living for its citizens.

So for that reason, he argued that sustained economic expansion in the U.S. was also a strategic imperative. Not just to overcome the USSR's built-in "advantage" of authoritarianism, but also to put extra political pressure on the USSR, forcing them into ever more extreme measures to pacify a population that knew it was falling behind.

Sounds pretty good, huh? If I were going to make the claim that it was the one-two combo of rapidly expanding U.S. military capabilities and flourishing free markets that provided the necessary conditions for the U.S. to defeat communism, I would probably want to give him a lot of the credit. Not only did he have a persuasive vision, he had the clout to turn it into U.S. policy.

But that guy wasn't Reagan. It was Paul Nitze. In 1950. He didn't voice that vision on the campaign trail, he did it by chairing a National Security Council working group tasked with assessing the Soviet threat and coming up with a strategy for U.S. security in a nuclear world.

If the circumstances of the Soviet Union's demise vindicate anyone, they vindicate him. Reagan does get credit. He was a faithful steward of that policy for 8 years.

There are tons of people who deserve credit for helping to defeat communism. I'm not comfortable singling any one individual out. But if we're going to give credit to the one person who's more responsible than any other for coming up with not just the policies but the vision for defeating Communism . . . we should at least get the history right.

<s>$.02</s> $.37

Only Reagan was president. Presidents gets credit, just like quarterbacks do. Nitze and Kennan were important figures, who get all sorts of credit as nearly as I can tell. But neither were presidents who directly confronted the Soviet Union over the howls of anguish from the left. A favorite trope of the left is that Republican presidents are stupid (Eisenhower, Ford (they'd never be dumb enough to say that about Nixon), Reagan and Bush II (despite the fact that he had higher SAT scores and better grades at Yale than the war hero). Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, commanded a "nookuler" submarine and was way smart. How did that work out?

Presidents make policy. Presidents lead the country. That's what Reagan did. And you can suggest that Paul Nitze was a more important figure of course, but that suggestion doesn't pass the laugh test. And IMHO, it won't stand the test of history. "Faithful steward of that policy," bollocks. Reagan knew all he needed to know about the Soviet Union and the fact that he and Nitze came to the same conclusions doesn't make him a "steward" of anybody's policy. You really give away the game there with that unwarranted and unsubstantiated snarky smear against Reagan. You don't want to give him significant credit? It's a free country. But why lower yourself to that level to make the point? I thought you said you'd be arguing policies not personalities. Evidently insulting Reagan is an exception.

Reagan defeated an incumbent president in 44 states in '80 and for good measure led Republicans to taking the senate. In '84 he came within a handful of votes in Minnesota of a 50 state sweep. And his sitting Vice President became the first veep elected to the presidency since Martin Van Buren. Say what you want about Reagan, he was nobody's "faithful steward." Guys like Paul Nitze don't make policy, presidents do.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

We are talking about the same guy who wanted the concept of the football explained to one of his staffers instead of himself right?

That same gentleman gets to take all the credit behind some brilliant thinking by one of his strategists?

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

But why lower yourself to that level to make the point? I thought you said you'd be arguing policies not personalities. Evidently insulting Reagan is an exception.

And here I thought I was being polite.

Saying that Reagan is single-handedly responsible for defeating the Soviet Union is so patently false that it can only be borne of ideological certitude, ignorance, or both.

Hell, the only way to interpret my post as a smear against Reagan is to adopt such an extreme ideological stance as to assure conflict. I didn't smear Reagan at all. Not even close. There were plenty of folks on Capitol Hill who wanted him (and his policies) to fail. But he prevailed, and for the better part of a decade. How that constitutes left-wing derision is beyond me. Apparently any praise short of "Reagan was a God among men" counts as scorn?

Maybe in your world, but not in mine. You can't give credit to Reagan for increasing spending, knowing that the USSR was at a critical point where it could no longer keep up, without also giving credit to the work of the previous generation, not just strategists like Nitze but Presidents like Truman and Nixon, which put the USSR in that precarious position in the first place.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

We are talking about the same guy who wanted the concept of the football explained to one of his staffers instead of himself right?

That same gentleman gets to take all the credit behind some brilliant thinking by one of his strategists?

Yes. "The buck stops here." The left thought Reagan was stupid (and judging by some of the snarky posts still does) and that must make the tens of millions of us who elected and re-elected him stupid too, because we weren't smart enough to see it. I for one am comfortable in my stupidity.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

And here I thought I was being polite.

Saying that Reagan is single-handedly responsible for defeating the Soviet Union is so patently false that it can only be borne of ideological certitude, ignorance, or both.

Hell, the only way to interpret my post as a smear against Reagan is to adopt such an extreme ideological stance as to assure conflict. I didn't smear Reagan at all. Not even close. There were plenty of folks on Capitol Hill who wanted him (and his policies) to fail. But he prevailed, and for the better part of a decade. How that constitutes left-wing derision is beyond me. Apparently any praise short of "Reagan was a God among men" counts as scorn?

Maybe in your world, but not in mine. You can't give credit to Reagan for increasing spending, knowing that the USSR was at a critical point where it could no longer keep up, without also giving credit to the work of the previous generation, not just strategists like Nitze but Presidents like Truman and Nixon, which put the USSR in that precarious position in the first place.

To call Reagan a "faithful steward" of anybody's policy is a smear, and you know it. And just to clarify, I never said nor implied that Reagan single handedly did anything. Just as an ex-Nazi scientist designed the Saturn 5 so did Reagan rely on his advisors. But von Braun's triumph shouldn't deny JFK credit for winning the race to the moon, and the advice is just that, advice. It's up to the president to accept or reject it as he sees fit. And putting Reagan's face on the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't diminish the role of cold warriors like Truman and Kennedy, and no fair reading of my posts would lead to that concolusion. Only someone absolutely determined to minimize the credit due Reagan, someone running around saying: "It was Nitze, it was Kennan, it was Nixon, it was Kennedy, it was Truman, it was anybody (evidently) but Reagan" would come to that conclusion.

You managed to work the word "extreme" into your post to describe my position. With a little work, I'll bet you can squeeze in "racist" too.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Gorbachev picked apart the Soviet system of production. He refocused production to new technolgies. He introduced an anti alcohol campaign. He ripped apart the political system...giving up his dictitatoral powers in the process. He brought many freedoms to the people, including quite a bit of freedom of the press. He threw out the establishment of foriegn relations...and started an open policy of international dialog. He pushed for major reductions of nuclear weapons and had a strategy for a nuclear free world by 2000. Anybody who tells me that the US would have won a nuclear war needs a serious education. And ultimately, he caused the destruction of the Soviet Union. You ask any Russian with a love for the old communist system...they hate Gorbachev far, far more for the destruction of the Soviet Union than Reagan.

Look at any dictator out there...virtually none have collapsed and gave in due to another country's military budget. Not Saddam, not Iraq, not N Korea, not Libya...nobody. So why would Gorbachev dismantle a far more secure Soviet Union when other far more pressured dictators don't? Why would he do so many changes (including dismantling the empire)? Why would he do them so quickly?

Reagans decision to increase military funding may have started an age of huge govt spending. But that spending...on its own...does not lead dictators to fold up on its own, and the Soviet Union is an example of how dictators have to want to change.

 

[Patman]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Gorbachev picked apart the Soviet system of production. He refocused production to new technolgies. He introduced an anti alcohol campaign. He ripped apart the political system...giving up his dictitatoral powers in the process. He brought many freedoms to the people, including quite a bit of freedom of the press. He threw out the establishment of foriegn relations...and started an open policy of international dialog. He pushed for major reductions of nuclear weapons and had a strategy for a nuclear free world by 2000. Anybody who tells me that the US would have won a nuclear war needs a serious education. And ultimately, he caused the destruction of the Soviet Union. You ask any Russian with a love for the old communist system...they hate Gorbachev far, far more for the destruction of the Soviet Union than Reagan.

Look at any dictator out there...virtually none have collapsed and gave in due to another country's military budget. Not Saddam, not Iraq, not N Korea, not Libya...nobody. So why would Gorbachev dismantle a far more secure Soviet Union when other far more pressured dictators don't? Why would he do so many changes (including dismantling the empire)? Why would he do them so quickly?

Reagans decision to increase military funding may have started an age of huge govt spending. But that spending...on its own...does not lead dictators to fold up on its own, and the Soviet Union is an example of how dictators have to want to change.

In other words "Reagan didn't have a hand in it, it was an accident"

While we're whitewashing Gorby....

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_soviet-archives.html

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Gorbachev picked apart the Soviet system of production. He refocused production to new technolgies. He introduced an anti alcohol campaign. He ripped apart the political system...giving up his dictitatoral powers in the process. He brought many freedoms to the people, including quite a bit of freedom of the press. He threw out the establishment of foriegn relations...and started an open policy of international dialog. He pushed for major reductions of nuclear weapons and had a strategy for a nuclear free world by 2000. Anybody who tells me that the US would have won a nuclear war needs a serious education. And ultimately, he caused the destruction of the Soviet Union. You ask any Russian with a love for the old communist system...they hate Gorbachev far, far more for the destruction of the Soviet Union than Reagan.

Look at any dictator out there...virtually none have collapsed and gave in due to another country's military budget. Not Saddam, not Iraq, not N Korea, not Libya...nobody. So why would Gorbachev dismantle a far more secure Soviet Union when other far more pressured dictators don't? Why would he do so many changes (including dismantling the empire)? Why would he do them so quickly?

Reagans decision to increase military funding may have started an age of huge govt spending. But that spending...on its own...does not lead dictators to fold up on its own, and the Soviet Union is an example of how dictators have to want to change.

Look at the poster boy for intellectul dishonesty. Of course, give the credit to Gorbachev. Why am I not surprised? "Shut up, he explained."

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Could you even pretend to be polite and also try to hide your paranoia a little?

Thanks.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Could you even pretend to be polite and also try to hide your paranoia a little?

Thanks.

You talkin' to me? Why don't you fellate yourself? Thanks.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

And putting Reagan's face on the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't diminish the role of cold warriors like Truman and Kennedy, and no fair reading of my posts would lead to that concolusion. Only someone absolutely determined to minimize the credit due Reagan, someone running around saying: "It was Nitze, it was Kennan, it was Nixon, it was Kennedy, it was Truman, it was anybody (evidently) but Reagan" would come to that conclusion.

I never denied Reagan credit. I explicitly said that he deserves substantial credit. I know how anxious you are to have that argument, but you'll be better off arguing with a Reagan-hater. I'm not your guy.

Where we disagree is the issue of putting anyone's face on the fall of the Soviet Union. I recognize you want to use Reagan because you like him, or want to tweak left-wingers, or whatever. But that's not a statement of cause-effect. It's a purely political/ideological move. I'm not in the business of symbolic politics or political ideology, so I'm just not going to follow you there. Not because I want a left-winger's face instead. I'm interested in contemporary int'l relations, so explaining 20th-century history is tangentially interesting...but defending or attacking ideological heroes serves no useful purpose. At all.

You managed to work the word "extreme" into your post to describe my positiion. With a little work, I'll bet you can squeeze in "racist" too.

You'd enjoy that?

the Soviet Union is an example of how dictators have to want to change.

I'm not sure how far I want to follow you here. Gorbachev wanted to save the Soviet Union, not to kill it.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

In other words "Reagan didn't have a hand in it, it was an accident"

While we're whitewashing Gorby....

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_soviet-archives.html

There's skeletons in everyones closet...you think a critic couldn't write something similar about Reagan, Clinton or any other international leader. In the end, I don't think JFK was a saint...but saying the cold war ended primarily due to Reagan is garbage.

Look at the poster boy for intellectul dishonesty. Of course, give the credit to Gorbachev. Why am I not surprised? "Shut up, he explained."

Feel free to bring facts about exactly what Reagan did to force Gorbachev to improve freedom of speech in the Soviet Union, dismantle the iron curtain releasing eastern Europeans to their own free will, and plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2000. Maybe you can educate folks on intellectual honesty in the process...

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

There's skeletons in everyones closet...you think a critic couldn't write something similar about Reagan, Clinton or any other international leader. In the end, I don't think JFK was a saint...but saying the cold war ended primarily due to Reagan is garbage.



Feel free to bring facts about exactly what Reagan did to force Gorbachev to improve freedom of speech in the Soviet Union, dismantle the iron curtain releasing eastern Europeans to their own free will, and plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2000. Maybe you can educate folks on intellectual honesty in the process...

It's only you who needs an education in intellectual honesty and you know what I'm talking about. And I won't dialogue with someone as intellectually dishonest as you have shown yourself to be.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I'm not sure how far I want to follow you here. Gorbachev wanted to save the Soviet Union, not to kill it.

Thats fine...dictators have choices. Gorbachev had a choice to forceably keep the Baltics in the Soviet Union. Not only did he not do that...but he outlined the process within their constitution by which they could leave.