Reagan Reality

[Timber Loftis]

Today's surfing led me to a longish discussion or Reagan as he actually was vs. how he is currently seen in political mythology. Whether you are a Reaganite or not, I think you'll find this refresher course in history interesting and thoughtful.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...eagan?page=0,0

[John D Harris]

Interesting TL, Let's look at it closer shall we? The history is correct, dates, quotes and that kind of stuff, But I'm not so sure he makes the case.
Page 1. "Ronald Reagan Was the Ultimate Hawk." I know of No Reaganite who thinks Reagan was a war hawk, The first paragraph is pure speculation on the writers part, and mind reading, of what conservatives mean. We know and knew Reagan knew there was a time and place for tough talk, and a time and place for negotiations. We knew and know that Reagan wasn't willing to throw away American lives, that he would look for and find other solutions if there were any. Knowing when and where to negotiate is called wisdom, wisdom sometimes requires talking sometimes requires kicking butts, each and every situation is different. We trusted Reagan's judgement, Wisdom is know the right things to do, wisdom comes with experience, as oppossed to the title on page 7, that is the difference, experience that has lead to wisdom.

Page 2 "Reagan Banished the Vietnam Syndrome." I know of No one who thinks or says that, what has been said was not "Reagan Banished the Vietnam Syndrome", but that Reagan re-established American pride and influence. The Vietnam syndrome wasn't banished until the Gulf war when George H Bush said (of the Gulf war) "This will not be another Vietnam" then set about making sure it wasn't, to silence his critics who tried to sur up the fear that the Gulf war was going to be another Vietnam.

Page 3 "Reagan Frightened the Soviet Union into Submission." That premise is not supported or any support offered. The Premise of Reaganites is that Reagan caused the USSR to colapse because they couldn't keep up with our spending, not that they were frightened into submission, "freighten" into submission the writer doesn't even address provide any evidence that Reaganites say or think this, then he goes on to refute something he gives no evidence for.

(from article) "Hardly. Reagan's role in winning the Cold War lies at the core of the American right's mythology. The legend goes like this: Reagan came into office, dramatically hiked defense spending, unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative (his "Star Wars" missile shield), and aided anti-communist rebels in the Third World. Unable to keep pace, the Kremlin chose Gorbachev, who threw in the towel. "

"From virtually the moment he took office, Gorbachev was desperate to cut military spending, which by the mid-1980s constituted a mind-bending 40 percent of the Soviet budget"

"The following year, in Reykjavik, Iceland, Reagan and Gorbachev came within a whisker of agreeing to destroy all their nuclear weapons (a deal Reagan scuttled because he would not limit "Star Wars"). "

In the words of longtime Soviet Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Dobrynin, "If Reagan had stuck to his hard-line policies in 1985 and 1986 ... Gorbachev would have been accused by the rest of the Politburo of giving everything away to a fellow who does not want to negotiate. We would have been forced to tighten our belts and spend even more on defense."

Notice the parts about the cost to the USSR, and the part about Star Wars. If wanting to cut military spending because it is to high, Minding-bending I believe the writer calls it, isn't making some throw in the towel the writer may want to look up what throwing in the towel means. Remember it was Gorbie that called for Reykjavik, not Reagan. It was Reagan that said No when he was offered the golden goose, Not Gorbie. Or as The Gorbachev Revolution ( http://www.historywiz.com/gorbachev.htm ) says:

When Gorbachev took power he knew that the Soviet Union would have to change if it was to survive.

Central planning in a modern industrial economy brought many inefficiencies.
The factory management system provided little incentive to make technological improvements and every incentive to hide factory capacities to ensure low quotas
The socialist farm system was inefficient – there were poor worker incentives and storage and transportation problems.
The Soviet State could no longer afford the high defense spending that went along with the Cold War.

Page 4 "Conservatives Loved Reagan." ROTFLMAO since when does disagreements equal not loving? That premise and the supporting arguement is well assinine. If that premise is to be believed then it MUST also be believed that when a liberal disagrees with President Obama they doesn't love him. And equally it has to be believed that is you disagree with your wife you somehow don't love her. That's plain silly.

Page 5 "Reagan Was Tough on Terror." I couldn't help but notice the write ignored the Achilee Lauro terrorist hijacking. When that is taken into account it once again show wisdom, when to do something and when not too. The idea that helping or not helping Israel in a certain situation is being soft on terrorism is comparing apples to oranges. Helping Israel may or may not have anything to due with terrorism. Noe of the arguements offered supports that Reagan's posittions were as the writer puts it: "But the irony is that in Reagan's own "war on terror," his policies more closely resembled Obama's than Bush's."
To compare opposition to a war with opposition to building expansion.... come on that at best is stretching beyond the breaking point, and at worse is blind stupidity.

As is this: When Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin expressed "profound regret and unreserved opposition," Reagan shot back that it was "not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy." When President Obama let the President of Mexico piss and moan about Arizonia's law. The writer is equating "not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy." with actions that inessence say "It is the Business of other nations to make American Domestic policy" Come on, give me a break.

Page 6 "George W. Bush Was a Reaganite." This one is close and the most acurate so far. certainly don't concider George W. Bush a Reaganite.

Page 7 "Obama Is the New Reagan." From the writers lips to God's ears.