Mr. S: I don’t see how this can be settled, because the origin of the dispute is the original source material. Reagan claimed that he was misquoted. I don’t see how there can be more evidence one way or the other. All I’d say is that if Reagan disputed it early on, is it really fair to hold it against him? Even if he did say it, if he immediately afterward said that that wasn’t what he meant, why hold it against him? People misspeak sometimes. Or they say something stupid and then immediately regret it.
The bottom line is that the source of the quote himself says he was misquoted. It’s his word against the author’s.
I consider Gorbechev the single most important figure in the ending of cold war, however Gorbechev never intended for communism to end or the Soviet to collapse, though I have very much respect for him, he is in fact a politically failed man.
Very possible so – though “at some point” is a very broad time frame and if the collapse was hastened by a decade that is something that is very positive by itself. Hard to say since it belongs in alternative history, but why do you think the Soviet Empire could not have limped on much like Vietnam or Cuba or, God help us, North Korea? Especially considering they would not have been as isolated as those nations, their economy was much stronger and they had their own oil sources. I think you strongly downplay Gorbechev’s (and to a lesser extend Reagan’s) hand in defusing the Soviet empire in a non-violent way.
They quite possibly are wrong. For one thing, many sources often simply borrow from one another. As you know, an assertion made on the Internet can take up a life of its own. Consider, for example, the ridiculous assertion, absurd on its face, that you cannot prove a negative. That began, as far as anyone can tell, in an atheist news group in the 90s. In no time at all, people were stating the assertion as axiomatic despite the simple common sense observation that the inability to prove a negative means the inability to prove the assertion that you cannot prove a negative. Reagan was an accomplished rhetorician and legendary story teller. There is no logical reason whatsoever to doubt his recounting of events in favor of third party sources who were not there and who might plagiarize one another.
The most interesting thing for me about Reagan’s passing and the right’s adoration of him, are the harsh light it throws upon GWB’s era.
On the one hand, we have Carter and the failures of the Iranian hostages and Desert One.
Then we get Rightious Ronnie, getting the hostages back and getting us out of that mess, ending the Cold War, being a so-called stand-up guy who Made America Great™
And now, today, we have GWB and Iraq. Seemingly Desert One all over again. The Carter Malaise comparison with GWB seems to fit better than his admin being Ronnie II. Bush would do well not to hold his candle too close to Reagan’s legacy.
Perfect timing! Thanks for providing an illustrative example. Sam:
?
Well, it might require a bit of work, but we would need to track down the source the story. The only attribution I’ve been able to locate thus far is this archived editorial in the Washington Post. It would appear to support your version of events:
This is from August 17, 1980, and might be a reference to the following mysterious quote…
…once available on the americanpresidents.org site, but now lost in the mysterious depths of cyberspace.
The statement “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do” is dated variously as being from August of 1980 (in the Washington Monthly, among other sources) and from 1981. I’ve not yet found the original source for the quote, and it is always presented out of context, as a single line. As a result, I’m beginning to suspect that you may be right: it might be apocryphal.
I’ve also located this short discussion at the Snopes Message Board. Their conclusion?
As you can see, the dates don’t match up at all. So take it for what it’s worth.
Well, there are gaffes, and then there are GAFFES. To claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do seems to me a bit more than an innocent misstatement. And I really find it unbelievable that this accusation against Reagan – that he said this incredibly stupid thing – has, if untrue, gone unchallenged for so long, despite being so widely reported. Lib:
That’s entirely possible, although this quote seems to have had a life even prior to the advent of the internet.
Disagree. If Reagan did say this incredibly stupid thing, then he has all the motivation in the world to try to cover it up. At the same time, I tend to trust news reports, especially multiple news reports of the same event, told in the same way, unless I have good reason not to.
Are you to young to remember the flap about this as it was unfolding? We’d just gotten a new president, and he starts saying all this crazy stuff about the environment. As I recall, the tree pollution remark wasn’t clarified to anyone’s satisfaction at the time. Why would anyone believe that it can be now, 24 years after the fact?
Oh yes, I remember it, indeed. However, I don’t remember all the details – it was a while ago. I seem to remember that it was something Reagan said in some sort of informal “question-and-answer” session with the press.
Unfortunately I don’t remember precisely what Reagan said, or was accused of saying. In the original exchange between Sam and myself, I merely wrote:
I then did a quick search and found the series of quotes posted above at americanpresidents.org, which also seemed like a reliable and non-partisan source. Unfortunately, the page of quotes is no longer available at their website.
The “tree/automobile” quote has become the focus of this discussion mostly because its the stupidest, and the most widely quoted. Should it turn out to be apocryphal, there are still two other quotes, both of which appear to be more well-grounded in historical fact and both of which indicate that Reagan believed trees pollute more than heavy industry, which was my original contention.
The mujahadeen were by no stretch of the imagination exclusively Afghani. As witness Osama bin Laden (Saudi) and others of many different nationalities.
Not that my correction is any less pointless than yours, but still…
Yes, I’d agree with that. In my estimation, Mikhail Gorbachev probably pushed the de-escalation of the ICBM issue far more than President Reagan pulled it, however, it’s also quite acceptable to state that the stupendously superior economic strength of NATO brought such pressures to the bargaining table. As I noted earlier, diminishing the ICBM threat was a major issue for the Soviets to enter into, insofar as it was the single most demonstrable means of displaying good faith that they no longer wished to be enemies of NATO, but rather, at the very least wished to be equal trading partners in a spirit of mutual security and good will. Nonetheless, it would seem that there are some vocal pockets of old-timer diehards who remain forever bitter towards Gorbachev for supposedly weakening Russia in the face of the enemy. That part of the story is a shame for mine. President Reagan is universally being applauded in the West for the role that HE played, but such applause is not universally reciprocal for our good Mr Gorbachev sadly.
My first observation is that the USSR had grown exceedingly tired of playing the “mother state” to the puppet states you mentioned above (not to mention other spoiler states such as Libya and Egypt etc). By 1980, the policy had become both amazingly expensive, and (more importantly) decreasingly rewarding - at least in the context of providing any sort of useful economic benefit to the USSR. Sure, there was the sheer egotistical wank enjoyed by the Kremlin in supposedly keeping alive the myth that they had created a superpower which could “stand up” to all those greedy, horrible capitalist pigs - but history shows now that apart from the ICBM matter, the USSR was never, ever even 25% of the superpower that the USA was - certainly not economically. And something that history also shows is that no country can forever continue to live beyond her means - which essentially says that to be military superpower one must FIRST also be an economic superpower, and ultimately, this is where the USSR failed. It simply wasn’t an economic model which could pay for the lofty goals her leaders aspired to.
In many respects, poor Mikhail Gorbachev was the poor bastard who had to deliver the dreadful news to the Kremlin - in effect he was the messenger who is now unpopular within Russia in some quarters for the message that fate had chosen was his role to deliver.
Speaking as someone who has spent chunks of time in the former USSR both while it was in the process of collapsing and afterwards, I thinnk it’s important to note that the bulk of those who are disgusted with what Gorbachev did are the older generations, those who had the most to lose when the old system died and who fared the worst economically under the new system. Sure, there has been a certain loss of pride in Russia’s former standing as a world power, but the people who are bitching the loudest about it are the ones who are trying to survive on a $20 monthly state pension. In a lot of ways, politics is indeed economics.
Corruption, torture, lies and cover-ups seem to be the staples of the Republicans. No wonder that Reagan is their hero, and that they want to drape Reagan’s corpse over Bush 43’s shoulders so that they can pretend he’s one of the greats, instead of a brainless monster. Funny that they don’t try the same thing with Bush 41. Perhaps it’s because Bush 41 is still alive and in a position to tell Bush 43 to go fuck himself? Or maybe that wouldn’t matter. They just sent Laura out to tell Nancy to go fuck herself.
It gives me great pleasure to link to that, after duffer threatened to Pit me elsewhere for recalling this line a few days ago.
So if he or Starving Artist do vanity searches or otherwise trip across this, they’re welcome to respond here.
Thank goodness our week of all-Ronnie-all-the-time news coverage is over. My favorite bit was when Cokie Roberts, in a roundtable discussion with George Will and Sam Donaldson, when Cokie Roberts went on about how
Sam Stone is often accused of copying his material from elsewhere. If he does, it’s reprehensible. But it’s not an excuse for you to do the same thing.