My take on why the “Evil Empire” went bust:
the communist takeover of private farms (in 1918-1920) condemned the USSR to constant food shortages. Even at their peak, the Russians had to import food from Europe and Australia-and, the USA (obligingly) saved the Sovs from economic collapse not once-but three times! (first, we saved them from mass starvation in 1919 (Herbert Hoover organized the massive donation of American grain), second, we saved them from the Nazis, by sending billions in food and equipment (under Lend-lease in WWII), third, we subsidized their army of occupation in Germany-we allowed them to print german banknotes-which we honored with American greenbacks!
By 1960, the Russians were again facing economic collapse-what saved them was the huge run-up in world oil prices in the early 1970’s-this allowed them to buy food, and thus propped them up for another 10-15 years. When oil prices tanked in the 80’s, they could no longer import food and pay for their disastrous war in Afghanistan. So, “STARWARS”/Reagan had very little to do with it-the Sovs failed because they could never produce food efficiently.
My numbers in the last message were total government spending, not just military spending.
Military spending under Reagan grew to about 27% of the federal budget (about 273 billion dollars), from about 21 or 22% under Carter’s last year. I think the peak Reagan military budget represented about 6% of GDP, compared to about 3.5% of GDP today.
Still, the point remains the same. It not as if we suddenly devoted our whole country to military arms or something. The buildup was modest, and a lot of the money went to replacing outdated systems and increasing the salaries of military employees. The actual increase in weaponry was fairly modest, as I recall.
Well Sam – an increase of 6% of our budget under Reagan spent on the military, is significant in itself, if you consider two factors:
- The military build-up started in the last two years of the Carter Administration; and
- The Reagan-era budgets were larger than the Carter-era.
Finally, say it was just a 1-2% increase in our GDP that was spent on the military under Reagan. That’s OUR GDP. Considering the Soviet economy was much smaller (how much, no one knows - the CIA never got it right), to keep up, the Reds would have had to increase military spending by likely 5-10% of their GDP. That would have a huge impact on their economy.
V.
Reagan will be rated among the better Presidents:
Destroying the Roosevelt Coalition.
FDR cobbled together a coalition of liberals, urban ethnic whites, rural populists, labor, and traditional Democrats that lasted into the 1960’s. Reagan broke this coalition, perhaps permanently. Granted, the coalition began to splinter as wealth-induced conservatism moved people to the GOP in the 1950s-60s. Granted also that Nixon’s cynical “southern strategy” transformed many traditional southern Democrats to the GOP as blacks gained influence in the Democratic party. Granted, this wasn’t completed until the Gingrich 1994 elections and it’s rather ironic given that Roosevelt was one of Ron’s heroes. But he did it and knew exactly what he was doing.
Restoring the Power of the Presidency
Hard to believe, but many commentators felt that after Watergate-Ford-Carter that the Presidency was in trouble. Carter’s chief failure was to establish a working relationship with his own party’s Congress. But as an outsider, Carter never really had a chance. The Congress after Watergate became a feudal collection of warlords, with no real ideology. They helped elect Reagan but weren’t washed away until 1994.
Reagan benefited from the disciplined, ideological Republican minority to get his programs enacted. He didn’t have to worry about the Democratic leadership in Congress, he simply went around it. He personally lobbied enough conservative Democrats to get his programs through. That would have never happened under Democrats like Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn.
The Era of Big Government is Over
Not really, actually, but it has slowed and Reagan started the process. (Nixon planned to or at least claimed later he would. I doubt it, Nixon was eager to build coalitions with liberal Democrats and thus rapidly increased government programs.) Here, Reagan mostly laid the groundwork through his ideology and effective speaches. He didn’t just break FDR’s coaltion, he broke the idea that underlies it.
The Evil Empire
The Cold War was won by the people enslaved by the Communist states (as will happen in Cuba, Red China, Viet Nam and Robot N. Korea). Without a resilient West it might have taken a much longer time. Reagan deserves his share of the credit but so do all the other Presidents. Carter’s greatest success was to link foreign policy to human rights, pushing the dialetical crises in the Kremlin even further. Reagan built on Carter’s policy while emphasizing on whose side the angels stood. The arms race may have been the last straw but not if the Kremlin were not already ideologically exhausted. Stalin would have matched Reagan weapon for weapon, no matter how many of his own people he had to kill.
The Economy Will Grow Out of These Deficits
It did, just as he predicted. Reagan didn’t start the recession of 1982, that was Carter’s policy to crush inflation with a massive increase in interest rates. But he didn’t stop it either. Reagan guessed correctly that the U.S. couldn’t compete anyway in light industry with the newly industrializing countries. Stopping inflation, reducing regulation (again started by Carter), lowering taxes on the wealthy (Reagan’s engine for growth) would and did lead to the economic boom enjoyed by Clinton. (There was the not so small matter for Bush, Clinton, and Gingrich of stopping up the Reagan deficits.) Of course, hundreds of thousands of people were deeply affected by this wrenching change, and Reagan, while emotionally sensitive to individual stories, was too much of an idealogue to be concerned.
Reagan was a great president.
Oh yeah. While I’m at it I should mention that Brittney Spears is a great artist. And the Big Mac is a great burger.
Wumpus (and John Ralston Saul in “The Doubter’s Companion”) hit it on the head. All of the above represent great successes of public relations. Theoretical over actual content. Give the people what they want.
I think it is not entirely accurate to call RR an idiot. He certainly was successful in his chosen fields of endeavor, and I think few successful people are entirely without brains. Sure, it’s not as tho he invented the internet or anything, but not everyone can be Al Gore.
He certainly was a stud, out in Cal chopping wood. I always felt he would be my choice if int’l disputes were resolved through arm wrestling.
But I never understood his popularity. I always felt like I was missing something. People called him the great communicator. I thought his speeches were insultingly stupid. I remember turning off the set one time after hearing about that shining mansion on the hill. Felt the way I often do when I watch TV, I wish I had a lower IQ (Stolen from a comic strip (Frank and Earnest?) from years/decades? ago)
Politicians always try to take credit for all good and deflect blame for all bad that happens on their watch, whether or not they had any effect on it. I sometimes try to figure out exactly how my life will be different depending on who wins the next election. Right now I’m having trouble identifying much beyond Supreme Court justices (and other federal judges).
Nixon (the username, not the dead president) wrote:
It also didn’t hurt Reagan that, during the early years of Reagan’s administration, the “Legislative Veto” power that had shacked Ford and Carter in the wake of the Watergate scandal was finally overturned by the Supreme Court.
Damn typos. I meant “shackled Ford and Carter”, not “shacked Ford and Carter”.
As a liberal Democrat, it best that we Democrats recognize that first Ronnie kicked our butts and examine why that occurred.
If not, well, get ready for 8 years of Dubya.
As for the Legislative Veto that “shackled” Presidents Carter and Ford but not Ronnie…
Well…
The concept of the “legislative veto” and its partial overturn in the 1983 Supreme Court decision Immigration and Naturalization Service vs. Chadha stirs up a lot more heat at law school than at the political level.
It goes back to my boy Tricky Dicky and his sequestering of allocated monies and the fear by Congress (rightfully so) that certain things (like environmental protection or prescription drug testing) authorized by Congress would not be done. So, working from some murky precendents in the 1970’s the Congress wrote in specific clauses mandating actions subject to Congressional review.
There got to be about 200 of these, the one that ended up in the Supreme Court was over whether Congress could veto the INS decision on deporting resident aliens (like Mr. Chadha of Kenya). The Court said no way.
But this was in 1983, after RR had already passed his budget plan. In fact, RR tried to use a variant of the legislative veto in his Graham-Rudman “automated” deficit reduction package in 1985 only to be again thrown out by the Court in Synar vs Bowsher.
So, nope, no way Jose. Ford & Carter’s failures had everything to do with a recalcitrant Democratic warlord Congress which just happened to use the legislative veto to get their own way. Had the Court tossed out the legislative veto in 1973 rather than in 1983, Ford and Carter’s presidencies would have been just as successful.
BTW, the Congress is still trying out versions of the legislative veto but a Dubya victory combined with a GOP Congress will make these moot for the time being.
Around 1986 or thereabouts, I remember Reagan getting on TV and saying “We did not sell arms to Iran. We sold defensive weapons.” I thought that was a pretty dumb thing to say, since “arms” ARE weapons. Just my 2 cents.
Reagan was great at appearing Presidential.
And Carter’s biggest problem wasn’t the failed Tehran rescue attempt, but in underestimating the institutional and bureaucratic inertia inside the Beltway. He and his good ol’ boys couldn’t get squat done in Washington, largely because the entrenched on both sides of the aisle refused to play with a bunch of arrogant rednecks.