Considering all three of these lines have been posted in this thread for anyone to read, this is going to be a tough line to sell. However, it does present an enlightening illustration of the subject we’re now discussing; how some people attempt to rewrite the past in a more favorable light.
Would you care for more selective quoting? Like
We were talking about Reagan, so when you read my original post, you must bear that in mind. And I maintain my position that had Bush taken office in 1981, the Soviet Union would not have fallen.
The Soviet Union was in a crisis. Sometimes regimes in crisis do unwise things. Reagan convinced them that some things would be VERY unwise. The alternatives that remained played out, so yes, Reagan did play a role.
sigh They myth that Reagan played a pivotal role in the events that led to the collapse of the Soviet Untion is tiresome at best and offensive at worst. Reagan made a few speeches–the “Evil Empire” speach in particular–that shocked and astonished the Soviet leadership (leading to events that brought us closer to a nuclear exchange since the Cuban Missile Crisis), but his support for the Solidarity movement was strictly moral. It was people like Lech Wałęsa who were out there putting it on the line to campaign for change, often at threat to life and liberty. Reagan’s support for Afghan insurgents was more tangible, but it’s questionable that it ultimately made a significant difference in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which was unpopular and strained Red Army operational budgets even before mujahadeen started knocking transports and Hind gunships out of the air with US supplied Stinger missiles, and in any case which manifestly backfired on the US, as we’ve been made aware.
Gorbachev came in as a social and economic reformer after the last of the Soviet Communist Party hardliners had diet or diminshed into obscurity. The Soviet economy had been languishing since the Seventies (some might say since the removal of Khrushchev) and was badly in need of reorganization and liberalization, particularly after the economically-disasterous moon shot and Buran programs. Gorbie’s so-called “Sinatra Doctrine” (“I’ll have it my waaaay”) opened the door to economic separation and political liberalization of the East Bloc satellites, and the fall of Honecker’s East Germany, along with the collapse of Communist dictatorships in Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria signaled the end of Soviet dominence of Eastern Europe (for better and worse).
Reagan got to collect on that particular pot, but in truth the groundwork had been laid decades before, from Marshall and Churchill’s efforts to consolidate the nations of Western Europe into the organization that would become NATO, to the global protectionism policy under Eisenhower. The Soviet Union was long bankrupt before the military buildup of the late Seventies/early Eighties, and it awaited only the departure of hardline ideologues and replacement by rational moderates (Gorbachev) to open the door to what became the collapse of the Communist Bloc.
Reagan’s most important contribution to this–and it should be neither diminshed nor excessively amplified–was a strong personal friendship with Gorbachev that was as sincere as it was publicized. This lead to an easing of tensions between negotiators and a willingness to cooperate to achieve the mutually beneficial goal of reducing military posturing and the associated cost. Without this threat, however, the nations of the East Bloc–upon which the Soviet Union was parasytically dependent–had no reason to remain in concert. Gorbachev tried to preside over the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Empire, attempting to maintain economic ties to the most useful states, but was constantly challenged by internal factions who wanted either a more rapid and definitive move to democracy or a return to complete authoritarianism. The US failure to better support Gorbachev led to his removal and replacement by the somewhat unstable Boris Yeltsin. (Whether any external power could have done anything to prevent the abortive coup attempt or redeem Gorbachev is highly questionable, but nonetheless the RSFSR fell off the moderate path at that point and veered into the political schizophrenia it still displays today.)
This isn’t to say that Reagan didn’t make a lasting impression upon the political landscape of the US; he certainly ushered in a wave of conservative politics that resonates to this day. While some view the Clinton era as one of political liberalism, Clinton was actually moderate-to-conservative in his politics, and his more social liberal policies, for (probably) better or worse, fell by the wayside while his most successful achievements (such as welfare reform) had the hallmarks of a continuation of Reagan-influenced policies. The success of Bush the Younger is in no minor way a continuation of the Reagan legacy–compare his speeches, and indeed Cabinet and private advisorrs, to those of the Reagan era–and the public still responds to and reveres such senitments in a way that it does not to technically more successful presidents such as FDR or Eisenhower.
Reagan was a “Best in Show”–a classy, homey, popular president that made the most of other peoples’ accomplishments but that doesn’t make for an effective shepherd. Things would have been much different without Reagan’s legacy–although just how they would be different is hard to say–but to credit him as being singlehandedly or even significantly responsible for the fall of Soviet Communism is a transparent misconception.
Stranger
Reagan was a player in that. An important one. Of course he wasn’t ‘singlehandedly’ responsible. But he was one of a handful of leaders that rose up during that time (including Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, Pope John Paul II, Vaclav Havel, and of course Gorbachev) who, working together, engineered the peaceful dismantling of the Soviet Union.
I think you greatly underestimate Reagan’s influence on these events. The U.S.'s leadership was crucially important. Lech Walesa and other dissidents benefitted greatly from a U.S. stance that was clearly on their side. Gorbachev was able to make the case for reform to his peers in the politburo in part because Reagan made it clear to the Soviets that they weren’t going to win an arms race, and that they were not going to be able to intimidate the U.S. into major economic concessions or expand their way out of trouble.
It wasn’t just stinger missiles in Afghanistan. It wasn’t just the growing dissident movements in the Republics. It wasn’t just the renewed opposition to Soviet adventurism in Central and South America. It wasn’t just SDI. It wan’t just the Soviets electing a more moderate leader. It was all of these things.
The 1970’s had seen a growing belief in detente and peaceful coexistence, and a strong anti-war, anti-military sentiment growing in the west that emboldened the Soviets and made them believe that they could maintain their rickety economic infrastructure indefinitely. It led to the invasion of Afghanistan. It could have led to a lot more.
The '80’s, thanks to the rise of the politicians I mentioned, turned the tide. Coexistence was out as official U.S. policy. Instead, official policy became to end the cold war with the dismantling of the Soviet Union. Reagan led that fight, and by the end of his two terms the ground was set for exactly that to happen.
There are also a lot of events behind the scenes that had a tremendous impact, such as the Reagan Administration’s successful black program to sabotage a major Soviet oil pipeline, which dealt their economy a pretty good shock.
The Soviets were hit on all sides, and had a leader who could take that pressure and channel it into a demand for reform within his government.
Aw Geez. Not this **** again.
Stranger-
I just didn’t read it that way. The “freindship” was Reagans way of saving face for Gabby Gorby. In private conversation I have no doubt that Reagan made it clear that no nonsenese would be tolerated. How crucial that was, or if it even happened, may never be known. There have always been hawks on that side as well.
Who would have thought that Putin would be leading them back to the dark side. :rolleyes:
Funny how that worked out . . .
See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=351926
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this, Sam. Clearly, you think Reagan played an inherent part in the dissolusion of the Soviet Union. I think he was a minor player–although a very verbal one–whose contributions largely amounted to allowing a conduit of information and moral support for a beleagured leader of the former main opponent to NATO. We can speculate on “What if?” scenerios all day long–and I think that we’ll both agree that the US and possibly the world would be very different had Reagan not lived out his eight year legacy–but I’d contend that it would have made little difference with regard to the collapse of Soviet Communism, just as Nixon’s China policy may have allowed economic relations between the US and Red China but had little immediate impact upon the failure of the Cultural Revolution. Let’s shake and part in friendly disagreement, okay?
Reagan’s friendship with Gorbachev seemed quite sincere, and continued after he was out of office. Like the relationship between Churchill and Eisenhower (during planning for Operation Overlord and preparing for post-WWII Soviet expansion), it played a key role and aligning inflated, bombastic egos to a common, mutually-beneficial goal. It also allowed for negotiators–who had traditionally viewed each other, and were viewed by their political overloards with suspicion–to engage in a more relaxed social milieu and start talking about the unthinkable, i.e. disarmament. This should not be diminished and, in fact, is probably Reagan’s greatest legacy. (The less said about the B-1B program or SDI, the better.)
As an executive, Reagan’s prowess his highly questionable; his best efforts can be attributed to some of the more insightful members of his staff and Cabinet. His off-the-reservation comments were often more damaging than effective, and although the overall vision of stalwart opposition to Communism can be credited to him, specific strategic objectives came from those under him.
Stranger
Well… Okay. But I have posted at length on this topic before, and it’s my position that those who think that Reagan didn’t have that much of an effect have not really studied what it is that he did. He didn’t just amp up the rhetoric a little. He fundamentally changed the relationship, and his administration was very active both in public and behind the scenes in pushing world events in the direction they ultimately went in.
When a president says, before his election, that his goal is to bring down an empire that has existed for 35 years, and his administration takes steps to make that happen (against great opposition from the ‘peace’ movement and other western leaders who want more appeasement), and by the end of his 8 years that empire is on the verge of crumbling, then I think you have to take his contributions seriously.
Rather than reposting it, I’d like to refer you back to this post I made last year which describes Reagan’s accomplishments in more detail. The cites in the message are of particular interest.
Every president from Wilson to Bush put forth rhetoric about bringing down the Soviet Union and made token steps in that attempt. Why single out Regan’s contribution for any special weight?
If you examine Reagan’s rhetoric, you’ll see that what he was saying was that the Soviet Union was a strong power and serious military threat. Reagan called for, and produced, a military build-up to counter that threat. And as it turned out, the threat was hollow and the build-up was unnecessary.
If Reagan was telling what he thought was true, he was mistaken. If he wasn’t, he spent eight years lying to us.
Please, no illusions about Gorbachev. He completely approves of Putin. In his own words just yesterday,
Gorbachev was just a figure head that the Politburo tried to put forward to counteract Reagan and Thatcher. He might have been not so bad as the most of them, but still…
Besides, Gorbachev was never his own man. He was always beholden to Politburo. He was selected in 1985 to represent a criminal and illegitimate regime and he did his best to uphold it.
Soviets were genuinely scared of the new approach to world politics as practised by Reagan and Thatcher. They were trying to do everything to placate them personally and at the same time to put up a popular figure to the world. In a roundabout way, Gorbachev was presented to Thatcher for approval in 1984, even before Chernenko died. She famously said, I am cautiously optimistic. I like Mr. Gorbachev . We can do business together.
This is absolutely not true. ‘Coexistence’ and ‘detente’ were the buzzwords of the 1970’s. Before that, it was ‘containment’. The U.S. had a policy of opposing Soviet adventurism and expansion, but no serious plan to actually bring the empire to its knees. Reagan did. He signed security directives early in his first term that made the goal of winning the cold war official U.S. policy. Not just peaceful coexistence. Victory. And that administration did many things, both overt and covert, to make that happen. For example, sabotaging the Soviet Union’s new oil pipeline. Pressuring Saudi Arabia to break the OPEC cartel to cut the USSR’s oil revenue. Funding Solidarity in Poland. It wasn’t just rhetoric.
Compare that to the 1970’s, when we were doing things like Apollo-Soyuz to show the world we could ‘get along’. Reagan fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship.
Nonsense. The Soviet Union was a huge military threat. But more to the point, the whole purpose of the arms buildup was to show the Soviet Union that they could not win militarily.
Or he was telling the truth, the arms buildup was necessary, and the fact that it happened helped break the back of the Soviet Union and create a lasting peace.
Familiar thinking. Also, Saddam was absolutely not dangerous. And so wasn’t bin Laden all through the 90-s.
The situation vs. the USSR was extremely dangerous. Reagan was taking enormous risks. Soviets were spending on munitions like crazy. I remember seeing charts showing that USSR caught up with US in the number of missiles sometime in the 80-s, for the first time (but not warheads).
John Hinckley would be on Death Row or probably Dead.
How so? He was found Not Guilty by reason of insanity. He’d probably be in a more secure mental facility, but that’s about it.
And if Reagan were removed form the picture so early in his term, I don’t think the religious right would have had anywhere NEAR as easy a time gaining the political toehold that led to their consolidated influence today. The DC political landscape might have looked VERY different.
To really answer the question of the OP, we’d have to look at the events of March 30 1981-Nov 1984 and wonder how the ones that Reagan had no control over might have been handled by Bush, and at what Reagan did that Bush might have done differently.
Some points for discussion.
How woudl Bush Sr. have dealt with the emerging reality of AIDS?
Would he have vomited on the queen at Chuck and Di’s wedding?
What would his relations as Chief Executive with Thatcher, Mitterand, etc. have been like?
What would have been his level of public support for Lech Walesa?
Would he have appointed Sandra Day O’Connor? (Think of the ramifications of a change THERE for a minute)
How would he have handled Libya?
Woudl he have proclaimed 1983 the “Year of the Bible”?
Would he have initiated “Star Wars”?
How would he have handled the Beirut bombings in 1983? Would he have pulled the Marines out in 1984? Would we have invaded Grenada at all?
Would he have objected publicly, as Reagan did, to declaring MLK day a federal holiday?
What would anti-drug education funding levels have been without Nancy Reagan?
Would he have called for an international ban on chemical weapons, as Reagan did?
The 1984 election would have looked interesting. I think Mondale would still have won the nom, because nothing related to logic explained why he would have gotten it in the first place. Hart was his only serious opponent, and I don’t think the sudden death of Reagan would have affected Hart’s decision about what to keep or not keep in his pants while under media scrutiny one way or the other.
On the Republican side, we must wonder if GHWB would have run unopposed as Reagan did. It’s almost a given that at least Dole would have run.Who else?
And based on Bush’s speculative handling of the events described above, who would have won?
Something else I think would have changed is the number of Republican candidates for high-profile office who came form the world of entertainment, as well as the confidence with which Hollywood as a whole has entered into the world of politics. Regan set the tone for that whole sea change.
Would Sonny Bono and Fred Grandy have stopped at local offices, or would they still have run for Congress?
Would we have had the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act as a result?
Reagan’s First Cabinet et. al.
State - Al Haig
Treasury - Donald Regan
Defense - Caspar Weinberger
Attorney General - William French Smith
Interior - James Watt
Agriculture - John Block
Commerce - Malcolm Baldrige
Labor - Raymond Donovan
Health and Human Services - Richard Schweiker
HUD - Samuel Pierce
Transportation - Andrew Lewis
Energy - James Edwards
Education - Terel Bell
White House Chief of Staff - James Baker
Press Secretary - (Would Larry Speakes still have taken over assuming the outcome for James Brady was no different?)
Which would have stayed to serve under Bush? Which would have gone? What would or wouldn’t have happened?
“If”? Whaddaya mean, “if”? Why do you think they had to have that unbalanced, prematurely senile clone take over?