of course, soviet era statistics can support any hypothesis your heart desires
There is a good bit of literature that suggests that Soviets did not respond to US miltary build up, as in http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684844168/braddelong00 Or we can believe the same “conservative” pundits like George Will, screaming that Reagan’s military build up and ideological crusade against communism were the final punch. Yeah, and there are WMDs in Iraq.
i really don’t have a view on the topic - i was just making a cheap joke at the expense of the poor soviets
I do have a view on the topic, but I haven’t read that book (his book Fire in the Lake was great, though). Anyway, I don’t think the Soviets did respond to SDI. I think that was a rather silly initiative and nobody I knew who worked with SDI (a fair amount as there were lots of academics who regarded it as an entitlement program) thought it was worth anything. The point is not that the “responded” to it anyway. The point is that they could no longer practically or politically respond to US and NATO military build-up (and a billion other pressures) so they reconstituted themselves into something more peaceful. Edit: Anyway, why am I getting drawn into this? We were discussing Reaganomics which was shackled with a big element of military build-up intended to protect American security from the Evil Empire. The Evil Empire imploded. Nothing simple caused that, but Reagan clearly felt that whatever his economic goals, that goal was deeply important.
At the risk of offending rohu, bchad, Mr. Tamborine… I skimmed the 4 pages here and as usual there are some meaningful, thoughtful, insightful points. However, noticeably many are segregated neatly into two distinct partisan camps. Here is my point: With so many variables over lengths of time it is difficult to claim historical events credit or discredit any particular political viewpoint or individual regime. Reasonable people can’t possibly believe that every issue throughout our history was correctly navigated by one of only two opposing views? Or further that one of those two sides was mostly correct while the other was mostly wrong? Overall, our failure to map out a coherent strategy for a country of this size, with the vast intellectual resources it possess, is embarrassing. I mean, seriously. Read any thread in here about GM, F, AIG, GS, bailouts, debt, economy, etc. etc. etc. and you will find somewhere, an educated assessment, followed by comments and reasonable attempts at solutions. There is rarely universal agreement, but certainly smart people participating in a process to outline a path that might result in maximizing success. Yesterday I was watching a clip of Kucinich grandstanding for 5 minutes as he questioned some kid and I was embarrassed. This is who we have elected to lead us as we sit arguably on the brink? Essentially Dennis was saying this: “hey who cares if some regulator thinks National City is going to fail? I want you to give them taxpayer money anyway because they are from my district.” That about sums it up right there. …self serving, lifetime partisan politicians, they are not wired for solutions. They might as well light our money on fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5GW2uh0k4A&feature=related I don’t know. The partisanship is so heated . Blame Bush or Palin for being dumb, OK, but really, where has it gotten us? I am hoping the change we elected starts dropping some hints about upcoming ideas, solutions and substance. Otherwise in two years we are going to hear all about change again and I fear that isn’t going to really bring change either. Promising change is a start. Delivering it once you gain control seems like it is difficult.
no offense taken at all - you make excellent points that i totally agree with actually
slouiscar - good post. I’m not offended either.
> Edit: Anyway, why am I getting drawn into this? We > were discussing Reaganomics which was shackled > with a big element of military build-up intended > to protect American security from the Evil Empire. > The Evil Empire imploded. Nothing simple caused > that, but Reagan clearly felt that whatever his > economic goals, that goal was deeply important. You are right that this discussion has gone somewhat off topic and I am partially responsible for that, but this is where I was going with the demise of the Evil Empire. The discussion is ultimately about Bush and his failures as a disciple of Reagan. Bush and people like him believe that Reagan was a visionary and Bush basically sees himself as the hyper-Reagan (or Reagan on crack, if you will). This includes both his economic and his geopolitical ideas. Bush/Reagan’s economic philosophy is now in complete disarray, but the geopolitical side of Reaganism is also important. I lose it when I hear the often repeated line that Reagan killed the Soviet Union. It is revisionist history. I would love to hear anyone here try to peddle that theory in Russia—which I have done. You would be laughed at or get flabbergasted looks. Reagan’s military buildup? What about Kennedy vs. Khruschev or Brezhnev vs. Nixon? The Soviet Union always, always had a heavy military component to their economy—not just in Reagan’s time. They had superiority in missile and conventional forces and were capable of keeping the empire intact through brute force. The decision not to do so was made by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, years after Reagan was out to pasture. Why is this discussion important? Because hyper-Reaganites like Bush who believe that Reagan’s aggressiveness and military buildup brought down the Soviet Union keep perpetuating the same mistakes, thinking that military pressure and threats will ultimately turn your enemies into friends. It has never worked that way. The fact that the former Soviet Union is no longer an adversary is due to engagement practiced by G.H.W. Bush, Yeltsin, and Gorbachev—and perhaps Reagan toward the end. That is a critical reason why Obama won the election—he emphasized soft power and diplomacy, not the dead-end saber-rattling of Reagan and G.W. Bush. Hard power is a gift to entrenched, aggressive, backward regimes.
Well, if what I wrote did anything to encourage the view of “that military pressure and threats will ultimately turn your enemies into friends”, I regret that and I am a peacenik about almost all wars. Obviously, the Soviet Union disintegrated due to gajillions of reasons over many years and historians will be discussing it for years. Maybe the larger point is that Reagan’s implemented view of Reaganomics was not a true test of the philosophy because he corrupted it with lots of military spending. Joeynomics thinks that we can cut military spending dramatically without too many bad effects and learn to solve our problems more productively (and some of them even more violently). We can cut back domestic spending enormously and work our way toward lowering taxes on everyone. I think this is pathetically easy to do except that as pointed out about Kucinich - Congressman get elected to spend money, not to repeatedly not spend money (btw - I think this is not partisanship but more like patronage or pork). The new way of spending money is apparently to throw huge gobs of it at places that have made gigantic mistakes without disclosing what those mistakes are or any plan to fix them. So slouiscar thinks that this has been a partisan discussion, but I don’t really see that except that the article (I guess, having not read it) makes the point that Republicans are a “ship of fools”. If you happen to be a Republican, you might take exception to that. It’s just not appropriate to say “Hey, stop objecting to being called a fool. I didn’t say you were a fool, just that you climbed aboard a ship full of fools (or captained by fools). Objecting to that is just partisanship.” Anyway, partisanship doesn’t really have a place in a forum of ideas. Partisanship is about broad classifications that provide structure for thinking and political alliances. There aren’t a lot of political alliances on AF and everyone bickers with everyone. I think that AF is pretty healthy in this regard. I do agree that creative problem solving is wildly absent in DC these days (and everywhere else it seems). We’ll see if Obama gets the job done.
I also don’t see it as a partisan discussion since most of us who have been arguing aspects of history would probably agree on 90% of most policy issues. In fact I was starting to worry about some kind of civil war among Obama supporters, because frankly we should be munching popcorn watching the other side go at each others’ throats for awhile. I was hoping to radicalize the Reagan demythologization and to contribute my perspective from having lived several years in modern Russia. I’m glad to hear you’re peacing out over there, Joey. I am always a little dismayed when I hear liberally minded people defending Reagan’s policies. The connection—economic and geopolitical—between Bush and Reagan can be seen in the following, in my opinion: when Cheney said Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter and Bush’s “axis of evil” speech, which had clear echoes of Reagan’s Evil Empire. Look where those two ideas got us. Is Iran behaving any better because we are talking tough and building a Star Wars program? When did North Korea start to act reasonably—when we threatened them or when we engaged them? I am arguing on behalf of engagement and soft power, which I believe is very un-Reaganesque and, I hope, is where Obama is leading us.
Mr. Tambourine Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also don’t see it as a partisan discussion since > most of us who have been arguing aspects of > history would probably agree on 90% of most policy > issues. In fact I was starting to worry about > some kind of civil war among Obama supporters, > because frankly we should be munching popcorn > watching the other side go at each others’ throats > for awhile. I was hoping to radicalize the Reagan > demythologization and to contribute my perspective > from having lived several years in modern Russia. > > I’m glad to hear you’re peacing out over there, > Joey. I am always a little dismayed when I hear > liberally minded people defending Reagan’s > policies. The connection—economic and > geopolitical—between Bush and Reagan can be seen > in the following, in my opinion: when Cheney said > Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter and > Bush’s “axis of evil” speech, which had clear > echoes of Reagan’s Evil Empire. Look where those > two ideas got us. Is Iran behaving any better > because we are talking tough and building a Star > Wars program? When did North Korea start to act > reasonably—when we threatened them or when we > engaged them? I am arguing on behalf of > engagement and soft power, which I believe is very > un-Reaganesque and, I hope, is where Obama is > leading us. I am not a history buff, but didn’t both the US and Russian have nuclear attack subs lined up along each others’ shores? Engagement in that situation might have been a little messy. I am assuming you mean engaging before we get to that point…
I think you mean nuclear missile subs (an attack sub is a weapon to sink submarines and ships and would generally be around the other side’s submarines and ships). Yep, we have those. Where they are is the billion dollar question.
Mr. Tambourine Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also don’t see it as a partisan discussion since > most of us who have been arguing aspects of > history would probably agree on 90% of most policy > issues. In fact I was starting to worry about > some kind of civil war among Obama supporters, > because frankly we should be munching popcorn > watching the other side go at each others’ throats > for awhile. I was hoping to radicalize the Reagan > demythologization and to contribute my perspective > from having lived several years in modern Russia. > > I’m glad to hear you’re peacing out over there, > Joey. I am always a little dismayed when I hear > liberally minded people defending Reagan’s > policies. The connection—economic and > geopolitical—between Bush and Reagan can be seen > in the following, in my opinion: when Cheney said > Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter and > Bush’s “axis of evil” speech, which had clear > echoes of Reagan’s Evil Empire. Look where those > two ideas got us. Is Iran behaving any better > because we are talking tough and building a Star > Wars program? When did North Korea start to act > reasonably—when we threatened them or when we > engaged them? I am arguing on behalf of > engagement and soft power, which I believe is very > un-Reaganesque and, I hope, is where Obama is > leading us. I think Reagan was a more carrot and stick type, with the exception of Gaddafi. There was never any credible carrot to Gaddafi and the guy absolutely got under Reagan’s skin. As a result we got Lockerbie and a slew of stupid military encounters. GWB doesn’t seem to understand that being a Reaganite doesn’t mean you have to let third-rate dictators get under your skin.
I always enjoy threads like this. I guess my previous post was more an observation of pgs 1-3 of this thread. Specifically: That XX is dumb. That the failure of one disciple or regime is sufficient proof to discredit a belief system or similar policies attributed to a larger movement or philosophy. That anyone that subscribes to a religion is by definition dumb, especially one that includes some form of creationism. That being a chief executive of a small company or small state requires less intelligence and results in less leadership experience than organizing a block party in a large metro area. That only those deemed well educated are qualified to serve as representatives. That history has somehow suggested that elected leaders characterized as uneducated by some standard were universally judged as failures and their ideas were just silly. That you can generalize one group or geographic area and judge ability or intelligence as a whole. That the results of any election implies a candidate’s platform is the solution in advance. I am not trying to be a smart-a## because I do not necessarily disagree with some of those generalizations. But still, I feel a little dirty about it when I agree with them. Since the recent direction of the thread is more Reagan specific… “…the larger point is that Reagan’s implemented view of Reaganomics was not a true test of the philosophy because he corrupted it with lots of military spending.” — Wholeheartedly agree. The environment and time significantly influenced the implementation. So can anyone declare it a philosophy that history has proven to be a failure? Partisans regularly do. “The discussion is ultimately about Bush and his failures as a disciple of Reagan. Bush and people like him believe that Reagan was a visionary and Bush basically sees himself as the hyper-Reagan (or Reagan on crack, if you will). This includes both his economic and his geopolitical ideas. Bush/Reagan’s economic philosophy is now in complete disarray, but the geopolitical side of Reaganism is also important.” — To gloss over the vast differences between Bush’s economic ideas and Reagan’s vision is like leaving out Google when you document the history of the internet. The current economic environment is a result of the failures of the current regime and not the end result of Reagan’s policies. To attempt to attribute the recent climate to Reagan’s philosophy, when that philosophy was not implemented by the current regime, is a stretch. Still, partisans now leap at the chance to discredit Reagan. “Joeynomics thinks that we can cut military spending dramatically without too many bad effects and learn to solve our problems more productively (and some of them even more violently). We can cut back domestic spending enormously and work our way toward lowering taxes on everyone. I think this is pathetically easy to do” — Agree 100%. This is the embarrassing part. I have heard that day one you can cut 30% and we would not even notice. So why aren’t we? Self serving partisans have other plans. “except that as pointed out about Kucinich - Congressman get elected to spend money, not to repeatedly not spend money (btw - I think this is not partisanship but more like patronage or pork).” — Also agree. That clip is not an example of partisanship but of systemic flaws. I think I got off track. Though to continue the theme, it is astonishing that anyone can support that blatant ignorance and self service. Worse yet, how do you ever re-elect that? Partisans jump at the chance to put this fool back in DC. "I am always a little dismayed when I hear liberally minded people defending Reagan’s policies. " Really? Why? I mean the guy was elected twice. I think v. Carter he carried 49 states, and had 490 or so electoral votes. I am conservative minded and I didn’t vote for Obama, but I would defend some of his policies. This is what gets me with this we are always right and you are always wrong thing. We all live in the same world. You can’t just kick 50% of the people off because someone says they are dumb. We can either make this thing work or we can wait for it to implode. And in case people haven’t noticed yet… we are getting a little too close to the implosion thing, at least for my liking. Of course if flirting with implosion gets me elected in my district on a change ticket, it could work out in the end. Hopefully.
I miss Reagan. Remember how much fun it was to wake up and say “Grenada? We invaded Grenada? I’ve never even heard of Grenada. Where is that?” You just never knew what was coming next. Ah, for the good ole days…
And then he would give you a jellybean…
As said above and in the spirit of bipartisanship, I hope republican party rebuilds. I think we need a national dual party system, rather than a regional republican party(South) and a democratic party elsewhere. My only hope is that true fiscal conservatives, rather than religious right, will prevail there. After all, I would prefer a political option where I did not have to support union bosses, entitlement programs and protectionism - it is just currently their alternative is much, much scarier. You betcha.
Yeah, the religious right has definitely driven part of the Republican party off the deep end. Part of the problem is that the religious right is so divided themselves (I was at church with my Grandpa in the Deep South years ago and the Church had decided that they couldn’t say “Holy catholic church” in the Apostle’s creed so they said “Holy [grunt] church”). We get the people who believe that gov’t should enforce some notion of morality and whack-jobs who want to teach that dinsosaurs and people might have co-existed 6000 years ago in public schools.
> I think Reagan was a more carrot and stick type, > with the exception of Gaddafi. I agree with you that Reagan’s foreign and economic policy was somewhat nuanced. He was confrontational, but when he sensed that he could talk to Gorbachev, he changed his attitude towards the Soviet Union dramatically. G.H.W. Bush continued this trend admirably and much more successfully than Reagan himself. What scares me—and why I jumped on this discussion—are the Reagan disciples who represent the “Reagan on crack” position I was talking about before. I would put both W. and McCain in this category. They believe that you can make an enemy your friend by confronting and antagonizing them. McCain’s “Bomb Iran” song wasn’t cute and we have seen no progress in the Middle East in 8 years as a result of the current policies. McCain’s knee-jerk jumping on Georgia’s bandwagon without reviewing facts on the ground first and the constant provocation of Russia for the last 8 years are also hyper-Reagan. That policy has been a complete failure because it has helped to make Russia more paranoid, aggressive, and reactionary than it was in the 90s when Bush the first and Clinton engaged Russia. I was living in Russia when Putin became president and he was remarkably open-minded and very pro-Western. But the Bush policies have turned him in another direction. We are on the verge of a Cold War because the people running the show now are people who romanticize the worst of Reagan’s Cold War policies. Doesn’t his caught-on-radio joke that we are now bombing the Soviet Union have a shade of McCain’s “Bomb Iran” joke? It is a sad regression. We can only hope that Obama brings a more nuanced and intellectual approach than what we have seen during the Bush era.
You do realize that “entitlements programs” are primarily about helping the elderly with social security and medicare. As well as some disability support for workers who got hands chopped off in factories or got shot up in Iraq. People keep whining about “entitlements” as if we’re just paying taxes to make sure some 22 year old can have the latest iPhone without working. I can’t remember the source now, but people liked to attack welfare policies in the 1990s by referring to the “welfare mom,” someone who supposedly went sleeping around, having kids out of wedlock, and using the existence of those kids to get free public housing and support which, while not a luxurious life, did seem a lot better than sleeping under bridges and such. The welfare mom was what was supposed to be wrong with the welfare “entitlement,” and in fact entitlements in general. What? You want to tax us to pay for those kinds of people? Cut all entitlements now! Well, I recall that the welfare administration or a leading academic institution (I forget who), did a survey of welfare recipients and actually found a few people living this way. However, the number of people that fit this description was on the order of 1% of all recipients. Those recipients were truly abusing the system in a major way, and that was enough to eliminate the system for the 99% of other people who very likely needed this assistance (or some portion of it). I am sure more minor abuses happened too, but this sort of tactic just smacks of “mean-ness”. With current entitlements, we all hope that we will be alive when we are old and maybe even benefit by that, and this is why the system is arguably fair. Of course, there’s a demographic problem of baby boom entitlements, and maybe the issue on the board today is “if I can’t get some benefits, why am I paying for THEIRS?” To that, I think the issue is that one should not so casually break contractual understandings built up for a lifetime. The older generation planned their lives more or less assuming that the system would be in place, and it would be to some extent unfair to remove it without good reason or a sensible substitute. For the younger generations (I hope I still qualify for that), there is still time to make plans for a different kind of retirement - and most of us would be very upset to have our plans messed up by something like taking away our retirement investment in exchange for a state-provided annuity, even if that annuity were fairly generous. Also, I believe that only about 20% of the country makes more than $100k per year, and the percentage declines very rapidly as you move higher. So people in the financial industry might seem to feel that everyone should just save enough for retirement, when it’s easy to forget that a lot of families are having trouble just paying rent. And then there are accusations that people should be saving for the future instead of maxing out credit cards and buying SUVs and expensive houses. I have some sympathy with that point of view, but in an environment like ours over the last 5-6 years, where inexpensive credit has led to massive asset inflation, it is hard to argue to the ordinary person that saving money in a bank account earning 2% interest makes much sense. You can tell them to invest it in a 401k or IRA, except these are the plans that have been hit by the market turmoil, and a lot more people have been doing that. So my main point is that this word “entitlements,” sounds like some wordsmithing from the Right wing to make it sound like we’re spoiling a bunch of babies, when really what we’re doing is telling old people and the unlucky to roll over and die so we don’t have to think about them anymore and can use the money for our SUVs and iPods (or, who knows, maybe invest it in our 401ks).