Reagan

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

NOONE predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. It came as a complete surprise.

And I don't think you can credit Reagan with that.

I think you can credit him with leading in the right direction, that being towards the blood-letting of the Red Army in Afghanistan and the buggering of the Soviet economy beyond repair through a quickened arms race.

Hey, I'll take the old guys luck, any day of the week.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by notyoueither
On the Soviets bit... what would have happened if nobody pushed at the house of cards? Can't say can you? Neither can I. All I can say is that Reagan (and like-minded allies) did push. A lot. That is why they get credit in my books.

Reagan certainly deserves some credit. Just don't exaggerate his merits too much. Gorby should get uncomparably more credit. If it was not for him (Gorby), the Soviet Union would still exist, and even 10 Reagans wouldn't have changed that. But, again, the Soviet Union was eventually doomed. Gorby just accelerated the process (by a couple of decades at least).

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

NOONE predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. It came as a complete surprise.

This is quite a paradox, a perception paradox actually. Many in the Soviet Union did realize the extent to which the system was rotten. Nonetheless they still believed that the power of the Soviets was forever.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
On the Soviets bit... what would have happened if nobody pushed at the house of cards? Can't say can you? Neither can I. All I can say is that Reagan (and like-minded allies) did push. A lot. That is why they get credit in my books.

There are 2 theories, both of which do not involve Reagan.

Firstly, the Soviet Union inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, particularly the long term decline brought about by the economic morass of state planning.

Secondly, Gorbachov lost control of a reform process which was never meant to lead to the removal from power of the communist party.

The second theory is more credible because China managed to move away from the planned command economy without the communists losing power.

[notyoueither]

I would have considered Gorbachev to be in the final 10 picks for person of the century for the previous 100. However, this thread is about Reagan and whether he was a good or bad president. My view is he was a good one.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
There are 2 theories, both of which do not involve Reagan.

Firstly, the Soviet Union inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, particularly the long term decline brought about by the economic morass of state planning.

Secondly, Gorbachov lost control of a reform process which was never meant to lead to the removal from power of the communist party.

The second theory is more credible because China managed to move away from the planned command economy without the communists losing power.

Right, and NK is a good indication of a hard line Soviet styled system crumbling from within on its own without a push, right?

And just what did bring Gorbachev to power? The feeling among the old guard that more of the same old would be sufficient in light of the renewed vigour of the US, and the West in general?

Where we are heading is pointless. What if this, what if that? The fact remains that Reagan had the good fortune to preside over the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War. The fact that he pushed the conflict and upped the ante can be discounted if you wish, but the fact remains that he, and some leaders in Europe and elswehere, did take action and did see a successful end to that action. People who don't like them can cry in their beer for all I care, it won't change what happened.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I would have considered Gorbachev to be in the final 10 picks for person of the century for the previous 100.

Yeah, he should be there. However, the perception that he destroyed his country works strongly against him.

However, this thread is about Reagan and whether he was a good or bad president.

Yes, but the collapse of the SU is an important point in this discussion.

My view is he was a good one.

And so is mine.

Interestingly, this proves that to be a successful president one doesn't need to be too intellectual. Other qualities may be more important.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Right, and NK is a good indication of a hard line Soviet styled system crumbling from within on its own without a push, right?

More an example of how a Stalinist state can stagger on regardless of external events and pressures

And just what did bring Gorbachev to power? The feeling among the old guard that more of the same old would be sufficient in light of the renewed vigour of the US, and the West in general?

The dynamic was more he was the last man standing. It was more about generational change and Gorbachev had impressed his seniors. There isn't any evidence they gave much thought to the outside world. Remember Reagan was an old man himself when in office.

Where we are heading is pointless. What if this, what if that? The fact remains that Reagan had the good fortune to preside over the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War. The fact that he pushed the conflict and upped the ante can be discounted if you wish, but the fact remains that he, and some leaders in Europe and elswehere, did take action and did see a successful end to that action. People who don't like them can cry in their beer for all I care, it won't change what happened.

It was more a case of Reagan taking dangerous risks which might have led to the Soviet Union fighting for survival rather than falling over. There isn't a cause and effect relationship.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


There are 2 theories, both of which do not involve Reagan.

Firstly, the Soviet Union inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, particularly the long term decline brought about by the economic morass of state planning.

Secondly, Gorbachov lost control of a reform process which was never meant to lead to the removal from power of the communist party.

The second theory is more credible because China managed to move away from the planned command economy without the communists losing power.

There is one huge difference with China. In modern conditions, to consolidate such a multinational state as the SU, a powerful ideology is needed, and the internationalist communist ideology did that job rather well. Once you weaken the ideology (which is inevitable in the reforms ala China), there remains nothing to hold such a state together. It simply falls apart.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by notyoueither
... of course I think Americans were certainly ready for it. I don't pick Yanks to be too enthusiastic about taking second place to anyone for very long. After Vietnam and Watergate they were generally beat though. Carter was a very good man, but he didn't have the stuff to make Americans forget. Reagan was the right man at the right time.

At least that's what it looked like to me from where I sit.

I agree about Carter. He was in many ways a good president, but unprepared to fight the political battles he needed to in order to take control of the agenda. By the time he decided to be a hard ass he was already tainted by failed detente in Nicaragua, the ouster of the Shah in Iran and the hostage mess etc. The failed rescue mission of the hostages was simply a sign of how low his nemesis (the "class" of '74 in Congress, overwhelmingly Deomcrats) had let the U.S. military sink.

Reagan in contrast took the fight to congress in order to see his agenda through. Part of the reason that those deficits were so high was that he was willing to compromise in order to get his programs rolling. He had no other choice really, as congress was solidly democratic with only a Bob Dole led minority in the senate able to wield any influence from the right sight of the aisle.

[Alexander's Horse]

There is something in that - although in 1989 there was a concerted effort by Chinese students to go down a different path. The Chinese communist leadership, mindful of what had happened in Russia, moved swiftly to crush the pro democracy movement.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The Chinese communist leadership, mindful of what had happened in Russia, moved swiftly to crush the pro democracy movement.

The Chinese leadership would have crushed it irrespective of Russia. Besides, in 1989 it was not yet completely clear what would happen to Russia.

[The Vagabond]

FYI, I rated Reagan 8 of 10.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

More an example of how a Stalinist state can stagger on regardless of external events and pressures

The dynamic was more he was the last man standing. It was more about generational change and Gorbachev had impressed his seniors. There isn't any evidence they gave much thought to the outside world. Remember Reagan was an old man himself when in office.

re Korea. There is very little external pressure. That is my point. No pressure, no failure.

I doubt very much that the Politburo allowed what Gorbachev did just for ****s and giggles. They were desperate. No thought to the outside world? You mean while they were experiencing their own Vietnam rachetted up by 10 factors, and 'the enemy' were rapidly closing the arms gap with stuff they could never hope to duplicate? Yeah, I guess they were only concerned with the price of cabbage in Kiev.

btw, WTH does Reagans age have to do with it? He was a Washington outsider. That probably contributed to his being an effective leader for that time.

It was more a case of Reagan taking dangerous risks which might have led to the Soviet Union fighting for survival rather than falling over. There isn't a cause and effect relationship.

Dangerous risks for you were standing up to the challenge for others.

btw, are you arguing for or against one thing leading to another? What could have happened is not the point. The point is what did happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On the Soviets bit... what would have happened if nobody pushed at the house of cards? Can't say can you? Neither can I. All I can say is that Reagan (and like-minded allies) did push. A lot. That is why they get credit in my books.

I concur. The Soviet Union may eventually have fallen, but who knows when? I think the final push by Reagan, Thatcher, and Co. may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.