Reagan vs. the Intellectuals (Guess who wins?)

Although there is a tide of sympathy for Reagan on the occasion of his death, the magnitude of his achievements continues to be debated. Indeed many historians and scholars refuse to credit Reagan’s policies as a decisive factor in assuring America’s victory in the cold war.

Rather, they insist that Soviet Communism suffered from chronic economic problems and predictably collapsed, as Strobe Talbott, a former journalist at Time and later a senior official in the Clinton State Department, put it, “not because of anything the outside world has done or not done but because of defects and inadequacies at its core.”

If so, it is reasonable to expect that the inevitable Soviet collapse would have been foreseen by these experts. Let us see what some of them had to say about the Soviet system during the 1980s.

In l982, the learned Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The Soviet Union is not now nor will it be during the next decade in the throes of a true systemic crisis, for it boasts enormous unused reserves of political and social stability.”

This view was seconded that same year by the eminent historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who observed that “those in the United States who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse” are “wishful thinkers who are only kidding themselves.”

John Kenneth Galbraith, the distinguished Harvard economist, wrote in l984: “That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene.

One sees it in the appearance of solid well-being of the people on the streets and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops. Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower.”

Equally imaginative was the assessment of Paul Samuelson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a Nobel laureate in economics, writing in the l985 edition of his widely-used textbook. “What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth. The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth.”

Columnist James Reston of the New York Times in June 1985 revealed his capacity for sophisticated even-handedness when he dismissed the possibility of the collapse of Communism on the grounds that Soviet problems were not different from those in the United States. “It is clear that the ideologies of Communism, socialism and capitalism are all in trouble.”

But the genius award undoubtedly goes to Lester Thurow, another MIT economist and well-known author who, as late as l989, wrote, “Can economic command significantly accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the Soviet Union suggests that it can. Today the Soviet Union is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States.”

Throughout the 1980s, most of these pundits derisively condemned Reagan’s policies. Strobe Talbott faulted the Reagan administration for espousing “the early fifties goal of rolling back Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” an objective he considered misguided and unrealistic.

“Reagan is counting on American technological and economic predominance to prevail in the end,” Talbott scoffed, adding that if the Soviet economy was in a crisis of any kind “it is a permanent, institutionalized crisis with which the U.S.S.R. has learned to live.”

Perhaps one should not be too hard on the wise men. After all, explains Arthur Schlesinger in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, “History has an abiding capacity to outwit our certitudes. No one foresaw these changes.”

Not true. Reagan foresaw them. In l981, Reagan told the students and faculty at the University of Notre Dame, “The West won’t contain Communism. It will transcend Communism. We will dismiss it as some bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.”

In l982, Reagan told the British Parliament in London: “In an ironic sense, Karl Marx was right.

We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union.”

Reagan added that “it is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying freedom and human dignity to its citizens” and he predicted that if the Western alliance remained strong it would produce a “march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history.”

In l987 Reagan spoke at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin. “In the Communist world,” he said, “we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards¼Even today, the Soviet Union cannot feed itself.”

Thus the “inescapable conclusion” in his view was that “freedom is the victor.” Then Reagan said, “General Secretary Gorbachev. Come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Not long after this, the wall did come tumbling down, and Reagan’s prophecies all came true. These were not just results Reagan predicted. He intended the outcome. He implemented policies that were designed to achieve it.

He was harshly denounced for those policies. Yet Reagan turned out to be right, and in the end his objective—the complete triumph of Western freedom over Soviet totalitarianism—was achieved.

Margaret Thatcher composed Reagan’s epitaph when she said that “he won the cold war without firing a shot.” Perhaps it is too much to ask the wise men to admit their errors. But as Reagan passes into history, it’s only right that we who are enjoying the benefits of living in a post-cold war world give him credit for his prescient statesmanship.

Dinesh D’Souza, the Rishwain Scholar at the Hoover Institution, is author of Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. Email: thedsouzas@aol.com

My respect for the late President Reagan just keeps on growing.

The pattern of geo-political stupidity by Democrats is continuing. In a speech about ten days ago, Bill Clinton declared that, "The terrorists cannot be militarily defeated." Sounds quite similar to the quotes in this article about the non-collapse of the Soviet Union, doesn't it?

The general pattern is this: Democrats say whatever fits with their theory of the moment. Whether it is true, or bears any relationship to the facts, is utterly irrelevant. And afterwards, when they are proven wrong, they will claum that they knew it all along. (Same pattern shows in federal welfare reform.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Memorial Day, 2004."

If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, click here.

The most irksome aspect about all of this is that there are so many people in this country who exhibit about as much sense as rocks on the ground, in that they continue to nod their heads like dogs in the rear window when these consistently wrong Democrats continue to spew their utter balderdash!

I just couldnt pass this 'gem' up:
"Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower."

Its obvious this person lives in a vaccuum and knows nothing of the country or political system about which he's talking. Even the corrupt western press ran articles detailing how poorly the Soviet's managed their agriculture and industry. Certainly a scholar like Mr. Galbraith would have made himself aware of these. Travelling to modern day Russia or any of the old Soviet satellites is a study in how gross the failures were.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.