Posted on 07/09/2005 7:03:09 AM PDT by Pappy Smear
As there was no Free Republic in 1980, I was wondering about Carter's boycott of the 80 Summer Games in Moscow. Agree or disagree? Set aside for a moment that it was Carter. On the plus side, it certainly hurt them economically, and I think his gist was the human rights angle, which certainly has merit.
However, I can see it from the point of view that it is just athletics, and we should have let the team go, and try to beat some Rooskie butt.
I was only 14 at the time, and certainly not up on international affairs, maybe a more seasoned Freeper would care to chime in?
Reagan wouldn't even have contemplated a silly boycott. Reagan was into action not hollow gestures. Reagan would have done what he did, arm the resistance to the teeth and don't bother to talk about it. Reagan would have understood the power of Jesse Owens winning in Berlin and not taken away our athletes' ability to make a similar point, much like our hockey team did in the winter games.
I started reading the Hollerith code...caught myself...
They haven't always been about politics. After 1936 though they have been.
Did Reagan ever make any comments regarding the boycott?
Not that I've seen. I think he just let that stupid Carter mistake fester on its own.
No doubt in my mind they were trying to create votes for Carter.
Dang, I thought using programs from cassette tapes were backward. B-)
Here is the one reason, why I would have supported the boycott. As another poster alluded to, Soviets and East Germans were so doped up, with the intention of creating the illusion of the superiority of socialism. At least in 1936, you didn't have television. The MSM would have given the Soviets free reign to show their propaganda, as I believe the Soviets imposed those terms when they negotiated for the television rights. This was going to be a big propaganda piece for them, it wasn't about sports to the Soviets, any more than it was to Hitler. Knowing that, I think a boycott was in order to deny them that opportunity. Yes, it was more symbolic than anything, but on the other hand, it denied the Soviets the chance to spew their propaganda on US TV for two weeks. And as far as the athletes go? Oh well, the country comes first.
But you could make the case, that could there have been a "Jesse Owens" in Moscow? Maybe, but then again, I don't think back in 1936, they had the doping technologies the Communists had available in 1980.
My problem with Carter, is that he thought just boycotting the Games alone would be enough. Even if Reagan also chose to boycott the Games, he knew it would have to be followed up by even more significant measures.
Typical of Democrats, Carter started a military action to free the hostages in Iran. When it started having problems, and soldiers killed, Carter withdrew in disgrace. Carter was trying to micromanage the rescue mission, and Reagan would have let the military do it since they knew how to accomplish it. However, the failed rescue or the botched boycott of the Olympics were just more of the same legacy we have come to expect with Carter and Democrat leadership. Even with double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates, Carter thought everything was going along just fine. To this day, Democrats revere Jimmy Carter as one of their party heroes, which is why most of us laugh when his name is mentioned.
Democrat Presidents make comments because they want to blame others for their mistakes. Rebublican Presidents don't because they tend to hold their office in higher regard.
I disagree with you. Too often in the past the Russians or East Germans tried cheating and we still beat them. Russians brought in professional hockey players and a bunch of American kids whooped them. More, even if we lost the whole world would have known the truth as the US played by the rules. Better to compete and lose than cheat and win. (I'd feel the same way if our athletes cheated. Can't root for a cheater or doper.)
My problem was with the puff pieces the MSM would have put out that would have shown the Soviets in a decent light. The KGB would have made sure nothing contrary would be broadcast.
Understood, but it's worse today and more exposed. History is not a current review of a presidency, but a look back on how well a president did and the decisions he made. Carter just gets worse over time as Reagan's legacy gets better.
Television rights for the Olympics are negotiated with the IOC, frequently further out than the cities are selected.
Why would Carter, a commie-symp who begged the KGB to interfere with the 1980 election, want to deny the Soviet Union a propoganda opportunity? The boycott was so that Carter could say he was doing something when in actuality he was doing nothing, and so he could continue to drive down the spirit of America as part of his long term hopes of destroying us.
We beat the Soviets in hockey, and the Soviets had what is arguably the greatest hockey team that's ever been assembled. Doping or no doping sometimes God just smiles on you, Carter's idiotic boycott took away God's chance to smile on us.
Carter didn't think boycotting the games would be enough to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. He thought it would be enough to continue us down the path to mallaise and eventual self destruction. He's a full blooded commie believing in the eventuality of communism's conquest of capitalism. All of our problems during his administration were a direct result of his belief that our system of governance and economy was wrong and destined to fail, so everything he did was geared towards our failure rather than success.
Reagan wouldn't have boycotted the games. Reagan believed in America and our system, and he beleived in giving America every chance to bath in the light of God. He would never have taken away a chance, no matter how slim, for us to rub freedom in the face of the Kremlin.
I'm going to go against the crowd on this one. I thought it was a good and necessary move. I think if any other president had done it, this board would be supporting the move. There is some legitimacy to that view because Carter made the symbolic move and only the symbolic move... if he had taken real action against the soviets it would have been seen in that context, rather than the limp-wristed slap it was.
However it was the right thing to do. Participating in the olympics in another country implies that the country is at least reasonably civilized and safe. The Soviet Union wasn't at that point, and I'm glad it ended Detente.
In Carter's eyes it was like letting off a nuclear bomb to protest against the Soviet invasion of Afagnistan. To everyone else it was like a paper wad. Carter's wimpiness was a major reason he only lasted 4 years.
But that is the point. Boycotting the Olympics was meaningless but Carter thought he was making a bold statement. Nothing wrong with boycotting the Olympics, but by itself it was a completely lame response.
In 1983, I met a guy on a plane who was supposed to compete that year. He was training for 1984 by that time, but was over the hill by then (probably all of 26) and 1980 would have been his best shot. He was a terrific person and because of Carter politics had lost his best shot at achieving his dream. IIRC, in 1984, he placed in the top ten.
I don't know what I would have thought then, but I do know, looking back, that decision robbed us more than it did them. And it hurt a lot of people individually. I would rather have seen a Jessie Owens style in your face winning kind of thing. Like we did in Hockey. Then a much stronger and coherent foreign policy where it really mattered. Quite frankly, from a foreign policy standpoint it seems as lame as his hostage rescue plans.
And I also know that if President Bush did something that lame there would be a universal outcry about how "he does not play well with others." I have no recollection of the press coverage of the time. How strident was it?
Another point is that in 1936, Hitler wasn't on the radar just yet. People thought he was a nut, but up to 1936, Germany hadn't invaded any countries (unless you consider the Saar, don't know if they had moved into the Rhineland by then, but many didn't have a problem with that, as they felt it was just Germany reclaiming what was rightfully hers). And as far as anti-semitism, at that time it was the European national pasttime, it wasn't just in Germany. Hitler's racial policies at that time were not that far out of whack with policies in the other democracies. Remember, it was a much different time back then. Of course later on, the world would find out that indeed that Hitler really was a monster. But back in 1936, most saw him as a funny little man with a moustache.
However in 1980, we knew the Soviet Union was an "Evil Empire," and due to their invasion of Afghanistan, it needed to be shown that this was not going to be "Business as Usual." It was a tiny step in de-legitimizing the Soviet Union, but it was at least a step in that direction.
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.