Posted on 04/12/2016 8:40:59 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
Ronald Reagan's legacy, long after his passing, continues to be distorted by the leftist academic community, one professor noted at a panel discussion held at the Heritage Foundation. Francis Marlo, an associate professor of International Relations at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, said that the Left does not like giving Ronald Reagan credit for ending the Cold War.
The panel discussion centered around the recently published book, "The Grand Strategy that Won the Cold War," and Marlo's remarks centered around correcting the record on Ronald Reagan's Cold War exploits. Marlo stated, "The intent of this book is to address those flaws, highlight those flaws" and to correct the narrative.
He said that at one point, one observer called Reagan "an amiable dunce" who wandered around the White House during his two terms, which is a common opinion of his detractors. However, "that has largely been discredited," Marlo said. He pointed out that there are books that parrot this viewpoint even now, such as a book by Francis Fitzgerald, called Way Out in the Blue. Marlo continued, "There's been a gradual change now; unfortunately, the story is only slightly better."
"Ronald Reagan," Marlo said, "gets credit, but gets credit for changing" during the Cold War. He added that academics perpetuate the narrative that Reagan shifted to "becoming a strong believer in détente" between 1984-1985. "This is the Reagan reversal story," Marlo noted, and the narrative is of Reagan "becoming a moderate [then] the Cold War ends."
Continuing the narrative, "Gorbachev gets most of the credit" for the end of the Cold War because academics believed "Reagan sees the light and sees the Cold War is pointless…and it ends." In Marlo's words, "That is accepted academic wisdom" today and "that account is horribly flawed." In fact, he said, "The Reagan administration…did more to worsen the Soviet problems" in the 1980s and Marlo pointed out, "That doesn't get noticed by academics writing about the administration today."
To strengthen his point, Marlo cited a government strategic document known as NSDD 75, which was Reagan's national security strategy directive. This directive pointed out the internal problems that the Soviets were having, and as Marlo said, "[It] was never overwritten, it was never changed" by following administrations. Marlo continued, "This reads like a hardline document" and there is "no evidence to suggest" that Reagan went soft in the mid-1980s.
Today, "the current academics treat it as something that suddenly happened," referring to the struggling Soviet economy in the 1980s, and the Left believed "Reagan happened to be there" to see its collapse. However, Marlo said, academics don’t realize "Reagan never changed" his approach to the Soviet Union and the Cold War. "It's just not true" that Reagan reversed course halfway through his presidency, said Marlo, because "he never dismissed the idea" of negotiation. Marlo added, "The idea that he didn't endorse it is just wrong [because] he never changed his mind toward it."
Reagan "didn't change his views overnight because Mikhail Gorbachev showed up," Marlo noted, "Ronald Reagan was a very good politician and had dealt with a lot of smooth politicians." He continued, "Just because the media swooned over Gorbachev" does not mean Reagan did so and there was little evidence to suggest it.
What set Ronald Reagan apart? "He understood the stakes of the Cold War, that communism and freedom couldn't coexist," Marlo said. He told the story of Ronald Reagan's tenure as president of the Screen Actors' Guild, known as SAG. There, Reagan saw communism first-hand when dealing with a "communist-backed union" which leveled threats against his life. Marlo pointed out, "[Reagan] winds up sleeping with a gun under his pillow for fear that he will become a target." This was Reagan’s "first taste of what communism is about."
Whittaker Chambers' book, "Witness," could have influenced Reagan's approach toward communism because to Chambers, it was a fervent ideology. Marlo said, "The portrayal Chambers gives as a sort of rival faith, deeply affects Ronald Reagan [because] it was ugly and it was nasty." Whittaker's phrase that described communism, "the focus of the concentrated evil of our time" was echoed in some of Reagan's own anti-communism and pro-freedom speeches.
Because he put America first! The last president to do so!
We got inside their OODA loop, (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), on weapon systems. They realized that the only way they could win was to “collapse”, let us become complacent, and build up with stolen technology and good old Russian ingenuity. They also realized that the infiltration of the United States had progressed to the point where we were no longer resisting Communism.
Take a good look around, and tell me who won the “Cold War.”
Never make a statement or a promise you do not intend to carry out. Reagan put the Soviets on notice that if they wanted confrontation, they are going to have to back up their words with some concrete actions.
Reagan began with ordering research into providing some means by which, even if nuclear weapons were to be deployed and launched, that their effects would be neutralized and result in minimal harm to the US or its interests. Thus was born “Star Wars”, providing a shield against the threat of launch of ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads, making the existing Russian threat sort of null and void. The Soviets were forced to spend even more extravagant amounts for defense, in trying to counter this move, and their already shaky economy collapsed from the strain. It was economic collapse, and not military defeat, that brought down the Soviet Union.
Today, a similar perilous course and potential collapse faces that territory once known as “the United States of America”. Not because of military expenditures alone, but because of some wild-eyed belief that we could have both (sharply limited) guns and (free) butter, both objectives of a mindset that cannot see an overwhelming danger in the world.
Synopsis: For eight years, Reagan had one hand fighting liberals tooth and nail who were trying to thwart and stop him, while battling evil communists who wanted to destroy and enslave us with the other hand. The liberals and communists were working towards the same goal from each end. Reagan happened to be in the middle, and saved the USA until at least January 1989.
The End.
the cold war was job security for the endless negotiators.
They did not want a solution, they wanted ENDLESS negotiations to justify their existence.
The end of the cold war put all those government workers out of a job.
The attorney who called Reagan an “ amiable dunce” was Clark Clifford of Clifford & Warnke DemocRAT fixers for Kennedy and Johnson. He got caught up in the Saudi BCCI bank scandal and to save his crooked old butt had to testify that his mental capacity had waned and he didn’t know what he was doing.
Filthy old thief.
the irony is rich, isn’t it?
Reagan challenged them head on and put them on their heels, then along with Thatcher and PJP II, stuck a shiv in the underbelly of Soviet communism through Poland.
Reagan was easily the best US president in the past 100+ years.
I miss that man.
we came to the same conclusion when we rated the presidents.
Of course, we could use someone like Coolidge, too.
A politician who keeps his mouth shut and hates spending money he doesn’t have.
What a concept...
Whittaker Chambers’ book “Witness” was a book that had a greater impact on my political views than nearly any other. (see my Freepage)
When one looks at the tactics of the Left, and how they persecuted Whittaker Chambers in his trial with Alger Hiss (including the Justice department who took their direct instructions from the so-called Cold Warrior Harry Truman) and see how closely they parallel the tactics of the left today, it is easy to draw the lines and choose a side.
It is a masterpiece.
Remember Patton’s speech about making the other guy die for his country? We won the cold war by making the other guy spend more to defend himself than we spent to defend ourselves. And while it came close to breaking us...it broke them.
Not to mention the deployment of GLCM’s across selected locations throughout Western Europe.
John Boyd and energy maneuverability.
“The Soviets were forced to spend even more extravagant amounts for defense, in trying to counter this move, and their already shaky economy collapsed from the strain. It was economic collapse, and not military defeat, that brought down the Soviet Union.”
One of our younger relatives snuck across the USSR border with a couple of friends about a year before the USSR sidesfinancial crash. They wore several pairs of Levis and tee shirts which were traded for food, vodka and lodging for a couple of weeks.
He and his friends took a lot of pictures showing the decay of buildings looking not so bad in front, but falling down inside and in the outer rear. They took pictures of empty shelves/counters in grocery stores/other stores. They took pictures of the autos/trucks looking worse than those in Cuba. They had pictures of ports in total decay/neglect.
I got copies to a friend, a former spook, who got them back to Langley.
Apparently, their pictures were not the only ones coming in re the economic realities of the USSR. Enough were sent in to confirm the economic failure of the USSR.
Now, we have Sanders/Clintoon trying spend America into the same failure. We have enough in our blighted cities in the Midwest and NE. We don’t need more socialism/communism.
Great story!
5.56mm
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.