Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Bush pull off a reverse like the Gipper?
The Globe and Mail ^ | November 22, 2002 | LAWRENCE MARTIN

Posted on 11/23/2002 10:36:40 AM PST by Dubya_gal

They called Ronald Reagan a cowboy, too. He was trigger-happy, bullheaded and, as the left would have it, quite dim. Just like George W. Bush.

President Reagan's obsession, of course, was the Soviet Union, the "most evil enemy mankind has known." Stop them now, he once declared, or we'll all descend into "the ant heap of totalitarianism."

Initially, he was cause for alarm. I remember seeing him at a campaign stop in Milwaukee where he lathered up his audience so much with Commie-hating banter that a man near him shouted, "Drop the Big One, Ronnie. Drop the Big One!" The Gipper nodded appreciatively.

In office, he jacked military spending through the roof. He concocted a Star Wars scheme many deemed hallucinatory. The Cold War intensified so much that Pierre Trudeau was prompted to launch his much-ridiculed world peace mission.

But over the course of a few years, a transformation occurred. The hawk of hawks decided to wage peace. When Mr. Reagan came to Moscow, where I was then stationed, dropping the Big One was the furthest thing from his mind. Instead, he could be found strolling through Red Square with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, almost arm in arm. Softened by a peace-driven Soviet leader, prodded by NATO, the old movie star dispensed with sabre-rattling, took the route of diplomacy, and helped engineer the great thaw.

Are there lessons for the new cowboy in this? Like the early Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush sees the world in black and white. Like the early Mr. Reagan, he sounds like a man of war. His military spending is beyond the imaginable. His "evil empire" is an "axis of evil." He, too, wants to build a missile shield. He, too, has little regard for multilateralism.

But he, too, might be more changeable than we've come to expect. A few months back, a seething Mr. Bush sounded like he wanted to go it alone against Iraq. But pressure from the world community, including Canada's Jean Chrétien, led to his going through the United Nations. It was a considerable climbdown for this President -- and it now looks like war might be averted.

President Reagan was thought to be the last man in the world who would go the route of disarmament. A thunderbolt struck -- but only after a gigantic defence buildup. The Bush administration has just presided over an enormous $48-billion increase to bring its annual defence budget to almost $400-billion. The United States now outspends its biggest rivals by about $340-billion annually. It is all the more astonishing when one considers that the United States faces no big conventional enemy like a Soviet Union or a Germany, but rather pockets of terrorists who are best combatted not by tanks and standing armies, but by superior intelligence services.

With its annual defence spending exceeding the next 13 countries combined, the United States is an elephant among ants. Though Canada could certainly use an appreciable defence-spending hike, it is flat-out amusing when the United States tries to suggest it needs our military help.

U.S. militarism need not last. Mr. Bush may come to realize that war won't defeat terrorism, but likely only create more of it from the ranks of embittered victims. Unlike in the Reagan era, when there was a man in Mr. Gorbachev with whom he could do business, today's enemy is less tangible and visible. The President can hardly sit down at the bargaining table with Mr. bin Laden. His task is more difficult.

But Mr. Bush could try something. With all its unchecked power and riches, his country is presented with a historic opportunity to look beyond its avaricious self-interest. To test the theory that there may, indeed, be root causes behind many of the terror campaigns, he could become an altruist, as opposed to an Americanist. He could launch something Canada's government has hinted at -- a sustained all-out war on global poverty. What a signal that might send to America-haters -- and it wouldn't take much. Just a few slices from Mr. Bush's unconscionable military surfeit.

Instead, for example, of the massive budgetary increase this year, the President could divert half of it to the antipoverty campaign. It would leave Washington spending only about $320-billion more on defence than anyone else. The thought, therefore, probably hasn't even crossed his mind.

But if a man as hardheaded as Ronald Reagan could change, there may be hope for the new cowboy, too.

Lawrence Martin, who was a Globe and Mail correspondent in Washington and Moscow in the 1980s, is the author of Breaking with History: The Gorbachev Revolution.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: bush; iraq; reagan; sovietunion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: ReleaseTheHounds
It appears that the critics of "star wars" have not been paying attention to the many recent successful tests on SDI hardware. In the past two years, we have successfully "hit a bullit with a bullit" several times. Sea and air based directed energy systems are knocking missiles out of the sky. Reagan never said that this technology was ready when he announced SDI. He challenged the scientific community to develope these systems. The results from two decades of R&D are finally coming to fruition and proving that it does work. And these are just the systems that the Pentagon has seen fit to let us know about. There is a very large serving of crow coming out of the oven for all of the SDI nay-sayers.
21 posted on 11/23/2002 11:36:46 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
Reagan didn't change. He stayed right on course. When one of his supporters said, "Drop the big one!" what was he supposed to do? Frown and say, "Naughty, naughty! That's not politically correct"?

Leftists love to lecture everyone on the right thing to say. Ronald Reagan was easy-going. He knew he had that man's support, and he knew that man's instincts were probably a lot sounder than a dozen liberal reporters like this one who were pushing into his face, hoping to undermine him in some way.

I suppose this weenie has heard the phrase, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick," but he doesn't recognize it when he sees it. No doubt he still thinks it applies to Clinton and Chretien.
22 posted on 11/23/2002 11:37:16 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: appeal2

23 posted on 11/23/2002 11:41:44 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
Reagan's War describes RWR's 40-year battle with Communism, complete with incoming rounds such as an attempt to firebomb his residence. That "nice president Gorbychev" who "softened" Reagan by giving us what we needed got into power in the first place in response to the challenge of Reagan's policies.

The author simply wishes away the process by which our victory in the Cold War came about.

24 posted on 11/23/2002 12:03:25 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Dubya_gal
But pressure from the world community, including Canada's Jean Chrétien, led to his going through the United Nations.

Jean Chrétien = cheese eating surrender monkey.

Oh yeah, and a MORON too.

Canadians that I have met are very nice folks.

Unfortunately, their present government sucks Brie.

26 posted on 11/23/2002 12:24:48 PM PST by Yankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
OHIO STATE: BIG TEN CHAMPS!
27 posted on 11/23/2002 12:33:12 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
NRA-ILA:

LOUISIANA SPECIAL ELECTION

While the winners of almost every race across the nation were decided on November 5, 2002, or soon thereafter, some are still up in the air. In fact, because of Louisiana’s election laws, any race in which a candidate does not receive a majority (50%+1) of the vote must be decided by a run-off between the top two vote recipients. Because no candidate received a majority in the race for U.S. Senate, every eligible voter in Louisiana will have an opportunity to cast his vote on December 7 in this important race. However, please keep in mind that December 7 is also Opening Day of Duck Season in Louisiana’s West Zone and Opening Day of Deer Season statewide. Therefore, every hunter must make sure his voice is heard by early or absentee voting or by voting at the polls on December 7.

28 posted on 11/23/2002 12:39:11 PM PST by need_a_screen_name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
This author should read the book "Reagan's War". This book makes the claim that after the defense buildup and all the tough talk, the Soviets were at the end and feeling desperate. There was concern that the Soviets might be willing to attack us and do the unthinkable as they had no other choice. When Reagan went to peace talk after all the buildup, it was to cool down the Soviets.
29 posted on 11/23/2002 12:57:21 PM PST by hoosierpearl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
To test the theory that there may, indeed, be root causes behind many of the terror campaigns, he could become an altruist, as opposed to an Americanist. He could launch something Canada's government has hinted at -- a sustained all-out war on global poverty.
What if past altruism has contributed to the mindset which created the terror campaigns?
30 posted on 11/23/2002 1:04:41 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
He could launch something Canada's government has hinted at -- a sustained all-out war on global poverty. What a signal that might send to America-haters -- and it wouldn't take much. Just a few slices from Mr. Bush's unconscionable military surfeit.

This guy is a coward, and has to be from Berkley or Amhearst. We've sent trillions of dollars to these third world sh!t-hole countries. The thanks we get is 9/11, embassy bombings, WTC in 1993, the USS Cole...

I'd bomb Hussein's palaces into the ground, and then say, "Who's Next!"

31 posted on 11/23/2002 1:16:52 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carjic
Ronnie did not change.... he won!

Libs only understand winning elections (fraudulently if necessary); but not wars. Most libs are foolish, naive, peace-niks.

32 posted on 11/23/2002 1:33:28 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CreekerFreeper
Remember the story about SDI. Gorby wanted Reagan to scrap it. He refused and looked Gorby square in the eye and said "You can't win."

President Reagan also let disinformation out about the cost of SDI. We did not, or were budgeted to spend, the numbers on SDI. He wanted the Soviets to sh!t their pants thinking of the money were spending. It worked.

33 posted on 11/23/2002 1:36:55 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: appeal2
I heard Slim Pickins showed up just before he left for a failsafe mission on a B-52.

Great flick.

34 posted on 11/23/2002 1:38:30 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
Yes, and after it got Reagan exactly what he wanted, public opinion started changing.

Reagan didn't change - the public perception of him changed.

Our President has one advantage; a public which already knows the liberals call people names just because they can, and not because it's the truth.
35 posted on 11/23/2002 1:43:39 PM PST by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
This guy is talking like Ronald Reagan changed his way of thinking and acting during his time in office. Could it be, rather, that the author gained a new perspective while observing him over a matter of years. He almost seems troubled that he became smitten with Ronnie and that he sees himself fixing to see Dubya in pretty much the same light.

I wonder if he is really a closet conservative. C'mon out Larry. It's not as dark and oppressive as you have been lead to believe.

36 posted on 11/23/2002 4:26:27 PM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Some of you made good points about SDI bankrupting the Soviets. The former Soviets officials themselves acknowledge this. But both you folks tonight-- and the Liberal wankers have missed a key point. It drives me nuts.

Back in 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned on a pledge to build up Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (read Pershing II and GLCM) so that he could then negotiate from a position for strength to get the Soveiets to dismantle their INF forces (read SS-20 missiles). In 1980, there was no NATO equivalent to the SS-20.

Reagan fought the Left here and in Europe to get our own INF forces funded and deployed. And then in 1986, Ronny and Gorby sign the first nucleaar arms treaty that actually dismantled weapons instead of limiting future builds. The INF Treaty led to the disbanding of all SS-20 units in Europe (they remained in Asia). The INF Treaty was the fulfillment of a campaign promise, not a volte face. The problem is that Libs didn't take Ronaldus Maximus seriously.

37 posted on 11/23/2002 4:31:50 PM PST by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Marylander
What's Monty Python's phrase for the author? Silly twit?

How about..."Stupid git!" and..."It's people like you that causes all the unrest in the world...isn't it?"

Let's not forget..."You empty headed animal food trough wiper!".

38 posted on 11/23/2002 10:19:41 PM PST by SlightOfTongue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SlightOfTongue
LOL!
39 posted on 11/24/2002 7:01:24 AM PST by Marylander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dubya_gal
For god sake. When will the left ever stop trying to "nuance" Reagan's record, and just admit they were wrong about the man.

Effective diplomacy requires strength to back it up - and the understanding in your opponent's mind that you are not afraid to use that strength. Reagan understood this. Setting the stage for his diplomacy required him to demonstrate his strength. Once his opponent realized he wasn't going to back down, and that bluffs would be called, serious diplomacy could begin. Going about it the leftist way would have been an endless series of the West backing down to Soviet demands in the name of "peace," while the Soviets ignored the West's demands entirely. There is ample evidence of this in the records of the Soviets that have been made available since it fell.

President Bush is definitely cut from the same mold, and the left STILL proves it doesn't understand it. They see America's foes tremble and assume that is a TERRIBLE way to begin diplomacy. In fact it is the BEST way.

Good diplomats understand that you never trust your opponent's word alone. You must work from positions where your opponent's positions are driven by their own self interest. The, to the extent you control the foundations of their self-interest, you can reach an honest agreement with your opponent.

Reagan and Bush understood this and did it very well. The left LOVED Clinton and Carter's hollow diplomacy, in which treaties were ignored and broken almost before the ink had dried. How they reconcile this with reality is beyond me.

40 posted on 11/24/2002 7:36:54 AM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson