The Reagan Centenary
January 12, 2011
George Weigel
February 6 is the centenary of the birth of Ronald Wilson Reagan, one of the most intriguing public figures of our time.
Clark Clifford, the ultimate Washington “insiders,” dismissed him as an “amiable dunce.” Yet Reagan’s posthumously published diaries and speech notes show a man of considerable insight and intelligence, who was shrewd enough to understand that the contempt of the elites was a political asset in securing the loyalty of the electorate and in getting what he wanted out of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
He was feared by arms controllers and the foreign policy establishment as a man likely to blunder into a nuclear Armageddon. Yet recent studies by Martin and Annelise Anderson demonstrate that, unlike the liberal poobahs of deterrence, Reagan never learned to live with the bomb and bent every effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, through both disarmament and the development of effective strategic defense.
His anti-communism was derided as primitive, unsophisticated, and a danger to world peace. Yet the historical record shows that his “simplistic” prescription for ending the Cold war—“We win; they lose”—turned out to be the key to the victory of imperfect democracies over a pluperfect tyranny.
Few great public figures of late modernity have been so misunderstood in their lifetime or revered at their death—with the exception of another man who was never supposed to become the titanic figure he became, Pope John Paul II. And, as I try to show in The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II—The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy, these two unexpected giants of the late 20th century had strikingly parallel biographies, despite the obvious differences in their backgrounds and interests.
They were both orphaned young: the future pope, literally; the future president, virtually, given the alcoholism of his father.
They were both men of the theater, whose extensive acting experience gave them both crucial skills and a conviction: that the word of truth, spoken clearly and forcefully enough, could cut through the static of evil’s lies, rally hearts and souls, and create possibilities where only obstacles were apparent.
Their understanding of, and loathing for, communism came to both of them early: Reagan, through his battles with Hollywood communists for control of the Screen Actors Guild; John Paul II, through his experience of the brutalitarian period of Polish communism after World War II. Both knew that the crucial battle with communism was in the realm of the human spirit, for communism proposed a false, yet seductive, view of the human future that could best be matched by a nobler vision of human freedom.
They were both dismissed as “conservatives” by pundits for whom “conservative” was a polite placeholder for “reactionary.” Yet the truth of the matter was that both were radicals: Reagan, in his convictions about ridding the world of nuclear weapons; John Paul, in the depth of his Christian discipleship.
There was no “holy alliance” between them, as some overly imaginative reporters have alleged. But there was deep mutual respect. Shortly before Christmas 2001, John Paul II asked me, “How is President Reagan?” As it happened, I had just run into former attorney general Edwin Meese, who had told me a story that I shared with the Pope. Meese had gone to the christening of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan earlier that year, and had brought the former president (whose illness prevented him from attending) the typical ship’s baseball cap, emblazoned “U.S.S. Ronald Reagan CV-76,” that had been given out on the occasion. Reagan, a gentleman to the end, responded, “Thank you, Ed. That’s very kind. But why would anyone name a ship after me?” Twelve years after leaving office, the most consequential president since Franklin Roosevelt had no memory of having led his country, and the free world, for eight years.
John Paul II, who could not imagine the unreflected-upon life, was saddened by my tale, and asked that I get word of his solidarity in prayer to Mrs. Reagan. It’s a comfort to imagine these two happy warriors now, in different circumstances, beyond the reach of either misunderstanding or sorrow.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Comments:
1.12.2011 | 4:20pm
Billy says:
Reagan was a fair actor and Army propogandist ... who could fool lots of people, with his acting ability.
For example, though Reagan ran on "family values," he was 1) our very first divorced president; with 2) a probably gay son. And 3) a daughter (Maureen?) that hated him, for his effective neglect of his family, in favor of his political career.
For example, though Reagan ran on "family values," he was 1) our very first divorced president; with 2) a probably gay son. And 3) a daughter (Maureen?) that hated him, for his effective neglect of his family, in favor of his political career.
1.12.2011 | 4:59pm
Torontonian says:
To Rob and Billy,
Bah humbug! Let us praise the perfect and damn the good, shall we? President Reagan's SCOTUS apporintments were not the product of willed evil on his part, as O'Connor and Kennedy subsequently acted as independent moral agents. True, Reagan was a divorced president with a problably gay son and a daughter that hated him, as Pope John Paul clearly was not, but that does not negate both persons unqualified good actions in destroying Communism
Bah humbug! Let us praise the perfect and damn the good, shall we? President Reagan's SCOTUS apporintments were not the product of willed evil on his part, as O'Connor and Kennedy subsequently acted as independent moral agents. True, Reagan was a divorced president with a problably gay son and a daughter that hated him, as Pope John Paul clearly was not, but that does not negate both persons unqualified good actions in destroying Communism
1.12.2011 | 7:14pm
Mike says:
I love reading Mr. Weigel, his common sense yet deep knowledge of recent history, and his simple but intellectual writings. I think President Reagan was one of the most influential presidents, up there with Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. And ironically, was able to achieve greatness without having to fight a terrible war. Yes, there were some military skirmishes, but hundreds of thousands of people didn’t have to die.
I’m not a student of history, but with the Soviet Union collapse in 1991, I think this may have been the first time in millennia when a hegemonic dictatorship wasn’t trying to seize a good part of the world.
Weigel included Pope John-Paul II and the interaction with Reagan. I would have liked to have discussed Prime Minister Thatcher’s role since she was a serious part of the worldwide leadership triad that helped bring down the Soviet empire and gave the world a chance at freedom.
Finally, I think that Reagan and George H. W. Bush made significant strides in appointing justices that would try to put a stop to and even reverse some of the grave and deadly injustices imposed by the Supreme Court (such as Roe vs. Wade). However, they weren’t as aggressive as I might have liked and clearly were not completely successful. I commend what they did accomplish in this area, but am disappointed that they didn’t at least try to accomplish more.
P.S. – I once heard that H. L. Mencken called FDR an amiable dunce early in his presidency. History has shown how much of a dunce Mencken was. I since have wondered if Clifford was aware of this when he made his amiable dunce statement. If my speculation is true, did Clifford really believe that Reagan was an amiable dunce, or was he making an ironic statement.
I’m not a student of history, but with the Soviet Union collapse in 1991, I think this may have been the first time in millennia when a hegemonic dictatorship wasn’t trying to seize a good part of the world.
Weigel included Pope John-Paul II and the interaction with Reagan. I would have liked to have discussed Prime Minister Thatcher’s role since she was a serious part of the worldwide leadership triad that helped bring down the Soviet empire and gave the world a chance at freedom.
Finally, I think that Reagan and George H. W. Bush made significant strides in appointing justices that would try to put a stop to and even reverse some of the grave and deadly injustices imposed by the Supreme Court (such as Roe vs. Wade). However, they weren’t as aggressive as I might have liked and clearly were not completely successful. I commend what they did accomplish in this area, but am disappointed that they didn’t at least try to accomplish more.
P.S. – I once heard that H. L. Mencken called FDR an amiable dunce early in his presidency. History has shown how much of a dunce Mencken was. I since have wondered if Clifford was aware of this when he made his amiable dunce statement. If my speculation is true, did Clifford really believe that Reagan was an amiable dunce, or was he making an ironic statement.
1.12.2011 | 7:30pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
Ron Reagan, one of the son's of the former president, said his father was one of the kindest people he knew. clearly, Ron was never shy about criticising his father, so this assertion is especially believable. Reagan made a deal with the Soviets,in 1983. He requested that they release pentecostal dissidents, who had lived, for over five years, in the American embassy, in the Soviet Union. the latter agreed, as long as Reagan never told anyone. He didn't. Can anyone imagine Clinton doing this?
Reagan also sent checks to women on welfare. He was a man of compassion, and profunity. Regardless of one's feelings concerning his politics, and I disagree with a lot of his views, he was an admirable and decent man.
Reagan also sent checks to women on welfare. He was a man of compassion, and profunity. Regardless of one's feelings concerning his politics, and I disagree with a lot of his views, he was an admirable and decent man.
1.12.2011 | 9:08pm
Claude says:
1984 was the first Presidential election where I was old enough to vote. I enthusiastically voted for Reagan, and I've never voted with as much enthusiasm since. Reagan set out to vanquish communism, and by golly, he did it. It was a shining success for a federal government that's had few successes in my lifetime.
1.12.2011 | 10:37pm
Don Roberto says:
Thanks for the tribute, Professor Weigel. Though I was a foolish youth in the early '80s, I now agree with Reagan on most issues, including his feeling that a policy of MAD is immoral. No one is perfect, but those with fame, good looks, power and money are often dragged down in terrible ways (it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for such to be saved). He was more resistant to this, I think, than most of us would have been in his shoes. He managed to retained his humility, and from Bill Clark's biography I understand he was quite sorry about the mistakes he made vis-à-vis abortion. God save him.
†
†
1.12.2011 | 11:47pm
Lewis says:
"I love reading Mr. Weigel, his common sense yet deep knowledge of recent history, and his simple but intellectual writings"
Read this article about how Weigel whitewashes history
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/george-weigel-whitewashing-history
"Reagan never told anyone. He didn't. Can anyone imagine Clinton doing this?"
Reagan also wanted to keep secret his decision to sell arms to terrorists, but the anti-patriotic liberal media intervened.
Read this article about how Weigel whitewashes history
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/george-weigel-whitewashing-history
"Reagan never told anyone. He didn't. Can anyone imagine Clinton doing this?"
Reagan also wanted to keep secret his decision to sell arms to terrorists, but the anti-patriotic liberal media intervened.
1.13.2011 | 5:24am
Bret Lythgoe says:
It seems as if many on the anti-nuclear left, simply misunderstood Ronald Reagan. Reagan never wanted a nuclear war, he agreed with the antinuclear left that, a nuclear war would be a complete catastrophy, for the earth.
Certainly, it would be simplistic, to argue that Reagan single handedly ended the Cold War. But he played an important role.
Yes, the Iran-contra scandal, cannot be forgotten. But I don't believe that Reagan knew anything about it. His Chief of Staff, at the time, Don Regan, stated that, when attorney general Meese, stated that there had been a "probable diversion of funds to the contras'', that is, that the profits, derived from the selling of arms to the Iranians, was given to the Contras, Reagan's face literally turned white. This seems like the reaction of a shocked, and hence innocent man.
Clearly, Reagan's inclination to hyperdelegate, responsibilities, helped create an atmosphere, where this could happen. With too much autonomy, an action of this sort, could take place.
But, why sale arms, to iran in the first place? Again, it gets back to Reagan's kindeness. He was profoundly troubled by the kidnapping of americans, by the lebonese terrorists, and, when his National Security Council, suggested that, by selling arms to Iran, the latter could persuade the lebanise terrorists to release the hostages, he went against his own policy, of never giving in, to terrorists.
So, yes, he knew about the arms selling of arms to Iran, but was motivated by compassion, but didn't know about the diversion of the money, obtained from the Iranians, to the contras, even though he fully supported the contras efforts.
Certainly, it would be simplistic, to argue that Reagan single handedly ended the Cold War. But he played an important role.
Yes, the Iran-contra scandal, cannot be forgotten. But I don't believe that Reagan knew anything about it. His Chief of Staff, at the time, Don Regan, stated that, when attorney general Meese, stated that there had been a "probable diversion of funds to the contras'', that is, that the profits, derived from the selling of arms to the Iranians, was given to the Contras, Reagan's face literally turned white. This seems like the reaction of a shocked, and hence innocent man.
Clearly, Reagan's inclination to hyperdelegate, responsibilities, helped create an atmosphere, where this could happen. With too much autonomy, an action of this sort, could take place.
But, why sale arms, to iran in the first place? Again, it gets back to Reagan's kindeness. He was profoundly troubled by the kidnapping of americans, by the lebonese terrorists, and, when his National Security Council, suggested that, by selling arms to Iran, the latter could persuade the lebanise terrorists to release the hostages, he went against his own policy, of never giving in, to terrorists.
So, yes, he knew about the arms selling of arms to Iran, but was motivated by compassion, but didn't know about the diversion of the money, obtained from the Iranians, to the contras, even though he fully supported the contras efforts.
1.13.2011 | 9:05am
Billy says:
Did Reagan and the Pope really "end communism" ...? Note first that 1) the CIA and State Department, had already been saying for decades, that eventually the USSR was likely to dissolve - because of the eastern nations it had occupied in WWII. The USSR had no legal, or moral, or communist claim, to countries, an empire inherited from German conquests. When Gorby was elected, the country had a mild-mannered head who ... indeed, knew the Soviets had no real claim to an "empire" after all; and who let the USSR collapse. The collapse therefore ,was less due to Reagan, or the Pope, than to ... Gorby.
By the way too 2) let's not be overconfident or proud; Communism did not really fully end. Since China never officially denounced it. And the Chinese military therefore, remained a matter of recent concern, to our State and Defense departments.
As for Weigel? Is HE really all that great? The fact is, anyone who knows his Bible, knows that Weigel never really understood the Bible, or Christianity either; he is first and foremost, a Republican/conservative ideologue. As we see in this piece., he supports Popes and Presidents, without any sense of priority of one over the other. (See the readers' comments to his last four or five posts; including especially say his support of Card. George's attempt to change a few religious holidays).
The fact is, conservatives like Weigel, look for and follow simple answers: a simple ideology, or a simple "hero" to follow. Without looking at deeper social trends. And without any real theology, for that matter. If Weigel follows the Pope, he also follows a secular hero, more or less equally.
Weigel in fact follows any famous leader, in the spirit of any ordinary guy or subordinate, superstitiously following any strong man. Doesn't matter if he's religious or secular; it's all the same, to Weigel. As long as he's big, strong, and conservative. Doesn't matter if he knows the Bible, or not.
By the way too 2) let's not be overconfident or proud; Communism did not really fully end. Since China never officially denounced it. And the Chinese military therefore, remained a matter of recent concern, to our State and Defense departments.
As for Weigel? Is HE really all that great? The fact is, anyone who knows his Bible, knows that Weigel never really understood the Bible, or Christianity either; he is first and foremost, a Republican/conservative ideologue. As we see in this piece., he supports Popes and Presidents, without any sense of priority of one over the other. (See the readers' comments to his last four or five posts; including especially say his support of Card. George's attempt to change a few religious holidays).
The fact is, conservatives like Weigel, look for and follow simple answers: a simple ideology, or a simple "hero" to follow. Without looking at deeper social trends. And without any real theology, for that matter. If Weigel follows the Pope, he also follows a secular hero, more or less equally.
Weigel in fact follows any famous leader, in the spirit of any ordinary guy or subordinate, superstitiously following any strong man. Doesn't matter if he's religious or secular; it's all the same, to Weigel. As long as he's big, strong, and conservative. Doesn't matter if he knows the Bible, or not.
1.13.2011 | 10:10am
fresh iced tea says:
Re: Billy
Were you there as a grown adult during the 80's? Do you not remember what the world itself looked like then, not just what the archives report? Do you truly believe that Gorbachev was "mild-mannered" in the rule of the conquered nations of the Soviet Bloc of the day? Or that the same nations (of much greater number than just Eastern Europe) had only to shame the USSR with accounts of their lack of legitimate legal or moral claim to effect their folding like a house of cards?
Wow.
As for Mr. Weigel, he assuredly needs no defense from the likes of me. But all the same, let me caution you that knowing one's Bible and knowing one's faith are not always the same thing. And no one of sound judgement could doubt that Mr. Weigel has an admirable grasp of the latter.
Were you there as a grown adult during the 80's? Do you not remember what the world itself looked like then, not just what the archives report? Do you truly believe that Gorbachev was "mild-mannered" in the rule of the conquered nations of the Soviet Bloc of the day? Or that the same nations (of much greater number than just Eastern Europe) had only to shame the USSR with accounts of their lack of legitimate legal or moral claim to effect their folding like a house of cards?
Wow.
As for Mr. Weigel, he assuredly needs no defense from the likes of me. But all the same, let me caution you that knowing one's Bible and knowing one's faith are not always the same thing. And no one of sound judgement could doubt that Mr. Weigel has an admirable grasp of the latter.
1.13.2011 | 10:56am
Rob says:
I appreciate what Torontonian said. I will reply with Truman's old phrase. "The buck stops here." Reagan wanted a female justice. He got one. She was pro-choice. He wanted Kennedy. He got him. He was pro-choice. Mr. Weigel is praising a president who did a good deal to advance abortion in the United States. Mr Weigel is standing with King Herod instead of the Holy Family.
1.13.2011 | 11:15am
James says:
Well said, Rob.
Though I find him too conservative, we might both agree: Weigel is hypocritical and opportunistic.
Though I find him too conservative, we might both agree: Weigel is hypocritical and opportunistic.
1.13.2011 | 4:33pm
publius says:
Rob,
Reagan didn't want Anthony Kennedy; he wanted Robert Bork whose nomination was defeated by the Senate. Kennedy was Reagan's third nominee, number two withdrawing after he admitted he had smoked pot. (That was before we had a president who smoked pot but didn't inhale). Had Bork cleared the Senate, Roe would have been overturned. Your statement that Reagan did a "Good deal to advance abortion" in the United States is over the top. He did more than any President to reverse Roe, unfortunately, being a President is a lot more difficult than writing anonymous comments on a blog. Reagan, after two failed tries, had to put a nominee on the court that the Democratic Senate would approve.
As for Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union -- those who credit Gorbachev should look at what Lech Walesa has to say. It was the collapse of communism in Poland that brought down the Eastern Bloc, and that collapse was hastened by the Polish Pope and by Reagan's CIA which kept Solidairy alive during their years of oppression. Walesa and the leaders of Solidarity credit Reagan and the Pope, and I'll take their word on it over some of the posts on this site.
Reagan didn't want Anthony Kennedy; he wanted Robert Bork whose nomination was defeated by the Senate. Kennedy was Reagan's third nominee, number two withdrawing after he admitted he had smoked pot. (That was before we had a president who smoked pot but didn't inhale). Had Bork cleared the Senate, Roe would have been overturned. Your statement that Reagan did a "Good deal to advance abortion" in the United States is over the top. He did more than any President to reverse Roe, unfortunately, being a President is a lot more difficult than writing anonymous comments on a blog. Reagan, after two failed tries, had to put a nominee on the court that the Democratic Senate would approve.
As for Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union -- those who credit Gorbachev should look at what Lech Walesa has to say. It was the collapse of communism in Poland that brought down the Eastern Bloc, and that collapse was hastened by the Polish Pope and by Reagan's CIA which kept Solidairy alive during their years of oppression. Walesa and the leaders of Solidarity credit Reagan and the Pope, and I'll take their word on it over some of the posts on this site.
1.13.2011 | 4:41pm
Jacob Morgan says:
Reagan nominated the Honorable Robert Bork, who, if confirmed, would have tipped the scales. The liberal media and their partners in the Senate (including Biden if memory serves) went nuts and did the mother of all smear jobs on Bork. The public just went along with it--there should have been an outcry. After that it was clear that future nominees either had to have a record of pro-abortion or no record at all. Reagan was severely criticized by the media, and even by conservatives (e.g., National Review) as his second term went on and who knew if a democrat would be elected in 1988? Reagan went with the no-record and hoped for the best rather than appoint no one and risk a democrat nominee, surely to be 100% for abortion, going to the democrat senate. He did the best he could.
As to those claiming that everyone knew that the USSR was about to crash anyway, were you alive then or just living on a different planet? I was there. The media constantly portrayed the USA as having this terrible system with hordes of homeless while the USSR had equality and relative prosperity and low crime and 100% literacy, an invincible military, etc. No one, and I mean no one, publicly suggested that the USSR was going anywhere but up. Their reach into the third world advanced every year. Almost no one would call a spade a spade and just wanted to explore how best to get along (i.e., appease). Regan changed that, and was hated by the media for doing so. Thatcher changed that. Pope John II changed that. Had the Soviets weathered the storm who knows but they would have started selling the West oil or become a source of cheap manufactured goods, and kept on going to this day stirring up trouble all over the world and still going forward in the arms race. When Reagan left office the free world was in the best condition it had been in since WWII, and sad to say that legacy has been mostly squandered since then.
As to those claiming that everyone knew that the USSR was about to crash anyway, were you alive then or just living on a different planet? I was there. The media constantly portrayed the USA as having this terrible system with hordes of homeless while the USSR had equality and relative prosperity and low crime and 100% literacy, an invincible military, etc. No one, and I mean no one, publicly suggested that the USSR was going anywhere but up. Their reach into the third world advanced every year. Almost no one would call a spade a spade and just wanted to explore how best to get along (i.e., appease). Regan changed that, and was hated by the media for doing so. Thatcher changed that. Pope John II changed that. Had the Soviets weathered the storm who knows but they would have started selling the West oil or become a source of cheap manufactured goods, and kept on going to this day stirring up trouble all over the world and still going forward in the arms race. When Reagan left office the free world was in the best condition it had been in since WWII, and sad to say that legacy has been mostly squandered since then.
1.13.2011 | 5:44pm
Billy says:
THe USSR put down earlier rebellions, by military force. Then suddenly, in the time of Gorby, it didn't. Why? An easy-going leadership.
Read some real history of the era. I lived through that era ... and the far more violent era before that as well.
Read some real history of the era. I lived through that era ... and the far more violent era before that as well.
1.13.2011 | 10:36pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
I really think that James's comment, about George Weigel, is inappropriate, and unfair. James says: "Weigel is hypocritical and oppurtunistic''. How so? What evidence do you have, for this outrageous claim?
I don't know Mr. Weigel, personally, but I've always admired his integrity, intellegence and insight.
I don't know Mr. Weigel, personally, but I've always admired his integrity, intellegence and insight.
1.14.2011 | 7:29am
publius says:
Billy,
Take your own advice and read some "real history" about the Solidarity movement and the inability of the Soviets and their puppet government to put that movement down. If you think the reason for not repressing that movement was because Gorby was "easy going" then I'm afraid you've got a lot of studying to do.
Take your own advice and read some "real history" about the Solidarity movement and the inability of the Soviets and their puppet government to put that movement down. If you think the reason for not repressing that movement was because Gorby was "easy going" then I'm afraid you've got a lot of studying to do.
1.14.2011 | 9:21am
Billy says:
Bret:
James here or elsehwere referenced George Weigel's recent article, in support of Cardinal George; Weigle's argument not to change religious days to support the secular calender. As James right noted, Readers Comments to that article, found that Weigel's position was absolutely inconsistent with the Bible itself. Rather, it was consistent only with a conservative ideology.
Therefore? Weigel's implicit claim to represent the church and God accurately, is not true; his thinking really disguises a hidden ideological agenda. As proven by close Biblical analysis.
James here or elsehwere referenced George Weigel's recent article, in support of Cardinal George; Weigle's argument not to change religious days to support the secular calender. As James right noted, Readers Comments to that article, found that Weigel's position was absolutely inconsistent with the Bible itself. Rather, it was consistent only with a conservative ideology.
Therefore? Weigel's implicit claim to represent the church and God accurately, is not true; his thinking really disguises a hidden ideological agenda. As proven by close Biblical analysis.
1.14.2011 | 9:50am
Lewis says:
"James says: "Weigel is hypocritical and oppurtunistic''. How so? What evidence do you have, for this outrageous claim?"
For evidence, read the article about Wiegel's whitewashing of history: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/george-weigel-whitewashing-history
For evidence, read the article about Wiegel's whitewashing of history: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/george-weigel-whitewashing-history
1.14.2011 | 4:05pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Lewis: I've now read it but don't agree with you. The piece is an editorial with a lot of assumption and innuendo. I submit, it's harder to recognize that when you agree with the conclusions.
My opinion? A bit different than most.
I believe Mr. Regan was our first media President, whose image was well tended. He had the skills and used them. I believe Mr. Clinton was the second. In both cases, serious debate frequently was lost. I was in the military when we invaded Grenada and then, behind the curtain, abandoned Lebanon.
I believe that Pope John Paul II laid the groundwork for the collapse of Soviet Communism when he visited his homeland after his election way too early for Reagan to have had an effect. Solidarnosc rose and Jaruzelski backed down. The Soviets, long before Gorbachev, did not intervene.
I believed then, and there was then an strain of opinion to this effect, that the Soviet Union would eventually collapse due to the flaws in Communist economics. The "working man's paradise" hadn't appeared above the horizon in over 50 years. Reagan did hurry it along by challenging Russia's cultural paranoia (which predates Communism) with a military buildup. The Soviets simply couldn't afford it but tried to keep up anyway. The only real question was whether the collapse would happen peacefully or with civil war. Gorbachev helped it happen peacefully.
Question for the assembled: How will North Korea collapse? Will it be peacefully handed over to the South for reconstruction, perhaps when Kim Jung Il passes? Or will the thousands of artillery in range kills 10s of thousands in Seoul in a violent collapse? Or will the Chinese decide they need the buffer state, invade and install a puppet? Who will be responsible when it happens? Jimmy Carter for his early 1990's negotiations? George W. Bush for pushing them hard? Barak Obama for being there when it happens?
I believe even the history is not simple let alone conformant with any of our political beliefs.
My opinion? A bit different than most.
I believe Mr. Regan was our first media President, whose image was well tended. He had the skills and used them. I believe Mr. Clinton was the second. In both cases, serious debate frequently was lost. I was in the military when we invaded Grenada and then, behind the curtain, abandoned Lebanon.
I believe that Pope John Paul II laid the groundwork for the collapse of Soviet Communism when he visited his homeland after his election way too early for Reagan to have had an effect. Solidarnosc rose and Jaruzelski backed down. The Soviets, long before Gorbachev, did not intervene.
I believed then, and there was then an strain of opinion to this effect, that the Soviet Union would eventually collapse due to the flaws in Communist economics. The "working man's paradise" hadn't appeared above the horizon in over 50 years. Reagan did hurry it along by challenging Russia's cultural paranoia (which predates Communism) with a military buildup. The Soviets simply couldn't afford it but tried to keep up anyway. The only real question was whether the collapse would happen peacefully or with civil war. Gorbachev helped it happen peacefully.
Question for the assembled: How will North Korea collapse? Will it be peacefully handed over to the South for reconstruction, perhaps when Kim Jung Il passes? Or will the thousands of artillery in range kills 10s of thousands in Seoul in a violent collapse? Or will the Chinese decide they need the buffer state, invade and install a puppet? Who will be responsible when it happens? Jimmy Carter for his early 1990's negotiations? George W. Bush for pushing them hard? Barak Obama for being there when it happens?
I believe even the history is not simple let alone conformant with any of our political beliefs.
1.15.2011 | 9:28am
Joe the Human says:
Mike :
Thanks for your cogent remarks.
Note among other, as-yet unmentioned causes of the 1989 collapse of the USSR, was the failure of the Russian war in Afghanistan, which was widely conceded by 1988. That failure, was regarded as and publically labled as "Russia's Viet Nam." At that point, note, Russia was totally disenchanted with military action - and therefore, it was not inclined to intervene militarily again. As when the Eastern countries began again - as they had many times previously, but unsuccessfully - to try to break away. Disenchantment with military solutions therefore, would explain the difference between earlier Eastern block put-downs ... and the finally allowance.
N. Korea is indeed, an important, related, pressing question. My own guess? America and South Korea, will avoid precipitating any disasterous actions, until after the death of the present ailing premier. Waiting to see what is jeuvenile son will do.
To be sure, a hereiditary monarch is not allowed even in communist countries; especially, an incompetent one. Most likely, his son will be overthrown. Possibly by elements of the N. Korean Army. (The usual pattern in such cases).
After that? We will be dealing with the NK army for a while. Though perhaps ... they will be open to peace. Even to merger,with the far, far, far more economically affluent South. In any case, after the death of the present leader, there will be a moment of instability. In which a pro-Western/Southern candidate may emerge, to make peace, cooperation a nd even merger with the South, more possible.
Thanks for your cogent remarks.
Note among other, as-yet unmentioned causes of the 1989 collapse of the USSR, was the failure of the Russian war in Afghanistan, which was widely conceded by 1988. That failure, was regarded as and publically labled as "Russia's Viet Nam." At that point, note, Russia was totally disenchanted with military action - and therefore, it was not inclined to intervene militarily again. As when the Eastern countries began again - as they had many times previously, but unsuccessfully - to try to break away. Disenchantment with military solutions therefore, would explain the difference between earlier Eastern block put-downs ... and the finally allowance.
N. Korea is indeed, an important, related, pressing question. My own guess? America and South Korea, will avoid precipitating any disasterous actions, until after the death of the present ailing premier. Waiting to see what is jeuvenile son will do.
To be sure, a hereiditary monarch is not allowed even in communist countries; especially, an incompetent one. Most likely, his son will be overthrown. Possibly by elements of the N. Korean Army. (The usual pattern in such cases).
After that? We will be dealing with the NK army for a while. Though perhaps ... they will be open to peace. Even to merger,with the far, far, far more economically affluent South. In any case, after the death of the present leader, there will be a moment of instability. In which a pro-Western/Southern candidate may emerge, to make peace, cooperation a nd even merger with the South, more possible.
1.15.2011 | 11:18am
Billy says:
Pub:
The problem with Weigel, is that he is old fashioned and simplistic in his thinking: he still thinks of HISTORY as changing, due to the influence just of single, great men. He holds to the "great man" idea of History; neglecting the current more organic theory, noting larger social trends, and so forth.
In the case of the collapse of the USSR? It was not just Regan or the Pope that did it; as Weigel assumes. Rather indeed, movements like the Solidarity or "glasnost" movement, in Poland, were indeed very important. Yet even that movement in turn, was not created by the Pope, but by socialist workers. Then too, that movement in turn was a subset of many other larger historical phenomena. Including the ongoing, continuous or continually recurrent rebellions of MANY Eastern Block countries. As well as a softening of militancy in the Kremlin, due to recent failures in Afghanistan, and so forth.
Don't descend with Weigel, to papism, or idol-worship: to hero- or power-worship. Think of the larger picture. Modern History is far, far more interdisciplinary and complex. The days of descending, to superstitiously idolize a few "hero"s, or "great men"; to kiss their rings like a Mafia soldier superstitously worswhiping his Don? Those days are long gone. In scholarly historiography.
The problem with Weigel, is that he is old fashioned and simplistic in his thinking: he still thinks of HISTORY as changing, due to the influence just of single, great men. He holds to the "great man" idea of History; neglecting the current more organic theory, noting larger social trends, and so forth.
In the case of the collapse of the USSR? It was not just Regan or the Pope that did it; as Weigel assumes. Rather indeed, movements like the Solidarity or "glasnost" movement, in Poland, were indeed very important. Yet even that movement in turn, was not created by the Pope, but by socialist workers. Then too, that movement in turn was a subset of many other larger historical phenomena. Including the ongoing, continuous or continually recurrent rebellions of MANY Eastern Block countries. As well as a softening of militancy in the Kremlin, due to recent failures in Afghanistan, and so forth.
Don't descend with Weigel, to papism, or idol-worship: to hero- or power-worship. Think of the larger picture. Modern History is far, far more interdisciplinary and complex. The days of descending, to superstitiously idolize a few "hero"s, or "great men"; to kiss their rings like a Mafia soldier superstitously worswhiping his Don? Those days are long gone. In scholarly historiography.
2.18.2011 | 1:49pm
Rajewski Zenia says:
The fact is, conservatives like Weigel, look for and follow simple answers: a simple ideology, or a simple "hero" to follow. Without looking at deeper social trends. And without any real theology, for that matter. If Weigel follows the Pope, he also follows a secular hero, more or less equally. I really think that James's comment, about George Weigel, is inappropriate, and unfair. James says: "Weigel is hypocritical and oppurtunistic''. How so? What evidence do you have, for this outrageous claim?
3.25.2011 | 10:35am
Azzie Cash says:
I believed then, and there was then an strain of opinion to this effect, that the Soviet Union would eventually collapse due to the flaws in Communist economics. The "working man's paradise" hadn't appeared above the horizon in over 50 years. Reagan did hurry it along by challenging Russia's cultural paranoia (which predates Communism) with a military buildup. The Soviets simply couldn't afford it but tried to keep up anyway. The only real question was whether the collapse would happen peacefully or with civil war. Gorbachev helped it happen peacefully. After that? We will be dealing with the NK army for a while. Though perhaps ... they will be open to peace. Even to merger,with the far, far, far more economically affluent South. In any case, after the death of the present leader, there will be a moment of instability. In which a pro-Western/Southern candidate may emerge, to make peace, cooperation a nd even merger with the South, more possible.
Ronald Reagan ensured that the U.S. Supreme Court would have a majority that would back Roe vs. Wade for a generation with his appointments of O'Conner and Kennedy. While Reagan's other SCOTUS appointment Scalia would overturn the decision, his take on abortion would be to leave it to the states--New York could perform abortion while South Carolina may not. I'm sure Stephen Douglas would be proud.
Mr. Weigel is God's good servant--but the GOP's first.