David Stockman, who is a big hero of mine, left the Reagan administration in 1985 because he did not think the administration was serious about cutting spending. One thing Stockman did admit in his book "The Triumph of Politics" ( a great read by the way) was that he and Weinberger had a falling out in the first few years of the administration. The initial calculations that Stockman made for the increase in Defense spending took into account double digit inflation. If you remember, early in the Reagan presidency, inflation was reduced dramatically,. Stockman, tried to reduce the increases in Defense spending to account for the diminished inflation. Weinberger said they would stick to the original numbers even though inflation had been reduced. Stockman went to Reagan to complain but Reagan told Stockman to work it out with Weinberger and Schultz. Weinberger and Schultz at that point told Stockman that they had consulted with the CIA and were convinced the Soviets could not handle an arms race. If we dramatically increased our defence spending, the soviets would be forced to follow suit and the system would collapse. If the system did not collapse the people would revolt because all the resources would go to defense and not consumer goods. They both felt that big deficits were a small price to pay for a collapsing Soviet Union. Stockman thought Weinberger and Schultz were crazy and that the plan would never work. He finally left the Administration because he was sick of fighting the increases in Defense spending (and the lack of cuts in other areas) When I read Stockmans book in 1987 he convinced me Schultz and Weinberger were seriously miscaculating. However, they were proved right in the early nineties. There was a great PBS/Frontline series called "Commanding Heights". If you have not seen it you should order it. In this series both Schultz, Weinberger and Stockman are all interviewed and confirm these facts. They also interview Gorbachav, and Gorbachav admits that he instituted Prestroika and Glasnost because of the pressure the US buildup and arms race was putting on the Soviet System. In other words he admits that Schultz and Weinberger were right.

You need some white space in this (or pale blue, or whatever color). No one is going to read it this way.

I did and he's right. Dunderheaded denial drones like Ty and you and the rest of leftwing riff raff wouldn't understand it anyway, because its chock filled with facts and sensible right minded conclusions that cast a damning light on your subversive ideology.

Cute avatar.

Wolfie
 

They were for cutting military aid and letting the FLMN take over. If the communists had taken over there never would have been an election. Liberals may have wanted free elections but the policies they were promoting were going to insure a communist dicatorship

Unclear?!?! Without the aid the regime would have fallen. In 1980 the regime almost fell to the communists until Carter relented and opened up aid. Reagan supported the regime steadfastly through his presidency. And much to the shock of the liberals, this regime won when there were free elections.


The repressive regime in El Salvador was better than communists. If forced to choose an authoritarian regime is always better than a communist dictatorship. The liberals never understood this. The authoritarian route worked in South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, El Salvador etc. The communist route was implemented in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam. Which people do you think are better off? I won't get into why the terrorists label for the contras is B.S., but even if they were, they forced free elections in Nicarague. Ortega never planned on holding free election and it would be another Cuba if it were not for the contras. Do you think there would have ever been free election in Nicarague if not for the contras. The liberals never saw that right wing authoritarian regimes usually promoted economic growth which eventually led a strong middle class which lead to democracy. In communist systems, which liberals thought were roughly the same as authoritarian regimes, the people stayed poor and you never got democracy.

I do not doubt for a second that some people said that the Soviet Union would collapse. But that was hardly the prevailing view in the 1980s among conservatives and liberals alike. Many more conservatives were taken with the idea that democracies could not compete against totalitarian regimes because they were weak in crucial respects. And the defense build-up was not sold as a way to bankrupt with the Soviet Union, but as a way to keep up with their military.

Thus, Ronald Reagan justified the necessity to rearm by stressing the inferiority of the United States' armed forces, when compared to the Soviet Union's: “in virtually every measure of military power the Soviet Union enjoys a decided advantage.”*

I guess the lesson we learn from this is to be careful to predict all sorts of things -- in the future, your fans will tout the correct predictions and ignore the other stuff.

(Incidentally, if the Soviet Union couldn't keep up with us with relatively modest annual increases in our defense spending, why do we think it would have been hanging around for ever if we'd spent just a little less money?)

* Alexander Dallin and Gail Lapidus, “Reagan and the Russians: American Policy Toward the Soviet Union” in Kenneth A. Oye, Roberta J. Lieber and Donald Rothchild, eds., Eagle Resurgent? (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1987), p. 203.

I read it. Pretty avidly, too.

Uday was only days away from deposing Saddam. Days. What a waste, eh?

Exactly, deny deny deny. The truth is out there and it ain't coming from the pseudo-intellectual intelligentsia thugs that you are reading. No one cares what these leftist goons or even the so called "conservatives" you allude to were saying. Reagan, Weinberger, Shultz and the rest of the patriots in that administration knew the score and took the greatest calculated risk in 20th century history. As leaders. And won. In spades.

You want the cite? Read Stockton, read Gorbachev and read Reagan. And put down that ivory tower crap.

You're a PENGUIN for chrissakes.

megaloman's post right above mine has the right idea with the para breaks.

Central America
 

It is a matter of public record that the d'Aubuisson regime and contras were responsible for horrific things. Had we not been supporting them, there would be ample ground to call them terrorists -- obviously, the term is malleable, but when they're on your side, they're freedom fighters, and when they're on the other side, they're terrorists.

I don't really want to argue about Central America policy in the 1980s. Things like Negroponte's support for death squads and the murder of nuns are only of historical interest now, right? (My point about democracy stands -- arguing that these atrocities were all for the best since the end of opposing communism justifies the means is, to say the least, somewhat inconsistent with the lip service we're all paying now to democracy.)

My original point was that club's suggestion that Democrats were somehow oblivious to the threat posed by the Soviet Union during the 1980s was bizarre. As you and he have demonstrated, there were and are tactical disagreements about how to deal with the threat. But that's a different order of disagreement.

Is that happenstance or evil? Evil, right? It must be pleasant to live in such a simple world.

Central America
 

Club said that? Must have missed it.

Wolfie
 

I'm sure you haven't perused a travel brochure to Vietnam lately, but I understand the people there are doing much better. And despite decades of US-led boycotts, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the good ol' US of A.

As for the authoritarian regimes, I think you left off Ethiopia under Amin, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Iraq under Hussein, Burma today, etc.

I thought the party line is that deficit spending isn't risky. Call Grover Norquist and get that one straightened out, would you?

Wolfie
 

We're still waiting for Singapore to turn into a democracy. So let's just say there are still a few bugs in the program.

Central America
 

Perhaps not oblivious to the threat but oblivious or wilfully ignorant (or fifth columnists unwilling to admit complicity) to the solution.

A world where good intention combined with well-aimed action results in a net good? Yeah, I'll go with "pleasant." Beats the heck out of self-hate. I think you always mistake "straightforward" for "simple". There's no merit in cloaking fear and pessimism in contrived moral quandry. The danger is that people begin to recognize that there's no real moral quandry, just partisanship dressed as moral argument.

Relatively speaking. What was the percentage of the deficit to GDP at the start of the Reagan revolution and at the end?

What position did Grover Norquist have in the Reagan Administration? He ain't the boss of no one!

Central America
 

We've already established that Reagan -- brilliantly -- foresaw that a defense build-up would cause the Soviet Union to collapse. So why was it necessary to support death squads and nun killers in Central America?

Wolfie
 

Pol Pot had a good life, at least.

(If you want to speak of the millions in VN and C that died in the purges, intentional starvations, and mass cleansings in both countries, keep going. But I'd walk away from this argument were I you.)

All of these words convey meaning on their own, but if they are meant to convey some larger meaning when read in conjunction with each other, it eludes me.

Ah, the famous "huh?" defense. I concede.

Morning in Central America
 

Because Reagan brilliantly foresaw the dawning of freedom and democracy in Central America, notwithstanding some collateral costs.

Don't confuse nuns or leftist propagandists with the residents of some mythically Shangriladidalandesque moral highground. No one is innocent. Remember those same nuns that you and Carter and the rest of the looney left martyrize in Central america, are the sistren of the accomplices of a conspiracy of child molestation in the American Catholic church that you rail against!

Wolfie
 

Thanks, but I'm comfortable where I am. Spanky's assertion was that communism never leads to elections, authoritarianism does, and by implication a higher standard of living, a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. I never argued with his examples. My point, which you obviously missed, is that I don't see any correlation between the philosphy of a regime and quality of life. Communistic regimes perpetrated horrific crimes. So did non-communistic authoritarian regimes. Some communistic regimes are doing better than some authoritarian regimes in some measures. Some authoritarian regimes have a long history of no free elections (Singapore), but the people are in general doing okay. The correlation isn't there.

2. This Billmoore chap reminds me of Grover Norquist and hence I question his relevancy.

Central America
 

I don't like to use the term Democrats because there were some hard core Democrat cold warriors. There were also some Republicans that were liberal when it came to foreign policy. But the liberals (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry etc) did not understand the communist threat. They talked with communist guerillas claiming they were a better alternative to the right wing authoritarian regimes. What they didn't understand is (1) these communist guerillas, if victorious, would set up a communist regime were there would be no free elections and political prisoners. And the country would be condemned to permanent poverty (2) the right wing authoritarian regimes, as long as they promoted economic growth were sowing the seads of their own destruction. In general, when a countries per capita income passes $6,000 per year then the country goes democratic. This happened in Chile, South Korea, Argentina, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. If the right wing dictatorship did not promote growth then you also had a disaster - like the phillipines - but in general these regimes promoted growth. But no matter how much economic growth these regimes were gaining the liberals always condemned them as even worse than the communists . Chile is a perfect example. Pinochet was completely dismissed by the liberals as an evil right wing sociopath. However, he hired some boys from the University of Chicago to run the economy. Milton Friedman pretty much ran the place, and Chile went form the lowest per capita income in Latin America to the highest. And now it is democratic properous and free. Free markets, prosperity and democracy all go hand in hand.

Wolfie
 

In 1970 South Vietnam had the highest per capita income in Asia. Today the only country with a lower per capita income is Burma (another socialist country). Recently they have been doing better because they have adopted some free market reforms. Cuba has the lowest per capita income in the Caribbean (yes they even beat Haiti). And had the highest per capital income in the Caribbean when Castro took over.

Wolfie
 

The correlation is almost absolute. The poorest regimes anywhere in the world are the ones that adopted socialist systems. The wealthier ones are the capitalist. You take any regime at any time in world history, and the more socialist, the poorer they became, and when they adopted free market principles the richer the became.

Central America
 

There you go again

Central America
 

Yes. Many.

Oh, this is crap. They understood the communist threat. John Kerry went to Vietnam and got shot at.

This whole scheme you've got about how Communists would seize control and never relinquish it is mighty hard to reconcile with Reagan's foresight in seeing that Communism was doomed to fail. Were Russians condemned to permanent poverty? No, thanks to Reagan's wisdom. Nor were Nicaraguans condemned to permanant poverty, thanks to Reagan's wisdom.

Supporting right-wing dictatorships hurt our efforts to fight communism. Communists drew strength from the abuses and excesses of these governments. The Cold War was a global battle for hearts and minds, with a military undercard. A real commitment to democracy and capitalism -- a faith that we would win out -- a faith that I submit to you liberals like Ted Kennedy had and conservatives like Negroponte did not -- counseled that we act with the courage of our convictions. Too many conservatives feared that democracies were too weak to stand up to totalitarian Communists regimes, and thought that dictators were a necessary evil.

And dictators do not necessarily give way to democracy. Look at Singapore, which you inexplicably keep calling a democracy, or China. South Korea's democratization was hardly inevitable. Of course, Weimar Germany is the classic example.

Central America
 

You're the one who brought up Central America and (inexplicably) South America, and suggested that there was something lefties weren't perceiving. So what were you trying to say?

Sold to whom? You know the State of the Union isn't really a good time to say "We're kicking up spending to make it seem like we want a war- so they'll realize they can't compete." Even then the Soviets watched US TV.

Say I get a tumor- was it my fault? did I behave in a way that caused it? was I exposed to toxins from others that caused it? Was it just random coincidence that made me the unfortunate victim-

Fuck I don't care why- it's there. would you please eradicate it with some chemo.

No- always assume the other side is making the genius response- ty's dragged out the Chewbacca defense. Careful now b.

Central America
 

In context you misused the word, but at least its use shows you are paying attention. sort of.

We're talking about what conservatives believed in the 1980s. I took them at their word. You are now suggesting, in their defense, that our policies were based on a big lie.

Odd, that.

Central America
 

Sorry -- I forgot that conservatives have a government-granted monopoly on defining "faith."

I can't figure out what you or bilmore is talking about here.

My position is that events in other countries are the product of many things -- history, culture, economics, science, geography, etc. E.g., to understand what's happening in Lebanon, you need to understand Lebanon, and not just read the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page.

I don't know what causes tumors, but I imagine that luck plays a role.

Geez ty- Reagan said we're doing this to keep up- Club says privately he said "driving up spending will kill the USSR." If your point is he didn't come to your house and tell your 'rents in confidence- okay he "lied." But given that he supposed goal was to kill the USSR can you concede that keeping that goal on the QT made sense- even assuming it required a lie?