The Politics of the 80s: It Was Tense and Divisive Just Like Today

[parandroid]

 

The Reagan CPAC speech was used to really good effect in this ep. You could really feel how Liz found him to be EEEvil. I remember how certain I was when he was elected that we'd have a war with the USSR, but these days he's certainly held up as a saint in many quarters. The contrast is bracing.

Reagan is treated as a saint by the conservative side of the fence. This is also the typically hawkish side of the fence, so it is not surprising that his defence(!!) policies are considered a resounding success. However, Reagan does deserve (from everyone) plaudits for his negotiating tactics. At a time when the USSR had missile batteries on the ground in eastern europe, and when NATO had none to counteract them with, he approached the negotiating table with a hardline position of "if you don't withdraw, we will move in and establish missile batteries to counteract your existing launch capabilities". On the face of it, he should have been laughed off the negotiating table with a statement like that, but he won, and the USSR withdrew.

I can totally understand people on the losing side of a negotiating table treating the winners as evil. This is human nature. It doesn't make the losing side evil or bad - just human. Perhaps they should be capable of rationalizing this better but most humans are not Spock-like, and will come away with hate / bitterness.

Just like a certain segment of the Democratic party demonize the Supreme Court's decisions in Bush vs Gore. The justices weren't evil or stupid or whatever. But the people on the losing side don't see it that way. Ditto for the losing side of Roe vs Wade.

Edited April 17, 2014 by parandroid

[dramachick]

Reagan is treated as a saint by the conservative side of the fence. This is also the typically hawkish side of the fence, so it is not surprising that his defence(!!) policies are considered a resounding success. However, Reagan does deserve (from everyone) plaudits for his negotiating tactics. At a time when the USSR had missile batteries on the ground in eastern europe, and when NATO had none to counteract them with, he approached the negotiating table with a hardline position of "if you don't withdraw, we will move in and establish missile batteries to counteract your existing launch capabilities". On the face of it, he should have been laughed off the negotiating table with a statement like that, but he won, and the USSR withdrew.

I can totally understand people on the losing side of a negotiating table treating the winners as evil. This is human nature. It doesn't make the losing side evil or bad - just human. Perhaps they should be capable of rationalizing this better but most humans are not Spock-like, and will come away with hate / bitterness.

Hmm.  Reagan called the Soviet Union the "focus of evil."  He was full of hatred, bigotry and selfishness.  He'll get no plaudits from me for anything.  There are many of us who are still feeling the effects of the damage he inflicted on his fellow Americans while he was president.  He was a dangerous man.

Just like a certain segment of the Democratic party demonize the Supreme Court's decisions in Bush vs Gore. The justices weren't evil or stupid or whatever. But the people on the losing side don't see it that way. Ditto for the losing side of Roe vs Wade.

Apples and oranges.  Sandra Day O'Connor is on record as having made a ruling in Bush vs. Gore based on partisan considerations, so she and her cohorts deserve every bit of demonization they receive.  Their legacy is what it is.  Roe vs. Wade was decided on the right to privacy.

Edited April 17, 2014 by sukeyna

[Happywatcher]

With all the debating here about Reagan's defense policy...

I was in the military starting in his second term. Carter did start the M16A2, the SAW, the M1 and Bradley, the improved TOW, the F-15 and 16. However, Reagan made them real, sweeping aside the outmoded gear and giving America top of the line equipment. The last of the old stuff was getting sent to DRMO when I got in. The difference was night and day. Just the frequency hopping radios made such a difference. The Walker family was selling codes and crypto loads to the Soviets, but the new radios and the ability to do easy fills made a huge difference.

Pershing II started under Carter, but Reagan pushed it to the wall. Until then the Soviets had the catbird seat in Europe with the SS-20 system, and we had greatly outmoded Pershing Is. They were way ahead. After he pushed so hard, and wouldn't back down for nonsense promises, they agreed to cut the SS-20s which could reach West Germany and Italy. He funded the laser guided bomb systems, which worked great, and which were standardized after Gulf War I across the branches.

People on the left here and in Western Europe like looking back on Reagan and calling him a crazy warmonger, completely forgetting the Soviets were the crazy warmongers. Carter signed a treaty outlawing bio weapons, and destroying our stockpiles and lines? The Soviets laughed at how stupid we were and made more plants. A Soviet front revolution seized Nicaragua and started for El Salvador?  How dare Reagan train and equip the good side to retake or defend their nations. The Soviets were gunning up to nuke and roll their way through the Fulda Gap? How dare Reagan beef up the defenses. Reagan outlined and started research on a system to defend the US from inbound nukes? How dare the warmonger try to invent a defense system--one that is actually well on its way to working today, with the funding cut to a drop in the bucket since 1990. With proper funding it would have been ready by 1997 or 2000.

You guys do know the protagonists of this show are bad guys doing evil things, right? Defending their warped world view here and calling out Reagan is like going on the Breaking Bad board and cheerleading for cutting meth law enforcement budgets because cops are the evil ones.

[parandroid]

I did not mean to stir up a political debate. This is obviously the wrong board to do that. All I meant to say is that whether Reagan is evil or not is a POV. People on the losing side of a violently contested argument can come away with the impression that the other party is evil. This does not, by itself, mean that either party is evil.

To make the analogy crystal clear (and to avoid misunderstanding), I am saying that just because the USA and the USSR were on the opposing sides of the cold war doesn't make them evil, but they were definitely percieved by the opposing sides as being evil. Having this opinion didn't make the citizenry of either country evil or bad. IOW, its not surpising that Elizabeth and Philip viewed Reagan through Soviet colored glasses. He was the enemy of their country. They loved their country. It was as simple as that.

[dramachick]

You guys do know the protagonists of this show are bad guys doing evil things, right? Defending their warped world view here and calling out Reagan is like going on the Breaking Bad board and cheerleading for cutting meth law enforcement budgets because cops are the evil ones.

No.  Just... no.  Moving on...

[maraleia]

Here is where fans of The Americans can discuss all things political that happened during the 80's.

[NitneLiun]

Reagan's Latin-American policy of supporting fascist regimes was hideous, and the humanitarian crimes committed against the leftists were disgusting, and also not always reported, all in the name of security.

As someone who was actually a cold warrior and knows quite a bit about Latin America during the 80s, I can tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. It's true that pro-American factions and governments employed tactics that were brutal and excessive, but frankly they learned those tactics from the leftists whom they were fighting.

While the American Left elitists like Peter, Paul and Mary were hosting Upper East Side cocktail parties for Daniel Ortega and the New York Times was hailing him as a peace-loving man of the people, innocent Nicaraquans were being tortured and murdered on his orders for the unthinkable crimes of owning land. Ortega himself carried out many of the tortures. In truth, he is one sick and brutal son of a bitch.

[Helena Dax]

But the Somoza family was getting  help from the USA before Ortega was  born.

[scrb]

Yeah and there's the whole sordid United Fruit Company business that goes back to early 20th century.

Death squads were all right-wing in Guatemala and Nicaragua.

But Reagan wasn't interested in getting the backing of Congress and the country to help the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

He had Ollie North siphon funds from Iran surreptitiously, in extra-Constitutional ways.

His best defense for these illegal tactics was that he didn't remember.

[Happywatcher]

Yeah and there's the whole sordid United Fruit Company business that goes back to early 20th century.

Death squads were all right-wing in Guatemala and Nicaragua.

But Reagan wasn't interested in getting the backing of Congress and the country to help the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

He had Ollie North siphon funds from Iran surreptitiously, in extra-Constitutional ways.

His best defense for these illegal tactics was that he didn't remember.

He couldn't go to Congress. The Democratic party in Congress was effectively led by Senator Teddy Kennedy. Sen Kennedy hated the fact Reagan was elected so much that he traveled to meet with the Soviet leaders to coordinate holding America back in defense areas, and coordinate the various "peace" and anti nuke groups in America and Western Europe--groups the Soviets funded.

American unions, which were the Democratic base then, were so pro-Soviet and communism it was insane. The UAW, then very powerful, was rabidly pro Ortega.

[parandroid]

 

He couldn't go to Congress.

Your argument went off the rails there. Are you saying that the president was incapable of legally achieving a course of action, and therefore he was forced into the corner of breaking the law? And that this is OK? Hello Richard Nixon. Welcome back from the dead.

[radishcake]

Guys be careful of personal attacks. Your opinion and statement of facts is fine just make sure it's "I think, and In such & such report you can see" etc...

[NitneLiun]

Yeah and there's the whole sordid United Fruit Company business that goes back to early 20th century.

Death squads were all right-wing in Guatemala and Nicaragua.

But Reagan wasn't interested in getting the backing of Congress and the country to help the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

He had Ollie North siphon funds from Iran surreptitiously, in extra-Constitutional ways.

His best defense for these illegal tactics was that he didn't remember.

Not remembering is a tactic that has worked well for Hilary on quite a few occasions.

[NitneLiun]

Hmm.  Reagan called the Soviet Union the "focus of evil."  He was full of hatred, bigotry and selfishness.  He'll get no plaudits from me for anything.  There are many of us who are still feeling the effects of the damage he inflicted on his fellow Americans while he was president.  He was a dangerous man.

Apples and oranges.  Sandra Day O'Connor is on record as having made a ruling in Bush vs. Gore based on partisan considerations, so she and her cohorts deserve every bit of demonization they receive.  Their legacy is what it is.  Roe vs. Wade was decided on the right to privacy.

I think opposing an aggressive nation that combined traditional Russian imperialism with Soviet internationalism is hardly bigoted, selfish or hateful. The simple truth is that the Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the United States and Western Europe.

I'm hard pressed to think of any examples of the damage that he inflicted on his fellow Americans. Perhaps that damage includes low inflation, declining and reasonable interest rates, low unemployment, renewed national pride after the horrible 70s, and a strategy that resulted in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union.

Sandra Day O'Connor did not acknowledge a partisan basis for her opinion in Gore v. Bush. Her opinions in the matter were very well-reasoned. I can't say the same for the reflexive justices on the Left.

I have to ask where the right to privacy is found in the U.S. Constitution. There are certainly elements of privacy protection in the Constitution, but there is no explicit right to privacy as it was defined by the majority in Roe. v. Wade. Have you ever wondered why a "right" to privacy is limited in scope only to abortion but has never been referenced in any subsequent Supreme Court cases?

[dramachick]

I think opposing an aggressive nation that combined traditional Russian imperialism with Soviet internationalism is hardly bigoted, selfish or hateful. The simple truth is that the Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the United States and Western Europe.

I'm hard pressed to think of any examples of the damage that he inflicted on his fellow Americans. Perhaps that damage includes low inflation, declining and reasonable interest rates, low unemployment, renewed national pride after the horrible 70s, and a strategy that resulted in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union.

I'm not surprised that you can't think of any examples.

Reagan routinely engaged in Dog Whistle Politics and also said things outright that damaged his fellow Americans in order to advance and bolster his political career.   When he was running for governor of California in 1966 he said, “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.”  He opposed opposed every major piece of civil rights legislation adopted by Congress, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. 

As president, he supported tax breaks for schools that discriminated on the basis of race (Bob Jones University, et al), opposed the extension of the Voting Rights Act and vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act. 

When he ran for reelection in 1980, he launched his official campaign at a county fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, the town where civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner had been lynched 16 years earlier.  In his speech, he told his audience "I believe in states rights," exactly what a bunch of Ku Klux Klan members wanted to hear.  I won't even get into the imagery he evoked in his speeches about the black welfare queen driving a Cadillac and ripping off good and honest white taxpayers.

In 1986 he vetoed the sanctions bill against South Africa, but, fortunately, even his own party was embarrassed by his refusal to stand up against apartheid and his veto was overrode by a vote of 78-21.

You admire Reagan.  I get it.  But understand that other people have valid reasons not to share in your adoration of the man that have nothing to do with loving the Soviet Union.

Sandra Day O'Connor did not acknowledge a partisan basis for her opinion in Gore v. Bush. Her opinions in the matter were very well-reasoned. I can't say the same for the reflexive justices on the Left.

From the book, Down & Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency by Jake Tapper:

At a party in Washington, D.C., Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor watches Dan Rather give Gore Florida.

"This is terrible," she says.

She rises to get a plate of food.  Her husband explains that his wife, a Reagan appointee and former Republican leader of the Arizona state senate, wants to retire, but feels that she can do so only if a Republican is in the White House to name her successor.  But what can she do?  She's had her one vote.

She and her cohorts did plenty in Bush vs. Gore, and now she regrets it.  From an article in the Chicago Tribune on April 16, 2013:

It was Bush v. Gore, which ended the Florida recount and decided the 2000 presidential election.

Looking back, O’Connor said, she isn’t sure the high court should have taken the case.

“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” O’Connor said during a talk with the Chicago Tribune’s Editorial Board on Friday. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”

The case, she said, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less-than perfect reputation.”

“Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision,” she said. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”

Probably?  SMH.

I have to ask where the right to privacy is found in the U.S. Constitution. There are certainly elements of privacy protection in the Constitution, but there is no explicit right to privacy as it was defined by the majority in Roe. v. Wade. Have you ever wondered why a "right" to privacy is limited in scope only to abortion but has never been referenced in any subsequent Supreme Court cases?

 

The right to privacy as applied in Roe v. Wade is within the penumbra of the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

[Lisin]

Guys lets keep this on the topic of 80s politics, not those of today. 

[NitneLiun]

Penumbra? What exactly is a penumbra in the legal sense? It has no meaning. The use of the word penumbra in that particular opinion and others has become something of a joke in law schools because it is so absurd.

[Lisin]

Penumbra: The rights guaranteed by implication in a constitution or the implied powers of a rule.

from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/penumbra

[NitneLiun]

Here's a better definition of "penumbra".  When the U.S. Constitution doesn't say what you want it to say, you point to its penumbra and pretend that it say what you wish it said.

[AzureOwl]

I did not mean to stir up a political debate. This is obviously the wrong board to do that. All I meant to say is that whether Reagan is evil or not is a POV. People on the losing side of a violently contested argument can come away with the impression that the other party is evil. This does not, by itself, mean that either party is evil.

To make the analogy crystal clear (and to avoid misunderstanding), I am saying that just because the USA and the USSR were on the opposing sides of the cold war doesn't make them evil, but they were definitely percieved by the opposing sides as being evil. Having this opinion didn't make the citizenry of either country evil or bad. IOW, its not surpising that Elizabeth and Philip viewed Reagan through Soviet colored glasses. He was the enemy of their country. They loved their country. It was as simple as that.

Hmm.  Reagan called the Soviet Union the "focus of evil."  He was full of hatred, bigotry and selfishness.  He'll get no plaudits from me for anything.  There are many of us who are still feeling the effects of the damage he inflicted on his fellow Americans while he was president.  He was a dangerous man.

 

I have never understood that impulse people have to assume that because one side in a dispute is evil, that it automatically makes the other one good. You don’t have to be good to fight evil… you can just as easily be a different kind of evil.

 

Just because he saw the Soviet Union as the N° 1 enemy and contributed to its fall, that doesn’t make Reagan the good guy. By everything I know he was a colossal, hypocritical prick. He was a bad person.

 

But the Soviets were orders of magnitude worse. Calling them the "focus of evil" might be hyperbolic, but not by that much. They were the enemies of human decency and a cancer upon the Earth. The communist leaders were monsters. Take that from someone who has among his earliest memories sitting in a kitchen in utter darkness because Shinning Path blew up the power lines, wondering if every noise in the night was a car bomb.

 

Reagan fought that evil with tools that were both good and evil. And those tools that were evil were almost always counter-productive on the long run on top of being evil. He should be rightly derided and condemned by history and all decent people for using them, but not for fight itself.

 

Philip and Elizabeth are evil. They are firm believers in an ideology that is unquestionably wrong and condemned millions to unspeakable misery. They are every bit as much bad guys as Tony Soprano or Walter White. And every bit as fascinating and entertaining to watch.

[scrb]

Not sure P&E are hardcore ideologues.  They showed the difficult childhood E had right in the aftermath of WWII.  From there, she was chosen for the program and her gratitude to the fatherland is understandable.

 

But if she really thought the same way as Soviet propaganda about the decadent West, she wouldn't be able to integrate into American society so easily.

 

It also appears as if concerns about the children will take precedence in the S2 finale coming up, over loyalty to country and ideology.

[Bannon]

I think Philip has the potential to wake up one morning, and say to himself, "Ya', know, the ideology and leaders i work for have been responsible for the murder of 100 million innocent people over the past 60 years, and those leaders refuse to regularly submit themselves to potential rejection by the human beings they rule.. Maybe it isn't such a good idea  to work for such people and such an ideology."

 

I don't think Elizabeth is capable of that sort of growth.

[Happywatcher]

Reagan is treated as a saint by the conservative side of the fence. This is also the typically hawkish side of the fence, so it is not surprising that his defence(!!) policies are considered a resounding success. However, Reagan does deserve (from everyone) plaudits for his negotiating tactics. At a time when the USSR had missile batteries on the ground in eastern europe, and when NATO had none to counteract them with, he approached the negotiating table with a hardline position of "if you don't withdraw, we will move in and establish missile batteries to counteract your existing launch capabilities". On the face of it, he should have been laughed off the negotiating table with a statement like that, but he won, and the USSR with

 

 

Pershing II actually worked. The CEP was less than the blast radius, and they launched off the I launchers just fine. Carter had them designed, but Ronnie pushed them to the max and backed the Soviets down because our stuff worked well and theirs sucked. They went from laughing at our weakness to being scared as hell.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Happyshooter

[MDKNIGHT]

Personally I think the thing about the US vs the USSR as it was in the 80's that mattered to me was the answer to the questions -Who screwed thier own citizens more?  -Who acted with less regard for human life and human rights MORE OFTEN?  And which system gave you a better chance (not a great chance but a better one) to change things that WERE bad?  I have been a fan of the US since childhood and I have always thought that the American system is the best in the world HOWEVER I do see its warts.  To me when the US used/uses the same tactics as the enemy it is when it is the most disappointing BUT I maintain that the reason the right side "won" the cold war is that the Soviets just did way more bad things way more often, that we did.  It was wrong for the police to beat up kids protesting the Vietnam War in th 70's regardless of whether you think the Vietnam War was a good idea.  But they didn't just haul people to Siberia for disagreeing with the government.  To me that has always been the bench mark of a country....what if you don't agree with the government?  What happens to you?  The thing is that going forward we still have to safe guard against falling into the immoral side of things as a rule, instead of as an exception, so that we CAN continue to be the best and HOPEFULLY we can become better.  Because there IS room for improvement. 

[CheersEnthusiast]

I lived through the 80s and from my experience the topic title is wrong.  No, it was not as tense and divisive within the country as it is today.  I knew liberals and I knew conservatives, back then I actually saw many liberals and conservatives carry on civil, often VERY civil discourse with one another.  

 

Another example: Tip O'Neill (Speaker of the House) and Reagan were able to sit down and get stuff done.   

Edited October 24, 2014 by CheersEnthusiast

[SlackerInc]

A Soviet front revolution seized Nicaragua and started for El Salvador?  How dare Reagan train and equip the good side to retake or defend their nations.

 

 

Those nun-rapers were the "good side", eh?  That puts New York City's current mayor on the bad side. So confusing.

 

I always thought it was interesting that Ortega willingly stepped down when his political opponents beat him in free and fair elections.  He stayed in the minority for many years and is now back as president of Nicaragua and is quite popular there.

 

I'm hard pressed to think of any examples of the damage that he inflicted on his fellow Americans.

 

 

A skyrocketing deficit; deregulation of industry that led to abuse of workers and environmental damage; exploiting and stirring up simmering racial resentments among blue-collar whites for his own political gain; a massive increase in income inequality; bringing the enmity of the rest of the world; prosecution of a "war on drugs" which jailed a huge segment. of the population in a racially unequal way.  (He and Nancy were just huge buzzkills all around.)

 

And by the end of his presidency his popularity had waned (Bill Clinton made hay campaigning in 1992 about not going back to the Reagan years).  Conservatives have done a good job of papering that over and making people remember the 1984 "morning in America" version of the Gipper, although admittedly I was never a fan even then.

 

I have to ask where the right to privacy is found in the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

Right here.

 

Something I've always wondered: what would conservatives say if a Democratic president turned tail and ran after an attack, the way Reagan did from Lebanon?

 

As for the USSR: I traveled around the Soviet Union in 1990. I did not go with tours, but plunged out and met regular folks using the Russian I had been studying.  It is my opinion that the version of socialism that Gorbachev was constructing is more humane a system than we had in the US at that time.

 

Ironically, Soviet citizens were not convinced, and were sure that if they got rid of Gorbachev and adopted some sort of Western economic system, they would have their streets paved with gold--as they imagined was the case in the US.  They struck me as rather whiney and materialistic (their idealistic forebears who forged a glorious revolution 70 years earlier, before Stalin perverted it into something horrible, would have been very disappointed).  They had no shortage of food (including the best ice cream I have ever tasted), clothing and other necessities, but they wanted designer goods.

 

So they got Yeltsin and now Putin. I kind of think they got what they deserved, but I can't help but wonder "what could have been".

[maraleia]

Bumping this up so the 80's political talk can take place here and not the episode threads (unless the political talk pertains to the episode at hand). If the political talk veers into current events then the posts will be deleted so beware.

Remember that there is no sniping at other posters allowed anywhere on this site.

[Shriekingeel]

I think the whole point of the Afghan Generals storyline was to point out that the US actually got into bed with these people in the 80's in a 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' kind of way. There are no good guys in this show.

Have to disagree somewhat with this statement from the 3.12 episode thread. The only non-fictional Afghan whose name appears in the series was Ahmad Shah Massoud, who is mentioned on a BBC broadcast that Phillip is listening to. Massoud, by all accounts, was a decent person and an excellent military commander against the Soviets. Which is why Osama Bin Laden felt the need to assassinate him the day before 9/11.

[ToastnBacon]

I don't think any reasonable person could deny this.  The US certainly isn't some saint.  Policies and actions from both of these regimes during this time are still felt today, not in good ways either.  The blind patriotism we see from Elizabeth is dangerous and gross no mater what country it's supporting.

One only needs to compare what life was like in the Warsaw Pact states that were dominated by Soviet Union to life in Western Europe.

Just compare what it was like in East Germany as opposed to West Germany in the 1980s, not to mention what it was like in the Soviet Union.

Reagan's Evil Empire speech was spot on.

[SlackerInc]

Gee, sounds like Reagan must have been very popular in West Germany in the ''80s then. ;-)

BTW, your comparison is not a fair one. The Warsaw Pact countries were always poorer than the Western European countries, even before communism . Do you really think the standard of living in Warsaw in 1938 was equivalent to that of Berlin?

Edited April 24, 2015 by SlackerInc

[ToastnBacon]

Gee, sounds like Reagan must have been very popular in West Germany in the ''80s then. ;-)

BTW, your comparison is not a fair one. The Warsaw Pact countries were always poorer than the Western European countries, even before communism . Do you really think the standard of living in Warsaw in 1938 was equivalent to that of Berlin?

Oh, how I hope a Polish person comes onto this forum and sets you straight.

Why are you bringing 1938 into this anyway? First, the global economy was in the toilet in the early 1930s, Hitler got Germany out by starting an economic boom with a massive defense build up.

But if you think that Poland was a backwards and struggling country before the Nazi invasion and the communist era, you are so very wrong.

I went to Poland in in 1994, not long after the last of the Red Army troops had left Eastern Europe. There was hyper-inflation in the country, but already entrepreneurship was creating opportunity, and within a few years they had turned things around.

Why?

Because communism is a miserable failure economically, and it stifles personal freedom in every country that embraces it.

The Soviet Union's particular brand of communism was brutal and oppressive. Reagan was so very right to call them an Evil Empire.

Gorbachev knew this too, he knew reform was needed, when he started making changes and what the hell happen? The failed coup.

The entire world is so very lucky that damned coup failed.

The bottom line is that the Soviet Union sucked, to quote Reagan, it was "a source of evil in the modern world."

[Bannon]

Gee, sounds like Reagan must have been very popular in West Germany in the ''80s then. ;-)

BTW, your comparison is not a fair one. The Warsaw Pact countries were always poorer than the Western European countries, even before communism . Do you really think the standard of living in Warsaw in 1938 was equivalent to that of Berlin?

You may wish to compare the conditions in West Berlin, to East Berlin, in 1983. Were the Germans on the east side of the wall just  inherenty less productive? It doesn't take blind devotion to any ideology to observe that when those following ideology A are shooting dead human beings who try to get over a wall, from where ideology A holds sway, to where ideology B holds sway, whereas those who live on the side of the wall where ideology B holds sway are told they can leave if they like, but hardly anyone does so, we can say, with gigantic empirical confidence, that ideology A really, really, really sucks, compared to ideology B.

 

Elizabeth is every bit as vile as the sort of people who were supporting slavery in South Carolina in 1855. The evidence of the nature of what she supports is right in front of her face. She just refuses to see it. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by Bannon

[ToastnBacon]

I think an Epic Rap Battle between Rasputin and Stalin is needed to settle this.

Enjoy!

[JasonCC]

One thing that's always tough for me on this show is how hard it is to separate Reagan the hero of today's Far Right from the historical Reagan. Current right-wing politicians invoke the memory of Reagan "never backing down" or "never raising taxes" or "never selling out America to immigrants" when it doesn't match up to a presidency that often capitulated back and forth among it's right and moderate factions of the GOP. Many far-right politicians seethed at Reagan not going far enough to the right all of the time. This season finale nails it (with Elizabeth's reaction) is the rhetoric of Reagan being what's remembered if not his (often more nuanced and small-c conservative actions). "Evil Empire" stuck and ratched-up the Cold War throughout the rest of the 80s, that can't be denied. In the 70s it had looked like a quiet detent could be maintained and that all the "godless commies" Good/Evil language was sooo 1950s. Much of the 80s culturally was a strange Back to the Future nostalgia for an imagined image of America before those nasty social movements of the late 60s, Vietnam, et al got us all soft and self-doubting.

 

This is a great book by the way about how Reagan went through this epic myth-making much sooner after his presidency than is usual. Don't let the title fool you it's not just blind Reagan-bashing. It also attacks the Left caricature of Reagan as inaccurate and probably not useful for modern progressives.

Edited April 26, 2015 by JasonCC

[scrb]

Wonder how Reagan's rhetoric was perceived outside the U.S.

Or outside the core Republican Party.

Did talk of 'evil' empire make the Russians hardened against the U.S., as Elizabeth seems to be doing or did they just continue towards the realization that the Cold War was unsustainable and they were going to liberalize with glasnost and perestroika?

The Republican mythology is that Reagan alone made the Soviets cave while others believe the USSR was headed for a fall long before Reagan took power.

Elizabeth's reaction may not be representative. Also the show's depiction of how over concerned they were about Stealth, to the point of kidnapping the scientist and working hard to get him pictures of stealth aircraft may be overstated.

[Cara]

Or outside the core Republican Party.

He won two elections by historically large margins. Many Democrats who had never voted for a Republican before voted for Reagan. His VP, George HW Bush was elected in 1988 by telling voters to "stay the course" People may have disagreed with him and of course there were plenty who didn't like him. But he was an extremely popular president. He was supported by a variety of people, not just those who today would be considered far right wingers. Edited April 26, 2015 by Cara

[Cara]

If you have the time to watch these they are very interesting.

Election night coverage from 1980 and 1984:

Edited April 26, 2015 by Cara

[JasonCC]

I've met very few non-Americans who think "Reagan won the cold war". If anything, I see a lot of praise for the underrated oversight of the fall of the Eastern bloc, Berlin Wall, etc by George HW Bush. He hit just the right balancing act of being supportive of their self-determination and throwing off the Soviet yoke, but NOT trying to make it all about the USA.

Edited April 26, 2015 by JasonCC

[scrb]

A lot of Americans don't buy that rhetoric either.

But Reagan does deserve credit for signing treaty with Gorbachev to reduce nukes or missiles, despite the evil empire rhetoric.

Those who hold him up as a saint who stayed the Soviet Union may be inconvenienced by that fact, that at the end, he signed treaties which allowed Gorbachev to push along glastnost.

[kikaha]

 

Wonder how Reagan's rhetoric was perceived outside the U.S.

 

One of the articles Umbelina linked, in the media thread, gives a (partial) answer to your question:

 

"Reagan managed to touch the hearts and minds of those who mattered: the rebels behind the Iron Curtain who ultimately brought it down. Nathan Sharansky read Reagan’s speech in a cell in Siberia. Knocking on walls and talking through toilets, he spread the word to other prisoners in the Gulag. “The dissidents were ecstatic,” Sharansky wrote. “Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth — a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.”

[Cara]

This contains some interesting quotes from some Eastern European leaders.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-26-europe-reagan-100th-birthday_n.htm

Edited April 26, 2015 by Cara

[kikaha]

I've met very few non-Americans who think "Reagan won the cold war".

 

Here's what a leading European politician says about that, from the article Cara linked.  Note especially the quote that "Reagan is admired across Eastern Europe because he told the truth about the oppression of communism and stood up to the Soviet Union despite its nuclear arsenal, hastening its demise" :

"Zsolt Németh credits Ronald Reagan with inspiring the Hungarian opposition movement he co-founded that threw off Soviet oppression in 1989.

This week, Németh, Hungary's deputy foreign minister, will join celebrations in Budapest and other Eastern European capitals observing Reagan's 100th birthday and his role in bringing down the Iron Curtain.

Reagan served two terms as U.S. president from 1981 to 1989. He was born Feb. 6, 1911.

Németh says Reagan is admired across Eastern Europe because he told the truth about the oppression of communism and stood up to the Soviet Union despite its nuclear arsenal, hastening its demise. Inspired by Reagan, Németh in 1988 helped found FIDESZ, the Alliance of Young Democrats, now the country's ruling party.

"This opposition was fueled by the fact that in the West, there was truth, political leaders who don't compromise and turn upside down what was true," Németh said in an interview. "Reagan was that type of politician."

[ToastnBacon]

A lot of Americans don't buy that rhetoric either.

But Reagan does deserve credit for signing treaty with Gorbachev to reduce nukes or missiles, despite the evil empire rhetoric.

Those who hold him up as a saint who stayed the Soviet Union may be inconvenienced by that fact, that at the end, he signed treaties which allowed Gorbachev to push along glastnost.

The treaty that Reagan signed eliminated intermediate range cruise missiles, an entire class of nuclear weapons.

And yes, Gorbachev did push reforms under his policy of Glasnost, reforms that led to the failed coup, and the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union.

Reagan played a major role in ending the Cold War, by modernizing our military with weapons like the Pershing II, he brought the Soviets to the negotiating table, he wasn't the mad-man devil that the left depicts him as.

[kikaha]

Reagan played a major role in ending the Cold War, by modernizing our military with weapons like the Pershing II, he brought the Soviets to the negotiating table, he wasn't the mad-man devil that the left depicts him as.

 

He also helped push the Soviet economy past its breaking point, where it collapsed under the weight of trying (but failing) to supply both guns and butter. 

[scrb]

He also helped push the Soviet economy past its breaking point, where it collapsed under the weight of trying (but failing) to supply both guns and butter.

It didn't leave the U.S. in great fiscal condition either.

[kikaha]

It didn't leave the U.S. in great fiscal condition either.

The US economy thrived, basically all through the 1980s and 1990s.  The rise in US debt was unfortunate and IMO totally not needed.  But under Reagan the US economy slayed the twin demons of inflation and unemployment.  GDP soared.  So did savings and number of people with jobs.

 

Meanwhile the USSR split apart.  In the early 1980s that was thought impossible -- except by a few libertarian think tanks and the president of the United States. 

[Umbelina]

Look at the reason "the economy thrived" and the result from that.  http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/53527 He deregulated wall street, and they went hog wild and bankrupted all of us.  For a start. 

[JasonCC]

I never said Reagan isn't admired by many Eastern Europeans, but each country that threw off the yoke of Soviet domination has their leaders and heroes (Lech Wallensa, etc). I've yet to meet a non-American who viewed it as Mr. Reagan winning that "war" for them.  Rather the USA (entire nation) was a valuable source of hope (like John Paul II was in those years), and part of Reagan's genius was NOT sending troops into each and every hotspot half-cocked. He was well attuned to the fact Americans were still healing the wounds of Vietnam and thus (for lack of a better phrase) cut and run when he deemed it a possible quagmire (Beirut after 250 servicemen killed in a terrorist attack) but took on the easy, winnable symbolic victories (Grenada!) to help bring back that pre-Vietnam 1950s "before things got complicated" patriotism he epitomized as a figure (being from that era himself). Sadly, the racial dog whistles and Southern Strategy played into that desire too.

[kikaha]

umbelina, are you sure your link works?  When I click on it, I get the following message:

 

Sorry! We could not find the page you are looking for.

[Umbelina]

It was there when I posted it, but it's not there when I click on it.  When I google "Reagan deregulated wall street"  http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/53527it's the 2nd link that comes up.  There are several others though.

 

I did like Reagan's speech at the wall though.  The man who wrote it  "Tear down that wall"  http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2007/summer/berlin.html Peter Robinson.