Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Juan Cole's thoughtful and devasting deconstruction of Ronnie's legacy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 05:36 PM
Original message
Juan Cole's thoughtful and devasting deconstruction of Ronnie's legacy
This is worth a read.

"I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?"

snip

"Reagan hated environmentalism. His administration was not so mendacious as to deny the problems of increased ultraviolet radition (from a depleted ozone layer) and global warming. His government suggested people wear sunglasses and hats in response. At one point Reagan suggested that trees cause pollution. He was not completely wrong (natural processes can cause pollution), but his purpose in making the statement seems to have been that we should therefore just accept lung cancer from bad city air, which was caused by automobiles and industry, not by trees.

In foreign policy, Reagan abandoned containment of the Soviet Union as a goal and adopted a policy of active roll-back. Since the Soviet Union was already on its last legs and was not a system that could have survived long, Reagan's global aggressiveness was simply unnecessary. The argument that Reagan's increases in military funding bankrupted the Soviets by forcing them to try to keep up is simply wrong. Soviet defense spending was flat in the 1980s."

snip

"Reagan's aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans. This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man, and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would eventually morph into a security threat in their own right."

www.juancole.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. This guy is always an interesting read....
Don't know much about him...

But I think he makes one salient point that bears repeating. The military spending of the Soviets was flat during the '80s. Reagan's big spending on defense with out tax dollars and deficit spending had no impact at all on what the Soviets spent on defense. A truth that needs to be told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. He's a professor of ME History at Michigan
Had him as a grad student.

This part of his career is new, however-- and quite interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Quite interesting yourself, professor.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. yep that little tidbit is very interesting
Soviet military spending was FLAT during the eighties...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Authoritiva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Wild with laughter and applause: the well-fed laughing at the hungry
"Reagan hated any social arrangement that empowered the poor and the weak."

Of course. The rich and the powerful can't exist without the poor and the weak. The incarnation of Sinclair Lewis's soulless Babbit, Reagan was the pitchman of clueless optimism (even as he begrudged schoolchildren vegetables with their lunches) and the heartless arbiter of those deserving to be stricken down by medical plagues (AIDs). Reagan was an empty, amoral figurehead. And he did his job well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. Juan is great.
I read him almost every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SalParadise Donating Member (244 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. Kick
If you don't read JC once a day, you're uninformed.

(IMHO)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. He was hateful with a smile and a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. exactly......I still cringe whenever I hear him described as "folksy".
Edited on Sun Jun-06-04 08:15 PM by peekaloo
Will Rogers was folksy.


p.s. thanks for posting rumguy......bookmarked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC