The Great Communicator is scarcely at the fore of my thoughts, but during a lengthy back-and-forth over at Micah Tillman's blog, I innocently mentioned that "I’m always curious to hear people argue in favour of Reaganism, to test my own convictions"... and, man oh man, was my curiosity satisfied. My mistake, of course, to invite praise upon Reagan on a libertarian blog. What follows here will most certainly be said in vain, because the ideological chasm between myself and Andrew Stevens makes the grand canyon look like Stephen Malkmus cracking a smile. Nonetheless, I want to share my appraisal of Ol' Ronnie without weaving a Gordian knot out of Tillman's comment thread. Now, everything I'll mention here has been repeated elsewhere, but in the interest of being thorough...
Why exactly do I loathe Ronald Reagan? Let me count the ways:
~He ratted out and demonised fellow citizens before the HUAC.
~Apparently, "cleaning up the mess at Berkeley" included Gestapo tactics.
~All those crazy people wandering the streets? Yep, Reagan's fault.
~In all likelihood, he used 52 hostages as pawns in an election campaign.
~Perhaps in an overzealous attempt to prove "government is the problem," he busted a national union and put 11,345 Americans out of work.
~Reaganomics: a Trojan Horse that bore a stagnant median wage, the S&L crisis, and that festering cherry on top, the '87 stock crash.
~Oh, and that massive cut in inflation? You can thank massive unemployment for that, not Reagan.
~And while I'm at it: fuck tax cuts for the rich. There, I said it.
~Ladies and gentlemen, Robert Bork!
~He pledged to "do whatever was necessary" to aid that Saddam guy against Iran.
~290 innocent civilians died in a case of mistaken identity.
~He staunchly supported & sold arms to Efrain Rios Montt, per-capita the bloodiest dictator Latin America has ever seen.
~He "allowed Alexander Haig to greenlight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, fired him when that went too far and led to mayhem in Beirut, then ran away from Lebanon altogether when the Marine barracks were bombed, and then unbelievably accused Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of 'scuttling.'"
~He praised the future Taliban as "freedom fighters" while the religious extremists who would later attack the WTC received funds & training from the CIA.
~The Iran Contra Affair
~The HUD grant-rigging scandal
~The "War On Drugs"
~"Welfare queen"
~"We begin bombing in five minutes!"
In the words of a far more succinct man, "Let the earth where he is buried be seeded with salt."
Finally, Mr. Stevens made it clear that his praise for Reagan was not out of partisanship by praising JFK. Likewise, I'm not bound by unblinking loyalty to a particular party. "Slick Willie" Clinton's misdeeds - from the Defense of Marriage Act to destroying a Sudanese penecilin plant - are far too quickly forgotten or forgiven. Likewise, JFK was an overromanticised speed-freak playboy who cried "appeasement" and brought the world perilously close to nuclear annihilation - but then, he's already been assassinated once, so I needn't do it again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Many of your criticisms are perfectly valid. Some are, I believe, misinterpretations we can argue over and some are just factually false (e.g. Willie Horton had nothing to do with Reagan; you're thinking of either Bush Senior or Al Gore).
But this post obviously isn't a serious attempt to critique Reagan; it's merely political propaganda. Are you actually interested in an honest debate?
Fair game on the Willie Horton thing; in the interest of not spreading falsities, I've wiped that from the post.
But I'm a bit gobsmacked that a laundry list of the illegal activities, failed policies, and blood on Reagan's hands doesn't count as a serious critique. With the exception of the "October Surprise" conspiracy (and, perhaps, the economic conditions that led to Black Monday and the S&L crisis), I didn't level any accusations based on speculation or exaggeration. These are nonnegociably true.
"Merely political propaganda"? Why? Because I listed them in bullet-form instead of long-winded sentences? Because my tone was too casual and irreverent, unbecoming of anyone who wants to make a serious political statement?
Those are the facts, my friend. Reagan did all of that.
So I suppose I'm not "actually interested in an honest debate," if it would center around the minutae of the Phillips Curve, supply-side tax regimes, and the End of History. (Did you see the latest May Day rally in Red Square? History is back, yo!) Because, to paraphrase Rhett Butler, frankly, I don't give a damn about what parodically lopsided economic stimulus Reagan achieved during his administration. The man was a war criminal, and the world is widely worse off because of him.
I am perfectly willing to respond to your charges. However, I do need to know what your general opinion about the Soviet Union is. If you are pining away for Marx-Leninism, then your opinion about Reagan is quite logical and there's just no way I'm ever going to change your mind. Any more than you're ever going to change my mind about Stalin.
I will say, though, that you haven't even accused him of a war crime. The best you've done is accused him of giving financial support to war criminals. That indictment would make a war criminal out of every President of the 20th century, including FDR.
Oh, I might as well respond anyway.
~He ratted out and demonised fellow citizens before the HUAC.
This is a fair point. I note that people who get all hot under the collar about the Communist witch-hunts seem to have no objection to blacklists for fascists and Nazis and other followers of murderous regimes. Personally, I'm not a fan of the hearings into Hollywood. For one thing, Hollywood is still full of Communists. Who cares? For another, it did not make careful distinctions between Communists who were actively working for the U.S.S.R. and "useful idiots" and fellow travelers. It should be pointed out that there really were Russian spies in the U.S. State Department; it wasn't merely Gunner Joe's imagination. Not nearly so many as there were in the British Foreign Office (with Burgess, Philby, McLean, Blunt, and Cairncross), but they did exist. I note that you linked to Christopher Hitchens, my favorite leftist polemicist. He once talked about writing a book called Guilty as Hell about Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, Sacco and Vanzetti, and other Communist criminals the American left has lionized as innocent martyrs. Still, it's important to draw the distinction between the people who conducted these hearings, who were acting wrongly, and Reagan, who merely testified at them.
~Apparently, "cleaning up the mess at Berkeley" included Gestapo tactics.
It's funny that we remember the late '60s so nostalgically. It was really a rather disgusting orgy of violence on both sides, something of a discredit to MLK's legacy. I'm not going to defend either the police or the protesters here, but it's unlikely Reagan was responsible for much of this. The article you linked to does mention the National Guard, but it's the local sheriff's office who seem to be responsible for the worst of it.
~All those crazy people wandering the streets? Yep, Reagan's fault.
Note that this charge only applies to California, not the rest of the country. Reagan did nothing about this nationally while President. The fact that it was widespread indicates that California was not unique. The deinstitutionalization movement did not begin on the right. It began on the left and they had excellent arguments. If a person is mentally ill and not judged a danger to himself or others, should the state really confine him against his will? They argued no and I think they have a strong moral argument. It's unquestionably true that Reagan went along with it because it seemed like a good way to close California's budget gap, but it certainly wasn't his idea. Those crazy people wandering the streets are doing so because they prefer it to being locked up. It's perfectly okay to argue that we should involuntarily commit them again for their own good, but I think you'll concede that this presents different problems.
~In all likelihood, he used 52 hostages as pawns in an election campaign.
In all likelihood? How about not a shred of evidence?
~Perhaps in an overzealous attempt to prove "government is the problem," he busted a national union and put 11,345 Americans out of work.
The strike was illegal; Reagan had a perfectly clear justification for his actions. Having said that, I don't approve of Reagan's anti-union activities and I don't approve of that action either. What he was really doing was sending a signal to private enterprise that they could get tougher with the unions. Powerful unions can cause huge problems for a country as they did in Britain in the '70s, but that was never really the case in the U.S. and I personally think Reagan went way too far in curbing the unions.
~Reaganomics: a Trojan Horse that bore a stagnant median wage, the S&L crisis, and that festering cherry on top, the '87 stock crash.
The median wage was not stagnant under Reagan. It went up, in real 2006 dollars, from $18,141 per person in 1980 to $21,492 in 1988. See here. Considering that many economists think that the CPI overstates inflation and almost none think it understates it, there's no question that people got better under Reagan. Household income didn't do so well, but this isn't because workers weren't doing better, but because the number of working adults per household was declining, due to divorce, young people moving out earlier, and other reasons.
Reagan does bear some responsibility for the S&L crisis. It certainly wasn't the most brilliantly handled deregulation of all time and one of Reagan's great achievements, the elimination of a huge number of tax loopholes, contributed to the S&L's problems as they had previously made investments counting on those tax shelters. So that's a fair hit.
As for the '87 stock crash, what an odd thing to bring up. Now you're just blaming Reagan for everything that happened during his Presidency. The truth is it's still the case that nobody knows why the '87 crash happened (though there are lots of theories) and it had virtually no impact on the broader economy, despite being the biggest single day decline in history. Those people who didn't panic sell ended up doing just fine in very short order.
~Oh, and that massive cut in inflation? You can thank massive unemployment for that, not Reagan.
This is true. Wringing out inflation caused a lot of short-term pain. The Volcker recession of the early '80s was very tough medicine. Had it not worked, Volcker (and Reagan, who let him do it) would have a lot to answer for. But it did work and, as I said on Mr. Tillman's blog, Reagan deserves credit for having the courage to let Volcker do it.
~And while I'm at it: fuck tax cuts for the rich. There, I said it.
That's not an argument; that's just contradiction.
~Ladies and gentlemen, Robert Bork!
Who never served on the Supreme Court. It's quite possible that Bork would have been a horrible Justice, but we'll never know. I think there's little question that he was badly slandered, but maybe he would have been lousy anyway. Shouldn't we concentrate on Reagan's actual Justices - O'Connor, Kennedy, and Scalia, rather than a guy who never had a chance to do anything?
~He pledged to "do whatever was necessary" to aid that Saddam guy against Iran.
~He staunchly supported & sold arms to Efrain Rios Montt, per-capita the bloodiest dictator Latin America has ever seen.
Now we come to more serious criticisms of Reagan, in the area of foreign policy. It is crucially important to put U.S. actions in their wider global context. The United States, during the Cold War, engaged in a great deal of highly questionable behavior. They were often imperialist, propped up some appalling dictators, and were sporadically vile to the poor. On the other side, you had the U.S.S.R. with an avowed desire to conquer the world and willing to send money and weapons all over the world to aid them in this ambition. The U.S.S.R. was vile to everyone all the time. When France left NATO, the U.S. called them ungrateful bastards. When Poland, Hungary, or Czechoslovakia tried to leave the Eastern bloc, the U.S.S.R. rolled in the tanks. Because the U.S.S.R. had no moral principles other than worldwide Communism, they seem to be given free passes for all the revolutions, dictatorships, and political power games they supported. The U.S., on the other hand, can barely even defend itself without taking a torrent of criticism from every side. I'll take this trade, quite frankly. The Soviets never got criticized by their own citizens because they weren't allowed to. I prefer the U.S. system.
The problem the U.S. was faced with in various parts of the globe was that there would be these civil wars with the U.S.S.R. actively supporting one side, so the U.S. had two options: allow the U.S.S.R. to spread Communism in virtually every country in the globe or engage in the same tactics. Rightly or wrongly, they chose the latter. Certainly, I do not doubt that Reagan supported some sides and dictators he ought not have and Hussein and Montt are two of those. The contras were another; history has shown that Daniel Ortega was not the snake Reagan thought he was.
~290 innocent civilians died in a case of mistaken identity.
This was a tragedy, but clearly an accident. The Vincennes had been taking fire shortly before and made an error in judgment. It's hard to see how this can be blamed on Reagan.
~He "allowed Alexander Haig to greenlight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, fired him when that went too far and led to mayhem in Beirut, then ran away from Lebanon altogether when the Marine barracks were bombed, and then unbelievably accused Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of 'scuttling.'"
A hit, a very palpable hit. Here I find Reagan's actions completely indefensible.
~He praised the future Taliban as "freedom fighters" while the religious extremists who would later attack the WTC received funds & training from the CIA.
Most of the mujahideen who fought the Soviets did not end up in the Taliban or with bin Laden. (There is no evidence that the CIA dealt much with bin Laden, by the way.) In any event, later actions notwithstanding, they were freedom fighters. It's hard to see how Reagan was supposed to predict that they'd go nuts over the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia (which didn't exist at the time) and attack the World Trade Center. In any event, U.S. "creation" of bin Laden is a very weak reed. It's not like he's still using U.S.-provided equipment. (That argument works much better with Saddam who was still using Reagan-provided weapons into the '90s.)
~The Iran Contra Affair
Another fair criticism. It should only be noted that the arms-for-hostages exchange was certainly done out of good motives, genuine concern for the hostages. On the other hand, negotiating with terrorists is a mistake that Ronald Reagan, of all people, should never have made. An outrageous error on his part. As for the contras, I agree that this too was a mistake.
~The HUD grant-rigging scandal
Half fair. This doesn't have much to do with Reagan personally (as far as I know, no one has even alleged that he knew anything about it), but it must be admitted that Reagan's hands-off management style, like with the Iran-contra affair, was directly responsible for scandals like this one.
~The "War On Drugs"
Personally, I'm in the "drugs are bad, the war on drugs is worse" camp. There's no question that Reagan eroded civil liberties in this country with his disastrous war on drugs. However, it's important to remember how drug-addled the country had become in the '70s. Everybody was doing cocaine including doctors and airline pilots. Reagan did have a lot to do with reversing the cultural zeitgeist and that's a good thing. Similarly with drunk driving which wasn't taken at all seriously in the '70s and was costing thousands of innocent lives. Still, I can't honestly defend Reagan on this one, where I think he was clearly mistaken.
~"Welfare queen"
Fair criticism. I dislike this rhetoric. However, it was worse in the hands of Reagan's allies than Reagan himself. Reagan used the phrase to describe people who were defrauding welfare, not just on welfare. But I do majorly object to Republican rhetoric of the time about welfare.
~"We begin bombing in five minutes!"
Oh, come on. Have a sense of humor. That was just funny. The idea that it caused some sort of international incident is nonsense.
As for The End of History, I am not a subscriber to Fukuyama's thesis, but even if Russia lapses back into totalitarianism, that wouldn't falsify it. His thesis is simply that democracy will be more and more prevalent in the long term, even if totalitarianism returns or there are temporary setbacks.
Apologies for the late reply; the weekend happened.
I could call myself a Trotskyist, a la Christopher Hitchens, but I hesitate because I’ve neither the ideological orthodoxy, nor the sufficient faith in people, to be a proper Marxist. I find myself much more inspired by Zizek than any American pundit or politician these days. And though I find Marx compelling, and appreciate some (not all) of Lenin’s ideas, I’d never argue that Stalin was anything other than a power-hungry thug who understood only force. I offer no apology, nor nostalgia, for the Soviet Union.
As far as Reagan as war criminal… while there is a distinction between one who pulls the trigger and another who supplied the gun, there are still laws against being an accessory – a charge I’d level at, yes, every president since (and including) FDR. Having gotten several illegal military incursions, a couple of coups, funding from the illegal traffic of arms & drugs, and sponsorship of several death squads under his belt, Reagan seems to me the posterboy for state-sponsored terrorism. That it was in the name of something noble doesn’t matter an iota. The "why" doesn't matter, and the ends don't justify the means. Admirable mission statements and bold philosophical pronouncements are empty with actions that reflect them.
~The HUAC Hearings: it's important to draw the distinction between the people who conducted these hearings, who were acting wrongly, and Reagan, who merely testified at them.
So if we adhere to an authority’s unjust, exploitive, discriminatory, or vindictive demands, we are blameless in our obedience?
~The People’s Park incident: It's funny that we remember the late '60s so nostalgically.
On that, we’re in total agreement. As for the excessive force, Reagan directly ordered CHP officers to break up the protest which became the “Bloody Thursday” shootings, and then called 2200 soldiers to occupy Berkeley to quell any further outrage. Obviously, he pulled no trigger, but his active involvement in the incident implies no small degree of responsibility. It could be that Reagan gave the officers an inch, and they took a mile, but Ronnie’s fingerprints are still all over the scene.
~Deinstitutionalization: Note that this charge only applies to California, not the rest of the country.
Not so. Within months of taking office, Reagan vetoed PL 96-398, the Community Mental Health Systems Act. This effectively shuttered all federal community mental health centers by pulling their funding.
~The “October Surprise” Conspiracy: How about not a shred of evidence?
All circumstantial at best, yes, but then I also think the Warren commission was full of it.
~The Air-Traffic Controller’s strike: The strike was illegal; Reagan had a perfectly clear justification for his actions.
Illegal according only to the Taft-Hartley Act, a shockingly anti-democratic bill that marries the worst elements of capitalism to fascism. Though I suspect I’d go further in supporting labour against management than you, Mr. Stevens, I’m heartened by your disapproval of Reagan’s actions.
~Reaganomics: The median wage was not stagnant under Reagan.
Okay, fair game. (Then it only took GWH Bush one term to undo most of that hard work.) Reagan also oversaw the highest poverty rates since 1965, peaking in ’83 at 15.2% and higher on average than during any other administration since LBJ’s.
[“Fuck tax cuts for the rich” is] not an argument; that's just contradiction.
Not one made out of sheer bloody-mindedness, but as an ideological compass. I’ve yet to find a problem “solved” by cutting taxes for the ruling class that couldn’t have been solved in a far more egalitarian, less whore-ish manner.
SCOTUS: Shouldn't we concentrate on Reagan's actual Justices?
Are you sure you want to me started on Scalia?
~Iran Air Flight 655: This was a tragedy, but clearly an accident.
If so, then the Soviets get a pass on Korean Airlines Flight 007, and that’s a pardon I’m willing to grant neither.
~The Mujahideen: It's hard to see how Reagan was supposed to predict that they'd go nuts…
Well, in my experience, it’s just generally a bad idea to supply murderous religious fanatics with encouragement, let alone funding, training, and arms.
~The War On Drugs: Personally, I'm in the "drugs are bad, the war on drugs is worse" camp.
As am I.
However, it's important to remember how drug-addled the country had become in the '70s. Everybody was doing cocaine including doctors and airline pilots.
Wow, speaking of hysterical anecdotal arguments… Though the use of specific drugs (and their social acceptibility) rises and falls in trends, there’s no good evidence to suggest that general drug use is any less rampant or destructive now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. I’m sure cocaine use was more widespread in the ‘70s, but what about heroin in the ‘80s? Ecstasy in the ‘90s? Cocaine today? The truth is that almost everyone has done drugs, but not everyone does drugs. I can’t see why it was different in the ‘70s.
~”We begin bombing in five minutes”: Oh, come on. Have a sense of humor.
Oh, I’ve got one. I just don’t think that’s funny. I’m more inclined to speak ill of the dead than imagine violence upon the living. Hence this whole post, right?
~The End of History: [Fukuyama’s] thesis is simply that democracy will be more and more prevalent in the long term.
Replace “democracy” with “capitalism” in the above sentence, and I agree. As America’s influence wanes, globe-girdling corporatism grows, and Russia & China prove capitalism can flourish free of any democratic element, I may find myself moving towards the “Drugs Are Bad, Reality Is Worse” camp. I certainly hope not, though.
And lest I be an ungrateful host: cheers for keeping the conversation going.
Sorry for the even longer silence. The work week interfered and I thought your response merited a full answer.
On Trotsky: Trotsky was complicit in mass executions after the Russian Revolution. He's a romantic figure only when contrasted with the obvious monstrousness of Stalin. The Red Revolution was drenched in blood from the very beginning. The Cheka slaughtered thousands of people between 1918 and 1920, many of them not for any actions, but for political beliefs or class membership.
On Reagan the War Criminal: I have some sympathy for your argument. I am unconvinced by your moral premise that the ends does not justify the means. I am not a thoroughgoing utilitarian who believes the end always justifies the means, but I think it's a debatable proposition. I have great sympathy with arguments against various United States actions during the Cold War. However, the people doing this criticizing never seem to offer a third alternative to what the U.S. actually did and capitulation. In many cases, the U.S. took the attitude, "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" as FDR supposedly said of Somoza. Certainly this was Reagan's attitude about Pinochet. In Guatemala, in particular, there just weren't any good guys in sight. I suppose this happens when you fight a 36 year civil war.
On HUAC: So if we adhere to an authority’s unjust, exploitive, discriminatory, or vindictive demands, we are blameless in our obedience?
Well, no, of course not. But what Reagan actually did wasn't so terrible. He was, to the best of my knowledge, merely telling the truth about people. As I've said before, almost nobody would question this if the U.S. government had been trying to eliminate Nazis. (In fact, the U.S. is often criticized because it did not, accepting ex-Nazis into their scientific programs, for example.) I am going to argue that the Communists were more dangerous post-1945 than the Nazis were and both ideologies are repellent.
On Berkeley: On that, we’re in total agreement. As for the excessive force, Reagan directly ordered CHP officers to break up the protest which became the “Bloody Thursday” shootings, and then called 2200 soldiers to occupy Berkeley to quell any further outrage. Obviously, he pulled no trigger, but his active involvement in the incident implies no small degree of responsibility. It could be that Reagan gave the officers an inch, and they took a mile, but Ronnie’s fingerprints are still all over the scene.
This may well be an accurate interpretation; I'm not sure we can actually say without more detailed knowledge.
On Deinstitutionalization: It was my understanding that the bill you are talking about wasn't funding old programs, but new ones. In any event, my father was a schizophrenic and he was institutionalized during the '80s when he became dangerous. They eventually let him out when they found a medication which made him less dangerous. In any event, once the ethic that we should not hold the mentally ill against their will, it's hard to see how the subsequent crazy people on the streets could be avoided.
On the Warren Commission: Well, I'm certainly a "Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone" guy. The evidence against Oswald is simply overwhelming. It's funny that you should phrase it the way you did, because I say something similar frequently. Whenever I say something that someone finds surprising, I always say, "But you shouldn't listen to me. After all, I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone."
On PATCO: While I agree with you on the dreadfulness of Taft-Hartley, I don't think that legislation made the air traffic controller's strike illegal. They were actually violating the no-strike clause in their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress made this punishable by fine and imprisonment and the Supreme Court upheld it in 1971. See here.
However, there were really two things that were the problem. 1) The union was overreaching. I am fundamentally sympathetic to their "less work, more pay" argument, given the stress of the job. But they would have done better to either argue for the 32 hour work week or the $10,000 a year raise, not both simultaneously. 2) Britain and other European countries had recently been crippled by public employee strikes and there was a fear that this could spread to the U.S.
On Reaganomics and "Tax Cuts for the Rich": Obviously, as a capitalist, I cannot abide by a blanket condemnation of tax cuts for the rich. It all depends on where the marginal rates are at. If they're at 100%, then clearly a tax cut is called for. If they're at 1%, then clearly it isn't.
Fair comment on the poverty rates. I'm not going to tell you that Reagan was particularly good at lifting people out of poverty, just that he helped the middle class. I will, however, point out that the rates did not return to 1979 levels until 2000, four years after welfare reform. It has long been my opinion that the problem with the Great Society programs was the number of people they trapped in poverty. Poverty rates were declining at an incredibly fast rate up until the Great Society programs. This is why I dislike rhetoric about "welfare queens." The problem with the welfare system isn't that it helped lazy people, but because it made it rational for people to be lazy and stop trying to improve their lives. Nothing wrong with a safety net, but there's something very wrong with a safety net which is yanked out from under you if you consider getting a job. Any rational welfare program should be designed so that it's always in a person's interest to make more money. Even after welfare reform, this still isn't true. I had an employee once who was a single mother on welfare and she constantly had to turn down hours so that she didn't have her health and education benefits yanked. This makes no sense and has the effect of trapping people in the system.
On Korean Air Lines 007: I'm not sure the two are directly comparable. The Vincennes was actually under fire before it shot down the Iranian plane and they thought it was a missile. The Soviets just thought it was an American spy plane. Unlike you, however, I might be willing to give the U.S.S.R. a pass on this incident. I don't think it's remotely the worst thing they did during the Cold War. Certainly, I believe it was a tragic mistake on their part and not an act of malice. Unlike the Iranian flight, they are more liable to an attack on the grounds of negligence and lack of due diligence.
On the Mujahideen: The U.S. actually did discriminate on the basis of religious fanaticism, giving more aid to the groups they thought were somewhat less fanatical. As near as I can tell, many of the mujahideen were not fanatics, which is why there was so much infighting after the U.S.S.R. was expelled, that fighting eventually won by the Taliban. It was always my belief that most of the aid went to the group including Massoud, famously assassinated by the Taliban/Al Qaeda on September 9th, 2001.
On the War on Drugs: Wow, speaking of hysterical anecdotal arguments… Though the use of specific drugs (and their social acceptibility) rises and falls in trends, there’s no good evidence to suggest that general drug use is any less rampant or destructive now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. I’m sure cocaine use was more widespread in the ‘70s, but what about heroin in the ‘80s? Ecstasy in the ‘90s? Cocaine today? The truth is that almost everyone has done drugs, but not everyone does drugs. I can’t see why it was different in the ‘70s.
Well, see here for some facts on the matter. Certainly, I was engaging in hyperbole so your hysterical comment is fair, but I don't believe it's fair to say that it's merely anecdotal. If you follow the age cohorts, it's completely consistent with illicit drug use peaking during the 1970s, specifically around 1978 or so. I do, by the way, freely grant that part of the reason for this is simply that the Baby Boomers started passing into maturity (the first wave turning about 35 in 1980) at that time. I'm not saying Reagan deserves sole credit for lowering drug use, lowering the divorce rate, and lowering the rate of violent crime, though all of those things turned around about 1980. (In fact, I'm not inclined to give him a lot of credit for any of these things, but I do think the bully pulpit helped a bit.) I am inclined to the view that demographics was a big part of the reason for these shifts, but there's certainly evidence that the shifts occurred.
On "The End of History": Fukuyama doesn't quite say that. He theorizes that radical socialism and democracy are probably incompatible for various reasons (I agree with him on this point). He therefore concludes that markets will become more dominant as democracy continues to grow, either capitalist or social democratic ones.
Welcome back!
On Leftism: I should also have mentioned that I reject the notion of murder in the name of any ideal, so you won’t see me waving portraits of Bakunin or Guevara. I know pacifism doesn’t carry much currency in the realm of Realpolitik, but as I said: ends don’t justify means.
On the Russian Revolution: Inarguably drenched in blood, but (with the exception of native Americans & slaves) the lot of the American colonists that led them to a similarly violent schism wasn’t quite as dire or hopeless as the early 20th century reality that faced the Russian peasantry. Just to be consistent.
On War Crimes & Fighting Communism: A third alternative - does inaction count? Put another way: what could have had a less negative effect – the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, various illegal coups, the Contras, and the mujahideen… or simply not having engaged in any of the above?
It’s the attempts to heat up the Cold War that I find repugnant. The arms race, grandstanding displays of cultural superiority, soft power – these things I’m not opposed to. I still think soft power is given short shrift as an agent of change. The Vietnam War very well could have been evaded if a simple question had been posed to the Viet Minh: what do want, lame musicals about the joys of threshing wheat, or rock ‘n’ roll?
As for the notion that “Communists were more dangerous post-1945 than the Nazis were,” it sounds like all the ludicrously utopian Soviet propaganda achieved its goal. The USSR was more boogie than man, in the same way (and for the same reason) China is today: the “behemoth” can’t even support its own bulk, thanks to corruption, a lack of resources, and shortsighted policies.
It also says a lot, to the horror of any moral human, that the American gov’t would (through, for example, Operation Paperclip) absorb and employ war criminals and Nazi psychopaths because at least their ideology was authoritarian, as opposed to totalitarian.
On HUAC: He was, to the best of my knowledge, merely telling the truth about people.
A matter of perspective. One person’s whistleblower is another’s rat.
On Deinstitutionalization: The Community Mental Health Systems Act, PL 96-398, was a reauthorization of funding, not an expansion thereof, nor a creation of new funding. It was a renewal of the federal community mental health center program.
On JFK, Oswald, etc.: Ha! Brilliant, at least we know exactly how where (and how far apart) we stand…
On PATCO strike: Not only were there precedents for federal gov’t unions (e.g. postal workers) striking without penalty or prosecution, but it was Taft-Hartley that Reagan invoked specifically to first threaten, then fire the union.
I agree that the union was overreaching, but I don’t think the fear of “crippling” public employees strikes (last I checked, both Britain & France seem to be doing okay) is a good excuse for anti-labour bullying. If anything, they can be useful catalysts for progress.
On the Mujahideen: “Somewhat less fanatical”… What an uncomfortable distinction to draw. I understand what you’re arguing, but we may be wrestling with different subjectivities. Much the way the American “Left” sits squarely in the “Middle/Moderate” bracket of many Western political spectrums, many self-describing religious “Moderates” are way off in La-La Land by my standards. To me, the difference between one who believes “god” fights by his literal side and another who believes in some inscrutible-yet-inarguable ontological blueprint is nominal, and handing a gun to either is a bad idea.
Beyond that, I can’t believe the tenacity with which the architects of American foreign policy cling to an axiom as banal, opportunist, and short-sighted as, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Yeah, great. Did that work with the early Nazi party? The Viet Minh? Saddam? And if the Soviets had their asses handed to them by a bunch of minimally-equipped desert nomads living in caves, why did we think we’d have better luck?
On the War On Drugs: I’d be more convinced about your thesis regarding the 1970s drug peak if (a) respondents in the poll didn’t have so much incentive to, y’know, lie, and (b) the statistics stretched back earlier than 1979. This isn’t only because it’d be useful to have prior use rates for comparison, but a great many substances now classified as illegal narcotics were not considered as such before the ‘70s. LSD, that synthetic fuse for the ‘60s cultural Big Bang, was criminalized in 1970. And prior to its inclusion in the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, speed was less a drug than a fact of life, its use widespread enough to make penecillin manufacturers envious. A 1946 medical report listed 39 different disorders for which Benzendrine was the recommended treatment, and all three main forms of amphetamine were available over-the-counter until ’51 for as little as $0.75 per thousand pills. (Which you could’ve bought without a special order: in the late ‘50s, manufacturers produced over 3.5 billion pills per year.) It was, literally, socially, and morally equivalent to that morning macchiatto on the way to work. Would all of that have been taken into the poll’s consideration?
And what of the ubiquity of modern psychiatric cure-alls? Does the poll put someone who dropped acid at a college party on the same footing as an IT drone dosed to the eyes with Paxil? How high would the modern teenage use rate rocket if Ritalin were included in the definition of controlled substance?
On the End Of History: I know that Fukuyama didn’t say that capitalism (though not necessarily democracy) would become prevalent in the long term - I’m saying that, particularly because a number of the ascendent economic powers are proving that, “free market” rhetoric aside, capitalism actually flourishes most fecundly free of democratic pretenses. So yes, markets will continue to grow, but democracy will not – provided everything turns out for the worst.
As for the incompatibility of socialism and democracy, I believe that is mostly a matter of scale. In the widest frame, democracy is preferable. The era of global ambitions is over, because the interconnectedness of environments & economies, no single system can account for & tolerate the diversity of circumstance on the planet. That being said, collectively-minded compromises are necessary, not only to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but also to break the stalemates that sheer bloodymindedness can produce.
Who's complaining about the February Revolution? Certainly not me. It's the October Revolution I have a problem with. The slaughter of the Romanovs after Nicholas II had abdicated months ago was just the tip of the iceberg. The real slaughter occurred after Lenin was firmly in power.
While it is fashionable today to claim that the U.S.S.R. was doomed to be crushed by its own weight and, indeed, that does seem clear in retrospect, it was by no means clear from 1946 until about 1987. In the '70s, great economists like Paul Samuelson were telling us that state control was just more efficient and the Soviet Union was going to crush us. Most people believed this. Oddly, Ronald Reagan is one of the few who didn't.
Operation Paperclip, of course, had no ideological cast at all; they would have done the same thing had it been a Communist country. Most of the German scientists weren't particularly active Nazis any more than most Soviet scientists were ardent Communists.
I can't confirm or deny your take on the mental health act you're referring to; I'll assume you're correct. The larger point, that the deinstitutionalization movement made crazy people on the streets inevitable, still stands and I see no real groundswell in any part of the political spectrum for a "let's lock up the homeless in institutions" policy.
Taft-Hartley wasn't what made the strike illegal. Reagan invoked it because it gives presidents the power to call for a temporary cessation of a strike or lockout if the strike or lockout threatened to affect the national economy. He invoked this provision (which is by no means the worst of Taft-Hartley provisions - there are far worse ones) and fired them when they refused to return. Again, I'm not really arguing with you here since I think Reagan should have handled it differently. He was clearly playing politics. It should be pointed out that PATCO was the only union which supported Reagan in 1980. Reagan can be called ungrateful or disloyal, but it's hard to accuse him of being corrupt. Britain is doing fine now, thanks to Thatcher (who also went further than I approve of), but France is still struggling with huge labor issues.
On the mujahideen, you make some excellent points, most of which I agree with. Broadly, what I disagree with is that the U.S. had much of a role in either the Taliban or Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. It's popular to talk about the fact that we once supported the side they happened to be fighting on, but there's no real evidence that anybody the U.S. is currently having a problem with received any substantial help from the U.S. Certainly, Saddam is a horse of a different color. There's no question we gave him a ton of support.
I too would like to see statistics before 1979, but there's only so long we've been conducting these polls. It's not surprising it doesn't go back any further. As for lying, I don't see how this is much of an issue. It's not clear to me that people have more incentive to lie now than in 1979 or vice versa. You make interesting points about legal drugs including psychoactive drugs prescribed for psychological disorders. I am, of course, for legalizing all of them. However, my concerns about drugs is what type of person they make you. So I'm unconcerned about tobacco, which might kill you, but otherwise leaves you the way it found you, and much more concerned with alcohol, marijuana, LSD, cocaine, and the like, which have a strong tendency to turn its users into worthless losers. However, this is certainly made worse by the disastrous War on Drugs.
Sorry I misunderstood you about Fukuyama. I'm not sure I agree with you any more than Fukuyama. I am actually pro-capitalist but lukewarm about democracy. Don't get me wrong; I much prefer democracy to any alternative I've seen, but it's quite clear that democracies are not immune to becoming tyrannies (e.g. the American South between 1776 and some time in the 1950s).
Post a Comment