Sunday, June 06, 2004
More Thoughts on Reagan and the Future
A few readers of Mr. Drezner's site sounded off on Mr. Reagan, and I think that the following few takes are very interesting:
One is an interesting interpretation of Reagan's economic policies:
Another is an anecdote on some of the despicable behavior and thoughts that political partisans can be known for, as well as the way in which Reagan was right and many of the academic elites were wrong about the Soviet Union:
A third is on how Reagan was seen at the time to be dangerously destabilizing the Cold War balance, but in fact he was nudging the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion:
I also find the conclusion to be quite interesting. Those that fundamentally change the system are often misunderstood at the time. Such seems to be the case with Reagan--his policies at the time were thought to be radical and dangerous, but now they are viewed as being quite good and generally sound and wise.
Perhaps the same will be the case for President George W. Bush and the moral initiatives against terror and despotism that he has launched; the rhetoric of good and evil that both Governor Reagan and President Bush have used are quite similar.
I think casting the battle against terrorists and dictatorships in a fundamentally moral light, as good versus evil and the righteous versus the cowardly, is the right way to go about things. Just as WWII was the battle between right and wrong, so too is a similar battle being waged today. Hopefully soon people may be mobilized as they were during WWII to see the significance of the current struggles.
That is the great task that President Bush must engage and succeed in.
One is an interesting interpretation of Reagan's economic policies:
Reagan's biggest achievement historically, IMO, is the dramatic liberalization of economic policy. Thatcher and Reagan shifted the West's economic viewpoint from Freidman to Hayek... in the US this seemed a bit odd at the time, but to the UK it was salvation from economic meltdown. There is a convincing argument that the US was rapidly approaching a similar meltdown, and Reagan's economic policy shift saved us from it.
IMO, his economic policies went too far, but in the right direction. That is not uncommon for such as fundamental shift.
Yes there is much more that can be said, good and bad (and some like Iran-Contra is terrible and probably should have gotten him impeached). But in a world that is beginning to understand economics enough to see its importance, I think history will have to recognize Reagan's role in creating the new economic liberalization that is so central to the age.
Another is an anecdote on some of the despicable behavior and thoughts that political partisans can be known for, as well as the way in which Reagan was right and many of the academic elites were wrong about the Soviet Union:
Reagan's biggest achievement historically, IMO, is the dramatic liberalization of economic policy. Thatcher and Reagan shifted the West's economic viewpoint from Freidman to Hayek... in the US this seemed a bit odd at the time, but to the UK it was salvation from economic meltdown. There is a convincing argument that the US was rapidly approaching a similar meltdown, and Reagan's economic policy shift saved us from it.
IMO, his economic policies went too far, but in the right direction. That is not uncommon for such as fundamental shift.
Yes there is much more that can be said, good and bad (and some like Iran-Contra is terrible and probably should have gotten him impeached). But in a world that is beginning to understand ecomonics enough to see its importance, I think history will have to recognize Reagan's role in creating the new economic liberalization that is so central to the age.
A third is on how Reagan was seen at the time to be dangerously destabilizing the Cold War balance, but in fact he was nudging the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion:
I wonder how many people still remembered the terror of the Cold War, the fear of nuclear war.
I recall there were quite a lot of people in the 1980s, who claimed Reagan was "rocking the boat" of the balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union -- who claimed, in essence, that Reagan would "provoke" World War III.
In hindsight, they were wrong. He started a process of real nuclear disarmament (Reykjavik, remember?). Funny, how hindsight makes all the things that were being said in the past seem loopy, treacherous or plain wrongheaded.
It makes me wonder about all that's been said in the past 10 years (1994-2004), and how much of it will appear loopy, treacherous or plain wrongheaded in 2014...
Note to self: When a President is called a "cowboy", it may later turn out to be a compliment.
I also find the conclusion to be quite interesting. Those that fundamentally change the system are often misunderstood at the time. Such seems to be the case with Reagan--his policies at the time were thought to be radical and dangerous, but now they are viewed as being quite good and generally sound and wise.
Perhaps the same will be the case for President George W. Bush and the moral initiatives against terror and despotism that he has launched; the rhetoric of good and evil that both Governor Reagan and President Bush have used are quite similar.
I think casting the battle against terrorists and dictatorships in a fundamentally moral light, as good versus evil and the righteous versus the cowardly, is the right way to go about things. Just as WWII was the battle between right and wrong, so too is a similar battle being waged today. Hopefully soon people may be mobilized as they were during WWII to see the significance of the current struggles.
That is the great task that President Bush must engage and succeed in.
Comments:
Post a Comment
