jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Reagan’s Priorities and the Establishment’s Agenda

When Reagan won the Republican p**********l nomination, he was told that although he had defeated the Establishment in the primaries, the v**ers would not be able to come to his defense in Washington. He must not make Goldwater’s mistake and shun the Republican Establishment, but pick its p**********l candidate for his vice president. Otherwise, the Republican Establishment would work to defeat him in the p**********l e******n just as Rockefeller had undermined Goldwater.

As a former movie star, Nancy Reagan put great store on personal appearance. Reagan’s California crew was a motley one. Lynn Nofziger, for example, sported a beard and a loosely knotted tie if a tie at all. He moved around his office in sock feet without shoes. When Nancy saw Bush’s man, Jim Baker, she concluded that the properly attired Baker was the person that she wanted standing next to her husband when photos were made. Consequently, Reagan’s first term had Bush’s most capable operative as Chief of Staff of the White House.

To get Reagan’s program implemented with the Republican Establishment occupying the chief of staff position was a hard fight. I don’t mean that Jim Baker was malevolent and wished to damage Reagan. For a member of the Republican Establishment, Jim Baker was very intelligent, and he is a hard person to dislike.

The problem with Baker was two-fold. He was not part of the Reagan team and did not understand what we were about or why Reagan was elected. Americans wanted the stagflation that had destroyed Jimmy Carter’s presidency ended, and they were tired of the ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union and its ever present threat of nuclear armageddon.

It is not that Baker (or VP Bush) were personally opposed to these goals. The problem was, and still is, that the Establishment, whether Republican or Democratic, is responsive not to solving issues but to accommodating the special interest groups that comprise the Establishment. For the Establishment, preserving power is the primary issue.

The Republican Establishment and the Federal Reserve did not understand Reagan’s Supply-Side economic policy. In the entire post World War II period, reductions in tax rates were associated with the Keynesian demand management macroeconomic policy of increasing aggregate demand. The Reagan administration had inherited high inflation, and economists, Wall Street, and the Republican Establishment misunderstood Reagan’s Supply-side policy as a stimulus to consumer demand that would cause inflation, already high, to explode.

On top of this, conservatives in Congress were disturbed that Reagan’s policy would worsen the deficit–in their opinion the worst evil of all.

Reagan’s supply-side economic policy was designed not to increase aggregate demand, but to increase aggregate supply. Instead of prices rising, output and employment would rise. This was a radically new way of using fiscal policy, but instead of helping people to understand the new policy, the media ridiculed and mischaracterized the policy as “voodoo economics,” “trickle-down economics,” and “tax cuts for the rich.” These mischaracterizations are still with us three decades later.

Nevertheless, the supply-side policy was partially implemented. It was enough to end stagflation and provided the basis for Clinton’s economic success.

Ending the Cold War and Bad CIA Advice

President Reagan’s goal of ending the Cold War was also upsetting to both conservatives and the Establishment. Conservatives warned that wily Soviets would deceive Reagan and gain from the negotiations. The Establishment regarded Reagan’s goal of ending the cold war as a threat to the military/security complex comparable to Nixon’s opening to China and arms limitations treaties with the Soviet Union. President John F. Kennedy had threatened the same powerful interests when he realized from the Cuban Missile Crisis that the US must put an end to the risk of nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.

With the success of his economic policy in putting the US economy back on its feet, Reagan intended to force a negotiated end to the Cold War by threatening the Soviets with an arms race that their suffering economy could not endure. However, the CIA advised Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, he would lose it, because the Soviet economy, being centrally planned, was in the hands of Soviet leaders, who, unlike Reagan, could allocate as much of the economy as necessary to win the arms race.

Reagan did not believe the CIA. He created a secret p**********l committee with authority to investigate the CIA’s evidence for its claim, and he appointed me to the committee. The committee concluded that the CIA was wrong.

Reagan always told us that his purpose was to end, not win, the Cold War. He said that the only victory he wanted was to remove the threat of nuclear annihilation. He made it clear that he did not want a Soviet scalp. Like Nixon, to keep conservatives on board, he used their rhetoric.

Curing stagflation and ending the Cold War were the main interests of President Reagan. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not think he paid much attention to anything else.

Grenada and the Contras in Nicaragua were explained to Reagan by the military/security complex as necessary interventions to make the Soviets aware that there would be no further Soviet advances and, thus, help to bring the Soviets to the negotiating table to end the nuclear threat. Unlike the George W. Bush and Obama regimes, the Reagan administration had no goal of a universal American Empire exercising hegemony over the world. Granada and Nicaragua were not part of an empire-building policy. Reagan understood them as a message to the Soviets that “you are not going any further, so lets negotiate.” Some conservatives regarded the revolutionary movements in Grenada and Nicaragua as c*******t subversion, but the general concern was that they would ally with the Soviet Union, thus creating more Cuba-like situations. Even President Carter opposed the rise of a left-wing government in Nicaragua.

America Playing the Foreign Policy Game

Today the Western governments support and participate in Washington’s invasions, but not then. The invasion of Grenada was criticized by both the British and Canadian governments. The US had to use its UN Security Council veto to save itself from being condemned for “a f**grant violation of international law.”

The Sandinistas in Nicaragua were reformers opposed to the corruption of the Somoza regime that catered to Washington’s interests. The Sandinistas aroused the same opposition from Washington as every reformist government in Latin America always has. Washington has traditionally regarded Latin American reformers as Marxist revolutionary movements and has consistently o*******wn reformist governments in behalf of the United Fruit Company and other private interests that have large holdings in countries ruled by unrepresentative governments.

Washington’s policy was, and still is, short-sighted and hypocritical. The United States should have allied with representative governments, not against them. However, no American president, no matter how wise and well-intentioned, would have been a match for the combination of the interests of politically-connected US corporations and the fear of more Cubas. Remember Marine General Smedley Butler’s confession that he and his US Marines served to make Latin America safe for the United Fruit Company and “some lousy investment of the bankers.” http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm

P**********l Crimes: Then And Now

Paul Craig Roberts

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

Good article.

kush

Aside from the murder of thousands in Nicaragua, Reagan doubled our national debt, and,quoting Reagan,"...turned the bull loose on Wall Street."
Under Reagan, we began to lose our manufacturing base and jobs, as more emphasis was put on banking profit. As far as the USSR, it fell because of decades of issues;Reagan had nothing to do with the final teeter/topple.

I do not understand how ANY rational conservative can view Reagan as a good president. (Nor can I understand how liberals can idolize Clinton given NAFTA, the poorly negotiated China entry into the WTO, and the repeal of Glass-Stegal; These 3 blunders are STILL costing America jobs and security.)

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

I always wondered about George the First and Clinton. They both seemed to act contrary to their Party's principles. George the First with his "Thousand Points of Light" and increasing taxes. And Clinton with NAFTA a Conservative idea initially. How do you guys reconcile these preceived anomalies, in their Presidency?

VladimirPee

Bush 41 was forced to raise taxes much like Obama and Pelosi extended the Bush Tax Cuts .

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

I never like President Reagan. I have a cousin that was in a policy making position with his administration. I never agreed with his policies. To this day, I think he was a bit demented ( in the clinical sense ). I do admit that he made us proud to be Americans again after the Viet Nam War.

VladimirPee

Which policies did you dislike? I wish Obama were as " demented"

JMHO Loc: Utah

Typical left-wing distorted bullcrap. Ronald Reagan was the best President of the United States in my life time and possibly the best President in the past one hundred years. Reagan accomplished two great deeds as president--restoring America's economic health and winning the Cold War. I was serving in the Navy when he came into office, after the totally disastrous years of the Carter Administration. When he first came into office, under the Carter disaster, the cruiser I served on couldn't even get underway at times due to fuel shortages. The military was demoralized due to cuts and the devastating aborted hostage rescue attempt...it was not a good time to be in the military. The Navy was down to it's lowest number of ships since before WWII. Reagan rebuilt the Navy, and the military in general. Did he run up the national debt, yes he did, but it was not totally his fault, Tip O'Neal, Democrat Speaker of the House deserves some credit too. Reagan and Tip O'Neal came to an agreement, O'Neal would still pursue his entitlement agenda, and Reagan could rebuild the military and pursue his economic agenda...which turned the economy around, and ended the Cold War.

Reagan also led the GOP to two stunning national e******n victories, the first of which brought in a Republican Senate for the first time in 26 years. He succeeded in handing over the White House to his vice president, giving the Republicans three consecutive terms in control of the executive branch for the first time since the 1920s. And it was the return of the GOP in 1994 to a Reaganite agenda--a return engineered by Newt Gingrich--that produced the victory that finally ended six decades of the Democrats as the majority party in the United States. Reagan was the most consequential president since Franklin Roosevelt, the most successful Republican leader since Theodore Roosevelt, and the first true conservative to reach the apex of American politics since Coolidge. Reagan won the Cold War almost without firing a shot; he laid the groundwork for the GOP to escape half a century of minority status; and he decisively vindicated the claims of conservatism. Feared by the C*******ts, patronized by the Democrats, loathed by the Left, Reagan vanquished them all.

I still quote his famous quotation: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free."

VladimirPee

Wow such ignorant nonsense. There was no evidence the USSR was about to collapse before Reagan. Carter was even toying with unilateral disarmament.

US began to lose its manufacturing in the 80s and not before? Are you kidding? By 1969 VW had taken 9% of our Auto Business. By the Mid 70s Toyota had started its growth in the USA . The Sony Walkman was introduced in the USA just before Reagan. By the time Reagan took office we had little to no electronics business left and most of our textiles came from overseas. PUMA and Adidas has taken our sneaker industry in the 70s.

I can post for hours on how much manufacturing we lost before Reagan.

JMHO Loc: Utah

The l*****ts love to distort Reagan's record. And, look what they produced; Carter, second worst president and Administration in history; Clinton, a pathological liar and sexual pervert; Obama, the worst President in U.S. history...period.

VladimirPee

They delude themselves with propaganda instead of seeking the t***h

JMHO Loc: Utah

Hey Bruce! Told ya Roberts would be re-elected in Kansas!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

A very sane and accurate comment, on both presidents. Reagan was a good actor in the right place at the right time as far as the break up of the USSR is concerned. But people like great oratory, not matter what the substance is. Sad but true.

And Glass-Stegal. Take away that repeal and we are still doing very well economically.

JMHO Loc: Utah

More left-wing distortions and just plain bulls**t! You either didn't live through those years, or you slept through them.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Its guys like you JMHO who will continue to drive this country down. Literally. Guys like you are good foe one thing.