Comments

   

Comment from geoff
Time November 11, 2009 at 11:18 pm

Mikey: on October 30th, 2009 you tried to make a hero of GĂĽnter Schabowski. He was shown on the news the other night, a typical bureaucrat, asked during a live press conference, when the new travel laws would go into effect. Not knowing what to say, he answered that, as far as he could tell (because nobody had bothered to tell him), they could go into effect “immediately.”
Your father’s speech of 2 years earlier had never been taken seriously in Europe. There were more important people at work: Lech Walesa, for example (he wasn’t on your list of VIPs either, somehow, but had a big part to play in Berlin yesterday: he got to push the dominoes!).
So 2 hours later people started heading to the crossing points. And the guards, not knowing what else to do, let them through.
So the real heroes were the border guards, and the people who had been protesting in places like Leipzig and Dresden were the ones making “courageous stands,”, not your “select few leaders of that era.”
“Men and women like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher” were doing what they always do: taking credit for things that they didn’t do anything about. Good that even Helmut Kohl had only a muted presence at the ceremonies.
And yes, many former East Germans are still nostalgic for the days when, although they weren’t free to travel to the West, they could afford to travel to Bulgaria or Hungary. Now they are free to travel, but can’t afford to. So it’s not just the schoolkids, it’s the people whose hopes were dashed.
“American students test worse in history than they do in any other subject.” Not a surprise. If Americans knew more history, they’d be less likely to get conned by the same old lies every time.

Comment from Carl
Time November 12, 2009 at 1:24 am

Geoff:
Isn’t it ironic? Cold events that have only one exact sequence can be seen in so many different ways. We all have to guess as to history. As a high school student, I thought that history books were dull, dead things that reported dull dead facts. Only as I’ve grown up I’ve learned that people don’t write history books out of the goodness of their hearts. I imagine that most historians try to write an accurate history, but I think accurate comes in many colors. So we all have to choose what we want to see. You and Michael Reagan can see the same event but you can both come to a different conclusion. It’s nobody’s fault, it’s just that we all have different lives.

Comment from geoff
Time November 12, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Carl: yeah. That’s the wonder of interpretation. Mike obviously has some vested interest in all of this (” trying to ride on his father’s coattails” has been suggested more than once). But there is also a deeper divide in ways of viewing history: the “Great Men” approach associated with von Ranke or the “social” approach of Niebuhr, who looked at things like folklore, grafitti, popular ballads, etc., to see what everyday life was like. If you read people like Ranke, it’s almost like Napoleon and Wellington were alone there at Waterloo, whereas Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” (although fiction) is definitely in the Niebuhr camp, with the added touch that the battle is being shown as something that Napoleon really can’t control: he sets the thing in motion, but after that it has a life of its own.

Comment from Cody
Time November 13, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Does this actually suprise anyone, not to sound like a crazy but mccarthy was right communists infilitrated western governments at every level, created the peace movement of the 60s(to destroy america’s ability to conduct war) and everything else so now the generation that was inlfuenced by those moveements is in power hence the trend toward socialism everywhere

Comment from geoff
Time November 15, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Cody: actually saw a headline something somewhere the other about how right-wing/nationalist politics are on the rise again in much of Europe as a reaction against the EU. In the US, of course, extremist right-wing seem to be getting louder, so it’s a little difficult to guage their real numbers, but you have to remember that in most of Europe there was no need for “infiltration”: socialists & even communists have been and continue to be elected, openly. The German “communist” party just saw big gains in the last Federal elections.
The trouble for “conservatives” generally is the continued association with Nazis, fascism and, in some parts of Europe, monarchists. Whereas a lot of people from the former East Germany, for example, are still nostalgic for certain aspects of life behind the wall. They weren’t free to go west, for example, but then again: the collapse of communism has pretty much been a disaster for a whole lot of people. Look at the way life expectancy has been dropping and crime and corruption climbing in Russia.
So no: McCarthy wasn’t right. As even Charles Dickens wrote a long time ago, there are serious problems with capitalism that seem to have been accentuated in the past 20 years by such headliners as Enron, AIG, Halliburton, Exxon, etc.

Comment from fencerider rob
Time November 16, 2009 at 10:14 pm

The failure of central planning is what brought the wall down. Reagan just happened to be in the right place when the event actually took place. US citizens need to see this as it actually is, not be told that Reagan was instrumental. State (whether persons or country) worship and central planning are the forces leading America down the hole it’s in.

Comment from geoff
Time November 16, 2009 at 10:21 pm

fencerider rob: Reagan wasn’t there, he’d made his speech 2 years before. Check my post from Nov. 11 (top).

Comment from fencerider rob
Time November 16, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Obviously I didn’t mean physically there, right place right time as the current POTUS. The key point was that it was the FAILURE OF CENTRAL PLANNING which brought the end to the USSR, regardless who was POTUS at the time.

Comment from geoff
Time November 16, 2009 at 10:39 pm

fencerider rob: OK, point taken.
In an abstract way, I guess I’d agree with your take on central planning, but in a way that was also the USSR’s strength: it enabled the Russians to move from the famines of the 1930s into a modern power by the end of the Second World War, go nuclear and then win the space race. Just after that it wasn’t able to settle into peace, I guess.

Comment from fencerider rob
Time November 16, 2009 at 11:21 pm

There was a great cost to their propulsion into a superpower, 50 million dead citizens would disagree with the value of central planning.

Comment from Chris
Time November 17, 2009 at 3:28 pm

I’ve known a lot of people who work for Nintendo and they told me how upper management goes around and always ask “is it as good as Mario”

I mention this non-sequitur because it reminds me a lot of the modern conservatives. “Is he as good as Reagan?”

I know why Mike Reagan gives a rip. Who doesn’t want beloved family members to be revered for their best qualities?
However I also think he’s an ass to go to another country and whine about how his Daddy’s likeness isn’t on every corner and the boulevards are not lined with golden statues in his likeness. Maybe Berliners think that they, and not Mike’s dad were the ones that took down the wall. Maybe, unlike conservatives believe in this country, they didn’t see the didn’t see the wall crumble because Reagan willed it so.

President Reagan did a good thing by supporting the people of Berlin and prodding the Soviets to end the oppression of Eastern Europe. He didn’t do it alone, and I hate that all the millions of people who strived towards this freedom are constantly minimized by conservative spin doctors.

I just don’t understand why the bulk of modern conservatism is bent on making him greater than he was. Can’t you let the man’s deeds and words speak for themselves? After all, look at the last 5 Republican presidents and he’s the only one to achieve any kind of lasting greatness.
Stop spinning the past and instead point to the real facts. By 1980 the economy was in the gutter, taxes were out of control, and no one took Jimmy Carter serious on the world stage. Ronald Reagan made a lot of mistakes and was a very flawed man; but he left office with the country better than when he took it, which IS the ultimate litmus test.

Comment from geoff
Time November 17, 2009 at 4:33 pm

fencerider rob: “50 million dead citizens would disagree with the value of central planning.” Are you including victims of Germany’s invasion? the Civil War (when soldiers from a whole lot of countries, including the US, Canada, the UK, Japan) helped the “whites”?
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._Civil_War
Because I think 50 million is a bit much to attribute just to “central planning.”
Even the Gulag system, “The estimated total number of those who died in imprisonment in 1930-1953 is 1.76 million, about half of which occurred between 1941-1943 following the German invasion” doesn’t seem to have run up numbers to equal the Holocaust:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag.
And I’m also trying to see how, in some ways, the Czarist system wasn’t also a form of “central planning.” Feudalism only ended in the 1860s when the serfs were finally freed, Russia wasn’t able to field modern armies in the First World War and lost big time against the Japanese in 1905, so holding out against and eventually defeating the Germans is no small achievement. From the Middle Ages to outer space in around 100 years…

Comment from Cal
Time November 17, 2009 at 8:26 pm

In yet another oversimplification of a very complex issue, Fencerider tells us, “The failure of central planning is what brought the wall down. Reagan just happened to be in the right place when the event actually took place. US citizens need to see this as it actually is, not be told that Reagan was instrumental.”

This is akin to saying the Civil War was fought over slavery or WWII was about the holocaust or FDR saved the country—simplistic. Reagan, without question, played an instrumental role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union. His willingness to spend to force them to try and compete, coupled with a command economy, along with a lazy, incompetent workforce, and Gorbachev’s attempts at glasnost and perestroika, all contributed to the collapse. Had Jimmy Carter been president, we’d have had a Soviet Union for many more years and could possibly still have it around today. Reagan delivered the knockout blow to a weak and reeling economy. But make no mistake, without a Reagan the results would have been VERY different.

Conservatives don’t try to make Reagan “greater than he was.” But we intend to ensure the Left can’t continue to demonize him the way they have since the day he took office. That’s the whole “gig” behind Fox News. They don’t cheer for Republicans (outside of Beck and Hannity) but they at least provide the other side. And that is something you can not find on any “mainstream” news channel. Sure Reagan was human. Sure he made mistakes. So was/did Washington and Lincoln. Since we’re all human, that seems to be somewhat of a blinding flash of the obvious. However, Reagan was the last real _leader_ this country had since JFK. Most of our presidents are managers. Some better than others. Carter was an absolute disaster. Nixon was a crook. LBJ was an a$$hole in terms of how he treated people and also brought us the next “Raw Deal” that has ruined the nuclear family in the African-American community and brought us to where we are in terms of the national debt. Well, he and FDR. Yep, Reagan spent a ton of money, too. Whether the results were “worth it” is debatable. But to say he did “nothing” positive is ludicrous. As with all issue, I guess where you stand depends on where you sit!

Comment from geoff
Time November 17, 2009 at 8:45 pm

Cal: take a look at Zbigniew Brzezinski’s role in Afghanistan and the role he had in bringing the Soviets down, before you let your Reaganic mania run too wild. And what did Reagan have to do with Solidarnosc, among other things?
You might also explain what Carter could have done about OPEC and consider the situation worldwide before judging too harshly (not as though you’re exactly without sin yourself, is it?).

Write a comment


                               





You need to enable javascript in order to use Simple CAPTCHA.