Doug,
You can't have it both ways. If RR was a critical "spearhead" in dismantling communism, was he not then also a similar "spearhead" in presiding over, if not actively instigating or at the very least, outright encouraging, the huge increase in the national debt? The significance of the "spearhead" may be the subject of some controversy, but simple mathematics are not: spearhead = spearhead.
History has made it clear that the Soviet empire would have imploded even if Reagan had done nothing. Arguably, he may have had some "spearhead" role in hastening the process. To me, this was but the role of the figurehead, a sort of rubber stamp to events which no one could have stopped, though the Soviets tried desperately.
But the supreme irony is that huge amounts of tax dollars were wasted, and far larger amounts borrowed, to finance the building of a failed (e.g., Star Wars) military machine which was never needed in the first place. And for this, RR gets the credit for the dismantlement? He would have deserved far more credit in my eyes had he shrewdly recognized that the fall was inevitable, and in contrarian fashion, cut military costs and labored to diminish the national debt. But, even if he had been shrewd enough to realize this (and I hesitate to use the words "shrewd" and "Ronald Reagan" in the same sentence) and acted accordingly, he would hardly have won any praise from those who put him into office in the first place, and very likely would not have lasted in office.
<< By proceeding the way we did the machine did not have to be used >>
Not only did it not have to be used, it did not have to be built.
<< there was a longer term benefit to acting in the manner he did. IOW, we can dismantle the machine. >>
Yes. And here I'll use the words shrewd and Ronald Reagan in the same sentence. A tour de force, if ever I saw one, though not in the way many perceive: Just who, exactly, was the economic beneficiary of this pointless mantling/dismantling cycle? Both processes cost huge amounts of money. Who was this paid to? The American taxpayer? Hardly. And yet, the American taxpayer, and their progeny for generations, think they have been done a great favor by a great leader. That's like stealing somebody's shoes, selling them back to them, and the victim is so grateful to be able to pay you money for the pair of shoes, that he gives you even more money, and then walks away thinking what a great man you are. Not many can pull that one off. But RR did. Yes indeed, shrewd doesn't seem a strong enough word for that kind of talent. World class leader, to be sure............
<< look at the social programs which will continue forever. >>
IMHO, there are only two things a government can invest in which carry the potential for enormous returns for all: people, and infrastructure, firmly in that order. Graft, corruption, and waste are frequently---perhaps invariably---a part of this process, to be sure, human nature being what it is. But the basic principle and the good which comes of it is eminently valid nonetheless, and will never be invalidated by any amount of corruption or waste which may be propagated by the misguided.
<<It is the relative lack of military tension in South America, Asia, and around the world that investors have been willing to invest in those parts of the world. >>
True enough, though I wouldn't underestimate the importance of greed (and with it, the tendency to systematically dominate and exploit) as well. But while this investment may be good---though common citizens of the countries you refer to may vehemently argue---so far, this has contributed a relatively minor amount to the prosperity we----and to a far lesser extent, they----have enjoyed.
<<It is always pleasant to end a disscusson on a note of agreement >>
Yes. Pleasant to have a discussion in the first place, as well........But, now that we've agreed about the acting president, on to far more important issues: A cole slaw and bean burrito is the birthright of ALL Americans !! C'mon, knock some sense into Tricon management, will ya'?
<vbg>
T |
