A while back, I heard someone on FOX say one of the most remarkably unintelligent things ever (even for FOX): that Ronald Reagan had 'won the Cold War'. Not that he happened to be around when the USSR started crumbling, but that HE had won the Cold War.
Now, most of us that were around at the time and had at least a half functioning brain (and weren't doing the Gordon Gecko thing) realize how ludicrous that statement is. Note only did Reagan NOT end the Cold War, there were a good number of times when it looked like he was going to turn the Cold War into a Hot War (as is 1 million degrees F nuclear Hot War).
At first, I laughed it off as another right wing fantasy. But, like those wacky emails you get that tell of the little girl with cancer who's dying wish is to get the worlds record collection of business cards, this story kept coming back. I wondered how people could honestly have lived on the same planet and even begin to take such tripe seriously.
So, I did some digging, and came up with the following article, posted on a debate forum (listed below).
As you'll see, I believe this is an EXCELLENT example of the 'GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Ommissions/Perversions of Truth'. Before we get into it, I just have to say this:
Some of the GOP liars are clumsy, oafish, and almost comical. But a disturbing minority are extremely intelligent liars. They know exactly how to lay a bed of credibility and turn ONE crucial fact to make their argument. Sometimes it is difficult to spot that corrupted fact, so their lie seems extremely credible. Kudos to the respondant on this site who spotted the critical embedded lie.
The author makes a credible argument that Reagan forced the USSR into reforms through his tough stances. However, there is a critical part of the story that is an outright falsehood, as pointed out by our austute poster:
The following statement, which is at the crux of D'Souza's argument, is absolutely 100% wrong.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These reactions are important because they establish the context for Mikhail Gorbachev's ascent to power in early 1985. Gorbachev was indeed a new breed of Soviet general secretary, but few have asked why he was appointed by the Old Guard. The main reason was that the Politburo had come to recognize the failure of past Soviet strategies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gorbachev was not appointed because the politburo admitted failure and wanted to change, he was appointed because he was next in line.
Let's look at the facts.
Gorbachev was a protege of Andropov, and when Andropov died, it was Gorbachev who was expected to take over. But Gorbachev was passed over for the position specifically because he was too much of a reformer, and Chernenko became the leader of the USSR instead. Chernenko was a hardliner who would ruthlessly fight the cold war, and in 1984 (towards the end of Reagan's 1st term), the politburo wanted to continue to stand up to the west.
However, as a political concession, Gorbachev was made 2nd in line to Chernenko and given additional power. Thus when Chernenko unexpectedly died a year later, they had no choice but to put Gorbachev in charge. It was pure politics.
During Reagan's first term in office, his policies had no effect in ending the Cold War because the hardline communists in charge (Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko) were intent on keeping up with the west and maintaining the cold war.
It was only when Gorbachev gained the leadership role that changes started to take place. Gorbachev recognized the need to reform the Soviet system and save socialism from itself. In fact, he had believed this and had enacted these reforms going back many years. Yes, even before Reagan was in office.
D'Souza points out Reagan's hardline on SDI and other issues in 1986 and 1987, and claims that these made Gorbachev change his mind. But this ignores the fact that Gorbachev was making reforms almost immediately upon taking office in January 1985. These are the same reforms he had been making back in the 1970s when Gorbachev was a top bureaucrat. Thus, it was Gorbachev, and not Reagan, who pulled the trigger for ending the cold war.
As a final note, ask yourself this. If one of the hardline communists, Brezhnev, Andropov, or Chernenko, had continued to rule the USSR during the remainder of Reagan's term, would the cold war have ended in 1991?
See how clever they are? He turned one portion of the story, needed to make his entire case, into a lie, thus 'justifying' the entire lying argument. By stating that Reagan had somehow forced the selection of Gorbachev after Chernenko died, it makes it seem as if Reagan deserved the credit. Fortunately, the Nobel Prize people say history as it really was, and not some rightwing fantasy version of it.
Most of these rightwing liars are not as clever, but they are all little parrots, and will repeat the lies concocted by the clever minority. Since most don't think for themselves, it's easy to spot the mimics, because they can't back their argument up with logic. It sometimes takes a bit of digging to get to the original lie, and expose it. But, such work is necessary in these days where the right wing has turned lying into a (profitable, of course) art form.
ronaldreagan.com |
