Gypping the Gipper

Demosthenes brings up the subject of President Reagan and the Cold War.

I'm no fan of Reagan's, the original "family values" crusader whose own family was a train wreck, and the original "tax cuts are the solution to everything" President. Like Demosthenes, I've grown rather weary of the persistent habit of the American political Right to attribute any positive development in American life after January 20, 1981 to Reagan (which parallels their same habit of attributing any negative development since January 20, 1993 to Bill Clinton). And, like Demosthenes, I'm tired of the simplistic myth that has Reagan winning the Cold War single-handedly, by ratcheting up the rhetoric and the weapons-building, after the preceding seven Administrations had bumbled their way through four decades of appeasement, containment, détente, and other lackluster policies. Demosthenes is correct in noting that Gorbachev's rise to power was a far bigger factor in bringing about an end to the Cold War than is typically admitted, and may actually be a more important factor than anything Reagan did.

But I don't totally dismiss Reagan, though. For all the guy's inane "Evil Empire" blatherings when he took office, Reagan at least was able to recognize the opportunities a guy like Gorbachev presented, and though he was wary, he still took advantage of them and embraced the changes evident in the Soviet regime. I do think that Reagan tends to get way too much credit for the end of the Cold War. But he wasn't a passive watcher, either.

This was a fascinating time in history, not just for what happened but for all the "What ifs": What if Hinckley's bullet had struck home, elevating George H.W. Bush eight years earlier? What if Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, or any of the others hadn't died? What if Gorbachev had never risen to power, or what if he had been more of a hard-liner? Food for thought, probably, for the Harry Turtledove's of tomorrow.