Reaganesque

Weird moments in Republican self-deception:

Giuliani said the only thing worse than an American-led military offensive against Iran would be Iran having nuclear weapons, which he called "the worst nightmare'' of the Cold War. The way to stop Iran, he said, was resolute American leadership facing down the Iranian president.

"He has to look at an American president, and he has to see Ronald Reagan,'' Giuliani said.

Is that the version of Ronald Reagan who sold the Iranians weapons, or it is the version that sought to check Iranian power by sending Don Rumsfeld to Baghdad to assure Saddam Hussein that the United States didn't really mind if he used poison gas to attack the Kurdish civilian population?

Comments

Remind me again which party is unserious about national security? Is it the party that says the way to solve Iraq is to get the Shiites and Sunnis in a room and tell them to cut the bullshit? Is it the party that says we can halt the Iranian nuclear program simply by electing someone steely and resolute? I mean, this is childlike stuff. Why the Dems don't manage to hammer them for it, I have no idea.

Posted by Steve | May 4, 2007 10:28 AM

Ok - it should be safe to say it now: Why anyone thinks Nowitzki should get MVP is utterly beyond me.

Re: Your post: republicans are fundamentally ahistorical. Rather like the positivists vs Hegel/Kuhn/Lakatos/PI-Wittgenstein.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 4, 2007 10:30 AM

The conservative movement isn't ahistorical. It just relies upon iconography and oral history rather than peer-reviewed scholarly history.

They have a historical narrative that is of extreme importance to their view of the world, but the narrative is grounded in mythic figures such as The Founders, and The Greatest Generation, and REAGAN. Reagan cut taxes, stood firm against evil, and prevailed. Actual facts about Reagan's tax increases, cut-and-run incidents, diplomacy, and backroom arms sales to Islamic fundamentalists are utterly unable to penetrate the power of the myth.

I don't think it's humanly possible to conduct a foreign policy discussion on a right-leaning website without the name "Neville Chamberlain" being dropped inside of 10 minutes. They continually appeal to history to justify their stances. But only on their own terms, and only to justify their own narrative.

I don't think the Philosophy department can explain this phenomenon. You need the Folklore department.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 4, 2007 10:48 AM

quote

"I don't think it's humanly possible to conduct a foreign policy discussion on a right-leaning website without the name "Neville Chamberlain" being dropped inside of 10 minutes."

You got that right..and do you know what else? Wingers hate Gandhi. That's just weird.

Posted by wrapper | May 4, 2007 10:59 AM

No, it's ahistorical in *exactly* the sense Lakatos speaks of.

Hint: The fact that a group exhibits historical-name-dropping behavior does not suffice to refute the charge of ahistoricism.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 4, 2007 11:00 AM

I believe Giuliani said "they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages." That's the Reagan model Giuliani wants to project.

Posted by Clark | May 4, 2007 11:03 AM

sending Don Rumsfeld to Baghdad to assure Saddam Hussein that the United States didn't really mind if he used poison gas to attack the Kurdish civilian population

Let's just note that this is false and slanderous.

Posted by Al | May 4, 2007 11:08 AM

You might also mention the deal the Republicans made with Khomeini in 1980 not to release the hostages while Carter was in office.

Posted by John Emerson | May 4, 2007 11:13 AM

"they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages."

+

"the deal the Republicans made with Khomeini in 1980 not to release the hostages while Carter was in office."

=

Treason (aka Reagan's actual legacy)

Posted by Harry R. Sohl | May 4, 2007 11:17 AM

Al:

Let's just note that this is false and slanderous.

Quite so! The second Rumsfeld visit was more about it being okay for Iraq to gas Iranians. The big thumbs up for gassing Kurdish civilians didn't come until later.

Posted by grh | May 4, 2007 11:23 AM

Al (11:08): A factitious remark short of slander. The American position brought to Baghdad by Rumsfeld was rife with duplicity and double dealing, i.e., play the sides against each other and make them bleed. A painful irony: It is the same position we now find ourselves in. As they say: "What goes around, comes around." Thank you very much, Reagan and Rummy.

Posted by swampcracker | May 4, 2007 11:32 AM

The conservative movement isn't ahistorical. It just relies upon iconography and oral history rather than peer-reviewed scholarly history.

I wish I had bigger biceps, just so I could have that motto tattooed on them.

Posted by Jimmmm | May 4, 2007 11:35 AM

Sheriff, I haven't read much Lakatos, but I do know that the conservative movement is very clearly not ahistorical in the standard meaning of the word -- "Unconcerned with or unrelated to history, historical development, or tradition" -- or in the sense of Frederic Jameson's critique of postmodern culture.

The movement is unquestionably traditionalist and aware of historical trends. They aren't merely name-dropping; they're attempting to place themselves within a sweeping historical dialectic. But American conservatism is fundamentally anti-intellectual. History is a stage prop rather than a foundation. I think it would be more accurate to call it pseudohistorical.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 4, 2007 11:36 AM

LaFollette Progressive nails it at 10:48.

Posted by live | May 4, 2007 11:39 AM

Somehow we need to address the Reagan myths head-on. Particularly the notion that his militarism single-handedly won the cold war after year of liberal dithering. This is a dangerous misreading of history. It has contributed to the mess in Iraq, the dimise of the State Department, the growing threat of military engagement with Iran, etc. The cold war was all but won in 1980 with or without Ronald Reagan.

Posted by Lindata | May 4, 2007 11:42 AM

It's the same as the Hegelian sense. And yes they are rabidly ahistorical.

"Pseudohistorical" is one way to HIDE the fact that one is ahistorical.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 4, 2007 11:42 AM

It always mystifies me that Democrats do not bring up the Reagan/Bush campaign deal with the Iranians regarding the hostages in the 1980 election at every opportunity.

Posted by gregor | May 4, 2007 11:59 AM

"Pseudohistorical" is one way to HIDE the fact that one is ahistorical.

I'll buy that.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 4, 2007 12:09 PM

"Oral tradition" describe talk TV too. Oral traditions are very malleable and can't be checked. SOmething's true if it sounds good, and there's no record except for the memories of living individuals.

TV works the same way. Over and over again Limbaugh or O'Reilly get away with saying something that's flatly wrong, or contradicting something they themselves said even quite recently. The considerable part of their audience that gets all of their news from broadcast media will never notice.

It drives O'Reilly into a rage whenever Media Matters quotes his own past words against him. He really, sincerely thinks that that's stalking, bullying, and dirty pool. For O'Reilly every day is a new day.

Posted by John Emerson | May 4, 2007 12:15 PM

Is that the same Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after a terrorist bombing against the US and then let hostages rot over there?

Posted by Dan Panorama | May 4, 2007 12:50 PM

I can't argue about the Reagan-Khomenei deal (engineered by Casey). Carter never knew what hit him. What a loser.

Posted by Al | May 4, 2007 1:19 PM

If you think about it, the handful of Republican presidents' foreign policy successes since Vietnam have all been based on diplomacy: Nixon in China, Reagen and Gorbachev in Iceland, Bush I helping to get the UN to back the war against Iraq. When Republicans resort to a unilateral show of force, they are either symbolic with little actually gained vis-a-vis the national interest (Grenada) or a disaster (Iraq). Trying to fit into the daddy/master/strongman narrative blinds Republicans to their own successes and guarantees that they will instead find more failures than successes.

Posted by Reality Man | May 4, 2007 1:31 PM

>Reagan-Khomenei deal
Khomeini. Khomenei is the ruling Supreme Leader.

Posted by Nikolay | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM

Khamenei, smartypants.

Posted by Al | May 4, 2007 1:45 PM

I think they expected the forgetting to begin when they had that fancy funeral, and some of us had to bite our tongues out of respect for the recent dead.

Thanks for keeping them honest!

Posted by anonymous | May 4, 2007 2:04 PM

ps.

The best fighters are quick, lean, and quiet about their actions. Big guys are often overrated, and easily tripped up.

Really, they should have hired somebody to think like the enemy if they really wanted to win this war. Saw this kind of war coming a mile away, I did.

If we use nuclear weapons, or endorse the use of nuclear weapons by Israel, the worldwide outcry will be so great as not to be believed. Let's not go there.

Posted by anonymous | May 4, 2007 2:08 PM

Somehow we need to address the Reagan myths head-on. Particularly the notion that his militarism single-handedly won the cold war after year of liberal dithering.

Tying it together, the US actually won the Cold War after Russia got bogged down in Afghanistan, spending all of its budget on military and ignoring internal domestic needs. Internally, they collapsed.

Posted by anonymous | May 4, 2007 2:11 PM

And the corruption surely helped.

Posted by anonymous | May 4, 2007 2:12 PM

Bogged down in Afghanistan, you say? Overfeeding military budget? Ignoring internal domestic needs? Corruption? I think I see what your driving at! Let us invade Iran posthaste!

What would Ronald Reagan do? BOMB IRAN! And then drool quietly as Kissinger carefully removes the declaration of war from under his slumbering head...

Mr. Ahmadinejad, tear down this wall! Separating you from Iraq! So out troops can march in!

Ugh.

Posted by Gregorio | May 4, 2007 2:28 PM

Firm as steel Ronald Reagan contributed to 9/11 in another way. After terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut, Reagan immediately "redeployed" US forces out of Lebanon. This made a huge impression on BinLaden. He said in several interviews that this made him believe that terrorism could be an effective strategy against America.

Posted by LGM | May 4, 2007 5:22 PM

"...Iran having nuclear weapons, which he called "the worst nightmare'' of the Cold War."

Really? My nightmares during the Cold War never got much worse than a Soviet first-strike. That, or Soviet retaliation for a US first-strike launched by Reagan.

Posted by Grumpy | May 4, 2007 10:21 PM

Carter never knew what hit him. What a loser.

Yeah, what an idiot. How could not know that his Republican opponent would betray the hostages for politcal gain?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | May 5, 2007 1:37 AM

"I can't argue about the Reagan-Khomenei deal (engineered by Casey). Carter never knew what hit him. What a loser."

Posted by Al

The hostage deal actually spurred more hostage taking, as the terrorists saw what a paper tiger Reagan was

Posted by Barfly | May 5, 2007 7:21 PM

Great point, Matthew. LaFollette Progressive, you nail their historical view as "pseudohistorical" and how it's merely a "prop." I think it was Bill Maher who pointed out some time ago how ironic it is that the Republicans/Conservatives always paint the Democrats/Liberals as weak yet no group is more collectively sentimental and cloyingly emotive than the Repub/Cons. Everything is about how they feel. Bush is always feeling things in his heart and gut, looking into the soul of others - never mind the facts, the historical context, the will of the people, the mounting dead and dying. If he feels it, that's enough. And now we have this pathetic lot of GOP candidates whose best idea is, I'd do what Reagan would. That's comforting not only because of what Reagan actually did but also because the man left office nearly two decades ago and began his term in 1980.

Just keep hitting that Reagan pinata and see if enough candy comes out, gentlemen. Good grief.

No wonder these guys don't believe in evolution.

Posted by MediaBloodhound | May 5, 2007 10:43 PM

re: beloved "conservative" Ronald Raygunz

This Tom Tomorrow cartoon from 2004
is dead on.

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2004/06/14/tomo/story.jpg

Posted by joel hanes | May 8, 2007 2:23 AM