Remember When?

Rick Perlstein takes a look at Nikiti Khruschev's 1959 trip to the United States:

Nikita Khrushchev disembarked from his plane at Andrews Air Force Base to a 21-gun salute and a receiving line of 63 officials and bureaucrats, ending with President Eisenhower. He rode 13 miles with Ike in an open limousine to his guest quarters across from the White House. Then he met for two hours with Ike and his foreign policy team. Then came a white-tie state dinner. (The Soviets then put one on at the embassy for Ike.) He joshed with the CIA chief about pooling their intelligence data, since it probably all came from the same people—then was ushered upstairs to the East Wing for a leisurely gander at the Eisenhowers' family quarters. Visited the Agriculture Department's 12,000 acre research station ("If you didn't give a turkey a passport you couldn't tell the difference between a Communist and capitalist turkey"), spoke to the National Press Club, toured Manhattan, San Francisco (where he debated Walter Reuther on Stalin's crimes before a retinue of AFL-CIO leaders, or in K's words, "capitalist lackeys"), and Los Angeles (there he supped at the 20th Century Fox commissary, visited the set of the Frank Sinatra picture Can Can but to his great disappointment did not get to visit Disneyland), and sat down one more with the president, at Camp David. Mrs. K did the ladies-who-lunch circuit, with Pat Nixon as guide. Eleanor Roosevelt toured them through Hyde Park. It's not like it was all hearts and flowers. He bellowed that America, as Time magazine reported, "must close down its worldwide deterrent bases and disarm." Reporters asked him what he'd been doing during Stalin's blood purges, and the 1956 invasion of Hungary. A banquet of 27 industrialists tried to impress upon him the merits of capitalism. Nelson Rockefeller rapped with him about the Bible.

Had America suddenly succumbed to a fever of weak-kneed appeasement? Had the general running the country—the man who had faced down Hitler!—proven himself what the John Birch Society claimed he was: a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy?

The answer, obviously, is no. Rather, as Rick says, Khruschev visited a country that had some level of maturity in its dealings with other powers around the world.

Comments

This is silly. President Ahmadenijad was not invited here as a guest of the U.S. government, as Khrushchev was. Ahmadenijad has presented himself on the world's stage as bad boy who likes to mix it up. Well, he threw a few punches and took a few. Rather surprisingly, he was sucker punched by Columbia President Bollinger, who scored at least a TKO. If you hold a conference for Holocaust deniers and then invite yourself to New York, don't be surprised if you take some shit. There is no reason to be "nice" to Ahmadenijad, and no reason for people like Rick Perlstein to feel "superior" to those who gave him a hard time.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 26, 2007 8:56 AM

What I don't understand is, whence comes the claim that Lee Bollinger, Sheldon Silver et al. are conservatives? What about the UC Irvine faculty preventing a Clinton adminstration official from speaking? Are they conservatives? I think the word is not being used in a meaningful way here.

And anyway, the article reveals that Khrushchev was in fact hectored about Hungary etc., and I recall that he was denounced in editorials, so the difference between his treatment and Ahmadinejab's is obscure. But never mind. At a Dalton parents' cocktail party, any and all events can be used to prove that "conservatives" have ruined America.

Posted by y81 | September 26, 2007 9:00 AM

Hmmm . . . I seem to remember a certain country taking storming our embassy and taking hostages for a year or so. In fact, the bozo who recently visited us apparently took part in that. They also call us the Great Satan, and blame us for everything that ever went wrong in their history.

Your analogy fails. When Putin visits, he gets treated for better or worse like a foriegn dignitary.

When the little douche bag visits, he gets treated like the pariah he is.

Posted by Andrew | September 26, 2007 9:03 AM

Yeah, but Nikita never threatened a country by saying he'd wipe it off the map, or, "We will bury you." He never did anything crazy like deny the holocaust or maniacally pound his shoe on the podium at the UN.

Posted by Njorl | September 26, 2007 9:04 AM

Also, Nikita actually had the power to wipe us off the map, so there was a real existential logic to playing nice. If we humiliate Ahmadenijad, it might not be polite, but whatever, he's not that important.

As an aside, a running joke in the Republican primary is that they should nominate "zombie Ronald Reagan" as the true conservative. I think in today's political climate, a "zombie Dwight Eisenhower" would be much more appropriate. Hell, I'd vote for him.

Posted by right | September 26, 2007 9:21 AM

"As an aside, a running joke in the Republican primary is that they should nominate "zombie Ronald Reagan" as the true conservative."

I think Fred Thompson fits the bill.

Posted by Jose Padilla | September 26, 2007 9:31 AM

Ahmadenijad is a bit of a figurehead without real power who has become a bit of a bogeyman for the right, who are always looking for bogeyman. Kruschev was one of the major evil communist dictators of the 20th century. He put down the revolution in Hungary violently and mercilessly.

"Hmmm . . . I seem to remember a certain country taking storming our embassy and taking hostages for a year or so. In fact, the bozo who recently visited us apparently took part in that. They also call us the Great Satan, and blame us for everything that ever went wrong in their history."

By this measure, we should have never have allowed the Japanese Prime Minister from 1958-1960, Nobusuke Kishi, to conduct political/diplomatic business with us. He was an untried Class A war criminal who had been involved in a war against US and our allies in Asia that saw the likes of the Rape of Nanjing and the Bataan Death March. This to me seems to be worse than the hostage crisis. The outgoing prime minister is his grandson.

Posted by Reality Man | September 26, 2007 9:31 AM

Ahmedinejad is not Kruschev. He's more like Ghaddafi, or Noriega. A tinpot tyrant who's importance has been blown way out of proportion by his own egomaniacal grandstanding and the right-wing nutsos that feed on hate.

China is a great civilization and strong country with a leader that ought to be taken seriously, even if he acts like a jerk (which he doesn't).

Russia is a great civilization and strong country with a leader that ought to be taken seriously, even if he acts like a jerk (which does).

Iran is an aspiring great power with a crap economy. Unless they produce a Vaclav Havel or a Nelson Mandela, tyhey just aren't important enough to bother with.

Americans are so desparate to have an enemy that they will raise any inconsequential tyrant to Bond-villain noteriety. Let it go.

Posted by Ikram | September 26, 2007 9:32 AM

"Iran is an aspiring great power with a crap economy. Unless they produce a Vaclav Havel or a Nelson Mandela, tyhey just aren't important enough to bother with. "

They did produce Omar Khayam and "Al Khwarazmi", the latter of whom is certainly more significant than Mandela or Havel.

Posted by Njorl | September 26, 2007 9:41 AM

Perlstien's article is dead on. The way we behaved when Ahmadenijad made the rest of the world believe that we were scared of what he had to say. I say "we" because Democrats (Silver, etc.), Republicans (Thompson, Guiliani), the press (that shameful "interview" with Scott Pelley), and even the University (Bollinger) all participated. Ahmadenijad is the President of an emerging power, and like it or not, he represents his people (even though the most recent elections indicate that they don't care for him very much, either). This is another example of the "kiss up, kick down" culture and its endemic lack of respect that has proliferated in the US.

Posted by Michigander | September 26, 2007 9:42 AM

He's more like Ghaddafi, or Noriega. A tinpot tyrant

Except that he's not even an actual tyrant: he just plays one on American teevee. That is, Iran is not an autocracy.

I seem to remember a certain country taking storming our embassy and taking hostages for a year or so.

Really? More than half the Iranian population doesn't, because it wasn't born at the time.

I seem to remember a certain country providing support to Iran's enemy during a long trench war. I also seem to remember a certain country involved in backroom deals with Iran. And do you remember the CIA-backed installation of the Shah, perchance?

Get the fuck over 1979.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 26, 2007 9:47 AM

Yep.

Let's be candid here. America is today a country run by crazy people, and those crazy people extend far beyond the Bush Administration/Republican Party, controlling as they do much of the Democratic Party and the "liberal" MSM as well.

Unfortunately, the pattern of history seems to indicate that countries run by crazy people have a strange tendency to suffer "bad luck" or even serious "misfortune." I'm not exactly sure about the reason this occurs.

It's a sad thing when you strongly suspect your own country is headed for a streak of serious "misfortune"...

Posted by RKU | September 26, 2007 9:47 AM

All of these comments are bunk.

This country is bigger than this..we are bigger than that as individuals. I'll bet that in Iran they wouldn't let Bush address students covered by the press.

So let the tyrant spout his hate to the world. He does it anyway and here he just looks like an idiot. What gave him any credibility was that we protested in a country that puts free speech as article 1 in the bill of rights.

I'm jewish and do I care if this man denies the Holocust... there are millions and millions behind him and nothing we say will change that. There are millions more who are upset the Nazi's didn't finish the job. Get over it. Hate is Hate and the best way to fight hate is to be bigger than that. America just stooped to his level and should we should be ashamed.

This country has to grow up now and act like adults and not children on a playground.

Posted by muffler | September 26, 2007 9:50 AM

The difference is that, in 1959, Americans were trying to avoid war with the USSR. In 2007, however, Americans are trying to gin up an excuse for war with Iran.

Posted by Spike | September 26, 2007 10:05 AM

"The difference is that, in 1959, Americans were trying to avoid war with the USSR. In 2007, however, Americans are trying to gin up an excuse for war with Iran."

Sadly, the McCarthy wing of the Republican Party that are perpetually scared of monsters in their closets and under their beds won over the more mature Eisenhower wing. The ideological descendants of Eisenhower have been purged over time from the party's power elite.

Posted by Reality Man | September 26, 2007 10:13 AM

Actually, Eisenhower and Khrushchev were scheduled to have a major peace summit in May 1960-- although Khrushchev was having to fight hardliners in the Kremlin.

That is, Until the CIA sent the Lockheed-made U2 plane over Russia in late April 1960. At 80,000 feet, the plane was supposed to be above the reach of Russian SAM missiles. However, U2 pilot Francis Gary Powers felt a thump, the gossamer- like U2 lost altitude, and Powers had to bail.
The peace summit crashed and burned as well.

The Air Force and CIA formed the National Reconnaissance Office. The amount of money Lockheed made in the subsequent decades of Cold War from the NRO and defense contracts is left as an exercise for the reader. The number of NRO officers who moved through the revolving door into high-paying executive slots at Lockheed in subsequent decades is also left as an exercise for the reader.

Anybody remember what President Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex as he left office?

Posted by Don Williams | September 26, 2007 10:29 AM

They did produce Omar Khayam and "Al Khwarazmi", the latter of whom is certainly more significant than Mandela or Havel.

Yeah, and Muhammad Al-Bukhari was from Bukhara, but I don't give the current the current people-boiling Uzbek leader any credit for that.
Nor would I argue that Uzbekistan is a centre for great Islamic scholarship.

Posted by Ikram | September 26, 2007 10:56 AM

I'm not entirely sure why people are criticizing Bollinger for the way he reacted. Granted, I've only seen a few clips, so perhaps I have to watch the whole forum to see what others are talking about, but did he really react like a child to Ahmadenijad? I can understand why the president wouldn't react this way, but what was so wrong with the way Columbia's president acted?

Posted by Brian | September 26, 2007 11:45 AM

The difference seems to be that Kruschev actually mattered. Ahmadenijad is demonized precisely because he doesn't pose an actual threat to the US, so our government doesn't have to deal with him at all rationally.

Posted by Tony V | September 26, 2007 11:46 AM

Ahmadenijad is like the little guy at the club who screams about how he's going to beat down all twenty bouncers at once.

America is the twenty bouncers.

And American conservatives are the crack heads who hear the little scrawny guy and believe he can really do it.

Posted by Patrick | September 26, 2007 12:07 PM

Patrick,

Haven't we learned anything from our history of underestimating the potential of Muslims to make war?

Under Reagan, we confidently sent the Marines into Beirut, only to have 241 annihilated in one attack. And then we left.

Under Clinton, we sent Army Rangers into a humanitarian mission-turned-sectarian war and got stuck in a bloody mess. And then we left.

Today in Iraq, Iranian-armed and -trained irregulars are driving the stocks of MRAP vehicle manufacturers to new heights, by repeatedly blowing up our up-armored Humvees.

Throughout the '80's and '90's, our popular culture was full of images of Muslims as weak and incompetent adversaries -- from Chuck Norris's Delta Force movies to Schwarzenegger's True Lies, etc. And then on 9/11 a dozen of Muslims with box cutters killed more Americans on U.S. soil than any foreign enemy since the War of 1812.

Maybe it's about time we stop underestimating a group of Muslim nutters?

America may be the 20 bouncers, but half of the bouncers don't want to fight, and the scrawny guy is about to get his hands on gun.

Posted by Juan | September 26, 2007 1:02 PM

Re Reality Man

"Kruschev was one of the major evil communist dictators of the 20th century. He put down the revolution in Hungary violently and mercilessly."

To be fair to Khrushchev, he was not entirely in charge in 1956 during the Hungarian uprising. As I recall, there was still a collective leadership of which Khrushchev was one. At this remote point in time, I don't recall all the others but Bulganin was still considered as an equal with Khrushchev and Malenkov, Kaganovitch, and Molotov had not yet been sent to the showers.

Posted by SLC | September 26, 2007 2:16 PM

"The difference is that, in 1959, Americans were trying to avoid war with the USSR. In 2007, however, Americans are trying to gin up an excuse for war with Iran."

bingo

Posted by Al | September 26, 2007 2:45 PM

"The difference is that, in 1959, Americans were trying to avoid war with the USSR. In 2007, however, Americans are trying to gin up an excuse for war with Iran."

bingo

Right. There were adult, non-criminals in charge.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 26, 2007 2:56 PM

Juan-

While you may feel it strengthens your position to refer to all muslims as one collective group so that you can conflate tons of different countries and groups, it just makes you look prejudiced.

When we discuss Ahmadenijad, we are discussing Iran. Just Iran, and only Iran. It is a nation with a government, with goals based on its own interests and the perceived interests of other countries near and far, and a foreign policy it hopes will help it pursue those goals. It is a nation with a domestic public, some of whom support the government, some of whom hate it, some of whom hope to elect reform candidates and change it.

It is a country we have repeatedly and recently threatened with military strikes and even outright invasion, and certain political elements in it have reacted by blustering and preening.

We could all sit around in fear that "muslim nutters" will wreck our shit, or we could figure out who we're talking about, what their interests are, what their capabilities are, and how we can best pursue our own interests with our own given capabilities. Fortunately we are in the stronger position. But that doesn't automatically make us cool and intelligent and logical. We have the option of squandering our advantage and being one of the metaphorical crack-heads I mentioned above. We did once. It would be nice to stop.

Posted by Patrick | September 26, 2007 2:58 PM

I am not sure what Abraham Lincoln on about:

"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 26, 2007 3:19 PM

Patrick,

My point wasn't to conflate the Iranian regime with all Muslims, but to point out that underestimating the Iranian regime is a symptom of a broader prejudice on the part of Americans toward the war-making abilities of Muslims.

Nevertheless, there is plenty in the history of the Iranian regime alone to cause us to be wary: from their invasion of our embassy in 1979 (and our ineffectual response to it), to the attack on our Marines in Beirut, by their Hezbollah proxies, to their attacks on international shipping in the Gulf in the late '80's, to the attack on our troops in Saudi Arabia (Khobar Towers), and now to their proxy attacks on our troops in Iraq. Since we have never effectively retaliated against Iran for any of these provocations, it's understandable they feel undeterred by us.

Posted by Juan | September 26, 2007 4:05 PM

Re: In 2007, however, Americans are trying to gin up an excuse for war with Iran."
bingo

Not quite. It isn't "Americans" wanting to go to war with Iran. The public is solidly against any further such ventures and would like to end the one we're neck-deep in. It's a tiny cabal in the Bush administration only.

Posted by JonF | September 26, 2007 9:48 PM