Appeasement History

A nice item from Fareed Zakaria on conservative charging Ronald Reagan with "appeasement" for sitting down with Soviet leaders and how that seems to have worked out okay:

That's via Andrew. One thing I say in my book and that I've especially tried to emphasize in book talks I've given is that the country was basically fortunate during the Cold War years in that at key moments Republican Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan wound up rejecting the advice of the conservative movement that brought them to power -- Ike in rejecting "rollback," Nixon in pursuing détente, and Reagan in sitting down with Gorbachev -- whereas George W. Bush has come much closer to hewing to the straight conservative ideal and the results have been disastrous.

Comments

the straight conservative ideal

Excluding Eisenhower, isn't it the neoconservative ideal--rather than the straight conservative ideal--that is relevant? Or do I have my timeline wrong?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2008 12:57 PM

The other book to mention in this context is J. Peter Scoblic's U.S. vs. Them, which is more-or-less focused on this point: that conservative foreign policy has always been a distinct strain of thought; that none of the pre-Bush Republicans adhered to it; and that it was Bush's adherence to it that has caused the disasters of his foreign policy. Good book, worth reading.

Posted by Stephen Frug | June 25, 2008 12:59 PM

It almost makes you wonder who is really entitled to the use of the term "conservative".

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 1:13 PM

One the interesting thing for me in this issue is the fetishistic treatment of Reagan all while rejecting his actual policies and temperament. Just mumbling the word "Reagan" blesses whatever policy the mumbler wants.

Reagan's "Trust but verify" gets turned into "Trust but first make sure they're all dead."

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 25, 2008 1:26 PM

In the neo-conservative dictionary, appeasement means "not threatening military action as a first step."

Posted by LFC | June 25, 2008 1:31 PM

Why did Bush indulge 'roll back' and Regan/Ike etc did not?
1. USSR had big army, Iraq not so much.
2. Israel lobby.
3. US domestic politics. Bush needed Iraq was a 'wedge issue' now that social conservatism on abortion, affirmative action etc on decline. See Snyder et al. "Free Hand Abroad, Divide and Rule at Home" forthcoming in an edited volume, early draft here, very much worth a read.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/SnyderShapiroUnipolar.doc

Via Henry Farrell:
http://www.henryfarrell.net/polsci/2007/08/snyder_et_al_on_the_politics_o.html

Posted by otto | June 25, 2008 1:37 PM

Funny, I don't remember any Russians hijacking and flying planes into any of our skyscrapers. Or, how about the 20 or so UN resolutions that were violated by the USSR, don't remember those either. Or how about a bi-partisan use of force passed by both housed of congress, nope, not one of those either. The irony of your book title is certainly lost on you and your minions.

Posted by Judd | June 25, 2008 2:12 PM

So Judd thinks that the 2nd largest Military in the world, fully stocked with Nuclear Weapons and First Strike capability was less of a threat than a few people hiding in caves.

Glad to know you have your head on straight. WOW!!!

Posted by Evinfuilt | June 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Wow is right, if that's what you got out of that comment, you're reading comprehension is lacking. Do you doubt that if the USSR would have attacked us that Reagan would have responded? But they weren't foolish enough, obviously.

Posted by Judd | June 25, 2008 2:27 PM

Just to point out, Reagan rejected detente as Nixon coneived it

Per Evinfuilt, I don't know if you are old enough to remember the Cold War, but since I unfortunately am, 'progressives' or liberals as they called themselves then, thought 'the commies have it in for us' was conservative paranoia too, and if they were dangerous, it was only because America, or more correctly American conservatives, were such threatening warmongers that the commies sometimes acted threatening, E Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 not withstanding. And those evil conservatives were only doing it so they could impose fascism on the US in the guise of protecting our precious bodily fluids.

The best though was them realizing that Reagan thought that people in communist countries didn't like Communism. What a moron that Reagan was!

It's funny but true, but it seems that for the most part, the right/left seem to be reading from there old scripts from the cold war, but that's what it seems like.

Posted by j mct | June 25, 2008 2:33 PM

Wow is right, if that's what you got out of that comment, you're reading comprehension is lacking. Do you doubt that if the USSR would have attacked us that Reagan would have responded? But they weren't foolish enough, obviously.

Posted by Judd | June 25, 2008 2:34 PM

Just to point out, Reagan rejected detente as Nixon coneived it

Per Evinfuilt, I don't know if you are old enough to remember the Cold War, but since I unfortunately am, 'progressives' or liberals as they called themselves then, thought 'the commies have it in for us' was conservative paranoia too, and if they were dangerous, it was only because America, or more correctly American conservatives, were such threatening warmongers that the commies sometimes acted threatening, E Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 not withstanding. And those evil conservatives were only doing it so they could impose fascism on the US in the guise of protecting our precious bodily fluids.

The best though was them realizing that Reagan thought that people in communist countries didn't like Communism. What a moron that Reagan was!

It's funny but true, but it seems that for the most part, the right/left seem to be reading from there old scripts from the cold war, but that's what it seems like.

Posted by j mct | June 25, 2008 2:39 PM

J
History for todays progressives began in January of 2001.

Posted by Judd | June 25, 2008 2:42 PM

since I unfortunately am, 'progressives' or liberals as they called themselves then, thought 'the commies have it in for us' was conservative paranoia too, and if they were dangerous, it was only because America, or more correctly American conservatives, were such threatening warmongers that the commies sometimes acted threatening, E Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 not withstanding.

Or even the invasion Afghanistan. Thank gawd that conservative hero Jimmy Carter was there to stand fast!

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2008 2:42 PM

FACT: Ronald Reagan attempted to appease Iranian terrorists by promising them arms so that they would release American hostages and thereby swing an election his way in 1979. Reagan's appeasement of the Iranian Ayatollahs failed, however, and the Iranian regime remains to this day implacably hostile to the United States.

FACT: Ronald Reagan attempted to appease Hezbollah by giving into their demand to remove U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983. Reagan's appeasement of the terrorists failed, however, and Hezbollah remains to this day implacably hostile to the United States.

FACT: George W. Bush attempted to appease Osama bin Laden by giving in to his demand that the U.S. remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. Bush's attempt to appease Osama bin Laden failed, however, and al Qaeda remains to this day implacably hostile to the United States.

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | June 25, 2008 2:47 PM

FACT: Ronald Reagan attempted to appease Iranian terrorists by promising them arms so that they would release American hostages and thereby swing an election his way in 1979. Reagan's appeasement of the Iranian Ayatollahs failed, however, and the Iranian regime remains to this day implacably hostile to the United States.

FACT: Ronald Reagan attempted to appease Hezbollah by giving into their demand to remove U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983. Reagan's appeasement of the terrorists failed, however, and Hezbollah remains to this day implacably hostile to the United States.

FACT: George W. Bush attempted to appease Osama bin Laden by giving in to his demand that the U.S. remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. Bush's attempt to appease Osama bin Laden failed, however, and al Qaeda remains to this day implacably hostile to the United States.

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | June 25, 2008 2:47 PM

Judd:
(1) You seem to be under the impression that the Iraqis attacked us on 9/11.

(2) Oddly, you seem also to be under the impression that the Soviets were in full compliance with all UN resolutions during the Cold War, and that no fighting took place during that era.

Man, you don't know much about history . . .

Posted by rea | June 25, 2008 2:56 PM

And Obama wants to unconditionally talk to these guys? Victor, Maybe you should vote for McCain.

Posted by Judd | June 25, 2008 2:58 PM

Judd, remind me which Administration armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons, sold arms to the ayatollahs in Iran, and helped Osama bin Laden compile his first team of mujahideen?

Since history for me only began in 2001, I'm kind of fuzzy on these points. Thanks!

Posted by scythia | June 25, 2008 3:04 PM

I love the way the Republicans try to shade ordinary language so that it sounds scary. Like "unconditionally talk to". It's a political version of the old "thespian" or "philately" sounds-dirty joke. "Unconditionally"? Man, that must be dangerous.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 25, 2008 3:10 PM

Per Carter and Afgahanistan and the like:

The 'liberals' of Carter's day didn't number Carter amidst their number. He also did stuff like deregulate transport that they didn't like. His reaction to Afghanistan was one of the reasons he got a big primary challenger (Ted "the dream will never die (Carter notwithstanding)" Kennedy, remember him). Conservatives at the time all thought that his good stuff per them rather weak tea and they didn't like him either. His being a tremendously unlikeable fellow didn't help him either.

Liberal Dems not liking Carter was one of the reasons he got thumped so bad by Reagan in 1980.

I suppose there's a reason why 'liberal amnesia' is an old saw.

Posted by j mct | June 25, 2008 3:12 PM

Vote for appeaser McCain -- are you kidding, Judd? Like I do every four years, I'm writing in Curtis LeMay.

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | June 25, 2008 3:16 PM

Vote for appeaser McCain -- are you kidding, Judd? Like I do every four years, I'm writing in Curtis LeMay.

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | June 25, 2008 3:16 PM

The 'liberals' of Carter's day didn't number Carter amidst their number.

That seems fair. But then you have to clarify who you mean by "liberals." My understanding is that John Kennedy made his bones as an anti-communist--and certainly his brother did--and that Johnson had pretty good anti-communist cred, too. That's all the Dem Presidents from 1960 onwards, I think (the issue having dropped off the map by BJC's time). The Kennedys had, at the time, pretty good NE Dem (commonly understood to be the ancestral homeland of liberals, I think) credibility, and LBJ has it now, for the most part, with such people who weren't then against the Vietnam War. Which suggest these "liberals" you're talking about might have been pretty small beer.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2008 3:30 PM

The near cultural revolution of Glasnost came as Regan sat down with Gorbachev. McCain has a far milder requirement for talking with Iran, stopping uranium enrichment.

The comparison is typical of Matt's less than rigorous historical analysis.

Posted by Dave | June 25, 2008 3:31 PM

LOL! So you think the Soviets would have stopped uranium enrichment in '85? Gimme a break.

BTW, Dave: Why do you think the U.S. should sit down and talk to Iran in the first place? What would be our goal in these hypothetical talks?

Posted by scythia | June 25, 2008 3:53 PM

Per 'old liberals' and 'new liberals', some guy recently wrote a book about how Kennedy being assassinated by a sincere commie for reasons to do with his politics, changed libs tremendously on 'substance'. I don't know if that's right, but it's undoubtedly correct that a liberal circa 1960 and a liberal after 1975 or so are/were very different animals. The new guys booted out the old guys sometime between 1968 and 1972. One of the things that swung was being anti-communist to being anti anti-communist, as you note.

I seriously doubt T Kennedy in 1962 and T Kennedy by 1980 and later have/had anything much in common. Per the other Kennedys though, well noone will know, though I think that they both died so they cannot spoil the magic has something to do with their reps.

Per 'liberals' of the late 70's, EMK, Bella Abzug, Tip O'Neill. The chattering classes of the time were all like that, then as now, too. I agree that all Dems weren't liberals at that time, that was also part of the reason they were clearly the dominant party, which though they're in better shape than the Reps right now, they still aren't.

I guess that's who I'm talking about, and I suppose we're going to disagree about how large the beer is.

Posted by j mct | June 25, 2008 3:59 PM

j mct wrote:
Per Evinfuilt, I don't know if you are old enough to remember the Cold War, but since I unfortunately am, 'progressives' or liberals as they called themselves then, thought 'the commies have it in for us' was conservative paranoia too, and if they were dangerous, it was only because America, or more correctly American conservatives, were such threatening warmongers that the commies sometimes acted threatening, E Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 not withstanding. And those evil conservatives were only doing it so they could impose fascism on the US in the guise of protecting our precious bodily fluids.

The commies did want to rule over their territories with an iron fist (until Gorbachev), and to influence third world countries to go communist, but in retrospect is there any evidence that by the 1980s they had any serious plans to conquer Western Europe, let alone America? If not, what do you mean by "have it in for us"?

The best though was them realizing that Reagan thought that people in communist countries didn't like Communism. What a moron that Reagan was!

I was born in 1977 so I wouldn't know from firsthand experience, but I kind of doubt it was a mainstream position among liberals in the 1980s that the average person in a Communist regime was happy with their government. Can you provide any evidence in the way of links or quotes?

Posted by Jesse M. | June 25, 2008 4:47 PM

J Mct,

Tip O'Neil was a Truman/Kennedy Democrat, and was an anti-Communist. He was skeptical though of many of the military solutions pushed by Reagan Republicans and Scoop Jackson Democrats in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and veered toward the more diplomatic solutions offered by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. However, he enthusiastically supported Carter and Reagan's arming of the mujahdeen in Afghanistan, while opposing most of the Reagan administration's attempts to arm the contras in Nicaragua. He was also concerned that many of Reagan's hawkish policies might lead to nuclear war. He was pleasantly surprised when Reagan, who many liberals feared was a nuclear cowboy determined to start WW 3 with the Soviet Union, actually sought peace through strength when Gorbachev presented the opportunity.

Posted by eltoro | June 25, 2008 5:00 PM

One of Mr. Reagans' more memorable comments was given when he was asked why he didn't meet with Soviet Party Secretaries before Gorbachev. His response was, "they kept dying on me."

Posted by SLC | June 25, 2008 7:33 PM

There's basically two Republican alternatives to the national security tendencies of Democratic administrations - a choice or an echo.

The Republicans promise a "choice" to be tougher and be more effective by being so. Most often they have delivered an echo, which has been hypocritical, but often successful, or at least not a total disaster. On Iraq at least, Republicans finally implemented a choice, and the feedback is decidely negative.

Still, even in this administration, sometimes went for the echo, as they did on north korea eventually, and on China pretty much right after the EP-3 incident.

Thoughts?

Posted by spockamok | June 25, 2008 11:01 PM

There's basically two Republican alternatives to the national security tendencies of Democratic administrations - a choice or an echo.

The Republicans promise a "choice" to be tougher and be more effective by being so. Most often they have delivered an echo, which has been hypocritical, but often successful, or at least not a total disaster. On Iraq at least, Republicans finally implemented a choice, and the feedback is decidely negative.

Still, even in this administration, sometimes went for the echo, as they did on north korea eventually, and on China pretty much right after the EP-3 incident.

Thoughts?

Posted by spockamok | June 25, 2008 11:01 PM