Reply #126: Soviet defense spending was flat from Carter on [View All]

[leftofthedial]

the "reagan spent the Russians into oblivion" argument is a myth. We spent more--ridiculously and dangerously more--but they didn't. Chernobyl, Afghanistan, chronically poor domestic economic management, and technological changes would have brought them down, regardless of who was US President. The Soviet Empire collapsed under the weight of its own overreaching corrupt state-capitalism.

The fact that the Soviet system sucked (which it did) and that Ivan-on-the-street feared Reagan doesn't mean Reagan deserves credit for ending the cold war. In fact, two Presidents, Kennedy and Carter, probably deserve more direct credit than Reagan, if you want to start handing out credit.

Reagan's deficits and proto-neocon foreign policy agenda actually weakened America internationally. Had the Cold War continued, we'd be less able to fight it now BECAUSE of Reagan's policies. But the Cold War didn't continue. Reagan was just in the right place at the right time, with a decent speechwriter, and an arrogant willingness to take credit for something he didn't do. Subsequently, the RW propaganda machine has institutionalized many facets of the reagan myth that just don't stand up to informed scrutiny. They need a "prophet." Saint reagan is it.

BTW, I never spent time in the USSR, but I spent a fair amount of time behind the Iron Curtain from the mid-60's until the early 70's and again briefly in the early 80's. I've been back since, too. That envy of Americans and desire for economic freedom was palpable. It has changed remarkably since the wall came down though.

Sorry for the ad hominem tone of my lightning example before. I don't think you're an idiot. I just find no redeeming quality in the reagan legacy, especially as regards the collapse of the USSR.