Reagan biographers getting closer, but still trapped in Zeno’s Paradox

John Patrick Diggins has written a new biography about Ronald Reagan; it was reviewed by Russell Baker in this article.  The book is on its way to me, and will be a welcome addition to my Reagan collection, right next to Lou Cannon’s books (Governor Reagan and President Reagan). 

But there’s still a nagging problem.  Remember Zeno’s Paradox, which “proves” that a swift runner can never catch up with a slow tortoise?  I’m starting to think that it will take Reagan’s historians and supporters forever to catch on to the Core Principle he upheld with so much conviction, to our everlasting benefit.  (His detractors will never admit it even if they did catch on, but that’s just petty politics, not logic.)

I wrote about the Core Principle in a previous article titled Where Have All the Statesmen Gone?  The Core Principle separates the few true statesmen from the endless hordes of short-term-thinking politicians, ideologues, and incompetents—yet the Core Principle remains the tortoise in Zeno’s Paradox.  Here it is again:

Faith-in-the future is justified when investments succeed in improving the future, and borrowing money for good investments is sound financial practice.

Every time I see the skyline of a great American city, including the one near me, I give Ronald Reagan copious credit for that skyline’s still being there, still growing larger, still roaring with activity.  The alternative, of course, was the one only he abhorred in the following excerpt from Baker’s book review:

Listening to [his administration's] strategic thinkers, Reagan hears a grotesque jargon about "mutual assured destruction," "kill ratios," "throw weights," and "first-strike casualties" numbered in millions, and is horrified. He wonders how these marvelous intellects can think of nuclear war as a plausible eventuality which must be perpetuated for the sake of national security. Reagan thinks of it as an unendurable cataclysm which must be made impossible—for the sake of national security.

Strategic thinkers were naturally rattled to find this outsider fooling around with their work. They had been thinking strategically when Reagan was just another movie actor playing opposite a chimpanzee, for heaven's sake. They think Reagan is too naive, too innocent, to grasp the intellectual complexities of cold war strategy. He becomes the lone champion of nuclear disarmament in a government dominated by people at ease with the possibility of doomsday. And of course it is Reagan, in league with Gorbachev and encouraged by Margaret Thatcher, who prevails. So begins the ending of the cold war.

Regarding Reagan’s legacy, however, most of us are still trapped in Zeno’s Paradox: “Reagan was great, except for all that debt he ran up.”  But remember, Zeno’s Paradox is provably false.  Here’s the proof: Good investments improve the future; borrowing money for good investments is sound financial practice; preventing nuclear war is a good investment; Reagan-era borrowing enhanced national security; enhancing of national security ended the Cold War.  Therefore, Reagan-era borrowing was a fantastically successful investment in a brighter future for every subsequent generation of Americans—precisely the opposite of the tarred reputation it has been given by short-term-thinking political ideologues who should definitely not be confused with statesmen.

National security is a precious asset, in which Reagan invested heavily—not an ugly surplus-killer, as it was viewed by at least one subsequent president. 

Comments

[Grodge]

First of all, I hope that your medical issues come to a hasty solution. I enjoy your posts, and although I am a relatively new visitor, I have been edified by your well-crafted archive.

I believe your appraisal of Ronald Reagan' foreign policy puts too much emphasis on the personality cult of RR, and too little credit is given to the US governmental system and the other players in the Cold War drama.

Without a conciliatory Gorbachev and a failing USSR economy, the USSR would never have conceded so easily. Gorby was a much more benign premier than those that engaged previous presidents, and I would argue that this acquiescence grew out out of decades of being shown the Soviet system was inferior to the US' system of government and economics. Whether we had 20 thousand ICBM's or 20 million, the outcome would certainly have been similar.

What is the difference between a bleeding heart liberal politician who demagogues and a capitalist conservative politician who demagogues? Both are destroying capital (both economic and diplomatic) by using fear and twisting truth for their own personal gain and power.

Each side would argue that their demagoguery is less harmful than the opposition: the libs would say that the cost of taking care of people will have inherent waste but it's worth it, and the conservatives would say the cost of defending ourselves militarily has similar traits. Both are correct to a degree. (We can argue about the correct purpose of gov't all day, but that's a longer post.)

The larger argument against Reagan is that he was detached from the decision-making, acting more like the Chairman of the Board. Those he delegated for the day-to-day duties of CEO were wholly untrustworthy and engaged in criminal activity including murder. While those failings may be ignored due to some perceived positive overall outcome of RR's tenure, the fact remains that the president's job is to be CEO, not CoB. And the legacy of RR's ham-handedness in Central America may be the continued emergence of anti-Americanism in the form of Ortega, Lula and Chavez.

[Bob]

There are some folks, and I am one of them, that credit RR with the bull market and economy that started in the early eighties. I won't give the exact year because that is subject to debate.

Clearly reducing corporate income taxes had an effect as well as the launch of the 401K. Some credit the 401K as the key event that led to the mother of all bull markets. Of course the Dems will criticize it as leading to the destruction of non-contributing pensions, except when they can take credit for the effect it had during the administration of the rob peter to pay paul president Steve mentioned.

Personality aside (BTW, I'll take his "cult" of personality any day and twice on Sunday's ) Reagan was an optimist. And that what Steve is trying to illustrate.

[goy]

Apropos.

http://tinyurl.com/38o5lb

[pawnking]

Grodge, no one can ever tell what might have happened, but in the 80s, I remember quite well being told over and over that the USSR was a) here to stay, b) more powerful than the US militarily, c) more powerful economically, d) producing smarter, harder working children, etc., etc. Certaintly when Reagan said Communism would end up in the ash-heap of history, no one serisouly believed him.

One can, in hindsight, see the structural weaknesses in the USSR and their system. At the time, however, it just wasn't so clear. I can easily envision a case where a weaker president with a poorer world vision might have made needless concessions to the Soviets, granting their inefficient and brutal regeime more years or decades of power.

Possibly they would have seized control of the middle east by now (you didn't think they would stop in Afganistan, do you?) Whatever you think of the situation now, can you imagine a world where the KGB controlled effectively half of the world's oil supply? I say, the USSR fell just in time.