"Elected office holds more perks than Elvis' nightstand. "
- Dennis Miller
How are these things similar or the same; how do they differ? Once again, I need to credit K-Rod, in this case for comments here under other postings, that lead me to a new one. Because words have meaning; and because words are the medium of our thoughts. The meaning of words in many cases determines our expectations, and what we require of each other. The discussion that resulted from "The Oath of Office" led me to explore further the kinds of language which obliges people to do - or not do - certain actions or behaviors that create expectations by others, sometimes many others. Usually these actions require some exertion or sacrifice for those others, at an expense to oneself, in exchange for specific benefits, compensation, power, authority or other rewards.
In varying degrees, these words deal with relationships between people, with oaths and affirmations being reserved for the most important, the most serious and binding of those relationships. The others are of similar kind, but vary in decreasing degrees of obligation and implied penalty for failure. The tradition of these special commitments is traced throughout our history, and across the globe; they exist in every culture; they are a necessity to civilized human relationships, and to societies, especially governments at all levels.
One of my favorite sources is the online Etymology dictionary, that traces the history of a word as it evolved towards its current form and definition; I find the progress insightful in achieving the fullest understanding of the meaning. But that did not best suit my purpose here in examining each word.
Of all the sources I explored, this was the best encapsulation of all of the aspects of each word.
oath
sacred or solemn voluntary promise usually involving the penalty of divine retribution for intentional falsity and often used in legal procedures. It is not certain that the oath was always considered a religious act; such ancient peoples as the Germanic tribes, Greeks, Romans, and Scythians swore by their swords or other weapons. These peoples, however, were actually invoking a symbol of the power of a war god as a guarantee of their trustworthiness.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
For purposes here, an Affirmation is defined as a variation that is legally accepted in place of an oath, usually in respect of the provisions or restrictions of someone's religion, especially in a legal context. There were many specific kinds of oaths, such as oaths of office, the Hippocratic Oath sworn by the medical profession, the enlistment oath of the military, the medieval oath of fealty, the oath to tell the truth when giving a deposition or testimony, the Oath of Citizenship that naturalizes new citizens, to name only a few. The Oath of Allegiance is another term for our national Pledge of Allegiance.
Oaths (and affirmations) are reserved for those matters that have the greatest importance and seriousness. It is the seriousness involved that is the reason for oaths to incorporate religion, to invoke a deity as part of the value of guarantee and sincerity, as the ultimate symbol of importance and significance, by extending the contract made between people to include God as a party, a guarantor, a witness. It establishes the ultimate accountability between people for performance of a commitment. Part of the definition of what constitutes an oath compared to lesser pledges IS religion; where religion is not included in oaths, it is an accomodation, an accepted variation to the mainstream concept intended to have the same effect as including a religious component.
vow
sacred voluntary promise to dedicate oneself or members of one's family or community to a special obligation that goes beyond usual social or religious requirements.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
For consistency, I was going to return to the Encyclopedia Online for the next word, but another source provided better detail, so I offer it here instead. While the listing of so many different variations on 'promise' may at first glance seem a little tedious, the variety of so many specific kinds of promises in an indication of how important promises are; so I hope readers will bear with me.
Main Entry: prom·ise
Function: noun
: a declaration or manifestation esp. in a contract of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way that gives the party to whom it is made a right to expect its fulfillment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aleatory promise
: a promise (as to compensate an insured individual for future loss) whose fulfillment is dependent on a fortuitous or uncertain event
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
collateral promise
: a promise usually to pay the debt of another that is ancillary to an original promise, is not made for the benefit of the party making it, and must be in writing to be enforceable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
false promise
: a promise that is made with no intention of carrying it out and esp. that is made with intent to deceive or defraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gratuitous promise
: a promise that is made without consideration and is usually unenforceable called also naked promise —compare NUDUM PACTUM
NOTE: A gratuitous promise may be enforceable under promissory estoppel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
illusory promise
: a purported promise that does not actually bind the party making it to a particular performance illusory promise depending solely on the will of the supposed promisor>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
implied promise
: a promise that is considered to exist despite the lack of an agreement or express terms to that effect and the breach of which may be recognized as a cause of action implied promise that he would not be terminated at will> —see also PROMISE IMPLIED IN FACT and, PROMISE IMPLIED IN LAW in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
naked promise
: GRATUITOUS PROMISE in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
original promise
: a promise (as in a suretyship) usually to pay the debt of another that is made primarily for the benefit of the party making it and need not be in writing to be enforceable —compare COLLATERAL PROMISE in this entry, MAIN PURPOSE RULE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
promise implied in fact
: an implied promise that exists by inference from specific facts, circumstances, or acts of the parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
promise implied in law
: an implied promise that exists on the basis of a legally enforceable duty and not on the basis of words or conduct which are promissory in form or support an inference of a promise promise implied in law that one will be compensated for services rendered and accepted>
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
In a comment on "Oath of Office", K-Rod wrote: "Where does it say an Alaskan Governor cannot resign?" implying that those speaking negatively about her decision were improperly critical of her decision; and (on it's relative significance)"Palin meeting the requirements of the oath, not so much. Palin did not succeed in what I think is the commitment of the oath." The combined effect of those statements, and similar statements, was that it is no big deal if Palin chose to quit before she had completed her first, her ONLY term of statewide office, despite having sworn to do the job to the best of her abilities, and to uphold the state constitution which specifies the duration of the governor's term of office; that we should not hold her to perform according to her oath of office, because to do so is somehow partisan rather than objective.
In defense of K-Rod's position, as a practical matter, it may very well be that Alaska is not well served having a person in the Governor's position of authority who doesn't wish to be there. But that was not the argument presented in defense of her decision, nor is it the subject of "The Oath of Office".
I would argue that we are holding the taking of oaths too lightly; NOT ONLY Governor Palin in the act of resigning, but EVERY elected official and every citizen who does not match action to the words of their public oaths, including both legal and illegal conduct. I believe that in holding those oaths less binding, less important than intended we do harm; harm to ourselves, harm to our institutions. We lessen accountability and responsibility; we ignore or at least diminsh the importance of personal integrity in giving our word of honor to anything. In the case of Palin, the reasons given for her resignation put all of the focus on what SHE wanted; there was no mention of the commitment taken in swearing the oath of office, or to continuing despite whatever difficulties presented in doing the job. If we let this kind of event - AND any others like it - go unchallenged and without critical thought, then effectively we are redefining public office in terms of selfish individual whims, ambitions, and interests accorded more importance than the needs of the public served by the office. If we do not hold elected officials to their oaths, we reduce those oaths to an illusory promise (see above).
In the United States, there is no requirement that a candidate for public office not hold another public office while in candidacy for another, and in fact, its common. I'm not saying that its a good idea. In fact, for many of the reasons identified by DG and K-Rod, its a bad idea. However, I do make an important distinction between a politician (any politician of whatever ilk) who resigns their current office to accept higher office (and presumably higher responsibility), because they are not abandoning their constituents, in many cases they are vastly expanding their constituency. For instance, a legislator (at the state level) who runs for Governor, and who is successful, now has not just the citizens of his/her district as constituents, but the entire state. The same is true with Barak Obama. As was pointed out in a different post, President Obama resigned as a US Senator from Illinois to assume the duties of the office of president. He now represents not just the citizens of Illinois, but of the entire US. The people of Illinois (and the other states of the union) could have, had they desired, chosen to have him remain as a US Senator, by voting for Mr. McCain. (who I might add is and was also a sitting US Senator), but they voted (in Illinois at least) overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama.
ReplyDeleteI agree with K-Rod, the people of Alaska may very well be much better off without Sarah Palin. However, the topic now is the importance that we place on oaths and the extent to which we hold public officials (public servants) to those oaths.
I agree that over the past decades we have started to disregard oaths, and we have become rather complacent in not demanding that our public officials uphold the duties that they swore to do. We don't have slavery however, and Ms. Palin is free to resign the job. However, when running for public office again, this is an item which can and should be used as a reason to vote against her: She didn't complete the last term on reasons which are nonsense at best. Why should we hire her (read: elect) to do another job that we don't know if she will do?
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"Wouldn't it then also be considered breaking their oath if an elected official announces candidacy for a different office before the original oath can be fulfilled?
If they won, they would resign due to their selfish individual whims and ambitions, usually the pursuit of a higher more powerful office... "
Yes!!!!!
Although I think there are the slightly mitigating differences compared to resigning for other purely personal reasons, as ToE pointed out, which is continuing service to those who elected them.
There is a LOT of ambition and desire for power in the politicians who run for office -- no matter their ideology, or even their sincere desire to do good.
All to often, using offices as stepping stones towards gratifying ever-larger appetites for power is the pattern, especially when candidates do not complete their original elected term.
I have been contemplating the potential benefits of some kind of campaign reform that constructively shortens the duration of campaigns for political office. While my first impulse is that there should be as little restriction as possible on political expression and the political process.... consider these possible results: reducing the time of campaigning could - could - reduce the money spent on campaigning, potentially reducing "buying candidates" and other campaign financial funny-business. While it might initially increase the pressure to engage in dirty politics, ultimately it could be an incentive for candidates to cut to the chase, get down to essentials, and focus on facts and issues. A more limited amount of available time could have a very prioritizing effect. Or not; just an idea I'm very much kicking around in my head, a 'work in progress'.
With more campaign finance reform, time limitations could be have a sort of multiplier effect in combination. The kernel of this idea was the number of people who wait until the last minute, or at least closer to the end of campaigns, to make their decisions, regardless of the length of time candidates campaign.
I think the ambitious use of office as stepping stones of ambition would be reduced if we were to allow campaigning (with that shorter campaign time limiting the loss of service to constituency)while in another office, but not allow a candidate who is elected to assume office until the prior elected term is completed.
So, using Palin purely as a convenient example because of the way the terms work out - her term as governor ends in 2010; the next term of president starts in 2012; ergo, no conflict. Or, say the term of hypothetical senator 'X'(I have no one in mind)ends, and he / she has to choose either to run for re-election in 2012 OR they have to run for president, but they can't do both. Lets slow down the hop between stones.
The other idea I have been kicking around, as a result of thinking about oaths, is if we should consider making some kind of penalty for leaving office, either voluntarily, or having to leave like a certain governor of IL. What I have in mind is some kind of 'time out' or 'penalty period' which prohibits them from running for another office for a set period of time, say two years.
As it stands now, there are a lot of other countries that have much shorter campaign periods than we do, that have perfectly viable representative elections. (I deliberately avoided the use of the word democratic, even small d, to avoid any hint of partisanship.)
And, as it stands now, our oath system has not teeth, no sanctions or penalties; it has been on the honor system. I don't think that honor system is working as well as it should; it may be time for a minor adjustment to it.
Stepping off topic for just a moment - something I have enjoyed in writing here was inserting the quotes at the beginning of each topic. Finding them has been a lot of fun for me, and I hope that for the most part, like the one today, they bring you a smile. Where serious, that they have heart to compliment the subsequent reasoning.
ReplyDeleteK-Rod has left a new comment on the post "An Oath or Affirmation, a Vow, a Promise":
ReplyDelete"Obama is now supposed to do what is best for the country; sometimes that might not be what is best for the citizens of Illinois."
Which is why I thought it worth considering possibilities about running for office only when terms don't overlap, as an idea to kick around. More to the point is that in doing what is best for the majority of the country, he does not do what is best for all of the citizens of IL, OR any other state. Very much an ethical dilemma.
K,
ReplyDeleteI think in a pure sense, you're right - it is not fulfilling your oath.
However, in practical use, since the time of the Romans (if not before), this hasn't been the application.
K,
ReplyDeleteYou aren't going to get arguments from most of us that Obama ISN'T strictly acting in the country's best interests.
Some of his defenders, including me on some subjects, will say that he's comprimising rather than fighting because he took an oath/made a promise to work across party lines rather than continue the pattern of belicose intractability that so defined the Bush years. However, many times he's giving in before even trying to fight (for example on Gitmo), and at other times he's not 'comprimising', but rather simply taking a position which is neither between the Republicans and Democrats, or between conservatives and liberals, but rather is a position NOT in the interest of the country but FULLY in the interest of politicians (like his position on taxing health care benefits).
However, comparing that to Palin (except for the last example) is not an applicable analogy. He failed/fails in his oath on some things, sometimes for expedience - sometimes for advantage. She abbrogated ALL responsibility purely for expedience. While you can argue that she helped out the state (marginally) by saving it some legal expense and presumably putting someone in place who's more likely to competently fulfill the job - simply because the distractions will be lessened - my reply is that she could have MUCH more directly solved that equation by BEING MORE ENGAGED. IF she's competent when engaged, then the state has continuity, probably saves money on things like not having to redo the Gov's mansion, not having staff change-over etc.. which a change of leadership always entails and probably easily exceeds $1.5Million.
She ran - Obama didn't - from the problems she faced. Obama's problems are FAR larger in nature. He may fail, he may not always act correctly, but he IS trying. She isn't, she quit, and she abandoned the idea of serving the people who elected her, not for some higher, more useful purpose, but seemingly just to make money for herself and to ease the personal burden.
Those are different - I hope you'll agree.
Agreed, that the deficits were are building now may not be repayed ever, and that's damaging.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the calibre of the oath is different AND many Presidents have built deficits. Are you suggesting that Ronald Reagan, who quadruppled the deficit did more harm to the nation than Obama (for example)?
The difference I was pointing out is that quitting for personal convenience is FAR different than quitting to accept higher office based on long standing tradition. Obama is making an attempt to fulfill, even if (in your opinion) he's failing. She quit her job, ensuring failure. They aren't the same.
Also, frankly, this point is rather a switch of topic. That Obama MAY be creating long-standing harm is of little argument, he might also be creating offsetting good (though I grasp you don't agree). In so doing, he is still discharging his job to the best of his abilities as he understands them.
Conversely, unless Palin felt herself incompetent, she abandoned such responsibilities.
Look, long and short, she walked away - dancing around it, using semantics of your convenience doesn't make what she did of the same calibre as Obama, or Reagan or Clinton or even Norm Coleman's conduct - each of them succeeded (or failed) in their political pursuit in office. Some of them (including MANY conservatives) ran for office while holding one - which was your initial line of thrust. Whereas, she quit trying.
To me, they aren't the same. You may personally not like Obama's actions, but he's not abbrogating his oath by not conducting himself as you like. It is virtually unarguable that she abandoned her oath, didn't fulfil her promise to her constituents, but walking away.
Perhaps we should rethink the notion of "liberal spending." It seems disingenuous in the face of the Bush II reality of, say, Afghanistan and Iraq.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at those wars--which in dollar amounts amount to far, far more than the economic stimulus package. (I wonder why we rarely bring up this fact? Are we still leveraging "patriotism" regarding Iraq in a false, cognitively-dissonant manner?)
After the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan was a necessary war, but Iraq was a war of choice. So, the spending for Afghanistan seems to me quite necessary and proper.
On the other hand, the spending for the Iraq war seems a huge waste of trillions of dollars (once all is said and done) that could either have been spent at home OR returned to the taxpayers OR used to pay down the debt OR a combination of two or more of those things.
Now that we're in Iraq, of course, we cannot pull-out irresponsibly, but need to do so in an orderly manner, which necessitates more spending. The point, however, is that another president may not have mistakenly decided to conflate Iraq with Afghanistan, and would therefore have saved more money on that decision than was this year pumped into the economic stimulus package....
The "logic" from the far right (not necessarily from the moderate right, who I actually side with on a few big issues) seems to indicate that spending a trillion dollars on an economic stimulus package is bad, but spending more on a former president's Henry V-esque military overstretch is somehow "proper" and not indicative of wretched spending excess.
(This despite the fact that the Iraq scenario also greatly hindered our efforts in Afghanistan, thereby wasting more time as we lost focus and muddled-through that latter country...thereby necessitating more time and money to be spent there, too.)
I agree entirely that some (though certainly not all) of the stimulus package is silly and represents a waste of taxpayer money, but when set alongside recent post-invasion spending, and when the numbers are added up, it actually begins to pale in comparison.
An economy is a tough thing to manage because it is a balancing act. Simply repeating overly-simplistic slogans such as "Cut Taxes!" or "Increase Spending!" is indicative of juvenile thinking. A balancing act must be struck, and I have yet to see it struck perfectly, though that's not surprising.
What is surprising, however, is that we keep acting like this is a binary scenario. It is not. Then again, millions of culturally-myopic folks lump people into "Correct" and "Liberal" camps, with very little notion that there are subtle levels involved in these things.
(Or perhaps they would rather not deal with the complexity of all this stuff?...)
But these ideas, I'm told, are "elitist" and "liberal." Really? I tend to think of them as being somewhat reasonable.
As for the president's economic stimulus decisions, well, had we reacted a bit differently regarding the banking and loan industries in order to create sensible but not overly-stifling guidelines regarding reasonable loan amounts and financial regulations, we might not have had to spend nearly as much on a stimulus as we have--or even had one at all. Truth be told, both Democrats and Republicans are at fault for not taking some preemptive action on that.
Then again, IF a stimulus package would have been needed in any case, it would have been nice not to have wasted trillions on military whims and years of post-war spending in Iraq so that some of that money could have been available in an emergency.
What? Saving money by avoiding unnecessary spending, just in case of a calamity? That sounds rather conservative to me. Hmmm....
--Hasslington
p.s. I'll speak with you later, Penigma, et al. We're heading to England for a while to see Mrs. Hasslington's parents and our old friends. America to England: from one bad economic situation to another.
Pen says:
ReplyDelete"However, since you insist on being a fool, do not expect further reply.
I will warn you though that if your insults stray much further into the land of grossly inappropriate conduct, I, as always reserve the sole and exclusive right to delete insults. I believe you've established beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no interest in discussion "
I've been away from the computer all day, so you can perhaps imagine the full impact of all of the newest accumulated comments striking me right between the eyes on my return to checking on Penigma!
Pen - K-rod DID clarify that he is NOT - repeat NOT!- referring to any of us INDIVIDUALY as fascists. I'm pretty sure he does intend to characterize us as liberals, but not necessarily insultingly. Having clarified that he did not intend any insult to any of us personally, removes any - any - need for an apology. It is difficult to insult a generality; and that was the sense in which he has used the term Liberal Fascist. I went back and read (albeit quickly) his comments to check.
I will play devil's advocate here, and point out to you that discussion has been more lively here with K-rod's participation than it was without it --- by a large measure. I for one welcome it, and look forward to a further exchange of ideas.
NOT INSULTS. Insults have flown BOTH ways, and I would like to request that they STOP. Right now. It was the absence of insults in favor of civil discussion that attracted me to Penigma, and I would hate to see that change. Rather I would love to see MORE comments, including more from people who have different views, a range of views.
It has enriched discussion here, IF, big IF, we can dial down some of the emotions that are rising.
ToE - I would dearly love to have you write something on Poli Sci. If I might make a request for a topic that I think would fit in here, if you don't have one specifically in mind - Poujadism, the french political movement named after Pierre Poujade. I think it has some interesting current applications.
I have some sympathy for K-rod here, or maybe that more correctly would be empathy, and so should you, of how being the dissenting minority with views opposing a vocal majority feels when commenting on a blog. It makes for a sense of being embattled.
I value ALL of you, regardless of agreement or disagreement.
Now I shall return to trying to do justice, and catch up with the rest of you who have been so busy here today.
Hass - saw that you were taking some time away from your own blog; safe journey! I hope that you will check in here from time to time.
Today it is one month since I began blogging here.
I'll bow to your wisdom, DG, and accept that insults have flown both ways. It is doubtless true.
ReplyDeleteFor that, K-Rod, I humbly apologize.
That said, K-Rod, your M.O. appears to be to throw out ludicrous, unsuppored commentary, get called on it, and then demand proof OR change the subject momentarily.
To wit - your asserting that Obama was involved in the Blagojovich scandal directly. There isn't one shred of credible evidence to that end, yet you make the claim.
In the preceding breath you demand proof of Palin's personal reasons - though her OWN resignation touched on them AND there are multiple articles pointing this very fact out.
In short, you required proof to support one allegation, but offered none to support your own.
So, the questions still remain, please address them.
1. Did Reagan quadrupple the debt - if so, can you point to the positive benefits to the macro economy of his tax cuts which were the 'positive' benefit of his deficits?
2. Did Obama act within his oath to go into debt for what he saw as the best interests of the nation?
3. Can someone reasonably discharge their duties if they believe they are competent to do so, were selected by the people to do so, and leave before completing the term for reasons other than essentially being forced to (i.e. health, legal or financial concerns)? Please remember that Ms. Palin's financial concerns were something she doubtless could get some help with eventually, so I don't accept the idea that this was what 'forced' her, though I do accept it was a part of the reason.
So, try answering the questions - we've answered yours many, many times. When you do so, assuming you do, a direct answer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Actually K,
ReplyDeleteYou've never said that before (that I read). You've alluded to liking tax cuts and that you'd accept small deficits related to them.
Regardless, your rather abbreviated review of Carter/Reagan economic environments left out some rather inconvenient (for Republicans) details.
First, Carter was a President with little effect on the economy during his tenure. Perhaps you can point to a program he enacted that you think lead to inflation?
As I (and I really did as opposed to what it seems like you did) said before, Carter DID however put Paul Volkker in place. It is Volkker whom Reagan credited with getting rid of high inflation by choking off interest through high interest rates. That my friend was Carter's policy, NOT Regaans. In fact, Reagan initially opposed it as he thought (somewhat correctly) that high interest rates would explode the debt given Reagan's plan to radically cut taxes on the wealthy leading to high debt and therefore high debt service.
As for the rest of Reagan's Presidency, he presided over one of the most serious collapses in the financial services industry in the past 100 years (the S&L collapse) - in which an RTC (Resolution Trust Corp) was created, virtually ALL S&L's throughout the country either collapsed or restructured, and was essentially attributable to the same cause as today's banking crisis, a wonton failure to oversee the environment of HIGHLY speculative land deals being made by S&L's.
So, while you alluded to your point in the past, in fact K-Rod, your grasp of the economic factors seems to have conveniently left out some very important details, details which make it a far different story than the simpleton version of Carter=bad, Reagan=good.
Reagan exploded the debt simply to by more weapons, mostly needlessly. If you think we were roundly respected because of him, you are (I'm sorry) naive' - that's an opinion - not name calling.
Europe thought Reagan was off his rocker. At one time Reagan suggested we could WIN a limited nuclear war in Europe - I want you to consider what Europeans THOUGHT of someone who would suggest fighting a nuclear war on their soil, destroying their cities and then re-evaluate your commentary. Reagan time and again gaffed on facts (although always in his favor so 'gaffe' may not be accurate).
Your starry-eyed view seems out of step with the truth I lived, watched, and remember clearly.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteEurope hated Reagan? Seriously?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I am not laughing with you. "
I believe Pen was referring to views like this, which seem to be pretty representational of the era. Reagan was much better liked after he was gone than he was while in office:
"Politicus : Confronting Europe:a presidential tradition
By John Vinocur
Published: Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Ronald Reagan, who Europe now thinks may not have been such a terrible leader after all, and George W. Bush, who it persists in regarding as fairly awful, shared a problem. They asked the Europeans to do what they could not easily offer.
So did Jimmy Carter, like other presidents. And in some respects, Reagan's Democratic predecessor hit on Europe earlier and for more than the Great Communicator ever attempted. The fact is that Reagan personified what Carter had started — walloping defense budgets, cruise and Pershing missiles to be deployed in Europe, and continuous dunning of the NATO allies for more military spending and sanctions against the Soviets, who had invaded Afghanistan.
But where European newspapers played pictures on Page 1 of a gasping Carter who collapsed after a morning jog, or of a teary Carter at an open-air concert in Washington, Reagan represented in Europe, as Bush does now, the opposite of a touchy-feely, public portrayal of American vulnerability.
Very much unreassuringly for Europe, Reagan took credit for concepts like the Evil Empire to characterize the Soviet Union, and the space-based missile defense called Star Wars. Sounding well over the top, he even shouted seemingly loony stuff at Mikhail Gorbachev from a rostrum at the edge of the Iron Curtain in Berlin, like: Mr. G, tear down this wall.
Reagan was frontally, irredeemably American entering the White House in 1981, a time when Western Europe's economy and social fabric looked the sounder of the two continents' and when many Germans were convinced they had invented a magical massage of cash and euphemism that would soothe the Soviets into letting democracy tiptoe to their door.
Projected against this European mind-set (which, modified to fit current circumstances, applies again to Bush), Reagan was a dummy, a cowboy, and a voodoo economist creating McDo jobs. The clod actually used words that fit what he meant. The man said that if NATO's European members didn't militarily face down the Soviets' SS-20 missiles targeted on them by agreeing to deploy the cruises and Pershings, the Russians would win.
That was confrontation. And since much of the American press had amplified a vision of Reagan as a Master of Simplism, the Europeans jacked up those decibels in his first years and made Reagan out to be a dangerous fool. Demonstrations against the American missiles — Reagan-as-cowboy posters were their mark of ultimate disdain — rolled across Europe in numbers that made the anti-Iraq marching of 2003 seem weedy.
The common thread among all recent American presidents, whatever the party, and Reagan and George W. Bush, continues here."
In my youth I spent a great deal of time in Europe, enough that I believe in some cases I have a very European mindset on the issues confronting Europe. Interestingly enough, although there were all sorts of good reasons for the US to remain interested in Europe for most of the 20th century, in the 21st century, Europe is finally starting to grow out of its second infancy and learn to go it alone. This is one of the reasons I think that the US had no, and I repeat NO justification for intervening in Bosnia. It was a European issue. If the Europeans wanted the problem solved, they should have solved it. They need to learn to get along without the US as a world police force. But, I digress.
ReplyDeleteMany Europeans thought that Reagan was somewhat senile and more than a bit daft. His ideas were distinctly American ideas on how to solve European problems. If he were not the President of the US, they would have referred to him as another ugly American. (ugly American generally refers to the actions of American tourists.. they often don't speak the local language, expect everyone to speak english, and look down upon the local population, culture and laws.) By proposing American solutions to European problems, Reagan was short-sighted.
At the time of Reagan, the US was also still recovering from the stigma of the Vietnam conflict. (Remember, it was just 5 years since that disaster). Europe disapproved of the US's action in Vietnam even more strongly than most of the US population did. Reagan, in that respect, took blame for things which weren't his fault and had happened long before he came to power.
Crediting Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is also inappropriate. While the military build up that happened continued under Reagan, and it certainly contributed to the collapse of the USSR, it wasn't the sole cause; the USSR's economy had been in a downward spiral for decades, the victim of the weaknesses that are inherent in the peculiar form of socialism practiced by the USSR. (Aside from a few short months right after the 1917 revolution, the USSR wasn't any more communist than the church of the middle ages was christian)
Thanks for putting up with my wanderings.
K-rod wrote
ReplyDelete"K-Rod said...
"pretty representational"
Just because you say it does not make it so. I am sure we could find plenty of differing opinion peices over the years, DG.
Do you think any part of Europe was in love with Reagan in 1981? 85? 87? 89?"
Began to be the closer we got to '89.
So, tell me K-rod, what is the source of your certainty that Europe loved Reagan? Did you travel Europe much during that era? Did you correspond with many Europeans during that period? Read or listen to much news programming from any European countries - preferably in a foreign language, so that you could learn their views directly?
OR was your entire experience of the European viewpoint filtered through a single political point of view to the exclusion of any others, and that experience isolated to the U.S.?
I am quite competently fluent in French (both modern and medieval) - tomorrow is of course Bastille Day, the equivalent of the 4th of July for France; I plan to celebrate. I am able to function in German, although not to the extent I am in French. I can manage reading in Spanish and Italian, and can make rough sense of what I hear in Dutch and the Scandinavian languages, and make myself tolerably understood. I have an excellent welsh accent, but deplorably small vocabulary; an equally small vocabulary in Scots and Irish Gaelic, with a deplorable accent to match. Shall I expand on the rest of Europe, or do I make my point about original sources for a representational view?
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteEurope hated Reagan? Seriously?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I am not laughing with you.
Yeah, K-Rod, because THAT's what I said - and wow, how terribly civil of you.
First K-Rod, leaping to the extreme (Europeans HATED Reagan) is the mark of rhetorical idiot (that's not name calling, that's just my opinion).
Second, you have offered NO proof of your claims that Reagan WAS loved during his term, or IS loved by the majority of Europeans now.
I, however, both remember discussions with Europeans I knew THEN, remember the embarrasments THEN, remember the polling THEN, and can say without any equivocation the VAST majority of Western Europeans felt Reagan was a bafooon, and a dangerous one. Clearly, we don't know what Eastern Eurpopeans thought at the time - without doubt NOW they think a great deal of him.
As regards your claim Reagan deservdes the majority of credit for bringing down the USSR, my question for you is, based on what?
The Soviet Union in 1979 bought (if memory serves) something like 300 Million bushels of Australian and Candadian grain. They did NOT buy US grain because we were embargoing them. The country was failing, in fact there is a joke about Brezhnev presiding over a dead body. By 1983, 2 YEARS into Reagan's Presidency, the USSR began DECREASING (not increasing) it's military expenditures.
By 1989, when the wall came down, it was due to a series of politcal collapses, first Poland, then Czechoslovakia, then Romania, then East Germany - due to a political movement in Poland (first) which showed the rest of Europe how much better Western goods were, how much better a free(er) market would be - under a man named Lech Wallesa. When the Polish government threatened to prosecute Wallesa, Pope John Paul II threatened excommunication - which was an ENORMOUS threat inside Poland- which despite supposedly being religiously agnostic, still had above 80% of the population which considered itself Catholic.
In short, the man who saved Solidarity, and with it, the pro-Western movement in the EastBloc, was John Paul II - not Ronald Reagan.
Your comments about how Reagan DID this, and he DID that, are simply opinion. You didn't back them up with any facts at all. Do you SERIOUSLY think simply because Reagan demanded Gorbachev, a reformer who was ALREADY moving Eastern Europe toward liberties - do you SERIOUSLY think that Reagan's forceful words were the catalyst?
If so, your laughing needs to be at yourself.
Reagan spent 2.5 Trillion dollars on defense, on weapons we didn't need, and scared the HELL out of many Western Europeans. There were WIDESPREAD peace marches in Europe to try to stave off Reagans sabre-rattling. The Pershing II missile was DECLINED by every European nation we suggested it to other than West Germany. France terminated agreements with us with respect to military cooperation because of Reagan's conduct. England terminated basing rights over the Pershing II (as memory serves).
Your knowledge of this period appears woefully inadequate.
I can further testify that I am fluent in German, can make myself understood in Spanish and French, (although I prefer not to speak French unless I have to), and can read Italian fairly well, I can generally understand and read Danish. (I'd love to learn Gaelic, but that's a different story). I have traveled extensively in Europe, much of it during the 1980's. I spoke with Europeans in hostels, on trains, in pubs, restaurants, etc. (and whenever possible, in their own language) I can tell you that Reagan was NOT loved in Europe.
ReplyDeleteWas Reagan hated? No. That would be much too strong a word for it. If I had to sum up what the Western Europeans thought of Reagan, I would have to say this, "He's an eccentric old man who has some nutty ideas, who also has his finger on the nuclear trigger". Many Europeans were genuinely scared that Reagan, if provoked enough, would consider a first strike using nuclear weapons an option. As nuts as that seems today, it was US Policy at the time that a first strike wasn't ruled out. West Germany, which as Penigma stated, was the only country to accept the missiles, (Pershing II) did so at great political cost. The missles were deeply unpopular in West Germany, and I can still remember hoping during several drinking fests that the talk would not turn to politics and the missiles.
President Reagan dreamed of an 800 ship Navy. Congress gave him an 800 ship navy in one of the largest peace-time build up of the US Armed forces in history. By the time Reagan took office, who was this 800 ship navy going to fight? The Soviety Union? By the time the 800 ship navy was fully deployed (in Reagan's second term), the Soviet Union couldn't pay its crews on time, their ships had serious maintenance problems, and the Soviet economy was in the last parts of its downward spiral.
The Soviet Union wasn't defeated by outside influences by any means. It collapsed under its own weight. It had a political and economic system that couldn't sustain it, and when it broke the cardinal rule of political science, it collapsed, quite rapidly, as did the rest of the Warsaw pact. That cardinal rule is: No government can survive without at least the tacit support of its people. When the Russian people got hungry enough. When they saw what was available in the west, the USSR lost this tacit support, and the system came tumbling down. Reagan had little or nothing to do with it.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"pretty representational"
Just because you say it does not make it so. I am sure we could find plenty of differing opinion peices over the years, DG.
Do you think any part of Europe was in love with Reagan in 1981? 85? 87? 89?"
Fair enough challenge K-rod. If you think the single piece I produced is not representational, I can respect that. I don't think you would say that if you sincerely thought otherwise.
Find them then, these European pro-Reagan opinion pieces you speak of being so readily available. To make your point, in fact, find sources FROM Europe that state that opinion. Not just US op ed pieces telling us how much Reagan was loved.
I will give you that Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher of the UK developed a close relationship. But in describing Europeans point of view, you need to go further than PM Thatcher. Indeed, the UK under Thatcher hadn't decided if they even wanted to be included as part of Europe; that was pretty much the single issue more than any other which ended the remarkable duration of Thatcher as P.M.
ToE wrote:
ReplyDelete"President Reagan dreamed of an 800 ship Navy. Congress gave him an 800 ship navy in one of the largest peace-time build up of the US Armed forces in history."
I have yet to check out the size of the navy at the end of Reagan's second term of office; it was a heck of a job just finding the following info on the size of the navy in 1982 - which was 600, not 800, although I haven't verified yet if it expanded further.
You can all check this info out for yourselves at: www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/51xx/dpcs5140/doc15bEntire.pdf
COSTS OF EXPANDING AND MODERNIZING
THE NAVY'S CARRIER-BASED AIR FORCES
The Congress of the United States
Congressional Budget Office
PREFACE
The Administration's defense program includes a major expansion
of the Navy. This program would involve substantial expenditures
not only for additional ships but also for naval aircraft,
both to establish new carrier-based air wings and to complete the
modernization of the 12 existing wings.
This report, prepared at the request of the House Committee
on Armed Services, estimates the cost of adding new Navy air
wings and modernizing the Navy's fighter and attack forces. It
also examines alternative approaches to Navy aircraft force
modernization. A companion paper, Building a 600-Ship Navy;
Costs, Timing, and Alternative Approaches, examines shipbuilding
issues, while a forthcoming Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
paper will address manpower concerns. In accordance with CBO's
mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, the paper
offers no recommendations."
Lets just say that the assertion that Reagan was spending a LOT of money is a fair one, and anyone who doubts it can check out the budget office data; this one is for 1982, but there are subsequent years...and years...and years.