poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (11/06/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 5 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 100
[Messages are coming in so fast that I'm holding some and putting
out single-subject issues.]
Contents: Upstill vs McGeer on conventional national politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 12:14:11 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Steve Upstill's letter said essentially that he wasn't going to vote
for President Reagan because, well, Reagan was incompetent in foreign
affairs, and had a black-and-white (red-and-white?) world view in which the
Soviet Union was the enemy and must be destroyed.
Ahem. I am going to vote for President Reagan for several reasons.
First, it seems to me that it is a bad idea to defeat a President running
for re-election unless (as was the case in 1980) the sitting President has
mangled his job so badly that only a nut or a fool could possibly recommend
him for any task more arduous than peanut-farming; the hallmark of succesful
policy is consistency, and it strikes me that changing horse without
excellent cause is to sow disaster, which is a wildly mixed metaphor.
Anyway, by any rational standard, President Reagan has been at least
moderately succesful; indeed, the only thing that Democrats can find to talk
about this year is what Reagan *might* do in his next term, in general
refusing to debate his actions in the current term. These things range from
sending troops to central America, conveniently ignoring (and irresponsibly
ignoring, in my view) the President's repeated insistence that his current
policy is an attempt to *avoid* sending troops to Central America. The
price of cutting off US aid to El Salvador, besides almost assuredly
destroying one of the few decent, civilized leaders in latin America, may
well be US troops in combat in the region in the late eighties. And if I
had to bet, and I do, I'd bet that Mondale would likely send US troops to El
Salvador in a few years -- and that Reagan will never have to.
Second. Steve dislikes President Reagan's military buildup;
he espescially dislikes MX. However, with the exception of the B-1 bomber,
every Reagan weapons program in fact was originated by President Carter. I
cannot for the life of me see why the Pershing, Cruise, or MX programs are
any more dangerous now than they were in 1979, when Carter proposed them.
By the way, Steve, MX is *not* a city-buster; that function is reserved for
the sea leg of the Triad. The Air and Missile arms are strictly fr
counterforce. I'm afraid that Mondale's opposition to MX is strictly a
matter of political convenience.
Third. Steve thinks that Reagan should not call the Soviet Union an
"evil empire". Well, goodness me, I don't know what else to call it. From
the forced starvation of the Kulaks (while the Soviets exported grain!) to
the conquest and repression of Eastern Europe, to the rape of Afghanistan,
to Gulag, and to the attempted assasination of the Holy Father, Soviet
actions have been purest evil; and one can hardly deny that a nation which
dominates two continents and rigidly controls a score of "independent"
satellites is an empire. One of the cruel facts of human history is that we
must learn to live in peace with evil. We cannot, as Steve points out,
conceivably alter the character of the Soviet Union, and we must certainly
not fight them in a war. However, just because we must live in peace with
the Soviets does not mean that we should delude ourselves as to the Soviets'
nature. Indeed, it is *only* is we recognize the Soviets for what they are
-- aggressive, repressive, opportunistic and expansionist -- can we hope to
live in peace.
Fourth. Steve thinks that Reagan should have signed arms-control
argreements with the Soviets. Well, it was the *Soviets* who walked out of
the talks, not us: and they walked out of the talks because the
administration would not give -- as no American administration *could*
give -- the Soviets a monopoly on theater weapons in Europe. I cannot for
the life of me see how an arms race that the Soviets started -- the TNF race
in Europe -- can possibly be blamed on an American administration. And I do
not understand what proposal or set of proposals the administration could
possibly have proposed that would have been accepted by the Soviets and
would also have maintained the unified defense of free Europe.
Fifth. Steve thinks that Reagan should have met the Soviet leaders.
But how can he? They keep dying on him. Moreover, every new Soviet leader
spends many months consolidating his power, and is in no position to conduct
any foreign business.
Sixth. Steve dislikes MAD. Well, so do I. But it's Reagan who's
proposed a way out, and Mondale is opposed to it. I wonder: if a liberal
president had proposed the SDI, would we really be hearing the oppostion to
it that we're now hearing? Would we? Honestly?
Finally. Steve's letter was the worst example I've yet read of what
Jeane Kirkpatrick calls the "blame America first" syndrome. The Soviets
have been pushing their influence, exploting opportunites and stirring up
trouble for a decade -- while going on a huge buildup of both their
conventional and nuclear forces -- and the reaction of many to the resulting
chill has been to blame the United States and particularly President Reagan.
There is absolutely no evidence for such blame and it is an absolute
disgrace that Walter Mondale has, for his own partisan advantage, attacked
the President for Soviet misdeeds. Moreover, Mondale's position ignores
AMerican interests which as President he could not ignore; the great danger
is that he will postpone any action until the only possible action is war,
much as Chamberlain postponed prophylactic action against Hitler until the
only recourse to Britain was war. And that, ultimately, is why I think
that we'll be safer in the eighties under Reagan (this decade's Churchill)
than under Mondale.
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 22:31:35 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
I am reluctant to respond to Rick McGeer's "Counter Propaganda," but who
can resist a good argument? But I have a thesis to write, so just a few major
points:
[from Rick]
Steve dislikes President Reagan's military buildup; he espescially
dislikes MX. However, with the exception of the B-1 bomber, every
Reagan weapons program in fact was originated by President Carter.
Irrelevant.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Pershing, Cruise, or MX
programs are any more dangerous now than they were in 1979, when
Carter proposed them.
Ditto.
By the way, Steve, MX is *not* a city-buster; that function is reserved
for the sea leg of the Triad. The Air and Missile arms are strictly
for counterforce.
Sources? I believe we've had land-based missiles a lot longer than
we've had submarine-based, and longer than the Russians have had ICBMs.
Counterforce only? Sorry.
Steve thinks that Reagan should not call the Soviet Union an
"evil empire"...I don't know what else to call it...[list of Soviet
atrocities] Soviet actions have been purest evil;
Okay, now here's the crux. Let's make the distinction between evil
actions, and pure evil. We can abhor Soviet atrocities without adopting
the quasi-religious viewpoint that they are the result of some Satanic
force. Not being a religious man, this is my position. There is all the
difference in the world between saying your enemy does evil things, and
saying that he IS evil. This difference is what I was belaboring in my
letter. The former case has several advantages, in addition to being the
correct one (:-). If you believe that evil resides exclusively and intractably
within your enemy, there is no sense trying to get along with him, no
possibility of effecting positive change. All you can do is resist or
destroy him. Recall that until Nixon went there, China was lost to the
devil too. He did go there, and now there are more Communists on our
side than on theirs.
If you reject the ecumenical view of the world, you are also free
to acknowledge that Our side does evil things too. Reagan would never
admit such a thing.
I would call the Soviet government a corrupt, Byzantine, incompetent
bureaucracy which tries, as does our own, to expand its influence and its
number of allies. At this, they are of problematic efficacy; America,
believe it or not, really is the example of prosperity and hope the world
turns to. God sakes, Cuba drains them of billions a year,
they can't even tame Afghanistan, and Poland would bolt first chance they
got. Have you looked at the box score of nations that have switched from
one side to the other in the last thirty years? It's close to stochastic,
but it doesn't look good for the Soviets. Face it, imperialism is dead.
But, if you believe, as Reagan does, that we are facing Armageddon,
then you are a dangerous person to have as president. Just as a simple
example, you should realize that in a situation where both sides possess
counterforce weapons, the only thing you need to start a war is the belief
that the OTHER side is about to start one. I maintain that Reagan's worldview
makes him unsuitable for making this decision.
Reagan has reached no arms control with them because he doesn't believe
in it. It's as simple as that, and if you believe otherwise you are
deluding yourself. He has to make a show of trying to talk to them, but
he doesn't really have to try to make progress, because a show is enough.
I really don't have much else to say, because if you can't see it, I
can't convince you of it.
I wonder: if a liberal president had proposed the SDI, would we
really be hearing the oppostion to it that we're now hearing?
Would we? Honestly?
I hope so. But this question is completely irrelevant.
Steve's letter was the worst example I've yet read of what Jeane
Kirkpatrick calls the "blame America first" syndrome. The Soviets have
been pushing their influence, exploting opportunites and stirring up
trouble for a decade -- while going on a huge buildup of both their
conventional and nuclear forces -- and the reaction of many to the
resulting chill has been to blame the United States and particularly
President Reagan.
This is really upsetting. For God's sake, this is my country, this is
a democracy, what do you expect me to do, go to Moscow? I put my influence
where it will count. I want my country to be as moral as it can be, and its
utter refusal to accept ANY trace whatsoever, of the responsibility for the
arms race, is utterly reprehensible to me. And I do mean any.
Steve Upstill
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 11:04:34 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
<On the counterforce vs city-busting argument>:
Sorry, I can't remember the source for that statement. I do know that
Congress has been told that we use the B-1 and the MX as counterforce
weapons, since the sea leg of the triad is completely adequate for
city-busting, but too inaccurate for counterforce. So you might (for
example) want to launch counterforce weapons in a war, but hold back the
citybusters, on the theory that both sides will leave the civilian
populations alone. Of course, if you believe in nuclear winter, then there
isn't any difference between counterforce and city-busters.
Okay, now here's the crux. Let's make the distinction between evil
actions, and pure evil. We can abhor Soviet atrocities without
adopting the quasi-religious viewpoint that they are the result of
some Satanic force. Not being a religious man, this is my position.
There is all the difference in the world between saying your enemy
does evil things, and saying that he IS evil. This difference is
what I was belaboring in my letter. The former case has several
advantages, in addition to being the correct one (:-). If you
believe that evil resides exclusively and intractably within your
enemy, there is no sense trying to get along with him, no
possibility of effecting positive change. All you can do is resist
or destroy him. Recall that until Nixon went there, China was lost
to the devil too. He did go there, and now there are more
Communists on our side than on theirs.
Well, I don't think Communism has a whole bunch to do with the evils of the
Soviet empire. Political doctrines, like religions, have a way of adopting
to the culture that they govern, and I have yet to see any noteworthy
difference between the evil Soviet empire and the evil Russian empire that
preceded it. In any case, "evil" describes why I don't want them to
dominate the world; "empire" describes their intention of doing so. I don't
think that we can ever really get along with the Russians. I do think that,
if we recognize what they are and do so honestly, then we can develop a
modus vivendi within which we can contain our mutual dislike. And I think
that kidding ourselves about their nature (as President Carter did, for
example) simply invites them to follow their worst instincts, which are
pretty damned bad. Nixon, for all of his many, many faults, has been the
only President to date who's qctually (a) regognized that the Soviets are an
evil empire; and (b) realized that you could deal with them anyway. By the
way, I wouldn't want to live under the Chinese, either. But they aren't
imperialistic.
If you reject the ecumenical view of the world, you are also free to
acknowledge that Our side does evil things too. Reagan would never
admit such a thing.
I guess the difference is that we do fewer evil things, we admit them, and
we occasionally try to compensate people and do right by them later. I
think that our behaviour in Chile in the early 70's was disgraceful, though.
I would call the Soviet government a corrupt, Byzantine, incompetent
bureaucracy which tries, as does our own, to expand its influence
and its number of allies. At this, they are of problematic
efficacy; America, believe it or not, really is the example of
prosperity and hope the world turns to. God sakes, Cuba drains them
of billions a year, they can't even tame Afghanistan, and Poland
would bolt first chance they got. Have you looked at the box score
of nations that have switched from one side to the other in the last
thirty years? It's close to stochastic, but it doesn't look good
for the Soviets. Face it, imperialism is dead.
Cuba may drain them of billions a year, and the eastern European subject
states may want to bolt. But, Steve, no nation in the Soviet grip has ever
managed to get loose, unless you count China. I hope you're right, and
America is the shining hope of the world; I've always thought it is. But I
have no faith that right will triumph a priori; civilization has been
overrun by the barbarians before, and there is no reason that it cannot
happen again. What did Harry Truman say about keeping powder dry?
But, if you believe, as Reagan does, that we are facing Armageddon,
then you are a dangerous person to have as president. Just as a
simple example, you should realize that in a situation where both
sides possess counterforce weapons, the only thing you need to start
a war is the belief that the OTHER side is about to start one. I
maintain that Reagan's worldview makes him unsuitable for making
this decision.
That is hauled very much out of context, and is a bit of a cheap shot. As
for the business of counterforce weapons, the whole idea behind MX is that
MX can survive a first strike, hence no President ever need launch on
warning.
[Me]
Steve's letter was the worst example I've yet read of what
Jeane Kirkpatrick calls the "blame America first" syndrome.
The Soviets have been pushing their influence, exploting
opportunites and stirring up trouble for a decade -- while
going on a huge buildup of both their conventional and
nuclear forces -- and the reaction of many to the resulting
chill has been to blame the United States and particularly
President Reagan.
[Steve]
This is really upsetting. For God's sake, this is my country, this
is a democracy, what do you expect me to do, go to Moscow? I put my
influence where it will count. I want my country to be as moral as
it can be, and its utter refusal to accept ANY trace whatsoever, of
the responsibility for the arms race, is utterly reprehensible to
me. And I do mean any.
If I had a nickel for every asinine statement I've made, I'd be five cents
richer today. Steve, I apologize. On rereading, that paragraph sounds like
I'm accusing you of disloyalty, which I would never do -- our feelings for
our country (or, in my case, countries) are a private matter, and the only
thing that annoys me more than the unspoken Republican theme that anyone
that doesn't support President Reagan is disloyal is the spoken Democratic
theme that anyone voting Republican does so solely from self-interest.
Anyway, I extend my public as well as private apologies for that paragraph.
What I MEANT to say was something very like what you said: that is, that
because we can affect American decisions, we tend to be very tough on the
actions of our own government. However, since our government can't surrender
superiority to the Soviets, such criticism, when it is unwarranted -- and I
think most of the criticisms of Reagan are unwarranted -- in fact hinder the
cause of peace, since the Soviets are then persuaded that they can win with
the public what they cannot win from our government.
Finally, let me say I'm very sympathetic to your feelings about America's
responsibility to act morally in the world. What you said earlier about
the world's view of America as the shining hope of liberty and prosperity
can only be true if America acts morally. I admit, America has not and does
not behave with perfect ethics in the world. I guess to an extent that's
because our governments have a bit of that venality which seems to go with
government universally; to a larger extent, it is because power involves
responsibility -- the responsibilty to act and to make decisions in an
imperfect world where there are no -- well, few -- perfectly moral choices,
and where the failure to act may be as bad as any act that one may
make...the question is not "is building weapons bad?" for assuredly that is
true; but the question is "is there a better choice? Will the world be
better is we build weapons or abstain?" And I think that the actions of the
Soviet Union make it clear that they will not negotiate until they see no
alternative.
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 11:16:51 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Well, that's as good a way to close the discussion as I can imagine.
Apologies accepted without reservation. All that I can add is:
---my judgement that trying to spend the Soviets into submission is both
morally corrupt and impractical. My view of the Russian government is
inconsistent of them EVER giving in due to economic pressure (one of
their hallmarks under both flavors of czar has been a ferocious
unwillingness to bow to MILITARY pressure, much less economic). I feel
that the most likely scenario is for them to spend until their economy
collapses entirely, and war happens out of the stress of that situation.
---a reiteration of my contention that the lack of alternatives to the
build-weapons-or-surrender "choice" for dealing with the arms race is
a failure of determination and creativity. There are any number of
proposals out there for lessening tension and incrementally backing down
off the current confrontational techniques without endangering national
security. I still feel that the least we could do is consider them
publicly and try each one that has any reasonable hope of success. Even
trying would alleviate the climate of tension and hostility that exists.
At the very least, it would make us unambiguous good guys again.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 16:08:20 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
(1) I agree with your first point...spending the Russians into submission is
not what I had in mind. Spending the Russians to the negotiating table was
a little more like it.
(2) I agree. In fact, I can think of a number of such proposals myself:
crisis centres (not new), NATO observers with every WP military unit and
vice-versa, and so forth. I'm a little cynical about the prospects, though,
given the reward the west got for our earlier period of trust in the
Russians -- Afghanistan and SS-20s in Europe...
Rick.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------