Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Our local paper had an opinion piece on the death of democracy and the rise of fascism - meaning, capitalism, of course - and it contained this characterization:
By the time Reagan imperiously commanded Gorbachev to "tear down that wall," the evil empire had already imploded. It was in its death throes. The U.S. president relished his opportunity to turn the Russian people's suffering into a live-action morality tale.
The longer the bread lines in Moscow, the more he mocked the austerity that such images displayed. To Reagan, the lesson could not have been simpler. Get out those credit cards, America, and turn up the thermostat. The Cold War's over and the good guys won.
I realize it's unfair to the author to take Peter's characterizations over hers, since Peter's views are no doubt tainted by experience. But what did Reagan think of the Russian people and their trials? I tend to suspect he regarded them as human beings who deserved to be free, not props in an empty parade of ideological bromides. But gosh, that's just a guess.
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Reagan's (Peter Robinson's) famous statement wasn't an "imperious command" either. It was a plea, with a calm tone of voice rooted in the absurdity of having a wall separating a nation, and followed the first part of the sentence: "open up these gates, Mr. Gorbachev." Being only 6 when he gave this speech I never heard the full sentence until a few years ago.
Jun '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
James Lileks:
Wow! A real-life example of a rip in the space/time continuum. President Reagan gave the speech on June 12, 1987--the Soviet Union formally dissolved in December 1991.
And the wall didn't come down until November 9, 1989.
Does this "local paper" have editors?
Edited on June 11, 2012 at 3:27amMay '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
The piece is simply breathtaking in its ignorance and moral bankruptcy. The idea that 4 decades of repression of millions of Eastern Europeans is in any way justifiable because 27 millions Russians died fighting the Nazis (many deaths were in no small part because of Stalin's incompetence as a tactician) is appalling. For all her vaunted concern for those in the bread lines of Moscow, her justification for the bread lines in Riga, Warsaw, and Prague is grossly hypocritical. How anyone can take her seriously is a complete mystery to me.
May '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
tabula rasa
Wow! A real-life example of a rip in the space/time continuum. · 9 minutes ag
o
If time travel is possible, I suggest the Ricochet community come together to sponsor a trip for the good Mrs. Blodgett to Budapest circa 1956.
Mar '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Ms. Blodgett sees consigning the populations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, and East Germany to the tender mercies of the Soviet Union as being justified because the Russians had a bad war? That those peoples and all they possessed were legitimate spoils of war because Uncle Joe only trusted one man in his life, and that man was Adolf Hitler?
People who can think like that have no business lobbing the word "imperious" around. Ever.
Jun '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Dan
tabula rasa
Wow! A real-life example of a rip in the space/time continuum. · 9 minutes ag
o
If time travel is possible, I suggest the Ricochet community come together to sponsor a trip for the good Mrs. Blodgett to Budapest circa 1956. · 2 minutes ago
Or Prague in August 1968.
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Who knew that Reagan could destroy the Soviet Union so quickly? Certainly not the left; far from believing, as your fellow Star-Tribune writer claims, that "the evil empire had already imploded" in 1987 when Reagan gave his "tear down the wall" speech as recently as 1982, they thought the Soviet Union was doing just swell.
Since I don't have space to quote a few paragraphs from Glenn Garvin of Reason's 2003 review of Peter Schweizer's book, Reagan's War as a comment, click over to a post by Virginia Postrel highlighting just how of touch John Kenneth Galbraith, Lester Thurow, and Arthur Schlesinger were on the Soviet Union's terminal condition.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Yeaaah, the Strib, always breaking new ground ... as long as it's on the Left. They are no doubt sharing the pain in Wisconsin and showing that if St. Paul ever gets tough on unions, they've got rabble to rouse.
Miss Blodgett follows in the footsteps of famous dupes (maybe intentionally) with her misplaced sympathies. The Communist hostages (called citizens in a democracy) were, for the most part, delighted to see Reagan stand up to their feckless leadership.
I would ask why any reasonably honest editorial board could publish such obvious nonsense ... but I know, they've got an election to win so petty things like integrity and accuracy aren't important in this most important election in history™.
May '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
tabula rasa
James Lileks:
Wow! A real-life example of a rip in the space/time continuum. President Reagan gave the speech on June 12, 1987--the Soviet Union formally dissolved in December 1991.
Ahhhh, but you miss the twist on one of the major liberal memes on Reagan....he didn't beat the Soviet Union, they peacefully and willingly dismantled themselves under the leadership of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev.
This is slightly different, implying that Reagan's speech had no effect. The implosion was already underway, dontchaknow? Of course they conveniently ignore why that implosion was underway.
Until Peter's Cold War treatise arrives, the best book to read on how Reagan actually caused the implosion, and wasn't just a unwitting beneficiary, is Peter Schweizer's Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Economic corporatism is a cornerstone of fascism, of course. Liberals/Progressives seem to always mistake corporatism for capitalism. But then, so do too many Republicans.
I dare say, few people loved Ronald Wilson Reagan more than I. The preponderance of evidence of his collected spoken and written words (public and private) seem to concur with your "guess."
But James, you shouldn't be sucked into the illogical narrative that easily. No one knows what's in another man's heart or mind. Not even the people who "knew" him. I love him for what he did, and I don't worry about his secret thoughts.
BTW, please warn us next time you link to Minneapolis Pravda. I'd just eaten a large Sunday dinner before I came into the computer room.
May '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Percival
Ms. Blodgett sees consigning the populations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, and East Germany to the tender mercies of the Soviet Union as being justified because the Russians had a bad war? That those peoples and all they possessed were legitimate spoils of war because Uncle Joe only trusted one man in his life, and that man was Adolf Hitler?
People who can think like that have no business lobbing the word "imperious" around. Ever. · 10 minutes ago
Thanks, you put it much better than I did.
Sep '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
I can see what you put up with as a Star reader. Not that I bothered to read the whole thing, but that article is ridiculous, setting up several absurd straw-men about capitalism and fascism/communism, and claiming FDR knew these.
I can't fathom what "fascism and communism are apolitical" is supposed to mean.
Look at the comments you see the readers are largely equally ignorant and raving. a fellow Talk Talk really takes this down well.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Dan
The piece is simply breathtaking in its ignorance and moral bankruptcy. The idea that 4 decades of repression of millions of Eastern Europeans is in any way justifiable because 27 millions Russians died fighting the Nazis (many deaths were in no small part because of Stalin's incompetence as a tactician) is appalling. For all her vaunted concern for those in the bread lines of Moscow, her justification for the bread lines in Riga, Warsaw, and Prague is grossly hypocritical. How anyone can take her seriously is a complete mystery to me.
Her speculations about Roosevelt's grasp of the issues present even greater mysteries to me.
"I think if I give [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy."
---Franklin Roosevelt
Aug '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
I visited Moscow and then-Leningrad in January 1987, i.e. less than six months before the Berlin speech. I was a callow undergraduate, suffused with socialistic tendencies.
A couple of weeks' worth of seeing, first-hand, the sullen queues for the most mundane consumer products; the hard, beaten faces of the people on the streets; and the pathetic state of the empire's infrastructure (which couldn't be hidden) convinced me I needed to do some re-thinking.
It was too late for me to vote for President Reagan, of course, but by that June I knew in my heart he'd done something brave and historic. And as for the idiots who now say it was obvious by that point the USSR was crumbling: no. No, it was not.
Let me close by noting that I'm very glad to be part of a community in which we can discuss that day with open eyes, and indeed hear from the man who wrote those very words. Peter?
Edited on June 11, 2012 at 4:44amAug '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
That article is just... wow.
Sure, if you call confiscating all American gold and instituting centrally planned wage and price controls "nuanced". His economic policy was to try every iron-fisted federal control the Supreme Court would let stand. As nuanced as a brick lobbed by a blind economist.
What? History itself renders this sentence absurd!
Capitalism without boundaries is called laissez-faire. It lifted the living standards of entire nations, before regulatory backlash kicked in and ensured no country would practice laissez-faire for the last ~100 years.
Facism is nationalism without boundaries. It has aspects of corporatism, but only because fascism subjugates everything in service of the state, including the economy.
Facism is very political, because it is inextricably tied to the political identity of the state. Small-c communism is also inherently political as it seeks to replace existing states as a transcendent governing order, per Lenin and Marx (who knew infinitely more about all three subjects than Blodgett).
Jun '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
BlueAnt:
What? History itself renders this sentence absurd!
All true. Also, I'm no fan of FDR, but I'd love to see Ms. Blodgett document that FDR "knew that fascism is capitalism without boundaries." FDR was certainly a social democrat, but I don't believe for a minute that he drew the suggested connection between capitalism and fascism. Besides that, does anyone have a clue what "capitalism without boundaries" means?
Jun '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
I would like to know from Peter if the people around Ronald Reagan knew he was a philosopher and a visionary. Reagan understood at the time that the USSR would fail because it was morally bankrupt, but I doubt even Reagan himself expected to see its ultimate demise. And where does the late, great William F. Buckley fit into this equation? I've heard claims that WFB was the catalyst for Reagan's conversion to conservatism. If so, then Buckley should have a seat in the ranks next to Chesterton, Muggeridge, and Orwell.
Mar '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
Is it a rule now that we have to use the word austerity at every possible opportunity?
Jan '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
I used to think that alternative universes were only plot devices.
Dec '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson, Enabler of Imperiousness
From the article:
"Reckless spending at all levels of society caused the current recession..."
Bonnie, don't you mean 'reckless investment'?