Reagan the Peacenik?

[Annie]

Interestingly I heard on C-Span the other day, one of the leftist pundits carrying on about the differences between the 'cowboy' Reagan and the 'real cowboy' Bush. His premise was that Reagan ONLY talked tough, he was really a multi-lateral incognito. Whereas, GW is really a rougue, totally out of control.

Seems to be a bit of this going on now, Democratic Playbook someone mentioned a bit ago, this may be part:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/Reaganthemultilateralpeac.shtml

Lots before and lots after this excerpt, there are a lot of links also:

John reacts:

Nowhere in Diggins' silly piece today, which purports to be an assessment of the Reagan Doctrine and its relation to the current administration, is the phrase "peace through strength." Nowhere does Diggins acknowledge Reagan's belief that America has an obligation to promote liberal democracy around the world. Nowhere is there a reference to Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Nowhere is there a reference to the battle Reagan waged to deploy Pershing missiles in Europe. Nowhere is there a reference to Reagan's aggressive and controversial policies in Central America, which, thanks to his lax management style, almost brought down his presidency. Can one write about Reagan's foreign policy without mentioning these things? Apparently, you can write anything you want in the New York Times, provided you don't defend Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush simultaneously.

Basically, in order to separate Reagan from Bush and the dreaded "neocons," Diggins makes Reagan a kind of peacenick.

He's right. I found myself increasingly awed as I read the Diggins piece, as his version of the 1980's diverged further and further from the way I remember it. I was particularly struck by this observation:

The difference between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush's militant brain staff is that he believed in negotiation and they in escalation. They wanted to win the cold war; he sought to end it.