Why Cold War Presidents Were Better

[Peter1469]

Why have recent US presidents been lacking in foreign policy? (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/06/27/why_cold_war_presidents_were_better_105279.html)


Now compare Clinton, the younger Bush and Obama with George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman. The difference is profound. The elder Bush helped steer the Cold War to a nonviolent conclusion beneficial to the United States (http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/united_states/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink), even as he fought a war with Iraq without a quagmire ensuing. Reagan hastened the end of the Cold War through Wilsonian rhetoric combined with pragmatic diplomacy and targeted defense expenditures. Nixon opened up relations with "Red" China (http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/china/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink) in order to balance against the Soviet Union, even as he restored diplomatic relations with pivotal Arab countries while coming to Israel (http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/israel/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink)'s rescue during the 1973 war. Kennedy accepted full responsibility for the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs, then expertly steered the country through the Cuban missile crisis. Eisenhower, for eight long years, combined toughness with restraint in dealing with the Soviet Union and Communist China. Truman rightly dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in order to avoid a land invasion of Japan (http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/japan/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink), prevented a Communist takeover of Greece (http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/greece/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink) and established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

I think that the reason is that during the Cold War US presidents had to rely on realism rather than ideology in foreign affairs. After all mutually assured destruction was on the table.

[jillian]

Why have recent US presidents been lacking in foreign policy? (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/06/27/why_cold_war_presidents_were_better_105279.html)



I think that the reason is that during the Cold War US presidents had to rely on realism rather than ideology in foreign affairs. After all mutually assured destruction was on the table.

they also relied on ideology...

it was just different ideology, imo.

[Peter1469]

they also relied on ideology...

it was just different ideology, imo.

They acted on geopolitics. Of course they had an ideology, but they typically acted on rational models. And sure there were some mistakes- costly mistakes.

[jillian]

They acted on geopolitics. Of course they had an ideology, but they typically acted on rational models. And sure there were some mistakes- costly mistakes.

well, we spent fortunes of proxy wars... had a couple of "police actions" that should never have been fought, almost bankrupted ourselves building nuclear weapons and came thisclose to blowing up the world over cuba.

yeah... sounds rational to me, peter. :dunno:

[Peter1469]

well, we spent fortunes of proxy wars... had a couple of "police actions" that should never have been fought, almost bankrupted ourselves building nuclear weapons and came thisclose to blowing up the world over cuba.

yeah... sounds rational to me, peter. :dunno:

Well the article discusses all that. And also discusses how the presidents of the Cold War did better with foriegn policy than those after the Cold War. Nixon opened China for instance. That was very significant- and likely was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

[KC]

Why have recent US presidents been lacking in foreign policy? (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/06/27/why_cold_war_presidents_were_better_105279.html)



I think that the reason is that during the Cold War US presidents had to rely on realism rather than ideology in foreign affairs. After all mutually assured destruction was on the table.

We're still feeling the aftermath of Eisenhower's foreign policy. Not a very good President imo.

[Peter1469]

We're still feeling the aftermath of Eisenhower's foreign policy. Not a very good President imo.

Expand on that.

[KC]

Expand on that.

Until the coups in Guatemala and Iran most of the third world and former European colonies thought the United States was a great hero. Since those interventions we've taken an entirely different role and they've taken a different view of us, particular in the ME.

[Peter1469]

Until the coups in Guatemala and Iran most of the third world and former European colonies thought the United States was a great hero. Since those interventions we've taken an entirely different role and they've taken a different view of us, particular in the ME.

I am not familiar with much of his foriegn policy beyond the Marshal Plan.

[KC]

I am not familiar with much of his foriegn policy beyond the Marshal Plan.

It's mostly due to John Foster Dulles, imo. The intervention in Guatemala destroyed the country's potential for democracy and the small banana republic spent the next several decades in unrest, culminating in the genocides of '81 and '82. The overthrow of Mossadegh left Iran in the control of the Shah, who ruled harshly and eventually brought about the Iranian Revolution, which deposed him. Since then, the country has been ruled primarily by anti American clerics, whereas Mossadegh and his ilk were strongly pro American.

[Rebel Son]

They acted on geopolitics. Of course they had an ideology, but they typically acted on rational models. And sure there were some mistakes- costly mistakes.

Everyone has an ideology, that is a problem in today's politics. Too many idiots are trying to run something that they have no idea about. That would run into a simple document called the constitution. Not that hard to read or make since of really.

I think the rational models is questionable, reason being that what is reasonable to a rational person isn't even close to a progressive IMO anyway.

[jillian]

Everyone has an ideology, that is a problem in today's politics. Too many idiots are trying to run something that they have no idea about. That would run into a simple document called the constitution. Not that hard to read or make since of really.

I think the rational models is questionable, reason being that what is reasonable to a rational person isn't even close to a progressive IMO anyway.

if the constitution is "not hard to read or make sense of really" why have legal scholars (e.g., the people who actually know what it says) argued over it's meaning and interpretation for more than two hundred years?

[Peter1469]

It's mostly due to John Foster Dulles, imo. The intervention in Guatemala destroyed the country's potential for democracy and the small banana republic spent the next several decades in unrest, culminating in the genocides of '81 and '82. The overthrow of Mossadegh left Iran in the control of the Shah, who ruled harshly and eventually brought about the Iranian Revolution, which deposed him. Since then, the country has been ruled primarily by anti American clerics, whereas Mossadegh and his ilk were strongly pro American.

Del Monte Fruit Co.- I think! For South America.

[Rebel Son]

if the constitution is "not hard to read or make sense of really" why have legal scholars (e.g., the people who actually know what it says) argued over it's meaning and interpretation for more than two hundred years?

Because they get paid to litigate these things. It's a simple document, it was meant to be a simple document and not embedded with BS. Those with a degree in tyranny seem to have a different view.

Could you define the first court case over the constitution and prove it being more than two hundred years old?

[jillian]

Because they get paid to litigate these things. It's a simple document, it was meant to be a simple document and not embedded with BS. Those with a degree in tyranny seem to have a different view.

Could you define the first court case over the constitution and prove it being more than two hundred years old?

we aren't talking about litigators...we're talking about scholars.

what is "due" process absent the case law.

what is constitutes a "taking"?

what is being forced to give evidence against yourself and when can it be compelled?

what is protected speech?

you cannot read the document and ignore 200 years of caselaw.

the first case over the constitution? define it or tell you what it was?

the first case that's considered to begin our body of caselaw is marbury v madison

read it sometime. you might find it interesting.

[jillian]

Well, actually the title of the thread was about "Presidents", are you saying all presidents are scholars or what?

I see you only answer a question with another question. Answer the obvious and then stuff some questions down the throat.


you are the one who made the comment that "the constitution is easy to read".

it isn't.

i was correcting you. you made that the topic.

i see you have no response. not surprising.

[Rebel Son]

we aren't talking about litigators...we're talking about scholars.


the first case that's considered to begin our body of caselaw is marbury v madison

read it sometime. you might find it interesting.

Really? So all of our presidents were scholars ? What year of the republic was the marbury v madison taken to the courts? You need to expand on that some rather than expect everyone to take it as fact.

An answer with another question, naw..............you can do better I think.