Deseret News | Reagan's role overstated

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Reagan's role overstated

Yes | 1:57 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Gorbachev was a brilliant leader and single most important individual in bringing down the wall!

The Pope Was There Too | 3:50 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

And don't forget the role Pope John Paul played...

No | 4:14 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Gorbachev was and is a political hack. Smarter than some, no doubt, but a hack nonetheless.

If President Reagan had continued Carter administration policies, Gorbachev would never have permitted the unfolding freedom movement.

Reagan, not Gorbachev was the catalyst and motive force behind the fall of the Soviet Union.

No paleoliberal revisionism can change that.

Comments continue below

More liberal lies | 5:36 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

If it were not for Reagan we'd still be in the cold war...

You guys need to read a little history.

Black Knight | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

As a teacher of AP European History and also as one who has spent a considerable amount of time in the former Eastern Bloc (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, the old DDR, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), I can completely verify the high regard the citizens of these nations have for the President Reagan. Why are there town squares, city parks, and major streets in these countries named for him, but not for Gorbachev anywhere? Also,does anyone seriously believe that had Carter been re-elected in 1980 or Mondale been elected in 1984 the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 would have occurred at those times? The policies of those two appeasers would very likely have helped to keep the European Communist regimes in power for many more years. Finally, remember it was Reagan's SDI and the possibillty of its successful implementation that convinced the Soviets that their military and economy could not keep up with the Western democracies. We should be thankful for the role played by President Reagan and the anti-Communist policies of all his predecessors from Truman through Ford in winning the Cold War.

Black Knight | 7:59 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

In addition to President Reagan, we must always acknowledge the important roles of Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in bringing about the end of the Cold War

Steve | 8:04 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

More liberal claptrap. Reagan had simple answers for complex problems, "The cold war ends when we win and they lose." They lost.... we won. Detente was thankfully not in his playbook. Liberals would rather live on their knees than die on their feet. Having them in charge of foreign affairs is dangerous. Debating this with the likes of England is pointless. I was told he went to school in Cuba and studied at the Castro Institute of Revisionist History.

Anonymous | 8:17 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

It was rayguns huge deficit spending that helped end the cold war. Nothing he said helped at all.

Doug G | 8:59 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Reagan was hardly taking any ideological risks with 'tear down this wall' and the drunken sailor approach to defense spending. I remember ronnie bumbling along as an also ran in this process, with gorbachev proposing all kinds of changes and leading with his vision of the future, and the pope working behind the scenes to change humanity. Reagan just wanted more and bigger guns (where is our billions of dollars star wars thingy, anyway?) but that didn't make gorbachev a reformer. He was already touted as a breath of fresh air when I met him by accident in 1983 in an airport. He was, even before assuming the leadership role, talking of reforming soviet agriculture. Anyway, for whatever role history assigns the players, I'm glad to have watched this play unfold.

Reagan walked on water | 9:29 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

He just couldn't remember how he got there.

@Black Knight | 9:35 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Carter an appeaser? Hardly! He was the one who started the massive military buildup after the Russkies invaded Afghanistan. He resurrected the MIRVed MX missile project to answer a Soviet first-strike threat. He hardened American policy against Soviet treatment of dissent. He boycotted the Moscow Olympics. If Black Knight is teaching AP History, he should know this...but then again, maybe his ideology is getting in the way of his students.

@Steve | 9:51 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

More conservative claptrap. My uncle was a New Deal Democrat liberal who died on his feet in World War II, in spite of your contemptible fantasies about your liberal neighbors. Oh, I was told you went to school in American Fark and studied at the Cleon Skousen School of RightWing Delusions.

Try the Obvious | 10:02 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

When the devious doesn't work try the obvious.
That's what Reagan did vis-a-vis the Evil Empire.

No more oily diplomacy, no more endless and pointless meeetings with disingenuous, robotic, programmed nomenklatura. No more Contaiment, detente and generally concessionary attitudes. No more nuclear "summits" but a good, healthy dose of realpolitik or at least some common sense pragmatism.

We and the oppressed hosts under Soviet dictatorship have every reason to honor and be grateful to Mr Reagan.

RSP | 10:22 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

And we should give the credit for ending WW2 to Emperor Hirohito and not Harry Truman- nice alternate universe you live in Breck

Idahoan | 10:25 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

To those who downplay Ronald Reagan:

Give him his credit. He really did play a part in the fall of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Your dislike or disdain for him doesn't change his importance. Also he wasn't dimwitted as some of you seem to think ("he just couldn't remember how he got there").

I see a pattern here. Two of the most influential Republican presidents from the past 30 years are cast as stupid, idiotic, or bumbling. Why? Do you despise the actions and politics of them? Do you despise their accomplishments? They did meaningful and important things for the world and our country. They were not perfect. Neither are you. Neither am I. They were good leaders though in times when good leaders were (are) necessary.

nonceleb | 11:37 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

I am a retired AP American History teacher and EVERY text book I reviewed gave most of the credit to Gorbachev. He promoted Democratization, Glasnost and Perestroika. Reagan treated him with suspicion at first but came to trust him and support his reforms, and to "Try the Obvious," even came to an agreement with Gorbachev over arms reduction (INF).

Conservatives have been trying to deify Reagan ever since he left office. He contributed like others from Truman on in the fight against communism, but giving him all the credit for ending the Cold War is revising history.

Finally, lest we forget, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union (1991) occurred during the presidency of George H. W. Bush.

@nonceleb | 3:51 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

NO ONE has tried to deify Ron Reagan - on this thread or anywhere else that I have ever seen - and I have had plenty of exposure to conservative as well as "progressive" literature.

One has to fight tooth and nail, though, to get disgruntled 'liberals' to even faintly acknowledge his role as the only president to beat the Soviet Union and that "without firing a shot".

Every history teacher you have had and every text book you have read was probably written by liberals like yourself (if you are one; you write like one) who are not known for independent thinking

Liberals do tend to clog the system and block the door to knowledge with their pc thinking.

@Idahoan | 4:51 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

I didn't see Breck call Reagan "stupid, idiotic, or bumbling" -- just dangerous.

Anonymous | 5:16 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

"If President Reagan had continued Carter administration policies, Gorbachev would never have permitted the unfolding freedom movement."

What, selling arms to Iran, training the Taliban or cutting and running from Beirut?

Reagan was the future of conservatism right up to the Bush Administration outing a CIA agent. Reagan still holds the record for federal conviction within an administration.

Carter, on the other hand was a Navy officer and a Christian.

Anonymous | 12:09 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Breck and other leftist lackeys, can just keep listening to NPR, and celebrate their ignorance and worship of their idol Gorby, who was eventually dragged to the reality of freedom and capitalism. That is the beauty of never growng up and living in the real adult world, fairytale land where life is just easy, fun and simple.

To Anon | 5:16 | 12:01 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Re: "Carter, on the other hand was a Navy officer and a Christian."

Yes, he was. And he was also the worst president within recent memory, though Obama is rapidly catching up.

He's also proving to be the worst ex-president in recent memory, though Bill Clinton is rapidly overtaking him.

Carter's primary failing was, and still is, his chamberlainesque approach to evil. Obama also evinces a certain discomfort with the term "victory," speaking of terrorism.

Both Carter and Obama have demonstrated to the world an attitude of "humility" -- meaning we'll never say anyone is wrong, including those that want to kill us for being Americans, Christians, or prosperous.

And, it's not working any better for Obama than it did for Chamberlain or Carter.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.