< PREVIOUS ] [ 1990 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
When the Sandanistas had lost a squeaky-clean election in Nicaragua, it appeared that almost every goal of U.S. foreign policy for the past 45 years was on its way to fruition.
But where was the sense of triumph? Why weren't people dancing in the streets? Where was an American leader humbly crediting the millions who made sacrifices for these victories? Perplexed, I called my favorite inside source, Ananias Ziegler, media relations coordinator for the Committee That Really Runs America.
Our side has been winning by a landslide,
he
agreed. Elections in eastern Europe, German
reunification on the table, the Communist party
surrendering its monopoly on power in the Soviet Union,
South Africa loosening up, dictators deposed in Haiti and
the Philippines -- you know all that as well as I
do.
Of course,
I prodded, but why aren't the
Republicans jumping up to claim this is all due to Ronald
Reagan's wisdom, or the Democrats announcing that
containment worked, or something like that?
He finally answered. Because there's no way any of
our political philosophies can take credit for a victory.
You have to understand that political philosophies in this
country are marvels of inconsistency.
How so?
Look at South Africa. There, the liberals said we
should do no business whatsoever with Pretoria, that the
nation was a pariah. Conservatives argued that, bad as
South Africa might be, isolating ourselves from South
Africa would prevent us from exercising any sort of
positive influence.
I mulled on that. So the liberal philosophy is total
disengagement, while the conservative philosophy is to stay
involved, all the while working for your goals.
Ziegler laughed. But look at the Soviet Union. There
the liberal philosophy was to do business with the Soviets
in the hope that eventually Russia would join the world
community of nations, while many conservatives said we
should isolate the Evil Empire.
So there isn't really a conservative or a liberal
school of thought?
The closest we came to any real thinking on such
matters was a decade ago, back when the Republican Party
was the
Party of Ideas.
One of the philosophical bases of
Reaganism was Jeanne Kirkpatrick's fine distinction between
authoritarian
and totalitarian
regimes.
I tried to remember. Commies were totalitarian, and
such regimes never lost power, whereas authoritarian ones
sometimes did?
That's a fair simplification,
he conceded. But
note how radically those
totalitarian
countries have been
changing lately, in total contradiction to what Kirkpatrick
argued. How can you claim a great victory for your approach
to foreign policy when your policy was based on a premise
that has turned out to be without foundation?
That made sense, up to a point. But can't
conservatives claim that the great Reagan military build-up
finally forced the Soviet Union into changing, because the
Ivanovs couldn't afford to keep up with the
Joneses?
Right. They'd go bankrupt and we'd win. There was
just one problem. We're broke, too.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1990 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >