the arrogant myth

A recent death and the corresponding post on a friend's blog have reminded me of a widespread misconception that I feel is worth addressing. The claim is that the US brought about the end of the cold war. More specifically, it has been asserted that Reagan's policies were the key element. The first time I ever heard such a statement I was stunned. The prevalence of this view continues to frustrate me. As any one who actually lived in the East bloc during the fall can tell you, this historical myth is entirely fictional.

The cold war ended when the hostility between the USSR and the USA ended. The hostilities ceased when the USSR fell apart. The causes of the USSR's demise were internal forces. The USSR did not collapse because it was "defeated" or outperformed or any other such nonsense. It's own policies brought about the discontent that forced the issues which eventually broke the back of the dictatorship. From early on the USSR chose a path which was destined to end in ruin. It would have come to an end regardless of the activities of a far off nation about which Soviet citizens had been largely lied to. Nothing the US did significantly hastened or delayed the end. The Soviet military was not defeated. The Soviet economy suffered mainly from it's own poor management. The Soviet leaders were removed by their fellow citizens, not American policies.

I have heard many claims that Reagan caused the downfall of the Soviet Union, but these are never backed up with a solid cause-effect explanation. The justifications usually involve unrelated statistics or vague statements like "Reagan economically engaged the Soviets". People sometimes throw out true-sounding statements like, "The USSR couldn't compete economically with the US". Since when did the USSR need to compete with the US economy? The cold war was not a competition, it was a stand-off. Much like two men in a movie with guns aimed at each other; neither man is going to win by being richer. The economy would matter if it became so poor as to prevent the production of the necessary military equipment. But, this was clearly not the case since the Soviet Union maintained a more than adequate military until the day it collapsed.

Those who tout Reagan's policies as the winning move in the cold war must show how US policies unequivocally caused the Soviet Union's political destruction. The two chief mechanisms I have seen used to explain this are:

1. Reagan pushed the USSR into an arms race that drained the country

At the time Reagan was elected President the USSR had a larger nuclear arsenal and a far greater stockpile of conventional weapons. The Soviet arms build-up had basically peaked. Rather than responding similarly to Reagan's massive military spending in the 80s the Soviets made a request for arms-reduction that lead to the Geneva talks. The only significant drain on the Soviet military was the invasion of Afghanistan and if you want to give Reagan any credit for that you would need to give Osama Bin Laden even more credit. Besides, neither the Soviet military nor its economy were seriously harmed by the war in Afghanistan. The Soviet economy and infrastructure were already in poor shape before the war.


2. Reagan's policies gutted the Soviet economy, causing political failure

A common mistake is to confuse US prosperity with Soviet hardship. Neither one depends on the other. The Soviet Union and its satellite states were highly isolationist. The USSR's trade balance never went more than a few billion dollars in either direction while the US trade deficit reached $153 billion under Reagan. Others say that Reagan's middle-east policies caused a drop in the price of oil which undermined the Soviet economy. You may as well credit OPEC with ending the cold war. While the USSR did see a decline in oil sales to Western Europe most of its exported oil went to the East bloc satellites and was sold at well under market prices. And the decline in exports was not nearly enough to topple a dictatorship. The Soviet Union's real oil problems were caused by a huge decline in domestic oil production in the late 80s, for which Reagan certainly can't take credit.

Even if Reagan's policies had been able to negatively affect the Soviet economy they would not have been enough to destroy the USSR. Amid the worst years of the 80s the Soviet economy was still better off than during the execution of Stalin's five year plan. But, Stalin's government didn't collapse. Dictatorships are relatively effective at weathering economic hardships. The forces effecting political change in 1989 were far stronger than economics. Gorbachev's glasnost allowed some criticism of the government. People began to come in contact with western music and writings. Multi-party elections were held in 1989. Gorbachev chose not to intervene when Poland threw out the communist government. And in 1991 when the military hardliners attempted a coup it was the people of Russia who rallied around Yeltsin, not American politicians.

To give the credit for years of political change and the collective fight of many Soviet citizens for democracy to a foreign leader is not only inaccurate but unjust. To the contrary, while Gorbachev was introducing reform to his crumbling state Reagan was fueling anti-Soviet paranoia by ramping up military spending and speaking of a fantastical space-weapons program that never happened. Those who fought for political change in the USSR were driven by the desire to make their own country better, not by fear of American military might. Those who took sledge hammers to the Berlin wall did so not because of Reagan's exhortation, but because they themselves wanted to cross the line. Reagan and his policies did not bring about the end of the Soviet Union any more than a howling wolf is able to summon the moon.

adjust the facts

What are your news sources? Whether we realize it or not we all have a fairly well established set of sources we trust. These sources tend to be the ones which are most familiar. The TV station that's always on, your parents, AOL or MSN homepage, the paper at your doorstep, sports radio. And you trust it. Oh, sure, you may jest about not believing half of what's on TV or in print. But, when you are reading an account do you actually stop and question the validity each time? Do you check it against other sources? You may be surprised.

Google provides us with a wonderful tool for such comparisons. We are able to view web versions of most major print, television and radio news sources as well as online-only publications. All conveniently linked to and searchable. But, the results can be frustrating. On September 11 of 2001 I found serious contradictions between major news sources regarding which plane ended up where, whether the air force was involved, where the president was, etc. When a man started shooting at the 5 freeway in LA local TV stations all had different accounts of what kind of weapon he had, whose window was broken, and when police arrived.

Today, I read about a man who used an armored bulldozer to destroy several buildings in a small Colorado town. The gist of the story is that he held a four year old grudge against the town's councilmen, built a bullet-proof bulldozer, destroyed several buildings Friday afternoon, and was found dead when authorities gained access to his vehicle early Saturday morning. Most of the stories I read bare today's date, nearly two days since the rampage. The news media have had plenty of time to get the story straight.

The Denver Post and Reuters state that the bulldozer ended up in a hardware store. The Denver Post even names the store as Gambles hardware. The Washington Post, however, gives the final stop as Gambles Department store. Thirdly, the Chicago Tribune claims the bulldozer finally stopped in a warehouse. Similar AP articles in the New York Times and San Diego Union-Tribune agree with the warehouse theory and the Union-Tribune even lists both the hardware store and warehouse as victims. Likely there is some kind of store attached to a warehouse, but in which did the bulldozer end up? Most of these stories state that the bulldozer became stuck inside the crumbling building with the Washington Post adding that the bulldozer fell through the floor. But, the LA Times describes the bulldozer as stalling out and ending up behind a warehouse, not in it.

Moving on, one Denver Post article records that "several rounds of explosives" were used unsuccessfully before midnight. The LA Times places the number of explosions on Friday night at two. The New York Times claims that after three failed explosions a blowtorch was used to cut through the armor and gain access. A different Denver Post article states that an hour with a cutting torch got authorities inside the bulldozer. But, with no mention of any cutting, CNN claims that after two ineffective attempts with explosives, the third explosive was used to "blow off the hinge of a door" and gain access. Finally, AZ central asserts that "after blasting the box three times police discovered hinges that allowed them to pull out an air conditioning unit and get into the box."

There were also small contradictions about the duration of the rampage, start and ending times, whether the guy owned a snowmobile, whether he fired at state troopers and how many guns were found inside the cab of his bulldozer. Even the location of the town of Granby was unclear with the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and CNN respectively placing the town at 50 miles northwest of Denver, 50 miles west of Denver, and 70 miles northwest of Denver.

While a few of these details might be reconciled there are clearly numerous mistakes in the reporting. If you think the lesser details are unimportant I would ask you where you draw the line between minor and major details? Must the story name the wrong person, motives or victims before you call it inaccurate? If we let little errors slide why not slightly larger ones? At what point will we admit that a story is only a half-truth? However small, fabricated details are harmful. If they originated by way of an inaccurate witness how can you know what part of the witness's story to believe? And if they were guesses or fabrications of a reporter trying to fill in the gaps or make the story interesting then how far will the reporter go when the details are even fuzzier? We've seen false reports of sarin filled warheads, ties with Al Qaida, and battlefield advances. How many other stories that we believe originated with a misleading witness or a reporter taking liberties with the facts? One reporter fabricated stories for 12 years before getting caught. How many reporters giving us lies today will only be caught 12 years from now? How do you know that I'm not making all of this up? Maybe the whistleblower stories are fabricated.

I could speak for ages about how we decide what is true and what isn't. But, I'll end before I lose too many readers. Anyway, always look at your sources critically. Ask how the reporter knows what happened. Who else witnessed it? And who else is writing about it? Don't automatically believe what you hear or read. Being informed requires using your mind, not just your eyes.

the high life

My dream is to someday purchase an overpriced, tastelessly painted recreational boat that I leave in my garage and take out only one day a year. Then I'll drive 500 miles to an overcrowded lake and pay for the use of a tiny dock so I can drink cans of crappy beer while on a lake. Surrounded by other fat, balding losers doing the same. Oh, and I'll name my boat something really original like Pimpin' Aint Easy, that'll bring lots of chicks.

shudder

Can anyone explain this mentality to me? What really baffles me is the substantial popularity of boat ownership. And of using said boats to clog Interstate 40 for hours every Memorial day weekend. I've seen potholes with better road manners than these people. RVs bug me even more. Scourge of the road. They go about 50mph uphill or downhill, cut off cars that are doing 80mph, and overtake each other at 0.0021mph. To be even more obnoxious RVs often have fast-sounding names like Hurricane, Fourwinds or Pace Arrow. Uh, yeah, that thing looks just like an arrow. Darting along the freeway like a ground sloth through tar. And how fun can it really be to go "camping" in an RV while parked next to 3000 other people doing the same thing? You're not exactly getting out in nature if you have to clear away the candy wrappers to see the trail. How many summer "outdoor" vacationers really want to see nature and how many are just following the crowd to popular spots, driven by some Brave-New-World-esque need to engage in recreation?