Throughout the 1980s, the big Left/Right issue that divided much of the country was the civil war in Nicaragua. The communist, Daniel Ortega, had seized power from the brutal dictator Somoza. Ortega and his cronies had a great image in the West: he wore wire-frame glasses, loved coming to the U.S. to shop, and was very charming and erudite.
He was also a brutal mass-murderer whose death squads terrorized the Indian populations, regularly tortured, terrorized, or killed dissidents, and shut down newspapers and radio stations critical of the regime.
The political Left--of which I was a proud member--deplored the fact that the U.S. government was funding the so-called Contras. The Contras were anti-Ortega rebel forces, named for the fact that they were "counter-revolutionaries." Polluting their image was the fact that some of the Contras, most especially those in the northern parts of Nicaragua, partially funded their activities by selling drugs. Some of them were also former supporters of Somoza, who was a tyrant not much better than Ortega.
Yet history shows, quite unequivocally, what happened in Nicaragua: due to the heavy pressure from the Contra forces, and U.S. diplomatic interventions, the Ortega regime decided--much to their credit, it must be admitted--to allow a free press to re-open. They also allowed free elections, and were promptly voted out of power. The free people of Nicaragua chose the widow of an anti-Ortega newspaper publisher. He had been assassinated for his anti-Ortega editorials in his paper, La Prensa. There was much weeping as La Prensa was allowed to start publishing again, and then even more as she won the first free elections in Nicaraguan history.
During the 1980s, most of the political Left considered it a given that there was only one moral side of the Nicaragua question: Ortega's side. It was the same old paint-by-numbers formula, too: America was "imperialist" for "interfering" with a government in Central America. There was almost never an acknowledgement that the Soviets and the Cubans and other international Communist powers were responsible for funding and supporting Ortega's seizure of power. Or that Ortega was a tyrant in no way better than the brute he'd replaced.
The silence from the Left when Ortega was voted out of power was deafening. Since the "Contras" turned out to be freedom fighters after all, and acted on their promises to support free elections, free speech, and a free press, the Left had nothing left to say, except "we're sorry, we were wrong."
Only most of them never had the integrity to say that.
Anyway: There were lots of complaints during the 1980s that the American mainstream press was sympathetic to the oppressive Ortega regime. That they liked him and how he spoke, and had no real interest in examining the brutal crimes he and his thug-cronies were responsible for. As usual, the Left dismissed such complaints as more right-wing whining about "liberal media bias."
But, lo and behold, it was recently revealed that, at ABC News at least, anchor Peter Jennings was sympathetic to the butcher Ortega, and slanted ABC's coverage to give it a pro-Ortega tilt.
I still await people on the political Left who will come out and admit that the Contra victory brought freedom to Nicaragua (which it did), and that Ortega was torture-happy, mass-murdering tool of imperialist Communism (which he was). What I expect to get instead is what I usually get when I ask about this: silence, or an irritated "that was over ten years ago, I can't believe we're still talking about this!" response.
They say that being a member of the political Left means never having to say you're sorry. It's one of the (many) reasons that I still consider myself a liberal, but left the Left a long time ago. Because let me tell you: I was wrong. I was very wrong. And I am still ashamed about that.
(ABC News story via Billy Beck.)
Well said.
Better the open pain of an error you've honestly renounced than the buried pain of one you've never had the guts to even admit...
I think what we saw in Nicaragua (and other developing nations) was to a great extent, the United States and the Soviet Union playing a ideologic chess game with each other. Both sides in Nicaragua had its share of "death-squads" it's just that Ortega's government was styled after Soviet Communism, and Reagan chose to wage war (literally and figuratively) with them via supporting the Contras. Those on the left (I being one of them) did not feel threatened by the highly unlikely chance that communism would infect the rest of the hemisphere, therefore, in opposition to the right, we, by default, took sides against the Contras.
Of course, looking back it is clear to see that we were slightly misled by a major news organization but more by our own intolerance with conservatives that often would take sides directly opposite from the conservatives regardless of the issue. (This I call blind-ignorant liberalism.) "...if the right is wrong, then they must be wrong on everything, therefore we must stop them!"
Blind liberalism is at work today against the Bush administration's Gulf War II actions, but it is losing steam and credibility (the crazy left that is). Of course I'd like to think of myself as a level-headed liberal from the left, but I have to admit, when the truth is revealed, we gotta admit that we were wrong and move on. However, I see far fewer conservatives admitting they were wrong on certain issues. Hell, some conservatives still cling to the idea that supply-side economics was a good idea.
Now, don't get me wrong, the contras were no angels and deserve to equally be held accountable for their actions. Again, the ends hardly ever justify the means.
Tim
I view the Left's inability to acknowledge the fact that Clintonomics were supply-side economics as proof of their religious closed-mindedness, Tim.
We were wrong about that too, and it's high time we admit it, and stop with the bumper sticker platitutdes.
So what? Reaganomics were Keynesian to the core. Unless there is something about massive deficit spending that counts as supply side. Besides don't you think there were other factors that significantly contributed to the boom in the eighties that had nothing to do with policy? One thing that stands out for me is the collapse of the price of oil from $55 to $16 (constant dollars). I mean when you use (at the time) 15 million barrels of oil per day that is a reduction of 5.4 billion dollars for each dollar reduction in the price of oil. That means by 1986 the cost of powering the economy had dropped by 219 billion dollars which dwarfed the tax cut by any objective measure.
As a moderate conservative (I try to keep a levelhead and avoid extremist beliefs on either side) I must say that Reaganomics did nothing, and that it was only chance that the economy happened to improve during this time. The oil issue posted above, seems to be a very logical cause to the climb in the economy, however, nothing was done on Reagans part to merit such an increase.
There's nothing wrong with being left-leaning and distancing yourself from The Left. Imagine what the last decade has been like for Republicans of no particular religiosity, after all.
The simple fact of the matter is that tax cuts during the 1980s were followed by massive increases in revenues.
This happened. It is not spin. It is not interpretation. It is not a "conservative" notion. It is simply what happened.
Furthermore, when Reagan came into office, the top tax rate was 70%. When Clinton left office, it was 39.6%. So much for reversing those "tax cuts for the rich." Clinton talked a good game about about "the failed policies of the past," but in truth he continued to use most of the same "failed" policies throughout his presidency.
Clinton's "reversal" of supply-side economics consisted of: 1) increase taxes on upper incomes by 5 percentage points, 2) slash the capital gains tax rate, and 3) expand free trade.
That's the Clinton record. He did not re-regulate the economy, he did not bring price controls back into effect, he did not reduce free trade. Most of all, he did not greatly increase taxes, on "the rich" or anyone else.
Thus any claim that Supply Side policies were a "failure" has to take into account not only the wild successes of the 1980s, but also the wild successes of the Clinton years--since the same basic policies have all been in effect since about 1982.
By the way, I do not believe that cheap oil is the source of our massive economic growth over the last 20 years. But oil prices began their downward spiral the minute we cut all price controls and import quotas on oil. Which is more of that "failed supply side" policy that was enacted by executive order in 1981.
Do you wish to espouse other theories as to why revenues increased massively, unemployment plummetted, home ownership went up, job creation went through the roof over the last 20 years? Okay. We can debate that. In fact, we should debate it.
Indeed, I've been waiting 10 years for that debate, while listening to idiots who can't even look at basic facts talk to me about "deficits as far as the eye can see." The truth is that our income went up, and our expenses went up. Asking why that is requires us to first acknowledge the truth. Which is that both did happen. Watching countless people spin and obfuscate on this basic point has done nothing but lower my opinion of their intellectual honesty.
Failure to acknowledge that deficits went up during the 1980s, but that tax revenues also massively surged, marks a person as a closed-minded reactionary, or willfully ignorant. Period.
Do you want to talk economic policy by starting with acknowledging that both facts are true? Hot dog! I've been waiting forever for that debate to finally begin!
If the cost of living increases were greater than the increases in earning (which they were) then most people lost money. What happened was that the gap between the working poor and the middle class got wider and fewer people controlled a greater portion of the wealth.
The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
Oh, and our tax dollars illegally funded the contras. (Just keeping us back on track.)
If personal spending is any indicator of a national ideal, deficit spending is not only necessary, but dammit, it's the American way!
Heck, we're good for the money. I can handle deficit spending as long as it doesn't spiral out of control....keep it under a certain percentage of our production and revenues.
So, a system succeeded and failed at the same time...I guess it depends which side of the tracks your family came from.
Tim
Dean,
A couple things, first of all I never said supply side policies were a failure. I said that what actually happened in the 80's was Keynesian. A supply side policy would have not generated deficits. A Keynesian would tell you that to stimulate the economy you deficit spend. Since the deficits were more then the amount returned to the tax payers in tax cuts I would suggest that the idea that the 80's were an example of the success of supply side policies are a bit of a stretch.
Further, I was trying to make the point economic expansion is not the result of any one factor, I mentioned cheap oil only as one example (but a big factor) of the kinds of things that are completely overlooked in this debate. The fact is there are too many variables to really be able to make definitive statements about what tax cuts can and can't do. The price controls you mentioned were on basically gasoline which were to be phased out under Carter and were dropped as you mentioned under Reagan (and a holdover form Nixon off all people). Import quotas were dropped in the mid-seventies. But that’s really not the issue is it, because the salient fact is that the input costs to the economy were drastically decreased, that decrease in cost went directly to the bottom line of all companies and consumers which increased profits and by extension increased tax receipts. The amount of the resultant decrease from lower oil prices was more then the tax cut. You're putting words into my mouth when you accuse me of laying all of the economic expantion the feet of oil prices. I would argue that it's a bigger factor then most people like to give it credit for, because it effects literally every action we take at all levels of the economic channel. It is literally the life blood of our economy.
There is also the fact that the government doesn't just stuff money into a mattress, they buy things with it. In the 80's it was $500 hammers and such. The point is that for every dollar spent in deficit some of it is returned back to the treasury in the form of taxes. And the fact is that the amount spent in deficit was more then the tax cut. Somebody ended up with that money whether or not it was an employee of a defense firm or the lunch counter across the street where they all ate. The point is that for all the chirping about dynamic scoring when it come to matters relating to tax cuts, people like to get awful un-dynamic when it comes to ascribing the wonderful effects of tax cuts on the economy. Now you can discount all these things and say that the expansion of the economy was due exclusively to supply side policies but to do that you have to demonstrate two things. First that the policies were even supply side at all. Second that all the other variables, monetary policy, oil prices, the rise of the two earner family, the wage gap, the real estate boom and bust, trade policy and so on had little if any effect or at least were subordinate to all these other factors in creating the increase in tax revenues and the relative economic prosperity of the last 20 + years.
My main question is, how do tax cuts fair as a simulative measure when you're not running massive deficits? Even Kennedy's much vaulted tax cut was in the context of a very different economic problem. Inventories were low, intrest rates were high, capital was expensive and scarce and we were not running the kind of deficits we are today. If the economy was were it was in 1961 and we were paying '61 rates, I would say cut the bastards...!
Dean, does your link re Peter Jennings make that man a leftist? It appears so. I personally stopped trusting that man since his apologist days for Daniel Ortega, also. I am quite surprised to learn somebody else actually remembers it. It's nice to get a good history lesson now and then, thanks.
I agree with your assessment of American mainstream press. They were quite apologetic toward not only Ortega, but also toward Gorbachev if you remember. They seemed to believe their foreign policy was better than Reagan’s was. They unanimously thought Reagan really blew it at Reykjavik. Instead, Reagan did better than the media ever expected. I guess they were still married to that "dottering old man" thing. Old prejudices die hard. That goes for racial bigots as well as journalists. I have no confidence with the integrity of America's press since Clinton arrived in Washington. That is when they really dived in the toilet.
Rick,
I believe you are creating an inaccurate liberal historical interpretation. You are correct in saying Reagan was the biggest spender in history at the time. However, Reagan DID cut taxes resulting in a doubling in tax revenues by the end of his administration.
Reagan’s downfall on this count is his lack of resolve to risk his popularity. He did not have the resolve to cut spending enough to balance a budget. Remember, the budget he signed at his ranch that was flown from Washington? That was Reagan’s last chance to credibly address the budget deficit problem.
This does not make Reagan a Keynesian. He did not deficit spend to stimulate the economy. Reagan simply lacked the resolve to cut spending. I personally believe you are confusing two different things.
I nominate Peter Jennings for the next "Dean's World Duranty Award".
Any one want to second it?
Kevin,
I'm not saying what Reagan was or what he was trying to do, it's irrelevant. I'm only commenting on what resulted, how it got that way and whose fault it was is also not relevant (unless you * want * to have a whory argument about whose "fault" it was). If the 80's are being held up as an example of supply side policies my last two questions in the absurdly long missive stand.
Cutting is not the only criteria for supply side policies. You have to cut spending as well so that the money returned to the tax payer gets used for job creating growth instead of being loaned back to the government to cover the deficit.
Dean, first, lemme reach that olive branch out from the other (young Reaganites of the 80s) side, and appologize for North and Poindexter. They made me sick at the time, I was a hardcore Reagan support in my youth (due to upbringing, and, well, the Soviets WERE evil, as we've been debating on the genocide posts here lately).
My wild-eyed liberalism came later, in my 20s.
Reagan was, if I remember correctly, also fighting a fairly significant (doomed) political battle for the line-item veto. Which could of course also be construed as cover for not cutting spending, as of course Congresscritters were not in favor of it, regardless of party.
In some ways, I think Congress would have been better off with it, as the pork could get cut, and the President at the time would take the political flak for it ("I got [insert pork here], but it got vetoed" as election time cover).
And on the subject of Presidents and prosperity, I think the best thing domestically that Clinton did was sign NAFTA, and then be too busy chasing skirts to bother with much of anything except spin. Which is also the worst thing he did for foreign policy (see 9/11, islamofascists, etc.)
But I fault every president since Carter with not taking those bastards seriously, and it worried me since the Iranian hostage crisis that we let the Arab world view us as 'weak'.
Danny Boy Ortega, hero of the working man, stole as much as he could before leaving office, and got clear title to all their loot in return for not fighting the change in power.
Well Gene, at least it's better than the violence of the counter-revolution, and the country now has relatively good titling, which is arguably the most important factor in being able to generate true wealth.
It's a required condition to generating a middle class with which to anchor a liberal democracy.
Not to seem like an Ortega apologist, as there's more than enough dirt for both sides, but it took some serious balls to step down peacefully like that. I dearly wish that the Mullahs in Iran could muster such faith in their people, as the theocracy there is merely an authoritarian shell on top of a genuinely Republican system. They built better than they knew. Now just a bit of faith in the Persian people could let them do the right thing and give them the gift of self-government, which they've now had with training wheels for 20 years.
Then perhaps we'd trust them with the nukes they almost have in Iran, if they gave up the desire to destroy Israel.
The courage to pull an Ortega is blunted by the dreams of power that nukes give the Mullocracy.
Bravo to you! Your honesty is refreshing.
Tim: The "disparity between rich and poor" grew to its greatest heights under Clinton. It's a trend that's only been increasing steadily for the last 20 years.
But the poor have never gotten poorer during that 20 year period, Tim. The poor got richer. The rich just got richer faster.
So let's say this: Republicans were too hard on Clinton, but then again, Democrats weren't exactly honest about Clinton's economic policies, were they? But that's politics for you. It's why I refuse to say I'm a Democrat or a Republican.
Dave: But the facts in Iran/Contra are no longer in dispute, are they? With executive authority, North and Poindexter engaged in negotiations with what they believed were moderates within the Iranian government who wanted to normalize relations with America. They gave them some spare parts for some military equipment that had been bought by the Shah's government, in return for promises to help locate hostages and to re-open friendly relations with America. Then North gave some of the profits from that deal to the Contras.
Was it questionable? Yes. But what part of it should I consider evil? Was it the effort to normalize relations with Iran, the effort to free hostages, or the effort to bring freedom to Nicaragua?
The fact is that no one in Iran/Contra was trying to make himself wealthy, or to steal an election, or any of the other typical political corruption. They were trying to free hostages, help Nicaragua, and re-establish relations with moderates in Iran.
Ill-conceived? Foolish? You bet. But evil? Come on, man. In the vast history of political corruption cases, I can think of much, much, much worse crimes.
The real travesty of Iran/Contra was Reagan and Bush's selling out of their subordinates. Or their allowing too many people to operate without sufficient supervision, depending on who you believe.
But was it evil? I mean, come on man.
Paul: Oooh, Jennings probably does deserve a retroactive Duranty Award, doesn't he?
Dean, I have a question for all those righteous editorial-writers: what about Enron now? Heh.
BTW, a couple of the corrrespondents above have provided you with a third response besides silence and "it's so ten years ago!"; now we also have "well, both sides were dirty, so I don't feel too bad about it." Christ.
Dean:
A good friend of mine went down and worked in a fairly senior leel on Ortega's recent Presidential campaign...the one where he lost.
She's a young, idealistic, far-radical Californian who came back depressed by what she saw. Cronyism, corruption, and a naked desire for power in "the people's" name.
I bought her a copy of "Homage to Catalonia"...
A.L.
I was right about them then. From time to time I like to point stuff like that out. :)
>>I nominate Peter Jennings for the next "Dean's World Duranty Award".
>>Any one want to second it?
Paul,
I second that nomination. -- Kevin
Why is it so many people blame the spending increases on Reagan? The democratic congres is to blame for the speanding increases. The democrats are the ones to blame for the debt. Also Reagen did so something about oil prices. He got rid of the price controls. The price of oil at first shot up then after a while it went down, way down.
David Horowitz. Ronald Radosh. People wrong on Nicaragua.
And the USSR. And Cambodia. And El Salvador.
Two issues:
Do the folks who weren't wrong on these issues get any credit? Or do you have to have been wrong first to get the ink?
Has anybody who was wrong first described how he or she came to flack for the mass murderers, tyrants and oppressors? What was the process? The logic? Was it fun? Outside of saying you were wrong, is there anything you've done to redress it? Who led you wrong? Have you reproached them? If so, what did they say?
A correction to the story: Violeta's husband Pedro Chamorro was assassinated for his anti-Somoza editorials in 1978. The Sandinistas had not even seized power then. Otherwise I agree. The Left would do well to admit its errors freely rather than engage in the continual dishonesty that it has for decades.
-BeezleBozo
http://beezlebozo.blogspot.com
What a glaring error. You wrote Chamorra was "assassinated for his anti-Ortega editorials in his paper, La Prensa."
Funny. Most intelligent people that know even a little about Nicaragua know that Somoza was responsible for Chamorro's death. In your haste to paint a false picture of Ortega to fit your personal opinion, what other "facts" to you lie about or twist?
Apparently, you were wrong once AND twice.
Oh, please.
He made one (1) error. I've read a great deal about the history of Nicaragua and its civil war in the 80s and have talked to native Nicaraguans, and I can say his analysis is otherwise pretty much dead on. The international Left was duped- bigtime. If you think he got it wrong somewhere else kindly let us know about it.
For anyone who wants to understand the Nicaragua civil war I'd recommend Glenn Garvin's "Everyone Had His Own Gringo", along with Timothy C. Brown's, "The Real Contra War" and "When the AK-47s Fall Silent: Revolutionaries, Guerrillas, and the Dangers of Peace". The definitive and exhaustive account is Robert Kagan's "A Twilight Struggle" (for hard corps history buffs only).
P.S. Here is my all time favorite Sandinista quote:
They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.
- Nelba Blandon, Interior Ministry Director of
Censorship, qtd. in The New York Times, 1984