When Thomas Jefferson famously said, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," he wasn't merely talking about the politics of his day, but the politics of human behavior across generations and across continents. President Reagan no doubt had this principle in mind throughout his presidency. Reagan updated Jefferson with his suggestion that "as government expands, liberty contracts."
We hear a lot of rhetoric today about ending the "politics of the past," but there is no question more relevant or timely than the timeless question Jefferson and our other Founders asked: "What is the proper scope of government that will maximize freedom, prosperity, and security?" Our key policy debates revolve around this question, whether politicians admit it or not. The answer from our Founders, which was enshrined in our Constitution, is unmistakable: the best government is a limited government.
The past few decades in America have been a story of progressives who didn't like that answer slowly unraveling the limitations on government through Congress and the courts. Consider where we are today. Since 1999, the total size of government, not adjusted for inflation, has doubled. Since 2001, non-defense discretionary spending (spending for things like health care, education, and the environment that have nothing to do with the military) has increased 50 percent when adjusted for inflation. Since 1994, Congress has approved more than 90,000 earmarks. And every year, Congress creates more and more regulations (i.e., the health care bill and the financial reform) that take away freedom in the name of security and progress.
Government today is so big it is almost impossible to measure how wasteful and incompetent it has become. The defense budget is such a mess it is impossible to audit. In almost every area of government there is a tremendous amount of duplication and waste and barely any metrics or measurements for success.
For instance, we have 70 different sets of bureaucracies in at least six agencies to help feed hungry people without any way to measure success.
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Prof. Paul A. Rahe: After 30 years of ineptitude and betrayal by Republicans in Name Only, "The iron is hot; it is time to strike"
As Angelo M. Codevilla argues with great eloquence in the current issue of The American Spectator, we may have two parties but we are governed by a single political class, and most Americans recognize that neither party actually represents them.
The first obstacle might seem to be insuperable. As a number of critics of my book pointed out, and as one such critic, William Voegeli, has argued with considerable verve in his fine new book Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State, it is hard to imagine that today’s conservatives can succeed where Reagan failed. There are, however, two reasons why we should think the improbable now within our grasp. In two different regards, we are now better situated than was Ronald Reagan.
First, where he had Carter, we now have Barack Obama. President Carter lost in 1980 because he had persuaded the American people that he was not up to the job. President Obama has, to be sure, done the same thing – but he has also done something else of very great importance. As the emergence of the Tea-Party movement demonstrates, he has alarmed Americans. They fear that his policies will ruin their lives, and they fear in a tangible way that he is intent on taking away their liberty. His predecessors were surreptitious; he has chosen audacity. And in threatening to take access to medical care out of our hands into those of his minions, he strikes at our freedom to manage our own lives in a fashion that only the willfully blind can miss.
Second, the welfare state that Barack Obama inherited from his predecessors is bankrupt. The birthrate in this country has dropped, and our fellow citizens are living longer lives. As a consequence, there has been a dramatic decline in the ratio of those working to those retired; and, this year, for the first time, the Social Security Administration is paying out more than it is taking in. Medicare and Medicaid are similarly insolvent. To maintain the current system, it would seem to be the case that we would have to raise taxes drastically – but we cannot do that, as Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved in the 1930s, without restricting economic growth, and, in the absence of economic growth, we will be unable to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As Richard Lamm, a Democrat who served three terms as Governor of Colorado, recently observed, “The New Deal is demographically obsolete. You can’t fund the dream of the 1960s on the economy of 2010.”
In short, the first of the two obstacles I identified in my book is no longer what it was. More Americans fear federal intrusiveness than would like more; their fears are palpable; and their alarm coincides with a crisis likely to be fatal to the welfare state. We can no longer pay civil servants as we have; we can no longer maintain Social Security in its current form; and we can no longer sustain Medicare and Medicaid. Something has to give. Even if Barack Obama had not thrown away a trillion dollars in so-called “stimulus” measures designed to reward constituencies supportive of his party, even if Congress had not enacted a healthcare reform guaranteed to radically increase costs, we would have had to face the facts before long. As things stand, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Emanuel have brought things to a head. In their zeal not “to waste” one crisis, they have precipitated another – the crisis of the administrative state.
The second obstacle – the one posed by the ineptitude of the Republicans in Congress and by their repeated betrayal over the last thirty years of the people whom they pretend to represent – is more serious. Here lies a problem that must be addressed. And the clock is ticking. The first Tuesday in November draws nigh, and this problem must be solved within the next few weeks or the moment will pass and the opportunity will be lost. The iron is hot; it is time to strike.
The first obstacle might seem to be insuperable. As a number of critics of my book pointed out, and as one such critic, William Voegeli, has argued with considerable verve in his fine new book Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State, it is hard to imagine that today’s conservatives can succeed where Reagan failed. There are, however, two reasons why we should think the improbable now within our grasp. In two different regards, we are now better situated than was Ronald Reagan.
First, where he had Carter, we now have Barack Obama. President Carter lost in 1980 because he had persuaded the American people that he was not up to the job. President Obama has, to be sure, done the same thing – but he has also done something else of very great importance. As the emergence of the Tea-Party movement demonstrates, he has alarmed Americans. They fear that his policies will ruin their lives, and they fear in a tangible way that he is intent on taking away their liberty. His predecessors were surreptitious; he has chosen audacity. And in threatening to take access to medical care out of our hands into those of his minions, he strikes at our freedom to manage our own lives in a fashion that only the willfully blind can miss.
Second, the welfare state that Barack Obama inherited from his predecessors is bankrupt. The birthrate in this country has dropped, and our fellow citizens are living longer lives. As a consequence, there has been a dramatic decline in the ratio of those working to those retired; and, this year, for the first time, the Social Security Administration is paying out more than it is taking in. Medicare and Medicaid are similarly insolvent. To maintain the current system, it would seem to be the case that we would have to raise taxes drastically – but we cannot do that, as Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved in the 1930s, without restricting economic growth, and, in the absence of economic growth, we will be unable to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As Richard Lamm, a Democrat who served three terms as Governor of Colorado, recently observed, “The New Deal is demographically obsolete. You can’t fund the dream of the 1960s on the economy of 2010.”
In short, the first of the two obstacles I identified in my book is no longer what it was. More Americans fear federal intrusiveness than would like more; their fears are palpable; and their alarm coincides with a crisis likely to be fatal to the welfare state. We can no longer pay civil servants as we have; we can no longer maintain Social Security in its current form; and we can no longer sustain Medicare and Medicaid. Something has to give. Even if Barack Obama had not thrown away a trillion dollars in so-called “stimulus” measures designed to reward constituencies supportive of his party, even if Congress had not enacted a healthcare reform guaranteed to radically increase costs, we would have had to face the facts before long. As things stand, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Emanuel have brought things to a head. In their zeal not “to waste” one crisis, they have precipitated another – the crisis of the administrative state.
The second obstacle – the one posed by the ineptitude of the Republicans in Congress and by their repeated betrayal over the last thirty years of the people whom they pretend to represent – is more serious. Here lies a problem that must be addressed. And the clock is ticking. The first Tuesday in November draws nigh, and this problem must be solved within the next few weeks or the moment will pass and the opportunity will be lost. The iron is hot; it is time to strike.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Reagan cut taxes and spending, ending a 17-month recession; Obama, on the other hand, has sharply raised spending
It’s easy to understand why President Barack Obama’s friends don’t want to acknowledge that July represents 17 months since Congress passed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill — the president’s signature measure to jump-start the economy and fight unemployment.
Obama says the economy is headed in the right direction; jobs are being created, not lost, and he is doing everything possible to revive the “worst economy since the Great Depression.” Most of the national press has been remarkably accepting of this narrative — even if the president has been vague, at best, about when we might finally see an uptick in economic growth and job creation.
But in another economic time, President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery program took 17 months to take hold. It took from the time Congress passed his tax cuts, in August 1981, until the recession he inherited finally ended in January 1983.
Unemployment hit a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982. But then economic growth spiked, and the unemployment rate began a long, steady decline throughout the 1980s. It was obvious the program was working when people stopped calling it “Reaganomics.”
Tax cuts were a part of Reagan’s effort to cut the size and scope of government to fight economic stagnation. “Government is not the solution,” Reagan said in his remarkably clear inaugural address. “It is the problem.”
In addition to tax cuts, Reagan reduced domestic discretionary spending and streamlined regulations to make them less of a burden on businesses seeking to create jobs. He believed that government should give individuals and businesses the proper incentives to grow and expand and not inhibit the private sector with high taxes and cumbersome regulations.
Obama says the economy is headed in the right direction; jobs are being created, not lost, and he is doing everything possible to revive the “worst economy since the Great Depression.” Most of the national press has been remarkably accepting of this narrative — even if the president has been vague, at best, about when we might finally see an uptick in economic growth and job creation.
But in another economic time, President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery program took 17 months to take hold. It took from the time Congress passed his tax cuts, in August 1981, until the recession he inherited finally ended in January 1983.
Unemployment hit a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982. But then economic growth spiked, and the unemployment rate began a long, steady decline throughout the 1980s. It was obvious the program was working when people stopped calling it “Reaganomics.”
Tax cuts were a part of Reagan’s effort to cut the size and scope of government to fight economic stagnation. “Government is not the solution,” Reagan said in his remarkably clear inaugural address. “It is the problem.”
In addition to tax cuts, Reagan reduced domestic discretionary spending and streamlined regulations to make them less of a burden on businesses seeking to create jobs. He believed that government should give individuals and businesses the proper incentives to grow and expand and not inhibit the private sector with high taxes and cumbersome regulations.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Tax cuts under Reagan; Keynesianism under Obama; you decide
Democrats have been running Congress for nearly four years, and President Obama has been at the White House for 18 months, so it's not too soon to ask: How's that working out? One devastating scorecard came out Friday from the White House, in the form of its own semi-annual budget review.
The message: Tax revenues are smaller, spending is greater, and the deficits are thus larger than the White House has been saying. No wonder it dumped the news on the eve of a sweltering mid-July weekend.
Mr. Obama inherited a recession, so let's give him a pass on the budget numbers for 2009. Clearly the deficit would have been large no matter who was President, even if the David Obey-Nancy Pelosi $862 billion stimulus made it larger than it otherwise would have been. What's striking about the latest budget estimates, however, is that the White House is predicting the numbers won't improve much through 2011, the third year of the President's term.
As a share of the economy, the White House now says the deficit in fiscal 2010, which ends on September 30, will be even larger than in 2009: 10%. That's after a full year of economic growth, given that the recovery began last summer. More remarkable still, the deficit will barely fall in fiscal 2011, declining only to 9.2% of GDP in the second year of a recovery that ought to be gaining steam.
The message: Tax revenues are smaller, spending is greater, and the deficits are thus larger than the White House has been saying. No wonder it dumped the news on the eve of a sweltering mid-July weekend.
Mr. Obama inherited a recession, so let's give him a pass on the budget numbers for 2009. Clearly the deficit would have been large no matter who was President, even if the David Obey-Nancy Pelosi $862 billion stimulus made it larger than it otherwise would have been. What's striking about the latest budget estimates, however, is that the White House is predicting the numbers won't improve much through 2011, the third year of the President's term.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
As the fossil record dwindles, UV debuts course on conservatism
An accredited course on conservatism at the University of Virginia debuting this fall could set a trend on campuses across the country, organizers say.
The 11-week course, referred to as Conservatism 101, aims to inform students of all political persuasions about the figures and thinkers who have built modern conservatism and to dispel stereotypes. Unlike many courses, it will be taught by several lecturers over the course of the fall semester to give students a host of different perspectives.
Topics include whether or not the Founding Fathers were liberal or conservative, libertarian philosophy, and Ronald Reagan, among others. It has proven so popular that a second section of the class might be needed.
“It’s a perspective people need to hear that really gets left out,” said Wes Siler, a former leader of the university’s Burke Society, the campus conservative group responsible for enacting the course.
Courses on conservatism have been held at other universities, such as American University in Washington, D.C. and George Mason University in Virginia, but they have never been proposed as a template for courses at other academic institutions.
Siler hopes to get at least 20 similar classes started at colleges and universities across the country and has been talking with professors around the country with an interest in teaching the course at their university. He has his sights set on large state-affiliated schools such as the University of Texas and plans to get at least one course on conservatism at a school in each of the 50 states.
The overwhelming left-wing bias on campuses such as the University of Virginia makes courses such as this necessary because it offers the only chance many students will have to hear an alternate perspective, Craig Shirley, a noted Reagan biographer and course lecturer, said.
The 11-week course, referred to as Conservatism 101, aims to inform students of all political persuasions about the figures and thinkers who have built modern conservatism and to dispel stereotypes. Unlike many courses, it will be taught by several lecturers over the course of the fall semester to give students a host of different perspectives.
Topics include whether or not the Founding Fathers were liberal or conservative, libertarian philosophy, and Ronald Reagan, among others. It has proven so popular that a second section of the class might be needed.
“It’s a perspective people need to hear that really gets left out,” said Wes Siler, a former leader of the university’s Burke Society, the campus conservative group responsible for enacting the course.
Courses on conservatism have been held at other universities, such as American University in Washington, D.C. and George Mason University in Virginia, but they have never been proposed as a template for courses at other academic institutions.
Siler hopes to get at least 20 similar classes started at colleges and universities across the country and has been talking with professors around the country with an interest in teaching the course at their university. He has his sights set on large state-affiliated schools such as the University of Texas and plans to get at least one course on conservatism at a school in each of the 50 states.
The overwhelming left-wing bias on campuses such as the University of Virginia makes courses such as this necessary because it offers the only chance many students will have to hear an alternate perspective, Craig Shirley, a noted Reagan biographer and course lecturer, said.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Obama administration shoveled out cash and got no result while Reagan cut taxes and slowed spending, stimulating recovery
The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Oil is pricey because the dollar is cheap
In short, oil is dear because the dollar in which it's priced is cheap.
For background, it's worth mentioning that not long after he was inaugurated as our 40th president, Ronald Reagan predicted a fall in the price of a barrel of oil. What made Reagan so confident?
Aware of the historical relationship between gold and oil, Reagan deduced that oil was due for a correction based on a 20% drop in the price of an ounce of gold since his election. Sure enough, by December of 1981 the price of a barrel of oil was nearly 20% lower than it had been one year before.
Looked at over a longer timeframe, from 1970 to 1981 the price of gold rose 1,219 percent, versus a rise in the price of oil 1,291 percent. This wasn't coincidental. With gold and oil both priced in dollars, and with gold serving as the best proxy for the latter's value, a jump in the gold price neatly foretold the oil "shocks" of the 1970s that were merely dollar shocks.
For background, it's worth mentioning that not long after he was inaugurated as our 40th president, Ronald Reagan predicted a fall in the price of a barrel of oil. What made Reagan so confident?
Aware of the historical relationship between gold and oil, Reagan deduced that oil was due for a correction based on a 20% drop in the price of an ounce of gold since his election. Sure enough, by December of 1981 the price of a barrel of oil was nearly 20% lower than it had been one year before.
Looked at over a longer timeframe, from 1970 to 1981 the price of gold rose 1,219 percent, versus a rise in the price of oil 1,291 percent. This wasn't coincidental. With gold and oil both priced in dollars, and with gold serving as the best proxy for the latter's value, a jump in the gold price neatly foretold the oil "shocks" of the 1970s that were merely dollar shocks.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
What if a foreign bloc decides debt-ridden United States is ready for Soviet-style dissolution?
Early in his presidency, Ronald Reagan and his confidantes assessed the Soviet Union, and came to a bold conclusion: their nemesis was ripe for the taking.
So the Reagan administration began a long and costly upgrade of America's weaponry. The Soviets, predictably, followed suit. The White House could afford the outlays. The Kremlin could not. By the time Reagan left office, early in 1989, the Soviet Union was teetering. Within the next few years, the empire collapsed, leaving Russia isolated and largely reliant on its own resources.
Now, history may be repeating itself. But it is the United States that may become a target for destruction. In his determined effort to destroy markets and aggregate power in Washington, President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have run up levels of debt that would be dangerous even in a peaceful world, where natural disasters, disease and unpredictable events could overmatch the nation's ability to remain solvent.
Because of Social Security obligations and Medicare, a further runup in U.S. indebtedness already is inevitable.
The question is: Is there a hostile leader, or bloc, elsewhere in the world who will try to capitalize on America's financial weakness by forcing us to make huge new outlays that could jeopardize our future? China has no obligation to buy our bonds. It will continue to buy bonds only as long as that is beneficial to the Chinese economy.
If the Chinese stop buying U.S. bonds, who will step into the breach to finance America's transition from a market-based system designed to empower individuals and families to a statist system that arrogates power to a corrupt, self-serving liberal establishment rooted in Washington, the colleges and universities and foundations?
Some Americans already are taking drastic action out of frustration with difficulties in the homeland. The New York Timess reported Monday that growing numbers of overseas Americans are taking the weighty step of renouncing their citizenship.
“'What we have seen is a substantial change in mentality among the overseas community in the past two years,' said Jackie Bugnion, director of American Citizens Abroad, an advocacy group based in Geneva. 'Before, no one would dare mention to other Americans that they were even thinking of renouncing their U.S. nationality. Now, it is an openly discussed issue.'
The Federal Register, the government publication that records such decisions, shows that 502 expatriates gave up their U.S. citizenship or permanent residency status in the last quarter of 2009. That is a tiny portion of the 5.2 million Americans estimated by the State Department to be living abroad.
Still, 502 was the largest quarterly figure in years, more than twice the total for all of 2008, and it looms larger, given how agonizing the decision can be. There were 235 renunciations in 2008 and 743 last year. Waiting periods to meet with consular officers to formalize renunciations have grown."
So the Reagan administration began a long and costly upgrade of America's weaponry. The Soviets, predictably, followed suit. The White House could afford the outlays. The Kremlin could not. By the time Reagan left office, early in 1989, the Soviet Union was teetering. Within the next few years, the empire collapsed, leaving Russia isolated and largely reliant on its own resources.
Now, history may be repeating itself. But it is the United States that may become a target for destruction. In his determined effort to destroy markets and aggregate power in Washington, President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have run up levels of debt that would be dangerous even in a peaceful world, where natural disasters, disease and unpredictable events could overmatch the nation's ability to remain solvent.
Because of Social Security obligations and Medicare, a further runup in U.S. indebtedness already is inevitable.
The question is: Is there a hostile leader, or bloc, elsewhere in the world who will try to capitalize on America's financial weakness by forcing us to make huge new outlays that could jeopardize our future? China has no obligation to buy our bonds. It will continue to buy bonds only as long as that is beneficial to the Chinese economy.
If the Chinese stop buying U.S. bonds, who will step into the breach to finance America's transition from a market-based system designed to empower individuals and families to a statist system that arrogates power to a corrupt, self-serving liberal establishment rooted in Washington, the colleges and universities and foundations?
Some Americans already are taking drastic action out of frustration with difficulties in the homeland. The New York Timess reported Monday that growing numbers of overseas Americans are taking the weighty step of renouncing their citizenship.
“'What we have seen is a substantial change in mentality among the overseas community in the past two years,' said Jackie Bugnion, director of American Citizens Abroad, an advocacy group based in Geneva. 'Before, no one would dare mention to other Americans that they were even thinking of renouncing their U.S. nationality. Now, it is an openly discussed issue.'
The Federal Register, the government publication that records such decisions, shows that 502 expatriates gave up their U.S. citizenship or permanent residency status in the last quarter of 2009. That is a tiny portion of the 5.2 million Americans estimated by the State Department to be living abroad.
Still, 502 was the largest quarterly figure in years, more than twice the total for all of 2008, and it looms larger, given how agonizing the decision can be. There were 235 renunciations in 2008 and 743 last year. Waiting periods to meet with consular officers to formalize renunciations have grown."
Friday, March 26, 2010
Krauthammer: Obama's spend and tax strategy reverses Reagan's tax and spending cuts
American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.
Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama's triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan's strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes -- then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.
Obama's strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast and then feed it. Spend first -- which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.
And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough
Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama's triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan's strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes -- then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.
Obama's strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast and then feed it. Spend first -- which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.
And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough
Friday, December 11, 2009
Shocker: Pollwise, Barack Obama is followng the same path as Ronald Reagan in the 1980s
With a bit more than 10 months of approval data on Obama, we can now make a more meaningful comparison than was possible at the first 100 days look.
The similarity of approval trajectories is striking for Reagan and Obama. Reagan started lower, but since the 3rd month of office the two have moved along quite similar paths.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Ted Kennedy tried to make secret deal with Soviets to defeat Reagan in 1984 election
From Forbes
"Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."
Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."
"Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."
Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
