Nixon vs Reagan

[August1991]

Between these two presidents, which one was better in foreign affairs?

[bush_cheney2004]

Nixon vs. Reagan is an unfortunate way to pose what is otherwise an interesting and often asked question. The bottom line is that the major difference was realpolitik/detente vs. a belief that the Cold War could actually be won, and taking steps to do just that. That being said, Reagan had the advantage of leveraging existing position and circumstance to achieve the ultimate goal.

PM Trudeau loathed both, so that can only mean Nixon and Reagan were exceptional!

Edited June 1, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

Jimmy Carter.

[Jack Weber]

Is this a cage match,or sumthin'?

Edited June 2, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Sir Bandelot]

PM Trudeau loathed both, so that can only mean Nixon and Reagan were exceptional!

Not sure about Reagan, but Nixon felt the same way towards Trudeau.

"That Canadian asshole..." - Now considered a title of honour and distinction!

[Jack Weber]

Not sure about Reagan, but Nixon felt the same way towards Trudeau.

"That Canadian asshole..." - Now considered a title of honour and distinction!

Trudeau brushed it off by saying ,"I've been called worse by alot better!"

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure about Reagan, but Nixon felt the same way towards Trudeau.

"That Canadian asshole..." - Now considered a title of honour and distinction!

Trudeau thought that Reagan, a former actor and governor, was beneath him in standing. Mulroney would not make this mistake, and actually helped Reagan win the Cold War.

[DogOnPorch]

Nixon could have won Viet-Nam...but everybody freaked the (blank) out when he tried...lol.

[August1991]

Nixon vs. Reagan is an unfortunate way to pose what is otherwise an interesting and often asked question. The bottom line is that the major difference was realpolitik/detente vs. a belief that the Cold War could actually be won, and taking steps to do just that. That being said, Reagan had the advantage of leveraging existing position and circumstance to achieve the ultimate goal.

This is the crux of the question.

Aside from Watergate, Nixon receives good press now as an American, elder statesman, who learned how to deal with wily foreigners. Nixon in China is the phrase.

But looking back on it, Reagan had the right approach. Reagan refused to meet any Soviet leader in his first term and only because Thatcher convinced him to do so, he finally met Gorbachev in 1985.

This matters because, faced with psychopathic dictatorships, I wonder whether engagement (detente) is better than stone-walling.

Then again, Nixon moved Sadat into the western camp.

PM Trudeau loathed both, so that can only mean Nixon and Reagan were exceptional!

I doubt whether Trudeau loathed either. Trudeau famously said about Mulroney that to gain the appreciation of English Canada, it is wise if the PM does not faire la courbette (kowtow) to Americans. To gain political support in English Canada, Trudeau always cocked a snook at America. (Come to think of it, Trudeau did that to any sign of authority.)

Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter?

I suggest that you read two books: Carter's autobiography of his years in the White House and The Guts To Try. Both illustrate why Carter was arguably the worst US president in foreign affairs since WWII.

Edited June 3, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

This is the crux of the question.

Aside from Watergate, Nixon receives good press now as an American, elder statesman, who learned how to deal with wily foreigners. Nixon in China is the phrase.

I voted for Nixon...he definitely had gravitas. Personal faults aside, history will afford him the respect he deserves regardless of one's political views. Nixon mattered...in a big way.

But looking back on it, Reagan had the right approach. Reagan refused to meet any Soviet leader in his first term and only because Thatcher convinced him to do so, he finally met Gorbachev in 1985.

This matters because, faced with psychopathic dictatorships, I wonder whether engagement (detente) is better than stone-walling.

Reagan was able to see past the stalemate and solicit collaboration with the likes of Thatcher and Mulroney in unified purpose. The Evil Empire was crumbling from within and only needed one final push.

I doubt whether Trudeau loathed either. Trudeau famously said about Mulroney that to gain the appreciation of English Canada, it is wise if the PM does not faire la courbette (kowtow) to Americans. To gain political support in English Canada, Trudeau always cocked a snook at America. (Come to think of it, Trudeau did that to any sign of authority.)

Many Canadians freak out if they get too close or too far from the Americans. Such is their lot in life. This is/was secondary to a common objective. Trudeau, like Nixon, was locked in the Cold War past, including his disdain for the Americans.

[August1991]

Not sure about Reagan, but Nixon felt the same way towards Trudeau.

"That Canadian asshole..." - Now considered a title of honour and distinction!

That quote comes from the Watergate tapes. Nixon was waiting for the White House operator to make a connection for a scheduled telephone call to Trudeau and while waiting, he said "Where is that asshole Trudeau?" (Nixon's usual preferred expletive in such situations would have been "Where is that cocksucker Trudeau?" This time, with the tapes rolling and the transcript released, he happened to say "asshole". Despite his Quaker background - or perhaps because of it - that's how Nixon spoke in private.)

IOW, the expletive means nothing. I suspect that Kissinger's description of Trudeau as a "scion of an old French Canadian family" is closer to Nixon's opinion.

Trudeau brushed it off by saying ,"I've been called worse by alot better!"

I once had an argument with AmericanWoman on this forum about whether Trudeau ever said that. She was right and even told me on what page Trudeau (or his ghost writer) put that phrase in his large print Memoirs. (Trudeau refused to write an autobiography and finally relented to make a CBC video which then became a book.)

----

If we're talking about Trudeau's opinion of Americans (which we're not but what are thread hijacks for!), I am reminded of two things: Canada's (Trudeau's) gift to America in 1976 for the bicentennial and Trudeau's speech to the joint US Congress after the election of the PQ in 1976. Trudeau relied on America to maintain a Canadian federal union.

Edited June 3, 2011 by August1991

[jbg]

Between these two presidents, which one was better in foreign affairs?

No comparison; Nixon was a thug and through and through one of our worst Presidents. Reagan was someone I initially voted against but a true great.

[ToadBrother]

No comparison; Nixon was a thug and through and through one of our worst Presidents. Reagan was someone I initially voted against but a true great.

One of the worst? I highly doubt that. The man actually accomplished a considerable amount, beefing up environmental legislation and normalizing relations with China come to mind. He was a flawed president, to be sure, and in a way I suspect that's what makes him so much more fascinating than most modern-era presidents. Let's put it this way, Nixon laid a lot of the ground work for what Reagan ultimately did.

[Alan]

An interesting thread, and a great question too. Have to hand it to President Nixon for opening up relations with China, and have to hand it to President Reagan for setting a no-nonsense foreign policy tone right from the very beginning of his 1st Administration(the quick/successful release of all American hostages being held in Iran for 444 days...). Seems where Mr. Nixon was smart enough to keep the lines of communication open on foreign policy issues, essentially "walking softly", Mr. Reagan "carried a BIG stick" so to speak.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Alan

[ToadBrother]

An interesting thread, and a great question too. Have to hand it to President Nixon for opening up relations with China, and have to hand it to President Reagan for setting a no-nonsense foreign policy tone right from the very beginning of his 1st Administration(the quick/successful release of all American hostages being held in Iran for 444 days...). Seems where Mr. Nixon was smart enough to keep the lines of communication open on foreign policy issues, essentially "walking softly", Mr. Reagan "carried a BIG stick" so to speak.

I think, to some extent we have to put all things in perspective. To my mind, the one man we have to champion above all others in the ultimate collapse of the USSR is Truman. Every president after him, one way or the other, followed the Truman Doctrine. Reagan did his part, but he enjoyed the fruit of the tree planted long before his time. Some day, I hope, Truman gets his fair due as one of the great presidents.

[jbg]

An interesting thread, and a great question too. Have to hand it to President Nixon for opening up relations with China,

And somehow it's a good thing that slave labor plus the absence of environmental laws have shut down the factory and mill towns of the Maritimes, Ontario, and Upstate New York?

and have to hand it to President Reagan for setting a no-nonsense foreign policy tone right from the very beginning of his 1st Administration(the quick/successful release of all American hostages being held in Iran for 444 days...).

Within hours. Very fast.

Seems where Mr. Nixon was smart enough to keep the lines of communication open on foreign policy issues, essentially "walking softly", Mr. Reagan "carried a BIG stick" so to speak.

Again to what end was "communication" kept open? It seems to me that it hurt the U.S. and people behind the Iron Curtain very badly.

I think, to some extent we have to put all things in perspective. To my mind, the one man we have to champion above all others in the ultimate collapse of the USSR is Truman. Every president after him, one way or the other, followed the Truman Doctrine. Reagan did his part, but he enjoyed the fruit of the tree planted long before his time. Some day, I hope, Truman gets his fair due as one of the great presidents.

I agree with you about Truman. Apparently so did Reagan. He appeared at a major rally for Truman during the 1948 campaign and helped ensure his re-election.

[xul]

Between these two presidents, which one was better in foreign affairs?

Slobodan Milosevic and Kim Jong-il, who is batter on ruling his country,or better on survival, or better on kicking Uncle Sam's ass?

If I was asked, I would say Kim is just a lucky one. His country happened borders a great power but Miloseic's doesn't.

Was Neville Chamberlain the worst PM British ever had? If Adolf Hitler was as smart as him or as stupid as he thought, historians would comment him with a different way.

[Jack Weber]

I think, to some extent we have to put all things in perspective. To my mind, the one man we have to champion above all others in the ultimate collapse of the USSR is Truman. Every president after him, one way or the other, followed the Truman Doctrine. Reagan did his part, but he enjoyed the fruit of the tree planted long before his time. Some day, I hope, Truman gets his fair due as one of the great presidents.

Presidentially..Yeah..I could agree with that...

Personally,the man of the moment (of the '80's when the final push was really needed) was Pope John Paul II..Reagan may have had the military might to stare down the Soviet Union...But he ,and the US,certainly did not have the moral authority to say anything to the Soviet Union.The US was at least as bad at propping up horrendous dictators who were as bloodthirsty as anything the Soviets did.

The Pope,unlike President Reagan,DID have the moral authority to scold the USSR and shame them for thier inhumanity...For showing the dehumanizing face of Marxism and showing how wrong it is...

Lest we not forget,it was the Bulgarian arm of the KGB that sent Mehmet Ali Acga to assassinate Pope John Paul II because of his stance with the Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland.This is,in my mind(along with the disastrous Afghanistan invasion of 1979),the flash point in the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire...

Edited June 26, 2011 by Jack Weber

[ToadBrother]

Presidentially..Yeah..I could agree with that...

Personally,the man of the moment (of the '80's when the final push was really needed) was Pope John Paul II..Reagan may have had the military might to stare down the Soviet Union...But he ,and the US,certainly did not have the moral authority to say anything to the Soviet Union.The US was at least as bad at propping up horrendous dictators who were as bloodthirsty as anything the Soviets did.

The Pope,unlike President Reagan,DID have the moral authority to scold the USSR and shame them for thier inhumanity...For showing the dehumanizing face of Marxism and showing how wrong it is...

I've never particularly bought this. The Soviet rulers hated the man for his influence on Catholics in Poland and Czechoslovakia, but those were hardly the reasons the whole thing came down. The Cold War wasn't one in a day or by a single strategy, it was won by the long policy of containment, including all the ugly bits some like to wash their hands of. Unfortunately, everyone fixates on the 1980s, when it all came down, but the Soviet economy had been in the dumps for the better part of twenty years before the final collapse. This was in no small part due to the consistent policy of multiple American administrations, all of which, as I stated, did their part in following and enlarging on Truman's strategy.

Lest we not forget,it was the Bulgarian arm of the KGB that sent Mehmet Ali Acga to assassinate Pope John Paul II because of his stance with the Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland.This is,in my mind(along with the disastrous Afghanistan invasion of 1979),the flash point in the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire...

I still give it to Truman.

[jbg]

....but the Soviet economy had been in the dumps for the better part of twenty years before the final collapse. This was in no small part due to the consistent policy of multiple American administrations, all of which, as I stated, did their part in following and enlarging on Truman's strategy.

I still give it to Truman.

I give a lot to Truman. But the thread is about Nixon and Reagan. Nixon's anti-Soviet rhetoric was quite fierce. But when President he did not walk the walk.

The "grain sales" were in reality a direct subsidy since the sales were deliberately at below-market prices. This allowed the Soviet government to gain arbitrage profits, without ever taking delivery of the grain. Nixon knew a direct subsidy would be very unpopular. Thus the subterfuge, which also came naturally to him.

Further, the Salt I treaty directly cut the Soviet's need for military spending and gave them a superior position. Nixon did not play his part in the process Truman started.

[bush_cheney2004]

[bush_cheney2004]