The Ash Heap Of History

Today, Democrat conventional wisdom is that the USSR was going to inevitably collapse, and that everyone – well, every Democrat – always knew it.

It’s not true, of course:

Forty years ago today, Ronald Reagan gave one of his greatest speeches – but unlike “A Time for Choosing“, or the Brandenburg Gate, or Point du Hoc or Christmas 1981, not one of his most widely heralded or remembered ones.

It was his speech to the British Parliament 40 years ago today, in which he predicted, and called for, the collapse of Communism.

Here it is:

And if Democrats were right, this would have followed by a wave of “Well, no, duh” by the political and cultural left of the day.

But, well, no:

After Reagan’s speech at Westminster, historian Robert F. Byrnes collected essays from 35 experts on the Soviet Union — elite thinkers in American higher education — in a book titled “After Brezhnev.”Their conclusion: Any thought of winning the Cold War was a fantasy. “The Soviet Union is going to remain a stable state, with a very stable, conservative, immobile government,” Byrnes said in an interview. “We don’t see any collapse or weakening of the Soviet system.”

Of course, Reagan was right:

Within a decade — on Christmas Day, 1991 — Mikhail Gorbachev announced the complete dissolution of the Soviet Union. The 40-year-old Cold War came to a peaceful end because American democratic capitalism had laid bare the economic, moral, and spiritual bankruptcy of Soviet communism. As Reagan told an adviser when asked about his policy toward the Soviet Union: “We win, they lose.”

But now is not a time for nostalgia.

Forty years ago, the cancer destroying freedom was an external enemy.

Today the enemy – the same enemy, if you think about it – is here, within our borders, at our Capitol.

Forty years ago, the same egghead class that is canceling conservatives on campus was poo-poohing the thought that Communism would ever go away.

We need another leader – or group off leaders – who can envision eradicating the cancer that is eating life, prosperity…freedom, from within, just as certainly as the Soviets did (if with less bloodshed – so far), and lead toward that goal with the same exuberance and confidence.

Posted

June 8, 2022

Conservatism, History And Its Making

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Reagan

Comments

26 responses to “The Ash Heap Of History”

jdm

June 8, 2022

We need another leader

An updated and American version of Sulla would be very nice.
Mammuthus Primigenesis

June 8, 2022

The American Left has resolutely refused to learn the lessons buried in the collapse of the USSR.
Lesson One is that planned economies produce poverty.
Lesson Two is that nationalism cannot be extinguished.
justplainangry

June 8, 2022

But MP, this time it will work!
Emery

June 8, 2022

Why is US democracy failing? America isn’t democratic is one obvious answer.

The majority is not allowed to express the will of a democratic majority through representative institutions. So majorities see Washington as increasingly powerless to enact legislation based on democratically shaped consensus. The federal judiciary is further away from the majority consensus than at anytime since the 19th century. An entire century of jurisprudence is being tossed out with the support and connivance of the Senate.

So US politics is devoid of the legitimizing role that “the majority has spoken.” When majorities cannot be formed that can affect and shape public policies, then politics moves towards the extremes to mobilize a fighting minority.

The Republicans gave up on forming majorities over a generation ago instead choosing to rely on plutocratic mobilization of big money and the always present racism and localism in American society. The Democrats perceive any majority that would include a majority of whites as socially unjust (at a minimum) with the color being the prima facia proof.

Deep constitutional reform is required. District election rather than state election of senators is fundamentally required. Appointments and treaties and such should be confirmed and ratified by both Houses of Congress or by joint committees of the two chambers. Simple majorities in either chamber should be able to bring legislation to the floor for up-or-down votes. National referendums should be considered. Ultimately, majorities should be allowed to work their will through a democratically constituted representative process.

If the Congress were democratically constituted, then in Washington there would be two institutions “elected by the people” and not just one. A new and better America would emerge.
nerdbert

June 8, 2022

Forty years ago, the same egghead class that is canceling conservatives on campus was poo-poohing the thought that Communism would ever go away.

That “egghead class” never thought that Communism would go away because they didn’t want it to go away, they just wanted to institute it here.
nerdbert

June 8, 2022

The majority is not allowed to express the will of a democratic majority through representative institutions. So majorities see Washington as increasingly powerless to enact legislation based on democratically shaped consensus. The federal judiciary is further away from the majority consensus than at anytime since the 19th century.

We’ll see if you’re still singing this tune come November, when Biden will be defying the “will of the people” vetoing things right and left, nor when it’s only the filibuster that’s preventing the GOP from running roughshod over Biden’s priorities.

Overall, you should be glad we’re not a democracy. The governmental system that put Socrates to death because the voters decided to scapegoat him for the war’s loss is hardly a system to which we should aspire. I prefer a heavily restrained, representational government that only changes slowly and with great consensus.

In fact, if you ask me the greatest reform we could do right now is to require that each proposed administrative diktat must be enacted as a law by the Congress, sort of like what the Constitution actually required. It would ensure that no President can rule by decree, but I never expect it to happen. Congress-critters like to hide behind the President and administrative state too much since actually having to take a stand and be responsible for the government’s actions might carry a price at election time.
jdm

June 8, 2022

Good call, nerdbert. I keep thinking of that term “tyranny of the majority” (aka mob rule).
FRESCHFISCH

June 8, 2022

That’s quite the speech. Too bad we don’t have that leadership today.
Mammuthus Primigenesis

June 8, 2022

It is difficult to make the argument for a pure democracy from first principles. There is no reason to believe that a majority will support the best policies. in a true democracy, 50%+1 allows you to do anything you want to. There is a reason why religious and ethnic minorities oppose pure democracy.
The US Federal government is the level of government least swayed by democratic impulses. It was designed that way on purpose, it does not have plenary powers, the feds can only do the things the constitution says that it can. The problem isn’t that the federal government isn’t sensitive enough to democracy, it is that people are asking the federal government to do more than it is supposed to do, or can do well.
Blade Nzimande

June 8, 2022

Deep constitutional reform is required.

Nah. We just need to toss every stinking degenerate leftist out of helicopters, from 3000 feet.

Then we can have a civilized country again.
bosshoss429

June 8, 2022

nerdbert is correct. Should the GOP take both houses, they can take out the trash by kicking Obumbler out of the basement and purging every traitorous lefty from every position. Then, they can shit can the Department of Edumacation, without hurting a single student and save trillions of dollars.
bikebubba

June 8, 2022

It is shocking to see how badly the arts of oratory have degraded since Reagan, to the point where Obama was seen as a decent orator.

And + a few to Nerdbert. There are things that we rightly say are “out of bounds” in our society, rights that we attribute to God and protect by limiting amendments to a supermajority set of votes. It’s quite a shame that the left doesn’t understand why these provisions are so important.
kinlaw

June 8, 2022

Quite the long cut ‘n paste by the troll; worth the time to read?
jdm

June 8, 2022

^ nerdbert’s is better and it has the added advantage of not being FOS.
Emery

June 9, 2022

^ What if it’s now the opposite of your opening statement, and the rule of the minority is now in tension with the rights of the majority? And 2 senators per state, regardless of population, condemns us to that prospect as far as the eye can see? That there is no hope for majority rule to triumph over the countermajoritarian institution of the Senate. Imagine a country made up of Wyomings and Californias, where the number of Wyomings inevitably and eternally exceeds the number of Californias although their populations make up an ever-declining percentage of the voting population.

We badly need a constitutional convention to update the playbook. Our constitutional republic no longer functions properly. Face it. It’s stale and ineffective in protecting the interests of the vast majority of our citizens.

Not even the Italian government could come up with such a dysfunctional system.
nerdbert

June 9, 2022

Not even the Italian government could come up with such a dysfunctional system.

No, it would take a leftist to come up with something as dysfunctional as you desire.

For your historically challenged information, we have our bicameral system because the minority (the smaller states) would not join unless the majority (the larger states) was constrained[*]. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT, you fool. It was to protect the interests of the minority from those of the majority. We wouldn’t have had the United States without that compromise.

And that is still in tension these days. Can you tell me why the smaller states would give that up now? They’re already outvoted in the House, so why would they ever agree to the coasties ruling over their lives when they live in such a different manner? Right now the administrative state is based on the coasts and show no understanding of how the folks in Wyoming actually live, and you want them to vote to remove even that slight restraint on the abuse they suffer? Voluntarily?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Federal government is structured as it is. It is NOT to make the rule of the majority the law of the land. It is to make sure that the interests of the various components of the US are balanced and taken into account. It’s to protect the minority and to restrain the majority. You’ll notice that States are not so constrained in their internal governance, and why the 12-14th Amendments were required.

The whole point of the Federal government is to make the central exercise of power very difficult. Progressives have been attempting to lower that barrier for over 100 years, with great success, and now you want to lower it even more!

Our constitutional republic no longer functions properly. Face it. It’s stale and ineffective in protecting the interests of the vast majority of our citizens.

I’ll agree that our constitutional republic no longer functions properly, but for different reasons. The Federal government was never designed to rule over the lives of the citizens of the States to the degree it does now. And that’s a feature, not a bug. The bigger the unit of governance, the worse it performs and the less responsive it is to the governed. We’ve gone too far in centralizing governance from DC. It’s a very great stretch to go from the actual Constitution to a Department of Education, yet that’s where we are now.

Why do you think you leftists wanted to federalize the abomination that was RomneyCare? Why do you leftists want to federalize welfare and education? It’s because the Federal government, unlike the states, isn’t constrained by balanced budgets, nor will the populace be able to move away from bad governance if their policies are federalized. Already we’re seeing the removal of the Blue SALT subsidy drive population away from the worst offenders.

You lefties want absolute control over everyone, everywhere, and every time. The idea that citizens might not be centrally controlled terrifies you, and it shows.

[*] That’s where the 3/5 rule for slaves came in, too. The free states were worried about being overruled by the slave states in the House, so the Framers made the slave population count less to better balance the interests of the slave and non-slave states. It wasn’t for the idiotic reasons you lefties apply to the Founders these days. Hell, maybe if there’s a constitutional convention then the smaller states could demand that non-citizens count as 1/5th as far as representation in the House as an analogue.
In The Mailbox: 06.09.22 (Morning Edition) : The Other McCain

June 9, 2022

[…] Press Secretary With Blistering Response To WaPo “Smear Piece” Shot In The Dark: The Ash Heap Of History, Flushed, and The High Road The Political Hat: Nevada Primary Early Voting (Week 1) This […]
nerdbert

June 9, 2022

BTW, the coming SCOTUS decision actually conforms more closely to the Constitution and shows what the Framers really intended. Even liberal lawyers will agree that Roe et. al. were legislating from the bench. If SCOTUS really does kick the decision back to the States, that actually represents a return to what was designed. Remember that 10th Amendment where all powers not invested in the Federal government by the Constitution were reserved to the States and The People? That’s what the leaked decision will do: return the right of self-determination back to the States and their people.

It’s at the level of the states that we might see some changes. You don’t like the idea of abortion on demand in the 9th month? Outlaw it, or move to a state that does. You think that limiting abortion in any way is a gross imposition on your rights? Outlaw abortion limits, or move to a state that does. Either way, you have a choice and the freedom to exercise that, while Roe imposes a moral vision on everyone in the country.

The fewer decisions made for everyone by an out-of-touch Federal government, the better.
Emery

June 9, 2022

The nation’s Founding Fathers believed reasonable men in government could come together and compromise for the good of the nation.
nerdbert

June 9, 2022

Reasonable men can compromise, even today. But we have men (such a sexist term, for shame Em!) who don’t believe in free speech, nor free practice of religion, nor individual liberty, and believe in racism controlling half of gov’t. And we are to compromise with totalitarians who do nothing but denigrate freedom and self determination? Excuse me?!

Sorry, come back with your arguments when there is a HINT of reasonable behavior on your side. The old saw that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice applies here, and there’s little that the Demonrats offer that doesn’t shackle liberty. In fact, your entire proposal reads as nothing but making the inhabitants of the smaller states vassals to the larger states, rather than treating states as equals who must compromise for the benefit of both. Of course, to a leftist, “compromise” means “adopting my position and being subject to my rule” so I shouldn’t be surprised.

You want to fundamentally change the nature of the US, and you shouldn’t doubt that more than a few states will not agree to that change. If you’re really serious about calling a Constitutional Convention, don’t expect the union to survive — it barely made it into a union in the first place, with all the compromises necessary there. Did you ever stop to think why it takes 3/4 of the states to change the Constitution? It was an extremely difficult task to balance all the competing interests then, and it won’t be any easier now.

Now go study some history. You need it to get some perspective on how narrow was the decision to actually form the US, and now you’re looking to tear away one of cornerstones of the compromise for short term political benefit.
bikebubba

June 9, 2022

Regarding the Constitutionality of Roe, if it were good law, the left would be submitting amicus briefs to the Supreme Court instead of threatening the lives of the justices and fighting with the Secret Service. So ironically, the left is admitting just how bad of law Roe is by their behavior.
nerdbert

June 9, 2022

And one more thing, why in h*ll should Californians care about Dobbs? They’ll still get to rule themselves and their social structure as they will. That’s the whole purpose of federalism: the states can and should organize themselves as they wish, but without imposing their preferences on other states. Freedom, dude.

But the federalizing of all governmental control makes politics a death sport across the entire country, where folks in Wyoming feel like their losing their jobs and livelihoods at the whims of Californians’ beliefs in computer models that don’t affect the lives of Californians, but devastate those in Wyoming.

I’d like to go back to a *very* limited Federal government that did only the tasks assigned to it in the Constitution, mainly dealing with external matters and conflicts between the states. California *should* be free to bankrupt itself trying to house drug addicts, but it shouldn’t expect Minnesota to pay for that. It’s California’s problem, so they should be paying for the extravagant solution they seem hell-bent on implementing. (Not that I think CA’s solution is either reasonable or kind to those suffering from addiction, but Californians apparently think differently, so more power to them in their experiment.)
jdm

June 9, 2022

And one more thing, why in h*ll should Californians care about Dobbs?

It’s not about the law/ruling per se, nerdbert. It’s the idea that (political) ground once taken is being lost. The leaders of the left, those in the foreground like Pelosi and Schumer as well as those in the background like Obama or Klain are inciting their true believers to intimidate the reasonable, the moderates, the scared. Remember, this ruling has not come down yet – everything we’ve see so far is a reaction to nothing more than a rumor.
nerdbert

June 9, 2022

It’s not about the law/ruling per se, nerdbert. It’s the idea that (political) ground once taken is being lost.

*sigh* See al Qaeda and their complaints about the Reconquista. Totalitarian religious zealots, both.

We’ll see if Pelosi will finally allow the SCOTUS security bill to come to a vote. If not, we can rightly accuse her of putting their lives in danger with the rhetoric and actions of the Left.
bikebubba

June 9, 2022

Californians care about Dobbs to a degree because they think that prenatal infanticide should be legal nationwide, but I think more importantly because about a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget comes from the federal government, and that’s much harder to sustain without Roe v. Wade.
Blade Nzimande

June 10, 2022

“Reasonable men can compromise, even today. But we have men (such a sexist term, for shame Em!) ”

Not gonna lie.

When I see whammen parading around, naked and smeared with mensural blood, and publicly *celebrating* the destruction of defenseless human beings, still in the womb, I have to wonder if it was really a good idea to extend the franchise.