|
K was an elderly gentleman who looked a bit like Gandalf, without the beard. I was a freshman looking for RA jobs and I came across an ad for to be an intern for a law professor. He was doing research in international finance and trade, so I decided to give it a shot.
The first time I met him, he was sitting in a blue oxford sweater and khakis, and flipping through an old-fashioned rolodex. He spoke, in a dry, slightly toned-down but unmistakeably transatlantic accent that made him sound like he was the headmaster in some New England prep school.
We spent the entire interview talking about politics, almost by accident. Later, he would tell me that he normally hated talking about that subject. I showed him my resume--under employment, the only thing there was some telemarketing for the Republican National Committee during the 2006 Congressional Elections--and he chuckled, mentioned that he was glad to see new blood coming into the GOP.
I replied that I wasn't a conservative, and he chuckled again, replying that "a man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart; a man who is still a socialist at thirty has no head." Hoping to impress him, I smiled, nodded, and said, "Churchill, right?" He smiled back, shook his head, and replied, "nope, that's a mis-attribution--the quote comes from Clemenceau, who paraphrased Guisot."
I got the job. My first task for him was synchronizing his rolodex with his phone and email contacts. It was in alphabetical order. Nothing stood out to me until I got to the Bs. I flipped through a few of the entries until I got to one that read
G H W Bush, XXX-XXX-XXXX, Kennebunkport, Maine
I blinked twice. What the heck? I looked up for a moment and saw him jotting notes on some law student's paper. He caught me staring at him and I quickly looked down, a little embarrassed. He asked me what was the matter.
I didn't really know what to say, so I just held up the card and started to casually ask a very awkward question. He laughed, cut me off, and said that the landline wasn't very useful--that the best way to reach the former President was through his golf caddy's cell phone.
The next three months of work passed uneventfully. The only time he said something even remotely close to criticism was a comment that "none of [his] classmates ever wore shorts to see a professor." I stopped wearing them immediately thereafter.
Oh, and we never talked about politics while I worked for him, but it was sometimes difficult to avoid the subject.
When he and his wife left on vacation I got to take care of Gorky, his golden retriever. I remember showing up at the porch of his town house along "Professor's Row" and easing open the mahogany and stained-glass front door. His golden retriever immediately barked twice, and leapt towards me, knocking over a row of intricately arranged portraits on his mantelpiece. I spent thirty minutes putting them back up. At first, I didn't recognize the faces, except his own, much younger, staring back from an odd assortment of family vacation shots. The landmarks were familiar, though. Big Ben. The Eiffel Tower. The Brandenburg Gate. The Kremlin. The Forbidden City. Mt. Fuji.
Then I came across a set of photos, arranged in a long-ish frame like an old-fashioned Chinese picture scroll. In these, K was always dressed impeccably, sitting at long tables together with other well-dressed, well-groomed old men. It took me a moment to realize that the balding fellow with the age spot was Mikhail Gorbachev and the perpetually grinning gentleman across from him was Ronald Reagan. After carefully placing the long picture frame in its position of honor, front and center of all his other photos, I took Gorky out for her walk.
We lost touch for a month after I stopped working for him. I'd found an externship at an equity research firm, and they paid me twice what he did, as well as letting me wear shorts on the weekend. He was a little sad to see me go. After that, I started taking time out to see him.
Every two or three months, from that moment until now, we'd have lunch at this quiet little diner just up the street from where he lived. At first, we each ordered salads, but soon we were splitting pizzas like old friends. One time, he saw me holding a plastic bag with a book in it; it was Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, a birthday gift for my brother. He took the book and snorted one of his dry chuckles, and we began talking politics, for the first time in years.
He was a lot more forthright now. I don't remember how the conversation went, but I do remember vaguely that my mind was completely blown after about fifteen minutes. Lunch lasted nearly an hour and a half for us that day.
This is what he said:
1) The entirety of the United States was built into a machine to defeat the Soviet Union by the 1970s. The entire strategy was not to attack them militarily, but to utilize economics and diplomacy to bankrupt them. In order to do that, it was necessary to build up a constellation of US allies whose export economies rested on US aggregate demand and whose politicians could be quickly removed with scandalous dirt held by US agencies. In finance, the US switched off gold in 73 and created an eurodollar futures market in 74, and then used that as well as minor tinkering such as the Plaza Accords in 87 to accomplish the goal of letting other countries export as much as they wanted to it; in diplomacy, NATO kept Western Europe far happier than the Warsaw Pact did to Eastern Europe. Oh, and the Presidency became much more powerful than originally envisioned, mainly because all this new "thinking and doing" ran through national security officials rather than legislators.
2) The US never changed the "machine" after the Cold War ended, because those institutions became essentially rent-seeking entities; trade built on well-educated but cheap post-Communist labor created an enormous amount of wealth, which went into deregulated finance, turning it into a casino; the media and military found Islamism to be a great way to justify viewership and defense budgets; the executive branch was able to tap into all these forces quite well to enhance its power at the expense of Congress.
3) This machine won't end, absent a tremendous crisis that provided a new "cause" for the country to orient itself around.
His final quote tied it all together: "The Soviets kept us focused, but there's nothing like them now."
This wasn't the wham line that really stuck with me, though. Near the end of lunch, I was talking about petty politics in the undergraduate finance club, and he said something that I still try to live by today:
"You're trying too hard to be someone important. You almost remind me of Dick Nixon."
Nowadays, he's gone back to playing senior statesman whenever the current administration needs someone to do backchannel negotiations, and the number one counterparty in these talks is China. So ironically, even though we probably have even more to talk about, we have less we can say to each other.
We've gone back to salads, and he had to put Gorky down a few weeks ago. But he's still the most interesting guy I've ever met.
 
|
This dude sounds like he has been a part of history and has really penetrating insights from his expereince. Thanks for sharing, amazing story and person.
|
That must be such a privilege to work for him O.O
5 stars man, brilliant story
|
|
|
I hope I find a job with a boss like that
|
In finance, the US switched off gold in 73 and created an eurodollar futures market in 74, and then used that as well as minor tinkering such as the Plaza Accords in 87 to accomplish the goal of letting other countries export as much as they wanted to it; i
I didn't understand what he said. Could you please elaborate?
And what are backchannel negotiations? Like blackmailing, taunting, provoking?
|
Wow, what a read...just amazing stuff.
Thanks for sharing this with us.
|
On November 02 2012 17:05 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote + In finance, the US switched off gold in 73 and created an eurodollar futures market in 74, and then used that as well as minor tinkering such as the Plaza Accords in 87 to accomplish the goal of letting other countries export as much as they wanted to it; i I didn't understand what he said. Could you please elaborate? And what are backchannel negotiations? Like blackmailing, taunting, provoking?
Basically the US had a balance of payments problem so long as it was on the gold standard. If the US was to keep serving as the "importer of last resort" for W Germany, Japan, and S Korea then it would have to solve the balance of payments problem by going paper. But historically, pure paper currencies have been prone to hyperinflation. The solution was that the US went off gold and also used futures to reduce the volatility (read: long-tail hyperinflation risk) of a fiat currency. Then Volcker went and nuked any residual inflationary expectations for good by jacking interest rates up to double digit percentages.
This allowed the US to use its own industrial base to make loads of high-tech weapons (thousands of M1 Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, F-15 and 16 jets, MX missiles, a 600-ship navy) through the 80s, while its allies exported the consumer goods necessary to keep the US people happy, and the expanded financial market served as an outlet for the excess liquidity, allowing America to drastically delay its financial reckoning.
The Soviets couldn't keep up with this and their economy simply gave out.
|
Man, so much knowledge from one man, he is indeed one cool individual. I'm an engineer, and generally stay out of politics, so to me all of this is mind-boggling.
Thanks a ton for sharing!
|
The overarching strategy (be at peace with the Soviets but simply spend them to death) was designed by Nixon back in the 70s. According to K, Nixon was probably the smartest President, but also probably the most psychologically troubled President.
The specifics were implemented slowly by a series of successive administrations--Kissinger, Brzezinski, George Schultz, Cap Weinberger, Greenspan, and Jim Baker, were all folks that worked on tinkering the plan
|
As for backchannel negotiations, its like most state-to-state negotiations, but without much ideology involved. There's some learning involved
to quote K
"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely non-ideological basis since the end of the First World War"
|
Another pair of quotes from my notes (protip: always take notes when you lunch with people)
"1914 was the apex of Western Civilization; everything since then has been a downhill slide in terms of the West slowing down and other nations catching up"
and
"World War One was a demonstration that the very same cultural traits that made the West great--rationalist monotheism, national sovereignty, an absolute emphasis on law, treating the ends of warfare as an extension of politics and the means of warfare as an extension of science--were double-edged swords that would make the great Western nations cannibalize each other"
|
These sorts of individuals are hard to come by... They just seem to know everything.
|
We lost touch after I stopped working for him. I'd found an externship at an equity research firm, and they paid me twice what he did, as well as letting me wear shorts on the weekend. He was a little sad to see me go, but we still kept in touch.
Might want to edit this.
|
|
|
On November 02 2012 18:33 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +We lost touch after I stopped working for him. I'd found an externship at an equity research firm, and they paid me twice what he did, as well as letting me wear shorts on the weekend. He was a little sad to see me go, but we still kept in touch.
Might want to edit this.
Ah, I meant we lost touch for a while. We started lunching together a month or two later. I'll put that in, thanks!
|
Between lunching with eminent statesmen/scholars and courting daughters of prosperous Chinese bankers, where do you find time for Starcraft?
|
Did you ever find out if he's a Skull and Bones member?
|
On November 02 2012 19:56 VenomBRA wrote:
Did you ever find out if he's a Skull and Bones member?
No, but he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and was a member of the Aspen Strategy Group.
|
Last part was such an interesting read because the point of view was so narrowly focused on the American system throughout WW2 and entering cold war. In a way, criticizing the system, but with a hidden endorsement. Such point of view to me should not be treated accurately but as a taste for romance with mixed feelings, leads to understand the person who generated such thoughts instead of the thoughts itself.
|
I just want to say I'm jealous, honestly I'll gladly take it as a volunteer job.
|
Even though based on your description of this "guy"it doesnt sound like it, but have you ever asked yourself if he meant to gave you this very task as the first to do?
|
Really interesting story,
Thanks for sharing!
|
28088 Posts
You write very well. I enjoy reading all of your blogs, especially this one.
|
The last line about salads made me sad, good read, you da man as usual
EDIT* this is probably one of my favourite blog posts from you actually
|
TLADT24920 Posts
A nice read and sounds like an amazing guy to me. Wish I could meet someone like him lol.
|
On November 02 2012 17:25 Shady Sands wrote:
As for backchannel negotiations, its like most state-to-state negotiations, but without much ideology involved. There's some learning involved
to quote K
"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely non-ideological basis since the end of the First World War"
Without much ideology? What does that mean? What do they negotiate for then?
I actually have more questions because I don't get the details.
|
Glad to know that competent people were at one time a part of the government.
|
It's interesting to know that you met someone who met world leaders and this blog is very well written (as usual), but I'm confused with the "what he said" part. What is surprising or very interesting here? Maybe I missed the point there. Isn't this already well known? I thought he would tell you some stories he heard from those legendary figures.
|
|
|
Your blogs are always 5 star material. This was no exception.
|
Really great blog you write in a very easy to read way, which is superb here.
|
United States13896 Posts
On November 03 2012 02:00 Thurken wrote:
It's interesting to know that you met someone who met world leaders and this blog is very well written (as usual), but I'm confused with the "what he said" part. What is surprising or very interesting here? Maybe I missed the point there. Isn't this already well known? I thought he would tell you some stories he heard from those legendary figures.
At least here in the U.S. I would estimate that very few people could put together a cogent explanation for something as complicated as the fall of the Soviet Union. Unless you've taken a focused course concerning economics that looked at the underlying causes it would be difficult to pinpoint American economic policies that lead to the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. It may be well known in academia, but not among the layman. I certainly wouldn't be able to offer anything near the explanation fielded in this blog if I was put on the spot prior to reading it, and its pretty presumptuous to assume everyone understands these things.
|
Anyone who knows the best way to contact the ex-president must be amazing to get to know
|
On November 03 2012 06:03 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
Anyone who knows the best way to contact the ex-president must be amazing to get to know
We all know now! 
|
I chuckled at "none of [his] classmates ever wore shorts to see a professor". It was a great read. Definitely one of the most interesting stories yet. Thank you for taking your time and writing this!
|
On November 02 2012 22:27 Mafe wrote:
Even though based on your description of this "guy"it doesnt sound like it, but have you ever asked yourself if he meant to gave you this very task as the first to do?
Actually I was wondering about that to myself too. Of course, he wasn't the sort to flaunt around his importance--he never gave public speeches or seminars like the other notable or Nobel-prize-winning professors, he never even wrote newspaper columns. He just seemed perfectly happy advising companies on international trade law and keeping in touch with his younger friends (two names I remember were Bob Zoellick and Bing West.)
On November 03 2012 00:13 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 17:25 Shady Sands wrote:
As for backchannel negotiations, its like most state-to-state negotiations, but without much ideology involved. There's some learning involved
to quote K
"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely non-ideological basis since the end of the First World War" Without much ideology? What does that mean? What do they negotiate for then? I actually have more questions because I don't get the details.
Like raw interests. He said that after Iraq no one wanted to spend national power for ideological goals like democracy or human rights anymore (not that it was like that before, but those goals always served as a useful way to orient public opinion around intervening in other countries.)
In his view, Western nations were always striving for those goals ever since the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's fourteen points. He also lumped fascism in with "Western political culture" and categorized World War 2 as a "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology".
What struck me a lot about him was how, on one hand, he could see through all the BS and brutality in politics and war and yet on the other hand he retained this irrational, almost subconscious love for his country. (btw it's that personality characteristic that I used to model Luo Shuren, the overall army commander, in my war novel.)
On November 03 2012 05:08 p4NDemik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 02:00 Thurken wrote:
It's interesting to know that you met someone who met world leaders and this blog is very well written (as usual), but I'm confused with the "what he said" part. What is surprising or very interesting here? Maybe I missed the point there. Isn't this already well known? I thought he would tell you some stories he heard from those legendary figures. At least here in the U.S. I would estimate that very few people could put together a cogent explanation for something as complicated as the fall of the Soviet Union. Unless you've taken a focused course concerning economics that looked at the underlying causes it would be difficult to pinpoint American economic policies that lead to the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. It may be well known in academia, but not among the layman. I certainly wouldn't be able to offer anything near the explanation fielded in this blog if I was put on the spot prior to reading it, and its pretty presumptuous to assume everyone understands these things.
This--whenever people talk about how the Soviet Union failed because it wasn't a democracy or because it was brutal or because Communism is a failure, I just think back to how one of the Cold Warriors who implemented the anti-Soviet strategy freely admitted that the success of that strategy was really a question of dollars and cents.
|
On November 03 2012 17:45 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 00:13 JieXian wrote:On November 02 2012 17:25 Shady Sands wrote:
As for backchannel negotiations, its like most state-to-state negotiations, but without much ideology involved. There's some learning involved
to quote K
"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely non-ideological basis since the end of the First World War" Without much ideology? What does that mean? What do they negotiate for then? I actually have more questions because I don't get the details. Like raw interests. He said that after Iraq no one wanted to spend national power for ideological goals like democracy or human rights anymore (not that it was like that before, but those goals always served as a useful way to orient public opinion around intervening in other countries.) In his view, Western nations were always striving for those goals ever since the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's fourteen points. He also lumped fascism in with "Western political culture" and categorized World War 2 as a "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". What struck me a lot about him was how, on one hand, he could see through all the BS and brutality in politics and war and yet on the other hand he retained this irrational, almost subconscious love for his country. (btw it's that personality characteristic that I used to model Luo Shuren, the overall army commander, in my war novel.)
If I'm understanding you right, shouldn't it have been
"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely ideological basis since the end of the First World War"
,meaning their policies aren't tied to ideology any longer?
"German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology".
This got me really curious too. How?
Very interesting blog.
|
On November 03 2012 22:29 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 17:45 Shady Sands wrote:On November 03 2012 00:13 JieXian wrote:On November 02 2012 17:25 Shady Sands wrote:
As for backchannel negotiations, its like most state-to-state negotiations, but without much ideology involved. There's some learning involved
to quote K
"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely non-ideological basis since the end of the First World War" Without much ideology? What does that mean? What do they negotiate for then? I actually have more questions because I don't get the details. Like raw interests. He said that after Iraq no one wanted to spend national power for ideological goals like democracy or human rights anymore (not that it was like that before, but those goals always served as a useful way to orient public opinion around intervening in other countries.) In his view, Western nations were always striving for those goals ever since the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's fourteen points. He also lumped fascism in with "Western political culture" and categorized World War 2 as a "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". What struck me a lot about him was how, on one hand, he could see through all the BS and brutality in politics and war and yet on the other hand he retained this irrational, almost subconscious love for his country. (btw it's that personality characteristic that I used to model Luo Shuren, the overall army commander, in my war novel.) If I'm understanding you right, shouldn't it have been Show nested quote +"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely ideological basis since the end of the First World War" ,meaning their policies aren't tied to ideology any longer? Show nested quote +"German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". This got me really curious too. How? Very interesting blog.
Nope. He meant it in the sense that most of Western foreign policy was, from 1918 to 1991, an extension of ideological conflict
|
On November 02 2012 15:48 Shady Sands wrote:
K was an elderly gentleman who looked a bit like Gandalf, without the beard.
if i met someone like that, they would be the most intersesting person i had ever met too :D
|
All I read about was a young guy that met an old decrepit man who knew some of the most corrupt men in history. Rather than being a cool old guy, I would have considered him one of the most evil men I'd ever met.
|
I wish I could understand all of this stuff. Sounds so fascinating. I wish there was some way to fully categorize the validity of his various insights though. If there could just be a group of older historians, law professors, and economists, all in one room (other experts I'm forgetting too). I'd like to hear their agreements/disagreements with respect to the key points about American history, and where we should go in the future.
I feel like the Americans should reorient the machine around renewable, sustainable energy (and a sustainable economy) and technological progress. Planetary/asteroid mining operations would be fun! Today its boring...just get more jobs in the short term. No long-term vision besides green energy, which isn't really a focal point at all.
|
On November 03 2012 22:47 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 22:29 JieXian wrote:On November 03 2012 17:45 Shady Sands wrote:On November 03 2012 00:13 JieXian wrote:On November 02 2012 17:25 Shady Sands wrote:
As for backchannel negotiations, its like most state-to-state negotiations, but without much ideology involved. There's some learning involved
to quote K
"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely non-ideological basis since the end of the First World War" Without much ideology? What does that mean? What do they negotiate for then? I actually have more questions because I don't get the details. Like raw interests. He said that after Iraq no one wanted to spend national power for ideological goals like democracy or human rights anymore (not that it was like that before, but those goals always served as a useful way to orient public opinion around intervening in other countries.) In his view, Western nations were always striving for those goals ever since the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's fourteen points. He also lumped fascism in with "Western political culture" and categorized World War 2 as a "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". What struck me a lot about him was how, on one hand, he could see through all the BS and brutality in politics and war and yet on the other hand he retained this irrational, almost subconscious love for his country. (btw it's that personality characteristic that I used to model Luo Shuren, the overall army commander, in my war novel.) If I'm understanding you right, shouldn't it have been "Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely ideological basis since the end of the First World War" ,meaning their policies aren't tied to ideology any longer? "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". This got me really curious too. How? Very interesting blog. Nope. He meant it in the sense that most of Western foreign policy was, from 1918 to 1991, an extension of ideological conflict
ahhhh got it, thanks. I mixed up your answers to my questions which was what confused me.
|
On November 04 2012 02:39 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 22:47 Shady Sands wrote:On November 03 2012 22:29 JieXian wrote:On November 03 2012 17:45 Shady Sands wrote:On November 03 2012 00:13 JieXian wrote:On November 02 2012 17:25 Shady Sands wrote:
As for backchannel negotiations, its like most state-to-state negotiations, but without much ideology involved. There's some learning involved
to quote K
"Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely non-ideological basis since the end of the First World War" Without much ideology? What does that mean? What do they negotiate for then? I actually have more questions because I don't get the details. Like raw interests. He said that after Iraq no one wanted to spend national power for ideological goals like democracy or human rights anymore (not that it was like that before, but those goals always served as a useful way to orient public opinion around intervening in other countries.) In his view, Western nations were always striving for those goals ever since the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's fourteen points. He also lumped fascism in with "Western political culture" and categorized World War 2 as a "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". What struck me a lot about him was how, on one hand, he could see through all the BS and brutality in politics and war and yet on the other hand he retained this irrational, almost subconscious love for his country. (btw it's that personality characteristic that I used to model Luo Shuren, the overall army commander, in my war novel.) If I'm understanding you right, shouldn't it have been "Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely ideological basis since the end of the First World War" ,meaning their policies aren't tied to ideology any longer? "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". This got me really curious too. How? Very interesting blog. Nope. He meant it in the sense that most of Western foreign policy was, from 1918 to 1991, an extension of ideological conflict ahhhh got it, thanks. I mixed up your answers to my questions which was what confused me.
np
fyi, he's not playing senior statesman so much this year. he also just revealed he's been working with zoellick and stephen walt to draft proposals on 2012-2016 foreign policy, if romney wins the election
|
On November 04 2012 01:18 ~ava wrote:
All I read about was a young guy that met an old decrepit man who knew some of the most corrupt men in history. Rather than being a cool old guy, I would have considered him one of the most evil men I'd ever met.
and that's why you are stupid.
first of all there is no good and evil the whole concept is something for fairytales.
Understanding what ideas and concept made people do the things they did allows us to form the future in a way to avoid the mistakes these people made. Labeling someone as "evil" and refusing to understand them is pure stupidity.
|
That was interesting and brilliant. Thank you for posting.
|
On November 04 2012 03:21 Skilledblob wrote:
and that's why you are stupid.
first of all there is no good and evil the whole concept is something for fairytales.
Understanding what ideas and concept made people do the things they did allows us to form the future in a way to avoid the mistakes these people made. Labeling someone as "evil" and refusing to understand them is pure stupidity.
Society does that all the time to convicted killers, what are you talking about.
Equally dumb would be to consider someone 'cool' based on who he knows/has connections with.
When said connections are Nixon, Reagan, Gorbachev, enough said in my book.
|
What you tell is a good story, but it boils the failure of the Soviet Union down to far too simple a picture to possibly correspond to the reality. Obviously the things you cite as the causes were major factors, but other factors were important too, such as the handing of the Soviets' political torch to the much younger Gorbachev, his interest in reform, the doors that opened for criticism of the Soviet state from its citizens, and so on.
As for the idea that Nixon conceived of a master plan to implement all of this, again, not really plausible. Bits and pieces, maybe, but the idea that doing so would directly lead to the downfall of the Soviet state (as opposed to other more likely outcomes, like a Soviet state with diminished European influence) was remarkably difficult to envision in 1968-74.
Edit: I'm currently in the middle of reading Nate Silver's recent book on statistical prediction called "The Signal and The Noise," and he dissects the various views of politicians and diplomats on the matter of the Soviet Union's downfall in the process of discussing what he calls the "hedgehog" and "fox" approach to prediction. "Hedgehogs" view the world through a filter of one or a few basic principles that they try to form into a grand theory of everything. When facts change, they tweak the theory to help it survive. "Foxes" question their own biases and take in a wide swath of information, looking for interrelationships, but don't distill the results into overarching principles. Your friend's description of the downfall of the Soviet Union sounds like a typical "hedgehog" argument, an approach which is often rewarded in academia and the media because it lends itself to being stated simply, but which either doesn't take into account or becomes more convoluted when facts which might stand against the speaker's preconceived worldview are introduced.
|
On November 04 2012 08:10 ~ava wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 03:21 Skilledblob wrote:
and that's why you are stupid.
first of all there is no good and evil the whole concept is something for fairytales.
Understanding what ideas and concept made people do the things they did allows us to form the future in a way to avoid the mistakes these people made. Labeling someone as "evil" and refusing to understand them is pure stupidity. Society does that all the time to convicted killers, what are you talking about.
lol ok
|
I disagree with his assessment of the Cold War and of the aftermath but he sounds like a boss.
|
On November 04 2012 08:10 ~ava wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 03:21 Skilledblob wrote:
and that's why you are stupid.
first of all there is no good and evil the whole concept is something for fairytales.
Understanding what ideas and concept made people do the things they did allows us to form the future in a way to avoid the mistakes these people made. Labeling someone as "evil" and refusing to understand them is pure stupidity. Society does that all the time to convicted killers, what are you talking about. Equally dumb would be to consider someone 'cool' based on who he knows/has connections with. When said connections are Nixon, Reagan, Gorbachev, enough said in my book.
as a side thought, I wonder if Gorby, Reagan, and Nixon think of each other as cool.
|
On November 04 2012 11:28 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:10 ~ava wrote:On November 04 2012 03:21 Skilledblob wrote:
and that's why you are stupid.
first of all there is no good and evil the whole concept is something for fairytales.
Understanding what ideas and concept made people do the things they did allows us to form the future in a way to avoid the mistakes these people made. Labeling someone as "evil" and refusing to understand them is pure stupidity. Society does that all the time to convicted killers, what are you talking about. Equally dumb would be to consider someone 'cool' based on who he knows/has connections with. When said connections are Nixon, Reagan, Gorbachev, enough said in my book. as a side thought, I wonder if Gorby, Reagan, and Nixon think of each other as cool.
Two of the three are dead...
|
On November 04 2012 08:22 Lysenko wrote:
What you tell is a good story, but it boils the failure of the Soviet Union down to far too simple a picture to possibly correspond to the reality. Obviously the things you cite as the causes were major factors, but other factors were important too, such as the handing of the Soviets' political torch to the much younger Gorbachev, his interest in reform, the doors that opened for criticism of the Soviet state from its citizens, and so on.
As for the idea that Nixon conceived of a master plan to implement all of this, again, not really plausible. Bits and pieces, maybe, but the idea that doing so would directly lead to the downfall of the Soviet state (as opposed to other more likely outcomes, like a Soviet state with diminished European influence) was remarkably difficult to envision in 1968-74.
Edit: I'm currently in the middle of reading Nate Silver's recent book on statistical prediction called "The Signal and The Noise," and he dissects the various views of politicians and diplomats on the matter of the Soviet Union's downfall in the process of discussing what he calls the "hedgehog" and "fox" approach to prediction. "Hedgehogs" view the world through a filter of one or a few basic principles that they try to form into a grand theory of everything. When facts change, they tweak the theory to help it survive. "Foxes" question their own biases and take in a wide swath of information, looking for interrelationships, but don't distill the results into overarching principles. Your friend's description of the downfall of the Soviet Union sounds like a typical "hedgehog" argument, an approach which is often rewarded in academia and the media because it lends itself to being stated simply, but which either doesn't take into account or becomes more convoluted when facts which might stand against the speaker's preconceived worldview are introduced.
That makes a bit of sense. I think the school I went to, with its heavy emphasis on theory in the liberal arts, probably meant both he and I were speaking on the same "wavelength" when it came to econ/politics. It's probably why our conversations went as well as they did.
On Nixon--the bullet points I have in my notebook were that
- Nixon--learned from Nam and BOP 1962 that military force was an inefficient way of fighting an ideological war, so set the entire US policy machine (WH/Congressional aides + State/CIA/Pentagon + Private sector) to look for other ways of winning
- Other ways basically boiled down to outspending Soviet Union and continuing export-led growth in "borderland" states (W Germany, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan)
- Also figured out that if armed force was a bad way to export democracy it was probably also a bad way to export communism (Brzezinski would use this later in 1979, to good effect)
Some more bullet points on Nixon before he became President--
- Nixon believed in this so strongly he went against his own racial prejudices to push for civ rights legislation, since that would "get America's own house in order" and make America more attractive to 3rd World vs. the Russians
|
On November 04 2012 11:34 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 11:28 Kalingingsong wrote:On November 04 2012 08:10 ~ava wrote:On November 04 2012 03:21 Skilledblob wrote:
and that's why you are stupid.
first of all there is no good and evil the whole concept is something for fairytales.
Understanding what ideas and concept made people do the things they did allows us to form the future in a way to avoid the mistakes these people made. Labeling someone as "evil" and refusing to understand them is pure stupidity. Society does that all the time to convicted killers, what are you talking about. Equally dumb would be to consider someone 'cool' based on who he knows/has connections with. When said connections are Nixon, Reagan, Gorbachev, enough said in my book. as a side thought, I wonder if Gorby, Reagan, and Nixon think of each other as cool. Two of the three are dead...
what about when they were alive?
|
On November 04 2012 11:51 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 11:34 Lysenko wrote:On November 04 2012 11:28 Kalingingsong wrote:On November 04 2012 08:10 ~ava wrote:On November 04 2012 03:21 Skilledblob wrote:
and that's why you are stupid.
first of all there is no good and evil the whole concept is something for fairytales.
Understanding what ideas and concept made people do the things they did allows us to form the future in a way to avoid the mistakes these people made. Labeling someone as "evil" and refusing to understand them is pure stupidity. Society does that all the time to convicted killers, what are you talking about. Equally dumb would be to consider someone 'cool' based on who he knows/has connections with. When said connections are Nixon, Reagan, Gorbachev, enough said in my book. as a side thought, I wonder if Gorby, Reagan, and Nixon think of each other as cool. Two of the three are dead... what about when they were alive?
I'm fairly certain Gorbachev and Reagan had a good rapport
As for Nixon, it seems (based on conversations with K, and reading various memoirs) that people thought he was smart and openminded (people could pitch any ideas to him and he'd listen/consider things objectively) but he was also possessed of too much ambition and insecurity (aka the Napoleon complex)
|
I'd be careful about assuming too much about intentions to outspend the Soviets in that period. The information visible to US leaders was often sketchy and tended to amplify the threat, so there was a tendency to outspend just to "keep up" with too-high estimates.
On Nixon's support of civil rights legislation, you have any sources on the matter of his motivation?
|
On November 04 2012 11:57 Lysenko wrote:
I'd be careful about assuming too much about intentions to outspend the Soviets in that period. The information visible to US leaders was often sketchy and tended to amplify the threat, so there was a tendency to outspend just to "keep up" with too-high estimates.
On Nixon's support of civil rights legislation, you have any sources on the matter of his motivation?
All the above comes from notes taken during conversations with K
The thing is though they had those super-high defense spending estimates, and then they also had GDP estimates based on open economic facts which the Soviets spent a lot less time keeping hidden than military knowledge. All they had to do was put 2 and 2 together and realize that all that "capital" the Soviets were investing in their military was a waste since it was never going to be used in a way that could get the USSR a decent "rate of return"
Then Brzezinski came along and gave the Soviets the trojan horse of Afghanistan, a temptation for the USSR to "recoup" some of the costs of its military spending (to put all that expensive hardware to use), which quickly turned into their version of Vietnam
|
Again, this strikes me as trying to take a number of interrelated but separate events and decisions and turn them into a coherent narrative. It's worth checking out some of the other scholarly work on this period for alternate viewpoints.
|
What an interesting man! Thanks for sharing.
|
On November 04 2012 11:48 Shady Sands wrote:- Nixon believed in this so strongly he went against his own racial prejudices to push for civ rights legislation, since that would "get America's own house in order" and make America more attractive to 3rd World vs. the Russians
I've never heard about Nixon having any racial prejudices.
|
United States13896 Posts
On November 05 2012 07:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 11:48 Shady Sands wrote:- Nixon believed in this so strongly he went against his own racial prejudices to push for civ rights legislation, since that would "get America's own house in order" and make America more attractive to 3rd World vs. the Russians
I've never heard about Nixon having any racial prejudices.
He did not have kind words to say about Jews. He also said a number of other things about a variety of other ethnic groups.
|
On November 04 2012 11:48 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:22 Lysenko wrote:
What you tell is a good story, but it boils the failure of the Soviet Union down to far too simple a picture to possibly correspond to the reality. Obviously the things you cite as the causes were major factors, but other factors were important too, such as the handing of the Soviets' political torch to the much younger Gorbachev, his interest in reform, the doors that opened for criticism of the Soviet state from its citizens, and so on.
As for the idea that Nixon conceived of a master plan to implement all of this, again, not really plausible. Bits and pieces, maybe, but the idea that doing so would directly lead to the downfall of the Soviet state (as opposed to other more likely outcomes, like a Soviet state with diminished European influence) was remarkably difficult to envision in 1968-74.
Edit: I'm currently in the middle of reading Nate Silver's recent book on statistical prediction called "The Signal and The Noise," and he dissects the various views of politicians and diplomats on the matter of the Soviet Union's downfall in the process of discussing what he calls the "hedgehog" and "fox" approach to prediction. "Hedgehogs" view the world through a filter of one or a few basic principles that they try to form into a grand theory of everything. When facts change, they tweak the theory to help it survive. "Foxes" question their own biases and take in a wide swath of information, looking for interrelationships, but don't distill the results into overarching principles. Your friend's description of the downfall of the Soviet Union sounds like a typical "hedgehog" argument, an approach which is often rewarded in academia and the media because it lends itself to being stated simply, but which either doesn't take into account or becomes more convoluted when facts which might stand against the speaker's preconceived worldview are introduced. That makes a bit of sense. I think the school I went to, with its heavy emphasis on theory in the liberal arts, probably meant both he and I were speaking on the same "wavelength" when it came to econ/politics. It's probably why our conversations went as well as they did. On Nixon--the bullet points I have in my notebook were that - Nixon--learned from Nam and BOP 1962 that military force was an inefficient way of fighting an ideological war, so set the entire US policy machine (WH/Congressional aides + State/CIA/Pentagon + Private sector) to look for other ways of winning
- Other ways basically boiled down to outspending Soviet Union and continuing export-led growth in "borderland" states (W Germany, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan)
- Also figured out that if armed force was a bad way to export democracy it was probably also a bad way to export communism (Brzezinski would use this later in 1979, to good effect)
Some more bullet points on Nixon before he became President-- - Nixon believed in this so strongly he went against his own racial prejudices to push for civ rights legislation, since that would "get America's own house in order" and make America more attractive to 3rd World vs. the Russians
Have to agree with the guy you are replying to. While it all sounds like a nice coherent story this kind old man built himself up to believe, his statements do not jive with the historical record as preserved through either declassified documents or, you know, the reality of things happening. That Nixon 'wanted' to leave the gold standard or that there is a 'far reaching plan' among the US national security establishment to defeat the Soviet Union is simply unbelievable. The same national security establishment that you claim was engaged in some kind of grand plan that divided the world into "US makes military stuff, everyone else make better and better soft commodities" was completely and utterly shocked when the Soviet Union in fact broke up.
Finally, Nixon was the architect of the Republican party's "Southern Strategy" to pick up angry white democrat voters who were seriously pissed at LBJ for passing the Civil Rights Act, in other words he was one of the key men that ensured that the GOP of today is almost wholly a party of white people. The only thing that can be said about Nixon on civil rights was that he didnt outright reverse the LBJ legislation.
|
United States13896 Posts
On November 05 2012 15:38 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 11:48 Shady Sands wrote:On November 04 2012 08:22 Lysenko wrote:
What you tell is a good story, but it boils the failure of the Soviet Union down to far too simple a picture to possibly correspond to the reality. Obviously the things you cite as the causes were major factors, but other factors were important too, such as the handing of the Soviets' political torch to the much younger Gorbachev, his interest in reform, the doors that opened for criticism of the Soviet state from its citizens, and so on.
As for the idea that Nixon conceived of a master plan to implement all of this, again, not really plausible. Bits and pieces, maybe, but the idea that doing so would directly lead to the downfall of the Soviet state (as opposed to other more likely outcomes, like a Soviet state with diminished European influence) was remarkably difficult to envision in 1968-74.
Edit: I'm currently in the middle of reading Nate Silver's recent book on statistical prediction called "The Signal and The Noise," and he dissects the various views of politicians and diplomats on the matter of the Soviet Union's downfall in the process of discussing what he calls the "hedgehog" and "fox" approach to prediction. "Hedgehogs" view the world through a filter of one or a few basic principles that they try to form into a grand theory of everything. When facts change, they tweak the theory to help it survive. "Foxes" question their own biases and take in a wide swath of information, looking for interrelationships, but don't distill the results into overarching principles. Your friend's description of the downfall of the Soviet Union sounds like a typical "hedgehog" argument, an approach which is often rewarded in academia and the media because it lends itself to being stated simply, but which either doesn't take into account or becomes more convoluted when facts which might stand against the speaker's preconceived worldview are introduced. That makes a bit of sense. I think the school I went to, with its heavy emphasis on theory in the liberal arts, probably meant both he and I were speaking on the same "wavelength" when it came to econ/politics. It's probably why our conversations went as well as they did. On Nixon--the bullet points I have in my notebook were that - Nixon--learned from Nam and BOP 1962 that military force was an inefficient way of fighting an ideological war, so set the entire US policy machine (WH/Congressional aides + State/CIA/Pentagon + Private sector) to look for other ways of winning
- Other ways basically boiled down to outspending Soviet Union and continuing export-led growth in "borderland" states (W Germany, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan)
- Also figured out that if armed force was a bad way to export democracy it was probably also a bad way to export communism (Brzezinski would use this later in 1979, to good effect)
Some more bullet points on Nixon before he became President-- - Nixon believed in this so strongly he went against his own racial prejudices to push for civ rights legislation, since that would "get America's own house in order" and make America more attractive to 3rd World vs. the Russians
Have to agree with the guy you are replying to. While it all sounds like a nice coherent story this kind old man built himself up to believe, his statements do not jive with the historical record as preserved through either declassified documents or, you know, the reality of things happening. That Nixon 'wanted' to leave the gold standard or that there is a 'far reaching plan' among the US national security establishment to defeat the Soviet Union is simply unbelievable. The same national security establishment that you claim was engaged in some kind of grand plan that divided the world into "US makes military stuff, everyone else make better and better soft commodities" was completely and utterly shocked when the Soviet Union in fact broke up. Finally, Nixon was the architect of the Republican party's "Southern Strategy" to pick up angry white democrat voters who were seriously pissed at LBJ for passing the Civil Rights Act, in other words he was one of the key men that ensured that the GOP of today is almost wholly a party of white people. The only thing that can be said about Nixon on civil rights was that he didnt outright reverse the LBJ legislation.
Yup, in the 1971 White House tapes he appeared to disapprove of Jews as he believed they were conspiring against him, while on the surface he seemed more ambivalent towards African-Americans. The nature of his ambivalence towards them seemed to stem from his apparent belief that as an ethnic group they were not intellectually capable of being a threat to him. In a sense, his general apathy and disregard for African-Americans was markedly worse than his pretty well-known distrust of Jews.
|
Poor Gorky 
|
very simplistic way to tell some parts of modern history
sounds so much like a TV prog interview
edit : old people always claim they had shit figured out all the way long, while it's always been a shitfest and a mess nobody can understand
otherwise world wouldn't be like it is lol
|
Is there a way to follow your blogs? Like, getting a notification when a new post is made? I've only read 2 now, but each left me thinking. Thanks!
|
On November 05 2012 20:10 Roonweld wrote:
Is there a way to follow your blogs? Like, getting a notification when a new post is made? I've only read 2 now, but each left me thinking. Thanks!
paste this RSS link into Google Reader or another equivalent program: http://www.teamliquid.net/blog/shadysands/rss
|
On November 05 2012 20:18 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 20:10 Roonweld wrote:
Is there a way to follow your blogs? Like, getting a notification when a new post is made? I've only read 2 now, but each left me thinking. Thanks! paste this RSS link into Google Reader or another equivalent program: http://www.teamliquid.net/blog/shadysands/rss
Oh thank god you posted. Thought you were dead.
|
Clemenceau had a pretty big superiority complex, and well... you get my point. Interesting story though =)
|
On November 04 2012 08:22 Lysenko wrote:
What you tell is a good story, but it boils the failure of the Soviet Union down to far too simple a picture to possibly correspond to the reality. Obviously the things you cite as the causes were major factors, but other factors were important too, such as the handing of the Soviets' political torch to the much younger Gorbachev, his interest in reform, the doors that opened for criticism of the Soviet state from its citizens, and so on.
As for the idea that Nixon conceived of a master plan to implement all of this, again, not really plausible. Bits and pieces, maybe, but the idea that doing so would directly lead to the downfall of the Soviet state (as opposed to other more likely outcomes, like a Soviet state with diminished European influence) was remarkably difficult to envision in 1968-74.
Edit: I'm currently in the middle of reading Nate Silver's recent book on statistical prediction called "The Signal and The Noise," and he dissects the various views of politicians and diplomats on the matter of the Soviet Union's downfall in the process of discussing what he calls the "hedgehog" and "fox" approach to prediction. "Hedgehogs" view the world through a filter of one or a few basic principles that they try to form into a grand theory of everything. When facts change, they tweak the theory to help it survive. "Foxes" question their own biases and take in a wide swath of information, looking for interrelationships, but don't distill the results into overarching principles. Your friend's description of the downfall of the Soviet Union sounds like a typical "hedgehog" argument, an approach which is often rewarded in academia and the media because it lends itself to being stated simply, but which either doesn't take into account or becomes more convoluted when facts which might stand against the speaker's preconceived worldview are introduced.
I would take most of your argument even further and say that really the economical warfare that the US was fighting did almost nothing to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union and only Gorbachev's reforms were to blame/credit. The USSR (and all it's satelite nations) have been broke many many times throughout it's 70 year rein. In the 30's (and to lesser extent in the 60's) it experienced famines that were devastating and yet it only strengthened the hold of the dictatorship on the people. So to suggest that somehow the eastern european and soviet people revolted because the country was in economic troubling times is laughable. The only reason why the Soviet Union fell was because Gorbachev was a decent human being and didn't send in tanks into Poland when solidarity was striking. If it was Stalin or Kruschev they would have executed Lech Walesa and every other leader of the strikes, put a new and more strict government in Poland and crush any other attempts at criticism of the regime. And that would have been that.
Every time someone mentions how Reagan was this great foreign policy leader that knew how to deal with the Eastern Bloc makes me want to scream. This is an idea that was put into place by conservative revisionists in the late 90's in order to prop up the Reagan legacy. But trust me if Reagan was dealing with a real tyrant he would have gotten less done then Carter.
|
On November 05 2012 15:38 Sub40APM wrote:
Finally, Nixon was the architect of the Republican party's "Southern Strategy" to pick up angry white democrat voters who were seriously pissed at LBJ for passing the Civil Rights Act, in other words he was one of the key men that ensured that the GOP of today is almost wholly a party of white people. The only thing that can be said about Nixon on civil rights was that he didnt outright reverse the LBJ legislation.
*facepalm
can we please let this myth DIE!?!?!!?
|
What a great story
Perfect reading in a boring class !
|
|
|
Enjoying your blogs very much. Thanks for these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
