The Federalist Society for law and Public Policy studies at montgomery, alabama posted this event. Good morning. Is Federalist Society founded on the freedoms that the separation of governmental powers is central to our constitution and that is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to tell you what the law is, not what it should be. The society seeks to promote both an awareness of these principles and to further their application. An, you may notice i have adam smith tie on today, and that is not because we have an economic historian coming to speak to us, but it is because adam smith was principally an educator. He was a professor and a private tutor, and he was beloved by his students. And marcus witcher, you have seen throughout the day, is known as a very exuberant, enthusiastic educator. I first met marcus several years you mayn institute, or say a conference, i spoke, and then he followed me. He later told me, and i mean years later, that he was so relieved that i went first, because i did not do such a good job, i made it so much easier for him to follow. [laughter] i was an easy asked to follow. He was very pleased by this. But marcus has spent the last five years writing this book on Ronald Reagan, and Ronald Reagan , he hasme a signal become an icon for conservative spirit we have the president ial debate for the Republican Party held at the Reagan Library. It is a de facto record for candidates to air their opinion and pay homage to Ronald Reagan. But, as marcus likes to point out, there is a disconnect between the way conservatives thought about Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, in his own time and space, and the way reagan has been mythologized, the way we think about reagan today, reagan the icon, reagan the simple. Marcus and i were at a Philadelphia Society meeting once, and we were added reception, and don devine, who was head of these Double Service in the Reagan Administration, made some comment about the Reagan Administration to marcus, and marcus said actually, reagan did not cut domestic spending, and they got into this argument about how much reagan actually cut, and it was a funny moment, for those of you who have seen don devine on television, the is a very animated person and a very adamant person. Marcus is as well, and it was a pretty robust argument in a very exciting want to be standing next to. [laughter] reagans image was, to a great degree, selfmade. He was very aware of his legacy and sought to frame narratives about his presidency. During his presidency, the cold united conservatives in a ist way. Fusion aske some of you may recall the fusionist project as it was outlined by frank meyer, neoconservatives and evangelicals came together because of a common enemy, but after the cold war, we sort of lost that fusionism, so conservatives today exist in a fractured state. We have neoconservatives, those who celebrate american greatness, we have libertarians, classical liberals, we have local lists, we have evangelicals, and in the current political climate, they are not as united as they were under the reagan presidency. And a of that has to do with the cold war. So here to talk to us today about the cold war, reagan conservatives, and the end of the cold war, is dr. Marcus richard. Itcher. C he is at the university of arkansas. He specializes in political, economic, and intellectual history from 1922 the present. Modern american conservatism, and his book on reagan comes out soon. He received his phd from the university of alabama. This is what all of the album fans in the room do. Tedious classes on the cold war, the conservative movement, the american presidency, the history of economic thought and u. S. Economic development. He is published in a lot of places, including the white house journal, it is coauthor of a threevolume anthology entitled public choice analysis of American Economic history. He is currently researching for his next book, filling the reagan revolution. Please join me in welcoming dr. Witcher. [applause] thanks. Her you did a great job. I dont know that i even need to speak. [laughs] dr. Witcher thank you so much for having me. It is a pleasure to be here and to be talking to the summary chapter of the Federalist Society, who has done so much in reshaping the American History and such a large role in the conservative movement. Aid,r. Mendenhall, as alan s i will be talking about the cold war, and i want to start off by asking you to think about what you think Ronald Reagan stood for . What defines Ronald Reagan for you . Think for many conservatives, what defines Ronald Reagan for them is an adherence to principles, unflinching adherence to principle that he never sort of deviated from. This inception of reagan really around 2005,erge 2006, in the wake of sort of george w. Bushs dismal presidency, from the point of view of conservatives, where he became very disillusioned with george w. Bush. I want to talk about how conservatives viewed reagan during the 1980s. Often times, they view him with frustration, contempt, anger, because not more was done to sort of achieve the conservative policy goals p or i was surprised when i was researching for my dissertation, because i went to steven haywards book, and he basically talked about all of these conservatives who were upset and frustrated with reagan, and then he went on and told the long sort of story about the reagan years, and i was like that is really fascinating, and i found that aside in several other books in my classes, and i took it might my dissertation professors, as a set explore this, and out of that research came the book reagan the struggle for true conservatism. We will talk about how conservatives view reagan today, and then we will look back in time about how conservatives viewed reagan during the 1980s. Like i said, often times with frustration, and even contempt for his cold war policy, and then we will talk a little bit about how reagan wanted to be remembered, and we will end with me gesturing toward how conservatives began to construct the reagan legacy and later the reagan myth. I really, really love this quote i wish i had written it but i did not, matt purple wrote it in the churchill we misremember, and i think it addressed what im trying to do in the book. Purple said historical memory is like a great compactor, crushing nuances and flashing wrinkles in till it is a perfect more so for popular consumption. I think that is what has happened with reagan, compacted down to a simple five version of himself, maybe a purist version of himself, and all of the nuances and the pragmatic policies of the 1980s have largely been forgotten. This is really personified by wwrd. This emerged in 2005. Ann coulter said, you know, for christians, it is wwjd, but for conservatives, it is wwrd, what would reagan do . This really took off, sean hannity, and the Heritage Foundation sort of partnered on this, wwrd, right . What would Ronald Reagan do today . You can go on amazon, you can buy a wwrd bracelet, you can buy yourself a tshirt, as you see up here, you can buy a Bumper Sticker to put on your car, you can buy a mousepad, that says if we could resurrect him, we ight, thelect him, r idea of zombie reagan. But nonetheless, conservatives around 2005 began to reconstruct reagan as a conservative. , and they began to sort of claim, and maybe even before, that Ronald Reagan won the cold by sticking to his principles, and that reagan, through his conservatism, gets the credit, ultimately, for the dissolution of the soviet empire and the end of the cold war. So we will go back to what conservatives were actually saying about reagans policy in the 1980s, and how that is quite different from what they claim today. So what does my manuscript do . Details theuscript complex and often tense relationship that exists between president reagan and conservatives, and it acknowledges the wide range of perspectives on the right, and i think that is something unique to my book. I think other historians have done a good job with that as well, but it is something i try to grapple with, all of the differences within the conservative movement. I do not think historians have done enough in understanding conservatism and all of its various iterations. It also questions whether or not the reagan years were actually the triumph of conservatism. I actually do not think this is true good i actually think the 1990s or the triumph, i think the Clinton Administration achieved many, many of the things, maybe not on purpose, maybe begrudgingly, but nonetheless, the Clinton Administration, president clinton, they ultimately get welfare reform, they get the balance budget, etc. As we often view the 1980s a triumph of conservatism, but they did not see it as a triumph of conservatism, at least in the 1980s. We see misgivings among the american conservatives, and it tends to explain the creation of the reagan legacy of the evolution of the legacy and the creation of reagan myth. Slide hereis flight that tells you where the sources com. I was able to visit many places, including the Reagan Library, great place toh do some research, fly out to california, right . It was actually going out to simi valley, see the reagan papers, particularly the black blackwell files. If anyone has any questions about where the sources come from, we can return to it after the talk during the q a. This is the primer, so everyone here is not upset with me. There are four schools of thought about what ended the cold war. The first is probably the most dominant, mikael gorbachev, through his policies, deserves most of the credit, right, for the end of the cold war, because inadvertently, he undermines the soviet system, undermined the communist party, and in doing so, destroy the fabric of the soviet union and its satellites, basically the control. And that is probably the Largest School of thought within historical profession within this school of thought, reagan is given very little credit for the end of the cold war. There is another school of thought that claims reagan actually prolongs the cold war could not only did he not contribute to it, but he prolonged it, simply emboldening the hardliners within the soviet union and made it more difficult for someone like gorbachev to enact his reforms. Th third school is the reagan victory school, enforcing the soviet union into bankruptcy, kind of like the military buildup in the United States that put pressure on the soviets. They could not keep up, had to enact reforms that ultimately undid the soviet union. Sort oflly, they are emerging this is the school i want to belong to that reagan and gorbachev worked together to set the foundation for a peaceful end of the cold war and the dissolution of the soviet empire. I think gorbachev deserves most of the credit, although he probably would not like to take it, as an avowed socialist. I think his policies under the soviet union, but i think reagan deserves a lot of credit for working with gorbachev to basically establish better relations to enable rich off to establish those reforms at home. I know i am speaking to a more conservative audience, so i am not either of the first two, so dont be too angry with me, right . [laughter] dr. Witcher lets go ahead and jump into the 1980s. So conservatives were frustrated with reagans Foreign Policy throughout the 1980s, but they were also really frustrated with things reagan attempted to do in the first arena and two years of the Reagan Administration. Some were upset with the advanced Airborne Warning and control system to saudi arabia. They got this violated Israeli National security, and the Prime Minister even came out and condemned reagan for this sale. First foreignns compliment, and he basically told the Prime Minister of israel, listen, i am the president of the United States. Other countries do not make out Foreign Policy. You can imagine how well that went over with neoconservatives when reagan made that type of comment. Also, on taiwan, reagan accepted chinas nine point plan for taiwan, which included reduce weapon sales for you the united wedded which were very to taiwan, and still are, so many criticized reagan for being sort of soft on china here. Thirdly, reagan was criticized specifically by neoconservatives for his lack of public response , thertial law in poland crackdown on solidarity. Thatnservatives claim reagan should have done more come up with back with an bar goes, technology, and things like that, and they say essentially did nothing. We know there is a new book on sort of reagan and the cia in poland. We know reagan behindthescenes was very active in supporting different groups within the eastern block, and he was doing quite a bit, actually. Conservatives at the time did not know that, because that was not public knowledge. They are criticizing him for that. They also are criticizing him because they wanted a more aggressive policy toward the soviet union, and they do not see that really materializing. Lets get to some specific criticisms. Norman potter rights a piece in the New York Times titled the neoconservative egg wish over reagans Foreign Policy, in which he pretty much systematically dismisses the idea that reagan had any accomplishments in his first year presidency. That he did not have an idea of what they wanted to accomplish during the cold war. Obviously when reagan comes into office, that is the number one concern, getting the economy they getrack, and they to divines point, get some spending cuts, initially, and the first year, but by and large, foreignpolicy conservatives, neoconservatives, hawks, feel like it has not really defined a conservative foreignpolicy. The result, according to potter, was a vacuum into which all of the old ideas and policies against which reagan himself has stood for many years. In the first two years of the Reagan Administration, he helped the soviet union stabilizes and fire rather than a strategy encouraging the breakup of that empire from within. His criticism was so piercing that reagan actually picked up call,one and gave him a trying to convince him he was not pursuing a policy of the detente, that kissinger had outlined in the 1970s, widely criticized by conservatives, including president reagan. He is listening to the president , trying to justify what he had done up until this white, politely a couple of times, trying to get off the thank you,ly says, mr. President , and tries to get off the phone, and he realized that the president would call what he would call detente, even if it is not what the president himself would call they taught. Addition of conservative digest was published in which they systematically criticized the president. They criticized him on social issues for not getting the School Prayer amendment passed. They criticized him for not getting it right to life amendment passed. You also have physical conservatives criticizing the president because of the unbalanced budget, the budget deficit has been run up since 1982 p are you also have supplysiders who were mad at reagan, because he was on the path to raise taxes, and you have Foreign Policy conservatives, who are the people we want to focus on on the next flight, who are really criticizing reagan for not outlining a clear vision for Foreign Policy. Has reagan deserted the conservatives . A play off of one of reagans films. Has reagan deserted the conservatives . Like i said, this magazine, or this edition of the magazine, this volume, it has criticisms from across the spectrum, right . If you were like i do not really by your arguments, that conservatives had major problems with the Reagan Administration, and handehow find this it to you, because it is that good of a source. Here are a few quotes from the magazine on for policy. General daniel graham, chairman of the coalition for peace and strength, asserted that there was very little difference between reagans policy and carters policy. Another lamented, we have no strategy for the soviet threat. That served on the Reagan Defense transition team, declared i am not disappointed, i am disgusted, and when asked to rate the reagan out of 10, he said i give him a 2 out of 10. Mitch, who i was able to meet recently, said reagan is following the policy of detente. He would be leaving the opposition. Ding the be lea opposition of his own party. There is a picture that has chastising, and then reagan is like ok, what did you want, and he says we would like to buy some grain, and reagan says ok, would that be cash or credit . [laughter] dr. Witcher you get about him sort of standing up to the soviet union and casting the cold war in moral terms. I think it is really important, in order to understand sort of where we are going to go in the next few slides, i think it is really important to understand what drove Ronald Reagan in terms of foreignpolicy. Ronald reagan was an adamant anticommunist. He had credentials in the soviet movement. Witness, herom does so. He will recite the first page in, like, cabinet meetings, so he is deeply influenced by that, and going back to his time in hollywood, he is an adamant anticommunist, believing they are socially and economically bankrupt, and eventually, right, socialism will collapse upon itself. And most of americans, most americans knew he was an anticommunist. That is what most people knew. Something that people missed is that reagan was also a nuclear abolitionist. Despite being a cold warrior, and adamant cold warrior, he detested mutual destruction. He and Margaret Thatcher disagreed about this. Margaret thatcher lik held that mutually assured destructio avoided world war iii. Reagan thought it was fundamentally immoral, and he wanted to move toward a policy that would not just freeze weapons a Nuclear Freeze but eliminate Nuclear Weapons. Things, right,o his anticommunism and his nuclear abolitionism are going to come in conflict with one another when he is in office. He and his memoirs, in his autobiography, claimed these two things always work in tandem with one another. I think that is sort of which will thinking, looking back. There are times when you how do you get to abolishing Nuclear Weapons . You probably have to work with soviets in one capacity or another if you are going to get there. He is going to run into problems because of this seemingly paradoxical ideas. Soviets do, in 1983, really begin to praise the president. The year that conservatives feel that Ronald Reagan comes into his own in terms of embracing a conservative foreignpolicy care that is of course the year that Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed star wars by the which was tos, create a Missile Shield so the United States would not be under the threat of nuclear war. He saw it as a means to abolish those weapons, because in reagans mind, he always tells , i will share theogy with technology with you, and gorbachev was like, who is this guy . He is going to share the technology with me. The soviets had this conception of reagan, rightfully, potentially so, that he was radically anticommunist, but he wanted to destroy the soviet system, and that he and his administration this is where they want to go off the rails Preemptive Nuclear strike in order to destroy they soviet union. In that context, the kgb and people in moscow viewed this very much as a means by which reagan can enact the policy they fear he wants to an act, which preemptive strike against the soviet union. It is somewhat ironic that a time, 1983, the year that conservatives are most satisfied with reagans foreignpolicy is also the are that we dub in history the year of fear, because of how close the world came to nuclear conflict. 1983 deployed 108 pershing to missiles to western europe in keeping with the promise of the Carter Administration to counter the ss 20 that the soviets had deployed, and reagan is escalating his rhetoric, his annual convention of evangelicals, he gets up before the crowd and says listen, you cannot be ambivalent about the cold war, you cannot join the Nuclear Freeze movement. You have to stand with us. This is a moral war. Union assts the soviet the evil empire, and he frames the cold war as a conflict between good and evil, right, good and evil. Year that is the conservatives feel like reagan visionly embracing their for what foreignpolicy should be, very combative, stick it to the soviets, but it had a major the stabilizing effect on the relations. The year of fear, right, that is where i called it, and i called it the year of fear for several is sdi, one of which which presented a really real danger, at least in the mind of the soviet union, but also the shooting down of the korean airliner that straight into soviet airspace, where it straight for two hours. Fightersts sent because they thought it was an american spy plane initially, they can i am not sure what they were thinking, because they had windows, there were lights, it looks like a commercial airliner, but nonetheless, the soviets ultimately shoot down the plane, an onboard, there were 200 69 passengers, including 63 american, including congressman, conservative congressma, all die in the shooting down. Conservative activists immediately hold a press conference denouncing the soviet union and calling on Ronald Reagan to enact an embargo technology, human rights activists who were imprisoned, and to embargo grain shipments to the soviet union immediately in response to this. Reagan is on vacation when this happens. He had to cut his vacation short. But he and secretary schulz talked about it on the phone, and he said we have got to be careful here this could escalate very quickly. So once again, reagan guns forward, he denounces the soviet union, he calls them rbaric, probably the best it is extraordinarily harsh, but it is not enough for conservatives. He said we did not elect a dictionary. We all a commander in chief. Reagan does really good at talking again but does not seem to be willing to really embrace what they think are his actual values and principles when it comes to Foreign Policy. Its going to really rattle reagan in conjunction with the soviet response to archer. Reagan cannot understand how the soviets could be flying, or a korean airliner for two hours and neve contact the United States. Rwhat if this had been Something Bigger . With a have not gone through a back channel . This is problematic. This can lead to major consequences if it was on a larger scale. The united 2, 1983, states and its allies conducted able archer to test commandandcontrol procedures and designed to entail the highest rankings of west german governments, Margaret Thatchers hatcher werend t supposed to be part of it. They decided at the last minute that might trigger the soviets. Nonetheless they went through with it with the lower officials to run able archer. And, even know it was not reagan and thatcher, this really, the kgb immediately says this is it. This is the preemptive strike. This has got to be it. They activate code red. They are ready, they are on high alert. Nuclear war is coming. We got to be ready for launch. So, the duration of able archer, for nine days, theirs this tension. Word about that gets back to reagan, because the United States has a double agent in london. By the end of november, early december, reagan is getting this information to the soviet union is comprised of people who believe the United States is capable of a preemptive strike and that their commandandcontrol procedures and the soviet union are so poor, per the kl007 incident that it might lead to nuclear annihilation. Reagan begins to question how hard he should push the soviets. Reagan was also influenced by abcs the day after, a made for tv movie which demonstrated what would happen in the case of a nuclear conflict. After he gets an advance copy from abc, and he watches at camp david. The president is amazingly influenced by film. It resonated with him in a way that all the briefing books wouldnt. If you give my briefing in fil m, he would hold onto it and repeat it later on. So, film seems to have had a major effect on how reagan vi ewed, sort of, how he. He understood things. The day after really giving him an idea of how things would look. Archermidst of the able getting back to him, he is also watching the day after. It left him greatly depressed and he was greatly aware of the world the need for the world to step back from the nuclear precipice. He was briefed on the United States nixon war plan. He was like, can you take that away . President bush has to be sworn in. Hes briefed on the Nations Nuclear war plan. And he recorded that it was a sobering experience. In his memoirs explained that the sequence of events tale off those in the abc movie. Together to came resonate with reagan by the end of 1983 that his administration had to take a different tone with the soviets. Not because they were wrong about calling the soviet empire. S the people empire. The evil empire. Reagan made his first public goal appeal for the total elimination the first Public Appeal for the total lamination of nuclear armaments. Be only onehere can policy for preserving our precious civilization in the modern age. And nuclear war can never be won. I speak for everyone when i say that our dream will be that Nuclear Weapons are vanished from the face of the earth. Rhetoric. Ical i wonder how conservatives wouldve responded if jimmy carter had said those things. I am not sure. 1984, schulz and reagan over break talked with one another and reagan said, put together a policy. We want to have on new policy. In january of 1984 the Reagan Administration shifts its public tongue regarding the soviet union. Reagan asserted that the two superpowers must establish a better working relationship marked by greater cooperation and understanding. This is important because if i take you guys back to that slide, right, where i talked about the different groups of oftory out of it, history out of thiography. This policy change takes place before gorbachev. Het sort of makes it where has to wait. Nonetheless, it is very evidence to me that reagan, in conjunction with secretary schultz, that reagan initiated this Public Policy shift in 1984. Once mikell gorbachev is the general secretary thatcher tells one of reagan this is someone we can do business with. Mikell gorbachev, the first soviet leader born after the revolution. The social reformer. Il gorbachev, the man who into power when the soviet union has massive cultural and social decline, a war in afghanistan raging. Which the americans are making difficult on the soviets. He has to do some things about the condition of the soviet union. His goal is to implement these policies to emphasize more consumer goods over military spending. In order to do that, hes got to have an easing of tensions with United States. Another thing pushing gorbachev in this direction is the decline of oil prices. The soviet union rides a high in declineds but oil dramatically in the second half of the 1980s, forcing the soviet union to come to the table. So, reagan and gorbachev decide to meet at geneva in 1985. Like i tell my students not a great deal was accomplished in terms of policy outcomes. There were no reductions or anything like that, but what happened is that gorbachev and reagan got into the same room together and began to talk to one another and they developed a relationship with one another and they began to develop this relationship and this trust that would matter so much to the end of the cold war. Dontgan said, right, we have these weapons because we hate one another. We have these weapons because we missed trust one another. If we have trust, maybe we can start to work toward some type of an agreement. But reagan leaves geneva, and the administration is hopeful that this went better than expected. Reagan got along with gorbachev. Sure, he probably told some soviet jokes, that go did not appreciate. By and large they got along. Gorbachev was always complaining about reagan making these soviet jokes. The guy is an artifact but he seems to be genuine when he talks about nuclear disarmament, so we should continue to work with him. Hopefulness ins this administration that they will be able to come back at reykjavik in 1986 and maybe make a deal. Conservatives are also hearing this. They are extraordinarily scared this might actually be the case, that reagan might giveaway sdi. Away thebargain Strategic Defense Initiative in exchange for nuclear reduction. So, conservatives are writing the administration and publishing opeds. Reagan has to have the grassroo ts leaders to the white house and the major conservatives and the senate to the house. He stands up in front of the group and he gives this eloquent speech about how gorbachev is a new type of leader and they can trust him. He is mr. Conservative. And he finishes. And theres silence. Not used to that. Not from the people who are supposed to be his most adamant supporters. When he leaves the room, there is a real disconnect between conservative activists and president reagan himself. He promises them that he will not bargain away sdi at reykjavik. So, when he shows up at reykjavik it goes swimmingly well. Can be back, we here in 10 years and we will destroy the last Nuclear Weapon together, right . Itll be just wonderful because all Nuclear Weapons would be gone. That is how optimistic reagan is that they will get Something Big at reykjavik. They outlined a deal that would have been major reduction or complete reduction in intermediate weapons, but they break up. Each group goes it separately t, beforep, talk it ou they come back to the table to make a deal and when they come back to the table, over just as i have one condition. Sdi must be limited to the laboratory for 10 years. If you will agree, mr. President , to limit sdi, we can sign this agreement today. Go out an announced it to the pressd. Reagan is furious. Reagan is absolutely furious. He feels betrayed. There were not supposed to be any conditions. So, reagan puts on his white coat, and he walks out. And conservatives hail reagan for this achievement, for saying no, for sticking up for sdi, and the conservative vision of the missile the reality is i think that most people in the pentagon would have told president reagan and secretary schultz that sdi was more than ten years away from being out of the laboratory anyways. Im not convinced that walking away from the deal at reiki back at reykjavik had significant value but he did for reagan. He didnt sell them out. Conservatives cheer. We did not get an armscontrol agreement. We did not get rid of sdi. This is fine. So, reagan walks out of reykjavik. But, you know, the teams continue to talk. Secretary schultz continues to talk with his counterpart. And, eventually, they agree to have another summit in washington, right . And in response to reports that the Reagan Administration is going to sign an intercom a lot intercontinental ballistic nationalreement review runs an edition in which they criticized reagan and the imf treaty. From jackd criticism kemp, Henry Kissinger and richard nixon. The treaty was not verifiable. Two, it left the soviets with a significant advantage. And the questiony whether or not the treaty was motivated by domestic political concerns. Does anybody know what im talking about . Irancontra. That president reagan was making this deal not because he believed in it but rather because he was so unpopular in that moment. His poll numbers were so far down that he was making this deal for political reasons. And kissinger, for their parts, by the way i believe to my knowledge, this is the first time nixon and kissinger had released a joint statement since watergate. They thought it was that important that they come out together and criticize president reagan for his naive Foreign Policy. They insisted that any west and later who indulges the soviets disingenuous fantasies of a Nuclear Free World courts unimaginable perils. They concluded that while the president wanted to remember to be remembered as a peacemaker reagan needed to remember that however he may be held in todays headlines the judgment of history would severely condemn a false peace. National review was not the only organization that was criticizing the treat. Out, underht took the leadership of howard phillips, they took a full page ad in conservative newspapers. This has got to be my favorite source. This is my favorite source in the entire book, because it is got a picture of double chamberlain, got a picture of Ronald Reagan, got of picture of and the caller gorbachev. Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as it was in 1938. Help defeat the reagangorbachev inf treaty. Is a conservative called you Neville Chamberlain, that is the biggest insult you could be given is that you are chamberlain. They are going to sell out the world to hitler. This comparison of reagan to Neville Chamberlain is quite profound. Conservatives propose hold back modifications to torpedo the inf treaty. They are unsuccessful. Part of that was strategy. They were trying to show the president we might not be able time, butyou this you better not go for any more reductions. With the exception of george bush, every gop president ial hopeful oppose the treaty, many of them running to the right in 1988 of reagan. Our girlfriend on the left with the football, blasted it labeling reagans treaty a nuclear munich. Harsh rhetoric. Here are some wonderful quotes from our good friends on the new right, our social conservative friends. Howard phillips explained that Ronald Reagan is a very weak man with a strong wife and a strong sataff and reagan was a useful idiot for soviet propaganda. Guerie asserted that reagan is now aligned with his former adversaries. We feel rejected by the president. He called reagan an apologist and exclaimed that this inf treaty a splitting of the blankets. Didnt turnout to be the case. Another activist labeled reagan a weakened president and not in a position to make moral judgments about gorbachev. So conservative outrage, conservative criticism of the inf treaty was uniform and cross the ideological spectrum of reagans treaty. Getsately the inf treaty passed in the senate and ultimately it reduces the sovietamerican stockpiles by 5 . Which does not sound like that much but this is the first time in the cold war that we reduced ruclear weapons, majo achievement, setting United States and the soviet union on a path toward other treaties such as start. The inf treaty was one of his foreignpolicy achievements. I would say it is the foreignpolicy achievement. But in order to get that agreement with the soviet union he had to ignore his harshest critics who were conservative. He had to go his own way. Gorbachev, schulz and reagan credit inf and that treaty and the relationship that reagan built with gorbachev to enabling a peaceful end to the cold war. This was key for setting the stage for the end of the cold war. This is probably the best quote in the entire powerpoint, courtesy of george will. Ofting near the end president reagans second term, george will lamented how wrong reagan is about what is happening in moscow. Reagan has accelerated the moral actualment of the west, disarmament will follow, by elevating Wishful Thinking to the status of political philosophy. Will explained that december 8, the day the inf treaty was signed, will be remembered as the date the cold war was lost. That one didnt hold up very well, george. But, nonetheless, by the time reagan leaves office many conservatives are looking at for one another and they are saying, what did we achieve . We got tax cuts. But did we fundamentally change the trajectory of the United States . And many of them conclude, no, we didnt. We didnt succeed in this endeavor. Not only that, george h. W. Bush is about to be elected president. Thats only going to further sort of frustrate them because many of them will be shown the door in the bush white house. So, there is this sort of belief that we havent really achieved what they had set out achieve. My country transfer the same way fdr had in the 1930s. I want to pivot, i dont have a ton of time, but want to show you how reagan wanted to frame his own legacy because it is also very different from what conservatives claim the reagan legacy should be today. How did Ronald Reagan think about his own cold war foreignpolicy legacy and what does that mean . In in order, this part of the book, i went to the Reagan Library and look at the exhibits. Reagan actually worked with the archivists in order to create those, the museum exhibits. He wrote the text. A lot of it is taken from his diary. He played an active role in putting together any resume. Putting together the museum. I draw from his public speeches at the time. Lets take a look at how reagan wanted to form his own foreignpolicy legacy. So, in november 1990, reagan gives his brotherhood of man speech which has in the fall of the berlin wall. He is standing in front sections of the berlin wall. He credited the brave men and women on both sides of the iron curtain who devoted their lives and sometimes sacrifice them so that we might inhabit a World Without barriers. Credit for the people on the ground in Eastern Europe are rising up in resisting communism and oppression. He also gives credit to Margaret Thatcher and helmut kohl in the mikhailtest and gorbachev for their role in enabling human freedom to emerge. Reagan told his audience he was not sure whether or not gorbachev had listened to him when he said mr. Reagan tear down this wall mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. But neither he nor the rulers of Eastern Europe could ignore the ofh louder chants demonstrators in the streets of life segan dressed and in the churches and the schools and in the factors in on the farms, a once silent people found the voice and a battering ram to knock down walls, real and imagine. Because of them the political map of europe has been rewritten. What about the museum . Well, if you go to the reagan is museum. When you go there, you come upon , if you get to these large Foreign Policy sections. Once you get through it there are these doors, as you can see from my amateurish photography. And, as you look through it, this big video playing of reagan and gorbachev and what they did to bring about an end to the cold war through peaceful negotiation. And there are exhibits all around. They talk about how did this end . And all of those exhibits emphasized reagan working with gorbachev. Reagan talking with gorbachev. Negotiating. Doing what they could to try to develop the trust that would disarmament. Ad to by the way the iran contra exhibit you might just visit as you are on way to see the pretty statue and film. Its a welldone exhibit. I am not criticizing the exhibit. It happens to be right there were you might walk past it. All righty. So, reagan on the end of the cold war, right . President reagan never claim to have won the cold war. Reagan gave credit to others especially the people of Eastern Europe and the people of the soviet union, who demanded an end to the status quo and who ultimately rejected communism. Now, i dont want you guys to leave here and think and i did not think that reagan played an end to the cold war. He contributed significantly to the end of the cold war. He contribute it is not the way to conservatives think he contributed. He deserves credit for believing in the bankruptcy of the soviet system, right. And for inspiring nationalist movement such as solidarity and for negotiating with gorbachev. I think, also really, ult Lincoln Reagan like should be praise not because of his adherence to principle but praise because he was willing to take new information, digest that information, and alter and strategically change how he wants to address that situation based upon that new information. In short, i think he should be praise because he was a statesman. Rigidly ideological. He was a pragmatic conservative who took what he could get. If you can get 80 , take it. The 1990surse of however, many conservatives began to claim that reagan had singlehandedly confronted the evil empire, demanded the be rlin wall be torn down, and won the cold war. And, if you want to know more about conservatives constructed the reagan legacy and myth, buy the book, which is available for preorder on amazon. Com. With that, ill go ahead and take questions. Yeah. [inaudible] using what you have spoken about Ronald Reagan policy in the 1980s. How do conservative politicians the back to that throughout question was is the reagan years are different in terms of policy than what we see in the Trump Administration especially on immigration and trade. Nato. Dr. Witcher support of international organizations. How does the conservative movement get back there . It has to happen electorally. Somebody has to stand up and say no. We dont represent anti illegal immigration. Do not represent protectionism. That is happening. I attended a meeting, and there is great debate over whether or not trumps carrots tariffs are a good policy to bring about the economic goals that he has. There are many conservatives who are still ideologically and principally opposed to those things. I think they need a standardbearer. You may not like this answer, the best thing you could happen to the conservative movement is a donald trump lost in 2020, if you believe in both principles. Four more years of a Trump Administration, the Republican Party will move into trumps vision. If you are reagan style republican you will have to think long and hard about what you care about power or principles. Are you interested in the [inaudible] dr. Witcher yeah, so, the question is how do i respond to people who lived it, who were in the Reagan Administration or who had been part of constructing the narrative . Id never spoken with de sousa. He is one of the key people in creating the narrative with his biography of reagan. I havent had the pleasure of speaking with grover norquist. I requested an interview. I did not get it. What i usually say to folks in the administration, i have spoken with some people in the administration, and what they tell me, these people were out there. They didnt actually represent the grassroots. They didnt represent the people within the administration doing the hard work. We support reagan. I think they are right about that. There is a disconnect between the people who were in power that recognized in order to get things done you had to work with the democratic side. Speaker, youthe have to work with him. That means you will not get everything you want. They were right. There were significant achievements. There is this dissolution and on the part of conservative activists and what not. I definitely do not want you to leave here today and think everything will conservative in the United States during the 1980s was always angry with the Reagan Administration. Purpose of the book is to push back against the absence of the criticism. And to try to reframe reagan and his legacy along the lines of what he actually did rather than what we misremembered that he did. Yes . I was wondering [inaudible] the best ever. All these great things have happened. Now you wonder, have they lost control of all that narrative . [inaudible] dr. Witcher yeah. So, the question is to what extent did conservatives create a myth of reagan because liberals, progressives basically created their own myths of reagan. I think thats part of that. The first generation of historians is quite poor. And the first generation of scholarship from activists is really poor. Reagan was right actor in nonothing president. That has all been deboned by the work of anderson and skinner, where they publish his speeches that he wrote. He wrote all his own speeches and his own radio stuff. He was a thinking conservative. When i get into the sources and when you go to the reagan reda nch. , a lot of his books are there. You can pull those books down with permission and look inside and you will notice lee edwards is telling me and i have not found it that reagan had a copy serfdom, and to he had dogeared and underlined the text. He engaged. The left have created this myth of reagan that is far worse than the reality. This view that reagan was elected because of dog whistling dixie and the racial backlash. Thats part of that but i think it was a conscious decision in defeateder dole was to try and sort of established a common language and a common oftory and a common set policy prescriptions in the wake of the cold war. And anticommunist and held the conservative Movement Together up until 1991 but after 1991, what is holding a libertarian and a political conservative together . Theres not much. I think conservatives consciously used the reagan legacy and they did it really well to try and bring all of these disparate conservatives or people on the right broadly together into, to keep them in the party if you will. It was largely successful in till around 2016. So, do you have a question in the back still . Ill catch you up. Dr. Witcher sounds great. Thank you guys so much. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] from George Washington to george w. Bush, every sunday at 8 p. M. And midnight eastern, we feature the presidency, are weeklies series exploring the politics, their policies and legacies. You are watching American History tv, all weekend, every weekend on cspan3. On American History tv on cspan 3 every weekend featuring museum tours, archival films and programs on the presidency. The civil war, and more. Here is a clip from a recent program. [video clip] moses goes down to the courthouse. Got a couple of guys with them. They are going up the steps to go register black folks to vote. And billy shows up. Pulls out a knife. Turns the handle around and bam hits moses. Moses staggered. Billy jacks not done. He starts wailing on him. Remember nonviolent. You learn how to take the blows. Rememberhat you know, we talked about this ethnic notion, what you know is that the moment you swing back, becomes justifiable homicide when they kill you. Multiple reasons for nonviolence as a strategy. So, wailing on the. And moses just goes into his zone. That zen zone. Mmm. The two black guys who were with him, they saw billy jack and they took off running. Yeah. Yeah, you know when your boys just up and leave you . Like, whoa. And so, when billy jack is done, i mean moses is a bloody, pulpy mess. Billy jacks really proud of what he has done. He and his boys walk away like, [laughs] theyre gone. Moses stands up. Bleeding. Just bleeding. The two guys who had run away. They are looking. Moses, is like, you ready to go register to vote . Yeah. You see that kind of strength. Thats that quiet power leading. Other can watch this and American History programs on our website where all of our video is archived. Thats cspan. Org history. 1999xt, a january interview with senator robert byrd. He talks about the rules, procedures, and history related to the impending impeachment trial of president bill clinton. Senator byrd, a democrat from west virginia, served in the u. S. Senate for more than 51 years, from 1959 till his death in 2010. He could often be heard discussing history on the senate floor. Senator robert byrd, how important is this impeachment trial in the senate . Senator byrd its very important. I dont know of any constitutional question that would excede the level of or which would even reach the level of importance,