An awareness of the principles and to further their application through activities. Now, you may notice i have an 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 ago at an institute for humane studies 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 act 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 has become a symbol, an icon for conservatives. We have the president ial debate within the Republican Party held at the Reagan Library. It is a defective prerequisite 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 symbol. Marcus and i were at a Philadelphia Society meeting once, and we were added reception, and don devine, who who was head of the Civil 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 one to be standing next to. [laughter] dr. Mendenhall 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 war united conservatives in a sort of fusionist way. Some of you may recall the fusionist project as it was articulated by frank meyer, that united libertarians and evangelicals and neoconservatives that 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 paleo conservatives, 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 lot 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 witcher. Dr. Witcher is a scholar in residence in the History Department at the Arkansas Center for research and economics, otherwise known as a. C. R. E. He is at the university of arkansas. He teaches in the History Department. In addition to being an engaging and enthusiastic speaker, he specializes in political, economic, and intellectual history from 1920 to the present. His focus is on modern american conservatism, and his manuscript, getting right with reagan, comes out this month, november 2019. He earned his bachelors in history at the university of Central Arkansas and received his phd from the university of alabama. This is when all of the auburn fans in the room boo. [laughter] boo. Dr. Mendenhall [laughs] dr. Witcher offers classes in modern American History, including courses 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 wide variety of places, including the white house studies journal, and is coeditor of a threevolume anthology entitled public choice analysis of American Economic history. He is currently researching for his next book, titled fulfilling the reagan revolution clinton, gingrich, and the conservative 1990s. Please join me in welcoming dr. Witcher. [applause] dr. Witcher thanks. You did a great job. I dont know that i even need to speak. Thank you so much for having me. It is a pleasure to be here and to be talking to the montgomery chapter of the federalist society, who has done so much in reshaping the American History judiciary and such a large role in the conservative movement. Its a pleasure for me to be here today. As dr. Mendenhall, as allen said, i will be talking about reagan conservatives and the end of the cold war. I want to start off by asking you to think about what you think Ronald Reagan stood for . What defines Ronald Reagan for you . And i think for many conservatives, what defines Ronald Reagan for them is an adherence to principles, an unflinching adherence to principle that he never sort of deviated from. This conception of reagan really started to emerge around 2005, 2006, in the wake of sort of george w. Bushs dismal presidency, from the point of view of conservatives, where we became very disillusioned with george w. Bush. I want to talk about how conservatives viewed reagan during the 1980s. Often times, they viewed him with frustration, contempt, anger because not more was done to sort of achieve the conservative policy goals. 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 i was reading in my seminar class. I took it to my dissertation professors and they said go look into it. Out of that research came the book getting right with 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 when it came to his cold war Foreign Policy. 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 by matt purple i wish i had written it but i did not, matt purple wrote it in the churchill we misremember, and i think it grasps what i am trying to do in the book. Purple said, historical memory is like a great compactor, crushing nuances and flattening wrinkles until a person or event is made a perfect morsel for popular consumption. I think that is what has happened with reagan, compacted down into a simplified 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 . After this takes off in 2005, it really takes off in 2007 in the lead up to the 2008 republican primary. Sean hannity and the Heritage Foundation sort of partnered on this, wwrd, right . What would Ronald Reagan do today . That is what we need. They are equipped with bracelets. 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 would reelect him, right, the idea of zombie reagan. But nonetheless, conservatives around 2005 to 2016 or so began to reconstruct reagan as a conservative, and they began to sort of claim, and maybe even before, that Ronald Reagan won the cold war by sticking to his conservative principles, and that reagan, through his sort of conservatism, gets the credit ultimately for the dissolution of the soviet empire and the end of the cold war. Today we will go back in time and look at what conservatives were sank about reagans policies in the 1980s and how that is quite different from what they claim today. So what does my manuscript do . Well, my manuscript details the 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. I actually think the 1990s or where the triumph of conservatism with the gingrich revolution. 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 balanced budget, etc. But we often view the 1980s as a triumph of conservatism, but many conservatives did not see the 1980s as a triumph of conservatism. At least in the 1980s. Examines theook interconnectedness of politics, americany among conservatives, and it tends to explain the creation of the reagan legacy of the evolution of the legacy and the creation of reagan myth. So i got this slide here that tells you where the sources come from. I was lucky enough to visit a vast number of archives including the Reagan Library, which is a great place to do some research for two weeks. Fly out to california, right . It was excellent going to see me valley, going to the reagan papers particularly the , Morton 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. Just sort of as a 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. That is 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. The threat of coercion. 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 prolonged the cold war. Not only did he not contribute to it, but he prolonged it, rhetoric simply emboldening the hardliners within the soviet union and made it more difficult for someone like gorbachev to enact his reforms. The third school is the reagan victory school, mainly made up of the conservative historians. He forced 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. And finally, they are sort of emerging this is the school i want to belong to that reagan and gorbachev worked together to create and 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. He was 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 gorbachev to establish those reforms at home. That is where i fit into the history graffiti. Iography. 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. Conservatives were frustrated with reagans Foreign Policy throughout the 1980s, but they were also really frustrated with things reagan attempted to do in Foreign Policy arena in the first two years of the Reagan Administration. Some conservatives were upset with sale of the advanced Airborne Warning and control systems to saudi arabia. They thought this violated Israeli National security, and the israeli Prime Minister even came out and condemned reagan for this sale. This was reagans first Foreign Policy, schmidt or legislative a punishment while he was in office. Actually stood up to the israeli lobby and the Prime Minister of israel and told him listen, i am the president of the United States. Other countries do not make out make our 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 the United States. Conservatives, for historical dded to taiwany we 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 of martial law in poland, the crackdown on solidarity. Neoconservatives claimed that reagan should have done more, he should have pushed back with the soviets with embargoes, 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 bloc, and he was doing quite a bit, actually. At least his administration was doing quite a bit. 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 thought they elected him to pursue a more aggressive policy towards the soviet union. In the first two years you dont see that materializing. Lets get to some specific criticisms. In 1982, Norman Podhoretz writes a piece in the New York Times shes a major neoconservative figure. He writes the neoconservative anguish over reagans Foreign Policy, in which he pretty much systematically dismisses the idea that reagan had any accomplishments in his first year presidency. Podhoretz insisted that he did not have an idea of what they wanted to accomplish during the cold war. They focused on the economy. Obviously when reagan comes into office, that is the number one concern, getting the economy back on track, and they get the tax cuts in 1981. Divines point, they get some spending cuts, initially, and in the first year. By and large, foreignpolicy conservatives, neoconservatives, hawks, feel like he has not really defined a conservative Foreign Policy. The result, according to podhoretz, was a vacuum into which have come forward all the old ideas and policies against which Ronald Reagan himself had stood for so many years. In the first two years of the Reagan Administration, he helped the soviet union stabilize its empire rather than a strategy encouraging the breakup of that empire from within. His criticism was so piercing that reagan actually picked up the phone and gave him a call, and the had an extended conversation were reagan try to convince him he was not pursuing a policy of detente, that the idea of cooling of tensions with the soviet union that nixon and kissinger outlined early in the 1970s. It was widely criticized by conservatives, including president reagan. He is listening to the president , trying to justify what he had done up until this point, politely a couple of times, trying to get off the phone, finally says, thank you, so much. He writes down later in his memoir after he hung up with reagan he realized the president was pursuing what he would call detente, even if it is not what reagan himself would call detente. Right published an addition of conservative digest 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 fiscal conservatives criticizing the president because of the unbalanced budget, the budget deficit has been run up since 1982. You also have supplysiders who were mad with reagan because he was on the path to raise taxes, or he was on the path to raise taxes. You have Foreign Policy conservatives, who are the people we want to focus on the next slide who are really criticizing reagan for not outlining a clear vision for cold war Foreign Policy. The title of the magazine has , reagan deserted the conservatives . A play off of one of reagans films. Where is the best of me westmark 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 buy your arguments that conservatives had major problems with the Reagan Administration, i would somehow find this and hand it to you, because it is that good of a source. It is at convincing. Here are a few quotes from the magazine on for policy. Foreign 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. A former analyst for reagans armscontrol lamented, we have no strategy for the soviet threat. A general, 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 decter, who i was able to email with the other week said reagan was pursuing the same policy of detente. In officenot now, he would be leading the opposition. He would be leading the opposition of his own policies. There is a picture that has reagan sort of chastising, and telling him about the human rights abuses in the soviet union. 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] this is a sort of criticism that reagan was cared more about revitalizing the economy and the American Farmer that he did about 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 Foreign Policy. Ronald reagan was an adamant anticommunist. He probably has the best anticommunist credentials in the conservative movement. He is an adamant anticommunist. He can quote from whittaker echo he doesitness so in cabinet meetings. So he is deeply influenced by that, and going back to his time in hollywood, he is an adamant anticommunist, believing they the soviet system is 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 absolutely detested the policy of mutually assured destruction. He and Margaret Thatcher disagreed about this. Margaret thatcher thought it led to stability, no world war iii. Reagan thought it was hostageshe people as in this conflict. He found it fundamentally immoral and wanted to move towards a policy that would not just freeze weapons a Nuclear Freeze but eliminate Nuclear Weapons. And so these two things, right, his anticommunism and his nuclear abolitionism are going to come into 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 Wishful Thinking looking back. , 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. Conservatives do, in 1983, really begin to praise the president. 1983 is the year that conservatives feel that Ronald Reagan comes into his own in terms of embracing a conservative Foreign Policy, and that is of course the year that Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed star wars by the very critical press. Sdi was vision with secreted 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 gorbachev, i will share the technology with you, and gorbachev was like, who is this guy . He is going to share the technology with me. Give the soviets the technology . Thats not going to happen. The soviets had this conception of reagan, rightfully, potentially so, that he was adamantly anticommunist, but he wanted to destroy the soviet system, and that he and his administers and would be willing to launch a preemptive this is where they go off the rails a Preemptive Nuclear strike in order to destroy the 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 hear he wants to enact which is , a preemptive strike against the soviet union. Sdi is a story nearly destabilizing for the cold war. It is somewhat ironic that a time, 1983, the year that conservatives are most satisfied with reagans Foreign Policy is also the are that we dub in history the year of fear, because of how close the world came to nuclear conflict. Reagan also in 1983 deployed 108 pershing ii missiles to western europe in keeping with the promise of the Carter Administration to counter the ss20s 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. And he casts the soviet union as the evil empire, and he frames the cold war as a conflict between good and evil, right . Good and evil. Stark, stark rhetoric. 1983 is the year that conservatives feel like reagan is really embracing their vision for what his Foreign Policy should be. Very combative, stick it to the soviets, but it had a major the destabilizing effect on the superpower relations. The year of fear, right, that is where i called it, and i called it the year of fear for several reasons. One of which is sdi, which presented a really real danger, at least in the mind of the soviet union, but also the 007 g down a flight fl kl007. The korean airliner that straight into soviet airspace, where it straight for two hours. The soviets sent fighters because they thought it was an american spy plane initially, thinking 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, and onboard there were 269 passengers, including 63 american, including congressmen, conservative congressmen, all die in the shooting down. In response to that conservative activists immediately hold a press conference denouncing the soviet union and calling on Ronald Reagan to enact an embargo on technology, human demand the release of prisoners of the soviet union who were imprisoned for sort of human rights activists and present and 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 schultz talked about it on the phone, and he said, we have got to be careful. This could escalate very quickly. Once again, reagan guns forward, he denounces the soviet union, he calls them barbaric, probably the best framed argument to the nasa soviets denounce the soviets. It is extraordinarily harsh, but it is not enough for conservatives. They said we did not elect a dictionary, we elected a commanderinchief. There is a frustration in 1983 that reagan does really good, he does really well at talking but does not seem to be willing to really, really embrace what they think or has actual values and principles when it comes to its going to really rattle reagan when taken in conjunction with the soviet response to archer. Reagan could not understand how could be flying next to a korean airliner for two hours and never contact the United States. What 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. On november 2, 1983, the United States and its allies conducted a military exercise known as able archer. Tests forlated procedures designed to entail the highest rankings of west german governments, Margaret Thatchers and reagan and thatcher were supposed to be part of it. They decided at the last minute that might trigger the soviets. They might be little concerned. Nonetheless they went through with it with the lower officials to run able archer. Even though it was not reagan and thatcher, this really, the kgb immediately says this is it. 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, there is this tension. Word about that gets back to reagan, because the United States has a double agent in london. He reports to london that this is happening. By the end of november, early december, reagan is getting this information. That the soviet union is comprised of people who believe the United States is capable of a preemptive strike and that there commandandcontrol procedures our so poor 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 it at camp david. The president is amazingly influenced by film. It resonated with him in a way that all the briefing books wouldnt. That is not a knock on reagan. If you give him a briefing in film, he would understand it, he would hold onto it and be able to repeat it later on. So, film seems to have had a major effect on how reagan viewed, how we understood things. The day after really giving him an idea of how things would look. In the midst of the able archer stuff getting back to him, he is also watching the day after. He said that after he watched a movie it left him greatly depressed and he was greatly aware of the need for the world to step back from the nuclear precipice. He was briefed on the United States nuclear war plan. By the way, reagan wanted nothing to do with the football. President bush has to be sworn in. But hes like, ok. Hes briefed on the Nations Nuclear war plan. And he recorded that it was a sobering experience. And in his memoirs explained that the sequence of events tale off those in the abc movie. All of those came together to 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 the evil empire. But because it was not bringing about the results they wanted to achieve. The day able archer ended, reagan made his first Public Appeal for the total elimination of nuclear armaments. I believe there can be only one 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 banished from the face of the earth. Pretty radical rhetoric. I wonder how conservatives wouldve responded if jimmy carter had said those things. I am not sure. In january of 1984, schulz and reagan over break talked with one another and reagan said, put together a policy. We want to have a new policy. In january of 1984, the Reagan Administration shifts its public tone regarding the soviet union. Reagan asserted that the two superpowers must establish a better working relationship marked by greater cooperation and understanding. I think this is important because if i take you guys back to that slide, right, where i talked about the different groups of historiography. There is one that says reagan did not place any role at all. This policy change takes place 15 months before gorbachev becomes general secretary. It is not his fault that chenango decides the rest policy is to hope that mondale wins. Nonetheless, it is very evidence to me that reagan, in conjunction with secretary schultz, that reagan initiated this Public Policy shift in 1984. And so, once Mikhail Gorbachev is the general secretary, once he comes into power, thatcher tells reagan, this is someone we can do business with. Mikhail gorbachev, the first soviet leader born after the october revolution. The social reformer. Mikhail gorbachev, the man who comes into power when the soviet union has dismal economic warers, social decline, a 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 of glasnost and perestroika to emphasize more consumer goods over military spending. In order to do that, hes got to have an easing of tensions with United States. 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 high inil the 1970s but oil declined 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. My ghetto my students, not a great deal was accomplished in terms of policy outcomes. There were no reductions or anything like that, but what happened at geneva 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. As reagan said, right, we dont have these weapons because we hate one another. We have these weapons because we mistrust 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 gorbachev did not appreciate. By and large they got along. Gorbachev was always complaining about reagan making these soviet jokes that are offensive. He is like 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. So, theres this hopefulness in the 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 that this might actually be the case, that reagan might giveaway sdi. He might bargain away the 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 there is silence. He is 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 disconnect between conservative activists and president reagan himself. He promises them that he will not bargain away sdi. When he shows up and he and gorbachev it goes swimmingly well. The two are talking about reagan. We can meet back here in 10 years and we will destroy the last Nuclear Weapon together. And it will be wonderful because Nuclear Weapons will be gone. That is how optimistic reagan is that they are going to get something big. They outline a deal that would ofe been a major reduction intermediate weapons. But, breakup, each group does it separate way to talk it out. Before they come back to the table to make a deal. When they come back, gorbachev says i have one condition. Must be limited to the laboratory for 10 years. If you will agree to limit sdi to the laboratory, we can sign this agreement today. Reagan is furious. Reagan is furious. He feels betrayed. There were not supposed to be any conditions. Reagan puts on his iconic white coat, and he leaves. Conservatives hail reagan for this achievement. For saying no. For sticking up for sdi. That most people would have told president reagan and secretary schultz that sdi was probably or than 10 years away from being out of the laboratory anyway. So i am not convinced that walking away from the deal had any significant value. But it did to reagan. He had promised conservatives he was not going to sell them out. He did not sell them out. Conservatives chair. We did not get an arms control agreement, this is fine. So, reagan walks out of reykjavik. The teams continue to talk. Schultz continues to talk with his counterpart. Eventually they agree to have another summit in washington. That these to reports Reagan Administration is going to sign an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile treaty with the soviets national review, under what mf buckley, runs an ambition under william avenue buckley. It featured criticism from jack kemp and richard nixon. Their criticism took three forms. The treaty was not verifiable. It left the soviets with a significant advantage in conventional weapons and they questioned whether or not the treaty was motivated by domestic political concerns. Does anybody know what im talking about . Iran contra, right . That reagan was making this deal not because he believed in it but because he was so unpopular in that moment that his poll numbers were so far down that he was making this deal for political reasons. Kissinger by the way, to my knowledge this is the first time that nixon and kissinger had released a joint statement since watergate. They thought it was that important to criticize president reagan his Foreign Policy. Nixon and kissinger insisted that any western beater who ulges the soviets reagan needed to remember that however he may be hailed in todays headlines, the judgment of history would severely condemn a false peace. National review was not the only organization that was criticizing the treaty. The new right took out under howard phillips, the president of the conservative caucus, they took out a fullpage ad in conservative newspapers across the country. This is got to be my favorite source. It has got a picture of Neville Chamberlain, a picture of Ronald Reagan, a picture of adolf hitler, and a picture of mikael gorbachev. It says, appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as it was a 1938. Help us defeat the treaty. If a conservative because you Neville Chamberlain, that is as low as it gets. That is the biggest insult you could be given. Is that you are Neville Chamberlain. You are going to sell out the world to hitlers. Of reagan torison Neville Chamberlain is quite profound. Senate conservatives proposed amendments and modifications that torpedoed the treaty. They were unsuccessful. I think part of that was strategy. They were trying to show the president that we might not be able to defeat you, but you better not go for anymore reductions because we will oppose them. With the exception of george w. Bush, every president ial hopeful opposed the treaty. Many of them running to the right of reagan. Camp blasted the treaty, labeling it a nuclear munich. Harsh rhetoric. Here are some wonderful quotes from our good friends who are in the new right. Thatd phillips explained Ronald Reagan is a weak man with a strong wife and a strong staff. Richard bakery asserted that reagan is now aligned with his. Ormer adversaries we feel rejected by the president. Paul why rich, labeled reagan a weekend president. Weakened in spirit as well as in clout and not in a position to make moral judgments about gorbachev. Outrage of the inf treaty was uniform. Ultimately, the treaty gets passed overwhelmingly. Reduces the soviet and american stockpiles by 5 . Which doesnt sound like much but this is the first time in the cold war that we reduce Nuclear Weapons. Major achievement. Setting the United States and the soviet union on a path toward over other treaties. Principaly it is the Foreign Policy achievement. In order to get that agreement he has to ignore his harshest critics, who were conservative. He had to ignore their complaints and go his own way. Treatyedit inf and that and the relationship that reagan built with gorbachev for enabling a peaceful and. This is probably the best quote. Writing in newsweek the end of reagans second term, george will lamented how wrong reagan was about what is happening in moscow. Disarmament will follow by elevating Wishful Thinking. Will exclaimed that the day that the inf treaty was signed will be remembered as the day the cold war was lost. That one did not hold up well. Nonetheless, by the time reagan leaves office, many conservatives are looking at each other and saying, what did we achieve. They got tax cuts. , but did weeform change the trajectory of the United States . Many of them concluded, no. Is only that, george w. Bush about to be elected president. That is only going to further frustrate them, because many of them are going to be shown the door. That theyhis belief havent really achieved what they had set out to achieve. I want to pivot now to show you how a little bit about reagan wanted to frame his legacy. Because it is also very different from what conservatives claim the reagan legacy should be today. Lets take a look at how Ronald Reagan thought about his own Foreign Policy legacy and what does that mean. Was ier to what i did went to the Reagan Library and i looked at the exhibit. Reagan worked with the archivists to create this, the museum exhibits. He played an active role in putting together the museum. I also draw from his autobiography. Especially his public speeches at the time. Lets look at how good wanted to form his Foreign Policy legacy. 1990 reagan gives his other head of man speech which happens after the fall of the berlin wall. In discussing mac, reagan credited the men and women on both sides of the iron curtain devoted their lives and sometimes sacrificed them so that we might have inhabit a World Without barriers. He gives credit to the people on the ground in eastern europe. And resisting communism and oppression. He also gives credit to market thatcher. Margaret reagan told his audience he was not sure whether or not gorbachev had listened to him when he said, tear down this wall. He was not sure that gorbachev they couldd to him not ignore the counts of. Emonstrators once silent people found their force found their voice. Because of them, the map of europe has been rewritten. What about the museum . Museum,o to the reagan i recommend. When you go there, you come upon, if you get to these large foreignpolicy sections, once you get through it there are doors. It, thisu look through 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 the room. All of those exhibits emphasized reagan working with gorbachev. Reagan talking with gorbachev. Negotiating. Doing what they could to develop the trust that would ultimately lead to disarmament. They knew detente would bring lasting peace. By the way, the irancontra exhibit is right here. Just conveniently located to where you might miss it. I am not saying it was put there strategically, but you might set as you are on the way to see the statue and film. It is actually a well done exhibit. It happens to be right there where you might walk past it. So, reagan on the end of the cold war. Reagan never claimed to have won the cold war. Reagan consistently gave credit to others. Especially the people of europe and the soviet union, who ultimately demanded the end to the status quo and ultimately rejected communism. Either you guys to leave here and think that i dont think reagan played in played an inch the cold war. He contributed significantly. The way he contributed is not the way that conservatives think he contributed. Credit forerve believing in the bankruptcy of the soviet system and for inspiring nationalist mens. And for negotiating with gorbachev. Praisedreagan should be not because of his rigid adherence to principles, but praised because he was willing to take new information, digest how information and alter to address that information. I think you should be praised because he is a statesman. He was not rigidly ideological. He was a pragmatic conservative who took what he could get. If you can get 80 , take it. R the course of the 90s 1990s, conservatives began to claim that reagan had singlehandedly confronted the evil empire, stuck to his principles and in so doing one the cold war. If you want to know more about how conservatives constructed the reagan legacy, you should buy the book. Which is available for preorder on amazon. With that, i will go ahead and take questions. [inaudible] having spoke about Ronald Reagan, how do conservative politicians get back to that throughout [inaudible] the reagan years are different in terms of policy then what we see in the trump administration. [inaudible] witcher how does the conservative movement get back there . It has to happen elect orally. Somebody has to stand up and say no. We dont represent antiimmigration. We do not represent protectionism. I think that is happening. I attended a meeting of the Philadelphia Society and there was great debate over whether trumps terrace arctic policy to bring about the economic goals that he has. I think there are many conservatives who are ideologically and principally opposed to those things. I think they need a standardbearer. He may not like this answer, but the best thing that could happen to the conservative movement as if donald trump lost in 2020. If you believe in those principles. Four more years of a trump presidency, the party will move more in the direction of trumps vision. I think if you are a 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] witcher the question is how do i respond to people who lived at, who were in the Reagan Administration or people who had been part of constructing the narrative . I have never spoken with dinesh desousa. He has 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 and i did not. What i usually say to folks in the administration i have spoken with some folks in the administration what they tell me yes, these people are out there but they are bomb throwers. They didnt actually represent the grassroots. They did not represent the conservatives in the trenches. We supported reagan. I think they are right about that. There is this disconnect between the people who were in power that recognize in order to get things done you had to work with the democratic side. I think they are right about that. There were significant achievements and some of this is disillusionment on the part of conservative activists. I definitely dont want you to think that every conservative in the United States during the 80s was always angry with the Reagan Administration. The purpose is to push back against the absence of that criticism. And to inform people about the absence of that criticism. And to reframe reagan along the lines of what he actually did rather than what we have misremembered that he did. Wondering [inaudible] i was wondering, have they lost control of that narrative . [inaudible] question is toe what extent did conservatives create a method of reagan because liberals and progressives created their own myths of reagan. I think that is part of it. The first generation of scholarship is quite poor. Of first generation scholarship from activists is really poor. Hegan was actor in chief, was the no nothing president. That has been debunked to the work of martin and annalise anderson. They published his speeches that he wrote. In his own hand. All of his own radio stuff. He was a thinking conservative. When i get the sources, a lot of his books are there. You can pull those books down and look inside of some of them and you will notice the edwards is telling me, that reagan had a copy of the road to serfdom. He had engaged with the text. I think that is part of it. They try to push back against these things. The left has imagined and created a myth of reagan that is far worse than the reality. This view that reagan was elected because of not whistling dixie, racial backlash. I think that is part of it. But i think it was a conscious decision in 1996 after the was afeated to try and establish common language and a common history and a common set of policy prescriptions in the wake of the cold war. As alan mentioned at the beginning, the cold war held the conservative Movement Together up until 1991. After 1991, what is holding a libertarian and a social conservative together . There is not much. I think conservatives consciously use the reagan legacy and they did it the wealth to bring these disparate conservatives, or people on the right to gather to keep them in the party. I think it was largely successful until around 2016. Do you have a question in the back . Sounds great. Thank you guys so much. [applause] schiff this this is American History tv. Exploring our nation pass every week every weekend on cspan three. [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] railamerica, we feature photos of the soviet union in the 1950s shot by martin man half while he was stationed at the u. S. Embassy in moscow. Historian Douglas Smith explains. Here is a preview. 1950s majorly mark man half was stationed in the soviet union. Everett an avid photographer, taking hundreds of color slides. In the sovietfe union including the only known independent for independent footage of Joseph Stalins funeral. Sitting in cardboard boxes for many years until our guest helped identify them. This is the funeral and the film of martin man half. What are we looking at . Ask this is the morning of the ninth of march. On the right is the hotel moscow. To the left would be the house of unions where the body had laid in state. It is a view from the old u. S. Embassy out along the route that the cortege took. Stalin, there is this strange glass bubble over the space of the corpse. Understand why that was there. Maybe so they could prove it was stalin inside. Just behind them or all of the top figures of the soviet union, bay area, people like that. Moment in thehis soviet unions history. This is a cataclysmic event, because he had ruled the country since the late 1920s. Had seen them through industrialization, collectivization, world war ii. A brutal tyrant. What is interesting about this film is the whole center of the city had been cordoned off. You get a sense of calm and a lack of people. What is happening outside of the frame are huge throngs of people have flocked to moscow. Aunt told dozens, if not hundreds of people were killed in these crushes of people trying to get into the funeral space. Watch more tonight at 10 00 p. M. Eastern on railamerica. Go back in time, here on American History tv. One of the key World War Two battles of 1944 took place in eastern British India when forces under japanese general maraguchi launched an offensive from their stronghold in burma. World war ii scholar shinto explores this turning point of the burma campaign, a japanese defeat largely at the head of british and indian forces. This event was part of the National World war ii museums annual conference. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. As we get into this next session, im sure you noticed on the official program that were one speake