John McCain Doesn’t Understand Diplomatic History
During the debate on Friday, John McCain referred to “Ronald Reagan, who wouldn’t sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.” Brad DeLong points to this April 26, 1982 Time article which says otherwise:
In an interview with Pravda, the Communist Party newspaper, Brezhnev rejected President Reagan’s proposal, made earlier this month, that the two leaders meet informally in New York this June after the disarmament talks at the United Nations General Assembly…
In short, McCain is either ignorant or dishonest. And ignorance in this kind of situation is a form of dishonesty. Why bring up Reagan’s willingness to meet with Brezhnev if you haven’t looked up the facts? I didn’t catch this slip-up because 1982 is ancient history for me — I was eleven months old when that article ran. But John McCain was a sitting member of congress in his forties with a background as a military officer and as a lobbyist for the US Navy. He presumably had an opinion about Ronald Reagan’s conduct of Cold War diplomacy.
UPDATE: McCain was not, in fact, a sitting member of congress in 1982. Rather, he was a congressional candidate running for his first term.
59 Responses to “John McCain Doesn’t Understand Diplomatic History”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 28th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
When John McCain was a POW, he didn’t have the luxury of not remembering things because he was only 11 months old.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
These are lies born of hubris: McCain lies because he thinks he’s too important to be bothered with the truth, or with the trouble of finding out what;s true and what isn’t.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
While I do think that McCain has a pretty dim understanding of diplomatic history (or he is knowingly misrepresenting it to make up for his weird unwillingness to favor direct diplomacy), I’d rather not rely on a Brezhnev quote from Pravda to prove the point.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Rich, I think it’s more because he thinks he can get away with it because the media won’t point out the lie. And he seems to be right about that, just as many other Republicans before him have been.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I was eight in 1982 and when McCain said that it didn’t sound right.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
McCain was not a sitting member of Congress, only a candidate, since 1982 was his first race for the House. Still, the broader point holds.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
jason is right, which brings up the debate moment where he brought up the fact the he voted against the Marine deployment to Lebanon.
Marines deployed to Lebanon: 1982
McCain sworn in to Congress: Jan. 1983
September 28th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“I was eleven months old when that article ran.”
I keep forgetting how young you are, Matt. I remember the Iranian Revolution vividly because the folks that lived across the street were Iranian Jews. Within weeks, all of their relatives from Iran were living with them and the Iranian kids were going to school with me. And you weren’t born yet. Man, I’m getting old. But as they say, it’s better than the alternative.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
McCain’s statement is factually correct, but Reagan was trying to signal to Andropov that they could do business, then Andropov died and there was a screwy power vaccuum in the Soviet Union until Gorbachev came on the scene.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Can somebody compile single-page list of all of the things McCain lied about during the debate, complete with links to factual information rebutting his claims?
Maybe, you know, somebody who works for a 501(c)3 organization and has a lot of time on their hands to look stuff up?
September 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“In short, McCain is either ignorant or dishonest.”
What do you mean by saying “or”?
Ignorant and dishonest.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Man, I’m getting old. But as they say, it’s better than the alternative.
Getting younger?
September 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“Getting younger?”
That’s not really an alternative in the real world. Death is.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Maybe McCain should recall what Reagan said when he was adked why he didn’t meet with Soviet leaders. He said that he didn’t meet with them because they kept dying on him. One of his better one liners.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
someone should also remind Iron John about another big impediment to US-USSR talks in the early 80s: Poor health.
Reagan’s doctor said his excellent recovery from being shot was not complete until October 1981.
Brezhnev was addicted to sleeping pills, and suffered a stroke in March 1982, dying 8 months later.
Both Andropov and Chernenko were seriously ill for more than half their respective 13-month tenures as General Secretary.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
After the Salt Talks resulted in successful arms reductions on both sides (up to 1979), Reagan becomes president and starts referring to the Soviet Union as “the Evil Empire”. I will always remember this as a degradation of the president’s office that continues with “Axis of Evil” and all the other childish non-sense with which we are now accustomed.
In a race in which it is difficult to imagine the bar being lowered any more than it already has been, McCain is doing a bang-up job of it.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
To extrapolate from and expand upon along’s comment
Reagan was certain incapacitated for a month after his shooting in March. If we assume until October, though, that basically means no likelihood of a Reagan/Brezhnev meeting until October 1981.
Then October 1981-March 1982 sees the vague potential of a meeting. Stroke in March 1982, died in November. Andropov chosen as his successor soon after. Andropov suffered total renal failure in February 1983, and was in the hospital from August of that year until his death in February 1984.
Chernenko chosen to succeed him. Chernenko appears to have been in very bad health for pretty much his entire tenure – hospitalized for a month in spring of 1984, then sent off to a spa in the summer, where he got pneumonia, and didn’t return to Moscow until late autumn. Then he was basically hospitalized for the rest of his tenure, until he died in March 1985.
Basically, with the exception of those first couple of months of Andropov, which were over before anything could be arranged, there wasn’t really an effective Soviet leader throughout Reagan’s first term.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Matthew updates:
In short, Matthew was either ignorant or dishonest. And ignorance in this kind of situation is a form of dishonesty. Why bring up McCain’s status at the time if you haven’t looked up the facts?
September 28th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
September 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Sorry, sent that of before adding my own comment. The entire thing is a quote from Brent Budowsky.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Petey,
Matt posted a correction pretty quickly. When can we expect McCain to issue his own correction?
September 28th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Petey: Since there’s no difference between McCain and Matt Y, tell me when we can expect McCain’s “Update” admitting he was wrong?
September 28th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
John,
Why in hell did the Soviet Politburo choose a pair of moribund geriatrics in a row? Especially at such a critical moment in their history?
Perhaps we’ll never know. I would love to know what had been going through their heads when they decided to choose Chernenko.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Not to mention the fact that Nixon, advised by Kissinger, met with Brezhnev long before the word “glasnost” was in anybody’s vocabulary.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“Why in hell did the Soviet Politburo choose a pair of moribund geriatrics in a row? Especially at such a critical moment in their history?”
The downfall of all non-democratic systems tends to be bad succession mechanisms.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Hector – Andropov was, as I understand it, considered to be reasonably vigorous when he was chosen. But his health suddenly and unexpectedly failed only a few months after he came to power. He was apparently a fairly sharp operator – he’d been head of the KGB previously.
Chernenko was chosen basically as a caretaker. Andropov had been grooming Gorbachev as his successor, but Gorbachev was seen as too young, and was distrusted by the old Brezhnevite types. So they chose Chernenko as a relatively unambitious figurehead while they figured out what to do. At least, that’s my sense.
It’s worth noting that after Stalin’s death, and even more after Khrushchev’s overthrow, the General Secretary was no longer an all-powerful dictator, but merely “first among equals” in the Politburo. With no particularly commanding figures after Andropov’s death, Chernenko was safe because he wasn’t powerful enough to worry any of the other more important people very much.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
The worst part about John McCain’s shitty diplomatic knowledge was his invocation of “trust but verify” when talking about Obama’s alleged willingness to meet anytime, anywhere with any dictator.
In order to “trust but verify”, Reagan had to negotiate with the Soviets and sign the Intermediate Range Forces treaty.
Not a phrase you want to invoke if NOT talking to your enemies is what you want to emphasize.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Hector,
When you mentioned a corrupt party selecting a moribund geriatric, I thought you were talking about the GOP and McCain.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Today Biden’s “literally” tic returned. I love JB but can someone please tell him what “literally” means? And doesn’t mean? Not a generic intensifier.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
One can also quarrel with McCain’s timeline regarding glasnost and perestroika. Soon after Gorbachev came to power in 1985 Margaret Thatcher met with him and declared him “Someone we can do business with” That November Reagan met with Gorbachev in Geneva. Yet hopeful as people were that Gorbachev would bring a new perspective neither Glasnost nor Perestroika had become officially defined policies by the meeting, and did not really begin to have a serious effect until late 1986, especially after the Chernobyl accident, although according to the scholar David Marples, the real driving concern was declines in productivity in Ukraine. So it wasn’t as if Reagan was rewarding Gorbachev for anything other than words when they met in Geneva. As such the example McCain gave actually ran counter to the neo-con position on negotiations he keeps peddling.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
A bit more vague research – Andropov was only 68 when he was chosen, and died at 69. Chernenko was 72, but already in bad health. Brezhnev had died at 76. Notable here – none of these men were that old.
Scary further point – Chernenko was virtually the same age when he came in as John McCain would be on taking office next year.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Petey,
Good point. I’d say though that the problem with the Soviet Union was more the opposite, at least after 1953. Khrushchev’s problem wasn’t that he couldn’t match up to Stalin. He was an immeasurably better leader, and better man, than his predecessor. The problem was that as much as Khrushchev did to remedy the evils of Stalinism, it still wasn’t enough. That child was poisoned in its cradle.
You have a good point in general though. As much as I admire Chavez and the revolution in Venezuela, let’s be honest- he has no plausible successor, and all the considerable progress Venezuela has made over the last 10 years could easily be stopped with one bullet.
John,
That makes sense. I suppose it was just the luck of the draw that Andropov developed sudden kidney disease. Still, the Soviet Union was in a critical enough stage in 1982, that you would think they would have paid more attention to picking quality leaders. They assuredly couldn’t afford a Chernenko.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
“I’d say though that the problem with the Soviet Union was more the opposite, at least after 1953. Khrushchev’s problem wasn’t that he couldn’t match up to Stalin. He was an immeasurably better leader, and better man, than his predecessor.”
Sure. And one could argue that by deposing Khrushchev, the USSR made another wise succession, given that the core message in deposing Khrushchev was to stop the USSR’s leaders from engaging in cold war brinksmanship that could lead to a nuclear exchange.
But one (or two) wise successions doesn’t mean a non-democratic system won’t have fundamental succession problems that will be exposed over time. The Principate got five in a row before things broke down pretty badly. Similarly, China has had a good run since the revolution, but will likely face a leadership breakdown in the future unless the system takes a turn towards democracy.
One of the core strengths of democracy is in giving some one else a say over succession beyond just the palace court.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“One can also quarrel with McCain’s timeline regarding glasnost and perestroika. Soon after Gorbachev came to power in 1985 Margaret Thatcher met with him and declared him “Someone we can do business with”
FWIW, one can also quarrel with your timeline.
The Thatcher meeting you reference happened before Gorbachev came to power, not after.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Petey,
You might know better than me, but my impression was that the ‘nuclear brinksmanship’ in 1962 was primarily the work of Castro and Che Guevara, more than the Soviets. It was Castro and, particularly, Guevara who insisted that nuclear weapons be placed in Cuba to avenge or deter the American invasion that they felt was imminent. The Cubans pretty much cajoled Khrushchev into it, and they were furious when Khrushchev backed down over the matter.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I’m not sure this is true, although it can certainly be true in many instances. At least, I think we should say “non-representative systems” rather than “non-democratic systems.” 18th and early 19th century Britain, for instance, was distinctly non-democratic, but (partially) representative, and political succession was reasonably smooth – from 1714 onwards, the succession to the throne was determined by the Act of Settlement, and a series of bland mediocrities sat on the throne without too much drama, although the monarch still had significant powers until the time of George V in the early 20th century (and was still a very major force in government until the first Reform Bill in 1832); you also had ministries which were chosen (by the King) with an eye to commanding a majority in the House of Commons. It worked reasonably well, although it eventually required tweaks in the direction of greater democracy.
Somewhat similarly, Venice was an aristocratic republic for hundreds of years without any serious internal dissensions, and while largely maintaining its external independence.
So obviously the issue is not democracy, but representation.
But isn’t even that too strong? Many traditional European monarchies were quite stable – France managed pretty well between the end of the wars of religion and the revolution, for instance, although I suppose one could see it as a slow motion version of a succession problem (that being said – neither Louis XV nor Louis XVI was incapable, although the former was probably ruined by a bad upbringing; and Louis XVI did make genuine efforts to solve the problems facing France – the problems inherited from Louis XIV were just too large for anyone to solve within the framework of the ancien regime).
Habsburg Austria managed succession issues without much difficulty until its fall. So, more or less, did Hohenzollern Prussia (although Wilhelm II was obviously a wanker, his obnoxiousness was only a very minor factor in bringing about the fall of the Hohenzollerns). The increasing incapacity of the Tsars probably provides a good instance of what you are talking about.
France provides interesting examples in the 19th century – Napoleon, like many a modern dictator, was always faced with the issue of the lack of a plausible successor. The July Monarchy, for all its many virtues, was probably doomed partly by the accidental death of Louis Philippe’s popular eldest son and heir in a carriage accident, leaving a young child as heir apparent and making it seem to many that the system would not survive Louis Philippe himself (who was 78 in 1848). The problem of succession always haunted Napoleon III as well, and may have helped spurred his aggressiveness in launching the Franco-Prussian War.
On the other hand, succession issues also haunted the democratic Second Republic, where nobody could think of a plausible successor to Louis Napoleon, thus allowing him to seize power in a coup and end the regime.
But now I’ve gone on too long. Back to grading papers.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
True, it was in December, 1984. But at that point it was clear that Chernenko was not long for this world, and that Gorbachev would be his successor, so it doesn’t really affect the basic argument.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“True, it was in December, 1984. But at that point it was clear that Chernenko was not long for this world, and that Gorbachev would be his successor, so it doesn’t really affect the basic argument.”
No doubt. But given that I was pedantically correcting a post that was pedantically correcting someone else, I think I have poetic justice on my side.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
In short, McCain is either ignorant or dishonest. And ignorance in this kind of situation is a form of dishonesty. Why bring up Reagan’s willingness to meet with Brezhnev if you haven’t looked up the facts?
I think the second thing you wrote here is kind of a funny thing to say, and it’s not necessarily true at all. But McCain was so dishonest (in all likelihood) in so many other remarks he made throughout the night, that it might as well be the case that this one could be chalked up to purposeful dishonesty as well, instead of to ignorance and hast.
If you want to talk about McCain being dishonest during the debate, there was pletny to choose from. On each exchange about each topic, it was basically formulaic– McCain would come back with some lie or distortion, or some argument that omitted important details, and then Obama would correct him again and again. Then McCain would just snicker, or lie again, if he responded. There was very little deviation. A couple of times, Obama said “I believe X, Y, and Z” and then McCain’s very next line was to put words in Obama’s mouth claiming that Obama just said the contrary- “I can’t believe Obama said he doesn’t believe X, Y, and Z!” If you needed any convincing that the Republicans including John McCain are a bunch of scoundrels and bald-faced liars, McCain served it up in big, heaping spoonfuls at the debate. Krugman could probably write 20 columns on what he said.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
“instead of to ignorance and hast.”
Sorry, should be “haste.”
September 29th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Though I fucking despise Thatcher, fair play to her foundation for putting lots of documentary material on line. The memoir of the 1984 meetingl the actual BBC interview, Dec 1984.
And Petey’s jumping on the detail of British politics in the mid-1980s is… revealing.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Matt,
You’re very young, as you show when you get all worked up over this, which you clearly don’t understand. Sure, Reagan was willing to meet with Soviet leaders under certain conditions (e.g., informally), but the Soviets wouldn’t agree to those conditions. He was subjected to constant harsh criticism during that period from liberals for not meeting with Soviet leaders. McCain’s shorthand description of the history is perfectly reasonable.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:22 am
“And Petey’s jumping on the detail of British politics in the mid-1980s is… revealing.”
While I’m aware that there is some dark insinuation here, I honestly don’t have a clue what that insinuation is.
But FWIW, I knew that detail through my Russian political history, not my British. My knowledge of British political history between Attlee and Blair is actually embarrassingly weak. I’ve been meaning to read up on the Callaghan/Thatcher period for years now, but haven’t gotten around to it.
Of course, if Obama had a bit more interest in Attlee, Bevan, and Beveridge, his administration wouldn’t be the kind of failure it’s looking like it’ll be.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:34 am
90% of the modern GOP has lost the ability to distinguish between lies and fact. They just spout whatever they feel is good for them at the moment. Sometimes it’s true, sometimes it’s not clear, and sometimes it’s a flat lie. What’s consistent is that whatever the GOP is spewing is in the interests of the GOP. They are the party of bullshit.
Note: McCain saying Pakistan was a failed state at our about the time he advocated selling them F-16s is more telling than this Russia story. Somebody should ask McCain why he advocated selling F-16s to a failed state. It’s kind of important.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:21 am
I think being the chief executive of a nation just isn’t good for one’s health. Never mind that out of our 43 presidents, four (9.3%) have died from assassination (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy), and three (7%) others were non-fatally shot (Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Reagan), for a casualty rate (16.3%) that compares with the front lines of a rather bloody war. Even without violence done to them, it seems like sitting presidents age at about twice the rate of others. Sometimes, after they leave office, they recover a bit. Soviet premiers might have had the same effect. I wonder how Fidel Castro managed to survive almost 50 years.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Re: I wonder how Fidel Castro managed to survive almost 50 years.
The wonders of Cuban medicine.
I think that the real problem of succession isn’t so much characteristic of _nondemocratic_ states as it is of governments that rule by “charismatic authority”, in Weber’s sense. “Traditional” institutions like various monarchies, or the Papacy, don’t have such severe succession problems because the individuals don’t matter so much, what matters is the edifice of tradition and custom that gives them their authority. A charismatic leader who rules because of his personal abilities- a Napoleon, a Castro, or a Tito- is, on the other hand, very hard to replace.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I would also think that Soviet leaders in the mid-80s had all led stressful lives. Remember that they had lived through the Great Purge, the Second World War, and the worst days of Stalinism. That can’t be good for one’s health.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:33 am
How dare McCain praise Reagan, that spineless Chamberlain-wannabe?
[quote]And even the very same Newt Gingrich, in 1985, denounced President Reagan’s rapprochement with Gorbachev as potentially “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich.”[/quote]
September 29th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
While I’m aware that there is some dark insinuation here, I honestly don’t have a clue what that insinuation is.
Not dark in the slightest. Your professed familiarity with Neil Kinnock was just bullshit, then?
Of course, if Obama had a bit more interest in Attlee, Bevan, and Beveridge, his administration wouldn’t be the kind of failure it’s looking like it’ll be.
That when Labour makes big reforms, it subsequently loses to Conservatives who say they can run those reforms better? 1951-1964 was quite a wilderness for the British left.
A reading tip, though: you’re starting at the wrong end of the decade if you want to feed your Obama = Carter obsession by looking at the Winter of Discontent. 1974 is perhaps the place to look, but it’s going to be a silly comparison, given the state of Congress next year.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:33 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
buy viagra online
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:34 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra