Ronald Reagan, Warmonger by Murray N. = Rothbard

This article first = appeared in=20 the Libertarian = Forum,=20 Vol. XVII, Nos. 7=968, July=96August, = 1983.

The=20 world is in very dangerous waters. The "true" or rhetorical = Ronald=20 Reagan, the second Reagan of the conservative "Let Reagan Be = Reagan"=20 slogan, has functioned only in the world of rhetoric = since=20 the beginning of his misbegotten Administration, or arguably = since=20 he embraced the Rockefeller Republicans at the convention of = 1980.=20 The rhetorical Reagan, the "Get Big Government Off Our = Backs," free=20 market, war-with-Russia stance, has been particularly = eclipsed since=20 the end of the first year of his Administration. In = economics,=20 quasi-libertarians, monetarists, and supply-siders have been = elbowed=20 aside since 1982, and replaced by the same kind of=20 quasi-conservative Keynesians who brought us the Nixon and = Ford=20 Administrations. In foreign policy, however, while the war = fanatics=20 like Richard Allen and Richard Pipes were booted out after a = year,=20 there has recently been a recrudescence of war-hawk = domination by a=20 troika of old Reagan buddy Judge William P. Clark, = national=20 security adviser whose admitted total ignorance of foreign = affairs=20 seems especially to qualify him for a top foreign policy = post; Cap=20 Weinberger of Bechtel Corporation and the Defense = Department; and=20 neo-conservative hatchet-lady and political scientist Jeane=20 Kirkpatrick, whose contribution to political theory was to=20 distinguish between "good" authoritarian and "bad" = totalitarian=20 torture.

The=20 war-hawk troika signaled its accession to power by = booting=20 out Thomas Enders (one of the people most responsible for = the=20 Vietnam War) and Deane Hinton from their key State = Department posts=20 in Central American policy, for the sin of being too dovish = and=20 soft-nosed. This was a shock to those knowledgeable in = foreign=20 affairs, since it was roughly equivalent to Hitler=92s = firing Goebbels=20 for being soft on the Jewish Question. Clearly, we were in = for a lot=20 of trouble. Since the rise of the troika, and the = relative=20 eclipse of the "dovish" George Shultz in foreign policy, the = following events have occurred as the Reagan Administration = heats up=20 the Cold War and marches, step by step, toward World War=20 III.

I. Reagan Breaks = the=20 Law

If=20 there is one thing that conservatives are firm about, it is = that one=20 must never, ever break the law. No matter how unjust the = law, they=20 prate, one must never disobey it; one must only try one=92s = best to=20 get the law changed. But as long as a law is on the = books, it=20 must be enforced. And yet Ronnie Reagan has broken = at least=20 two laws openly, flagrantly, and defiantly. Even so, no one, = least=20 of all conservatives, has called for his = Impeachment.

What=20 are these laws? One is the Boland Amendment, in which = Congress made=20 illegal any U.S. government attempt to give covert aid to = Nicaraguan=20 rebels in order to overthrow, or, as they say these days,=20 "destabilize," the Nicaraguan government. Yet the CIA has = been=20 giving massive aid to the Nicaraguan contras, and has = even=20 established bases for the contras in neighboring = Honduras,=20 setting up the conditions for an escalating war between the = two=20 nations. This has been perhaps the most open "covert" = operation in=20 history. For many months, the U.S. government has been using = the=20 patently lame excuse that the "covert" aid was certainly not = designed to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. No, it is = only to=20 put some pressure on Nicaragua to stop sending aid to the = leftist=20 guerrillas in El Salvador. While this aid might well = be=20 there, it has been so elusive, that the best efforts of the = U.S. and=20 its satraps to prove Nicaraguan aid have so far been abject=20 failures. Most guerrilla weapons, in the time-honored = tradition,=20 have come from the United States, either via capture of = government=20 arms or sale by corrupt government officials.

Recently, however, = the Reagan=20 Administration has felt so emboldened on the march toward = war that=20 it has allowed ultra-hawk Under Secretary of Defense Fred = ("the=20 Ick") Ikle to proclaim frankly and boldly that yes indeed = the=20 "covert" aid is designed to overthrow the Nicaraguan regime. = So why=20 isn=92t Reagan impeached and Ikle booted out?

The=20 second flagrant defiance of the law was Reagan=92s refusal = to obey the=20 War Powers Act, by which Congress ordered the President to = subject=20 the maintenance of U.S. troops abroad to its wishes as soon = as these=20 troops become subject to actual hostilities. U.S. Marines = have been=20 killed in Beirut, and yet the President stubbornly refused = to obey=20 the War Powers Act, and only grudgingly agreed to a = compromise when=20 Congress knuckled under and ratified the Marines staying in = Lebanon=20 for at least another 18 months. Yet, amidst Congressional = appeals=20 and whines for Reagan to please, sir, obey the law, no one, = of=20 either party mentioned Impeachment. Since the brief and = glorious=20 flurry in 1974, has impeachment once again become=20 unthinkable?

II. Deeper Into=20 Lebanon

U.S.=20 policy in Lebanon is a classic case of sinking deeper and = deeper=20 into a quagmire, almost deliberately escalating step-by-step = into=20 another Vietnam. We begin, seemingly innocent enough, = contributing=20 1,300 Marines to an international "peacekeeping" force. = Amidst all=20 the right-wing jibes at the United Nations, we forget that = the major=20 problem with the UN is not its "anti-Americanism" but its = being=20 designed as an instrument for "collective security against=20 aggression," i.e. bringing us a state of potentially = permanent war=20 in seeking the chimera of permanent peace. The trouble with = the UN=20 is that it gets us into situations like a seemingly harmless = "peacekeeping" operation.

But=20 how, after all, do soldiers "keep the peace" except through = fighting=20 and killing? And so here we are in the midst of a civil war = that has=20 raged among literally dozens of groups in Lebanon for = decades. What=20 in hell does the United States know or care about the = ancient Druse=20 people, for example, and how dare it set itself up as an = arbiter of=20 their fortunes? Originally, in Step 1 of the operation, U.S. = Marines=20 were only supposed to fire if fired upon. But then a U.S. = naval=20 force with 2,000 more men came, and began shelling Druse = positions=20 in the Shouf mountains above and south of Beirut. The excuse = was=20 that these positions were shelling Marine positions. But = soon=20 hostilities escalated further, and it turns out that the = U.S. Navy=20 began to shell the Druse not for endangering our Marines but = for=20 battling against the Christian Lebanese Army, to which the = U.S. is=20 increasingly committed to winning the civil war. I suppose = that, in=20 that logic, the Lebanese Christians become surrogate U.S. = Marines,=20 worthy of the same protection. And so it goes.

But=20 not only is the United States presuming to intervene ever = further in=20 the Lebanese civil war, it is also coming down unerringly on = the=20 (long-run) losing side. For a steady fact amidst the = confusion of=20 forces is that "Lebanon" is not a true country but an = abortion. It=20 was carved out of Syria by French imperialism after World = War I, to=20 serve as a French client state. Furthermore, the = religious=20 proportional representation imposed since the 1930=92s used = as a basis=20 the census of 1932. In that year pro-French Maronite = Christians=20 along with their Christian allies, had a majority of the = Lebanese=20 population. But if current demographics, a half-century = later, were=20 ever used as a basis for quotas of power in the government, = the=20 Muslims would be dominant, since they now form about = two-thirds of=20 the population. The essence of the Lebanese struggle is an = attempt=20 by a minority of "pro-Western" Maronite Christians to = dominate and=20 bully a Muslim majority. In the long run, this system cannot = work=20 and will be overthrown, and it is in this cauldron that the = United=20 States has decided to make itself the major enemy of Islam = in=20 Lebanon. The Lebanese army, much vaunted in the U.S. media, = is a=20 Maronite Christian army, and the President of Lebanon, Amin = Gemayel,=20 is the leader of the very same Phalangist forces that = massacred=20 helpless Palestinian women and children at the refugee camps = of=20 Sabra and Shatila.

American officials = are engaging=20 in a great deal of hand-wringing about their terrible = dilemma in=20 Lebanon. If we stay, we might get embroiled deeper and = deeper in=20 another Vietnam; but if we leave, the Gemayel government = will fall.=20 Tough. It is not a proper function of the United States to = prop up=20 dictators all over the world. And to those who think we have = "national security" interests in Lebanon (assuming that word = can be=20 defined intelligently) it would be nice to hear exactly what = they=20 may be.

As=20 for the cease-fire, it is nice to have it, but there have = been many=20 cease-fires in Lebanon, and how long does anyone think this = one will=20 last? Any more permanent solution is being held up by the = insistence=20 of Gemayel, a man whose power depends almost totally on U.S. = military might, on conducting negotiations in his own = presidential=20 palace.

Americans must ask = themselves=20 and their government: Why die for Gemayel? Why die to impose = Maronite Christian rule over Muslims? What kind of foreign = policy is=20 that? Is such a policy really necessary to protect Maine or = Seattle=20 from foreign aggression? If we don=92t fight the Druse in = their=20 ancestral home in the Shouf mountains, will we really have = to fight=20 them in the streets of Boston?

III. Deeper into = Central=20 America

The=20 Central American morass is not as boldly in the headlines = right now=20 as Lebanon, but is fully as dangerous for escalating = military=20 conflict. The United States is backing an unpopular and = despotic=20 regime in El Salvador, and is building bases in Honduras in = order to=20 aid and abet the "contra" invasion of Nicaragua. All of = these are=20 inexorably losing propositions, and therefore to keep its = wildly=20 interventionist commitments, the U.S. must continue to = escalate its=20 forces and its war in Central America.

In=20 El Salvador the much-touted "free elections" are now = forgotten, as=20 the guerrillas slowly but surely increase their power in one = province after another. In this country ridden by = dictatorship and=20 by right-wing paramilitary squads murdering dissenters, = government=20 army officers refuse to go out on patrol in guerrilla = country (in=20 the words of the old joke, "you can get killed out there!") = and stay=20 confined to their base, punctuated occasionally by grand but = pointless sweeps throughout the countryside. Weekends they = take off=20 to cavort amidst the fleshpots of the capital city. In = Nicaragua, in=20 contrast, the army is doing very well and the well-supplied=20 contras are getting nowhere. For one reason, in = contrast to=20 the Salvadoran army, the Nicaraguan forces go out habitually = in=20 small patrols to encounter the enemy.

And=20 the egregious Fred Ikle proudly proclaims that in Central = America=20 "we seek victory for the forces of democracy." These are the = same=20 "forces" that expelled the bureau chief of the Associated = Press from=20 El Salvador for telling the truth, and that are daily = torturing and=20 murdering dissenters from the right-wing dictatorial=20 government.

IV. 007=20 Hysteria

Fueling all of these = war=20 escapades, softening any resistance to them in Congress and = the=20 country, adding to pressure for any and all military = expenditures,=20 is the hysteria whipped up by Reagan, the right-wing, and = the=20 Establishment media over the tragic shooting down of Korean = Airliner=20 007 over Sakhalin island. After milking the maximum amount = of=20 propaganda from the failure of the Russians to admit = shooting down=20 the plane, or to explain the incident, for eight days, it = turned out=20 that the U.S. authorities were also engaged in telling = untruths on a=20 massive scale. For one thing, the U.S. finally and = grudgingly=20 admitted that the Soviet jet interceptors had indeed fired = several=20 warning shots at 007 before shooting it down. This after = many days=20 of hopped-up denunciations that the Soviets had neglected to = fire=20 any warning shots. Also, it took several days for the U.S. = to admit=20 that a U.S. RC-135 spy plane flew near the 007 route and = that for=20 some time the paths of the two actually = coincided.

There are many = unanswered=20 questions and fuzzy areas about 007 =96 enough, surely, to = defuse the=20 hysteria and try to get back =96 or forward =96 to a sane = approach=20 toward the airliner and toward the Soviets = generally.

1. What in hell = was KAL 007=20 doing flying 300 miles off-course for several hours over = Soviet=20 airspace? KAL 747=92s are equipped with three = separate,=20 cross-checking, internal navigation systems. The pilot and = crew of=20 007 should have known instantly that they were off course. = And why=20 were there no radio communications from 007 until fifteen = minutes=20 before it was shot down? The idea of radio failure makes no = sense.=20 Not only because they did make contact at long last, = but also=20 because 747=92s are equipped with five separate radios, two = of which=20 can reach anywhere in the world. Furthermore, the route = flown by 007=20 is well-travelled; there are planes up there all the time, = including=20 another 747 twenty minutes behind that was carrying Senator = Jesse=20 Helms. Why didn=92t 007 contact any of these other planes = and check=20 where they were?

Moreover, all Pacific = pilots=20 are well aware, and it is marked clearly on their = navigational maps,=20 that one does not fly over Soviet airspace without = advance=20 clearance, because the planes are likely to be shot down. = Why then=20 the insouciance of the 007 pilot? Especially since a = civilian KAL=20 airliner was shot down over the Soviet Arctic in 1978? There = is one=20 crucial difference, however, between the 1978 incident and = that of=20 1983: the 1978 airliner was a 707, with little of the = sophisticated=20 navigational systems of the 747. Its pilot could well have = gotten=20 lost; the 007 pilot could not.

Another point: 007 = was supposed=20 to report every hour to air controllers on the ground. Why = didn=92t=20 any of the U.S. or Japanese air controllers, also well aware = of the=20 dangers of flying over Soviet territory =96 especially the = sensitive=20 military installations in the Kamchatka-Sakhalin area =96 = why didn=92t=20 they ever notify 007 that it was way off course and to get = back=20 pronto?

Specifically, we know = that the=20 RC-135, our spy plane, was flying on the course that day to = monitor=20 Soviet tests. But our most capable monitor for the Soviet = tests is=20 the U.S. Cobra Dane radar at Shemya, at the tip of the = Aleutians and=20 only 450 miles from Kamchatka. The Shemya radar would have = seen=20 quickly that 007 was off course, and would have tracked it = from then=20 on. Why, then, didn=92t an American official at Shemya = immediately=20 pick up a phone, call 007, or call the Japanese controllers = at=20 Narita? It is no wonder that the London Sunday Times=20 concluded from its investigation of the 007 incident = that "there=20 is now a growing conviction in military, political and = aviation=20 circles that Captain Byung was not in Soviet airspace by=20 accident."

2. Was the 007 = incursion=20 planned, and, if so why? If KAL pilot Chung Byung = was=20 "witting," and the U.S. and Japanese air controllers were = perhaps=20 aiding and abetting, what was the point? The suggestion in = the media=20 that Chung Byung might have taken this dangerous route = deliberately=20 to save money on fuel seems idiotic; surely a hell of a risk = to take=20 for saving some gasoline. It is more plausible to look at = Korean Air=20 Lines, nearly all of whose pilots are former officers in the = South=20 Korean Air Force, and who retain high security clearance. = Chung=20 Byung himself was considered one of KAL=92s best pilots, as = witness=20 the fact that he was chosen to be the pilot for several 747 = flights=20 of the South Korean president to the U.S. and to various = countries=20 in Southeast Asia during 1981 and 1982. The present form of = Korean=20 Air Lines originated in 1969; before then, the Korean = government was=20 running the company. In that year, the government decided to = put KAL=20 into the hands of a private transportation company, the = Hanjin=20 Group, headed by two brothers, Cho Chong ("Harry") Hoon and = Cho=20 Chong (=91Charlie Cho") Kun. Most KAL business is = manufacturing=20 aircraft for the Korean Air Force, which of course cements = the=20 closeness of its ties with the Korean military.

Furthermore, Fred = Kaplan=20 reports in the Boston Globe that the two brothers = have close=20 ties with the Korean CIA. A former director of Korean = affairs at the=20 U.S. State Department told Kaplan that throughout the = 1970=92s Charlie=20 Cho ran money back and forth between the KCIA and Japanese = bigwigs.=20 Kaplan was also told that KAL used to run money and spies in = and out=20 of Korea and assisted the KCIA in its lucrative drug=20 smuggling.

And=20 where the KCIA is, can the US CIA be far behind?

The=20 Soviet Army newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda claimed, on = Sept. 16,=20 that Chung Byung had boasted to intimates that he was = carrying out=20 special tasks for U.S. intelligence, that he had placed = equipment on=20 747=92s to spy on Soviet installations, and that he intended = to leave=20 KAL soon because of the high risks entailed in flying for = the CIA.=20 This could well be hokum, but it is surely suggestive in = light of=20 the evidence.

If=20 the 007 incursion was planned by the KCIA, with or without = US=20 connivance, why did they do it? There would appear to be = three=20 possible reasons, or some combination of the three: First, = the 747=20 could have been functioning as a spy plane. A former U.S. = Air Force=20 intelligence officer remembers being told in 1967, according = to Fred=20 Kaplan, that KAL habitually attached side-view cameras to = commercial=20 airliners capable of long-distance photography. Newt Royce = of the=20 Hearst press reported on September 4 that U.S. intelligence=20 officials admit that civilian airliners are routinely used = for=20 spying: Aeroflot for the Russians, and Finnair and others = for the=20 U.S. The common counter-argument that the U.S. needs no such = photos=20 because of its satellites, runs against the fact that = satellites fly=20 at regular times and so can be evaded if necessary, and that = photos=20 taken at 30,000 feet can often tell more than, or at least = confirm,=20 photos from satellites.

A=20 second, more plausible, reason was to test the quality and = speed of=20 Soviet air defenses. What they found should have gladdened = their=20 hearts, since they discovered that the Russian military are = a bunch=20 of stumblebums. There is a peculiar tendency of = right-wingers, from=20 conservatives to conservative libertarians, to look upon the = Soviet=20 Union as a mighty, super-efficient, Satanic monolith, = omniscient if=20 not omnipotent, and always ready to strike. Yet what is the = Soviet=20 Union but a giant, rigidified bureaucracy, and what is = bureaucracy=20 but a bunch of confused, ineffective stumblebums? Free = market=20 advocates should, after all, be particularly alive to this=20 fact.

And=20 so what we saw in the 007 incident was a Soviet air defense = that=20 didn=92t seem to know what was going on or what to do, that = allowed a=20 large, slow, passenger airliner to fly for two-and-a-half = hours over=20 sensitive Soviet airspace without interception, that took = all of=20 thirty minutes to get the interceptor jets off the ground. = Not only=20 that: three days after 007, several test-fired Russian ICBMs = blew up=20 over the same area! With this record, it is very possible = that it=20 took Marshal Ogarkov all of eight days to find out what in = hell=20 happened over Pacific Siberia that night.

So=20 crummy have Soviet air defenses shown themselves to be that = various=20 press reports have U.S. intelligence authorities believing = that up=20 till the very end the Soviets were convinced that they were = tracking=20 and shooting down not a civilian 747 but an RC-135 spy = plane. For=20 one thing, Soviet interceptors may have misidentified the = plane=20 because they were always at least 2,000 feet below 007 and = therefore=20 could not make out its distinctive silhouette. Furthermore, = the=20 Soviets could have been misled by their obsolete radar = equipment,=20 and by the fact that Soviet commanders don=92t trust their = pilots with=20 access to radio frequencies with which they could have = contacted the=20 Korean airliner. In fact, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff = Charles A.=20 Gabriel happily concluded from the 007 incident that the = Soviet air=20 defense performance "gives us a little more confidence" in = the=20 ability of the U.S. Air Force to penetrate Soviet air space = "if=20 necessary." (New York Times, Sept. 18.) Could = finding=20 this out have been the point of the whole = exercise?

One=20 thing that the U.S. authorities acknowledge they discovered = is the=20 tense, nervous state of the Soviet air defenders. The = Americans=20 confirmed the Soviet account of nine U.S. military spy plane = incursions into Soviet airspace over the Kurile Islands this = year.=20 Take frayed nerves, the deep fear that the next U.S. = military air=20 incursion might be a nuclear attack, and the Soviet penchant = to=20 punish severely any commanders who allow intruding aircraft = to=20 escape, and the stage was set for the tragedy of 007. =

A=20 third possible reason for the incursion, less plausible than = the=20 others but which should not be dismissed out of hand, is = that 007=20 was a right-wing US/South Korean intrigue designed to = provoke the=20 Soviets into doing precisely what they did =96 thus heating = up the=20 Cold War and ending any possibility of d=E9tente for a long = time to=20 come. There are various other conspiracy theories about 007 = that can=20 be dismissed tout court. One is the Bircher theory = that the=20 Soviets shot down 007 because they knew that Rep. Larry = McDonald=20 (D., Ga.), head of the John Birch Society, was on the plane. = It=20 seems to me that in the improbable event that McDonald was = No. 1 on=20 a Soviet hit list, they could have assassinated him far more = easily=20 in Washington without causing an international airplane = incident in=20 which they lose an enormous number of propaganda points. (If = I were=20 in the Kremlin and had an Americanski hit list, McDonald = would=20 scarcely be high up on it.) Even less plausible is the kooky = antipodal conspiracy theory, voiced by Larry Flynt of = Hustler=20 fame, that McDonald himself was in on the disaster, = along with=20 the CIA, in order to make himself an anti-Communist martyr = and heat=20 up the Cold War. Another kooky sub-variant is that 007 was a = coordinated plot by the Reagan Administration and the = Russians to get rid of McDonald, since the Administration is = run by=20 Trilateralists. A hilarious "sub-sub-variant," as noted by = the=20 Menckenesque Marxist journalist Alexander Cockburn, "is that = the=20 Russians=92 true target was Scoop Jackson, knowing full well = that news=20 of the incident would give him a fatal heart attack." = (Village=20 Voice, September 20).

3. What are the = Lessons of=20 007? The alleged lesson pushed by the war hawks, the = right-wing,=20 and the Reagan Administration (at least in rhetoric), and = following=20 them the bulk of the media, is that the shooting down of 007 = was=20 mass murder or even a "massacre," that this "proves" that = the Soviet=20 system is evil, and that the Soviets are barbarians and mass = murderers who should be treated as such. What being treated = as such=20 really means is never fully spelled out. Oddly enough, the = policy=20 conclusions never match up to the bitter and sweeping = analyses.=20 Thus, a group of orthodox, unreconstructed Randians, = centered around=20 Peter Schwartz and his magazine The Intellectual = Activist,=20 took the trouble and the enormous expense to take out a = full=20 page ad in the New York Sunday Times (Sept. 11). The = thrust=20 of the ad was that the Soviet Union should be treated as a=20 "well-armed" neighborhood police force would deal with = murderers in=20 their midst. The Randians proceed to spell out what they = claim to be=20 the implications of their analogy: specifically the breaking = of all=20 diplomatic relations, since one does not engage in = "d=E9tente" with=20 local murderers. Other right-wingers, pursuing the same = logic, have=20 added a call for prohibition of all East-West trade. But = these=20 logicians are acting haltingly and bizarrely on the basis of = their=20 own logic. For of course this sort of thing =96 ostracism, = refusal to=20 trade or negotiate =96 is not what neighborhood = police do to a=20 murderer. What they do is to apprehend and execute him. = Following=20 Randian and other right-wing logic, then, what the United = States is=20 supposed to do, right now, is nuke the Soviet = Union.

The=20 interesting point is: Why don=92t the Randians and = other=20 right-wingers see that this is their real thrust? Is their = grasp on=20 the logic of their own position that weak? In short, are = they that=20 dumb? Failing that conclusion, the Randian = conservatives can=20 have only two things in mind: either (a) they favor = the=20 immediate nuking of the Soviet Union and haven=92t got the = guts to say=20 so, i.e. this is precisely the hidden agenda behind their = beating of=20 the war drums; (b) something is holding them back = from going=20 all the way in whooping it up for a nuclear holocaust. If = so, it=20 would behoove them to examine what that something is, and, = if they=20 focused fully on that for a while, they might begin to = reconsider=20 their entire war-hawk perspective. Perhaps then the = Intellectual=20 Activist, which proudly proclaims its subtitle, "In = Defense of=20 Individual Rights," might begin to see that a nuclear = holocaust=20 would, to put it mildly, be a massive assault on the = individual=20 rights to life of countless millions of innocent Russians = and=20 Americans. Perhaps then they will also see that their own=20 irresponsible rhetoric is tantamount to threatening and = bringing=20 closer a nuclear confrontation that would slaughter far more = innocents than even Communist regimes have managed in ruling = their=20 own subjects. In the good old Randian phrase: Randians, = "Check your=20 premises!"

The=20 real lessons of 007 are very different, and have = gotten very=20 little attention in the media. They can be summed up as=20 follows:

a.=20 Americans Are Very Selective in Their Moral=20 Indignation.

In=20 February 1973, the State of Israel shot down a Libyan = commercial=20 airliner over the Sinai Desert, killing 109 persons. Yet no=20 President of the United States got on the air to denounce = the=20 "massacre," no media people claimed that this incident = demonstrated=20 the "evil nature" of the "barbaric" Israeli system, no one = demanded=20 that all trade and diplomatic relations with Israel be cut = off, and=20 no Randians took out full-page ads declaiming that Israel = should be=20 treated as local police treat mass murderers. Why = not?

b.=20 No Superpower Is To Be Trusted With High-Tech Weapons of = Mass=20 Destruction.

The=20 major lesson of this incident is that both superpowers are = paranoid=20 and trigger-happy, and each has its finger close to the = nuclear=20 button expecting momentary assault from the other side. Both = sides=20 can unleash enormous destruction within moments. Instead of = trying=20 to keep the 007 tragedy from ballooning into a full-blown = war=20 crisis, the Reagan administration seized the opportunity to = heat up=20 the Cold War, kill all attempts at d=E9tente, and intensify = arguments=20 for any and all accumulations of nuclear weaponry. For a = while, the=20 atmosphere looked very close to the blundering into World = War that=20 marked the Guns of August, 1914. The major lesson of the 007 = crisis=20 is the desperate need for joint nuclear disarmament of the=20 superpowers, for the permanent elimination of the nuclear = button by=20 which the super-States hold the entire human race at=20 risk.

We=20 might as well consider here the agitation for unilateral = U.S.=20 nuclear disarmament that has been pushed for the last couple = of=20 years by people within the left wing of the Libertarian = Party. (The=20 argument over unilateral disarmament transcends Crane = Machine=96anti=20 Crane Machine boundaries. It is, as it were, trans-Machine. = Thus the=20 main advocates have been Sheldon Richman and Leslie Graves = Key of=20 the left wing of the Machine, and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, in = the=20 anti-Machine camp. Hummel, in particular, has been an = eloquent and=20 knowledgeable spokesman for unilateral disarmament.) My own = position=20 is that while I would prefer unilateral disarmament to the = monstrous=20 status quo, these are not our only choices. For I = vastly=20 prefer mutual nuclear disarmament to unilateral; = clearly the=20 people of the world, their rights and liberties, would be = far more=20 secure under the former. The unilateralists like to think of = their=20 position as more radical than that of us mutualists; = but=20 isn=92t it more radical to have every superState = disarm their=20 weapons of mass destruction than only one? In fact, the shoe = should=20 be on the other foot: why wouldn=92t any libertarian = strongly=20 prefer mutual to unilateral disarmament? Why are our = unilateralists=20 hanging back rather than going all the way?

I=20 remember back in the 1950=92s and 1960=92s, when the = antinuclear=20 movement was gaining strength in the United States. The = all-out=20 pacifists took the peculiar position that they would rather = see the=20 U.S. government disarm unilaterally than negotiate an = agreement with=20 Russia for joint disarmament, The reason for this odd = position was=20 not, of course, that these pacifists were secret = Commies,=20 trying to open us up for a Soviet takeover. The reason was = that=20 their idea of politics was making a moral statement = rather=20 than accomplishing results. A government that disarms = unilaterally=20 can be said to be making a purer, more heroic, moral = statement than=20 one that persuades other governments to disarm together. By=20 extension, the pacifists themselves were making a purer, = more-heroic=20 moral statement than those in the anti-nuke movement who = advocated=20 joint nuclear disarmament. I am afraid that something like = this is=20 driving our unilateralists, who, in their desire to make = purer and=20 more heroic moral statements than anyone else, are losing = sight of=20 the fact that mutual disarmament would be a far more = libertarian=20 event, a far greater cause of rejoicing by us and by the = entire=20 human race, than unilateral disarmament. So why not go for=20 it?

V. Conclusion: = Reagan:=20 Rhetoric and Reality

Ronald Reagan was = swept into=20 office by the conservative movement, whose leader and = spokesman he=20 had become. He made a raft of campaign promises to that = movement,=20 each and every one of which he has broken egregiously. He = raised=20 income taxes rather than lowered them, he brought us $200 = billion=20 deficits rather than balancing the budget, he entrenched = fiat money=20 rather than bringing back the gold standard, his budget is = the=20 highest absolutely and as percentage of GNP in American = history, he=20 has deregulated nothing, he has not abolished the = Departments of=20 Education and Energy, etc. The conservative movement has = long been=20 animated by three broad concerns: (a) Freeing the economy = and=20 Getting Big Government Off Our Back; (b) using government to = enforce=20 Judaeo-Christian morality (so-called "social" issues), and = (c)=20 engaging in nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Simply = listing these=20 concerns reveals that (b) and (c), the theocratic and the=20 war-mongering, contradict the libertarian (a), to put it = very=20 mildly. The conservative movement is so constituted that in = a tussle=20 between these three, (b) and (c) always win out in their = hearts and=20 minds over the free market.

The=20 quintessence of Ronald Reagan is that he is a master in = supplying=20 the conservative movement with the rhetoric they want to = hear. In=20 all politicians there is a gulf between rhetoric and = reality, but in=20 Ronald Reagan that gulf has become a veritable and mighty = ocean.=20 There seems to be no contact whatever between Ronnie the = rhetorician=20 and Ronnie the maker of policy. In that situation it is hard = to know=20 which one is "the real" Reagan. The conservatives, feeling = betrayed=20 but lacking any guts for a break with the Administration, = persist in=20 asserting (publicly, at any rate) that the rhetorical Reagan = is the=20 real one, and that if only his evil pragmatist = advisers would=20 "let him," this real Reagan would finally emerge. Hence, the = famous=20 right-wing slogan, "Let Reagan Be Reagan." But the problem = with that=20 slogan is the "let." What do you mean, "let"? Who picked = these evil=20 advisers, and who persists in maintaining them in power? = None other=20 than Reagan himself. So in what sense is this visible person = not=20 the "real" Reagan?

There are only two = solutions to=20 his dilemma, neither one a happy situation for = conservatives.=20 Either Reagan is a total cretin, a puppet who gets = wheeled=20 out for ceremonial speeches, and who really believes = that he=20 is putting conservative policies into effect. Or = Reagan is a=20 cynical master politician, keeping the conservatives happy = by=20 dishing out their rhetoric and his phony 3x5 card anecdotes, = while=20 keeping corporate centrists happy by pursuing the New = Deal-Fair=20 Deal-Great Society-Nixon-Ford policies that we have all come = to know=20 so well. Either way: Reagan the imbecile or Reagan the = cynical=20 manipulator, the situation is hopeless for conservatives, = who yet=20 persist in willfully not perceiving this stark = reality.

Of=20 the three conservative concerns mentioned above, Reagan has = clearly=20 and flatly sold out the free market, and also pretty much = for the=20 theocratic social issues. Unfortunately, the anti-Soviet = part of the=20 rhetoric is something that Reagan seems to believe in more = firmly=20 than the rest of the stuff, so that he has more difficulty=20 abandoning his conservative mass base on this issue than on = the=20 others. "Unfortunately," because the more Reagan betrays=20 conservatism on the war front (and on theocracy), the = better. The=20 drift toward war, and the ascendancy of the war-hawk = troika,=20 are ominous signposts for the future. The only silver = lining in=20 the cloud is that, despite the whipped-up hysteria, the = Reagan=20 Administration hasn=92t really done anything to crack = down=20 directly on the Russians. (He couldn=92t retaliate by = banning Aeroflot=20 in U.S., since Carter had already locked that into = place when=20 the Russians marched into Afghanistan.) His not doing = anything=20 concrete has, of course, sent conservatives up the wall, for = this is=20 by far their most emotional and most deeply felt of the = three broad=20 issues. It is a helluva note when we have to rely, for = saving us=20 from nuclear annihilation, on the likes of the Rockefellers, = the=20 Trilateralists, the Shultzes, the Kissingers, and all the = rest. But=20 that is unfortunately the way things are.

Hopefully, as = rhetoric and=20 reality clash and as we weave back and forth in the = direction of the=20 Final World War, Ronnie will be booted out in 1984, and we = will all=20 be able to leave the question of who or what is the "real" = Reagan to=20 shrinks and historians. Ronald Reagan will, then at long = last,=20 become supremely irrelevant for our time.

Ronald Reagan,=20 Warmonger