The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Seventeen

Ronald Reagan began his second term in January 1985.

A scandal broke in late 1986, dubbed "Iran-Contra," because of its connection to Iran and to the Contras of Nicaragua. The scandal is complicated, but it essentially involved the U.S. selling arms to Iran, which was in a brutal, very bloody war with neighboring Iraq; then, some of the "proceeds" of that sale going to support anti-communist forces, called the "Contras," in Nicaragua.* The problems were these: Iran had been a bitter enemy of the U.S. since 1979 and the beginning of the ordeal for the American hostages being held in Iran. Sanctions against Iran were then put in place, which included an arms embargo. The U.S. openly supported Iran's enemy, Iraq, in the war between those two countries, but Iran desperately needed U.S. weapons to fight Iraq. There were also American hostages being held by an Iranian supported group in Lebanon. So the U.S. sold weapons to Iran, and some of the American hostages in Lebanon were released, although other Americans were then taken hostage. The process continued, but the price for weapons to Iran increased, with the extra money diverted to help the Contras in Nicaragua, something that was against American law. Eventually the deal with Iran became public, which badly damaged Reagan, whose poll numbers took a big hit until the 1988 election campaign and Reagan's pending departure from office lifted his numbers again.

The midterm election in 1986 saw Democrats gain a total of 8 Senate seats, as they defeated 6 Republican incumbents who had won election, at least partially, on the strength of Reagan's first term win in 1980. In the former Confederate states, Democrats captured Republican seats in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. In the House of Representatives, the overall results were less dramatic, as Democrats gained only 5 seats nationally, and with the changes in former Confederate states being: 1 Republican seat gained in Louisiana, making that state's delegation 5 Democrats and 3 Republicans; in Mississippi a 1 seat gain by Democrats, making the delegation 4 Democrats and 1 Republican; a 2 seat gain by Democrats in North Carolina, making the delegation 8 Democrats and 3 Republicans; a 1 seat Democratic gain in South Carolina, making the delegation 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans; and a 1 seat gain by Democrats in Virginia, making its delegation 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. In governorships, Republicans replaced Democrats in Alabama, Texas, South Carolina and Florida (where former Democrat turned Republican, Bob Martinez won), but in Tennessee, a Democrat replaced a Republican as governor.

* For a little more on the "Iran-Contra" scandal, this is the link to an article I did in October 2012:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/10/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_7635.html

WORD HISTORY:
Cove-This word, UNRELATED to the similar word "cave," "seems" to go back to an Indo European form "geuba," with the notion of "pit, hollow;" thus, "a hole in the ground." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "kubon," with the meaning "den;" that is, "hollowed out living area in the ground or hillside for animals," but also with the "hollow, pit" meaning by itself. The "den" meaning then broadened to include "hut." This gave Old English "cofa," meaning, "den, closet, room." "Cofa" then became "cove," with the "e" pronounced "eh," before the modern pronunciation. The meaning, "small opening along a coastline, a small bay," didn't develop until the mid 1500s. Relatives in the other Germanic languages: German "Koben," meaning, "hutch, pigpen, animal stall," but also, "hollow;" Low German Saxon "Kaven," meaning, "animal stall;" Dutch "koof," meaning, "cove;" West Frisian "kouwe," meaning, "cage;" Icelandic "kofi," meaning, "hut." 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Eighteen

First published in October 2012, with some minor editing in September 2017

"Reagan Assessment"

Ronald Reagan was not as great, nor as "pure," as conservatives like to believe, nor was he as bad as some of his opponents believe. Like Reagan or not, he pieced together coalitions to help him get legislation or agreements he wanted, or felt he could support, and to get votes in elections (a politician would actually try to get votes? I'm stunned!), but he was perfectly willing to compromise with others to accomplish many of his goals, even if he didn't get everything he claimed he wanted. He was a man of contradictions, who railed against government involvement in many things (even naming government as the "problem"), especially the economy, but he had long been a Franklin Roosevelt New Deal Democrat. He lambasted Jimmy Carter for deficits and how the world might soon end because of them, but he then presided over deficits that made Carter's deficits look like surpluses; in fact, the U.S. became the world's largest debtor nation by the time Reagan left office. Never once did Reagan ever propose a balanced budget, or even a plan to get there (except initially to essentially say tax cuts would bring growth to erase or substantially lower the deficits), with Dick Cheney later arguing that, "Reagan showed deficits don't matter," and others in the 1980s essentially saying, "we owe the money to ourselves," although overseas borrowing by the U.S. had increased. He claimed to be against Keynesian economics, but his deficits and military build up were Keynesian on steroids, which got him reelected. He opposed the Equal Rights Amendment for women, but he appointed the first woman to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, who was generally conservative, but not fanatically so. He supported prayer in public schools, but never proposed a law or constitutional amendment advocating such. Reagan was anti abortion, but outside of stating such in public speeches, he did little to advance the issue. He was certainly no friend of environmentalists, favoring instead curtailment of laws to generally let business people do what they wanted. Reagan claimed Confederate President Jefferson Davis to be one of his heroes and advocated states' rights, but said he wasn't a racist or a bigot. He had opposed the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s, a law which helped guarantee the right to vote to minorities, mainly in southern states, and renewed that opposition during his campaign for president, but he ended up supporting renewal of the law when he was President. He touted his union membership, but favored business, even firing government union workers. He opposed communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, but he negotiated with Soviet leader Gorbachev to limit nuclear weapons. He opposed dealing with terrorists and Iran, but then there was that messy Iran-Contra matter, where he finally admitted in a televised address that he had done just that.

Before both arch conservatives and committed liberals/progressives condemn me to hell or make me sit through a one hour Sarah Palin speech (talk about hell), politicians are politicians, I don't care to which political party they belong. They seek votes from as many people as possible; and to get those votes, they will say a lot of things, even contradicting themselves by saying something to one group, and then something different to another group. Sort of, "What do I have to say to get your vote? Just tell me, and I'll say it." In 1932, as Franklin Roosevelt ran against incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt had one speechwriter do a speech opposing high tariffs and another write a speech in favor of high tariffs. After looking the two speeches over, he told the two speechwriters to go into a room and "blend the two together." In office, it's almost always a case of "watch my one hand, but not the other," and Reagan was no different. Just my own personal opinion, but I don't think Reagan gave a hoot about an issue like abortion, but he knew he needed to have a position about it, and since his core supporters were conservative, he opposed it. "Perhaps" he really did oppose it, but it wasn't a key issue to him and I seriously doubt whether he lost sleep over abortion or some other issues he never really pushed during his presidency (like other presidents before him and after him). Remember folks, this is a big country. There are lots of opinions about lots of different issues. We have two main political parties. We don't have a parliamentary system with a multitude of political parties, some with very narrow political beliefs to fit just about any opinion, which then get represented in the legislative body by proportion of the vote. The two main party system isn't perfect, but it, in theory, forces the two main parties to make broad appeals to Americans. At times, strong third parties have temporarily risen to smack the other two parties, but the key word is, "temporarily." If you go through life wanting only what you view to be perfection, I've gotta believe you're one sad person.

One thing was certain, Reagan was a committed anti-communist. It was really that obsession which undoubtedly led him to abandon the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, as the GOP had been steadfastly trying to link Democrats to being soft on communism. Wealthy people loved it, because if there's one thing that scares the absolute hell out of many of them, but not all, it is any notion of sharing with others. Americans are here to work for them and to make them money, and more money, and more money. The use of force in Grenada may have been overplayed, but I get the idea, and it may have prevented a hostage situation on a scale making the Iran situation look puny, but we'll never really know, but I get it, and Reagan preferred to avoid being sorry for not responding, or responding too late. He saw how the Iran hostages had debilitated President Carter politically, and he learned that lesson. Reagan's basic coalition, like FDR's, endured after him. The once "solid South," a term used for Democrats for about a century, became something of a "solid Republican South," with some variations. Some ethnic, often Catholic, voters, once solidly Democratic, began to vote Republican. Reagan's tax cut philosophy has dominated Republican ideas ever since, becoming something of a "Republican religion." The thing has been, as the basic coalition has survived, the philosophy of the Republican Party has changed dramatically since Reagan; moving far more rightward, and unflinching in attitude to no compromise. Again, like Reagan or not, he seldom, if ever, acted mean-spiritedly. As even some current Republicans have noted, Reagan could not today win the Republican nomination, because he was too moderate. This one issue shows that. Reagan strongly supported gun owners' rights, and a mid 1980s law adjusted existing federal laws on gun control from the 1960s, but there was nothing overwhelmingly radical in the changes, except some pro-gun advocates didn't like the provision which barred owning fully automatic weapons after the law went into effect. Reagan signed the bill into law. After Reagan left office, he strongly supported the Brady Bill, which put background checks and waiting periods into effect for people buying guns. After that, Reagan also strongly supported a law to ban the sale of assault weapons. Both bills passed, but the assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and it has never been renewed, as Republicans have stopped any attempts to even bring the matter to a major vote.

People somewhat left of center, and certainly people further left, don't like Reagan, but you have to remember, you have to make the case against your opponents, and persuade others to come to your side, and sometimes that can be a daunting task. Having facts on your side doesn't always give you the upper hand, at least at any given moment, but some who lived through Reagan's era, and generally supported him, may now look back with the 20-20 vision of hindsight and see his flaws more clearly, but in those times, Americans generally liked him, and as I noted in an earlier segment, that helped carry him through, even in politically sticky times, like the Iran-Contra matter and the major stock market crash of 1987, and his coalition held together.

Next... "A Non Reaganite Follows Reagan" 
  
WORD HISTORY:
Wort-This word is closely related to "root" and traces back to Indo European "wrehd," which meant "root." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wurtiz," which meant "root," but also "plant, especially an herb plant;" thus also, "food or beverage flavoring, spice." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wyrt," with the same meanings. This then became "wurt/wirte," before the modern version. The meaning "plant, herb" still is used in English, as in St. John's Wort, but the use of plants and herbs for flavorings in beer making gave it the additional meaning, "the product of soaking malt (usually dried sprouted barley) in hot water in preparation for making beer." Common throughout the other Germanic languages: German has synonyms "Würze" and "Gewürz," which mean "spice, seasoning;" Low German Saxon has "Wortel," which means "carrot" (which is a root); Dutch has "wortel," which like the same Low German word (except not capitalized) means "carrot;" West Frisian has "woartel," which means "carrot, root;" Danish and Norwegian have "urt," which means "herb;" Icelandic has "jurt," which means "herb, plant;" and Swedish has "ört," which means "herb." Notice the North Germanic languages of Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish have all lost or altered the original "w" at the beginning of the word. 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Sixteen

"Iran-Contra: Reagan's Image and Popularity Take A Hit"

Midway through Reagan's second term a scandal broke which came to generally be called "Iran-Contra." The overall scandal was far too complex to detail here, and I would say, many Americans back then didn't really understand many of the details, but the basic parts involved were these:  First, pretty much throughout Reagan's time in office, Iran and neighboring Iraq were in a bitter war with one another. The long ordeal of the American hostages in Iran from 1979-1981 and the anti-American theocracy ruling Iran left the U.S. openly supporting Iraq, a country under dictator Saddam Hussein. U.S. support was financial, technological, military and diplomatic. There was a U.S. embargo (including weapons) against Iran at this same time. Further, the Cold War was still very much a reality, and fear of Soviet aid to other countries (and the influence that could gain), especially in the crucial oil area of the Middle East, was always a concern. Second, Nicaragua (in Central America) was ruled by a communist group called the "Sandinistas," a group the Reagan administration very much opposed (some would say "became obsessed with," which distorted their judgment). The administration was not legally able to give material support to the Nicaraguan opponents of the Sandinistas, called the "Contras," because of laws prohibiting such.* Third, while bound by law, Reagan made it clear to some in his administration that he wanted to assist the Contras in some way in their fight against the communist regime. Fourth, Iran needed military aid in its war against Iraq, and moderate political/military factions in Iran secretly sought such aid from the U.S., although the U.S. was openly in support of Iraq. Fifth, some Americans were being held hostage by an Iranian supported terrorist group in Lebanon. Reagan refused to negotiate with these terrorists for the release of the hostages.** Sixth, the U.S. sold weapons to Iran by using Israel as the actual supplier of the weapons to Iran, for which Israel then received weapons from the U.S. to compensate, with the further idea that the Iranians would then aid in the release of the American hostages in Lebanon. Seventh, the process began and weapons were sold to Iran via Israel and some hostages were released. Eighth, Oliver North, an officer in the Marine Corps, was also an adviser to the administration on national security matters. North proposed upping the price on the weapons sold to Iran and skipping the Israeli go between. The extra money generated by the sales would then be used to help the Contras in Nicaragua, and this money would not be reported as part of the arms sales, which was seen as a way to get around U.S. law.   

The overall deal had problems, as although some American hostages were released early on, other American hostages were then taken, "apparently" as replacements for those already released. "Perhaps" the Iranians, who weren't stupid, figured they were already being overcharged for the weapons, and that further hostages would give them leverage to keep needed American weapons coming to them for their war with Iraq. Whatever the case, news reports from the Middle East, seemingly initiated by Iranians, put the matter out into the public domain and brought a flurry of media coverage in the U.S. about an "arms for hostages deal." By then too, a plane had been shot down in Nicaragua by Sandinista forces while on a secret mission to deliver materials to the Contras. The mission had been approved by some Reagan administration officials. The whole complex matter began to be told, and under pressure, President Reagan tried to explain to Americans what had happened, which he said did not involve arms for hostages or broken American laws. However, hearings by a Reagan appointed commission to investigate the matter gained testimony from a number of witnesses and indicated the involvement of some high ranking Reagan administration officials, although some missing documents precluded conclusive direct links in many instances to the President himself, but the commission did blame Reagan for lax oversight of his administration. Reagan then faced the American public to tell them he had misspoken earlier about the arms for hostages deal, while still leaving room for Americans to support him by essentially saying he didn't see the deal making as arms for hostages, but the evidence said otherwise.

Reagan's popularity dropped tremendously. Reagan's time in office had several incidents with terrorists taking hostages on planes and even a cruise ship, where an elderly Jewish-American in a wheelchair was murdered and pushed overboard. It all goes to show that these kinds of terrorist incidents, which have continued in some manner ever since, are not easily controlled, in spite of the partisan political slogans, whether your name is Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.    

* The Contras had initial help and support in organizing from the CIA, dating from the Carter administration. There were many reports that the Contras violated human rights and committed war crimes, which made some Americans leery of aiding them. On the other hand, the ruling Sandinistas, who had overthrown the previous government in a revolution, were communist and heavily backed by Cuba's Fidel Castro, with at least some connections to then communist dominated eastern Europe. 

** The refusal to negotiate with "terrorists" was not new. Jimmy Carter and his administration had negotiated with representatives of the Iranian government over the American hostages held a few years earlier, as "technically," the Iranian government was not holding the Americans hostage, but rather they were held by Iranian revolutionaries and students. Likewise, the hostages in Lebanon were held by an Iranian group, "technically" not affiliated with the Iranian government.

WORD HISTORY:
Brew-This word goes back to Indo European "bhreuh," which had the notion of "to boil," which led by extension to the meanings "to seethe, to bubble, to cook." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "breuwanan," which meant "to brew." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "breowan," which then became "brewen," before the modern version. The noun form developed from the verb, but another noun had preceded that, which was "briw," which meant "porridge, cooked meal/ground grain" (German still has the noun "Brei" and Low German has "Bree," both with the same meaning as their now deceased English relative). Forms of "brew" are common in the other Germanic languages and it is closely related to "broth," which comes from the same source (I'll cover it soon): German has "brauen" (to brew), "Brühe" (broth) and "Gebräu" (formerly  "a brew," but in modern times used derogatorily for "a brewed concoction"); Low German Saxon has "broen" (to brew) and "Bröh" (broth); Dutch has "brouwen" (to brew); West Frisian has "brouwe" (brew); Danish has "brygge" (brew);  Icelandic has "brugga" (brew);  Norwegian has "brygg" (brew); and Swedish has "brygga" (to brew).