Here’s a fascinating little story illustrating the degree to which conservatives and progressives now have their own facts. The story begins with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s assertion that Reagan’s handling of the air traffic controller’s strike was a significant foreign policy move. Phil Rucker of the Washington Post then scoffed at the idea. Here’s Kevin Drum’s affirmation of Mr. Rucker’s retort:
This morning, once again trying to show that fighting against Wisconsin labor unions is pretty much the same as fighting ISIS or communism, Scott Walker repeated his contention that Ronald Reagan’s early move to fire striking air traffic controllers was more than just an attack on organized labor. It was also a critical foreign policy decision. Here’s what he originally said last month on Morning Joe…
[…]
PolitiFact’s conclusion: “For a statement that is false and ridiculous, our rating is Pants on Fire.” But Walker shouldn’t feel too bad. After all, Reagan was also famous for making up facts and evidence that didn’t exist, so Walker is just taking after his hero.
PolitiFact in its conclusion relied heavily on the absence of confirming evidence from the Soviet end. However, the absence of evidence doesn’t prove anything one way or another. But, as you can see, Mr. Drum doesn’t see it that way.
Ed Driscoll, on the other hand, takes Gov. Walker’s statement very seriously quoting Steven Hayward, Paul Volcker, Peggy Noonan, and George Schultz. Those citations confirm what was being thought in the Reagan White House but not what actually happened. In the end for that we’re left to our own judgment.
What are the actual facts? That the air traffic controllers went out on strike and that President Reagan shut down the strike are facts. That the move had economic and foreign policy implications are reasonable speculations but those are judgment calls. Your view may differ. I think it probably had some foreign policy effect at the margins in the sense that a president’s actions are a seamless garment. Taking just one and extrapolating from it is an exaggeration to say the least. Consequently, I’m willing to give Scott Walker the benefit of the doubt here but just barely. He’s making a reasonable supposition about the facts and treating it as itself a fact which is an error. Phil Rucker and Kevin Drum are treating the absence of contradicting evidence as evidence of contradiction which is an even bigger error.
But what’s really clear is that they now have their own facts and where they stand depends on where they sit.
Actually, he claimed it was the most significant foreign policy move made by Reagan, as Larison notes.
“Walker contended that “the most significant foreign policy decision of my lifetime†was then-President Ronald Reagan’s move to bust a 1981 strike of air traffic controllers, firing some 11,000 of them.
“It sent a message not only across America, it sent a message around the world,†Walker said. America’s allies and foes alike became convinced that Reagan was serious enough to take action and that “we weren’t to be messed with,†he said.”
More significant than the efforts to end the Cold War? Than the nuclear treaty? Really? On the negative side, what message did he send when he ran away from Lebanon, i.e. if he proved he was “tough” by firing a few people what message was sent by just leaving after our troops were killed there? How significant was training, funding and arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan, then deserting them? Reagan made many decisions that had significant foreign policy implications. Breaking up a domestic union was more important than any of those?
Either the guy is completely ignorant of the history of that period, or he is just trying to compare himself to Reagan in a rather stupid way. Hope it is the latter.
Steve
I’ve found that when listening to politicians you can’t go far wrong if you assume that what they’re saying is stupid and self-serving. Still, my point remains. He’s not “just making sh*t up” as Keven Drum put it. He’s getting a pound of inference from an ounce of facts.
The profit-enhancing efficiencies that robots personify (even to their most ardent critics) foretell a massive surge of investment that will gift us with all sorts of new companies and technological advances that promise the invention of new kinds of work previously unimagined.
It would be a question of timing. Things that Reagan did later, such as the START talks, arguably could only happen if the other side were convinced of his resolve, particularly after recovering from the assassination attempt.
It’s a stupid inference on Walker’s part, but he does have a point that timing matters. I’d think an emergency room physician would understand that the order in which things are done matters.
Still, it’s funny to see all the work, a good deal of it outright lying, is going into making sure Scott Walker’s candidacy dies in the cradle. I’m particularly amused by the idea that the people that are telling me Scott Walker has no foreign policy creditials (essentially true) and that this is an absolute deal-breaker are the same people that told me the only qualification Obama needed was that he was black.
You are confusing (foreign) policy acts with posture, steve. Drawing a red line in the sand and then saying “never mind” is a posture, noted throughout the world, but not an act of policy.
Next thing you know there will be confusion about posture and calling off an invasion a week after announcing it…….
I have neither the time nor inclination, but the proper treatment would be propositional or predicate logic. Break out his statements, and then determine which ones are deductive or inductive. If he is asserting something as a fact that can only be established through inductive reasoning, you begin crushing his argument.
(I mean modern inductive usage.)
“arguably could only happen if the other side were convinced of his resolve”
Firing union workers is the GOP wet dream. No resolve needed. If I am his Russian counterpart I find it much more important that when his soldiers were killed in Lebanon, he pulled out his troops and ran. No attempts at punishing those who committed the killings. Plus, the point remains that he said this was the most significant policy decision. I find it credulous that anyone would support the idea. Heck, it is even worse than I first noted since he said it is the most important decision in his lifetime, not just Reagan’s term in office. More important than the decision to invade Iraq? Come on Dave and Drew. This is not making stuff up? On your list of the most important foreign policy decisions of the last 40 years, where does this rate?
Steve
The Marine barracks bombing happened over two years later. Everything didn’t happen at once, steve. And by October of 1983 it would have been clear that the US was in the middle of a massive defense build-up that was aimed squarely at countering the Soviet Union, not at chasing some towel heads around Lebanon.
As for Walker’s comment, he said something stupid. At least he didn’t draw a red line in the sand and then say “Just kidding!” like the teenaged girls do. Nor did he declare ISIS the JV squad while his own advisers were testifying to the contrary before Congress. Nor did he laugh about some rebels being completely worthless a few days before declaring it critical that we arm & train those rebels. (And it turned out he was right the first time.)
But hey, Walker’s a Republican and Obama’s a Democrat, so Obama must be brilliant and flawless, and Walker must be stupid and evil.
“so Obama must be brilliant and flawless,”
Never said that. Go ahead and find where I ever said any foreign policy move by Obama was the most significant one in the last 40 years. I will wait. Meanwhile, if this is stupid as in he really has such a poor grasp of history that he actually believes this, the guy should not be anywhere near the office of POTUS.
Steve
Not really interested in the Reagan vs Walker debate. Clearly, though, most humans have difficulty distinguishing fact from opinions, assessments based on facts, speculation, etc. Politicians are, IMO, much worse than average since they’re incentivized toward confirmation bias. When a politician says something is a “fact” 9 times out of 10 it’s an opinion or assessment…in my opinion.