As one of the lead impeachment managers in Trump’s Senate trial, Congressman Joe Neguse impressed a lot of people- he’s very well spoken, professional, focused, and quite effective. His background as a prosecutor is readily aparent, and a future in Democratic politics seems bright.
But referencing as an example of political bravery members of Congress willing to “vote against Ronald Reagan” and his reluctance to crack down with harder sanctions on South Africa -in the near term- was not entirely relevant, nor accurate historically. At best this is taking a still-frame
from a 3-hour movie...
It’s good they voted their conscience back then- I wish more people had done that yesterday in the Senate. But Reagan’s agenda was by no means to keep black people corralled in Soweto indefinitely- or even protect an unsustainable South African apartheid regime.
As if he was some opponent of civil rights. Ronald Reagan believed in freedom, liberty, and the dignity of the individual. This was demonstrated in both his actions and his words.
In the 1980’s, the West was locked in a perilous struggle against the USSR- fighting their plans for world domination. Ronald Reagan viewed most foreign policy decisions through this lens.
And with good reason- luckily for all of us, Reagan -along with Thatcher/NATO- defeated the Soviet Union, ending 40 years of expensive and dangerous Cold War without firing a shot, opening a new era of blossoming democracy throughout much of the world. Most people have come to realize this over time. Even Joe Biden was an opponent of Reagan’s arms race with the Soviets- yet today, he’s nearly a Russia hawk.
The fact is that many -if not all- African anti-colonial independence movements were largely backed by the Soviet Union- out of geopolitical opportunism, not any sort of idealistic aspirations (the Russians I've known are about the most racist people you could ever want to meet). Moscow had NO successful economic model -nor moral framework- to lend; only weapons, propaganda, intelligence, and other military aid, primarily to further their own strategic goals.
At the time, a bunch of new Cubas in Africa appeared a very likely result- communist dictatorships armed to the teeth- and an economic basket-case for decades. And no coincidence, Castro had troops fighting for Moscow in sub-Saharan Africa.
Like Israel, South Africa possessed a secret nuclear arsenal- Reagan also must have feared this falling to a pro-Moscow regime in Pretoria. While the Russians would never share their nuclear weapon technology with these countries -or even place their own missiles there, as in the Cuban missile crisis- this surely was seen as a dangerous tool for any revolutionary, Marxist regime to inherit. Truth is, most of the ANC were trained/funded by -and sympathetic to- Moscow. Just think of the havoc any pro-Kremlin revolutionaries could have unleashed with the threat such weapons- while allowing the Russians full deniability. Perhaps the inherent morality of Nelson Mandela -in addition to substantial Western involvement- were the only reasons things didn't go so bad.
Another example of what was generally feared might be Rhodesia- a country with a larger black-to-white rulers ratio, and an even higher per-capita GDP than South Africa.
But heavy international pressure pushed Rhodesia into a complete, immediate transition. And an election which (irretrievably) put the country and it’s wealth into the hands of Moscow-trained, anti-democratic
Robert Mugabe.
The democracy that has been (at least partially) successful in South Africa was in NO way guaranteed -or even likely- as in the Rhodesian example, Mugabe quickly eliminated (slaughtered) enemies, established a dictatorship (with faux elections), and drove the country right off a cliff. The mess of today’s Zimbabwe is what remains.
With Soviet-backed revolutionary militaries throughout Africa looking to seize the moment -and quickly hijack any actual democracy developing there- Ronald Reagan had his reasons for a cautious, measured approach.
His strategic goals were basically the same as everybody else- actual democracy. He was not an apartheid apologist, and no enduring ally of Pretoria. He just differed in approach and knowledge of ultimate Soviet ambition in Africa- something not all people understood at the time-
or even today.
To mention him in this example at the impeachment vote yesterday to me seems detached from historical reality, context, his true agenda, principles, and due respect for a great man who did a lot for this country-
and most everybody in it.
Donald Trump is NO Reagan.
And Reagan sure as HELL was no Donald Trump, Republicans are
wrong to imply it- and so is anybody else.