One increasingly hears a nostalgia for the Cold War around Washington dining tables or war-gaming tables. “It was so much more understandable,” or “What I’d give for that stability again,” are among the more regular comments. Somewhat as often, observers of the international scene express their worry that terrorists and jihadists like the Islamic State have become so adept at using social media to further their ends. The release over the weekend of the fifth beheading video of an Islamic State hostage is but one example of the group’s exploitation of social media, which also includes recruiting, encouragement, and the sharing of terror how-to’s.

Such comments represent some of the more immediate expressions of angst, confusion, and concern over a world that seems to be growing more unstable by the day. From the Islamic State to Russia, and Iran to China, the challenges to maintain global stability seem to be gathering like storm clouds. It is not too far-fetched to predict that we are fated to a protracted, multi-front struggle against very different types of actors. For a country that sought to end its foreign commitments and recharge after more than a decade of war, the future looks depressingly demanding.

Revisionist takes on the past are an almost natural accompaniment to such pessimism. It’s useful to be reminded occasionally, however, that the liberal West faced challenges just as great, and sometimes greater, during the Cold War, by an enemy that was far more skillful in propaganda and image making.

Many good lessons, but also much contemporary revisionism, are on display in “Cold War Roadshow,” a presentation of PBS’s American Experience set to premier nationally this evening. The show is a compelling look at “the unprecedented barnstorming across America in the fall of 1959 by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev,” as PBS puts it. In a diplomatic first, a Soviet leader crisscrossed the United States, becoming a media giant and providing fodder for endless commentary by the forerunners of today’s Washington–New York media–​entertainment complex. It also set the template for future tours of America by adversaries or competitors. Khrushchev’s homespun peasant-turned-authoritarian leader act was novel when seen in the flesh, and the thousands of ordinary Americans who lined the streets in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo (where Khrushchev made a rare, unscripted campaign-style stop), and of course rural Iowa were clearly optimistic that his visit might lead to a world in which the balance of terror was ratcheted down a notch or two.

Yet Khrushchev’s tour was but one scene inside a decades-long play. Coming just three years after the brutal invasion of Hungary, but also three years after Khrushchev’s famous secret speech denouncing Stalin’s crimes, it was part of an evolution in the Soviet Union, not necessarily a shift in the nature of the Cold War. The international struggle between capitalism and Communism would be affected ultimately by changes inside the U.S.S.R, but the trip, however popular in the American imagination, did little to affect the near-term course of the Cold War.

As the film shows, even during the trip there were numerous times when Khrushchev went on one of his infamous mini-rants, startling and even frightening his American audiences. That one of his displays of pique was occasioned by being denied a visit to Disneyland was no less unnerving for being almost surreal. The broader historical record shows that today’s wistful remembrances of stability in the U.S.–Soviet competition are far from accurate: From the Berlin and Cuba crises to Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia (and America’s war in Vietnam), the world more than once seemed on the brink of catastrophic conflict. In fact, just seven months after the inauguration of this era of good feelings, the final U-2 mission over the Soviet Union resulted in the shoot-down and capture of Francis Gary Powers in May 1960, the humiliation of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the cancelation of a planned presidential trip to Moscow. Most importantly, as one of the film’s commentators notes, the Cold War would be waged for another 30 years after Khrushchev’s visit. That may be one definition of “stability,” but it is one that most Americans would prefer not to relive, be it in the battle against the Islamic State or in a Sino–U.S. competition.

Moreover, “Cold War Roadshow” unconsciously shows that the Islamic State is not the first American adversary to use social media or its equivalent to make its case. Although originating in an invitation from Eisenhower, the 1959 trip was a public-relations triumph for Khrushchev, both at home and abroad. Live television coverage, newsreels, wire reports and the like illustrated how the Soviet leader charmed Americans from Marilyn Monroe (shown in a bizarre interview after Khrushchev’s Hollywood lunch) to Iowa farmers. Yet that was just part of the decades-long propaganda struggle waged by both sides, and one in which the Soviet Union could count on legions of fellow travelers in the West, including academics, writers, entertainers, and others to spread the gospel of socialism and Soviet strength through the equivalent of mid–20th century social media.

As interesting as the film is, it leans too much on personalities, even while acknowledging that Khrushchev’s visit ultimately did little to change the dynamics of the Cold War. After all, in a point not mentioned by the filmmakers, Khrushchev himself did not long survive politically, being removed from power by his Politburo colleagues in 1964. His replacement by the dour Leonid Brezhnev opened a new, more competitive era in U.S.–Soviet relations, even when it, too, was seemingly transformed by Richard Nixon’s outreach and policy of détente. Nor, in showing Khrushchev’s admittedly engaging personal qualities, do the filmmakers pause to remind viewers that he was the leader of a police state that maintained prison camps, militarily occupied Central Europe, and supported radical and murderous Third World dictators.

All that said, “Cold War Roadshow” is a worthwhile time capsule, and a salutary reminder that America and its allies have faced committed, sophisticated enemies in the past. Whether the attractiveness and vitality of our system will yet again be the deciding factor in the outcome of the struggle is as-yet unknown, but perhaps “Cold War Roadshow” will serve as a reminder that our success abroad comes from strength at home. Focusing on rebuilding American strength after the past decade will make it far more likely that we will have the conviction and capability to protect liberty and counter authoritarianism of all stripes.