About That Doctrine

Except in a few sensible and intelligent places, such as NR, the Reagan Doctrine doesn’t seem to be attracting the support it deserves. Professor Robert Tucker of Johns Hopkins, for example, writing in the New York Times (April 9), was quite rude. He called the Reagan Doctrine “a policy of ambitious ends and modest means, a policy that is ultimately dependent on a tendentious reading of the current tides of history.”

We have here two distinct propositions: that the means are inadequate; and that the historical analysis upon which the doctrine rests is faulty. The first of these is more firmly based than the second. The trouble with President Reagan’s foreign policy is not the President but Congress and the media. The President has a global view and thinks strategically, which involves a time span. Most congressmen think for the current year and enjoy—nay, wallow in—their power to delay, cut down, and frustrate.

BC

About the Author

Brian Crozier

Featured Tags

Except in a few sensible and intelligent places, such as NR, the Reagan Doctrine doesn’t seem to be attracting the support it deserves. Professor Robert Tucker of Johns Hopkins, for example, writing in the New York Times (April 9), was quite rude. He called the Reagan Doctrine “a policy of ambitious ends and modest means, a policy that is ultimately dependent on a tendentious reading of the current tides of history.”

We have here two distinct propositions: that the means are inadequate; and that the historical analysis upon which the doctrine rests is faulty. The first of these is more firmly based than the second. The trouble with President Reagan’s foreign policy is not the President but Congress and the media. The President has a global view and thinks strategically, which involves a time span. Most congressmen think for the current year and enjoy—nay, wallow in—their power to delay, cut down, and frustrate.