"Some ingenious argument"

Yesterday, nasty, jerkish frat-boy George took a cheap, cowardly swipe at U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Now, I can understand why George can't go near a word that includes anything like the word "genius".  

In a fantasy world where you could actually talk to George Bush, using small words, perhaps you could make him understand that the negotiation and communication process he mocks was actually a fundamental part of Ronald Reagan's cold war strategy.

There was a time when plenty of Americans though Mikhail Gorbachev was evil - maybe not Hitler evil, but he was roundly despised in the United States during the Cold War.

But that didn't stop Ronald Reagan from talking to him.  In fact, Reagan thought that by sharing the good things about America with Gorbachev he could, for lack of a better word, enlighten him.  Persuade him.  Show him that this way is a better way for his people.  For all his other many other faults and bad ideas and bad policies, Reagan (at least at one time) believed it was possible to have an effective, beneficial, win-win negotiation.  

I heard this on a radio interview with an author of a Reagan bio years ago, and I thought - if this is true, it would actually make me think that this at least was one policy of Reagan's I could agree with.  Doesn't the leader of a nation of millions of people have an obligation to find out if this approach could work, before he recklessly engages in the use of force as a first option? Of course the answer is yes.

There were a lot of other reasons the Cold War ended, but the interpersonal relationship between Reagan and Gorbachev fascinates me.

Here are some excerpts from a great interview with Jack Matlock, author of "Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended":

BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Jack Matlock, author of "Reagan and Gorbachev," what was the reason for this book?

JACK MATLOCK, JR., AUTHOR, "REAGAN AND GORBACHEV: HOW THE COLD WAR ENDED": I wrote it in order to explain how these two very different people, coming from, really, a different position on almost every issue, within a very short period of time, historically, within three years, became virtual partners to end the cold war, which was, I think, one of the defining events of the 20th century.

Think about this, George,  And take from it that it just might be possible.  

MATLOCK: In the White House, yes, and responsible for European and Soviet affairs. The title was senior director for Europe and the Soviet Union. But my specific task was to prepare the president for the meeting.

And you know, Reagan was not a scholar and he was not an intellectual, in terms of his knowledge of a lot of facts, but he had the great virtue, he knew what he didn`t know, and he wanted to be educated and -- in a sense. And so I did, in effect, a college course for him, 20-odd papers, which we sent. ...

And they did that, sent me some very good papers. I wrote a few myself. And we would send two or three of these each week to Reagan, who would take them to Camp David over the weekend, would read them carefully, would note, and if he had questions, we would have him meet with the actual analysts. That -- so I sort of call this jokingly "Soviet Union 101," as if it was a college course.

Then when we got closer to the meeting, we actually, once we got to Geneva, did some mock sessions. And I would play Khrushchev -- I would play Gorbachev. I didn`t paint my forehead, but aside from that, I did speak Russian. And we had carefully studied Gorbachev`s TV performances. He had been to Paris. He had talked about a lot of the issues that we would talk about. And therefore, I knew more or less what he was going to say on these issues, so we could give Reagan a run-through on the sort of dialogue he would be having. I spoke Russian. We used an interpreter, and so on. And I think that helped make him a little more comfortable.

LAMB: What did you see up close, being around Ronald Reagan, that we didn`t see on television? What kind of things -- would you say to people that the myths of Ronald Reagan that you saw that maybe weren`t so?

MATLOCK: Well, I think one of the myths was that -- that he -- that he was sort of uninterested in issues. Now, he selected the issues he was interested in, but he had a very intense interest in those. He took a deep interest.

As I said, he was comfortable with himself, in the sense that you could correct him. I mean, he made errors and he knew it and he didn`t get uptight. ...

Refreshing.  A president who studies and prepares.

MATLOCK: I think very well, and increasingly well, obviously, as their policies meshed. The important thing, I think, was for them to realize that both really did want peace, both really did want to put the Cold War behind us. And for Reagan, it was important to realize that Gorbachev was really dedicated to real reform in the Soviet Union, that he was turning it into something that was no longer an evil empire, and that that deserved his support. So that -- I think as he realized these things, their personal ties became closer and closer. They began to share the same goals, and the same big goals. So, the question is -- was, how do we solve all of these concrete problems in a way that doesn`t do harm to either of our countries?

Some common ground. Maybe a win-win.  Which they discovered by communicating and building trust.  The world is not made up of cartoon-character "evil"*  and "good" people.  Most are somewhere in between. (*George Bush is evil, however.)

What about today?

LAMB: By the way, is there any opportunity today to do what these two men did, sit down and negotiate anything around the world? I mean, given 9/11?

MATLOCK: Obviously, you cannot negotiate with Osama bin Laden or that -- or al Qaeda the way they did. This is a different situation, and the threats are quite different. The -- so that -- however, I think that in working out problems between countries, and if there are major problems, there`s just no -- there is no substitute for periodic meetings of the top people.

I recommend reading the entire transcript of the interview.  A lot of fascinating information from a true insider who saw the relationship of these two men, Reagan and Gorbachev, and how these two seeming-enemies found a better way.

Ingenious.