Donaghy spoke to Jacobin’s Seth Ackerman about the Carter administration’s internal ideological squabbles, the role of the emerging neoconservative movement in shaping the political climate of the late 1970s, and the persistent tendency among politicians and officials throughout the Cold War era to massively overstate the vulnerability of the United States and the power of its adversaries.
Seth Ackerman
It’s an underappreciated fact that Ronald Reagan’s hard-line anti-Soviet foreign policy was actually a continuation of the “second Cold War” turn that began in the last two years of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. But it’s probably even more underappreciated that Carter himself had initially come into office as a strong proponent of détente and cooperation with Moscow.
Aaron Donaghy
Yes. Carter was very much an antiestablishment politician; he was seen as an outsider and that was reflected in the kinds of people he brought into his administration. But you’re right, he was broadly supportive of the détente approach. And if you look at his early rhetoric leading up to the election and after the election he’s talking about a more restrained military posture overseas. He’s talking about engaging with Soviets, reducing defense spending, and reducing strategic nuclear weapons.
And he gives a speech in May, 1977, that really reflects these points. He said, look, it’s time to embrace a new approach. The old-fashioned containment idea is outdated. Not everything can be defined by the US-Soviet rivalry. So it’s time to tone down the obsession with anti-communism and reach out and pursue détente with the Soviets.
The only sticking point, sort of the only problem with that is, of course, that Carter at the same time is also very much pushing his human rights agenda. That kind of cuts against the détente process with the Soviets, as he finds out very early on in his presidency.
Seth Ackerman
Over the first half of the 1970s there had been this unprecedented post-Vietnam ideological polarization within the foreign policy establishment. Looking at the Carter presidency, it almost seems like that polarization was then reproduced within the administration itself, with the constant feuding between Cyrus Vance, his more dovish secretary of state, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his hawkish national security adviser.
Aaron Donaghy
Well, this has to do with the context of the time, particularly in light of the US failure in Vietnam. Many strategic analysts perceived the Soviets as essentially taking advantage of détente. They had been negotiating with [Richard] Nixon, but they were also engaging in a military buildup. So in the 1970s, as the Vietnam War is drawing to a close, the national security establishment is very much divided between those who, for example, think America should tone down the obsession with new strategic nuclear systems and those who feel that the US needs to carry out a new military buildup to take the fight to the Soviets and negotiate from a position of strength.