Sarah Paine

it would be bankrupting.

And we are far richer than the Soviet Union was then, whenever it was bankrupting.

So, some would argue that U.S.

cooperation with China fatally overextended the Soviet Union.

One could take all of these arguments

starting with President Nixon all the way through Reagan, to make an overarching argument that says, look, each president opened up opportunities for the others who then leveraged them.

So Nixon plays the China card, which others play with increasing dexterity,

Ford comes in and begins dabbling in human rights.

Carter then comes in and really goes for human rights and starts doing a military buildup, which then Ronald Reagan really does.

So that by the time you get to Reagan, he is dealing in a position of both ideological and military strength vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.

And for those who think that U.S.

foreign policy was not consistent during the Cold War, you're not looking at it at the strategic level.

There were certain different strategies going on and how best to achieve it.

But both parties agreed the goals were free trade, democracy, containment of communism.

Those were staples of U.S.

foreign policy, both parties for its duration.

So some would argue that Presidents Nixon through Reagan produced the cumulative presidential effects to defeat the Soviet Union.

Okay, others would say, forget this great man theory of history business.

That's really passe.

What really accounted for the outcome of the Cold War was this military platform.