The Daily Signal - Remembering the Miracle on Ice 40 Years Later

Episode Date: February 21, 2020

Saturday marks the 40th anniversary of the famous Miracle on Ice hockey game when the Americans beat the Russians in the Olympics--despite the fact that the Russians were considered a far superior team. Today, our Heritage Foundation colleagues Philip Reynolds and Laura Falcon join Jarrett Stepman to remember that wonderful game.  We also cover these stories: Roger Stone, a Trump ally was sentenced on Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to more than three years in prison and a $20,000 fine. The White House announced Thursday that current ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, will also now serve as acting director of national intelligence A shooter who killed nine people at two bars in Hanau, near Frankfurt Germany, was likely a racist extremist, according to authorities.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, February 21st. I'm Rachel Del Judas. And I'm Kate Trenko. It's been 40 years since the famous Miracle on Ice hockey game when the Americans beat the Russians in the Olympics, despite the fact that the Russians were considered a far superior team. Today, our Heritage Foundation colleagues, Philip Reynolds and Laura Falcon, joined Jared Stettman to remember that wonderful game.

And don't forget, if you enjoy this podcast, please be sure to leave a review are a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news. Roger Stone, a Trump ally, was sentenced on Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to more than three years in prison and a $20,000 fine for withholding the truth from Congress and tampering with witnesses. Stone will be serving three years and four months in prison.

Previously, federal prosecutors suggested he served seven to nine years. Attorney General Bill Barr subsequently reviewed the sentencing recommendation and felt that it was too excessive. On Twitter, Trump responded, They say Roger Stone lied to Congress at CNN. Oh, I see, but so did Comey. And he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time. And so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI.

Fairness? The White House announced Thursday that current ambassador to Germany, Richard Grinnell, will also now serve as acting director of national intelligence. In a statement, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said that Grinnell has years of experience working with our intelligence community in a number of additional positions, including a special envoy for the Serbia-Cosovo negotiations and as United States spokesman to the United Nations. He is committed to a non-political, non-partisan approach as head of the intelligence community on which our safety and security depend.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the move saying in a statement, Sadly, President Trump has once again put his political interests ahead of America's national security interests by appointing an acting director of national intelligence whose sole qualification is his absolute loyalty to the president. Pelosi also derided the fact that Trump was making Grinnell an acting director, saying, once again, the president has shown his contempt for a constitution's system of checks and balances by sidestepping the Senate's constitutional authority of confirmation with the installation of another acting official that he knows cannot be confirmed, even in a Republican-controlled Senate. A shooter who killed nine people at two bars in Hainau near Frankfurt, Germany, was likely a racist extremist, according to authorities. After the shootings, which occurred Wednesday night, the killer was found dead in his apartment early Thursday morning with his mother, who was 72, who also appeared to die from gunshots, according to Peter Booth, the Interior Minister from the area. CNN reported.

Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel has said the shooter was a right-wing extremist who had. racist motives. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that Russia is behind a cyber attack that occurred last fall in the country of Georgia. That cyber attack affected two TV channels and thousands of websites. In a statement, Pompeo said, this action contradicts Russia's attempts to claim it is a responsible actor in cyberspace and demonstrates a continuing pattern of reckless Russian GRU cyber operations against a number of countries.

These operations aimed to sow division, create insecurity, and undermine democratic institutions. The United States calls on Russia to cease this behavior in Georgia and elsewhere. Democrat Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, says the homeless crisis needs to be a top priority for California and his state-of-the-state address Wednesday night. The hard truth is for too long we ignored this problem, Newsom said. most of us have experienced homelessness as a pang of guilt, not a call to action. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the homeless population is surging by double-digit percentages in many cities throughout California.

Newsom added, let's call it what it is. It's a disgrace that the richest state in the richest nation, succeeding across so many sectors, is falling so far behind to properly house, heal, and humanely treat so many of its own people. Next up, we'll discuss the miracle on ice. It's because of support from listeners like you that we can continue to produce podcasts like Heritage Explains and SCOTUS 101. And you can help us keep it up by going to www.org.org slash podcast today to make your tax deductible gift. February 22nd is the 40th anniversary of the miracle on ice. And of course, you just heard the famous immortal call by Al Michaels at the end of that game, which is quite incredible.

The miracle on ice, for those who don't know, was a hockey match that took place during the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York, in which the U.S. hockey team beat the Soviet national team winner of four straight gold medals. I'm joined to talk about this by Laura Falcon, who's a communications manager at the Heritage Foundation and rabid hockey fan. and Philip Reynolds, a digital specialist for heritage with a great deal of knowledge about history and also very much a hockey fan. Thank you both so much for joining us. Thanks, Jared. Thanks for having us. So if you can both kind of lay up for us, why the 1980 Olympics in particular was so important,

what was happening in the U.S. in the world at that time that made this such an important cultural moment? There's a few different things going on. I think one, we look at the mid-70s. And in 1975, the Vietnam War had ended. And I think there's a lot of contention surrounding the Vietnam War. But it's fair to say I think it was rather unpopular with a lot of folks. And then the ending of it was not exactly a great exit for the U.S. out of South Vietnam. And then on top of that, you also had the Iranian hostage crisis, which was still not really resolved at that point.

And then there was sort of a mini-resolved. session, people were lining up in long lines for gas. And then on top of that, at the end of the 70s, you had the Soviets invading Afghanistan and kind of flexing their muscles in the Middle East. Basically, morale was very low at that time because of all of this international conflict going on. And with gas prices being so high, people were feeling that. And Americans really weren't proud of who they were. And global perspective of the United States was extraordinarily low. Like, there was a lot of propaganda in the Middle East about, you know, the Americans can't do anything. So Americans were really feeling that. And it was a prime moment for something great to happen that really wasn't

expected. And I think that's exactly what happened with the miracle on ice. Yeah, of course, the miracle on ice, a U.S. hockey team beat a Soviet squad that was really, I mean, we're talking about top level professionals compared to mostly college players for the U.S. team. I mean, I think that's what's so dramatic about this victory, not just taking place during the Cold War, but the real disparity. Can you kind of explain just how much of a gap there was between the U.S. and the Soviet team during this Olympics? Yeah. I think the easiest way to explain the difference between these two teams is comparing a Division III football team to the New England Patriots. That was basically the two teams that were clashing could be compared to that type of skill level. So the U.S.

team was made up of a bunch of amateurs. And amateur is defined as somebody who is not playing professionally. So the entire team was made up of players who were in college or freshly out of college. And they were all good college athletes, but that's pretty much the sum of it. Now you look at the Soviet Union, these are professionals in that they played hockey all the time. But on paper, they were members of the Red Army. So they weren't technically professionals. That's how they were able to play in these international competitions. So they basically, no surprise, the Russians bent the rules in their favor. And they would train nine to 11 months a year every single day, four times a day, just training to be the best team because that hockey team was the pride of Russia.

And this team played together for years. And so you're comparing a team that's been together for 10 years plus to players who were together for about six months. So there was a huge learning curve just with the American team. They had to learn how to work together. and everybody's little idiosyncrasies on the ice, the Russian team knew each other. That really is an incredible thing. When you think about the Soviet team was not just simply a collection of superstars that maybe just wasn't cohesive. This was a collection of superstars that had played together for so long against a bunch of amateurs who hadn't played together for so long.

Really puts it in perspective. I do want to have you describe if there was any kind of edge that this U.S. team had because, you know, one looks at the scenario and says, how could they possibly have done this? I mean, yes, it was a miracle, but there must have been some kind of preparation or some kind of knowledge beforehand. Hey, we got a shot against the Soviet team. I think the shot was that people didn't consider them to be a threat. So they could go into this Olympic season completely fresh and without any pressure. If they meddled, that would have been considered a huge success.

So nobody was looking at the United States. Everybody kind of just brush them aside as they were the young. longest hockey team in the Olympic games that year. So nobody was looking at them as a threat. It was the Russians and then second and third, who cares? They knew the Russians were going to win. But Herb Brooks was able to build on that by making himself the enemy of the team. You had a lot of players. Herb Brooks being the coach of the team. He had a lot of players from Minnesota, who he coached a lot of them as the coach of the University of Minnesota. He also So I had a lot of players from Boston.

Those two teams didn't really get along very well. So there was a lot of animosity. But because he told them, he egged them on and made them hate him so much that they had to band together as a team to basically go up against him. And that was how they were able to really unify as a team. And then Her Brooks worked them to death. And I know one thing that he always said is you may not be one of the best teams, but you will be one of the most well-conditioned. And that's absolutely true. Nobody could keep up with the Soviets.

That really is kind of incredible because when we think about this, this wasn't even actually the gold medal game. This was actually a preliminary game. The U.S. team did eventually go on to win the gold medal. So not only did they beat the Soviet team, but they went on to win the whole thing, beating all these other teams. I believe the Finnish team actually. And they took first. I believe the Soviets took second play. So this was a collection of amateurs who turned themselves into a weld oil machine.

and not just beat the Soviets in this kind of dramatic moment, but won the whole thing. Because that would have been quite a letdown if they hadn't, right? Oh, yeah. Can you imagine going all the way to the gold medal, beating the Soviet Union, and then losing? I mean, that would destroy me. I wouldn't be able to live that down. Yeah. As a Red Sox fan, I can definitely attest of making it all the way into failing.

But I think one thing that's interesting as well is that from 1963 to 1989, the USSR had captured nearly every World Championship in Olympic Gold. So this was a team that was going into the tournament, kind of with scouts already on their belt. And on top of that, this was also a team that played together really well. There was Gabe Polsky. He was the director of a documentary called Red Army about this Red Army hockey team. And he described their sort of signature style of playing jazz on the ice in the sense

that their chemistry was so good. And in hockey, the best teams, usually are the teams with the best chemistry because it's such a fast-moving game that requires so much. much coordination and teamwork. There really is no room for teams or players who don't work together well in that sense. So that being said, this was a team that worked really well together. They knew each other very well, like Laura had mentioned. They practiced together every day, pretty much all day.

And again, they were even, they had training techniques that they were using that are probably only just now being brought into sports, fitness and sports training, almost basically the equivalent of CrossFit. So this was a team that not only was very, very good, but was also revolutionary in the fact that they weren't necessarily stuck in doing things a certain way and were just really good at doing them that way. The Americans and the Canadians, they generally played a more individualistic style. Sometimes it's called dump and chase. You basically put the puck down the ice and try to get it in front of the other team's goal as quickly as you can, whereas the Soviets really worked the open areas. and sometimes that involved going backwards as opposed to forwards,

which was very, very, very difficult to defend against. Yeah, and they oftentimes would pass four, five, six, seven times. That's not something that you see in the current NHL. Like Phillips said, Dump and Chase is much more common, but the game has become so physical that you simply can't have this fluid hockey game that the Russians were able to play. And it's because they were so well conditioned, because they knew that if they were to move down the ice, that this player would be in this spot.

So they would be aiming for that patch of ice rather than searching for players. There was just this synergy that this team had that was extraordinary and something that you can only get when you are working constantly together. And that's what they were quite literally forced to do because of this Soviet regime. And I think there's proof of that because in the mid-70s two big Soviet teams, they're both club teams. So they weren't necessarily um, officially the Red Army teams, but at least on CSKA Moscow,

one of the teams, most of the roster was the same as the Red Army's team roster. So anyways, they came over in the Mids 70s to play some exhibition games in the NHL and they played some of the best teams in the NHL and they beat them pretty bad. So they beat the Rangers 7 to 3. They beat the Bruins 5 to 2.

And then they tied the Canadiens 3 to 3. And then they finally got to the Flyers and the Flyers did beat them. And the reasons why are kind of debatable, I suppose you can say it's because the Flyers didn't really play hockey. They were more of brawlers on skates. But that being said, these Russian players had shown that they could easily beat some of the best teams in America and in Canada and essentially in the West. Except, of course, incredibly the U.S. national team. So talk about the aftermath of this game, how this was I see both in the U.S. and the Soviet Union. I mean, obviously, you know, very dramatic moment that had American sports fans very much excited for this incredible moment, but certainly could have been, was taken very differently by the USSR.

So kind of explained the aftermath of this game. Yeah, I think, I mean, this team gave America something to hope for. And especially in such a lopsided manner, it gave American something to really cheer for. And I think what's also really extraordinary is this team didn't have a Wayne Gretzky, didn't have a. It didn't have a Mario Lemieux. They had just very average players really achieved something that no one ever thought was possible. So I think it gave Americans a little something to look forward to and something to cheer about when literally everything else was crumbling around them. Yeah, I think it's interesting because you do see that the Soviets would go on to win more gold medals.

And so I think in some ways for them it was sort of just a trip in their run. But at the same time, I think what's interesting is that no one had been able to really trip them up, say, for the occasional. I think a few Olympics back they won a bronze rather than gold. But they still metal. Yeah, the U.S. also beat them in 1960. I'm sorry, the United States won the Olympic gold in 1960. And that's the only time the U.S. won the Olympic gold before 1980 in hockey. So for the Soviets in the sense, I think it definitely stunned them in the fact that America was showing itself as a.

nation not entirely beaten. And even though we had withdrawn from Vietnam and here Russia was waging a war, and even though Afghanistan wasn't necessarily successful, I think there was a lot of reason for them to see the U.S. as a nation pretty fairly beaten in a lot of areas. And this was, I think, probably the sector they least expected to be defeated in. Absolutely. And the Russians also completely changed up their team after that happened. And they let go of a lot of the veteran players hoping for better talent, not realizing that, you know, in any normal competition, the Russians would be the United States. And that did happen. Days before Lake Placid, the Herbrooks put together a little exhibition game between the Americans and the USSR and they got beat up. Herbrooks knew exactly what he was doing. And it was he wanted to kind of let that game play out so that any nervous energy would be gone.

And they're like, okay, we got beat. Now we can just play. And that's what ended up happening. Yeah, they actually got beat 10 to 3. And that was at Madison Square Garden. And that was, I think it was very humiliating. But like you said, in some ways, it almost gave the Russians a false sense of security, which sort of typifies their attitude leading into and throughout that tournament.

So there's a lot of tension, of course, put on the heroes of the story, which is the U.S. national team and the incredible accomplishment. But I think one incredibly important part of this is, The losers, too. The Soviet and the Russian athletes who are part of this system often sometimes, I think, very much unwillingly. I mean, basically serving under a tyrannical authoritarian state, the USSR, that like many other authoritarian regimes, often abuses its athletes. These guys, you know, do not get the kind of treatment that superstar American athletes. They get paid a lot of money. They, of course, get many accolades.

These guys were under a lot of pressure from the Soviet. So kind of explain how these athletes. athletes were treated under that system and kind of the aftermath years later, how they dealt with this. Yeah, I thought you sum that up nicely. But any of the things that we have readily available to us in the United States, the Russians did not have. So I think it's – and I am totally one of those people who I tear up when I hear that

Al Michaels' end of game call. But we want – and we want to celebrate what the Americans were able to do. But the enemy is not the Russian team. The enemy is the regime. Those Russian players were, most of them they loved hockey. They had aspirations to be NHL superstars, and a lot of them did end up coming to the NHL to play. But they didn't have much of anything in Russia.

They were forced to play with bike helmets instead of actual hockey helmets. Most hockey players, they can switch up their skates every once in a while. You're basically stuck with one pair of skates. They didn't have sticks very frequently. When the trainers from the Russian team would come to the team. the United States because they were they were friends with people from the American leagues. They would come back with bandages and equipment because it just wasn't readily available. And a lot of times when they would play in Dynamo Stadium, which is the stadium

out in Russia, it was an open field and with a hockey rink in the middle with straight edges, which is not how a hockey rink is supposed to be. So they'd be playing literally in the middle of a blizzard. And you're not going to be able. I mean, you could do that. when you're having fun, but when you're forced to play in blizzard conditions and then the lights are being shut off because the economy is bad in Russia and they want to save electricity. I mean, you're putting these players through this grueling process and then trying to coerce them to stay by giving them a promotion in the military and the Red Army, and which with that came additional perks, higher pay. But at the same time, they're staying away from their family. I mean, like I mentioned

before. They're gone nine to 11 months of the year, separated from their wives and from their children and forced through these grueling conditions and this grueling training that took up most of their life. And so there's no surprise that they saw what was going on in the NHL in the West and thought, hey, this might be good. And sure enough, I mean, you got a lot of defectors as a result. Yeah, it was essentially a deployment for all intents and purposes that they'd be sent on. And then there are also stories that have circulated about coaching staff on the Russian side who would promise the players, you know, if you play really well and you keep this up and you stay with us, we'll try to secure you a spot in the NHL with no intention of

fulfilling that promise. And so not only were their physical conditions obviously very, very difficult, but they're also being put under this sort of manipulative mental strain. And I'm sure there was also a lot of the unspoken threat of, you know, like, we know where your family lives. We know that, you know, that's in some ways, I think a bargaining chip that a lot of these regimes use with athletes, coercing them to perform, coercing them to commit to these ridiculous conditions and ridiculous schedules. Yeah, it really shows the difference of people living in a system of communism, socialism, authoritarianism versus the free world. I mean, we see that, I mean, even today, I mean, this sounds like a legacy of the Cold War, but it's easy to forget that, you know, we have a Cuban neighbor that still is communist where they have a national baseball team of many incredible star athletes who are, many of whom are desperate to get out. I mean, we've heard some incredible stories. I mean, Gaisal Pueig, who's a majorly baseball player and his incredible story of having to smuggle him out of the country just for the chance to play in the United States and, of course, have make the money.

But we're talking about people who will now be separated from their families who may be abused by the regime, who could be imprisoned if all things fail. And you realize the kind of pressure that these guys have compared to those who live in the freed world where we have a choice about what we do. And we have players that we do take care of and they do get paid and they do get all the accolades and attention. What a difference in those two worlds, I think, really sums up the nature of the regimes. And what was at stake ultimately in the Cold War and this real division between the United States and Soviet Union? It was not just two superpowers, but two ways of life. Right. So to kind of sum up, why should Americans today still remember the miracle on ice?

Why is it still important here in 2020 for us to go back and remember the miracle on ice? I would say it is the perfect example of ordinary people being able to do extraordinary things. I apologize for how cheesy that is. But I really think the miracle on ice is a picture perfect story. And it's something that we probably will never see again, mainly because of how the Olympics have changed. Back then, they were only allowing amateurs. And again, even though the Russians were technically amateurs, they were not. We will just never see the likes of it again because now we use NHL players. And we still have that rivalry. I think people can remember T.J. O'Shee during the Sochi

games. I remember watching that in my college zone with a bunch of folks. Yeah. I went to shootouts and then another round of shootouts. And I want to say it was the third or fourth round of shootouts. Yeah. Yeah. It was intense. And I do remember I was surprised because, I mean, normally in hockey, when when people scuffle, the referees usually let it go on and we'll let them fight. And they've tried to clamp down that. But it's essentially an integral part of the game. But the referees were actually not allowing that. But the point is, normally that's not an issue in international hockey.

It's not as tense in that way. Whereas like these players were, they were ready to go. Yeah. Those tensions were still there. Yep. But it was not like it was in 1980 because there was so much more at stake. But now that we are only using NHL players, it's not the same. It fits well with this whole theme of Americans persevering through adversity and hardship.

And I think you look back to our early season in the revolution. You've got our boys in, I mean, they weren't always in blue, but sometimes facing off against an enemy in red. And that's essentially what you have going on in 1980. That's a very good comparison. Well, Philip, Laura, thank you so much for joining us to talk about this. This is really great. Thank you. Thanks, Jared.

And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal Podcasts, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google, Play, or Spotify. And please leave us a review or rating on Apple Podcasts to give us any feedback. Rob in Virginia, we'll see you Monday. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Shrenko and Rachel. del judas.

Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Fulia Rampersad, Mark Geine, and John Pop. For more information, visitdailysignal.com.