Smith has some good arguments and incomplete arguments. Since anyone can read the article for the good arguments, I'll note a few of the dubious and incomplete ones:
A) When talking about deregulation, Smith looks at laws, but he should be looking at agencies even more. Agencies after all do most of the day-to-day regulation. How can Smith seriously ignore things like appointing Anne Gorsuch to head the EPA in 1981? At the beginning, Reagan nominations were known for their hostility to regulation, and Smith would have done better to check whether this was actually true.
B) Arguing that Soviet military expenditure wasn't a big deal because they spent more in WW2 is crazy. Smith is comparing a peace-time spend to a total war spend!
C) Oil's role in USSR's collapse is well-known. Well known enough to have claims by Reagan partisans that he convinced the Saudis to keep prices low to pressure the USSR. Is this right? Very debatable. But it's directly related to the thesis of the article and Smith completely ignores this.
A) When talking about deregulation, Smith looks at laws, but he should be looking at agencies even more. Agencies after all do most of the day-to-day regulation. How can Smith seriously ignore things like appointing Anne Gorsuch to head the EPA in 1981? At the beginning, Reagan nominations were known for their hostility to regulation, and Smith would have done better to check whether this was actually true.
B) Arguing that Soviet military expenditure wasn't a big deal because they spent more in WW2 is crazy. Smith is comparing a peace-time spend to a total war spend!
C) Oil's role in USSR's collapse is well-known. Well known enough to have claims by Reagan partisans that he convinced the Saudis to keep prices low to pressure the USSR. Is this right? Very debatable. But it's directly related to the thesis of the article and Smith completely ignores this.