Time for Choosing
This speech for the Goldwater campaign is considered by some to be the speech that launched president Reagan's career. If you're as young as I am, you might not have gotten a chance to hear it for yourself.
I recommend giving it a watch. It's only 4:15 long.
Below are some of my favorite quotes. You're better off watching him say it the way he says it, though, and not reading the words here.
Thanks to the Holcombe's for posting the transcript.
I recommend giving it a watch. It's only 4:15 long.
Below are some of my favorite quotes. You're better off watching him say it the way he says it, though, and not reading the words here.
Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
Thanks to the Holcombe's for posting the transcript.
Labels: Christian Values and America, Reagan
posted by Matthew Canonicus at
9:14 PM
9 Comments:
Hi Matt,
The problem with Reagan's foreign policy during the Cold War, and I guess often with American foreign policy as a whole during that time period, was that it was hypocritical, immoral, and bad in the long-term. He talked about freedom for those behind the iron curtain, and yet he supported autocratic right-wing regimes that repressed their people, and supported right-wing freedom fighters that would often kill civilians in order to cause pain for popular left-wing governments. Not to mention the fact that he armed and trained Bin Ladin and his group as they fought a resistance movement against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
At that point in time the Soviet Union had far more bark than it did bite (in terms of international influence, internal stability, and economic potential). It's adventure into afghanistan went as well as the America's is becoming this decade. An arms race with the Soviet Union was unnecessary, as was the demonisation of every country that preferred central planning as a means of distribution as opposed to free markets. The inhumanity of communism in the 20th century arised from the totalitarian nature of their political systems, not the economic nature. Of course, whether central planning is a good idea or not is debatable. And I do realise the benefit of hind-sight is extremely handy in cases like this, as Reagan did not know what we know now. However, his willingness to make the lives of many many innocent people suffer in order to contain an ideology was at times barbaric. Quite a few of those people lived in the Middle East, and is part of the roots of the West's present problem with Islamic extremism right now. As Jesus taught, you reap what you sow, and unfortunately both western and arabic civilians have suffered because of it.
Also, as a side note I must say i've never heard Reagan speak charismatically like that. Was interesting to watch!
Timothy,
Hi, I am Lucy. I cannot say I am a 'lover' of Ronald Reagan like some Republicans and one can argue that many Presidents have had to choose the lesser of two evils when trying to protect the U.S. interest. I think we forget that as much as we champion ourselves as the great protectors of humanitarian causes we are first and foremost a country that looks out for our survival. Not always the proudest thing to admit. That is why whenever a President is going to war they do their best to make it a 'moral' cause or else it is hard to get the public behind them and let's face it we are not always in it for moral reasons.
The Soviet Union may have been on the decline but it is important to remember that it does not take a Superpower to wreak havoc with nuclear power. It was important and still is important to maintain military strength. The last thing the United States wants is for Rogue States to get hold of nuclear power. These States not only have the power they now are perfecting the use of this power. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, all have agendas that are directly opposed to the United States. Syria, Libya and Algeria depending on what day also will work against us.
The United States might be against nonproliferation but we can't allow our defenses to break down as others are actively perfecting their systems.
Lastly, central planning has yet to be successful. I do believe that people tend to get frustrated with capitalism when the economy hits a rough patch. It is hard to ride through the down times and it is always attractive to turn to the government or strong leader for saving.
Side note: Reagan was the 'Great Communicator'. He knew how to give a speech. His acting skills greatly helped his political career, no doubt about it.
Hi Tim,
I admire your courage to come here and post your challenging words. Honestly, you were one of the first people who I considered asking to write here. You certianly seem to have the earnesty, but your conservativism is a bit lacking (I doubt you'll disagree there).
Though it is easy for me to disagree in this cozy place where others are inclined to agree with me, I make my case nonetheless.
I find it peculiar that you make a distinction between "central planning" and totalitarian systems. To me they both mean the government is making all your choices. I don't see how you can have the one without the other.
Would you say the Soviet Union was an "evil empire"? Let's not forget that 6 million starved in Afganistan in a single year because of their central planning and 8 million (or more, we're not sure) died in the gulags. To me, this is totally tied to their central planning because they directed so much enegery away from food and toward guns.
You're right, Reagan once supported folks like Osama Bin Laden against the Russians, but that's always the case in foreign policy. For example, the American colonies joined forces with the British to fight the French in the "French and Indian" war, but the sides reversed in our war for independence. I don't think that was hypocritical. Neither France nor Britain was our ally when we fought against them. Maybe one day the US and Austrailia will declare war on each other ... if they do I won't regret our correspondence in the least bit.
The arms race with the Soviet Union was unnecessary, but practically speaking any alternative would have been to let the other side walk all over them. The US had enough military power to take over the world after WWII, but instead used its power for good (the marshal plan, the rebuilding "once the guns are silenced", etc). I'm not sure why the USSR decided it need to check US power, but it did agressively pursue nuclear capabilities at a time of peace when it wasn't being threatened by the US.
As for opposing communist regimes (admittedly that were popular, but I care little about popularity), if we had stopped Castro giving the USSR a sphere of influence in North American, it would have made the free world a lot less vulnerable during the Cold War. Historically speaking, communism has always led to extreme poverty and lots of dead people. Fighting communism is more important to me than democracy. The way I see it, Communism threatened the free world, and that justified our efforts to root it out (even though we did a poor job in places like Vietnam, etc).
Anyway, I fear we have tackled a topic larger in scope than we have the means to cover in depth. I suppose this is my fault. I'd be interested in hearing your response, but don't feel pressured to provide one.
Hi Lucy,
You said it better than me.
Each nation should put its own interests first, I agree. Each individual should put the duty to love one another first. What does public policy have to do with personal policy? Hard to say ...
Hi Lucy,
I can understand a country that is looking out for its own survival, and the fact that the Soviet Union had the nuclear capability to cause mass destruction. The problem I have with Reagan is the way he competed against the Soviet Union by vying for ideological control over third world countries. You can really feel for the many people that had to suffer under terrible regimes that were either propped up by the CIA or Moscow, and the way these two countries would pour arms and resources into the area for them to kill each other. You can't suppress ideologies without creating more dangerous ones. The best example of this is the transition from communist enemies to muslim extremist enemies. What is called "blowback". It is this kind of behaviour that yields any moral high ground that the West can claim, and makes it into a contest between two self-interested and immoral superpowers.
I am against nuclear proliferation, and therefore I don't want to see any of those states you mentioned develop a nuclear weapon. However, I can understand why the Arab states would want one. Israel is as prone to violence as they are, and right now they have a tremendous tactical advantage by possessing a nuclear weapon. The best solution is to pressure the disarmanent of nuclear facilities that have the explicit purpose of developing weapons while disarming Israel, and hopefully some time down the road Pakistan/India. Bombing facilities and invading countries has only hurt their own cause. Furthermore, I think you over-estimate these countries capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, with the possible exception of Iran (and obviously North Korea).
You can hardly blame countries for having agendas that are directly opposed to the US, especially if America's foreign policy has led to alot of suffering within the country. The evil lies in the area of a country's agenda that involves violence and repression, and from a purely objective standpoint America is as guilty in that area as many others.
Central planning as an exclusive means of distribution has not worked well in the modern period, but I believe when the state and private enterprise work together for the social good the best outcome is achieved for everybody. Whether that means i'm a socialist or not is up to other people.
I don't think the economy is merely hitting a "rough patch", and through dissatisfaction the people are looking to a nanny state to take care of them. Rather, I think this situation has revealed the fundamental absurdity of some areas in the financial sector, and how speculating on future prices not only leads to wealth inequality (have you ever met a factory worker who knows how to work over the derivative market, or even knows what the deriative market is?) but a self-collapse as firms get greedier and greedier and repackage securities until all of the risk is seemingly taken away. This has led the comapnies themselves to beg the Government for bail-outs, as they were in over their heads and didn't really know what they were doing. Taking away the ability to speculate on future housing prices and other products would be a good start when restructuring the financial sector, as I believe the status quo has become quite unsatisfactory to many people.
Also, I know Reagan was the great communicator, i'm just too young to remember him as president and when i've studied him it's always been on paper! Anyway, thanks for the comment.
Hi Burning Bush,
It may surprise you that I troll this blog quite frequently! I just don't usually post comments because I don't want to be one of "those" people who just complain and rant and rain on people's parades haha. Even though politically I imagine I disagree a great deal with all of the people that post and comment here, I always like to read what people who are coming from an entirely different perspective has to say on certain things.
I do believe that there is a large distinction between central planning and totalitarian regimes. It is true that both imply state control, but on different areas of society. Central planning is related to the economy, and is actually what "communism" is all about. Marx envisioned (correct me if i'm wrong) an entirely egalitarian hierarchical structure. His mistake, I believe, was to say that while they are transforming society into an egalitarian paradise they need to have a transitional government that has full control over every area of society. Whenever that kind of government is set up, they won't be going anywhere, as absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, there is a difference between the two words. For a good way to illustrate my point check out a site called "political compass", it measures political beliefs using two axes. One for economic policy (unregulated free markets vs. central planning) and one for social structure (authoritarian vs. libertarian). Stalin was on the top left (central planning and authoritarian), Hitler was top right (free markets and authoritarian), ghandi/me/greens parties are usually moderate left and moderate down (central planning and libertarian). Of course it gets difficult, and lines get blurred from time to time.
I'm not for central planning personally, instead I prefer strong Government intervention into markets. I would definentely call the Soviet Union as an evil empire. As deplorable as US foreign policy was at times, in terms of lives lost it never compares to Stalin and Mao's effect on their countries.
I'm not claiming that Reagan was unique in how he supported his enemies enemy, but I believe in general it has always led to horrible results, and should be criticised with any given opportunity. There's no mistake that the Soviet Union was more aggressive and paranoid at the start of the Cold War, but eventually they were both playing the same game in third world countries trying to prevent the opposing ideology from gaining precedence. With little regard for the lives of the people that lived in those countries.
There's no doubt that preventing Cuba from being a communist regime would have helped America, but the conversation has drifted from morality and normative statements into tactical advantage. We had missiles pointed into Soviet territory in Europe, they wanted the same privelege against America. When the Cuban missile crises took place Americans believed that it was a great evil that the Soviet Union was committing. In reality, it's exactly what they did to the Soviets. The same thing happened when Rice criticised Russia for invading south ossetia, and condemning Iran from wanting to possess nuclear weapons. I'm not claiming these things should have happened, just that morally speaking it's pretty similar to America's behaviour.
Communism killed people because it was being used by murderous men. You used the example of converting food into guns. Even if I was a communist i'd never suggest such a practice, and would probably want the reverse to happen. The whole idea of communism, as I understand it, is to bring everyone to equality and allow them to share the same resources so no one is left without. The way that Christian philosophy intersects with this ideology is through the idea of the brotherhood of all men, and the immorality of riches. Marx expressed it as the inevitable result of class warfare and the oppressed masses. Stalin and Mao used the ideology for their own terrible ends. I don't think you can blame the economic philosophy when the result would have been just as horrible if these men came to power under an extremely right-wing economic platform.
Thanks for the comment!
Tim,
Hello again. I am glad you post. It is nice to debate!
You will be to young for this comment, so please look this song up.
I like John Lennon's song
"Imagine" and think you would too.
Countries do not take moral high grounds, in the end they must put their vital interest first or they will cease to exist. There is no way Israel will give up their arsenal of defense in area 'gunning' for them.
In addition, American foreign policy has always been questionable not just during the Cold War. Also, is it our job to 'fix the global world' or 'enforce our ideals on others?' To me, it seems we are damned if we do or damned if we don't. I personally, think we need to stay out of a lot of foreign affairs, and I mean totally out. We give a lot of money for Humanitarian causes that could be better spent right here at home. Lastly, don't ever underestimate the underdog. They will fight to the end to be the top dog and if you don't mind the U.S. losing then we should consider demilitarizing but eventhough the United States is flawed I much rather live under our flawed system them some of the other alternative systems out there.
As far as bailouts for companies the government should not do it anymore than they should continue to bailout individuals who refuse to help themselves.
A government that controls your life would be a sad state of affairs and really do you think a government could make everyone even?
Like I said, I like John Lennon's song "Imagine" but I'm afraid it is just not possible.
Governments are run by people with power and they would have to agree on how to even everything out for the rest of us. And you keep refering to a moral high ground. Who decides on what the moral high ground is? Not everybody agrees on what is fair? In addition, Governments have to be 'watched' themselves for corruption.
So, should the government decide everybody's paycheck? Does the government decide the price of everything? How would houseing work? If you have a family then you get this type home at this price and a single person gets this type of home at this price and so on. I am not sure I would like that life at all.
Is that how you see it?
Right now, what is nice in our country is the factory worker can learn about the derivative market if they so choose and you would be surprised at how many factory workers invest their money. My brother in law has been a factory worker for 25 years and he has quite a portfolio, can't wait to retire. He is young, since he started right out of high school so he plans on working until he has been with the factory for 35 years. Not a stupid guy at all! He chose to learn about investing. People have a choice to do what they want with their money.
Unfortunately, it is a harsh world and there are the have's and the have not's, I just don't think the answer to fixing that problem is the government.
I believe that is a human being problem and one we have been struggling with since the beginning of time.
We can only "Imagine"
Ahem, it seems I made another slip posting as ... someone else. I need to work on keeping my psuedonyms straight ...
A thorough response. I think you basically responded to everything I brought up, although I admit I didn't look too closely. I still think you're one of "those people", though (just kidding).
"However, I can understand why the Arab states would want one. Israel is as prone to violence as they are,"
It seems to me like the wars between Israel and the Arab states start by the Arabs ganging up to "wipe Israel off the map" and then losing territory. I can't think of any time Rabin or Netandyahoo proposed wiping Iran or Syria off the map. Several of those governments probably deserve exactly that ... Israel is such a tiny speck with no oil and the Arabs control so much land and resources. I don't understand why they hate Israel so much.
As for Marx, it sounds like you are proposing a successful move to communism could be made without a transitional society (although you seem to be advocating a mixed government like Japan, perhaps). It's not so much to me that Mao and Stalin were communists who ruined their countries. It's more like: Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Kim Jong Ill, and arguably Putin. There are a lot of South American, Eastern European, and African examples that are lesser known as well. Are there examples of great communist leaders? Well, perhaps Gorbachav and Hsu for steering their countries away from communism.
Christianity and communism have some commonality, as you say, and that commonality can be summed up in one word: appearances. If there's a poor person on the street and you see his need and pay for his meal you are truly that man's brother. If the police come and split your belongings and redistrubite them to you and the man, can you say that you really love him? Or can it be said that the government has the capacity to love him?
Some questions to consider. Ideally I would start some kind of Soviet thread so we could move this discussion to a more accessible post, but we may be trapped here for some time.
In any case, I thank you for your "trolling". Trolls like Timothy are always welcome here!
Post a Comment
<< Home