Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History (141 page)

What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term—the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that’s why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our zero-option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces and. our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads.

Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.

The British people know that, given strong leadership, time, and a little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-government, the Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God.

I’ve often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. This reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds me of the elderly lady whose home was bombed in the blitz. As the rescuers moved about, they found a bottle of brandy she’d stored behind the staircase, which was all that was left standing. And since she was barely conscious, one of the workers pulled the cork to give her a taste of it. She came around immediately and said, “Here now—there now, put it back. That’s for emergencies.”

Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.

During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain’s adversaries, “What kind of people do they think we are?” Well, Britain’s adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, “What kind of people do we think we are?” And let us answer, “Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.”

Sir Winston led his people to great victory in war and then lost an election just as the fruits of victory were about to be enjoyed. But he left office honorably and, as it turned out, temporarily, knowing that the liberty of his people was more important than the fate of any single leader. History recalls his greatness in ways no dictator will ever know. And he left us a message of hope for the future, as timely now as when he first uttered it, as opposition leader in the Commons nearly twenty-seven years ago, when he said, “When we look back on all the perils through which we have passed and at the mighty foes that we have laid low and all the dark and deadly designs that we have frustrated, why should we fear for our future? We have,” he said, “come safely through the worst.”

Well, the task I’ve set forth will long outlive our own generation. But together, we too have come through the worst. Let us now begin a major effort to secure the best—a crusade for freedom that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation. For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.

A Georgetown University political science professor wrote an article in
Commentary
magazine titled “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” an unapologetic assertion of American foreign policy values that brought her to the attention of Ronald Reagan. From 1981 to 1985, as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick spoke out dramatically, usually didactically, and not always diplomatically against Soviet expansionism; she became known as one of the hawks among the Reagan advisers.

At the Republican National Convention in Dallas on August 20, 1984, she went on the attack against her fellow Democrats, in support of Reagan’s reelection. An accomplished writer and lecturer, accustomed to intellectual combat, she knew that a convention hall political speech required a more striking and polemical style, and she received help in framing this speech from conservative columnist William F. Buckley, Jr.

The purpose was to attract Democrats away from their party, as Mrs. Kirkpatrick had been drawn, by pointing to a dismaying self-flagellation practiced by some Democratic doves. Her point was that the best way to peace was through strength, an argument that she emphasized twice with “and we are at peace”; her reinforcing theme was pride in American accomplishments. She selected a villain (as Demosthenes showed, a speech does well with a villain) who was not the Democratic candidate, undislikable Walter Mondale, but the activists who dominated the television screens at the recent Democratic convention in San Francisco. These “San Francisco Democrats”—supposedly far from the mainstream Democrats who watched at home—were those who “blamed America first.” The use of that phrase was skillful, recalling the isolationist America-firsters who did not see the danger in Hitler.

The speech stung Democrats who did not want to be seen as the party of
minorities and complainers; that was its goal. Ambassador Kirkpatrick was not chosen to be secretary of state, however, and left the UN post to resume her teaching and writing in her more accustomed analytical style.

***

THIS IS THE
first Republican convention I have ever attended. I am grateful that you should invite me, a lifelong Democrat; on the other hand, I realize you are today inviting many lifelong Democrats to join our common cause….

I shall speak tonight of foreign affairs, even though the other party’s convention barely touched the subject. When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich—convinced it could shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand.

Today, foreign policy is central to the security, to the freedom, to the prosperity, even to the survival of the United States. And
our
strength, for which we make many sacrifices, is essential to the independence and freedom of our allies and of our friends.

Ask yourself, What would become of Europe if the United States withdrew? What would become of Africa if Europe fell under Soviet domination? What would become of Europe if the Middle East came under Soviet control? What would become of Israel, if surrounded by Soviet client states? What would become of Asia if the Philippines or Japan fell under Soviet domination? What would become of Mexico if Central America became a Soviet satellite? What then could the United States do?

These are questions the San Francisco Democrats have not answered. These are questions they have not even
asked
.

The United States cannot remain an open, democratic society if we are left alone—a garrison state in a hostile world. We need independent nations with which to trade, to consult, and cooperate. We need friends and allies with whom to share the pleasures and protection of our civilization. We cannot, therefore, be indifferent to the subversion of others’ independence or to the development of new weapons by our adversaries or of new vulnerabilities by our friends.

The last Democratic administration did not seem to notice much, care much, or do much about these matters. And at home and abroad, our country slid into deep trouble. North and South, East and West, our relations deteriorated.

The Carter administration’s motives were good, but their policies were inadequate, uninformed, and mistaken. They made things worse, not
better. Those who had least, suffered most. Poor countries grew poorer. Rich countries grew poorer, too. The United States grew weaker.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union grew stronger. The Carter administration’s unilateral “restraint” in developing and deploying new weapon systems was accompanied by an unprecedented Soviet buildup, military and political.

The Soviets, working on the margins and through the loopholes of SALT I, developed missiles of stunning speed and accuracy and targeted the cities of our friends in Europe. They produced weapons capable of wiping out our land-based missiles. And then, feeling strong, Soviet leaders moved with boldness and skill to exploit their new advantages. Facilities were completed in Cuba during those years that permit Soviet nuclear submarines to roam our coasts, that permit Soviet planes to fly reconnaissance missions over the eastern United States, and permit Soviet electronic surveillance to monitor our telephone calls and telegrams.

Those were the years the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran, while in Nicaragua the Sandinistas developed a one-party dictatorship based on the Cuban model.

From the fall of Saigon in 1975 until January 1981, Soviet influence expanded dramatically—into Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Yemen, Libya, Syria, Aden, Congo, Madagascar, Seychelles, and Grenada. Soviet bloc forces sought to guarantee what they call the “irreversibility” of their newfound influence and to stimulate insurgencies in a dozen other places. During this period, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, murdered its president, and began a ghastly war against the Afghan people.

The American people were shocked by these events. We were greatly surprised to learn of our diminished economic and military strength; we were demoralized by the treatment of our hostages in Iran, and we were outraged by harsh attacks on the United States in the United Nations. As a result, we lost confidence in ourselves and in our government.

Jimmy Carter looked for an explanation for all these problems and thought he found it in the American people. But the people knew better. It was not malaise we suffered from, it was Jimmy Carter—and Walter Mondale.

And so in 1980 the American people elected a very different president. The election of Ronald Reagan marked an end to the dismal period of retreat and decline. His inauguration, blessed by the simultaneous release of our hostages, signaled an end to the most humiliating episode in our national history.

The inauguration of President Reagan signaled a reaffirmation of historic
American ideals. Ronald Reagan brought to the presidency confidence in the American experience; confidence in the legitimacy and success of American institutions; confidence in the decency of the American people, and confidence in the relevance of our experience to the rest of the world.

That confidence has proved contagious. Our nation’s subsequent recovery in domestic and foreign affairs, the restoration of our economic and military strength, has silenced talk of inevitable American decline and reminded the world of the advantages of freedom.

President Reagan faced a stunning challenge, and he met it. In the three and one-half years since his inauguration, the United States has grown stronger, safer, more confident,
and we are at peace
….

And at each step of the way, the same people who were responsible for America’s decline have insisted that the president’s policies would fail.

They said we could never deploy missiles to protect Europe’s cities. But today Europe’s cities enjoy that protection.

They said it would never be possible to hold elections in El Salvador, because the people were too frightened and the country too disorganized. But the people of El Salvador proved them wrong, and today President Napoléon Duarte has impressed the democratic world with his skillful, principled leadership.

They said we could not use America’s strength to help others—Sudan, Chad, Central America, the Gulf states, the Caribbean nations—without being drawn into war. But we have helped others resist Soviet, Libyan, and Cuban subversion,
and we are at peace
.

They said that saving Grenada from totalitarianism and terror was the wrong thing to do—they didn’t blame Cuba or the Communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadans—they blamed the United States instead. But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

When our marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the “blame America first crowd” did not blame the terrorists who murdered the marines, they blamed the United States. But then, they always blame America first.

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats did not blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States. But then, they always blame America first.

When Marxists dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats do not blame the guerrillas and their Soviet
allies, they blame United States policies of one hundred years ago. But then, they always blame America first.

The American people know better. They know that Ronald Reagan and the United States did not cause the Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, or the repression of Poland, or the brutal new offensives in Afghanistan, or the destruction of the Korean airliner, or new attacks on religious and ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, or the jamming of Western broadcasts, or the denial of Jewish emigration, or the brutal imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky and Ida Nudel, or the obscene treatment of Andrey Sakharov and Elena Bonner, or the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.

The American people also know that it is dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems we did not cause. They understand just as the distinguished French writer Jean-François Revel understands the danger of endless self-criticism and self-denigration. He wrote, “Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.”