"The Right Angle"

Heidi Parent

Reagan Redo?

President Bush in England

by Heidi Parent
12/01/03

Three years into his Administration, you'd think I'd be used to it by now. But the more I see President Bush's approach to foreign affairs, the more I notice similarities to President Reagan. (His handling of some domestic issues, on the other hand - other than tax cuts - is another article for another time.) But when it comes for foreign policy, Bush and Reagan were definitely cut from the same cloth. And boy, was this ever apparent during the President's recent address in England. It brought to mind the speech President Reagan gave before the British Parliament in June 1982.

Both speeches make it clear that despite the unpopularity of their positions with the anti-war crowd, or the anti-nuke crowd in Reagan's case, the positions were taken not because they were popular but because they were right.

Listen to this from Reagan's speech: "If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma--predictions of doomsday, anti-nuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human spirit. What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?"

Sounds much like Bush's line: "There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views. Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force."

And much to the chagrin of the anti-war crowd, Bush minced no words in laying out his intentions in Iraq: "Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: to keep our word, or to break our word. The failure of democracy in Iraq would throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us. Yet democracy will succeed in Iraq, because our will is firm, our word is good, and the Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom…. The terrorists have a purpose, a strategy to their cruelty. They view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat to their ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe their acts of terror against our coalition, against international aid workers and against innocent Iraqis, will make us recoil and retreat. In this, they are mistaken."

Both men also clearly recognize the threat weapons of mass destruction pose when in the hands of the wrong people.

Here's Bush's speech: "These terrorists target the innocent, and they kill by the thousands. And they would, if they gain the weapons they seek, kill by the millions and not be finished. The greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them."

Sounds like Reagan's line, "Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe--indeed, the world--would look very different today."

Both speeches respond to skeptics who predict attempts to spread democracy around the globe will fail.

First, Bush: "Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking. In the West, there's been a certain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-government. We're told that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a democratic culture. Yet more than half of the world's Muslims are today contributing citizens in democratic societies. It is suggested that the poor, in their daily struggles, care little for self-government. Yet the poor, especially, need the power of democracy to defend themselves against corrupt elites. Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of personal responsibility, and a need for freedom as deep as our own. It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it."

Reminiscent of Reagan's line about the possibility of democracy in the Soviet Union, "This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity."

Both men also clearly believe it is their duty to spread democracy and freedom wherever possible.

Two lines from Reagan's speech: "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.'" And, "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."

Bush's take: "In our conflict with terror and tyranny, we have an unmatched advantage, a power that cannot be resisted, and that is the appeal of freedom to all mankind." And, "We will encourage the strength and effectiveness of international institutions. We will use force when necessary in the defense of freedom. And we will raise up an ideal of democracy in every part of the world. On these three pillars we will build the peace and security of all free nations in a time of danger."

And both speeches also predict an untimely end to tyrannical governments.

First, Reagan: "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 Bush's prediction: "Many governments are realizing that theocracy and dictatorship do not lead to national greatness; they end in national ruin."

When Reagan gave his speech, to say it didn't go over very well with his opponents would be a huge understatement. Reagan's prediction that the Soviet Union would wind up on the "ash heap of history" sent millions of Liberal Nervous Nellies into a hand-wringing frenzy. To the No Nukes crowd this line just solidified their view of Reagan as a war-mongering cowboy (sound familiar?) with his trigger finger just itching to push the button. Bush's opponents view him in much the same way. They oppose the hard line he is taking with the terrorists and would rather see him employ a kinder, gentler approach.

If you're not sure where you stand, consider this. Less then ten years after his speech, history proved Reagan right and the No Nukes crowd wrong. His policies ended the Cold War as Margaret Thatcher said, "without firing a single shot." But had Reagan followed the advice of the anti-nuke crowd, the Soviet Union would still be around today spreading its tyranny across the globe. You think the War on Terror is scary now, imagine al Qaeda with the USSR backing them! But thanks to Reagan, the Soviet Union did end up on the ash heap of history.

With Bush taking the same hard line approach in the War on Terror that Reagan took in the Cold War, is there any doubt we won't be just as victorious?