Replies

I just jumped back on this thread for a quick scan, and its not surprising that its still going strong.

Mon...I'm glad that people have gotten away from the one line 'Peggy is a b*itch!...no shes not!' type posts.

Just a few more of my two cents worth. I'm excerpting Meg33 post on Reagan's speech...

Reagan said.." I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction. 34

We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress. 35

America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally. 36

And it is the world's only hope, to conquer poverty and preserve peace."

Reagan is a perfect model to use to ultimately compare and judge Bush's speech. Reagan, who IMHO will be ultimately be judged by history as the greatest American president of the 20th century, was a perfect combination of idealism...and pragmatism.

His vision, IMO was guided by an idealism,as you see in the speech...but he always framed it within the context of American peace and security, and its relationship to what the world IS...and how it functions...Reagan was no fool. Note that in his comments preceding his exposition on freedom, he talks about SDI...quite the pragmatist.

His steely determination to proceed ahead with SDI, much to the chagrin of Gorbachev, and the other 'peace' activists, was what ultimately brought down the Soviet Union. As Washington once said...'We strive for peace, let us prepare for war'...(my recollection of it)

From my post 212.. "I fully support our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will fully support our efforts should we go into Iran, or Syria, or wherever...provided it is necessary to secure OUR peace and freedom."

My criteria IMO is in accordance with Reagan's, we must ultimately judge our actions as they relate to OUR peace, freedom, and security. That is the pragmatism...the reality of the world.

I believe that Peggys criticism of Bush's speech, and with others who echo it on this thread, is that Bush's speech is framed within the context of pursuing an ideal of freedom for all the world, as an intrinsically noble goal in itself. That is subtly, but definately different than the Reagan approach, in my view.

Another point that should be stated.

A speech is just a speech...a collection of words. We judge a speech ultimately within its historical context. Reagan's exhortation "Mr Gorbachev...tear down this wall" is judged as monumental because of the fact that those words were part of the Reagan assault that ultimately did bring down the Soviet empire, and the wall along with it.

Bush's speech will ultimately be judged in the same perspective. Its too early to tell what effect Bush's speech will have on the dynamics of the world. Will it lead the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the mullahs..if so...it will go down in history as a pivotal speech.

We have many tests coming (China, Taiwan, Iran) in which Bushs speech and its soaring idealism will be measured. But the speech must ultimately be judged in the context of Americas achievements of greater peace and security of its citizens.

True..Reagan was constantly criticized...and now he is found correct..except by the left who says Gorbachev was the reason the cold war ended..(Putin seems bent on restarting it.IMHO)

Good post. Thanks!

I see your distinction between Reagan and Bush's words in the speech, but IMO, the security and peace of this nation are by far the highest priority in this President's policies. The freedom of others, which he DOES believe is a noble goal in and of itself, is a noble means to a critically important end.

One addendum to my post above:

I stated that peace, freedom and security for the American people is the gold standard by which we must measure all the actions of the federal government.

Let me also add that we have been given the framework to measure and pursue those objectives by our founding fathers..

The Constitution
The Declaration of Independence
The Federalist papers