Televised Address by
Governor Ronald Reagan “A Strategy for Peace in the ‘80s”
10/19/1980
Good Evening.
Three months ago, in
accepting the nomination of my party to be its presidential candidate, I said:
“Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of
lasting world peace.”
Since I spoke those
words, I have had the chance to visit with Americans like you, all across the
nation. I have brought that same message
of peace as our primary goal.
But it hasn’t all been
one-sided. I have had the chance not
only to talk with you but also to listen to you about the course you believe
our country should take. We have, in a
way, been holding a national conversation together on the future of our
country.
Tonight, I want to
continue my part of that ongoing conversation, and offer what I believe are
ways in which peace can be assured for every American family and for the world.
But before I do, I’d
like to speak to you for a few moments now, not as a candidate for the
Presidency, but as a citizen, a parent – in fact, a grandparent – who shares
with you the deep and abiding hope for peace.
I revere, as I know you
do, the American tradition of free and reasoned discussion of our complex
issues. That is why I have participated
in six debates since I became a candidate for President. And that is why I have stated my willingness
to engage President Carter in his first debate.
The great tradition of
reasoned exchange of views has not exactly characterized all the rhetoric of
this campaign. My own views have been
distorted in what I can only conclude is an effort to scare people through innuendoes
and misstatements of my positions.
Possibly Mr. Carter is
gambling that his long litany of fear will somehow influence enough voters to
save him from the inevitable consequences of the policies of his administration
which have brought so much human misery.
I am confident he will
lose that gamble. I think the American
people know – to paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt – that the only thing the cause
of peace has to fear is fear itself.
Let us base our
decisions about peace and security on the facts, on what we need to know and
not on what we are told we must fear.
There can be no doubt
about what is the major issue in this campaign concerning the question of
peace.
It is whether you
believe Mr. Carter’s words and deeds have brought the United States closer to
or further away from the goal of peace based on confidence in the strength of
our nation.
As a presidential
candidate four years ago, he said: “…it is imperative that the world know that
we will meet obligations and commitments to our allies and that we will keep
our nation strong.”
Did he keep his
promise? That’s the real peace issue in
1980. And that’s an issue for you to
decide. Has he kept our nation strong? Are you willing to risk four more years of
what we have now? Has the registration
and the possible draft of your sons and daughters contributed to your peace of
mind? Is the world safer for you and
your family?
Whatever else history
may say about my candidacy. I hope it
will be recorded that I appealed to our best hopes, not our worst fears, to our
confidence rather than our doubts, to the facts, and not to fantasies.
And these three – hope,
confidence, and facts – are at the heart of my vision of peace.
We have heard the phrase
“peace through strength” so often, its meaning has become blurred through
overuse.
The time has come for
America to recall once more the basic truths behind the familiar words.
Peace is made by
the fact of strength – economic, military, and strategic.
Peace is lost when
such strength disappears or – just as bad – is seen by an adversary as
disappearing.
We must build peace upon
strength. There is no other way. And the cold, hard fact of the matter is that
our economic, military, and strategic strength under President Carter is
eroding.
Only if we are
strong will peace be strong.
Throughout Scripture, we
see reference to peace-makers – those who through their actions – not just
their words – take the material of this imperfect world and, with hard work and
God’s help, fashion from that material peace for the world.
In recent weeks you’ve
been hearing from a lot of other people as to what they say I believe about
peace. Well, tonight let me tell you what I believe.
Understanding of how
peace is obtained – through competence and hard work, confidence, and patience
– must guide and inspire this nation in the years ahead.
And at the center of
such peace-making is the need to restore our historic American tradition of
bipartisanship.
The cause of peace knows
no party. The cause of peace transcends personal ambition. The cause of peace
demands appeals for unity, not appeals to divisiveness.
These are truisms – which
Mr. Carter has forgotten – or chosen to ignore.
Senator Ted Kennedy said
earlier this year, in reference to him, that “no president should be reelected
because he happened to be standing there when his foreign policy collapsed
around him.”
I cannot believe this
administration’s defense policies reflect the thinking of millions of
rank-and-file Democrat party members. The Carter administration, dominated as
it is by the McGovernite wing of the party, has broken sharply with the views
and policies of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and many contemporary Democratic
leaders.
A great American
tradition of bipartisanship – where domestic political differences end at the
water’s edge – has been lost at a time when we are faced with growing
instability and crisis abroad. I believe the bipartisan tradition is too deep
and sound to be destroyed by one man in the space of four years, but still,
damage has been done and it will take a determined effort to repair it.
I pledge, if elected
President, to take every step necessary to restore the bipartisan tradition in
American national security and foreign policy; to work with congressional
leaders of both parties to design and conduct a truly bipartisan tradition in
American national security and foreign policy. And, I intend to have this
bipartisan spirit reflected during my presidency in key foreign and defense
policy appointive positions. As in the past, our domestic differences will end
at the water’s edge.
In the next few minutes,
I would like to outline for you nine specific steps that I will take to put
America on a sound, secure footing in the international arena. Working closely
with the Congress, I propose to accomplish these steps with the support of an
informed American public. Here are the steps:
Reorganizing the
Policy-Making Structure
The present
administration has been unable to speak with one voice in foreign policy. This
must change. My administration will restore leadership to U.S. foreign policy
by organizing it in a more coherent way.
An early priority will
be to make structural changes in the foreign policy-making machinery so that
the Secretary of State will be the President’s principal spokesman and adviser.
The National Security
Council will once again be the coordinator of the policy process. Its mission
will be to assure that the President receives an orderly, balanced flow of
information and analysis. The National Security Adviser will work closely in teamwork
with the Secretary of State and the other members of the Council.
My goal also will be to
build and utilize a diplomatic corps with language proficiency, and
organizational and professional skills, and to insure the safety of our
representatives on duty overseas. We can restore pride and effectiveness in our
foreign policy establishment by putting an end to kidnapping and murder of our
public servants in service abroad.
Relations with
Friends and Adversaries
With effective machinery
in place, we must first address the conduct of our relations with our allies,
with the Soviet Union, and with the People’s Republic of China.
Confidence and trust in
the United States has fallen to an all-time low. This must be reversed. The
United States has an important leadership role, and this role can be effective
only if our alliances are cemented by unity of purpose and mutual respect.
Worldwide, our allies
are stronger, most are robust and healthy. But the challenge of the 1980s is to
assemble that strength in a manner which allows us to pursue the objective of
peace together. If our alliances are divided, only our adversaries benefit.
With our allies, we can
conduct a realistic and balanced policy toward the Soviet Union. I am convinced
that the careful management of our relationship with the Soviet Union depends
on a principled, consistent American foreign policy. We seek neither
confrontation nor conflict, but to avoid both, we must remain strong and
determined to protect our interests.
Our relationship with the
People’s Republic of China is in its beginning stages. It is one that can and
will grow, and I repeat my intention to assist its rapid growth. There is an
historic bond of friendship between the American and Chinese peoples, and I
will work to amplify it wherever possible. Expanded trade, cultural contact and
other arrangements will all serve the cause of preserving and extending the
ties between our two countries.
A Realistic Policy
for the Western Hemisphere
No area of the world
should have a higher priority than the place where we live, the Western
Hemisphere. My administration will forge a new, more realistic policy toward
our own Hemisphere as an integral part of my program for peace.
In four years, Mr.
Carter’s administration has managed to alienate our friends in the Hemisphere,
to encourage the destabilization of governments, and to permit Cuban and Soviet
influence to grow.
We must take steps to
change the Carter administration’s sorry record of vacillation, alienation, and
neglect in the region.
Our relations must be
solidly based on shared economic and security interests, not upon mutual
recrimination and insult.
We will initiate a
program of intensive economic development with cooperating countries in the
Caribbean. Many of these countries were given their independence and then
promptly forgotten. In their natural resentment, some have turned to extremist
models – fertile ground for Cuban meddling. Our programs will assist them both
financially and technically to make the best use of their resources in
agriculture, industry, and tourism.
Closer to home, I have
spoken before of my belief that we should work toward a North American Accord
with our immediate neighbors, Mexico and Canada. This would take the form of
broadened, more open lines of communication between us to seek ways in which we
can strengthen our traditional friendship. If Canada and Mexico are stronger,
our entire Hemisphere benefits.
A Policy to Assist
African and Third World Development
Our relationship with
what has often been called the “Third World” must form an important part of any
program for peace. A strong American economy and the spirit of our free
enterprise system have a great deal to offer the poorer, less developed nations
of the world. Africans, for example, look to us and our industrial allies for
the dominant share of their export markets, for their investment capital, for
official aid, and for technical know-how.
Yet, the flow of
American investment to Africa continues at only a trickle, and our export
promotion has been neglected.
My administration will
recognize that investment from the private sector – know-how, technology, and
marketing assistance – is the key to African development. Government will help
promote this, not intervene to make it more difficult.
Sending the American
Message
Proclaiming the American
message is a vital step in the program for peace.
I will strengthen the
United States International Communication Agency, including the Voice of
America. We will also strengthen Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Compared
with other costs of our national security, the dollar amounts involved in this
are small. What is needed most is a sense of conviction, the conviction that by
carrying the American message abroad we strengthen the foundation of peace.
The current
administration has permitted these vital efforts to decline.
For instance, the United
States has been unable to broadcast to a majority of the Afghan people during
these critical years, yet all the while Soviet-sponsored broadcasts were
stirring up hatred toward America throughout the Islamic world.
For our long-term
strategy, the communication of our ideals must become part of our strategy for
peace.
We have a story to tell
about the differences between the two systems now competing for the hearts and
minds of mankind. There is the poverty and despair in the emerging nations who
adopt Marxist totalitarianism and, by contrast, the freedom and prosperity of
free market countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore.
A Realistic Strategic
Arms Reduction Policy
As the next requirement
for a program for peace, I would assign a high priority to strategic arms
reduction. I have repeatedly said in this campaign that I will sit down with
the Soviet Union for as long as it takes to negotiate a balanced and equitable
arms limitation agreement, designed to improve the prospects for peace. To
succeed at arms control, however, we must first be honest with ourselves so
that we can be convincing with the Soviets.
We must honestly face
the facts of the arms competition in which we are caught. And, we must have a
view of the world that is consistent with these facts and that does not change
to suit different audiences. The Carter administration told Congress that the
Soviet Union has long been investing about three times as much as we have in
strategic arms and is expected to continue doing so, with or without SALT – the
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty.
The Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, controlled by a Democratic majority, in a narrow vote came
out for the Treaty, but only after more than 20 changes had been made. Then, on
December 20, 1979, the Senate Armed Services Committee, also controlled by a
Democratic majority, voted 10-0 with seven abstentions to adopt a report which concluded
– and I urge you to listen closely to these words: “that the SALT II Treaty as
it now stands, is not in the national security interests of the United States of
America.” Finally, Mr. Carter could not even muster the necessary votes to pass
his SALT Treaty in the United States Senate – yes, controlled by a Democratic
majority – even before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
It would appear that
members of his own party are trying to tell Mr. Carter something is flawed in
his approach to arms limitation.
Please listen to the
following statement:
“I must admit that I am
not at all pleased that those of us expressing reservations and concern
regarding the Treaty are characterized by some as warmongers.”
Ladies and gentlemen,
that statement was made by a Democratic Senator, a Marine veteran, a former
astronaut, and a man who, in 1976, Jimmy Carter considered for his
vice-presidential running mate – John Glenn of Ohio.
I think it’s time that
you, the American people, heard some straight talk about Mr. Carter’s SALT II
Treaty. The real truth about that Treaty is that Mr. Carter himself doomed its
fate from the moment it was negotiated. It has been effectively blocked, not by
Ronald Reagan, but by the United States Senate – your elected representatives
from all over the nation, fulfilling their constitutional obligation to advise
and consent on treaties. It has been critically denounced by dozens of the most
eminent scholars and knowledgeable analysts, Democrat as well as Republican.
As president, I will
make immediate preparation for negotiations on a SALT III Treaty. My goal is to
begin arms reductions. My energies will be directed at reducing
destructive nuclear weaponry in the world – and doing it in such a way as to
protect fully the critical security requirements of our nation.
The way to avoid an arms
race is not simply to let the Soviets race ahead. We need to remove their
incentive to race ahead by making it clear to them that we can and will compete
if need be, at the same time we tell them that we prefer to halt this
competition and reduce the nuclear arsenals by patient negotiation.
Restoring the Quality
of our Armed Forces
Restoring a sense of
pride in their careers for the men and women in our armed services is another
important element of my program for peace. We must direct our attention to the
urgent manpower needs of our services. In defense matters, we hear much about
hardware, not enough about people. The most important part of our military
strength is the people involved – their quality, their training, and their
welfare. We must do all in our power to make sure they are well-trained and
well-equipped, that they feel proud and secure in their jobs and that their
economic sacrifice is not out of proportion to what we ask of them. The
economic policies of the Carter administration have made life especially
difficult for our men and women in uniform and for their families.
We can reverse this
situation. We can implement a program of compensation and benefits for military
personnel that is comparable to what is available in the private sector. I will
ask Congress to reinstate the G.I. Bill, a program which was directly
responsible for the most rapid advance ever in the educational level of our
population. Our country must provide our service personnel and their families
with the security, the incentives, and the quality of life to compensate for
the sacrifices they make on our behalf.
Combating
International Terrorism
Let us turn now to the
need for the United States to assume a leadership role in curbing the spread of
international terrorism. In sharing the outrage against terrorism, I will
direct the resources of my administration against this scourge of civilization
and toward expansion of our cooperation with other nations in combating
terrorism in its many forms.
Terrorists seek to
undermine, paralyze and, finally, destroy democratic governments. Israel has
long been the victim of the most wanton acts of terrorism. Our allies in Europe
and elsewhere have experienced terrorism with increasing frequency.
Terrorist organizations
have enjoyed the support – covert and open – of the Soviet Union. In Iran,
terrorism has been elevated to the level of national policy in the assault on
the U.S. Embassy and the year-long captivity of our fellow-citizens. The
tactics and philosophy of the Palestine Liberation Organization are also based
on terrorism.
We must restore the
ability of the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies to keep us informed and
forewarned about terrorist activities and we must take the lead in forging an
international consensus that firmness and refusal to concede or to pay ransom
are ultimately the only effective deterrents to terrorism.
Restoring Our Margin
of Safety for Peace
An important step – perhaps
the most important of all – in a systematic program for peace is to restore the
margin of safety for peace in our defense program by working closely with the
Congress on a long-term program designed to meet our needs throughout this
critical decade.
We must ask ourselves,
is America more secure? Are we more confident of peace in the world than we
were just four years ago? You know the answer to those questions: it is “no.”
President Ford left a
long-range defense program designed to keep America strong throughout the 80s.
He recognized that, after years of negotiation, the Soviet Union was still bent
upon surpassing the United States in overall strategic strength.
Wisely, he did not give
up on arms control negotiations, but sought to provide us with an “insurance
policy” in the form of a balanced program to keep us from falling behind.
But, the Carter
administration, in its haste to make good on a reckless campaign promise to cut
defense spending by billions of dollars, insisted on a policy of systematic
concessions in defense and in arms control negotiations.
Now I’ve criticized the
President, I will admit, for not having kept his campaign promises. But in this
case, I’m sorry to say, he did keep his promise. He has weakened our defense
capability and wiped out our margin of safety.
My task as President
will be to strengthen our defenses and to lead our allies in a sustained and
prudent effort to keep us, and the entire world, secure from confrontation. The
preservation of peace will require the best resources we can marshal in this
precarious decade. We can marshal them by reaffirming our national purpose, by
reasserting our will and determination, and by regaining our economic vitality.
But each of these
approaches to establishing a real peace must rest on the firm underpinning of a
strong American economy.
Tragically, the weakened
state of America’s economy has significantly affected our ability to have the
strongest possible foreign and defense policies. Maintaining our strength
requires having our people in productive jobs, not in unemployment lines. It
requires having our citizens confident that their future will not continue to
be eroded away by incredibly high inflation and interest rates. It demands a
strong dollar that encourages other nations to trust us.
Our inflation has
especially undermined the dollar and has upset world markets. Our trading
partners now question our reliability. And when they question our economic
reliability, they begin to question our reliability as a strong ally.
Our failed energy
policies have caused many of our allies to blame the United States for the
world’s energy problem as much as OPEC. Neglect of energy realities diminishes
our diplomatic strength. But worse, our dependence on imported oil also weakens
our strategic position.
We can indeed make
peace. We can have the peace we want for ourselves and for our children. We are
going to have to work hard and think hard and act with competence and with
confidence – but it can be done.
And, as we work, we will
have to be inspired by the vision of what our country means to us and to the
world.
In recent weeks, I have
had that vision of our nation’s meaning brought to my attention in a very
personal way.
The home in which Nancy
and I are temporarily living in the Virginia countryside during this campaign
is only a relatively short distance away from the home of a great American
President, Thomas Jefferson.
In his first Inaugural
Address, Jefferson spoke of “the preservation of the general government in its
whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and our
safety abroad.” He knew that peace in the world depended on the strength of our
nation in its “whole constitutional vigor.”
Jefferson loved America
and the cause of peace too – too much ever to give in or appeal to fear and
doubt.
I have known four wars
in my lifetime – I don’t want to see a fifth. I pray that never again will we
bleed a generation of young Americans into the sands of island beachheads, the
mud of European battlefields, or the rice paddies or jungles of Asia.
Whether we like it or
not, it is our responsibility to preserve world peace because no one else can
do it. We cannot continue letting events and crises get out of control, we must
– through sound management and planning – be in control so as to prevent being
confronted by a crisis. This requires a sound economy, a strong national
defense, and the will and determination to preserve peace and freedom.
Recently, I was on the
campaign trail in the state where I was born and raised, Illinois.
Nancy and I traveled
down through the central and southern part of the state by bus and car in a
motorcade, stopping at lovely towns; we visited a coal mine typical of our
industrial capacity; saw for the first time the tomb of Abraham Lincoln in
Springfield. We toured a productive family farm and saw again the amazing gift
for technology that the American farmer has and how much he contributes to
eliminating hunger in the world. At the end of the day we stood on the banks of
the Mississippi beneath that great silver arch there in St. Louis, Missouri.
It was a beautiful,
crisp autumn day. Thousands of families had come out to see us at every stop.
It was a moving experience, but I was most moved, as I always am, by the young
people, the youngsters – from the little ones perched on their father’s
shoulders to the teenagers. You get a rebirth of optimism about our nation’s
future when you see their young faces.
They are what this
campaign is all about. Renewing our spirit, securing their future in a world at
peace is the legacy I would like to leave for them.
You know, one of the
signers of the Declaration of Independence said it isn’t important that we
leave wealth to our children, it is important that we leave them freedom. And
we can only have that freedom if we continue to have peace throughout the
world.
Thank you and good
evening.