The Evil Empire vs. the Apologist-in-Chief

   Tomorrow, March 8, marks the anniversary of one of the defining speeches of our time: Pres. Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech. Like Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech 38 years before, and Pres. Reagan's own speech 15 days later, outlining a vision of a "strategic defense initiative," the Evil Empire speech set the tone for the Reagan foreign policy for the remainder of his presidency.

   Speaking to a group of evangelicals, Pres. Reagan pulled no punches in comparing the expansionist Soviet Union to an evil empire, complete with its gulag and its constellation of satellite nations.

   By speaking more openly and freely about the Soviet Union than any other American president had, Mr. Reagan for the first time challenged the very moral underpinnings of the USSR.

   Fifteen days later, Mr. Reagan followed up his Evil Empire speech with a speech that described his vision of a virtual nuclear shield that could be deployed over and shared with peace loving democracies across the globe.

   The mainstream media and the liberal intelligencia ridiculed both speeches. Mr. Reagan was accused of oversimplifying the Cold War, fear mongering, chest thumping, and pushing the world closer to nuclear war.

   But it was Ronald Reagan's clear vision that triumphed. His willingness to say what other world leaders knew but were afraid to say--that the Soviet Union was a morally bankrupt state bent on world domination--and his willingness to raise the military stakes with the Soviets that consigned the evil empire to the "ash heap of history," as the president had predicted.

    Within seven years the USSR collapsed, a victim of its own immorality and inability to match the American economy, ingenuity, values, strength, and a president who refused to compromise on the evil he saw.

   In his Evil Empire speech he challenged his audience to ignore the temptation of labeling both the United States and the Soviet Union equally "at fault" in the nuclear arms race. He reminded them that there is no moral equivalence between defending freedom and enslaving whole populations.

   Ronald Reagan stands in clear contrast to Barack Obama. Mr. Obama's foreign policy relies on wanting people to like America, rather than on the values of truth and liberty for which the world has come to rely on America. So instead of the moral clarity of "evil empires," and "ash heap of history," we get apologies to the Muslim world for defending freedom and welcoming its sons and daughters. Instead of the "shining city on a hill" we get repeated bows to foreign leaders.

   When Ronald Reagan spoke in 1983 his words were exhilarating to Americans sick of the Soviet quest for dominance, and to captive nations behind the Iron Curtain. When Barack Obama has spoken,  we have ambiguity and weakening of the traditional role that America has played in the world, and which, if truth be told, most people want us to continue playing.

Just thought you might like to know.