Anyone old enough to have lived through Reagan’s time as president looks at political leadership since that time and senses that something is drastically different – for the worse. For those who weren’t old enough, you can catch up by watching/reading Reagan’s speeches and comparing them with what you hear today, even from the most conservative Republican politicians.
See Reagan Quotes for a concentrated dose of Reagan.
There are many areas in which Reagan was different from what we hear today, but here I want to focus on one area in particular: MORALITY.
In one of the most powerful parts of one if his most historic speeches, Reagan said,
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the [nuclear] bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” … Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow … but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement…
Source: A Time for Choosing Speech (October 27, 1964)
Remember that this was spoken during the height of the Cold War with Russia/USSR, and yet even under that threat Reagan says that we could not abandon a billion human beings inside Russia/USSR “just to save our own skins”. He goes on to express the sobering realization that appeasement would ultimately be the riskier path anyway.
When evil is on the march, the GREATER risk is in backing down, appeasing, negotiating. The LESSER risk is in CONFRONTING IT.
Later, during Reagan’s presidency, there were a number of occasions where Russia/USSR either invaded other countries directly or attempted via proxy, and every time Reagan exhibited the same moral clarity.
Many brave Nicaraguans have stayed in their country despite mounting repression — defying the security police, defying the Sandinista mobs that attack and deface their homes. Thousands — peasants, Indians, devout Christians, draftees from the Sandinista army — have concluded that they must take up arms again to fight for the freedom they thought they had won in 1979. The young men and women of the democratic resistance fight inside Nicaragua today in grueling mountain and jungle warfare. They confront a soviet-equipped army, trained and led by Cuban officers. They face murderous helicopter gunships without any means of defense. And still they volunteer. And still their numbers grow. Who among us would tell these brave young men and women: “Your dream is dead; your democratic revolution is over; you will never live in the free Nicaragua you fought so hard to build?”. …
The question before the House is not only about the freedom of Nicaragua and the security of the United States but who we are as a people. President Kennedy wrote on the day of his death that history had called this generation of Americans to be “watchmen on the walls of world freedom.” A Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, said much the same thing on the way to his inauguration in 1861. Stopping in Philadelphia, Lincoln spoke in Independence Hall, where our Declaration of Independence had been signed. He said far more had been achieved in that hall than just American independence from Britain. Something permanent, something unalterable, had happened. He called it “Hope to the world for all future time.”
Hope to the world for all future time. In some way, every man, woman, and child in our world is tied to those events at Independence Hall, to the universal claim to dignity, to the belief that all human beings are created equal, that all people have a right to be free. We Americans have not forgotten our revolutionary heritage, but sometimes it takes others to remind us of what we ourselves believe… …
My fellow citizens, Members of the House, let us not take the path of least resistance in Central America again. Let us keep faith with these brave people struggling for their freedom. Give them, give me, your support; and together, let us send this message to the world: that America is still a beacon of hope, still a light unto the nations. A light that casts its glow across the land and our continent and even back across the centuries — keeping faith with a dream of long ago.
Source: Address to the Nation on United States Assistance for the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance (June 24, 1986)
Two years later he made a very similar, maybe even stronger plea,
… Those brave freedom fighters cannot be left unarmed against Communist tyranny. Now, some say that military supplies aren’t necessary, that humanitarian aid is enough. But there’s nothing humanitarian about asking people to go up against Soviet helicopter gunships with nothing more than boots and bandages… …
The freedom fighters are inside Nicaragua today because we made a commitment to them. They have done what Congress asked: They have proven their effectiveness. Can we, as a moral people, a moral nation, withdraw that commitment now and leave them at the mercy of the Sandinista regime or turn them forever into refugees — refugees from the country for which they are making such a heroic sacrifice?
What message will that send to the world, to our allies and friends in freedom? What message will it send to our adversaries — that America is a fair-weather friend, an unreliable ally? Don’t count on us, because we may not be there to back you up when the going gets a little rough.
Source: Address to the Nation on Aid to the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance – February 1988 (February 2, 1988)
Throughout his political career Reagan frequently said things like this that reflected a moral clarity unequaled in the present. He recognized right from wrong and good from evil, and always courageously took the side of good no matter the cost or risk.
There’s a reason Reagan won THREE LANDSLIDE ELECTIONS (1980, 1984, 1988… Although 88 was Bush, it was 100% on Reagan’s coattails). When morality, truth, justice, compassion, courage, and decency are clearly presented, VOTERS RESPOND.
Today these things are in very short supply.
Today regarding aid to Ukraine even those who support providing military aid premise that support as something in our security and economic interests… That if Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine, it will be emboldened to proceed further till the point where we would have no choice but to get involved directly.
This is all good — Reagan made those kind of “business” points too — but how many today add to those business arguments anything like “We cannot commit an immorality so great” as to leave Ukraine defenseless against this ruthless predator… to leave Ukraine to be invaded for no reason other than Putin wants it, to leave Putin unimpeded to fire THOUSANDS of long range missiles, rockets, and drones to destroy HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS, RESIDENCE BUILDINGS.
How can that not be our FIRST ARGUMENT for arming Ukraine? Even if you need to present a “business/accounting” reason to justify it to the bean counters, shouldn’t this argument from morality be first on one’s mind? And if not first, shouldn’t it at least be in the list?
But FAR WORSE than not making the moral case first, or not even making it at all, is to actually shun the morality altogether.
This is exactly what Trump and the virulent strain of radical MAGA folk do. Some, like Tucker Carlson, even openly SUPPORT RUSSIA’S EVIL ASSAULT. Such positions are the complete opposite the moral stances that Reagan consistently took.
Ukraine – one of the largest countries in Europe with a pre-war population of over 40 million – is under nearly nightly attack from Russia’s long range missiles, rockets, and drones.
And mind you, this is NOT Russia targeting Ukrainian military assets and personnel.
No. Russia TARGETS CIVILIANS… CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, THEATERS… and we’re not talking “collateral damage” here where “accidents happen”. INNOCENT CIVILIANS in large civilian cities nowhere near any military targets are bombed EVERY DAY – DELIBERATELY. It’s not an accident, it’s Russia’s standard operating procedure. It always has been.
For those areas where Russia has occupied, the stories of RAPE, TORTURE, and EXECUTIONS are widespread, with the bodies, hands tied behind back with bullet holes in the back of the head.
THIS IS HAPPENING ON EARTH RIGHT NOW, AND ON A SCALE THAT DWARFS ANY OTHER “CONFLICT”.
HOW CAN ANY MORAL, DECENT HUMAN BEING STAND BY AND WATCH THAT HAPPEN WHEN IT IS FULLY WITHIN THEIR ABILITY TO STOP IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CAN STOP IT FOR ALMOST NO COST (see “The Cost” below), AND WHEN THEY HAVE MADE AGREEMENTS OBLIGATING EVEN MORE THAN JUST “AID” (see “Budapest Memorandum” below)?
And yet, while this happens, MAGAs in congress – we’re not talking about the street-level MAGA here – CONGRESS – want to delay providing military aid, or shut it off altogether.
Why?
Mostly their reasons are a hodgepodge of logical fallacies built on false presuppositions. “We have our own ‘invasion’ to worry about”, “Russia has a point because of NATO expansion”, “Ukraine is corrupt”, “We staged a coup in Ukraine and Russia is just responding” (every one of these stupid premises collapses under any serious scrutiny).
There are two very important points that add weight to the morality aspect of providing Ukraine with military aid.
The Cost
The U.S. defense budget is approximately 13% of our total budget. The total amount proposed for Ukraine military aid is approximately 5% of the defense budget. That’s around 0.65% of our total budget.
But there’s more… in REAL DOLLARS it’s considerably less than that, and very little of it ever actually leaves the U.S.
That amount is an accounting value. Think of “MSRP” (“Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price”). It’s NOT the actual real market value. Almost all Ukraine military aid is OLD CRAP we PAY to store in warehouses. It’s trench warfare stuff. Artillery shells. Tanks. Mortars. Rockets. They are things that no American soldier will ever use.
And did you know that rocket/missile fuel EXPIRES. If we don’t use it before its expiration date, we PAY to ship it back to the manufacturer and PAY them to destroy it.
So whenever you hear these huge dollar amounts quoted for Ukrainian military aid, just remember that the raw numbers are very misleading.
So if most Ukraine military aid is in the form of these old weapons and ammo, where exactly does the money for Ukraine aid actually go?
Mostly it is the budget for replacing the old expiring crap with modern weapons and ammo that our soldiers might actually be able to use one day. And where does THAT money go? It is spent in the U.S., paying U.S. BUSINESSES who pay SALARIES to American workers, who pay TAXES.
SO, even if the cost is 0.65% of our national budget (though it’s actually less after taking into account all I just mentioned), to use THAT as the reason we can’t send weapons to help an innocent nation defend itself from the most barbaric, ruthless, cruel, global-scale predator the world has ever known, then YOUR MORAL COMPASS NEEDS SERIOUS WORK. Reagan would be ashamed.
Budapest Memorandum
But if the “Cost” question still doesn’t quite convince you of some moral obligation, there’s one other important factor you should know.
Above in that last large Reagan quote there is the bit “The freedom fighters are inside Nicaragua today because we made a commitment to them… Can we, as a moral people, a moral nation, withdraw that commitment now and leave them at the mercy of the Sandinista regime…”
Did you know that we also made a commitment to Ukraine in 1994, that if they would surrender their NUCLEAR WEAPONS to RUSSIA, WE (US/UK) would defend them if their borders were ever violated by a nuclear armed country?
Check it out for yourself. Google “Budapest Memorandum”, or just read my page on that subject at Budapest Memorandum.
In a nutshell, the Soviet Union had the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Russia still does. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, US/NATO leaders were concerned about all the nuclear missiles spread across Russia and several of the former Soviet republics and thought maybe it would be better if all the former Soviet countries just handed their nukes over to Russia.
That way all these dangerous weapons wouldn’t be quite so spread out over these unpredictable newly-independent and maybe not-so-stable countries.
Ukraine being one of the largest former Soviet republics had the THIRD LARGEST nuclear arsenal in the world at the time.
And remember, Russia has been attempting to erase an independent Ukraine from existence for AT LEAST 200 YEARS. Also remember that over at least the last 100 years Russia has INVADED almost all of its immediate neighbors.
Ukraine KNEW – FOR SURE – that if they gave up their nuclear arsenal that one day Russia would come knocking. So they were extremely reluctant, obviously. BUT, we (US/UK) promised that if they gave up their nukes, if they later needed defense against a nuclear-armed assailant, WE WOULD HAVE THEIR BACK.
THAT is the “Budapest Memorandum”.
SO, that Nicaragua bit, “… because we made a commitment to them… Can we, as a moral people, a moral nation, withdraw that commitment now…” — it’s even MORE applicable here. If not for our promise, Ukraine would have its nukes and would NOT have been invaded by Russia creating the need for support.
The least we can do is give them our old expiring junk collecting dust in warehouses.
“Our own domestic sovereignty, safety, and security…”
Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, recently said regarding budget negotiations over Ukraine,
We understand that there’s concern about the safety, security and sovereignty of Ukraine, but the American people have those same concerns about our own domestic sovereignty and our safety and our security.
Source: Biden brings congressional leaders to White House at pivotal time for Ukraine aid and US border deal (January 17, 2024)
REALLY? We have the “SAME CONCERNS”?
Probably over a quarter million Ukrainians are dead as a result of the invasion, many of them civilians. Large cities have been razed to the ground. It’s not a concern for their “safety, security and sovereignty”, but about their defense against industrial scale evil openly determined to exterminate them as a nation.
Are THOSE the “SAME CONCERNS” Mike Johnson thinks we American’s have?
Is Mexico firing THOUSANDS of long-range missiles, rockets, and drones across the border into Texas, destroying whole cities the size of Fort Worth? Are a half million illegal immigrants crossing our southern border armed with machine guns gunning down everyone they see? Do they have the actual declared intent to wipe Texas and California off the map? Do the illegal immigrants come across the border in TANKS, APCs (armored personnel carriers), and attack helicopters? Do they – as a common matter of practice – rape, torture, and execute civilians? Do Americans nationwide hear air raid sirens every night, and explosions from the air defense intercepting (MOST of) the incoming missiles? Has Houston been flattened, rendered uninhabitable?
When the answers to all those questions are “Yes”, then a statement like Johnson made wouldn’t be morally bankrupt and bereft of any human decency whatsoever.
And since the answers to all those questions are, in fact, “No”, Johnson and MAGA ARE willing to “commit an immorality so great…”, but it’s actually much worse than that.
Reagan said that the “immorality” that was so great that it was worth risking nuclear war was leaving a “billion human beings … enslaved behind the Iron Curtain”. They WERE “enslaved”. They weren’t free, but they WEREN’T UNDER IMMEDIATE THREAT OF ANNIHILATION. UKRAINE IS UNDER THAT THREAT… DAILY.
But Johnson and the MAGAs want to play politics with Ukrainian lives.
Johnson is very vocal about being a Christian. I seriously wonder if he ever considers what Jesus might think of his support for genocide.
Reagan would roll over in his grave.
Kate from Kharkiv
I wanted to make a fictitious analogy to drive home the moral case for intervention, but why make a fictitious story to make this point when real stories from real Ukrainians exist?
“Kate from Kharkiv” (on Twitter/X) posts multiple times almost every day reporting nearly every attack, which naturally results in bouts of despair and outrage. She’s entitled when she says (pardon grammar/etc., it’s not her first language, and it’s common on Twitter/X to not write too carefully):
Ukraine is forced to defend itself against the nation, which is using war crimes as a war strategy.
russia bombs civilians, infrastructure objects, razes to the ground entire cities, destroying entire ecosystems flooding areas bigger then some countries, occupies nuclear power plant. russia tortures and executes Ukrainian prisoners of war, and now uses them as a live shield for their assaults. russia kills, loots, and rapes. They are disgusting, merciless, deadly, filthy horde, who aim to destroy all that makes Ukraine Ukraine.
All the while politicians hold Ukraine’s military assistance hostage in their debate, using our lives to prove their point, while holding us to the highest moral standards country at war ever has been held to, not allowing us to destroy even military objects on the enemy’s territory with the weapons provided, dooming entire cities to unexpected, merciless bombings that happen any time without warning.
Our every move and every word is judged, and every past mistake our ancestors has ever made is being used against us, justifying genocide.
I want to wake up. This can’t be real.
Hold on, they say, you will get it all later, just wait.
I lost two more people to this war this December. How much longer should we wait?
Source: Kate from Kharkiv, @BohuslavskaKate (Dec 16, 2023)
Can you REALLY say to these people, “Sorry, but we have our own problems. Good luck?”