Reagans speech on june 8th of 1982 in the palace of westminster in the royal gallery. It was quite a dramatic scene. Lets watch just a few of it. I ladies and gentlemen, mr. President , reagan reagan. You see the beefeaters behind him, though . The wind. Lord. You see the assembled people. Doesnt look much like state of the union in the United States. It is now remembered as of the most important president ial of at least the 20th and 21st century. In the speech seemed to predict that the soviet union would end up, and he is quoting trotsky here on the ash heap of history. He said that the cold war was a battle of ideas and that we were at a turning point, and that the west and democratic ideas would win almost no one believed he was right at the time. But within a decade, the soviet union did, in fact, end up on the ash heap of history. And many of the nations that had former that had formerly been allied with the soviet union in the warsaw pact, nations like poland or what became the czech republic. They became democracies applied and were admitted to the european union. And as quickly they could, they joined nonnato because they had experienced soviet. And the arms control agreements that reagan mentioned briefly in westminster. They in were negotiated the two most important arms control in the United States and the soviet union. Then russias history, a quarter century. The speech was celebrated at the National Endowment for democracy. I know and organized action that was created in part because of the speech because of reagans predictions had become so true. Thats why the speech is considered to be among reagans most significant speeches. According to one of reagans closest advisers, edwin meese. The speech was especially important because. It functioned as the kick off for activities in support of winning the cold war. When reagan was famously asked what his strategy for the cold war, he answered that the only possible strategy was we win, and they. And what he meant by that was that the only possible strategy was that Democracy Forces would win and actually the long term, he hoped that russia would win as well by becoming a democratic nations. Nothing had happened for a brief period of time. One of the most insightful observers of reagans rhetoric, lou cannon, who wrote for the Washington Post, concluded that the westminster speech stands the test of time as the most farsighted and encompassing of reagans anticommunist messages. As to a judgment supported by our recent biographer john patrick diggins, who labeled it as one of the president s two most famous speeches. But now we have the beginning of a puzzle, because the speech was not well received at the time. Margaret thatcher, the prime minister, Great Britain called it a triumph immediately after the speech. She was virtually alone in making that judgment. The response to the speech in britain was quite negative. Steven rattner, writing a New York Times cited a conservative columnist for the daily mail, Andrew Alexander there, who attacked reagan over a simplified view of the world. A former British Ambassador to washington, peter jay, labeled the speech as extremely hard line and said he seemed to be declaring nonmilitary on the same on the soviet union. He said if he if he does mean it, its very frightening. One of the most brutal reaction lines came from nancy banks in the guardian newspaper, who labeled the speech as unmoored and then set about it that it was like lincoln at gettysburg. In only one way, it propelled lincolns calm at the world. Well, little note nor long remember what we here. A prediction that turned out to be quite wrong. She even criticized reagans, calling him an average of performer and. Editorial in the guardian hit. Listen to the incredibly negative language and the the the arrogance of the language. They talked about reagans homespun. Amy ability and said the president , a Senior Citizen who when crisis breaks, is left to slip up. The editorial concluded that very little can be built on the president world words which reflects his benign blank helplessness. It is revealing that some of the most positive comment in the British Press about the speech referenced the president s use of a teleprompter, which theyd seen before. In their view, it was a failed speech in style and substance, and the only thing that mattered was that reagan used the magic of the teleprompter. The press reaction in the United States was, i think we could say tepid, not quite lukewarm. They wear, many of the commentators argued that reagans claim that about the precarious condition the soviet empire was wishful thinking. Edmund morris, later a biographer of reagan, said it came across as a strain an attempt at grand rhetoric. Another dominant reaction in the American Press was the speech. It sounded good, but it just wasnt very specific. Well, while reagans defense of democracy example, the New York Times said that characteristically failed, to point the way from here to there or to give the russians a plausible of policy choices. Jim anderson of upi the speech had few specific examples of the kind of project that reagan had in mind. The New York Times and the same editorial i referenced a moment ago, reference reagan claim that democracy is not a fragile flower and the times concluded sarcastically about that flower power. It can work. But wheres his spade . Others thought that the speech just reflect american soviet policy, that the administration seemed, in the words of one commentator, have no soviet policy. Peter schweitzer, who later wrote about the star wars program, noted that reagan was ridiculed scholars who believed he was fooling himself about the weaknesses of communism. Now we have a couple of. This is a speech that is remembered as one of the most important president ial Foreign Policy speeches of the 20th and 21st century in, the same category as fdr fought for freedom speech at the time, people thought it was largely ineffective and a failure. What makes it resonate so much better in the long and how did reagan see what others did not . The fundamental weaknesses in the soviet union . Those are the puzzles that we have to confront to begin to answer those puzzles we think need to start by thinking about the audiences to whom reagan was speaking. And weve seen a little bit of the audience there in the royal gallery. So he certainly is speaking to parliament, other assembled people in Great Britain, but more broadly, reagan was speaking to the United States, to our allies in western europe and our allies, asia, you know, australia new zealand, taiwan, on japan, south korea. And he is asking them to continue to his soviet policy. Hes on a trip to, europe, where hes trying to build support. And his conclusion is that optimism is an order because day by day, democracy is proving itself to be a not at all fragile, all pile up, a fragile flower. His goal was to preserve freedom as as well as peace, and he predicted it may not be easy to see, but i believe we live now at a turning point, a conclusion that almost everyone thought was wrong, but that was totally right. But reagan also spoke to another audience. Reagan was speaking indirectly to the soviets because he knew that they were listening. One message he had for the soviets is hes telling them that he recognizes and they in their hearts know that the soviet system simply work. He says, we are witnessing today at great crisis, a crisis where the demands of the economic are conflicting directly with those of the political order. And he concluded, it is soviet union that runs against the tide of history almost no one thought that was true then, but we now know that it was entirely from the analysis of soviet Economic Data after end of the soviet union. But he had a second message and he was sending this message with the arms build. He had believed the United States had fallen behind and he was using an arms buildup not to prepare for war, but to prepare for peace. The arms buildup was primed merely rhetorical, in a sense, that he was sending a message. Reagan said in the speech, our military strength is a prerequisite to peace. But let it be clear we maintain the strength and the hope never will be used. He supported an arms buildup that ultimately led to the two most important arms reduction treaties ever negotiated. The intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement and the start agreement. Unfortunately, only the start agreement remains in effect because putin pulled russia out of the imf agreement. One reason that we can understand why reagan message didnt work very well in the short term is to focus on the credit war barriers that he faced in getting this message across. So i want to talk about attitudes in europe and to a lesser extent, japan and south korea, in asia, now, allies of the United States, the united and then the barriers and faced in sending the message to the soviet union, the first message was the first barrier was fear of nuclear war. Over the course of the spring of 1982, it very clear that there was major opposition to reagans arms build up in western europe. Writing in businessweek, saul sanders noted authorities in germany are worried about, im quoting, vice outpourings of youth and radicals who accused the us of seeking world domination. According to the guardian, the problems related to india policy disagreement in which the u. S. Is on the opposite side from europe on almost every important topic in right before the speech in the days before a hundred thousand demonstrators jammed hyde protesting american policy. A member of reagans National Security councils and a major soviet scholar, richard pipes, cogently explained to the audience problem that reagan faced in europe as the english elite regarded reagan as a dangerous simpleton simpleton. The antigay fear of nuclear war was a major problem for reagan. The United States as well. Michael barone mouthed it in the Washington Post and a great Many Americans and europeans believe that reagan is significantly more likely in his predecessors to get us into a nuclear war. A Washington Post poll found that by a 3 to 1 margin, American People supported a nuclear. What that what we have not Nuclear Weapons but what a frozen nowhere they. And it might sound like a good idea but reagans whole approach was to build up to create leverage for arms reductions. So reagan faced a really big problem in the United States. A Washington Post abc poll, the same poll found that a significant portion of the American Public has become in increasingly anxious over the prospect of a nuclear war. Frightened over the buildup of the arsenal. And frustrated the lack of serious negotiation between. The two superpowers. So an awful lot of people in the also south korea, japan, taiwan. There afraid. And thats true in america. There is a Second Barrier he faced which is the perception that many people had that he was a mouthpiece piece that he had just been a grade b movie actor hollywood. That he was simply not up to the job. A british commentator, roy hattersley, labeled reagan, a man of naive ideas and simple opinions which he holds with the certainty of a midwestern preacher. One another. British commentator labeled reagan and thatcher as the lone ranger and the iron lady. A columnist in the sunday referred to him as old hopalong and said he needed to do some fast fence mending. Theyre talking about president of the United States in this incredibly dismissive way, and an awful lot of people at home in the United States thought. Reagan was just a mere mouthpiece. Frankly, at this point, i have thought that to he also faced a problem of low popularity at home. He began 1982 with less public support than president carter at a similar stage in his presidency. President carter was not very good at molding public support to have less than carter had had. That was not good at poll in april of 1982. Found that 52 of the American People were opposed to reagan running for a second term. New york quoted a reagan adviser, a Senior Adviser who said, theres no question the guys in deep trouble. Finally, reagan faced the barrier that the was complicated. Reagan was saying that we to build up and in order to cut back our forces. That was a complicated message. He was also saying that he was for real arms reductions while label the soviet union a failed tyranny. It was a camp placated message that people didnt understand. And and it was a special complicated for the soviet who understandably reacted. The guy is insulting us constantly. He said our system doesnt work and. Were supposed to believe he really wants reductions. They found that very hard to believe. Now, now we need to talk about the answer to the puzzles. Ive out most rhetoric in american politics in general, probably Politics Around the world is tactical. It responds ends to issues of the moment. Sometimes its stylistically well presented and it doesnt make much in the long run. Think about all the speeches of president bill that were very well received. He was thought of as incredibly effective and then try to remember one of those speeches that resonates since his presidency. I dont think you can find one, but rhetoric has more import and the rhetoric has more import. Its about not the style, but about the. Its about the. And especially about messages that lay out ideological visions, world views. Definitions of the world or that give us a narrative about world about what is americas place in the world and where are we going, where have we been and how are we going to get to that Better Future . And this rhetoric also tends to give us values, things that we believe. Think about barack obama talking, about the audacity of hope, the most political leaders, both roosevelt, reagan, obama, king, more than anyone else in the 20th century, and lincoln than anyone else in American History have given us ideals, logical arguments, narratives that reenacted those ideological arguments and sets a value does that move the nation forward . In fact, there is a strong argument that ive made in my academic writing that dominance in american politics from fdr or through reagan to obama at least, could be charted based on the party that had a better conception that resonated with the American People of the american dream. This rhetoric is has a broader inflow alliance because its more than a stylistic statement about a particular point. It gives us a way of understanding the world. Think about reagans statement in the first inaugural address that in this present crisis, government is not the solution. Government the problem. That attitude. We needed Less Government to move the nation forward dominated the nation for a quarter of a century. And then think in contrast about barack obama, who said that with just a slight in our priorities, we could help all who needed help. Those two worldviews dominated american politics before the age of trump at westminster. Reagan gave us was a coherent, ideological definition of the world. That said democracy works and authoritarian systems dont. He gave us a narrative of moving toward greater freedom, and he embraced a set values that was consistent the narrative and consistent with the ideal. And i want to begin by talking about the ideological worldview, which really is you had to boil it down to a sentence. It was would be that democracy, say, works and soviet authoritarianism totalitarianism doesnt. After speaking of the danger of nuclear war, reagan said, at the same time, there are a threat posed to human freedom by the enormous power of the modern state. History teaches the dangers of a government that overreaches political control taking precedent over free Economic Growth. Seek replace mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom. He then contrasted those horrors with democracy and he admitted here that there was disagreement on the west on how Big Government should be, how the social welfare system. He said, now im aware that among us here and throughout europe there is legitimate disagreement over the extent to which the Public Sector should play a role in the nations economy life. But on one point, all of us are united. Our abhorrence of dictatorship in all its forms, but most particularly totalitarianism and, the terrible inhumanity it caused in our time. The great purge, auschwitz and now the gulag in cambodia. He then added that democracies were also not just to freedom and, protecting their own people, but to peace. He said it was democracys who refused to use the threat of their Nuclear Monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or empirical gain. And he said that Nuclear Monopoly been the hands of the communist world, the map of europe, indeed the world would look very different today. Now, ive given you the main he made, but i want to give you more of flavor of how reagan said it in. An ironic sense. Karl marx was. Right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the demands of the economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free non marxist west, but in the home of marx leninism, the soviet union. It is the soviet t