Wall. This is about an hour and 15 minutes. Good morning, welcome. Im delighted you chose to join us for this the 10th annual Ronald Reagan symposium here at Regent University in virginia beach, virginia, on this cold late winter morning. My name is eric patterson. I serve as the dean of the school of government. I would like to introduce to you one of our senior leaders. To kick off this conference. He is a distinct scholar in academic. He has served as the dean of our college of arts and sciences. He is the author, editor of five books and he currently serves as the executive Vice President for academic affairs. Help me in welcoming to the podium, dr. Morano. Dr. Morano good morning. On behalf of the board of trustees i want to welcome you to the 10th annual Ronald Reagan symposium. This symposium brings together thought leaders to discuss issues around the theme derived from president reagans political career. This years theme the challenges of fostering global freedom, connects to the universitys mission and the distinctives of the Robertson School of government. Individual liberty representative democracy, and constitutional government. More importantly, this symposium should lead us to think about the grander theme of statesmanship as embodied in one of americas great president s, Ronald Reagan. Political issues, and go. Come and go. Statement should lives on in the minds of people long after its fitted its physical embodiments has ceased to exist. The Ronald Reagan symposium hosted by the Robertson School of government is a testament to that fact. Thank you for attending this important event, and thank you dean patterson for your leadership in helping us never to forget the gipper. Thank you. [applause] dean patterson we will hear from three headless and then there will be a questionandanswer time to follow that and then a break. Ill moderate this panel and i would like to introduce to you each of the three panelists first. Then one by one they will come to the podium. Allow me to introduce the first one to you. The honorable baxtion. A intervening editor of the National Interest in a former speechwriter for three u. S. President s including service as president Ronald Reagans director of speechwriting. Reagan also in nominated him to a term on the National Council of humanities. His publications have appeared in numerous venues, including the american enterprise, and the New York Times. Our second guest is dr. Greg shirley. Known for two books on Ronald Reagan. Mr. Shirley is the first reagan scholar at eureka college, a principal at shirley and banister public affairs, and a former decorated contract agent with the cia. Welcome. Our third member is Kathleen Casey mcfarland, fox new sNational Security allergist pitch she held National Security posts and then it in, and reagan administrations. She has worked as an aide to henry kissinger, as a senior speechwriter to Caspar Weinberger and later as Principal Deputy assistant secretary of defense and as a pentagon spokesperson. In 1985, she received the defense departments highest award given to a civilian for her work in the administration. She is a much soughtafter speaker and writer for her insightful commentary on international affairs. Ladies and gentlemen come to speak now is the honorable arum baxion. Hon. Baxion good morning. Im very happy to be here in virginia for this occasion because i have a personal reason for remembering the westminster address that president reagan gave. I was director of speechwriting at the time, and i was there in london. But something happened shortly after the speech where iw was walking. Passed a shop that had all these model soldiers in the window. One caught my eye. A single figure. I bought it. And i still have it. In fact i have it right here. It turned out it was a figure of a member of baylors virginia continental light to grooms. Light dragoons. Years later when someone traced the family tree, i discovered that my great, great, great great, and i forget maybe there is one more grandfather had been a baylors dragoon. So this a homecoming for me to virginia. At the same time, as it is a commemoration for Ronald Reagans westminster address where i excellently bought my great great great great grandfather. [laughter] the whole point of the westminster address was that it was a defining moment. Speeches come and go and you could arbitrarily assemble a list of any of a number of speeches. But westminster was a sort of the keystone in speeches that reagan gave amongst many others that defined the cold war, defined how we felt on the issues, the president behind things. And that stepbystep led to the end of that cold war, at any rate, and the collapse of communism, which very few people thought was going to happen. How did he do it . How important were the words . I will concentrate on the speeches because that is what i did. First of all, i will tell you what he did not do. That is what other people sometimes do wrong when they are trying to exert American Leadership globally. While it was working on my remarks for today, i happened to also be reviewing two books that made me think more about what i had to say and reminded me. The first was a book about Woodrow Wilson. The chief foreignpolicy adviser. As i read the book and wrote the review, some thoughts occurred to me which helped explain why Woodrow Wilson failed and why Ronald Reagan did not. I will just read a short exce rpt. When it comes to present, the brightest are not the best. There are three other qualities that matter as much or more. The president ial greatness of men like washington, lincoln, fdr, and Ronald Reagan was do at least as much to these qualities as it was to raw intellect. And then there was Woodrow Wilson, a brilliant scholar with high ideals but temperamentally and judgmentally incapable of sustained successful leadership at the president ial level. Wilson was a prime example of the selfproclaimed progressive who loves humanity in the abstract but is not really like people very much. His conceit, his conviction that he was always the smartest guy in the room and that his particular version of a presbyterian god had chosen him as the unique messenger in fact is one thing to recognize god. Woodrow wilson had that problem. All that rendered him unable to cope with it is as him and opposition that are an everyday part of the presidency. That is a problem that many president s had and it was a problem that Ronald Reagan emphatically did not. He liked people. The title i gave when i asked for my speech was, i remembered fdr referring to al smith the happy warrior, and people referring to fdr as the happy warrior. I think Ronald Reagan was the happy cold warrior. He fought the cold war but he was not a belligerent negative man. He was a man of strong conservative principles, but he had a moderate personality in the sense of not being closed, he was close to people instead of being closed to people, which is why he was able to reach out to people politically who had not voted for a republican. It is not a coincidence that a whole new political term entered the vocabulary reagan democrat in starting in the 1980s. At any rate, those were some of the things that made it possible for him to do what he did. Another, the second book, i was reviewing. The review ran a few days ago tuesday. Was a book about Abraham Lincoln. And as i looked, and i know this is virginia, so i am not asking you it is too late to have to vote for or against Abraham Lincoln. So dont worry. But lincoln was a master of words. I entitled the review, Abraham Lincoln, a man of his words, with an s, because, as i will explain in a minute, he and Ronald Reagan is one of the few others who was a president of his words. He will be remembered for his words because his gift for expressing his ideals was quite powerful. And i tried to, well, i just started as i was doing the review of the lincoln book, i started thinking more and more about Ronald Reagan. I think you will see why. Most presses are defined by what happened while they were in office and what others write about them afterward. Few paint an endured selfportrait in their own words. In the 20 century only Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan embedded themselves in history largely through their living words and images. Fdr via radio and film and Ronald Reagan with television as well. Part of the reason is the immense, mainly positive impact of their words. Fdr told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself and we overcame the Great Depression and liberated the real axis of evil. Ronald reagan told mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wlaall and it came down, along with the evil empire hiding behind it. Great rhetoric matched by great events is remembered. Otherwise, it is just words. Only one 19th american president attained the same level of success. And he had some things in common with Ronald Reagan. Which is why i started thinking about that as i wrote this review. Abraham lincoln, well, basically, he expressed himself in a way that the vast majority of his fellow countrymen, without ever seeing him in person or even seeing very often a photograph of him, without hearing his voice, he burned his image into their souls. And he had a lot of common in common with Ronald Reagan. They both came from modest backgrounds. And Ronald Reagan became president at a time when you needed president ial speechwriters because of the incredible number of speeches you have to get the time and again, legal pad handwritten with very few corrections would come out of whole short speeches or whole sections of speeches that Ronald Reagan had done himself that is not true of many president s, i know. The other thing is that Abraham Lincoln, and i will not do the paraphrase here or quote from the article, Abraham Lincoln is a man of modest education self educated but very bright. Ronald reagan went had a college education, but had to w ork very hard to get it but it was at a modest liberal arts college at a time when a bachelors degree meant something. At a time when you graduated from the sixth grade, you can spell better than im afraid many a phd today. Abraham lincoln also had something going for him that no politician does anymore. There was one book and he was raised on it. That was an almost every American Home at the time. And it was a book that besides is beautiful and inspiring message, a beautiful and inspiring language, that was the king james bible. And if the gettysburg address had begun with 87 years ago instead of four score and seven years ago, we might not even remember it. We would not remember it with the same intensity, because there was a biblical imagery to it that gave it a majesty and which was even more powerful in those days. And then he linked it. Four score and seven years ago our forefathers he linked it to the founding fathers. So that he was not just talking about the north against the south at that moment. And then as he went through it and now we are engaged in a great civil war, he linked it to the tragedy of the civil war. But he then reconnected it and tried to make people understand that as bad as it was it was not being done for nothing because he talked about not just the forefather but a rebirth of freedom which was carrying it forward another step. Which is what america is all about, constantly moving forward with humane values, principles, honor. So that it ended even though it was a dedication of a cemetery on an inspiring and future looking note. That was a gift Ronald Reagan had in his speeches. In westminster, he defined the ideals, the values. He said in areas other speeches during the course of his career, why we had to do this, why we had to do things that were just very practical and material like the Strategic Defense Initiative , which was ridiculed as star wars as one of the advisors are remembered the time said, Teddy Kennedy thought he was being clever when he ridiculed the Strategic Defense Initiative as star wars. Remember, that is one of the most popular movies ever made. It has a happy ending and the good guys win. And that is what happened. So it backfired. Ronald reagan called the soviet empire, an evil empire. Why did he say that . Because it is. Having you noticed . We 9 it took a little fancy footwork. That expression was introduced at a what was a minor speech in the sense that it was not the state of the union or billed as a foreignpolicy speech. It was a speech to evangelicals in florida, in orlando, with the result that president ial speeches drafts are artists circulated to the are always circulated to the secretary of defense and state. There are a lot of president ial speeches at any given time. That was on the bottom of the pile and a lot of people some speech to religious broadcasters. So that the initial draft would be words evil empire did not get spotted by them. And the objections did not start pouring in until we had only gotten a draft to the president. The guy that happened to be on duty at the nsc, he and i said, there are going to be a lot of people very upset about this word but it is their job to find out and im not going to tell them about it. Let the president see it, because then you start getting the phone calls as director of speech writing, whoever had done the drafts, was that have gone to the president had to keep track of things and changes. So once it had gone to the president and came back out, he kept it in, if you got a call from a Senior Deputy from the secretary of state expressing, the secretary of state feels this must come out. You could say, i feel the secretary of state must tell the president that this must come out because he kept it in. If the secretary of state wants to tell the president , that is his job, and more power to him. Well, nobody did. Reagan kept it in. It made history, and of course he caught all kind of criticism at home. They always said he was wrong. They always underestimated him and it was one of the best things he had going for him. It was brought home to me how much speeches like that meant when i come after i had been a speechwriter for twice before for president s and i drafted i loved doing that for reagan but i liked doing my own writing. I quit toward the end of the first term, but in 1989, as a writer, i was with a group of other writers and journalists who went to warsaw and budapest and east berlin. And the people i met there, this was just when the wall was coming down, when you could say that Ronald Reagans policy had prophecy had been fulfilled. The people on the other side of the iron curtain, i m many of them actually saidet his were morew than words. And this could not have happened without iit. Thank you. And my great great great great grandfather thanks you. [applause] dean patterson going to be a tough act to follow. Thank you dr. Morrison and thank you Regent University. It is an honor and privilege to be here this morning. Speaking of the time of day reminds me of what Ronald Reagan once said about the collision of time and day and age. And when he would speak. He quipped that the definition of middle ages when youre faced with the temptations and you choose the one that let you get home to bed by 9 30. As a side note, im glad to tell you that just this week i turned on a many scooped for the last act, which is the 30third book i have written about Ronald Reagan. He did not go back to california and announcing had alzheimers and then pass away. There was a lot of living that went on in those 15 plus years as you will discover when the book comes out. But it only took three years. I was asked not to long ago about the whole practice of writing and was it profitable . Was it books or opeds or penning speeches . I thought for a moment, and the most profitable form of writing as ransom notes. [laughter] im also ive also begun work on a book about reagan in the wilderness and it goes to the prom the point of coverslip. From 1976 to 1979 he went through a complete ideological makeover. Because reagan in this time ends up rejecting the containment and daytime policies which had dominated american policy towards the soviet union and detente policy which had dominated american policy towards the soviet union. This had been a policy through detene fornte for 40 plus years. He comes to believe that the soviet union to be defeated. It earned him the scorn of the establishment who thought that the soviet union and the berlin wall were things of permanence. The cold war was a thing of permanence. Their patron saint at the time was henry kissinger. Who equated the west with athens and the east with sparta. Who codified it with the helsinki accords which he encouraged president ford to sign over the objections of dick cheney, his chief of staff at the time. In late 1979 hed support every republican except Ronald Reagan. He also once said, how did it occur to anyone that he should be governor, much less president . 12 years later, after his election in 1980 and 1992, he was giving his farewell remarks at the Republican Party at their convention in houston. He made other speeches in 1993 and 1994, that this was his last speech to a National Convention starting in 1961 he was a private citizen. At this time, of course, 1992, the soviet union had only surrendered, collapse,and toh his great misfortune, george bush did not make this event the event of our lifetime. At which billions were spent National Defense was race, a president assassinated over it. 38,000 american boys dying in one cold war eruption, went unnoticed. This was in my opinion a great tragedy because the American People needed to be told they won, that the soviet, as had lost and the sacrifice and selfie at other locations was not in vain. And South Vietnam and other locations was not in vain. Reagan issued a statement and went on nightline the night the berlin wall fell, which was the prelude to the collapse of the soviet union. But he was understandably restrained. It seemed to some he was itching to give what may have been the greatest reach of his lifetime. I think most of us would agree there was a speech that Frank Roosevelt and john kennedy, reagan couldve given in their sleep. Some ways later, reagan addressed the matter but without embarrassing bush. He did so at the Houston Convention which is widely regarded as one of his greatest and yet overlooked. He stitched back together a divided Republican Party in 1992. I am not going to do his inf lect his voice, but i will read you what he said at the convention. But we stood tall and proclaimed the communist was destined for the ashley of history. We never heard so much ridiculed from our liberal friends. The only thing that got them more upset was two simple words evil empire. But we knew then what the liberal democrat leaders just cannot figure out that the sky would not fall if america restored its strength and resolve. This guy would not fall if an american president spoke the truth. The only thing that would fall would be the berlin wall. He continued, i heard those speakers at the other convention saying, we won t cold war, and i couldh note we . Reagan knew. To his day in hollywood when soviet agents and provocateurs and their friends and supporters, including a healthy number of democrats such as Henry Wallace and alger hiss that the soviet, all the soviets had a political beachhead established in the United States of america. When soviet agents threaten to throw africa in the 1940s and when the sovietbacked weatherman in the 1960s said they had a bullet with Ronald Reagans name on it, he was he was so concerned that he hired security to keep his wife and two children. A strike by a communist leaning union in 1946 shutdown the studio where reagan was beginning to film night on the night. Reagan broke the strike. Later a common is never told congress, we ran into a oneman battalion, Ronald Reagan. The Striking Union was funded by moscow. Various times as governor, two men tried to like gasoline bombs at his home where he and nancy and his son were sleeping. Security agents fired the two men, but they slipped away in the darkness. To his credit when he testified before the House Committee on unamerican activities, he did not advocate evicting communists from the United States. He said the United States was Strong Enough to to tolerate all points of view as long as they were peaceful. That stood him out from Robert Taylor and other actors who call for the expulsion of communist provocativeeurs. There is an irrefutable fact in 1980 we were losing the cold war. By 1989, we were winning the cold war. As Jacob Patrick said, the gene kirkpatrick said about the San Francisco democrats from the fall of saigon, soviet influence expanded in laos, cambodia ethiopia, libya syria, madagascar, the seychelles, nicaragua, and grenada. Not all the democrats were pro soviet and antiamerican. That is ridiculous. There are many good anticommunist democrats over the years for harry truman to Hubert Humphrey to john kennedy and jackson. But there were for whatever reason a number of democrats in the 1980s who work, call them fellow travelers or deconstructionist or provocateurs. Or soft on communism. Or even useful idiots. They existed and that was the essential point. These were the San Francisco democrats to which patrick was referring. Which kirkpatrick was referring. Many other liberals spoke up for soviet communism or denounced reagan. The soviets at the time called their policy irreversibility. Soviet surveillance was everywhere. At the embassy in washington, was regarded as a Forward Operating post for the kgb. Even president carter, who i happen to believe is a very good man but simply in over his head and never understood the presidency, pushed ahead with the salt ii treaties with he still went on television with Barbara Walters and expressed his astonishment. From the day reagan was elected the soviets never gained one more inch. Lets be clear here, the soviets gained ground against every american president from Woodrow Wilson to jimmy carter and no soviet dictator ever willingly gave up power in those 70 plus years. Gorbachev did not end the world war without reagans help. Two guys were standing in line and he used to tell this joke. They were therefore days on end. One man says to the other, i am sick of waiting around. I am going to go to the kremlin and shoot gorbachev. He left. A couple of days later, he comes back and says and his friend says, did you shoot gorbachev . He said, no. That line was longer than this one. I think that illustrates a point. He understood that the way to beat an idea is with a better idea. During the war two of the most ridiculous prosoviet movies. I urge you to view them if you have not already. Further, he wrote that John Patrick Diggins wrote that Ronald Reagan developed the consciousness during the cold war. He also wrote that whether he was performing for the camera dining with his wife, negotiating contracts, or preparing to enter american politics on the world stage, to say that he was preoccupied with the soviets during his term in office was an understatement. They noted in the index he simply had more important things on his mind. Over the past few days, the letter to daniel ortega, the communist dictator of nicaragua was signed by 10 members of congress. Led by congressman joe bright the letter was shocking. It said, dear commandant, we remain opposed to u. S. Military action conducted against the people for the government of nicaragua. At the time, Newt Gingrich called the document unbelievable. It directly interfered with Ronald Reagans Foreign Policy. Gingrich basically went to the floor with. The letter use phrases such as prospects, goodwill. What was groundbreaking in many ways was it was in direct contravention with reagans policy. No one at the Washington Post or the New York Times objected. It did not stop there. Daniel ortega went to washington and negotiated to bypass the administration with peace talks. Even reagan in the early days of the reagan administration, ted kennedy made an offer to the kremlin that an exchange for him stopping reagans defensive buildup, they would help reagan win reelection in 1984, even though it violated all sorts of laws. John tommy said he would help him brush up on his skills and introduce him to the television networks. The only real threats to reagan are problems of war and peace and soviet relations. Senator john kerry went to nicaragua. He accused reagan of committing terrorism. George schultz was reagans secretary of state at the time. He attacked kerry and tom harkin as selfappointed ambassadors of the communist regime. Joe mccarthy was rooting out and is and administration. Harkin seemed to be rooting for war against nicaragua. They did not just trample on the logan act, they tore it up. John kerry he was in utter disbelief. Lest we forget, during the pronuclear movements in europe and america, they were covertly being funded by moscow. Reagan faced opposition his entire life. Since the 1987 conservative Political Action conference he told the crowd that he is not theorizing, he is reporting on the ugly reality. To quote g kirkpatrick in 1980, the American People elected a different president. The election of Ronald Reagan marked an end to the dismal. It declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and conviction to defend ourselves. Thank you. [applause] thank you very much is a great honor to be here. I want to talk about the westminster speech. I think World History or American History, there is before the westminster speech and after westminster speech. The problem is, when he gave it, nobody got it. How many of you are of the cold war era . How many of you were alive during the cold war era . Ok. The cold war happened because, after world war ii, the United States and the world looked at itself and says, we have two superpowers. We have United States, the soviet union, and Nuclear Weapons. How do we avoid using those Nuclear Weapons and the mistakes of the last 100 years question mark how do we avoid the slaughter of world war i and world war ii . The soviet union and us came up with a theory. Our theory was, we are not going to go to war with them. We are going to contain them. We are going to have a policy whereby we contain the expansion of communism in the soviet union. With time, we will learn to live peacefully with each other. We are not going to go to war. We are going to accept the inevitability that they will be around forever, like us, and we will find a way to peacefully coexist. That is what Foreign Policy had been until reagan. Reagan turned it around and he said, that policy is really simple. We win, they lose. He set about a specific set of events to make that happen. For reagan, it was not going to be we will negotiate with the soviet union so they can continue. We will do a series of steps to target their economy, their ideology, their allies. We will take them down. What he realized is you do not do it on the battlefield. You have to do it not using weapons. How did reagan come to that conclusion . He understood that to tell a terry and systems hotel a terry and totalitarian systems suppress the very nature of human beings. They took all of the fruits of your labor. They were going to make all the decisions. Natural human instincts of i am going to work hard, create, take chances, do this for myself and my family, those were all suppressed. Reagan understood that ultimately, a system like that would collapse from within. Reagans plan was to hurry it along a little bit. He understood in the westminster speech, he gave a preview of all the policies he was going to conduct throughout his administration. He realized that the soviet union was contracting. The economy was contracting. A few years before, a senior american economist said this was an economy that is thriving. We should learn about central planning. They do not have any mistakes. The problem with the soviet economy was going to be the wave of the future. Reagan understood it was not going to work and it was going to collapse. His thoughts were quite revolutionary. They did not sound very revolutionary. He made speeches that sounded patriotic and wonderful, but the media dismissed them as a lot of naive bladder. Blabber. They did not say reagan had that fundamental understanding. When reagan gave the westminster speech the administration was collecting their thoughts. Inside the administration i was at the pentagon at the time. They were coming up with a specific plans to target various aspects of the soviet economy and government. First, reagan understood you target that economy. The economy had contracted in the 30 years of the soviet union. Reagan once said to my boss, he said, can you believe a superhero that cannot feed its own people . That is where the soviet union was by 1980. They were having crop shortages. At the same time, they were devoting more and more of a percentage of their economy to their military buildup. The things that reagan put in place at the same time he was giving this speech are the things he talks about in this speech. Reagan, in the westminster speech, he talked about poland. He talked about the right of workers to organize. He talked about the right of people to be free. He talked about the United States military buildup, that it was important for the United States to have a stronger military. He talked about Nuclear Weapons, a great threat that was hanging over the heads of everyone in the world. Most of all, he talked about the soviet economy and the fact that, in the 30 years the soviets had been in power they were a declining power. Their economy was contracting. Reagan set out a National Securitysetting memorandum. The gist of it was, go to American Allies and sure them up. Reagan traveled all over europe and he talked to the allies. He became great friends with margaret thatcher. It was to tell them, American Leadership is back. We are back in charge and back leading. He also talked to the people of Eastern Europe and he said you do not have to live like this. You can change things. You can take things into your own hands. He encouraged the polish Solidarity Labor Union organizer and he encouraged him in fact, the day reagan was shot he gave a speech at the aflcio and i think he probably took words that aaron had written and scribbled over them. He said to the polish workers you have the right to organize and determine your own future. Nobody really paid attention to that speech because reagan was shot shortly thereafter. He gave encouragement to people to say you do not have to live like this anymore. Then he targeted their economy. He understood that the soviet economy and the pentagon is one thing. That they say did not develop an industrialized economy. Nobody was buying russian cars watches or anything except for natural gas. He targeted that by realizing that the price of oil if the price of oil went down, the russian government would be bankrupt. He encouraged the forces to get the prices down. One of his favorite generals to saudi arabia, he said to keep pumping oil. The price of oil went from 40 a barrel to 18 a barrel in nine months. The soviet government was on the ropes. They had crop failure. Reagan did the final triumph and said, i challenge you, soviet union to we are going to develop a defensive Missile System that will destroy your Nuclear Weapons. If we develop it, we will even give it to you. The soviet union realized the game was over. They could not feed their people. They devoted a significant percentage of their economy to military expenditure. Even though we knew the star wars plan was probably 20 years away, the russians thought it would work. They realized they could never devote as much of their economy to the technology that they had no idea how to do. At that point, the soviet union collapsed. Reagan, when he gave the westminster speech, said, i do not expect an instant transformation. No one at the time thought it would ever happen. When it happened and this is the part which is really relevant to todays issues Vladimir Putin was a young officer in Eastern Europe when the iron curtain came down. He saw what reagan had done and he devoted himself to reversing reagan. How to reclaim great russian power. He knew that reagan had targeted the soviet economy, oil prices and natural gas. Putin was going to build up the soviet and russian economy by high oil and natural gas prices. That is what he spent the entire his entire career doing. And he succeeded, to a certain extent. He used high prices to build up his military, to give subsidies to his retirees. He used high military oil prices to build up all parts of the soviet economy except the soviet industrial infrastructure. They never build factories. Again, who buys russian cars or computers . Nobody. They buy russian oil. Natural gas to europe was the dependency that putin wanted. He understood what reagan had done and he tried to undo reagan. That is why we are at the point we are today. The same ideas that brought down the iron curtain and ended communism. He sees them going from country to country in Eastern Europe. He knows that if you do not squash it, what happens in kiev can happen in moscow. At the same time, i look at where we are today. I think we are in a 1980 moment all again. How many of you are millennials . Fewer, but still. The millennials by the way, are not here in the auditorium. They are watching this online. We were the young, happy warriors in the reagan era. We changed the world. We had a leader who showed us how to do it and we all did it. For the Young Millennials watching online, i want to tell you, this is your 1980 moment. The worlds hungry for American Leadership. We lost our way. We think of moral equivalency. Take a page out of reagan. When you look at the reagan westminster speech understand that our system is the greatest system in the history of the world. Why . Because it unleashes human nature and what human nature does best. I am so excited to be here to talk to you about my era, my cold war era. It is particularly exciting to do it because we are at one of those moments again. I encourage all of the cowarriors to talk to your grandchildren, tell them how you did it, and expect them to do it again. Thank you. [applause] that was a great panel. We have had a number of questions. I would like to get right to it. I will ask the question and then we will direct it to one of the panel members. If the other two want to chime in as well, that is ok. Our first question is from mindy, a student here locally. Her question is how we should consider whether or not other countries are ready for democracy question mark she directed us to k. T. And how should we think about that . Are there other countries that are ready to democratize today . K. T. if you look at the world you would think democracy is in retreat. The iron korten in 1980, iron curtain came down. Eastern European Countries became democracies. Even russia briefly sort of became a democracy. Now you look at the world and say, what happened to the world . There are dictatorships and totalitarian systems in the middle east in particular. And you say, can democracy even thrive or survive is to mark is it even possible in that part of the world . I trained at m. I. T. And studied Nuclear Weapons. My job is to figure out how you would defend against it. I am a glass half empty person to be honest. I am now a Glass Half Full person. Why . Because of the same things that reagan understood about human nature. While we have been seeing the retreat of democracy throughout the world, what has happened in the United States is there are a couple of economic revolutions that are just about to happen. Chief energy. If you said to anyone in this room, do you think you will be fit you will be paying 1. 50 for gas, people would say, of course not. Innovations and all the things great about america have developed an Energy Resource that we did nothing we had before. That is going to be a significant change in the world. The same way High Energy Prices allowed the soviet union and russia to thrive. Low Energy Prices and self sufficiency on the part of the United States means we will thrive economically. In addition to that, there may be 12 technologies that are about to happen. How many of you have an iphone . That did not exist eight years ago. There are now about a dozen iphonelike technologies just about ready to happen. It will be things like selfdriving cars, robotic factories, 3d printing. If you have a watch on right now i am going to get one of those apple watches because that is going to be my doctor on my wrist. Not just telling me the time to go out and john and jog, it was do everything from measuring my post to my heart rate and whether i need medication they are going to be available to the world in a short time. What that does, i think is democracy thrives in a. Of economic prosperity. That is what is going to change the world. If i look at the world today, i think, not so good. The world i am looking at three or four years down the road is a world where the economy is thriving again. When that happens, i think democracy will no longer be in retreat. Why . It is time for us to be the strong horse again. Do either of you want to chime in . Just a quick note. I agree with everything that was said. We do have to remember, we are dealing with human nature and history. Democracy is not you do not get rid of all the evils against democracy with a simple shot or vaccination. Information makes it possible for an evil regime to saturate in the short term. The same Way Technology is going on right now is on our side. It is always a moral struggle. Even in our society, there is backsliding. Things can get worse. Families and structures can weaken. It is a constant struggle. You always have to be trying to do the right thing and trying to bring out the best in systems and people. Great. Depending on the day i wake up, i am a glass halffull or glass half empty person. I think this morning is a glass halfempty. Come on. It is a glass halffull. Democracy is hard. It is a pretty easy proposition for dictatorships. Democracy is a very hard exercise, as the world has shown the last several years. We have been able to maintain it. A lot of countries and a lot of people have not been able to maintain it. I do agree that the technology is key. I think the spread of knowledge the idea of democracy is not being proposed as much as the idea of stability. Often, they are in conflict. In order to achieve a stable world, you have to have some kind of control. Nationbuilding obviously does not work. I go back to what reagan said in revolution without borders. It is to spread the idea of knowledge. That is where it gets difficult. I think it is possible in the future, but it is not going to be an easy proposition. Here is a question from one of our graduate students. She is from ukraine. What do you think should be the strategy to prevent the return to cold war conditions in Eastern Europe . At the same time, to defend the democratic choice of the people in ukraine . That is open to the panel. K. T. can i just jump right in . I was in ukraine last year. My feeling is to go back to using reagan as a guide. If people are willing to fight for their own freedoms we do not fight for them. We cannot give it to them. If they are willing to fight for it, i think we should help them. Should we are ukraine . Yeah, i think we should argue cranky arm ukraine. The way we brought down the iron korten the iron curtain there is a wonderful picture that sticks in my mind from the reagan era. There was a coal mining town in russia. They had a Television Set with rabbit ears. There were 30 or 40 coal miners looking around, huddled over this Television Set. What were they watching . They were watching dallas, a tv drama where everyone had big cars, big hair, big drools jewels. He said, but was the moment for you . And they said, it was when we got a television and we watched dallas. The for that, we would compare our lives to what our parents had and what we had was better. Once we saw dallas, we compared ourselves not with our parents, but with you. We wanted what you had. I think there is a Technology Revolution today. It is not the tv with the rapid years and the coal miners looking around, but it is the internet. It is, tear down these walls. The real way we can foster democracy is to go to all the countries, which happened to be our enemies, but also happen to be dictatorships. They closed off societies from the internet. When Ronald Reagan said, mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall, hey, you know, mr. Putin, mr. Kim jongil, i am going to tear down that cyber wall and let people know what is happening in the rest of the world. Once you unleash that, people take their destiny into their own hands. Craig some years ago, when the president of czechoslovakia became president of the czech republic, two things i recall within weeks of czechoslovakia breaking apart there were economic opportunities. There were people selling used shoes on the streets. There were two things that i recall. I was talking to the woman in a Political Movement and i asked her about the political party. She said, we do not have parties in this country. We tried that. It did not work. We do not have membership parties. We are a movement of ideas. She got it. She understood what freedom was about. It is not party membership. The second was i joked to somebody prague was one of the few cities in Eastern Europe not to be bombed because it had so much beautiful architecture. It was covered with black coal everywhere and i joked that the town needed a good sandblasting. He said, no, we need 20 years of economic growth. That will sandblast it. Aram in many of the major cities under stalin, they will build a palace of culture. The standing joke was always, the best view in town is from the palace of culture. Why is that . Because it is the only place in town that you cannot see the palace of culture. Getting back to energy, it is interesting. Even though we have a very passive, unengaged president , we are not leading the free world as we used to. The saudis are doing today what they did back then. Our industry, with a little help from the government, is also boosting production. The saudis are keeping oil prices down because they do not like mr. Putin either. Mr. Putin has temporarily done these things like annexing crimea and unofficially parts of the ukraine. They rallied opinion temporarily. They said, mr. Putin, in a curious way, is behaving like a greek kernel from the 1970s or an argentinian general from the 1980s. He is doing something that is temporarily boosting his stock but his economy is starting to crumble. Time is not on his side anymore than it was on the soviet side. We have had a number of questions about policy and this administration. Let me just consolidate them into one. When it comes to u. S. Policy regarding to support democracy today, do you have any advice for president obama . [laughter] consider early retirement. [laughter] [applause] k. T. i wrote a column once and i said, president obama, here is how you should conduct your Foreign Policy. I just look at the future. I am focused on my 1980 moments and i think that we are now the Current Administration is not going to change. They are where they are. I think they continue to go down the same path. I worry in the middle east that they are aligning with iran at the expense of israel and egypt and our traditional allies. I worry that we will have a Nuclear Arms Race in the middle east in five years. All that being said i am looking to the future. I am looking to the next leader. Im looking for my Ronald Reagan. I am looking for somebody to unite the tribe of the United States. We do not seem to agree on much of anything. The beauty of reagan was that he understood that we are different and that is ok. He found a way to talk to all of us and honor all of us and bring us all together. My advice for the Current Administration bye, bye [laughter] my device for the next demonstration, i cannot wait. Craig lost in the sands of time was that, in 1977, Ronald Reagan was part of it the conservative Movement Advanced the idea of a shadow government. Reagan was very much active in it. A shadow secretary of defense, a shadow secretary of state. The idea was to counter propose or offer alternatives to initiatives and policies that were coming forth in the carter administration. My advice without being rude to the Democratic Party or the democratic resident president , the Republican Party should develop Foreign Policy and do not be ashamed about inviting foreign leaders to address the house of representatives. There are three branches of government. President obama is not the president of the house of representatives. He can invite whoever he wants. I think that they ought to not back down, but invite other dignitaries and foreign leaders and start developing their own consistent, coherent Foreign Policy in preparation for the election of 2016. One last question before we moved to the brink we move to the break. We had a number of questions on the point that craig raised. Let me ask this of all three of you was there a specific moment that you point to that was a moment when the Tipping Point changed during the cold war, where we stopped losing and started winning . Craig i would say it was probably right around i do not know if you could fix a specific time and place, but the rhetoric of the white house changed dramatically from the white house that they had going back to 1946. When reagan began talking about when he said, we will transcend conscience. In 1000 other ways, and it was not just him, but it was kirkpatrick at the u. N. , everyone in the administration beginning in 1981. I think maybe you can point to a linchpin or a breaking down, the election of 1982, which was, in many ways, or tried to be, a referendum on the governments movement. Tens of thousands of people protesting every day in the streets of los angeles and Baseball Players in new york and washington. Western europe, it was over the deployment of the missiles. In western europe, there were tens of thousands, maybe even millions. The American People supported reagan. He really did not drop in the polls. There were drops on the economy and other things, but in terms of staying tough by the soviets the American People stood by reagan the hallway. The election of 1982 was not a wipeout like everyone expected. In many ways, that is when the beginning of the end of the domestic opposition to Ronald Reagan 1984 becomes the ultimate referendum. If he loses, the hallmark of his campaign was Foreign Policy. He talked about putting people back to work. Really, the hostages in iran that was on the minds of many voters. If he loses in 1984, it would detour history. He wins by a remarkable landslide. That becomes a referendum which proves aram while that was happening and making what i am about to mention possible, there is the other side. The turning point on the other side of the wall, so to speak that was directly inspired by Ronald Reagan. Anthony dolan was the primary writer assigned to that speech and he deserves the credit for the basic groundwork of that. Anyway, the westminster speech and the reagan message, the other side of the equation was it started at home. It was the first crack at the other side. Someone in the west had actually said it was an evil empire and we see you and support you. Polls happened. Very soon after it happened everywhere else. Very soon after, the emperor has no clothes anymore. Fantastic. We would like to take a moment as many of you know, one of the things that goes along with this event is an essay contest with students. The four week thank the panel and let them scurry away, we would like to take a moment to recognize the fact that we have dozens of essay contest winners from across the world who participated at the high school college, and graduate level. Writing on democratization and the reagan presidency. We could not get all of them with us today because one of the winners was from california, one is in south korea, one is in tennessee. We do have three of them with us today and i would like to recognize them. You will see in your program that there are a number of sponsors. We are delighted that the sponsorships that go with these awards are provided by these sponsors. I hope that, during the break you will go out to the lobby and meet the sponsors and thank them for this. At the high school level, one of our winners is a local student spencer, who wrote an essay entitled democracy an elusive goal or pipe dream. Spencer. [applause] our first place winner in the undergraduate category is a student at Westmont College in sunny Santa Barbara and could not make it here on this cold winter day. I am delighted to have our second place winner, a Regent University undergrad whose essay was entitled Ronald Reagan and global democracy. [applause] finally, the graduate student category, we have winners from pennsylvania tennessee. In second place is one of our thirdyear law students from Regent University. She took first place in this category last year. Katie with is democracy for everyone . [applause] it has been a fantastic morning, hasnt it . Were going to take a break at this point in time. We are going to come back to this room promptly at 10 45 for the next set of panels. Would you help me in thanking our three speakers today . [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] quick you are watching American History tv, 48 hours of programming on American History every weekend on cspan3. Follow us on twitter for information on our schedule of upcoming programs and to keep up with the latest history news. Tonight on q a, Walter Pincus on the situation in the middle east and his opinion on the 2003 invasion of iraq. One of the things about the bush administration
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.