- The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 31, 2016


The world is more peaceful through strength, not disarmament

I was reading a brilliant biography of Lady Margaret Thatcher by Charles Moore titled “Margaret Thatcher at her Zenith: In London, Washington, and Moscow” just about the time that President Obama was delivering his rhetorical serving of mush at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.

There he was calling for a “moral revolution” worldwide, which would rid the world of nuclear arms. He said: “We may not eliminate mankind’s capacity to do evil. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.” Incidentally, what will Mr. Obama or his successor do with a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclear-armed Iran that Mr. Obama so recently enabled?

In fact, as our president spoke I was probably reading Mr. Moore’s chapter on glasnost and Thatcher’s dealings with Mikhail Gorbachev and her friend Ronald Reagan. By the way, Prime Minister Thatcher and President Reagan really were friends in the truest sense. They shared much in common and liked each other tremendously. I do not think that any other pair of British and American leaders had such a warm friendship, not even Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt.

Americans educated in the schools and universities of this great republic have been taught (or should I say propagandized) for more than two decades that Reagan was an intellectual lightweight and a warmonger. There is a lot of evidence cited. Through Reagan’s eight scary years in the White House, columnists at The New York Times and The Washington Post, along with mainstream media and the professoriate in general, regularly came up with endless evidence of how the president was building up our military and threatening nuclear warfare with the Soviets. It was a frightening time. As Mr. Obama said at Hiroshima, “a moral revolution” was exigent.

Yet Mr. Moore reminds readers that it was Thatcher who was the hawk in dealings with the Soviets, and it was Reagan who tended toward dovishness. She believed that nuclear deterrence had saved the world from an East-West military confrontation for 30 years, ever since the end of World War II. To her surprise, Reagan was uneasy with deterrence. He wanted, beginning as early as 1983, to try something new for moral and practical reasons. She viewed her friend as less hawkish than President Richard Nixon. It alarmed her. Reagan’s answer was the Strategic Defense Initiative, then derided as Star Wars by the bien-pensants. Mr. Moore writes that one of Thatcher’s aides reported that she found “the depth of Reagan’s anti-nuclear sentiments a very tricky issue for her to navigate” because she disagreed with him.

Nonetheless, the two Western leaders pursued negotiations with Mr. Gorbachev through the years. There were high points and low points. Yet in the end, Thatcher and Reagan got peace with Russia and eventually an end to the Soviet Union — once baptized by the warmonger Reagan as “the evil empire.” The peaceful conclusion of the Cold War came about not from the repetition of false pieties but by applying pressure on the Soviet Union, making it aware that its economy could not produce better weaponry than the West. Eventually, the evil empire peacefully evanesced.

Mr. Obama’s windy nonsense at Hiroshima last week was perfectly in keeping with the so-called liberals’ legends about American politics. According to them, they have an endless yearning for peace and the ready instrumentality for peace, in fine: endless negotiation, poetic words, grand visions — nothing less that a moral revolution. As for the liberals’ opponents, the conservatives, they have an endless yearning for war or at least risky bullying tactics. Reagan was a perfect example of the liberals’ vision. Gratefully, their vision was flawed.

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by driving the Russians into bankruptcy. Margaret Thatcher helped, and come to think of it, the much-maligned Richard Nixon was pretty helpful, too.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is editor-in-chief of The American Spectator. He is author of “The Death of Liberalism,” published by Thomas Nelson Inc.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide