by Unknown
When the Atlantic Alliance was formed, it was assumed that the threat to peace was similar to recently familiar totalitarian phenomena: a large-scale invasion across sovereign borders with the avowed aim of domination of the world by military means. Since then, it has become clear that the Soviet challenge is both more complex and more subtle. It rests on what Marxist-Leninists consider the correlation of forces, but that correlation can be shifted gradually and patiently by pressure, by ambiguity, and occasionally by exploiting the West’s desire for peace and its diversity of views on how to achieve that end.
Western leaders have been responding to their publics’ desire for peace by constantly expressing their readiness for negotiation; they have not always been equally clear about the program for these negotiations. Sensitivity to public pressures is so great that militant minorities have occasionally achieved a disproportionate influence. Gradually the belief has gained ground that internal Soviet transformations will solve the problem of peace and the West’s own lack of clarity as to objectives.
That a more flexible leadership has come to power in the Kremlin is beyond doubt. In foreign policy it has—so far, at least—been able to obscure the increasingly evident structural dilemmas of a centrally planned society by great skill in public relations. It has been more successful than it should be in promoting divisions in Europe and weakening the cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance. This is because the West has not answered for itself this fundamental question: Are concessions justified by Soviet internal developments, or should they be analyzed primarily in terms of Soviet foreign policy conduct?
Some argue that Gorbachev needs a success to sustain himself. The danger is that success so defined is likely to be inimical to the West. Perhaps Soviet domestic reform will lead automatically to a more conciliatory Soviet policy. It is equally possible that Gorbachev seeks to achieve maneuvering room for domestic reform by demonstrating to foreign policy hard-liners that flexible tactics are more effective than crude threats in tilting the correlations of forces against the West.
I do not choose among these possibilities except to point out that to gear foreign policy to a psychological assessment of Soviet leaders leaves the West vulnerable to sudden changes in Soviet leadership and the Soviets unconstrained in the political competition, in time perhaps even in the military field. Exclusive preoccupation with arms control involves the risk that arms control becomes a safety valve for political pressure rather than a means for easing tensions. Paradoxically such attitudes may keep the West from establishing whether Gorbachev, in the end, is willing to be as imaginative in foreign as in domestic policy.
Peace requires, above all, a vision of its content. The West must, to be sure, take into account Soviet concerns—since no agreement that fails to take the mutual interest into account can last—but the ultimate justification is the compatibility of any peace program with our values and our security….
I would be less than honest if I did not emphasize that I have never been more worried about trends which, just as in the days after Charlemagne, appear at what should be the moment of our greatest success. If Europe permits itself to be tempted by disguised neutralism and America revels in disguised isolationism, all that has been celebrated in this hall for a generation will be in jeopardy.
Neither Europe nor America can evade any longer a fundamental review of their security policy and ultimately of their foreign policy. Recent events, precisely because they are irreversible, have accelerated what technology would have imposed in any event—a reconsideration of the comfortable assumptions that destructiveness can be equated with security but also of the shallow counterargument that one can escape the nuclear age by returning to a technology that produced unceasing warfare for centuries. Western leaders must stop pretending that nuclear weapons can be abolished; too many exist in too many countries; too much knowledge will remain in the minds of scientists for this to be feasible. But equally they should not rely on nuclear weapons to solve all their problems.
In walking this fine line, America has had the principal responsibility of leadership. But in the period ahead the contribution of a united Europe is essential. A one-sided relationship will lead to the demoralization of both sides of the Atlantic. Europe must build a structure for the consideration of strategic issues either by building on the WEU or by some other mechanism, and America must support this. A useful symbolic step in this direction would be to make the next NATO commander a European.
And beyond strategy there is lacking an adequate mechanism within the Atlantic Alliance to discuss conflicts outside NATO. This prevents either a common position or even a procedure to define permissible disagreement.
The West is now suffering from the consequences of past successes. A generation of peace has produced on the European side of the Atlantic the temptations of emancipation from superpower relationships; on the American side there are signs of the reemergence of historic isolationism—especially as the country’s center of gravity shifts westward. But America, the daughter of Europe, can no more turn its back on its heritage than Europe can seek salvation in an illusory equidistance from the so-called superpowers, of which in fact Europe should be one. The West, whose historic tragedy it has been to sacrifice its spiritual unity on the altar of shortsighted self-interest, must not repeat what this prize celebrates having transcended.
Much has been built in the generation since this prize was first given. The building must not stop, especially as the challenges ahead of us are far less daunting than the road already traversed. No one any longer believes that our adversaries represent the wave of the future. No generation has had a better prospect for building a better and more secure world.
But we risk wasting our opportunity by an obsession with the tactical and the short-term, by domestic politics and by confusing the plausible with the true.
The great German statesman Bismarck said, “World history with its great transformations does not come upon us with the even speed of a railway train. No, it moves forward in spurts but then with irresistible force. One must take care whether one can discern the Lord’s march through history, seek to grasp the hem of his cloak and let oneself be swept along the greatest distance possible.”
Modern politics too often produces an orgy of self-righteousness amidst a cacophony of sounds. Is it too much to ask for a moment of silent reflection to permit us to listen for God’s footsteps so that we can grasp the hem of his cloak?
No generation can do more.
But also it dare not do less.
George H. W. Bush Accepts the Republican Nomination
“This is America:… a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.”
Ronald Reagan’s Vice-President, derided as a “wimp” and a “preppie,” trailed the Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis, by 17 points in opinion polls when he entered the New Orleans Convention Hall on August 18, 1988.
George H. W. Bush (with the aid of Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan) defined himself and his philosophy with his acceptance speech, which helped change the poll ratings dramatically. The speech clarified the differences between himself and his opponent on criminal punishment, the perception of patriotism (some civil libertarians had objected to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms), and taxation: a key line was “Read my lips, no new taxes.” (“Read my lips” was a vogue emphasizer, showing the speaker to be familiar with youthful lingo. A similar device, “Go ahead, make my day”—a movie tough-guy challenge parodied by President Reagan—was used subtly to kid about his dissimilarity with his old boss: “Go ahead, make my twenty-four-hour time period.” Subtleties rarely get across in convention hall speeches.)
The “mission” theme, providing a bridge between his combat service and goals for the nation, was a subtlety that worked; the pledge at the conclusion was a sledgehammer blow to widen the difference on the Pledge of Allegiance “issue.”
***
I ACCEPT YO
UR nomination for president. I mean to run hard, to fight hard, to stand on the issues—and I mean to win.
There are a lot of great stories in politics about the underdog winning, and this is going to be one of them.
And we’re going to win with the help of Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana, a young leader who has become a forceful voice in preparing America’s workers for the labor force of the future, what a superb job he did here tonight. Born in the middle of the century, in the middle of America, and holding the promise of the future—I’m proud to have Dan Quayle at my side.
Many of you have asked, “When will this campaign really begin?” Well, I’ve come to this hall to tell you, and to tell America: tonight is the night.
For seven and a half years, I have helped the president conduct the most difficult job on earth. Ronald Reagan asked for, and received, my candor. He never asked for, but he did receive, my loyalty. And those of you who saw the president’s speech this week, and listened to the simple truth of his words, will understand my loyalty all these years.
But now you must see me for what I am: the Republican candidate for president of the United States. And now I turn to the American people to share my hopes and intentions, and why and where I wish to lead.
And so tonight is for big things. But I’ll try to be fair to the other side. I’ll try to hold my charisma in check. And I reject the temptation to engage in personal references. My approach this evening is, as Sergeant Joe Friday used to say, “Just the facts, ma’am.”
And after all, after all, the facts are on our side.
I seek the presidency for a single purpose, a purpose that has motivated millions of Americans across the years and the ocean voyages. I seek the presidency to build a better America. It’s that simple, and that big.
I’m a man who sees life in terms of missions—missions defined and missions completed. And when I was a torpedo bomber pilot they defined the mission for us. And before we took off we all understood that no matter what, you try to reach the target. And there’ve been other missions for me—Congress and China, the CIA. But I am here tonight, and I am your candidate, because the most important work of my life is to complete the mission that we started in 1980. How, and how do we complete it? We build on it.
The stakes are high this year and the choice is crucial, for the differences between the two candidates are as deep and wide as they have ever been in our long history.
Not only two very different men, but two very different ideas of the future will be voted on this election day.
And what it all comes down to is this: my opponent’s view of the world sees a long, slow decline for our country, an inevitable fall mandated by impersonal historical forces.
But America is not in decline. America is a rising nation.
He sees America as another pleasant country on the UN roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe. And I see America as the leader, a unique nation with a special role in the world.
And this has been called the American century, because in it we were the dominant force for good in the world. We saved Europe, cured polio, went to the moon, and lit the world with our culture. And now we’re on the verge of a new century, and what country’s name will it bear? I say it will be another American century.
Our work is not done; our force is not spent.
There are those who say there isn’t much of a difference this year. But, America, don’t let ’em fool ya.
Two parties this year ask for your support. Both will speak of growth and peace. But only one has proved it can deliver. Two parties this year ask for your trust, but only one has earned it.
Eight years ago I stood here with Ronald Reagan, and we promised, together, to break with the past and return America to her greatness. Eight years later look at what the American people have produced: the highest level of economic growth in our entire history, and the lowest level of world tensions in more than fifty years.
Some say this isn’t an election about ideology, that it’s an election about competence. Well, it’s nice of them to want to play on our field. But this election isn’t only about competence, for competence is a narrow ideal. Competence makes the trains run on time but doesn’t know where they’re going. Competence is the creed of the technocrat who makes sure the gears mesh but doesn’t for a second understand the magic of the machine.
The truth is, this election is about the beliefs we share, the values that we honor, and the principles that we hold dear.
But, since someone brought up competence—consider the size of our triumph: a record number of Americans at work, a record high percentage of our people with jobs, a record high of new businesses, high rate of new businesses, a record high rate of real personal income.
These are facts. And one way you know our opponents know the facts is that to attack our record they have to misrepresent it. They call it a “Swiss cheese economy.” Well, that’s the way it may look to the three blind mice. But when they were in charge it was all holes and no cheese.
You know the litany. Inflation was 13 percent when we came in. We got it down to 4. Interest rates, interest rates were more than 21. And we cut them in half. Unemployment, unemployment was up and climbing, and now it’s the lowest in fourteen years.
My friends, eight years ago this economy was flat on its back—intensive care. And we came in and gave it emergency treatment—got the temperature down by lowering regulation, and got the blood pressure down when we lowered taxes. And pretty soon the patient was up, back on his feet and stronger than ever.
And now who do we hear knocking on the door but the same doctors who made him sick. And they’re telling us to put them in charge of the case again. My friends, they’re lucky we don’t hit them with a malpractice suit!
We’ve created seventeen million new jobs the past five years, more than twice as many as Europe and Japan combined. And they’re good jobs. The majority of them created in the past six years paid an average of more than $22,000 a year. And someone better take “a message to Michael”: tell him that we have been creating good jobs at good wages. The fact is, they talk and we deliver. They promise and we perform.
And there are millions of young Americans in their twenties who barely remember the days of gas lines and unemployment lines. And now they’re marrying and starting careers. And to those young people I say, “You have the opportunity you deserve, and I’m not going to let them take it away from you.”
The leaders of this expansion have been the women of America, who helped create the new jobs and filled two out of every three of them. And to the women of America I say, “You know better than anyone that equality begins with economic empowerment. You’re gaining economic power, and I’m not going to let them take it away from you.”
There are millions of Americans who were brutalized by inflation. We arrested it, and we’re not going to let it out on furlough. And we’re going to keep that Social Security trust fund sound and out of reach of the big spenders. To America’s elderly I say, “Once again you have the security that is your right, and I’m not going to let them take it away from you.”
I know the liberal Democrats are worried about the economy. They’re worried it’s going to remain strong. And they’re right, it is, with the right leadership it will remain strong.
But let’s be frank. Things aren’t perfect in this country. There are people who haven’t tasted the fruits of the expansion. I’ve talked to farmers about the bills they can’t pay. And I’ve been to the factories that feel the strain of change. And I’ve seen the urban children who play amid the shattered glass and the shattered lives. And there are the homeless. And you know, it doesn’t do any good to debate endlessly which policy mistake of the seventies is responsible. They’re there. And we have to help them.
But what we must remember if we’re to be responsible, and compassionate, is that economic growth is the key to our endeavors.
I want growth that stays, that broadens, that touches, finally, all Americ
ans, from the hollows of Kentucky to the sunlit streets of Denver, from the suburbs of Chicago to the broad avenues of New York, and from the oil fields of Oklahoma to the farms of the Great Plains.
And can we do it? Of course we can. We know how. We’ve done it. And if we continue to grow at our current rate, we will be able to produce thirty million jobs in the next eight years. And we will do it—by maintaining our commitment to free and fair trade, by keeping government spending down, and by keeping taxes down.
Our economic life is not the only test of our success. One issue overwhelms all the others, and that’s the issue of peace.
And look at the world on this bright August night. The spirit of democracy is sweeping the Pacific rim. China feels the winds of change. New democracies assert themselves in South America. And one by one the unfree places fall, not to the force of arms but to the force of an idea: freedom works.
And we have a new relationship with the Soviet Union—the INF treaty, the beginning of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the beginning of the end of the Soviet proxy war in Angola, and with it the independence of Namibia. Iran and Iraq move toward peace.
It’s a watershed. It is no accident.
It happened when we acted on the ancient knowledge that strength and clarity lead to peace; weakness and ambivalence lead to war. You see, weakness tempts aggressors. Strength stops them. I will not allow this country to be made weak again. Never.
The tremors in the Soviet world continue. The hard earth there has not yet settled. Perhaps what is happening will change our world forever. And perhaps not. A prudent skepticism is in order. And so is hope. But either way, we’re in an unprecedented position to change the nature of our relationship. Not by preemptive concession, but by keeping our strength. Not by yielding up defense systems with nothing won in return, but by hard, cool engagement in the tug and pull of diplomacy.
My life has been lived in the shadow of war; I almost lost my life in one.
