At the top of the list of essays written by Reagan himself were foreign and defense policy (27%) and economics (25%). Next was our government, how well it worked, and questions of individual liberty (15%). Then came the hot issues of the 1970's-energy and the environment (10%). The other major topics covered were education Social Security, and health, crime, social issues and welfare (each approximately 3%). The remaining 9 percent of the commentaries fell into the categories of religious inspiration, long quotes or miscellaneous "desk-cleaning" topics. Numerous excerpts are listed below. |
|
Date: March 1979 Subject: SALT II and the media My Comment: Reagan shows how the media manipulates a story. He presented numerous other commentaries (not shown here) discussing the news media's bias reporting of cold war related subjects, human rights, the iron curtain and communism. Commentary: There is one thing most of us don�t know about polls and should; many times the result is determined in advance by the way the question is asked. I�ll be right back. At least once a week if not more often we read or hear the result of an opinion poll. The majority of pollster, are in my opinion, conscientious, honest and pretty dependable. We must realize however that pollsters don�t ask questions just to satisfy their own curiosity. They are employed by others and sometimes the others want specific questions asked in a specific way. A simple truth in polling is, �if you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.� Here is a case in point. Most polls in recent months having to do with U.S. foreign policy and our defensive strength vis-�-vis the Soviet Union have shown a growing concern on the part of the American people. It is safe to say that Americans do not trust the Soviet Union and feel we are in a or close to a dangerous situation. Now it is possible to say this is borne out by CBS-N.Y. Times poll regarding the Salt II treaty. The poll shows almost 2/3 � 63% of the respondents favoring such a treaty. On top of that comes NBC-Associated Press Poll in which 81% apparently support the Salt II agreement. The tendency is to accept these figures as evidence that Americans are worried about our military strength or lack of it. But how do these figures relate to all the evidence that we don�t trust the Russians? If there is a lack of trust shouldn�t there be a real concern about whether we could depend on the Russians to keep the treaty? These questions were on the minds of a number of distinguished Americans of both political parties who make up the �Committee On The Present Danger�. These are well informed people in the areas of foreign policy and national defense-many of them former cabinet members in both Democrat and Republican administrations. They are, as the name of the group implies, concerned with our present defense policy and dedicated to presenting the truth to the American people. They decided to look for some answers to the questions bothering them. An inspection of the questions asked in the 2 polls revealed the respondents had been asked simply whether they favored the concept of arms limitations and a limit on strategic nuclear weapons. It is surprising in view of the questions that the polls didn�t get a 100% affirmative response. Then, and we should be grateful to them, the Committee commissioned its own poll. The answers were quite different than those offered by the CBS-N.Y. Times and NBC-Associated Press. On the next broadcast-tune in same station same time - I�ll tell you the answers the obtained and the questions they asked. I hope our U.S Senators will se this poll before they vote on Salt II. This is Ronald Reagan Thanks for listening. |
|
Date: March, 1979 Subject: SALT II and the media My Comment: The only Republican, I know, who never was intimidated by the press. Commentary: Today, takes off where the previous commentary left off � the question of polling and what the questions have to do with surprising contradictory answers. I�ll be right back. On the previous broadcast I told of 3 polls and that the answers to the 3rd were quite different from those obtained on the first 2. CBS-N.Y. Times and NBC-Associated Press each took a poll in which the respondents were simply asked whether we should or should not have an agreement with the Russians limiting strategic nuclear weapons. You�d think everyone would say �yes� to such a question and most people did. In one poll the yes vote was 63% in the other 81%. Only the results of the polls � (not the questions) were made public. They were used to convey the idea that Americans are overwhelmingly in support of the Salt II agreement. This was disturbing to �The Committee On The Present Danger,� a bipartisan group of distinguished citizens concerned about our declining defense capability. Knowing tat most published data shows the American people increasingly suspicious of Soviet intentions the committee made it a point to find out what questions has been asked in the polls. Then they did some polling of their own. There was quite a different result. A reputable pollster was employed and a series of questions, each one highly specific, and all dealing specifically with Salt II were asked of the respondents. The responses show that American people are skeptical about Salt II, don�t know much about it and not prepared to support it without additional safeguards. Less than 10% strongly supported Salt II and a comparable number strongly opposed it. A slightly larger group reluctantly supported it in spite of some misgivings. In other words the vast support the treaty is suppose to have comes down to 20.3%. By contrast 41.7% more than twice as many would have to see more safeguards before they would support it and almost 30% say they don�t know enough about it to have an opinion. There was a true, false question which revealed the people are not only uninformed, they�ve been mis-informed. Almost, with the don�t knows excluded, more than half said the treaty would require both nations to reduce defense spending. They are wrong. A full � said the treaty would limit the explosive power of nuclear warheads. They are wrong. More than 2/3 said the treaty would require each side to reduce it�s ability to make a nuclear attack on the others. They are wrong. And the 68% who thought the treaty would regulate the number of strategic missiles or warheads each side could have are wrong. This poll demonstrates that a searching national debate should be held and that the administration should give the American people the unvarnished facts about the treaty � what it will and will not do. This the administration has not done. This is Ronald Reagan Thanks for listening. |
|
Date: July 1978 Subject: SALT Treaty Talks My Comment: Do you think we would be speaking Russian today, if Carter was re-elected? Commentary: We may not be too far away from decision time with regard to a new "Salt" agreement concerning our strategic weapons strength as compared to the Russians. I'll be right back. You might be interested in some timetables as presented by former Secretary of the Air Force Thomas C. Reed. Tom was part of our Strategic Air Command team in the early days and then moved into the Pentagon. By training he is a nuclear physicist. He challenges the concept that "d�tente" has eliminated the possibility of a nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union. In a presentation to the American Security Council he viewed recent history beginning with the Cuban missile crisis 16 years ago. It was October 1962 when the world for 6 days hung on the brink of nuclear war. Then the Russians blinked and their missiles were removed from Cuba. President Kennedy expressed the hope that the governments of the world could, "turn their earnest attention to the compelling necessities for ending the arms race and reducing world tensions". Unfortunately, the Soviet Union turned it's "earnest attention" to a massive buildup of military force. A Soviet deputy foreign minister said: "Never will we be caught like this again." They were caught because we had overwhelming nuclear superiority at the time. Two years later in 1964 Brezhnev had replaced Khrushchev and begun the work of keeping that deputy foreign ministers promise. He began increasing the resources dedicated to military programs. By 1969 the Soviets had passed us in number of (ICBM) Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles silos. By 1970 with a Gross National Product only half as great as ours they were spending more on arms than we were. Now follow this timetable Tom Reed has put together, remembering that in 1962 we had about and 8 to 1 edge over the Soviets. By 1971 they outnumbered us in tactical aircraft. By 1973 their surface navy outnumbered ours. Aslo in 1973 they flew multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). These are the multiple nuclear warheads carried by one rocket which separate in flight and fly on to different targets. We had them but thought the Russians were years away from catching up. By 1974 they passed us in the number of submarine launching tubes for nuclear missiles. They also added on million men to their armed forces. By 1975 their spending on strategic offensive nuclear forces was double our s and seven times as much in the field of ballistic missiles. Also in '75 they began full scale production and deployment of the Backfire supersonic long-range bomber. They called it a medium range aircraft but it is capable of attacking targets in the U.S. By 1976 they deployed their Delta-class submarines equipped with a new 4,200 mile missile. We have comparable submarine system called the Trident. - It wont be on line till 1981. In 1977 they demonstrated a non-nuclear weapon capable of knocking our satellites out of space. And now it is 1978 and the Soviets are preparing to test their 5th generation of ICBM'swhile they undergo a massive replacement of existing missiles with a 4th generation system. We completed our last Minuteman Silo in 1967. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
|
Date: April, 1975 Subject: Communism and Deterrence My Comment: Treaties and "feel good" liberalism only guarantee one thing WAR!. Commentary: How much is it worth to not have WWIII. I'll be right back� While in London I had an opportunity to visit with various government officials including those concerned with foreign affairs. Inevitably the conversation turned to the world situation and how to maintain peace. And just as inevitably the Soviet Union was automatically accepted as the possible threat to peace. Just 40 years ago it was Nazi Germany that loomed as the storm cloud on the horizon. And of course the storm cloud did eventually fill the sky and rain fire on all the world. The leaders of that generation saw the growing menace and talked of it but reacted to the military might of Germany with anguished passiveness. Will it be said of today's world leaders as it was of the pre WWII leaders "they were better at surviving the catastrophe than they were at preventing it?" WWII did not happen because the nations of the free world engaged in a military buildup. In most countries including ours "too little too late" described the reaction to the Nazi military colossus. What does it take for us to learn? On every hand and abroad when the suggestion is made that we strengthen the military capability of NATO the reply is that it's not politically expedient to increase military spending for armaments because people are against it. Our own Congress which is willing to run an $80 billion deficit for every kind of social experiment screams long and loud for reduction of the budget for defense. But have any of the political leaders laid the facts out for the people? Of course the overtaxed citizenry in Europe and America want government spending reduced. But if we told the truth, namely that enough evidence of weakness or lack of willpower could tempt the Soviet Union as it once tempted Hitler and the military rulers of Japan I believe our decision would be in favor of an ounce of prevention. Certainly we haven't forgotten that after WWII the Japanese told us they decided on war when they saw our army staging war games with wooden guns. They also took note that one month before Pearl Harbor Congress came within a single vote of abolishing the draft and sending a bulk of our army home. It has recently been revealed that for 12 years a behavioral scientist at the University of Hawaii has headed up a team of distinguished colleagues in a federally funded, computerized study of international behavior. Summed up in one sentence they have learned that "to abdicate powers is to abdicate the right to maintain peace." The study focused mainly upon Red China, Russia and the U.S.. Every bit of data from trade to tourism - from threats to treaties - was fed into the computer. The findings prove conclusively that what Laurence Beilenson wrote in his book "The Treaty Trap" is true. "Nations that place their faith in treaties and fail to keep their hardware up don't stick around long enough to write many pages of history." According to the report (quote) It is not equality in power," "that reduces hostility and conflict. Rather it is power dominance or submission. - Peace is purchased by making yourself stronger than your adversary - or by dismantling power and submitting to ones enemies" (unquote) Power is not only sufficient military strength but a sound economy , a reliable energy supply and credibility - the belief by any potential enemy that you will not choose surrender as a way to maintain peace. Thomas Jefferson said "The American people won't make a mistake if they are given ALL the facts". Perhaps congress should be given some facts about us, namely that we'd rather prevent a war by being well armed than by surrendering. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
|
Date: May, 1975 Subject: Communism My Comment: A compassionate conservative is nothing new. Commentary: Mankind has survived all manner of evil and plagues - but can it survive Communism? I'll be right back. When a disease like communism hangs on as it has for a half century or more it's good, now and then, to be reminded of just how vicious it really is. Of course those who have the disease use all kinds of misleading terms to describe it's symptoms and it's effects. For example, if you and I in America planted mines on our borders, ringed the country with barb wire and machine gun toting guards to keep anyone from leaving the country we'd hardly describe that as "liberating" the people. But we've grown so used to communist doubletalk I sometimes think we've lost some of our fear of the disease. We need frequent vaccination to guard against being infected until the day when this health treat will be eliminated as we eliminated the black plague. How many of us are aware of some of the differences between those who have the sickness and we who don't. Right now there are a number of Russian women who fell in love and married Americans and other foreigners who happened to be stationed in the Soviet Union for a time. Now falling in love isn't something you set out to do, and among well people it isn't considered a criminal act. But these Russian women are separated from their husbands some of them for several years. When the American husbands finished their assignments in Russia and came home their wives had to get Soviet government permission to go with them. The Soviet government plays a heartless game of bureaucratic paper shuffling - never coming right out and saying "no", but just keeping them filling out papers, renewing applications etc. - sometimes for years. There is the case of a young teacher who married and American. During the application process she was fired from her job. - Reason? - she fell in love with an American that's reason enough where the Soviet is concerned. Her students all loved her. They presented her with a farewell gift and flowers. A Soviet official dropped in on the class to tell them that for giving the flowers none of them would be permitted to go on to college. They would all be assigned to a labor force upon graduation! Now the Associated Press brings another story from Berlin illustrating how the communist sickness looks upon human life - even the life of a child. Berlin is divided, as we know, into the East or sick-with-communism side and well or Western side. Between the two flows the Spree river. Around noon on May 11, a 5-year-old boy fell into the river. Firemen from W. Berlin started to go to his rescue. An East German patrol boat barred them from entering the water because at that point stream flows wholly on East Berlin territory. The 5 yr. Old boy drowned. The mayor of W. Berlin described the refusal of the E. German guards to permit the Westerners to come to his rescue as "an incomprehensible and frightening act - placing political considerations before the saving of a human life." Which is exactly what they did. Remember they were in a patrol boat - they chose to prevent West Germans from entering in their water rather than go to the child's rescue themselves. But they did tidy things up - 3 hours later East German frog men recovered the body. Communism is neither an economical or a political system - it is a form of insanity - a temporary aberration which will one day disappear from the earth because it is contrary to human nature. I wonder how much more misery it will cause before it disappears. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
|
Date: March, 1977 Subject: Intelligence (Missile Defense) My Comment: This relates to current events, with respect to the "W" missile defense initiative. We gave that technology effort up twenty years ago for detente. Why? Another liberal "feel good" strategy? Commentary: Every once in a while something happens that points out how dangerous it is to handicap our counter intelligence agencies as we've done these past few years. I'll be right back. In mid-March the Soviet Union warned us that d�tente would be endangered if American officials continued to criticize violation of Human rights behind the iron curtain. I don't know about you, but I didn't exactly tear my hair and go into a panic at the possibility of losing d�tente. On February 11 a somewhat liberal newspaper the "Boston Globe" carried a news story that should have been front page in every major paper in the land. So far the only publication I'm aware of that saw fit to re-print the item was Bill Buckley's magazine "National Review". According to the Globe article, British Intelligence, in early 1973, obtained a speech made by Soviet head of state Leonid Brezhnev at a secret meeting of East European communist rulers in Prague. In their evaluation the British rated this speech as comparable in importance to Kruschchev's 1956 denunciation of Stalin. The British informed our government of the Brezhnev's speech, but apparently it didn't lessen our desire for "d�tente". Mr Brezhnev told his fellow communist leaders' "We are achieving, with d�tente, what our predecessors have been unable to achieve using the mailed fist. We have been able to accomplish more in a short time with d�tente than was done for years pursuing a confrontation policy with NATO. Trust us comrades, for by 1985, as a consequence of what we are now achieving with d�tente, we will have achieved most of our objectives in Western Europe. We will have consolidated our position. We will have improved our economy." And then he added the bottom line which certainly should have guided our own policy for these intervening years. He said "� a decisive shift in correlation of forces will be such that come 1985, we will be able to extend our will wherever we need to." There was more to his speech. He was optimistic about the future of Marxism in France and Italy and now four years later we know his optimism was justified. He said Finland was already in the Soviet pocket, trends in Norway were in the right direction and Denmark was no longer a viable part of western strength. Washington evidently received the British intelligence report with less than a wave of excitement. According to the "Globe" then Secretary of State Kissinger minimized it's importance to say the least. The only official reference to it came three years later (1976) in the "National Intelligence Estimate." Maybe in 1973 there was some excuse such as interpreting Brezhnev's remarks as a from of campaign rhetoric for in house consumption. But now we can look back over the four year's since the speech was made and see how consistent with his words Soviet policy has been. Soviet forces on the NATO front have been increased by 54 divisions, a 40% increase in tanks to 3 times NATO's armored strength. They have developed 6 new strategic nuclear system and apparently are engaged in a crash program to develop an effective anti-ballistic missile system. You'll remember we bargained away our right to have such a weapon for the protection of our cities. That was one of our contributions to d�tente. Question - Why did we keep this information secret for three years? And why has the news media ignored it now that the secret is out? This is Ronald Reagan Thanks for listening. |