...granted demonstrates why we dare not take those rights for
granted. Gladstone, defending the Reform Bill of 1866, declared,
"You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side." It
was easier to believe in the march of democracy in Gladstone's
day--in that high noon of Victorian optimism.
We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a
terrible political invention-totalitarianism. Optimism comes less
easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because
democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression.
Yet optimism is in order, because day by day democracy is proving
itself to be a not-at-all-fragile flower. From Stettin on the
Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by
totalitarianism have had more than 30 years to establish their
legitimacy. But none--not one regime has yet been able to risk
free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.
The strength of the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrates
the truth told in an underground joke in the Soviet Union. It is
that the Soviet Union would remain a one party nation even if an
opposition party were permitted, because everyone would join the
opposition party. [Laughter]
America's time as a player on the stage of world history has
been brief. I think understanding this fact has always made you
patient with your younger cousins--well, not always patient. I do
recall that on one occasion, Sir Winston Churchill said in
exasperation about one of our most distinguished diplomats: "He
is the only case I know of a bull who carries his china shop with
him." [Laughter]
But witty as Sir Winston was, he also had that special attribute
of great statesmen-the gift of vision, the willingness to see the
future based on the experience of the past. It is this sense of
history, this understanding of the past that I want to talk with
you about today, for it is in remembering what we share of the
past that our two nations can make common cause for the future.
We have not inherited an easy world. If developments like the
Industrial Revolution, which began here in England, and the gifts
of science and technology have made Life much easier for us, they
have also made it more dangerous. There are threats now to our
freedom, indeed to our very existence, that other generations
could never even have imagined.
There is first the threat of global war. No President, no
Congress, no Prime Minister, no Parliament can spend a day
entirely free, of this threat. And I don't have to tell you that
in today's world the existence of nuclear weapons could mean, if
not the extinction of mankind, then surely the end of
civilization as we know it. That's why negotiations on
intermediate-range nuclear forces now underway in Europe and the
START talks -- Strategic Arms Reduction Talks - which will begin
later this month, are not just critical to American or Western
policy; they are critical to mankind. Our commitment to early
success in these negotiations is firm and unshakable, and our
purpose is clear: reducing the risk of war by reducing the means
of waging war on both sides.
At the same time there is a threat posed to human freedom by the
enormous power of the modern state. History teaches the dangers
of government that overreaches-political control taking
precedence over free economic growth, secret police, mindless
bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and
personal freedom.
Now, I'm aware that among us here and throughout Europe there is
legitimate disagreement over the extent to which the public
sector should play a role in a nation's economy and life. But on
one point all of us are united--our abhorrence of dictatorship in
all its forms, but most particularly totalitarianism and the
terrible inhumanities it has caused in our time--the great purge,
Auschwitz and Dachau, the Gulag, and Cambodia.
Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent
restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note
that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of
their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for
territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in
the hands of The Communist world, the map of Europe--indeed, the
world-would look very different today. And certainly they will
note it was not the democracies that invaded Afghanistan or ...