Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History

by Unknown

  And I needn’t remind you that it was the strength and the unbelievable will of the Eisenhower years that kept the peace by using our strength, by using it in the Formosa Strait, and in Lebanon, and by showing it courageously at all times.

  It was during those Republican years that the thrust of Communist imperialism was blunted. It was during those years of Republican leadership that this world moved closer not to war but closer to peace than at any other time in the last three decades.

  And I needn’t remind you—but I will—that it’s been during Democratic years that our strength to deter war has been stilled and even gone into a planned decline. It has been during Democratic years that we have weakly stumbled into conflicts, timidly refusing to draw our own lines against aggression, deceitfully refusing to tell even our people of our full participation and tragically letting our finest men die on battlefields unmarked by purpose, unmarked by pride or the prospect of victory.

  Yesterday it was Korea; tonight it is Vietnam. Make no bones of this. Don’t try to sweep this under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the president, who is the commander in chief of our forces, refuses to say—refuses to say, mind you—whether or not the objective over there is victory, and his secretary of defense continues to mislead and misinform the American people, and enough of it has gone by.

  And I needn’t remind you—but I will—it has been during Democratic years that a billion persons were cast into Communist captivity and their fate cynically sealed.

  Today, today in our beloved country, we have an administration which seems eager to deal with communism in every coin known—from gold to wheat, from consulates to confidence, and even human freedom itself.

  Now, the Republican cause demands that we brand communism as the principal disturber of peace in the world today. Indeed, we should brand it as the only significant disturber of the peace. And we must make clear that until its goals of conquest are absolutely renounced and its rejections with all nations tempered, communism and the governments it now controls are enemies of every man on earth who is or wants to be free.

  Now, we here in America can keep the peace only if we remain strong. Only if we keep our eyes open and keep our guard up can we prevent war.

  And I want to make this abundantly clear—I don’t intend to let peace or freedom be torn from our grasp because of lack of strength, or lack of will—and that I promise you Americans.

  I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will instead give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy of our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those will be liberated from tyranny.

  I can see, and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate, the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe reunified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world.

  It is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot. It’s a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see, and all free men must thrill to, the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by a straight ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny! What a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans, and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific!

  I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system—a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence.

  We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge, we pledge, that human sympathy—what our neighbors to the south call an attitude of simpatico—no less than enlightened self-interest will be our guide.

  And I can see this Atlantic civilization galvanizing and guiding emergent nations everywhere. Now, I know this freedom is not the fruit of every soil. I know that our own freedom was achieved through centuries by unremitting efforts by brave and wise men. And I know that the road to freedom is a long and a challenging road, and I know also that some men may walk away from it, that some men resist challenge, accepting the false security of governmental paternalism.

  And I pledge that the America I envision in the years ahead will extend its hand in help in teaching and in cultivation so that all new nations will be at least encouraged to go our way, so that they will not wander down the dark alleys of tyranny or to the dead-end streets of collectivism.

  My fellow Republicans, we do no man a service by hiding freedom’s light under a bushel of mistaken humility. I seek an American proud of its past, proud of its ways, proud of its dreams, and determined actively to proclaim them. But our examples to the world must, like charity, begin at home.

  In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room, room for the liberation of the energy and the talent of the individual, otherwise our vision is blind at the outset.

  We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunity for the creative and the productive.

  We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions. And I cherish the day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who, unafraid and undaunted, pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment, and produce the inventive engines of production—science and technology.

  This nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we—we as individual citizens—can and should do.

  During Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspiration—a nation where all who can will be self-reliant.

  We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.

  We see in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society.

  And beyond all that, we see and cherish diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives, and accomplishments. We don’t seek to live anyone’s life for him. We only seek to secure his rights, guarantee him opportunity, guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.

  We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy, and enforcing law and order.

  Thus do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creative difference within a stable order, for we Republicans define government’s role where needed at many, many levels—preferably, though, the one closest to the people involved: our towns and our cities, then our counties, then our states, then our regional contacts, and only then the national government.

  That, let me remind you, is the land of liberty built by decentralized power. On it also we must have balance between the branches of government at every level.

  Balance, diversity, creative difference—these are the elements of Republican equation. Republicans agree, Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications. But we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are Republicans.

  This is a party—this Republican party is a party for free men. No
t for blind followers and not for conformists.

  Back in 1858 Abraham Lincoln said this of the Republican party—and I quote him because he probably could have said it during the last week or so—It was composed of strained, discordant, and even hostile elements. End of the quote, in 1958 [sic].

  Yet all of these elements agreed on paramount objective: to arrest the progress of slavery, and place it in the course of ultimate extinction.

  Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of preserving and enlarging freedom at home and safeguarding it from the forces of tyranny abroad is great enough to challenge all our resources and to require all our strength.

  Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those, those who do not care for our cause, we don’t expect to enter our ranks, in any case. And let our Republicanism so focused and so dedicated not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.

  I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

  And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

  The beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty of this federal system of ours, is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution.

  Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer-regimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world. Ours is a very human cause for very humane goals. This party, its good people, and its unquestionable devotion to freedom will not fulfill the purposes of this campaign which we launch here now until our cause has won the day, inspired the world, and shown the way to a tomorrow worthy of all our yesteryears.

  I repeat, I accept your nomination with humbleness, with pride, and you and I are going to fight for the goodness of our land. Thank you.

  President Richard M. Nixon Rallies “the Silent Majority” to Support the War in Vietnam

  “And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support.”

  “There is nothing the president has reflected on with greater anguish,” Henry Kissinger told the Nixon senior staff in the Roosevelt Room of the White House a few hours before the president was to address the nation, “than what he is about to say tonight. Night after night, he has worked until two or three in the morning, producing draft after draft…. The president told me, ‘I don’t know if the country can be led here—but we must try.’”

  The antiwar movement was gathering momentum in the first year of the Nixon presidency; on October 15, 1969, a well-organized moratorium, a nationwide day of protest including a march on Washington, increased the pressure of public opinion to speed the war’s end. Columnist David Broder warned of “the breaking of the presidency,” much as Lyndon Johnson’s ability to govern had been shattered. In a radio campaign address three years later, Nixon reviewed the circumstances of his “Silent Majority” speech:

  “In every presidency there are moments when success or failure seems to hang in the balance…. One of those moments came toward the end of my first year in office…. On November 3, 1969, I came before my fellow Americans on radio and television to review our responsibilities and to summon up the strength of our national character.

  “The great silent majority of Americans—good people with good judgment who stand ready to do what they believe to be right—immediately responded. The response was powerful, nonpartisan, and unmistakable. The majority gave its consent, and the expressed will of the people made it possible for the government to govern successfully. I have seen the will of the majority in action…. That is why I cannot ally myself with those who habitually scorn the will of the majority.”

  In 1969, while much of the media focused on antiwar protest, the majority was afflicted with what sociologists call “pluralistic ignorance,” an unawareness of being in the majority. Nixon, in this speech—which offered a rationale rather than new concessions—characterized his opposition as “a vocal minority,” took some of the steam out of the doves’ campaign by reminding his supporters they were the majority, and effectively bought nearly half a year of time with which to negotiate.

  The anthologist was shown a copy of the speech half an hour before delivery and noticed a historical error in the peroration: Woodrow Wilson, who was associated with the phrase “war to end wars,” never used it in his writings; the coiner was historian H. G. Wells. A few moments before airtime, I made this nitpicking point to the president, who rolled his eyes and said the hell with it, but in delivery changed “wrote” to “spoke,” which may well be true and, in any case, cannot be disproven. I did not catch another error: we all thought he was speaking from the actual desk used by President Wilson; however, it turned out that the “Wilson desk” belonged to Henry Wilson, vice-president in the Grant administration; this mistake is corrected in a footnote in the collected presidential works.

  The speech was effective because it was tightly organized, appealed to reason, and utilized such presentation devices as (a) the interior dialogue answering questions (“Well, now, who is at fault?”), (b) the enumeration of points to come (“Two other significant developments”), and (c) the presentation of alternatives in such a way as to lead to an inescapable conclusion (“I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal…. Or we can persist in our search for a just peace”). Some in the audience winced at banalities—“this would have been a popular and easy course…. It is not the easy way”—but soon recognized the evocative power of “the silent majority.”

  That phrase had been used a few months before by Vice-President Agnew, and nobody picked it up; it had been used often in history, usually in reference to the dead. Nixon had spoken of “the silent center” in his 1968 campaign, and had no idea his “silent majority” would be seized upon to encapsulate the “us” against the minority “them.” He was sensitive to memorable phrases; a policy enunciated on the island of Guam was being called “the Guam Doctrine,” but nobody elected Guam, and in this speech he straightened that out with “what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine.” When I asked him afterward whether he knew he was launching a big phrase with “the silent majority,” he said, “If I thought it would be picked up, I would have capitalized it in the text.”

  ***

  GOOD EVENING, MY fellow Americans:

  Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world—the war in Vietnam.

  I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.

  Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.

  How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?

  How has this administration changed the policy of the previous administration?

  What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?

  What choices do we have if we are to end the war?

  What are the prospects for peace?

  Now, let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20.

  • The war had been going on for four years.

  • 31,000 Americans had been killed in action.

  • The training program for the South Vietnamese was behind schedule.

  • 540,000 Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number.

  • No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris, and the United States had not put forth a c
omprehensive peace proposal.

  • The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends as well as our enemies abroad.

  In view of these circumstances, there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces.

  From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: this was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson’s war to become Nixon’s war.

  But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.

  Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson’s war becomes Nixon’s war.

  The great question is, How can we win America’s peace?

  Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue. Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place?

  Fifteen years ago, North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.

  In response to the request of the government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent sixteen thousand military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.

  Now, many believe that President Johnson’s decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others—I among them—have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.