In the years following the Nixon Administration, the underlying theme of detente carried itself through the presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter respectively. Having served its purpose in the earlier part of the decade, the relaxation of tensions began to concern Americans at home. Many believed the policy had weakened American resolve and permitted the Soviet Union to advance its agenda within the territory it already possessed. In this however, the United States witnessed a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan marking yet another proxy war and the evident change to come in foreign policymaking on the home front, as seen in the US boycott of the 1979 summer Olympics held in Moscow.
When asked about the detente policy, then former California governor and presidential hopeful Ronald Reagan responded by questioning the policy. “What was detente? Isn’t that what a turkey has with his farmer until Thanksgiving Day?” Riding on the strength of his economic ideas and strong anti-detente position, Reagan defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election. By 1981, Reagan reaffirmed his views stating “so far detente has been a one way street that the Soviet Union has used to pursue its own aims. Their goal must be the promotion of world revolution and a one world communist or socialist state. Our strategy is defensive; our aim is to protect the peace by ensuring that no adversaries ever conclude they could best us in a war of their own choosing.” In its essence, Reagan believed the Soviet Union would reach its demise through a competitive challenge of military power and economics.
In 1982, Reagan delivered a speech to the British Parliament ultimately serving as the mantra for the years to come:
“Speaking for all Americans, I want to say how very much at home we feel in your house. Every American would, because this is one of democracy’s shrines. Here the rights of free people and the process of representation have been debated and refined…
We are 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 to the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than thirty 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…
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…
It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and dignity to its citizens…
Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated…
The task I have set forth will long outlive our own generation. But together, we, too, have come through the worst. Let us now begin a major effort to secure the best – a crusade for freedom that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation. For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.”
The International Review 