A Time for Choosing (aka "The Speech")
Air date 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA
Audio mp3 of Address
click for pdf
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio (2)]
Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:
Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recentlyhave seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us crossparty lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of thiselection are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We'venever had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that thisprosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation inhistory has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet ourgovernment continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. Wehaven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limitthree times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half timesbigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars ingold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. Andwe've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its totalvalue.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder whoamong us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in SouthVietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely.Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no realpeace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're atwar with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from theswamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose thisway of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those whohad the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we askourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to aCuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his storyone of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky weare." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace toescape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here,there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to thepeople, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still thenewest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man'srelation to man.
Thisis the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government orwhether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite ina far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choosebetween a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a leftor right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate inindividual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade ourfreedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the"Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we mustaccept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the thingsI now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. Forexample, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a notundemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has becomeoutmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditionalsystem of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20thcentury." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution isoutmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says heis "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquateddocument." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulatespokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses throughthe full power of centralized government."
Well, I, for one, resent it when arepresentative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of thiscountry, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves inAmerica. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this wasthe very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don'tcontrol things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. Andthey know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieveits purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimatefunctions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of theeconomy.
Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the costof this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has knowna 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three yearswe've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater,as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better,because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm populationunder these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration hassought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourthsthat is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmerswho wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary ofAgriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them toother individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would haveallowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there's been an increase in theDepartment of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the UnitedStates, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austriadisappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estesnever left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization hasrepeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passedit anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal theassault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interestis almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program thattakes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio,a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed tomake way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land."The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in thethousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and theVeterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken backthrough mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems ofunemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more theplanners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.
They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, adepressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 peoplethere have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when thegovernment tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standingbeside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by takingadvantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human miserythrough government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfarehad the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government toread the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about thedecline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need forpublic housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need growsgreater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million peoplewent to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. Butnow we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on thebasis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in thedark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a littlearithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this addedto their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, isonly running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be someoverhead.
Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or"You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believethat if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicatesexisting programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic?Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program thatisn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropoutproblem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the oldCCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we findthat we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person wehelp 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm notsuggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek tohelp? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young womanwho'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with herseventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars amonth in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in herneighborhood who'd already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of thedo-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we'realways "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not thatthey're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should notfollow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Securityas a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this programwhen they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that anycriticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on themfor a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces ofliterature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it wasa welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people.And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, andthe government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarialhead, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as ofthis moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worrybecause as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the peoplewhatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an averagesalary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurancepolicy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He couldlive it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than SocialSecurity. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on asound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get themwhen they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary featuresthat would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentationof evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widowwith children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceasedhusband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that noone in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I thinkwe're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory governmentprogram, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when Franceadmitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of theroad.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible whenhe suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, sothat when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, andnot 45 cents worth?
I think we're for an international organization, wherethe nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating Americaninterests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you canmuster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations thatrepresent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against thehypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while weengage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of peopleenslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of ourmaterial blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we'reagainst doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism,all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dresssuits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought athousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aidfrom this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is thenearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a halfmillion; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work forceemployed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands ofregulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realizethat today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose afine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell hisproperty at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, JamesWier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And aU.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as awarning to others to make the system work.
Last February 19th at the University ofMinnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket,said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism inthe United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.
But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, camebefore the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking theParty of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin,and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died --because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, thathonorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation ofprivate property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whetheryou hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds thepower of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. Thegovernment can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute.Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place.Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, andfreedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at thismoment.
Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to makeyou and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose justbetween two personalities.
Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and indestroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I holddear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've beenprivileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of tryingfor high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life Ibelieved so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who, in his own business before heentered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it.He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of theprofits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all hisemployees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. Heprovides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico wasravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine andsupplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week beforeChristmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get aride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen thereand no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said,"Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," andthey went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in hisplane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane,fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign,this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. Hiscampaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many leftwho care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said tohis 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness,and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in Godthat you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelesslysend other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war thatmust be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchenof the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace withoutvictory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoidany direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to loveus. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers tocomplex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our electedofficials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts ismorally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb bycommitting an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the IronCurtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willingto make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nationwhich can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war,but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the nextsecond -- surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we followother than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies inappeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- thattheir policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace andwar, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back andretreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- whenNikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told themthat we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comesto deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we willhave been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this becausefrom our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or"better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "liveon his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because thosevoices don't speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dearand peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing inlife is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or shouldMoses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? ShouldChrist have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown downtheir guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of historywere not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazisdidn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer afterall.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies,"There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must notadvance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace throughstrength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured bymaterial computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we'respirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time andspace, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'llpreserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentencethem to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwaterhas faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and theright to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.
Audio & Image (Screenshot) Source: The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library
Page Updated: 10/2/21
U.S. Copyright Status:Text and Audio = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Image = Public domain