Reagan at Westminster: Foreshadowing the End of the Cold War

4. Reaction to the Address

chapter฀ Reaction to the Address In retrospect, MargaretThatcher’s praise for Reagan’s address at Westminster is understandable. After all, his “magnificent speech,” which she also termed “a triumph,” did correctly predict the end of the cold war.1 At the time, she was almost alone in this assessment. Thatcher made one other comment that also turned out to be prescient. In a toast at a luncheon following the address, she reminded the audience of Lincoln’s comment at Gettysburg that “it is for us the living to be dedicated here to the unfinished work that they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” She then added, “It is in that spirit and mindful of that unfinished work, that I ask you all to rise and drink a toast to the enduring alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom.”2 Thatcher saw that Reagan’s speech at Westminster was the start of something larger and that the effort to complete the “unfinished work” would resonate in the world. At Westminster, Reagan argued that freedom and democracy were more powerful ideas than any authoritarian or collectivist ideology and that peace could be protected with real arms control. Over the next decade, his assertions were borne out in fact. There would be no direct superpower conflict, and important arms control treaties were negotiated, eliminating most intermediate range weapons and drastically reducing strategic arsenals. The Berlin Wall came down, and the Soviet Union itself gave up the ideological ghost. Viewed from this historical perspective, the importance of the speech is obvious. But at the time, Reagan’s arguments lacked resonance. [9฀] chapter฀ In the remainder of this chapter,we describe the immediate reaction to the address, the gradually evolving response of the media and other commentators,the Soviet reaction,and finally the ongoing importance of the speech.We also explain why a speech that made such a strong case for democracy was not more effective in the short term in influencing audience attitudes. A Tepid Initial Response The reaction to the address in the Royal Gallery was muted to say the least. Saul Friedman reported that the audience“remained largely undemonstrative during the speech”and that Reagan received significant applause only when he defended the British invasion of the Falklands, receiving shouts of “Hear, hear,”and to a lesser degree when he offered to participate in a series of television appearances with Brezhnev.3 At the conclusion of the address, he received almost a minute of “strong, steady applause,” which Reagan labeled “very heartwarming.”4 While some Conservative MPs provided “a genuinely warm reception ”that“was an endorsement”to what they saw as a“lyrical”address, even within the Conservative Party this feeling was not universal.5 Former prime minster Edward Heath was quoted by Lou Cannon as saying that“the British‘knew about communism’ without the need of any instruction from Reagan.”6 Heath added that“in light of events in Hungary and Poland, you have to be extremely careful in encouraging other countries to revolution.”7 Many thought the speech well written but not very substantive. Cannon,who personally labeled the speech“the most systematic exposition [Reagan] has ever given of his anti-Soviet views,” also reported that it “won praise for its delivery from middle-of-the-road members of both parties but was considered as irrelevant to current world crises by many of these same politicians.”He also cited the devastating comment of an“up-and-coming”Conservative MP that it was“the kind of speech I would expect a mediocre Conservative Member of Parliament to give to his local Rotary club.”8 In retrospect, these comments seem misguided, but they were the conventional wisdom at the time. [9฀] reaction฀to฀the฀address The British public was not especially impressed either, with only “small numbers” turning out for Reagan’s ride through London following the speech.9 According to David Hewson of the Times, “the people of London hardly seemed to care”about Reagan’s visit.10 Given negative public attitudes toward Reagan,this lack of reaction is understandable . The Labour Party reaction was completely predictable, given its members’ extremely negative attitudes about Reagan. The party released a letter “utterly reject[ing] an ideological crusade against the Soviet Union and its identification as the sole or even prime source of conflict in the world.” The letter added that “the peace movement is not...