Reagan’s Strategy for the Cold War: Journal Article by Robert C. Rowland and John M. Jones

Cold War Tensions Context

The "Evil Empire" speech was delivered by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 amidst intensified Cold War hostilities. It reflected Reagan’s shift from détente to a more confrontational policy against the Soviet Union, which he branded as an existential threat to freedom and democracy. This period featured a military buildup, including deployment of missiles in Europe, aimed at countering Soviet armament. Reagan’s speech was part of a broader strategy to rally domestic and international opposition to communism and nuclear freeze proposals.

Ideological and Moral Framework

Reagan’s speech framed the Cold War conflict in stark moral terms, portraying the Soviet Union as a manifestation of absolute evil—“the focus of evil in the modern world” and an “evil empire.” This rhetoric was designed to emphasize the ideological battle between freedom, underpinned by belief in God and individual rights, and Soviet totalitarianism, which Reagan characterized as a rejection of these values. The speech aimed to counter calls for nuclear arms freezes by arguing that peace required “peace through strength,” and stressed non-compromise on principles like freedom and faith. It also appealed to Christian audiences by connecting politics with spiritual warfare, exemplifying Reagan’s use of moral clarity to motivate resistance to communism.

Political and Diplomatic Implications

Though initially increasing Cold War tensions, Reagan’s hardline "Evil Empire" stance ultimately coexisted with pragmatic diplomacy, leading to significant arms reduction talks with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev later in the decade. The speech bolstered Reagan’s domestic support and influenced conservative politics by rejecting nuclear freeze initiatives as naive. Long-term, it contributed to a shift in international relations that culminated in treaties like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987 and helped create conditions for the end of the Cold War. Reagan's vision combined strategic military buildup with a belief in the eventual collapse of Soviet communism, reinforcing a narrative of moral and political victory.

Key themes

• Reagan framed the Cold War as a moral struggle between good and evil.
• The Soviet Union was labeled as an “evil empire” and an ideological failure.
• Moral clarity was prioritized over diplomatic niceties in confronting communism.
• Reagan’s strategy combined truth-telling with strength and military buildup.
• The speech aimed to undercut détente and opposition movements like the Nuclear Freeze.
• Domestic cultural battles were connected to Cold War foreign policy.

Motifs & problems

Recurring motifs in the article include moral clarity, good vs. evil imagery, and the labeling of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” These symbols function as rhetorical tools to simplify complex geopolitical conflicts into a spiritual and ethical crusade. The interpretive crux lies in balancing this moral absolutism with practical policy, as Reagan’s approach combined condemnation with strategic military strengthening. The speech’s symbolism also raised issues, like criticism for its harsh tone and the domestic political polarization it fostered, reflecting tensions between ideological conviction and diplomatic pragmatism.

Study questions

What role does moral clarity play in Reagan’s Cold War strategy?
How does labeling the Soviet Union as “evil” serve both domestic and foreign policy goals?
Why was the nuclear arms buildup central to Reagan’s negotiation strategy?
In what ways did the “evil empire” rhetoric affect public attitudes toward détente?
How do domestic cultural conflicts intersect with foreign policy in the speech?
What criticisms emerged from Reagan’s frankness and moral absolutism?
How did Reagan’s speech influence Soviet leadership perceptions?
What lessons can contemporary policymakers draw from Reagan’s approach?

Critical approaches & debates

Scholars analyze Rowland and Jones’s article mainly through rhetorical, historical, and ideological lenses. Formalist readings focus on Reagan’s use of framing devices such as the good-versus-evil dichotomy and freedom versus totalitarianism, showing how rhetoric mobilized public and political will. Marxist and postcolonial critiques may challenge Reagan’s moral framing as overly simplistic or serve hegemonic interests. Debates arise over whether Reagan’s strategy genuinely aimed at peace through strength or provoked escalation. Critics differ on the effectiveness and ethics of labeling the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” especially regarding its impact on diplomacy and nuclear arms negotiation.

Key passages

The central passage naming the Soviet Union the “evil empire” employs stark moral contrast to delegitimize communism and underscore ideological opposition. This labeling serves as a rhetorical anchor, justifying military buildup and nuclear deterrence while promoting hope for change within Soviet satellite states. Its blunt truth-telling breaks diplomatic niceties but bolsters Reagan’s strategic resolve and appeals to American values, emphasizing eventual nuclear abolition as a shared goal.

Bibliography

Rowland, Robert C., and Jones, John M. “Reagan’s Strategy for the Cold War and the Evil Empire Address.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 19:3 (2016). Related primary materials include Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech (1983) and his radio addresses on deterrence. Foundational and recent scholarship encompasses analyses of Reagan’s Cold War rhetoric and strategy, notably works by historians like Wilson (2008) on Reagan-Gorbachev dynamics.