Where Is Obama's Moral Clarity on North Korea?
Welcome to 2013. Maybe the Mayans couldn't add correctly. A tiny totalitarian regime is threatening the United States with nuclear attack, and the president has barely spoken on the matter since the threats were made. It isn't hard to imagine how other presidents would have reacted differently.
First consider Bill Clinton. Forget the motivations, one thing is for sure -- Clinton wasn't afraid to speak with moral clarity in international affairs. He led NATO against a thug Serbian regime's ethnic cleansing. Clinton labeled evil as evil.
Imagine how Ronald Reagan would have reacted to threats of nuclear attack on the United States by Kim Jong-Un. For starters, I suspect Reagan would have begun a dialog with Kim's victims years before a nuclear crisis erupted.
North Korea has become the world's largest gulag. North Koreans are even two inches shorter than their South Korean counterparts. Kim Jong-Un's hereditary totalitarianism has produced a nation of malnourished shrimps.
Reagan would not have been quiet about their circumstances.
Reagan spoke to the victims of communist totalitarianism around the world, and reassured them that freedom's light remained lit. History tells us that the victims, even in the most controlled parts of the Soviet Union, heard Reagan. His words gave them hope, and eventually gave them courage to tear down walls.
Reagan spoke with moral clarity to the communist slave masters about the immorality of their regimes. He delegitimized communist governments by speaking directly to communism's victims. He provided a moral contrast between America that is good and great and communist regimes that were evil and destined for the dustbin of history.