Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) nailed down the principle difference between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama's foreign policy Thursday at CPAC.
The possible GOP presidential candidate explained although President Obama loves to point to Ronald Reagan's dialogue with the Soviet Union as his basis for conversing with tyrannical governments such as Iran, there is a key difference.
"Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union because they had nuclear weapons and he wanted peace. But he never accepted the Soviet Union. He called them what they were, an evil empire. He never relinquished the moral arguments that what they did was wrong, and unsustainable, and contrary to the rights of all men," Rubio said.
"He did not fall victim or in the trap of moral relativism in foreign policy, where we somehow look the other way at these violations of human rights that occur all over the world in these countries, and accept them as a normal type of government, just a different type of government."
Transcript:
MARCO RUBIO: I don't like to make these issues of national security partisan, because it's important our country be united in moments like this. But we cannot ignore that the flawed foreign policy of the last few years has brought us to this stage, because we have a president who believed but by the sheer force of his personality, he would be able to shape global events. We have a president that believed by going around the world and giving key speeches in key places, he could shape the behavior of other nations and other people. We do not have the luxury of seeing the world the way we hope it would be. We have to see the world the way it is, and we must address these issues before they grow unmanageable, and they threaten not just our freedoms, but our economy. And that is the true challenge we have in the 21st century. We must confront them with the seriousness of purpose that requires an American foreign policy deeply rooted in our values and in our moral principles, in the notion that every human being has rights given to them, not by their governments or by their leaders, a right that's given to you by your creator. All human beings have these rights.
By the principle that any government and any leader who violates those rights is an illegitimate one. The president loves to point to Ronald Reagan and say, well, Reagan talked to Russia. Reagan talked to the Soviet Union. Why can't we talk to Iran? But there's a difference. Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union because they had nuclear weapons and he wanted peace, but he never accepted the Soviet Union. He called them what they were, an evil empire. He never relinquished the moral arguments that what they did was wrong and unsustainable and contrary to the rights of all men. He never ceded that ground. He did not fall victim or in the trap of moral relativism in foreign policy, where we somehow look the other way at these violations of human rights that occur all over the world in these countries, and accept them as a normal type of government, just a different type of government. There is nothing normal or acceptable about a government that does not allow you to worship as you please. There is nothing moral or acceptable about a government that forces women to have abortions. There is nothing moral or acceptable about a government that slaughters people in the streets. There is nothing moral or acceptable about a government that jails political opponents. There is nothing moral and acceptable about governments that sponsor terrorism as a tool of state craft. And we should never accept any of those things as a legitimate form of government.
Full speech: