Reference no: EM133431513

Question

In the speech from Ronald Reagan (1983) he spoke of a need to avoid the "temptation of pride-the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault [in the Cold War], to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." For the second source exploration, I'd like us to consider the role of violence and militancy (both the threat and use of it) in America's domestic and foreign affairs since the mid 1960s. In a thesis-based paper, analyze the role of violence/militancy in both domestic and foreign affairs as a means to achieve change from President Johnson to Reagan. Under what conditions did each president consider violence an acceptable response to corrupt institutions, individuals, or governments inside and outside the US? Finally, what was the overall impact of this evolution regarding perceptions of the use of violence over the US by the end of the Reagan era?