In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union -- one of the great sea-changes of modern history -- we have heard many theories explaining how this earth-shaking event came about.I propose to share with you my own theory, having been a participant in the American side of the conflict at a time of decisive strategic importance. 

It is my view that the rhetoric of President Reagan played one of the most important roles in the West's victory over Soviet communism.To many, it is counterintuitive that the great conflict of the 20th century should have been influenced so decisively by such a "soft" instrument of power as rhetoric.After all, this was a conflict involving nuclear weapons, blue water navies, reconnaissance satellites, espionage, and guerrilla war.What should words have to do with this?It is precisely because of the importance of the word that I am honored that I should have the privilege of presenting my theory at the nation's premier center for the study of these matters. 

In order to appreciate the importance of the role of Presidential rhetoric, it is first necessary to understand the full nature of the Cold War itself. 

The Cold War took many forms, including proxy wars, the arms race, nuclear blackmail, economic warfare, subversion, covert operations and the battle for men's minds.While many of these forms had the trappings of traditional conflicts of national interests, there was a dimension to the Cold War that made it unique among wars: it centered around a war of ideas -- a war between two alternative political philosophies. 

One dimension of this war was a conflict between two concepts of human nature: -- One was the theory that man has a nature, that it is a moral nature -- in other words, that man is and will always be capable of committing good and evil -- and thus the essence of human life is moral choice.  

-- In contrast stood another concept which claimed that man is an empty vessel whose nature is determined entirely by his environment.The problem, therefore, was to determine the right environment -- the right formulae of social engineering to create a "new man."  

Another dimension of this philosophical war was a conflict between two concepts of the origin of law, morals and rights. 

-- On the one hand, there is the theory underlying Western civilization -- that law, morals and rights are endowed by God or nature, or as it says in our Declaration of Independence, "by the Creator."According to this theory, the only way there logically can be such a thing as inalienable (i.e., unconditional) rights is if those rights -- those "just claims" -- are endowed by a power capable of doing so unconditionally.That is the only way we can enjoy majority rule with minority rights.As we have seen, if those rights are endowed by men, they invariably are subject to conditions: the passions and prejudices of the men occupying power at any given time.So, our system has concluded that only the Creator can endow these rights unconditionally. 

-- On the other hand, we have the theory that law, morals and rights come from men or the institutions created by men -- i.e, majority votes, constitutions, or other manifestations of what, in the absence of a higher law, can only be called tyrannies of different sorts, including tyranny of the majority.This is the theory which underlies communism, nazism and the other toxic ideologies of modernity.At root, this theory is nothing more than the doctrine of "might makes right" -- all standards of right and wrong are determined by those with the greatest power – ultimately, by those with the biggest guns and