This is another part of the New Right's message of morality. The view that the government was slowing down the economy but it was also acting without morals. In the New Right's philosophy the government's effort to a social safety net was breeding entitlement as a mindset. This became the governing philosophy, even for some Democrats, up until the present.

This is a direct response to the New Deal and the Great Society. From Roosevelt to Carter, we see that regardless of party most politicians saw the government as a vehicle to lift people up and stimulate the economy. Reagan's response is that the economy is stagnate because of the government. Things like the regulatory offices and public sector unions slowed down the economy and became targets of Reagan's policies.

Here I agree, the bulk of those who died during the Vietnam War were African Americans and poor white people. The only problem is this is not where the protest came from, the protest were made up largely of white people, from a middle to upper class background, and with a college education. So, the people they are protesting for are still going to Vietnam to die while they are back home undermining the efforts of those people.

Here again we see McCarthy define the Soviet's as people with no system of morality, atheism. This also helped the United States position itself as the Christian country with Christian ideals. In his effort to define the Soviet Union McCarthy managed to define the United States as well.

This is a good example of defining the cold war by what you are not. The U.S. defined the Soviet's as a people who do not value anything, an amoral society. This helped define the United States define itself as a society with deeper convictions then just the state.

This is a good response to the use of god in justifying expansion. By showing a man invoking god's name then showing what he was calling on god for really shows how ridiculous the religious argument was. Even though it seems ridiculous in the other reading William McKinley essentially did exactly this.

William McKinley's second justification is far less rational. The religious argument is not a sound political justification but is an emotional one. Earlier he made the point that the world was zero sum and if we didn't exploit the Philippines someone else would. This seems far more like an excuse then the earlier point.

William McKinley's justification is more complex then I originally thought, it's two arguments. In this section McKinley actually makes a realistic foreign policy argument. We couldn't leave the Philippines to our international rivals to exploit, is actually sound justification for the time.