In the context of the crusade against communism, one critic asked if there was any other way to accept "the aid of tyrants" on practical grounds "without corrupting our speeches by identifying tyranny with freedom." What is he referring to?

The critic's question addresses a moral and ideological dilemma faced by the United States and its allies during the Cold War, which lasted from the end of World War II until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Cold War was characterized by a global struggle between the capitalist West, led by the United States, and the communist East, led by the Soviet Union. This struggle was not only military but also ideological, with each side promoting its system of governance as the superior one.

In the context of the crusade against communism, the United States sought to contain the spread of communism and often found itself aligning with various regimes around the world that were anti-communist. Some of these regimes, however, were authoritarian or dictatorial in nature. The critic's question points to the tension between the United States' professed commitment to freedom and democracy and its willingness to support or ally with tyrannical governments as long as they opposed communism.

The phrase "the aid of tyrants" likely refers to the financial, military, or political support given to these authoritarian regimes. The critic is questioning whether it is possible to accept such aid on practical, strategic grounds without compromising the moral high ground or the integrity of the rhetoric used by the United States and its allies. The concern is that by identifying with or supporting tyrannical regimes, the United States would be seen as hypocritical, as it would be contradicting its own principles of freedom and democracy.

This dilemma was a recurring theme throughout the Cold War, as the United States faced criticism both domestically and internationally for its foreign policy choices. The question reflects a broader debate about the ethics of realpolitik, where pragmatic and strategic considerations may take precedence over ideological consistency and moral imperatives.