Ronald Reagan once said, “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They're wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right” (Reagan). It can hardly be said that he was immoral: he always did what he thought was best for America and the American people. However, in pursuing his interests and following his ideals, he often failed to follow this statement. His well-known anti-communist beliefs have shaped his foreign policy and, therefore, many countries around the world. The Philippines is one such country. During Reagan's presidency, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, giving himself dictatorial powers for a period that ended up lasting 14 years. While one might think that the ideological differences between democracy and dictatorship would cause conflict, Reagan chose instead to support the Philippines, turning a blind eye to the blatant human rights abuses conducted under the Marcos (Moore) regime. He did so because he perceived that the communist ideological and military threat was greater than the autocratic ideological and moral threat posed by the Marcos regime. Before the degradation of American-Soviet relations in the 1980s, the Philippines, as a former colony, had close relations with America. Almost from the beginning, America declared its intention to leave it independent, even if once it was certain that the country would not collapse and be democratic. However, when World War II broke out, the country was heavily bombed and damaged. America granted independence to the Philippines only a year after the war, but continued to exert constant influence on the government through friendly economic aid relations. In fact, they determined that much of the American people believed this crusade was more urgent. Marcos has violated human rights, as has been said along with others: the right to travel, to assembly, to freedom, etc. America, according to their position, has violated these too, albeit indirectly. But the communists, and especially the USSR, were in a position to cause even more damage around the world. This all brings it back to the question of morality. Reagan, as quoted above, once said that there is always a simple, moral answer. His experiences as president prove him wrong. Was it really moral to ignore the suffering of one people in exchange for a strategic position for a potential crusade for the safety of another (even if larger) people? It is impossible to agree on an answer. However, as president, Reagan was forced to choose, and for better or worse, he chose the safety of another.