Republican presidential candidates during Tuesday’s prime-time debate in Las Vegas. 
European Pressphoto Agency
During the Republican primary debate held at the Ronald Reagan library in September, presidential candidates struggled to outdo each other in their admiration for and affinity with President Reagan. During Tuesday’s debate, however, everyone except Sen. Marco Rubio seemed to have rejected Ronald Reagan’s approach to foreign policy and national security. In particular, there was a serious debate about democracy promotion abroad and regime change. Most candidates came down against both.
To reject democracy promotion is a legitimate, long-standing tradition in U.S. foreign policy. But it is an approach embraced by President Richard Nixon, not Ronald Reagan. President Reagan promoted human rights and democracy abroad and, yes, regime change.
Reagan often stated his support for advancing freedom abroad. As he declared in his famous Westminster speech on June 8, 1982:
“While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections. The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.”
President Ronald Reagan addressing the British Parliament in the Palace of Westminster, on June 8, 1982.
Associated Press
Reagan believed that the struggle with the Soviet Union was about not only power but also ideas. His strategy to defeat ISIS most surely would have included an ideological component, not just carpet bombing.
And to back up his soaring rhetoric, Reagan worked with Democrats in Congress to create the National Endowment for Democracy. Funded directly by Congress, the NED “is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world.” Direct financial support for democratic activists and civil society organizations around the world is a central legacy of Reagan’s foreign policy.
Under the “Reagan Doctrine,” the president provided military and financial assistance to rebels fighting communist dictatorships in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, and Nicaragua. The goal was not containment but regime change.
The Reagan administration pressured some (though not all) autocratic allies of the U.S. to change. Secretary George Shultz and his State Department team played a critical role in helping to ease dictators out of power in South Korea, the Philippines, and Chile.  In all three countries, democracy eventually consolidated.
On one rare occasion–Grenada–Reagan authorized the use of force to topple a dictatorship. Reagan exercised the use of military force prudently. Grenada is the exception, not the rule. But what’s clear is that he was willing to use many means to promote democratic change, including military force.

More In Think Tank

When it came to the most importance strategic relationship of his time, Reagan deployed multiple methods to promote regime change in the Soviet Union. Reagan’s military buildup, tough anti-communist rhetoric, support for democratic movements in Eastern Europe, meetings with dissidents, and ultimately constructive engagement with Communist Party leader Mikhail Gorbachev were all strategies deployed to undermine Soviet dictatorship.
Whether Reagan’s foreign policy was successful is debatable. In my own research, I have concluded that some aspects of his regime-change agenda failed (for instance, in Angola), while others succeeded (in Chile, the Philippines, and South Korea). His support for some abhorrent autocracies, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa, cannot be excused. But that Reagan aimed to promote democracy and change autocratic regimes is beyond dispute.
Candidates can reject the promotion of democracy as bad foreign policy. Candidates can claim to admire and emulate Reagan. But the same candidate cannot do both.
Michael McFaul is a professor of political science and director of the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University, where he is also a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served five years in the Obama administration, most recently as U.S. ambassador to Russia. His books include “Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should and How We Can.” He is on Twitter: @McFaul.