IT HAS BEEN DUBBED the President's Darth Vader" speech: in front of the National Association of Evangelicals. Ronald Reagan outlined America's divine mandate to combat the Soviet Union, the "focus of evil in the modern world. "He called it "an evil empire," and declared that he and his fellow Christian warriors "must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man."

The Association of Evangelicals loved it, and gave Reagan a thunderous ovation, to strains of "Onward, Christian Soldiers." In the secular realm, less fervently religious elements didn't quite seem to know how to digest the rhetoric, so they ended up dismissing it. The editorial page of the New York Times and House Speaker Tip O'Neill Jr. both softly chided the President, while confidently predicting a return of the same politics of compromise. A Reagan staffer remark typified the general lack of serious concern about the speech: "What? That's just rhetoric."

But shrugging off the President's fire and brimstone may not be such a wise idea. Shortly after he came to power, analysts from, left, right and center pored through the life and speeches of Ronald Reagan, and all reached the same conclusions: When it comes to Communism, the man means what he says. He believes the Soviet Union is the embodiment of evil, and the United States the cradle of goodness.

There's nothing inherently wrong with drawing lines between good and evil: indeed, the President astutely interpreted the Bible by concluding that "There is sin and evil in the world, and we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might." But it is one thing to decry evil and another to identify its source. If we are to trust Reagan's ability to find and combat evil, it makes sense to check the man's track record on holding aloft the torch of freedom. It doesn't look good.

Take El Salvador, for example. On the same day the President announced his holy war against Soviet evil, Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger '38 made public the Admistration's plan to send $110 million in military aid to El Salvador, twice the amount the White House had previously requested. But Weinberger and Reagan are wasting their time training Salvadoran government troops to crush the rebelling peasants: the regime's strongman, Roberto d' Aubuisson, has already made his wishes explicitly clear. "All I want from the USA is napalm," he has said. "We must destroy completely to achieve pacification."

D'Aubuisson, whom one former U.S. ambassador described as a "psychopathic killer," told a group of European journalists in April. "You Germans had the right idea, killing Jews to stop the spread of Communism." Over 30,000 Salvadorans have been slaughtered in the last two years, but Reagan has nevertheless certified d' Aubuisson's regime as one making forward strides in the field of human rights. As a reward, the President will contine spending U.S. tax dollars on weapons and training for d' Aubuisson's army and security forces.

Halti represents a similar case; Reagan last year increased the millions spent upholding the bloody reign of Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Davaller, Halti's so-called President-for-life. "Baby doc" rules the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere by military force, torture, and illegal improvement. Thousands of refugees fled to America to escape the crushing poverty and government terror, the President ordered them jailed, and instructed the Coast Guard to turn back boatloads of freedom-seekers.

The script reads the same in Guatemala, where General Efrain Rios Montt seized power last year in a coup d' etat. Although estimates of the total deaths under Guatemala's several decades of authoritarian rule range from 50,000 to 100,000, Reagan decided that the country had gotten "a bad rap." So he certified Guatemala as having made notable progress in respect for human rights, and obtained $6.3 million in war materials for Gen. Montt (even though 8000 died in the first eight months after his takeover). The country officially remains in a "state of siege" as rebels fight authoritarian rule. Tens of thousands, fleeing arbitrary arrest, detention, torture and execution, have swarmed to refugee campus in Mexico.

In Chile, where Augusto Pinochet had headed a military junta with strong American support for the last 10 years, Amnesty International is investigating the "disappearances" of 250 prisoners of conscience. All political parties and activities are banned in Chile, and the government routinely makes arrests, banishes dissidents to remote areas of the country, holds people incommunicado for weeks, and worse. Justice is meager. One man, Guillermo Rodriguez Morales, was accused in 1981 of killing a government agent and sentenced to life imprisonment after a 45 minute trial.

Reagan has every right to point out the truth that good and evil coexist in the modern world. But he undermines his own merit by simultaneously doling out so many millions to violent dictators with titles like "General" and "President-for-life." The hypocrisy is embodied by El Salvador's d' Aubuission, who has not even bothered to hide his fascistic views from the public. Evil exists, and we must combat it, but Reagan seems profoundly confused about who falls into that category.

Most dangerous of all is the way the president's speech has been shunted aside as hollow rhetoric. If all goes well for the Administration, it will gather the enthusiastic support of conservative religious groups. And while increasingly strident, confrontationist posturing will bring the world closer to nuclear war, millions of people in the countries south of the U.S. will suffer under military rule, with body counts growing every day. All of which should be good for a few more rousing strains of "Onward, Christian Soldiers" at next year's convention of the National Association of Evangelicals.