Florida State University Libraries
2015
What Reagan Said to the Evangelicals: The
Religious Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan
John Charles Ryor
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION
WHAT REAGAN SAID TO THE EVANGELICALS
THE RELIGIOUS RHETORIC OF RONALD REAGAN
By
JOHN CHARLES RYOR
A Dissertation submitted to the
School of Communication
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2015
© 2015 John Charles Ryor
John Charles Ryor defended this dissertation on August 14, 2015.
The members of the supervisory committee were:
Davis Houck
Professor Directing Dissertation
Amanda Porterfield
University Representative
Jennifer Proffitt
Committee Member
Stephen McDowell
Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirement.
ii
For Carolyn.
Thanks for always laughing at my jokes but never laughing at my dreams.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I could not have reached this milestone without the gracious support of my Florida State
University Doctoral Committee: Dr. Jennifer Proffitt, Dr. Amanda Porterfield, Dr. Stephen
McDowell and Dr. Davis Houck. You have been exceedingly patient and encouraging to me.
Through this decade long journey of my life’s ups and downs and unexpected career turns, you
have stuck with me and been most kind and generous.
In particular I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my academic mentor and Committee
Chairman, Dr. Davis Houck. Your strong guidance, positive affirmation, and sympathetic
listening ear kept me fighting through the times when the going got tough. I’m grateful beyond
rhetorical expression.
Finally, thank you to my parents, Carol & John Ryor. For over half a century you have
encouraged me to pursue Jesus and education, in that order. I am proud to be your son.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... vi
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................................12
3. METHODS ................................................................................................................................49
4. NURTURING THE EVANGELICAL BASE ..........................................................................62
5. THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS SPEECH ..............................................91
6. THE NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST SPEECH ...........................................................127
7. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS SPEECH ..................................153
8. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................193
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................197
A. Remarks At The Annual Convention Of The National Religious Broadcasters.....................197
B. Remarks At The Annual National Prayer Breakfast ...............................................................202
C. Remarks At The Annual Convention Of The National Association Of Evangelicals ............205
D. Reagan’s Time for Choosing Speech......................................................................................213
E. Reagan’s 1980 Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech ...................................221
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................230
Biographical Sketch .....................................................................................................................249
v
ABSTRACT
This dissertation examines the religious rhetoric of Ronald Reagan as part of a strategy to
rebuild his political base following a disappointing level of support after his first two years in
office. In particular, this examination will focus on a triad of speeches given to Christian
Evangelicals within ninety days of a re-election Memorandum issued by Reagan Pollster, Dick
Wirthlin.
I will closely examine the texts of Reagan’s early 1983 speeches to the National
Religious Broadcasters, National Prayer Breakfast and the National Association of Evangelicals.
In doing so I will show the way that the three speeches worked to convey the President’s agenda
in language that was commonly shared not only by those three groups but also by President
Reagan. I’ll argue that by using an intensified language of identifying symbols and linguistic
nuances, the President was able to speak with a rhetorical urgency that was rooted in both the
history of the Evangelical movement and Ronald Reagan’s personal religious experience.
Additionally, I’ll show how Reagan’s ability to linguistically identify with politically
conservative Evangelical Christians was how he was able to successfully regain their confidence.
The project will include original archival research from the Ronald Reagan Presidential
Library and first person interviews with key Evangelical leaders who will assist in helping to
better understand the context in which these speeches were given. The primary question asked
and answered will be: “What did President Reagan say to rouse the support and attention of
Evangelicals as part of a rebuilt coalition for his 1984 reelection?”
vi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
“There's another struggle we must wage to redress a great national wrong. We must go forward
with unity of purpose and will. And let us come together, Christians and Jews, let us pray
together, march, lobby, and mobilize every force we have, so that we can end the tragic taking of
unborn children's lives.” – President Ronald Reagan at the 1983 NRB Convention
“Can we resolve to reach, learn, and try to heed the greatest message ever written -- God's word
and the Holy Bible. Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has ever
known.” – President Ronald Reagan at the 1983 National Prayer Breakfast
“Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray
they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they
preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its
eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”
– President Ronald Reagan at the 1983 NAE Convention
I was a “Star Wars” movie fan as a high school student. In 1980 the sequel to the
original film was released and “The Empire Strikes Back” became (and remains) one of my alltime favorites. The beginning of that decade was significant for my family and me in more ways
than what were the hit movies of the year. My father, as a Deputy Assistant to President Jimmy
Carter, would begin searching for a new job in the fall of 1980 when Ronald Wilson Reagan, the
Republican former Governor of California, defeated Carter, the incumbent U.S. Chief Executive.
I was raised in a politically liberal, religiously devout Roman Catholic household. In my home
the name Ronald Reagan was synonymous with buffoon. As a 15-year-old I was convinced that
Reagan was acting the part of President and being guided by others who pushed an economically
radical, culturally conservative, internationally dangerous, political agenda.
My religious upbringing was very different than that of my non-Catholic friends –
particularly the Protestant Christian ones; they learned Bible songs, they read the Bible a lot and
1
talked about Satan. In 1980, a friend asked me to go hear someone named Billy Graham
“preach” at RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C. (where my favorite football team, the
Washington Redskins, played). I didn’t know what “preaching” meant or what an evangelist was,
but it didn’t sound like a lot of fun. I opted to stay home that night. The language of the
Catholicism of my youth differed quite a bit from the religious speak of my friends’ homes. A
Mormon buddy brought me to his LDS church one time; it was a service that featured
“testimonies.” It was the first time I’d been to a church service where an individual in the
congregation spoke aloud from the pews.
Interacting with this friend also gave me my first glimpse of what a Republican family
looked like by comparison to mine. His father was a conservative political lobbyist and an Ivy
League graduate; my dad was a graduate of public schools and universities and a former
President of the National Education Association – effectively a liberal political lobbyist. My
friend lived in a huge, expensively decorated home on the wealthiest side of our already wealthy
suburb of Washington, D.C. His house was twice as big as the home my family lived in. His
family also had a vacation beach home and a yacht. The only similarities between our families
seemed to be that there were lots of children in each (seven in his – six in mine).
Throughout high school I became more aware of the differences between my upbringing
and those of my friends – both politically and religiously. In particular, I began to notice that
there was an entirely different way of expressing religious thoughts. I called my belief system
“my religion” while many of my protestant friends called it their “relationship with Jesus.” I
can’t remember what the Mormons called it. My sisters began visiting a Presbyterian youth
group and I noticed that many of their friends’ parents were Republicans, too. In fact, during the
1980 Presidential election, a group of young men thought it would be amusing to put a collection
2
of “Reagan for President” signs in our family’s front yard. My sisters loved the young male
attention; my parents, not so much.
In 1976, when Jimmy Carter was first elected President, my mother regularly attended a
Bible study at the same church where my siblings and I showed up now and again for youth
group. As mom tells it, the women in this study were distraught by the results of the 1976
election, even intimating that Satan had scored a victory by bringing a Democrat into office. Not
long after that experience my mother ceased attending the study, even though she permitted my
siblings and I to continue attending youth group functions. We didn’t have a youth group to
speak of at the Catholic Church we attended; at least one that the Ryor kids liked. The cultural
and language tensions between Protestants and Catholics were a significant part of my
childhood. My limited understanding of both Protestant theology and political science disabled
me from comprehending much of what was happening around me. Not surprisingly, much of
what the new President would begin to say would be filtered through my experiences and
upbringing.
It was in March of 1983 when the world heard President Ronald Reagan refer to the
Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire.” Having been born during the Cold War between the USSR
and the United States, I understood that these two countries were not fond of each other.
Hollywood filmmaking had served to help me fear the Russians, and the sports highlight of my
lifetime was when the U.S. hockey team beat the vaunted USSR team in the 1980 Winter
Olympics. The existing Cold War tensions of 1980 only served to intensify in my mind the
significance of that contest. However, in 1983 when Reagan characterized the Soviets as an “Evil
Empire,” in my 17-year-old, Roman Catholic, liberal Democrat, entertainment culture influenced
3
mind, I genuinely believed that he was making a Star Wars-Empire Strikes Back reference.
After all, he was an actor. It made sense to me.
Later that year I left for the university and I, as many do in college, veered from the
influence of my parents and began to investigate the larger world around me. For me this
involved undergoing a conversion to Evangelical Protestant Christian theology. Upon said
transition I discovered that many non-Catholic Christians heard something altogether different
than I did in President Reagan’s religious rhetoric. A pastor from the Protestant church I had
begun attending endorsed Reagan from the pulpit, proclaiming that when the President spoke he
sensed something divine was in the working. The Christian campus group I attended returned
from a conference where President Reagan had addressed the group of assembled college
students. My friends who had been in attendance spoke of how great it was to have a Christian
President. I didn’t even know that Reagan was a Christian. My parents had accurately told me he
was the first President who did not attend church weekly while living in the White House.1
As well, my growing comprehension of Protestant theology introduced me to a Biblical
subject of which I had been completely unaware as a young Roman Catholic - eschatology.
“Eschatology” is the study of the apocalyptic literature found in the Bible, particularly as it
relates to the second coming of the Messiah and the end of the world. Protestants in my 1980s
world talked about the “End Times” a lot. And the New Testament book of Revelation factored
largely into their conversation on the subject. I came to understand that when Reagan referred to
the USSR as an “Evil Empire,” my Protestant friends heard prophetic fulfillment in this rhetoric.
The dominant fundamentalist strand of Evangelical Protestants believed that the end
times were quite possibly upon us, and speculated that as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy the
Russians would eventually try to invade Israel and bring about the second coming of Christ. The
1
Reagan admitted this fact at the October 7, 1984 Presidential Debate: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3995301.
4
evidence, so they said, was obvious: the Soviet Union prohibited the free exercise of religion,
limited the distribution of religious materials (including Bibles) and forbid proselytizing by
Christian missionaries. When you combine the dramatic stories of Christian persecution in the
USSR being told on Christian television and radio and the re-establishment of Israel to its
homeland in the 20th century, the result was that many evangelicals heard President Reagan’s
address to the NAE on March 8, 1983 as a rallying cry to join him in the battle against evil.
The NAE speech was the third of three specific addresses to Evangelical Christian
audiences over a short period of time following the midterm elections of 1982. The 1982
midterm election season produced a bad result for President Reagan and his Republican Party.
The election gave even more control (25 seats) over the House of Representatives to the
opposition party Democrats. In spite of Reagan’s bright assessment (in his diaries he intimated
that it was to be expected2), the election served as an ominous sign that the President was facing
an uphill battle to get re-elected in 1984. Reagan’s economic policies hadn’t yet born the
promised proverbial fruit he’d assured voters would come, and he had spent 1982 battling for the
hearts of the American people regarding building a strong nuclear deterrent. Polling data showed
that his presidential popularity was at a historic low of 35 percent.3
Polling played a critical role in Reagan’s re-election, and no single person played a more
significant role in this capacity than Dick Wirthlin. Richard B. Wirthlin (1931-2011) was a
pollster and political strategist who had for two decades functioned prominently inside Reagan’s
political world. While the President wasn’t fond of making decisions completely based on
polling results, Wirthlin’s contributions enabled Reagan to get a sense of how his course of
2
Douglas Brinkley, ed., The Reagan Diaries (New York: Harper-Collins, 2007): 77.
“Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review” (June 7, 2004), accessed April 1, 2015.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx.
3
5
action would be received with the electorate.4 Wirthlin’s memos played a guiding role on major
issues, but it was his infectious optimism that appealed to Reagan – who himself was said to be a
compulsive optimist.5 So important to Reagan was Wirthlin’s polling data that two days before
leaving the White House he logged what he perceived to be good news in his presidential diary:
“Dick Wirthlin came in with final figures. Approval rating of 63% - highest for any President in
this spot. Rating for handling the Soviets 81%.”6 His trust of Wirthlin had begun in the 1970s
while running for President the first time, and two decades later the pollster’s assessment of all
things political was advisory gold to Reagan.
Throughout 1982 the President noticed the outcome of polling data, with many polls
showing that he was slipping in his approval ratings. Reagan’s optimism aside, even he could
see the writing on the wall; re-election wasn’t going to be easy with his poll numbers
plummeting as they headed into 1983. A scheduled meeting with Wirthlin on Thursday,
December 9, 1982 would address polling data and public perceptions of the administration.7 A
day previously Wirthlin had sent a 12-page memo to the President and his staff detailing these
perceptions and providing suggestions about how to re-build the coalition that got the President
elected in 1980. “The next six months promise to be the most critical period of your presidency,”
Wirthlin wrote. “We must clearly recognize that the political environment now is much more
hostile. This holds because of the losses we experienced in the House and in the states, and also
because the 1982 election induced perceptual changes that endanger your presidency.”8 The
suggestions of this “Midterm Wirthlin Memo” were numerous and touched on a variety of
4
Adam Clymer, “Richard Wirthlin, Pollster Who Advised Reagan, Dies at 80,” New York Times, March 17, 2011,
accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/us/politics/18wirthlin.html.
5
Lou Cannon, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991), 84.
6
Brinkley, The Reagan Diaries, 691.
7
Ibid, 117.
8
Memo, Richard B. Wirthlin to President Ronald Reagan, December 8, 1982, Folder Political Affairs (3), Box 5,
James Baker Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
6
issues; from setting the legislative agenda, to highlighting priorities of his economic program,
and initiatives related to national defense, his perceived greatest strength.
But it was Wirthlin’s suggestions about what to do first that give insight into Reagan’s
early 1983 rhetorical strategy. “If we strengthen our political base through 1983 at the grass
roots, these divisive elements – inside and outside our party – will not be able to weaken your
leadership. Thus, while we must drive hard to reach our policy objectives, our success will
depend directly on our skill in marshaling broad grass roots support.” He continued, “First and
foremost, we must cultivate and nurture our conservative Republican base, then bolster our
strength coalitions, and then deal with the swing constituencies.”9 What exactly did the President
fail to do to keep this base in tact? Quite possibly it was their disappointment with his appointing
of Sandra Day O’Connor, a historically pro-choice advocate, to the Supreme Court. It is equally
plausible that the “Great Communicator’s” problem was rhetorical. As Enholm and Gustainis
contend, some conservatives were dismayed by the apparent disconnect between his conservative
rhetoric and his moderate, pragmatic political centrism.10
The “Midterm Wirthlin Memo” was penned on December 8, 1982. Within three months
of its release, President Ronald Reagan gave three very public speeches to three different
Christian gatherings: the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), the National Prayer Breakfast
(NPB) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). The third of these speeches, given
on March 8, 1983, would go down in history as one of his most significant. It became known as
“The Evil Empire Speech.” This project is entitled “What Reagan Said to the Evangelicals” and
will examine the religious rhetoric of Ronald Reagan as part of a strategy to rebuild his political
9
Memo, Richard B. Wirthlin to President Ronald Reagan, December 8, 1982, Folder Political Affairs (3), Box 5,
James Baker Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
10
Donald K. Enholm and J. Justin Gustainis, “Ronald Reagan and the Mixed Forms of Argument,” Journal of the
American Forensic Association 24 (Summer 1987): 48.
7
base following a disappointing level of support after his first two years in office. In particular,
this examination will focus on the aforementioned triad of speeches given to Christian
Evangelicals within ninety days of a reelection memorandum issued by Reagan Pollster, Dick
Wirthlin. I will argue a variety of things, not the least of which will be that in these speeches
Reagan rhetorically equated the cold war battle against the Soviet Union with the liberal culture
war. Through his use of identity solidifying rhetoric, he created symmetry with his audience and
strengthened his appeal and support among conservative Evangelicals. I will also present
evidence that shows that Reagan was personally involved in altering his rhetoric to be more
urgent, likely because of the Wirthlin directive. These substantial edits to the speech could serve
to counter the popular criticism of Reagan that he was largely uninvolved the speech making
process.
While
there
has
been
considerable
scholarly
conversation
about
Protestant
Fundamentalism and about Reagan’s support among religious conservatives, there has yet to be a
rhetorical analysis of these three speeches in an effort to clearly explain the deeper meaning of
these themes to the “Religious Right.” Knowing more clearly what Evangelicals believe and
what their rhetoric actually means to them will assist in understanding why President Reagan
would’ve spoken the way he did in appealing to this conservative base for support. I will closely
examine the texts of Reagan’s early 1983 speeches to the National Religious Broadcasters,
National Prayer Breakfast and the National Association of Evangelicals. In doing so I will show
the way that the three speeches worked to convey the President’s agenda in language that was
commonly shared not only by those three groups but also by President Reagan. I’ll argue that by
using an intensified language of identifying symbols and linguistic nuances, the President was
able to speak with a rhetorical urgency that was rooted in both the history of the Evangelical
8
movement and Ronald Reagan’s personal religious experience. Additionally, I’ll show how
Reagan’s ability to linguistically identify with politically conservative Evangelical Christians
was how he was able to successfully regain their confidence.
The project will include original archival research from the Ronald Reagan Presidential
Library and first person interviews with key Evangelical leaders who that will assist in helping to
better understand the context in which these speeches were given. The primary question asked
and answered will be: “What did President Reagan say to rouse the support and attention of
Evangelicals as part of a rebuilt coalition for his 1984 reelection?” Throughout this work I will
allude to concepts derived from Kenneth Burke’s theories and Walter Fisher’s Narrative
Paradigm to underscore that Reagan’s efforts at garnering Evangelical Christian support were
characterized by speaking in symbols that were familiar to and aligned with conservative
Protestant theology – and by doing so creating a shared identity. According to Burke, the key to
persuasive speaking is the similarity between the speaker and audience. If the audience believes
you’re one of them, they are more likely to embrace your arguments and positions.11 The
politically conservative, Evangelical Christian narrative was filled with symbolism and code
words that signified that Reagan as one of their own. In many ways this study will provide
critical insight into 20th century Evangelicalism as it argues for the reason behind the
effectiveness of Reagan’s religious rhetoric.
I will argue that Reagan’s religious rhetoric carried great weight with conservative
Protestants, so much so that Evangelicals (culturally and theologically conservative as they were)
seemingly turned a blind eye to the personal lifestyle of this divorced Hollywood actor who we
know: (a) Didn’t attend church during the eight years he lived in Washington; (b) Never made a
public record of what he specifically believed nor did he ever disclose to biographers after he left
11
Kenneth Burke, Counter Statement (Berkeley: University of California, 1968), 150-152.
9
office what his theological commitments were; and (c) Was married to a woman who was widely
known to be concerned with astrology and who was sympathetic to abortion rights groups. Why
did most politically conservative Evangelical Christian leaders not express concerns about these
personal issues that had always been of some importance to their subculture?
Reagan’s status as the “Great Communicator” was not simply granted because of his
marvelous skills in oratory, but also his linguistic savvy through speech writing that featured a
“common sense” language. His plain folks logic and speech would be used to rouse his base as
the first step of a re-election strategy, therefore the President and his speechwriters carefully
chose both their topics and terms. This project will investigate how the Reagan re-election
strategy accomplished this appeal rhetorically with Evangelicals. While most well known
publicly and far more analyzed academically, the NAE “Evil Empire” speech in March will be
the third in the “Triad” of speeches studied here. First on the agenda was Reagan’s remarks to
the National Religious Broadcasters, a sister organization that was founded by the NAE. After
that, the President addressed the annual National Prayer Breakfast and then culminated the
evangelical blitz portion of rousing the base by addressing the National Association of
Evangelical convention in Orlando. While all three of these speeches had common elements and
themes, each of the speeches was written to different audiences and had distinct emphases, which
I will highlight.
This research will use a close textual analysis to focus on what Reagan said to
Evangelical Christians, specifically studying the language of public morality, Biblical authority
and wartime apocalypse. Through an historical accounting of his life and rhetoric and a specific
rhetorical analysis of concepts and themes contained in the speech triad, I will argue that Reagan
successfully tied his political agenda together with the spiritual battle that evangelical Christians
10
believed they had been fighting against secular liberalism for the better part of the 20th century.
By filtering Reagan’s religious rhetoric through his personal history, Burke’s Dramatism,
Fisher’s Narrative Theory, and the language of American Evangelical Christianity, the aim of
this research is to better explain what President Reagan substantially said to this segment of his
coalition. As well, the research will argue that Reagan’s rhetorical symmetry with Evangelicals
is why speaking to them would have been among his top strategic priorities in early 1983.
Lastly, by way of introduction, it is precisely because speech writing was such a big part
of Reagan’s legacy that communication scholars and rhetorical critics find studying his life so
fascinating. In the Reagan White House, many felt that its true heartbeat could be found in the
speechwriting department, for it was there where the philosophical, ideological, and political
tensions of the administration got worked out.12
12
Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era (New York: Random House
Publishers, 1990), 67.
11
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
There is ample scholarly material analyzing the political rhetoric and overall rhetorical
strategy of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. There are also an abundance of books and journal
articles detailing the political history and the influence of the so-called “Religious Right,” and
with it a great collection of scholarship about Christian fundamentalism’s history. There, too, is a
growing corpus of research about Reagan’s Religious Rhetoric. However, while there has been
scholastic analysis of President Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech, there hasn’t been one that paid
particular attention to the religious imagery contained therein.
As well, there is not recorded any scholastic analysis of Reagan’s two other speeches in
this 1983 “Triad” of speeches; let alone a religious rhetorical analysis of them. And no scholar
has yet grouped these three speeches together to analyze them as part of a specific reelection
strategy. In this section I will review scholarship done in five areas of Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric:
(A) Reagan’s Rhetorical Skill and Political Strategy; (B) Reagan and the Religious Right; (C)
Reagan’s Use of Rhetorical Narrative; (D) Reagan’s Religious Rhetoric (E) Rhetorical Analysis
and the Triad of Speeches. While in places this literature review will point to where my overall
work will challenge existing scholarship, much of what follows is an argument for the need of
my research by virtue of the absence of material on the subject. One would think that with such
a comprehensive collection of scholarship about Reagan, about Reagan’s Rhetoric, and about the
coalition known as Reagan’s Religious Right, there would be an equivalent amount of literature
about the actual religious rhetoric used by Ronald Reagan. I argue here that there is not.
12
Reagan’s Rhetorical Skill and Political Strategy
Reagan Foreign Policy Rhetoric
It is largely the consensus amongst Reagan communications scholars that most prolific of
all is Kurt W. Ritter. Now retired, Ritter has done both written and oral work in five different
archives related to Reagan – including the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Oral work
would include analysis of sound and videotape recordings of Reagan speeches, including his
extensive archival collection in the Hoover Institution Archives at Stanford University. Ritter’s
scholarship spanned my five broad categories and he is rightly considered the foremost authority
on what made Reagan’s speech making so effective.
In both books, Presidential Speechwriting: From the New Deal to the Reagan Revolution
and Beyond 1 (edited with Martin J. Medhurst) and The Great Communicator 2 (co-written with
David Henry), Ritter evaluates Reagan’s lifetime of oratory. The author carefully analyzed
Reagan’s use of media and film as a means to achieve a political end. In this comprehensive
masterpiece of archival research, Reagan’s tendency toward the patriotic language of freedom
and promise is illustrated from actual text and shown to be instrumental in his success becoming
Governor of California and ultimately the President of the United States. For the benefit of other
scholars he provides an extensive bibliography of primary and secondary sources and a full
index.
In Ritter’s research entitled “Whither The ‘Evil Empire’: Reagan And The Presidential
Candidates Debating Foreign Policy In The 1988 Campaign,” 3 (co-written with Robert L. Ivie)
he worked to analyze the foreign policy rhetoric of the 1988 Presidential election contest
1
Kurt Ritter & Martin J. Medhurst, Presidential Speechwriting: From the New Deal to the Reagan Revolution and
Beyond (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003).
2
Kurt Ritter & David Henry, Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992).
3
R.L. Ivie & Kurt Ritter, “Whither The ‘Evil Empire’: Reagan And The Presidential Candidates Debating Foreign
Policy In The 1988 Campaign,” American Behavioral Scientist 32 (1989): 436-450.
13
between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. This study is focused primarily on how the
Bush Administration adapted the “evil empire” position that Ronald Reagan had taken regarding
diplomacy with USSR, concluding that the Democratic Party had once again failed to counter the
Republican rhetorical imagery with a new vision or strategy to combat the Soviet threat.
Communications scholars Robert Rowland and John Jones have collaborated to produce
several studies of Reagan’s Rhetoric, in particular conducting analysis of his foreign policy
speeches that will be relevant to this study. These two scholars provided a stark analysis of the
rhetoric that came to define the 1992 Republican Convention and subsequent election cycle. In
that work they detailed how the two convention speeches split the Republican Party, with social
and cultural conservatives headed down a path prescribed by Buchanan and economic and
moderate republicans embracing a very different set of views outlined by Reagan.4
Through their research on Reagan’s Cold War rhetoric entitled “Reagan At The
Brandenburg Gate,” Jones and Rowland continue arguing to debunk conventional opinion about
the 40th President of the United States. They maintain that Reagan’s policy pragmatism (often
seen by critics as liberal in its tendency to compromise) was merely a continuation or a reflection
of his rhetorical capacity to adapt to the conditions of the moment. Their scholarship about his
famous words “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” presents a thorough look into His White
House speech writing process and the considerations taken to meld a strong conservative stance
with the need for diplomatic sensitivity. 5
4
J. Jones, & R. Rowland, “A Covenant-Affirming Jeremiad: The Post-Presidential Ideological Appeals Of Ronald
Reagan,” Communication Studies 56, (2005): 157-174.
5
R.C. Rowland & J.M. Jones, “Reagan At The Brandenburg Gate: Moral Clarity Tempered By Pragmatism,”
Rhetoric & Public Affairs 9 (2006): 1-21, 50.
14
In their project entitled “Reagan at Moscow State University: Consubstantiality
Underlying Conflict,”6 Jones and Rowland continued their ongoing contribution to Reagan
rhetorical studies and added to the body of literature regarding the President’s address to
Moscow State University in 1988. They argue that Reagan managed to achieve two seemingly
opposing goals of maintaining his hard line position with the USSR while simultaneously
providing support for the reforming Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. The essay details their
view that Reagan employed a “rhetoric of shared identity and ideological first principles” in
order to meet the stated objectives. The authors concur that this was the rhetorical zenith
Reagan’s tenure as President.
Martin Medhurst’s article entitled “Postponing The Social Agenda: Reagan's Strategy
And Tactics” 7 critically examines Reagan's strategy and tactics for delaying implementation of
the social issues agenda. The author argues that despite criticisms from both the left and right,
Reagan does believe in the social issues agenda, has not modified or abandoned it, and will, in
due time, continue to pursue it. The article focuses on the strategy Reagan is following, the
exigencies this strategy has created, and the argumentative tactics employed to meet these
exigencies.
B. Wayne Howell is a prolific scholar regarding Reagan’s rhetoric as it related to the
Soviet Union. In his exploration of the President’s address to Moscow State University Howell
echoes the complexities of Reagan’s rhetoric that needed to depict the U.S. as friends of the
Soviets, while continue to proclaim his ideological opposition to Socialism.8 The president
6
John M. Jones & Robert C. Rowland, “Reagan at Moscow State University: Consubstantiality Underlying
Conflict,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10-1 (2007): 87.
7
Martin J. Medhurst, “Postponing The Social Agenda: Reagan's Strategy And Tactics,” Western Journal of Speech
Communication 48 (1984): 262-276.
8
B. Wayne Howell, “Ronald Reagan's Address at Moscow State University: A Rhetoric of Conciliation and
Subversion,” The Southern Communication Journal 68-2 (2003).
15
needed to support Gorbachev’s expressed desire to bring reform to the Soviet Union, but also
continue applying pressure to the hardliners within the Politburo. Howell demonstrates that
Reagan’s goal was to motivate, not alienate, his audience. But Howell’s scholarship points out
one new wrinkle in Reagan’s purposes, namely that the President was trying to side step the
diplomatic process and speak directly to the people. This was and is a common occurrence in
American domestic politics, and Reagan often did this as President because his own party was a
minority in congress.
While some of Howell’s contributions to rhetorical critical scholarship are categorized
with those who critique Reagan’s foreign policy dealings with the Soviets, his unique
contribution to the field is his work in analyzing Reagan’s pre and post-summitry rhetoric.
Howell’s work in this area traces how Reagan’s strategy was to put forth a military threat while
simultaneously focusing his public rhetoric on the Soviet’s human rights abuses. Whether or not
there was a realistic chance or serious intention to develop the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI),
Howell examines how Reagan intensified his criticism of USSR’s human rights practices as a
justification for general distrust of the Soviets and the need to create the missile defense system.
This one-two punch of creating moral outrage and national fear proved too much for Reagan’s
enemies abroad, as Howell would contend that the summit was a victory for America. Howell’s
perspective contradicted other rhetorical scholars who contended that Gorbachev had won the
rhetorical debate at the Reykjavik summit. In his work analyzing both text and tone, Howell
makes a significant contribution to the foreign policy study of Reagan’s rhetoric. 9
Research into Ronald Reagan’s Foreign Policy rhetoric arguably contains the greatest
volume of scholastic material. Benoit, Guillifor and Panici contribute to the conversation by
9
B. Wayne Howell, “Reagan and Reykjavak: Arms Control, SDI, and the Argument from Human Rights,” Rhetoric
& Public Affairs 11-3 (2008): 389–415.
16
analyzing Reagan’s rhetorical efforts to maintain his positive image during political crises. In
particular the authors examine the “Defensive Discourse Strategies” Reagan employed
successfully during the Iran-Contra affair. In so doing they further develop the rhetorical
discourse previously articulated by other scholars (including Burke).10 Olson explores the
rhetorical concepts of definition and re-definition as it pertains to the Reagan Administration’s
handling of the PR crisis created when he visited the Bitburg military cemetery. She argues that
Reagan attempted to redefine his visit to the cemetery to make it more politically acceptable to
his critics – particularly the Jewish community. She concludes that with this constituency he did
not succeed in his rhetorical effort, as one’s individual perspective on an issue has a profound
effect on what one is willing to accept as a redefinition.11
Keller explores the Reagan Administration’s crisis management in light of “constrain
respecters.” The article compares and contrasts President Kennedy and President Reagan,
concluding that there is an important distinction between the two leaders with regards to how
they view and deal with the public’s inability to grasp foreign policy complexities.12 Alexander
explores the forces that shaped the Reagan Administration’s use of government media to combat
the Soviet Union propaganda machine. By detailing the Cold War use of “Voice of America”
and other government outlets, she argued persuasively that Reagan’s anti-communism mixed
with a resurgence in the America is the “great world power” myth renewed American vitality
10
W.L. Benoit, P. Gullifor & D.A. Panici, “President Reagan's Defensive Discourse On The Iran-Contra Affair,”
Communication Studies 42 (1991): 272-294.
11
K.M. Olson, “The Controversy Over President Reagan's Visit To Bitburg: Strategies Of Definition And
Redefinition,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): 129-151.
12
J.W. Keller, “Constraint Respecters, Constraint Challengers, and Crisis Decision Making in Democracies: A Case
Study Analysis of Kennedy versus Reagan,” Political Psychology 26 (2005): 835-868.
17
and congressional support for our own propaganda agency. Her research furthered the
understanding and importance of Reagan’s overarching rhetoric about America’s greatness.13
Fischer contributes to analysis of Reagan’s Cold War rhetoric, arguing that his noted
softening in tone was a precedent to the 1985 Geneva summit’s success. She argued that policy
shifts prior to Gorbachev’s ascension to the USSR’s leadership were responsible for his
newfound conciliatory rhetoric. Conventional wisdom was that Reagan softened his language in
response to the changing climate brought about by Gorbachev’s reforms. Fischer contended that
the Reagan Administration wasn’t passive in their efforts to bring about an end to the Cold
War.14
Switching continents in Foreign Affairs, Goodnight assesses Reagan’s Central American
policy rhetoric in “Reagan, Vietnam, And Central American: Public Memory And The Politics
Of Fragmentation.” Specifically, he argued that when different factions of government compete
for control (i.e., executive vs. legislative) when they are designed to work cooperatively, rhetoric
becomes the means of steering the debate. In the case of the Reagan administration, Goodnight
argued that the struggle to shape policy could take the form of revising or extending historical
narratives to advance one’s agenda.15 Central American policy played a large part of Reagan’s
second term, and Heisey uses a kategoria-apologia (accusation-defense) case study surrounding
the Iran-Contra affair to study Reagan’s response to scandal. The author concluded that Reagan’s
rhetorical success in navigating the Iran-Contra affair was due to his skill at building
appearances. In addition to his manner of speaking, Reagan constructed devices (such as a
13
L. Alexander, “In The Service Of The State: Public Diplomacy, Government, Media, And Ronald Reagan,”
Media, Culture, and Society 1 (1987): 29-46.
14
B.A. Fischer, “Toeing The Hardline? The Reagan Administration And The Ending Of The Cold War,” Political
Science Quarterly 112 (1997): 477-496.
15
G.T. Goodnight, “Reagan, Vietnam, And Central American: Public Memory And The Politics Of Fragmentation,”
in Beyond The Rhetorical Presidency, ed. M.J. Medhurst (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press,
1986), 122-152.
18
commission aiming to get at the truth) to give the appearance of transparency. As well, the
Administration’s capacity to frequently make the President’s case bolstered the country’s
willingness to believe him.16 It’s worth noting that Greg Dickinson argues against Heisey’s
position. In “Creating His Own Constraint: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Crisis,”
Dickinson argues that Reagan’s rhetorical magic during a crisis and so-called Teflon coating
didn’t come to his aid in the Iran-Contra affair.17
Scholars R. Lee & S.J. Spano explore the use of “technical rationality” and the challenges
this rhetorical style poses for public debate. In the journal Political Communication, they
evaluate Reagan’s March 4, 1987 Iran/Contra defense speech to demonstrate how Reagan
managed to use his appointed commission’s technical verbiage to distance himself from any
ethical considerations. Instead, by burying the problem in a perceived bureaucratic snafu, the
President was seen by many in the public as a hapless victim instead of a mastermind who
violated their trust.18 Birdsell analyzes Reagan’s crisis rhetoric through the terms of Kenneth
Burke’s Dramatistic Pentad. In so doing he argues that Reagan’s reframing of public events – in
particular the two military events that shaped his first term as president: the invasion of Grenada
and the terrorist bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut. Birdsell calls into question the
Reagan administration’s commitment to the ideas of multi-nationalism and international equality
between nations.19 Darling and Marraro assess rhetorical ethics by way of studying President
Reagan’s rhetoric surrounding the 1983 invasion of Grenada. Dowling and Marraro argue that
16
D.R. Heisey, “Presidents Ronald Reagan's Apologia On The Iran-Contra Affair,” in Oratorical Encounters:
Selected Studies And Sources Of Twentieth-Century Political Accusations And Apologies, ed. H. R. Ryan (Westport,
CN: Greenwood Press, 1988), 281-306.
17
Greg Dickinson, “Creating His Own Constraint: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Crisis,” The Modern
Presidency and Crisis Rhetoric, ed. Amos Kiewe (Westport: Praeger, 1994), 155-177.
18
R. Lee & S.J. Spano, “Technical Discourse In Defense Of Public Virtue: Ronald Reagan’s Explanation Of The
Iran/Contra Affair,” Political Communication 13 (1996): 115-129.
19
D.S. Birdsell, “Ronald Reagan On Lebanon And Granada: Flexibility And Interpretation In The Application Of
Kenneth Burke's Pentad,” Quarterly Journal Of Speech 73 (1987): 267-279.
19
the Administration’s rhetoric was the main source of information for the public to assess the
military action and that Reagan’s inconsistencies necessitated a closer evaluation. Indeed, they
contend that ethical assessment of Presidential rhetoric is critical when the communicator is
consciously specific in their choice of words.20
Reagan Domestic Policy Rhetoric
Communications scholar Mary E. Stuckey specializes in analysis of Reagan’s rhetoric as
it relates to domestic politics. In particular, Dr. Stuckey has positioned herself as an expert in
how political power is constructed and communicated. She has written extensively about the
Presidential rhetoric of Ronald Reagan and in particular its tendency to forge a clear sense of
nationalistic pride in conservatives. In her work, “One Nation (Pretty Darn) Divisible: National
Identity in the 2004 Conventions,” Stuckey writes, “Nations are, in fact, brought about by
specific sorts of political and rhetorical actions.”21
Stuckey is the author of the comprehensive analysis of Reagan’s rhetoric, entitled
Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.22 Another of Stuckey’s seminal
works was her book about Ronald Reagan’s memorial address to the nation after the Challenger
Space Shuttle disaster. In Slipping The Surly Bonds: Reagan's Challenger Address she examines
the dual purposes associated with that Presidential eulogy, namely to comfort the grieving
families and to run political interference for NASA. She contended that Reagan framed the
20
R.E. Dowling & Gabrielle Marraro, "Grenada And The Great Communicator: A Study In Democratic Ethics,"
Western Journal of Speech Communication 50-4 (1986): 350-367.
21
Mary E Stuckey, “One Nation (Pretty Darn) Divisible: National Identity In The 2004 Conventions,” Rhetoric &
Public Affairs 8-4 (2005): 639-656.
22
Mary E. Stuckey, Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan (New York: Praeger, 1990).
20
Challenger tragedy in such a way as to deliberately achieve an end, melding political motives
into the “epideictic” purpose of the speech. 23
A number of scholars have contributed to the body of research done about Reagan’s
Economic Rhetoric, they too recognizing the political motive for carefully choosing your words.
In addition to their chronology of his public speeches (Reagan: Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The
Public Speeches of Ronald), Davis Houck and Amos Kiewe have co-labored to produce two
early works on Reagan’s economic rhetoric. In Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's
Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989, the authors provide a rhetorical critique of Ronald Reagan’s
economic discourse, using a variety of theoretical frameworks to do so. Their study of nearly one
hundred Reagan economic speeches simultaneously celebrates the strategies while recognizing
the contradictions contained therein. Houck and Kiewe argue that Reagan’s economic priorities
and rhetoric is what drove the rhetoric on the other issues of his presidency (foreign policy,
social issues, etc.). It was Reagan’s policy of smaller government that shaped primarily his
economic message and by extension his anti-communist discourse.24
In “Ronald Reagan's Economic Jeremiad,” R.L. Johannesen deepens the pool of
resources devoted to analyzing Reagan’s economic rhetoric. The author provides a detailed
analysis of Reagan’s skill in utilizing fundamental Jeremiadic elements. In this work he provides
a history of the American Puritan, Jeremiadic tradition, from which the contemporary secular
characteristics find their genesis.25 R.E. Crable and S.L. Vibbert, contend in “Argumentative
Stance And Political Faith Healing: The Dream Will Come True” that Reagan’s rhetorical skills
were particularly useful in the area of presidential economic strategy. Their essay argues that
23
Mary E. Stuckey, To Slip the Surly Bonds: Ronald Reagan’s Challenger Address (College Station: Texas A&M
Press, 2006).
24
A. Kiewe & D.W. Houck, Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989 (Westport:
Praeger, 1991).
25
R.L. Johannesen, “Ronald Reagan's Economic Jeremiad,” Central States Speech Journal 37 (1986): 79-89.
21
Reagan used language to reframe the economic problems of our country, transferring the
responsibility from the government to the people who needed the economic help.26
W.C. Adams argues in “Recent Fables About Ronald Reagan” that liberals have labeled
Reagan “Teflon” and forwarded numerous popular notions/myths to explain why his popularity
remained high in spite of numerous public scandals. In this 1984, Adams holds that it was
ultimately the recovering economy that enabled Reagan to be a president who was personally
popular, yet whose policies were decidedly unpopular.27 Similarly, Ceaser argued in his work
“As Good As Their Words: Reagan's Rhetoric” that Reagan’s training as an actor certainly
fortified his skill set in the pursuit of a successful rhetorical strategy. However, it was his
intentionally simplistic policy formula that enabled the audience to understand. The Reagan
theory of governance surmised that our democratic system of governance, coupled with our vast
size and separation of powers, is limited in how much complexity it can handle. In the same
vein, Reagan believed that the American people needed a much simpler philosophy of public
policy, which in turn simplified his rhetoric.28
In “Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon,” Meyer uses Reagan’s
rhetorical use of humor for the purpose of building of his credibility. The essay uses three
separate theories of theories of humor and then evaluates President campaign rhetoric through
them to argue that the source of the credibility spike cause by humor is because it ingratiates a
person to the audience. While the person may be pointing out a flaw in another person or their
26
R. E. Crable & S.L. Vibbert, “Argumentative Stance And Political Faith Healing: The Dream Will Come True,”
Quarterly Journal of Speech 69 (1983): 290-301.
27
W.C. Adams, “Recent Fables about Ronald Reagan,” Public Opinion 7 (1984): 6-9.
28
J.W. Ceaser, “As Good As Their Words: Reagan's Rhetoric,” Public Opinion 7 (1984): 10-12, 17.
22
policies, using humor takes the pressure off being seen as overly negative and also enables
deciders to relax and cause them to look at an issue more objectively.29
Reagan’s Rhetoric In Official Addresses
Chester compares and contrasts Reagan’s 1981 inaugural address with previous speeches
from his time as governor of California. As well, he compares the first Reagan inaugural with
inaugurals of the three presidents that preceded him: Carter, Nixon and Johnson. In so doing, the
author argues that unlike his predecessors, Reagan’s rhetorical style and content met in what
Chester terms, “a harmonious whole.”30 Davis adds his analysis to presidential rhetoric
surrounding elections. Specifically, he demonstrated the accuracy of the conventional wisdom
about the Presidential debate between Reagan-Carter. Namely, that Ronald Reagan’s superior
communication skills worked to his benefit in the closing weeks of the campaign.31 To fortify
this common perception, Hart broke ground developing a computer program that enabled he and
other researchers to quantitatively analyze Presidential speeches and rhetoric. As he pointed out,
his computer analysis of Reagan’s Inaugural address merely reports data and cannot do the
quantitatively based, humanistic side of scholarship. However, it does point researchers to
relevant data and enable them to freshly appreciate the text in a new way.32
Martin argued in the Southern Speech Journal that Jimmy Carter was undone in the 1980
election by the standards he set for the Presidency in 1976, when he compared and contrasted
himself morally to the Nixon-Ford White Houses. Carter’s policy failures created an
29
J. Meyer, “Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon,” Communication Studies 41 (1990): 76-88.
E.W. Chester, “Shadow Or Substance?: Critiquing Reagan's Inaugural Address,” Presidential Studies Quarterly
11 (1981): 172-176.
31
M.H. Davis, “Voting Intentions And The 1980 Carter-Reagan Debate,” Journal Of Applied Social Psychology 12
(1982): 481-492.
32
R.P. Hart, “On Genre, Computers, And The Reagan Inaugural” in Form, Genre, And The Study Of Political
Discourse, ed. H. W. Simons & A. A. Aghazarian (Columbia: USC Press, 1987), 278-298.
30
23
environment whereby the public was craving tough-mindedness in leadership, one that would not
simply speak softly but also carry a big stick. Martin concluded that Reagan as actor could fill
that role by simply using language to communicate strength by contrast to Carter’s weakness – a
strategy that Carter used four years earlier against his opponents.33 That use of language to
project strength was further elaborated on when Preston compared Reagan’s 1980 acceptance
speech at the RNC Convention to FDR’s 1932 DNC Convention speech. The study is truly a
contrast in two completely differing views of the role of government, with the author pointing
out the irony of Reagan’s quoting of FDR in his address. Preston argues that readers need to be
careful not to confuse the two as similar simply because Reagan invokes Roosevelt’s memory.34
Reagan’s Rhetoric In Media
Foote’s research added to the discussion about Reagan’s successful use of radio to
present a vision of America. In the context of the spoken word alone, radio provided an
environment to see the practical value of rhetoric to shape debate. Foote notes that Reagan’s
radio addresses, begun in 1982, became the longest, sustained use of broadcasting to date by an
American President. Critical to our study is his observation that these radio broadcasts begun
mere weeks before the midterm elections of Reagan’s first term, and were likely part of the
overall strategy of the Administration to rebuild bi-partisan support.35
Gilboa studied the effects of post-crisis Presidential addresses to the American public.
Using public opinion polls, the author demonstrated that Reagan’s rhetoric in televised
33
M.A. Martin, “Ideologues, Ideographs, And The ‘The Best Man’: From Carter To Reagan,” Southern Speech
Communication Journal 49 (1983): 12-25.
34
G.T. Preston, “Reagan's ‘New Beginnings’: Is It The ‘New Deal’ Of The Eighties,” Southern Speech
Communication Journal 49 (1984): 198-211.
35
J.S. Foote, “Reagan on Radio” in Communication Yearbook 8, ed. R. N. Bostrom (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984),
692-706.
24
Presidential addresses substantially increased his popularity in the short term. This spike in
popularity was short lived but Gilboa argued that these boosts gave the President the support to
take action against terrorists. She also posited that this public response would potentially change
the likelihood of terrorists considering attacks against Americans.36 Martin joins the conversation
about Reagan’s entrance into the weekly radio address business. Martin proves that Reagan
succeeded in many of his policy initiatives by setting the agenda through these weekly
broadcasts. Martin argued that Reagan initiated this strategy because it enabled him to not
announce his topics in advance and cause his Democratic opponents to scramble for a response.
The “Great Communicator” outwits his opponents again.37
Aside from the weekly radio addresses, others have analyzed the overarching Reagan
media strategy. Covington, Kroger, Richardson and Woodard examine the management of the
Reagan administration’s media message. The authors argue that the “Issue of the Day” strategy
enabled the president to avoid deep analysis of policy by quickly changing the story from day to
day. Their analysis contributed to scholarship demonstrating “The Great Communicator’s”
ability to use the press to his own end.38 The management of the media by Reagan is what led
Paletz and Guthrie to address questions about how fairly or unfairly the press corps covered
President Reagan. Their study of multiple media outlets provided a content analysis that showed
the challenges inherent in television coverage, as visual images often contradict the political
realities contained in the stories (i.e. enemies shaking hands or Presidents smiling while
presenting policy initiatives that would be largely unpopular).39
36
E. Gilboa, “Effects Of Televised Presidential Addresses On Public Opinion: President Reagan And Terrorism In
The Middle East,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 43-54.
37
M.H. Martin, “President Reagan's Return to Radio,” Journalism Quarterly 61 (1984): 817-821.
38
C.R. Covington, K. Kroger, G.W. Richardson, Jr. & J.D. Woodard, “Ronald Reagan's 'Issue Of The Day' Strategy
And Differences and Its Impact On Television And The Print Media During The 1980 Election,” Political Research
Quarterly 46 (1993): 483-498.
39
D.L. Paletz, D. & K.K. Guthrie, “The Three Faces Of Ronald Reagan,” Journal Of Communication (1987): 7-23.
25
Reagan’s Rhetorical Skill And Strategy
Two different scholars have done research in the area of “Victimage Rhetoric” used by
President Reagan. Klope argues that the Reagan Administration masterfully used rhetoric to
redefine and indirectly blame the Soviet Union for the foreign policy crises that were the 1983
marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the invasion of Grenada. Klope demonstrated that
Reagan once again used a “victimage” rhetorical strategy, portraying the USSR as the antagonist
and thereby shifting any responsibility for the events to them.40 Lule joins others in using
Burke’s concept of victimage to study how Reagan responded to the NASA space shuttle crisis
in 1986. In this case the victims weren’t products of actions by enemies but instead heroes who
were sacrificed for the good of the nation. “Victimage” according to Burke is high drama on a
political stage – and that Reagan maintained his power through these dramatic enactments.41
James David Barber penned a 1987 journal article titled “Candidate Reagan And "The
Sucker Generation" for Columbia University’s Journalism Review. In it he argued that the
Reagan presidency was properly criticized for its misrepresentation of facts. “Ronald Reagan has
emerged as a president whose indifference to factuality is matched only by his devotion to
theatricality.” Along those same lines, Barber contended that it was part of Reagan’s rhetoric to
misrepresent even his own life history to fit the “values” he advocates.42 Furthermore, Reagan’s
strategy to redirect the media conversation became part of media research. In “Double Think
And The Rhetoric Of Crisis: President Reagan's October 22, 1983 Speech On "Arms Reduction,”
James R. Bennett works to point out how Reagan uses rhetoric construction in speeches to limit
40
D.C. Klope, “Defusing A Foreign Policy Crisis: Myth And Victimage In Reagan's 1983 Lebanon/Grenada
Address,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 50 (1986): 336-349.
41
J. Lule, “The Political Use Of Victims: The Shaping Of The Challenger Disaster,” Political Communication 7
(1990): 115-128.
42
J.D. Barber, “Candidate Reagan And "The Sucker Generation," Columbia Journalism Review 26 (1987): 33-36.
26
the potential debate or dissent by virtue of exaggerated claims of concern - using what the author
calls a “crisis rhetoric” to shade the truth or outright deceive the public.43
Bostdorff and Goldzwig argued in “History, Collective Memory, And The Appropriation
Of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Reagan's Rhetorical Legacy” that Reagan dipped into the rhetoric of
recent orators. They contend that in an effort to forward a conservative economic and political
agenda, Reagan effectively co-opted themes present in the rhetoric of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.44 Kenneth R. Chase used the President’s first State of the Union speech to focus to the study
of Reagan’s rhetoric on the relationship between a text and culture. In his research titled,
“Reagan's First State Of The Union Address: A Case Study In Language, Argument And
Culture,” the author showed that the text of Reagan’s speech (both written & oral) were
embedded into culture to begin with and therefore must be interpreted within that encompassing
social realm.45
A series of scholars have critically argued that Reagan’s skill in oratory enabled him to
play loose with the truth and intentionally inflame dialog to make his case for any number of
issues. James E. Hawdon argues in “The Role Of Presidential Rhetoric In The Creation Of A
Moral Panic: Reagan, Bush, And The War On Drugs” that Reagan administration drug policy set
the tone for the rhetoric the President used to sell the program. Once determining a course of
action, Hawdon asserted that Reagan masterfully incited the public to fear a drug crisis and
43
J.R. Bennett, “Double Think And The Rhetoric Of Crisis: President Reagan's October 22, 1983 Speech On Arms
Reduction" in Oldspeak/Newspeak Rhetorical Transformations, ed. C. W. Kneupper (Arlington: Rhetoric Society of
America, 1985).
44
D.M. Bostdorff & S.R. Goldzwig, “History, Collective Memory, And The Appropriation Of Martin Luther King,
Jr.: Reagan's Rhetorical Legacy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (2005): 661-690.
45
K.R. Chase, “Reagan's First State Of The Union Address: A Case Study In Language, Argument And Culture,” in
Argument And Social Practice: Proceedings Of The Fourth SCA/AFA Conference On Argumentation, eds. J. R.
Cox, M. O. Sillars, & G. B Walker (Annandale: Speech Communication Association, 1985), 289-309.
27
create a moral panic.46 In “Presidents Ronald Reagan's Apologia On The Iran-Contra Affair,” D.
Ray Heisey argued that all American Presidents, and Ronald Reagan in particular, are given to
enemy making in their rhetoric as a necessity in American culture. Reagan’s use of rhetoric
literally created a greater appearance of an enemy, which in turn enables the country to respond
accordingly.47
Janice Hocker Rushing argues in “Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" Address: Mythic
Containment Of Technical Reasoning” that Reagan’s use of the “New Frontier Myth” enables
him to rhetorically avoid the difficult questions about the Strategic Defense Initiative. She
contended that “Star Wars” was cast in terms of scientific development and forward progress in
our defense and by doing so avoids serious discussion about the moral transgression associated
with its creation (namely that it could be an offensive weapon, too). In other words, Reagan coopts science for his own purposes.48
Scholars Enholm & Gustainis used Richard Weaver’s typology of argument to
demonstrate that Reagan was not as conservative as his rhetoric may suggest. In fact, in “Ronald
Reagan And The Mixed Forms Of Argument” they argue that Reagan was not a conservative but
rather a pragmatist. Enholm and Gustainis contend that Reagan’s move across the political
spectrum was a construct of his inability to leave behind ideological baggage from past
associations – something that is difficult to do for a man who was “intellectually lazy.” 49
46
J.E. Hawdon, “The Role Of Presidential Rhetoric In The Creation Of A Moral Panic: Reagan, Bush, And The War
On Drugs,” Deviant Behavior 22 (2001): 419-445.
47
D.R. Heisey, “Presidents Ronald Reagan's Apologia On The Iran-Contra Affair, in Oratorical Encounters:
Selected Studies And Sources Of Twentieth-Century Political Accusations And Apologies, ed. H. R. Ryan
(Westport: Greenwood Press, 1988), 281-306.
48
J.H. Rushing, “Ronald Reagan's ‘Star Wars’ Address: Mythic Containment Of Technical Reasoning,” Quarterly
Journal of Speech 72 (1986): 415-433.
49
D.K. Enholm & J.J. Gustainis, “Ronald Reagan And The Mixed Forms Of Argument,” Journal of The American
Forensics Association 24 (1987): 48-56.
28
Reagan And The Religious Right
The research of several scholars of religion will play a critical role in this project. Chief
among them are the researchers who have investigated religious trends and history of the Reagan
era – very specifically the 20th century. Additionally, the religious studies research about the
specific beliefs of Evangelical Christians will figure prominently. For instance, Darren Dochuk’s
book From Bible Belt to Sun Belt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of
Evangelical Conservatism is a work that uncovers the roots of the conservative, religious,
political movement of the late 20th century. Whether referred to in the public lexicon as the
“Reagan Revolution” or the “Religious Right,” Dochuk details how southern evangelicals
migrated to California, developed a significant political power base, set the table for Reagan to
become the governor of California, and then provided the influence and capital to propel him to
the Presidency. Dochuk’s main contention is that California Protestants were the driving force
behind the surge in Evangelical Christian political influence nationwide in the 1980’s.
He argues convincingly that the Protestant Christianity of the south migrated to southern
California in the early to mid 20th century, established a powerful political presence there, and
then both feverishly campaigned and generously funded Reagan’s campaign for the White House
in 1980. His overarching goal was to present a new perspective on where the thrust of
evangelical politics found its genesis. While conventional wisdom would accurately credit
southern Protestantism for the underpinnings of the religious right, Dochuk seems to add an
important caveat to that historical reality: the most influential southerners first relocated to
California. The movement’s ideas came from the southern Bible Belt, through the Sun Belt, and
then across the country.50
50
Darren Dochuk, From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical
Conservatism (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011).
29
In her book Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of
Political Evangelicalism, Angela Lahr traces the genesis of the late 20th century phenomenon of
politically active, conservative Christian politics. Her main argument is that the combination of a
cold war nuclear threat and the premillennial eschatology of Evangelical and Fundamentalists
provided the impetus for an explosion of conservative political and theological cultural
engagement in America and around the world. She wrote, “Premillennialism during the Cold
War both encouraged missionary activity informed by biblical prophecy and aided McCarthyism
and anticommunism by creating an evangelical identity that lauded patriotism and cultural bias.
Paradoxically, this bias also hindered the success of missionary activity around the world.”51
The author observes the relationship between science and religion as it relates to the
cultural influence of conservative Protestant Christianity. In the early part of the 20th century,
science had played a significant role in quieting the voices of Fundamentalist Christians. More or
less exiled by modern discoveries that seemed to render the Bible unreliable, culturally
conservative Christians went into cultural hiding. Post WWII, with the real threat of a nuclear
holocaust, science was now providing seeming evidence of Biblical reliability. Taken as part of
an apocalyptic narrative, nuclear capabilities appeared to validate a premillennial “end of the
world” scenario. Evangelists, pastors, politicians and authors seized on these Cold War fears to
induce a new wave of action on behalf of a unified Evangelical agenda. Additionally, the 1967
re-establishment (and subsequent flourishing) of the nation of Israel supported the evangelical
contention that the end was coming and that Biblical prophecy was reliable.
In 1980 when Ronald Reagan was being inaugurated as America’s 40th President,
historian George Marsden introduced a fresh perspective of the history of American Christian
51
Angela Lahr, Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of Political Evangelicalism,
(New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007), 81.
30
Fundamentalism. In his groundbreaking work, In Fundamentalism and American Culture: The
Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925, he argued that the “Religious Right”
was not simply a revival of old time Fundamentalism reacting again against modernism. Instead,
he posited that Christian evangelicals had instead adopted many of the components of
Modernism. The Fundamentalists had ironically “evolved” in their understanding and culturally
adapted the presentation of their Christian message.52 Whichever history is to be believed, the socalled death of Fundamentalism was at the very least overstated. The other outstanding
contribution Marsden has made to understanding conservative Protestant theology is his work
Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism.53 In this volume
Marsden examines the challenges and battles that took place within American Evangelicalism
throughout the 20th century. Central to this work is his focus on the place of Fuller Theological
Seminary as a symbol of the religious sea change that took place in American life and its role in
differentiating between Fundamentalists (anti-intellectuals) and Evangelicals (conservative
scholasticism).
Daniel K. Williams book God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right is another
contribution to the history of American Conservative Christian politics. Williams argues that
most political scientists, historians and journalists haven’t looked far enough into the history of
Fundamentalist Christianity to genuinely understand the forces that formed it. His contention is
that Evangelicals initiated the co-opting of the Republican Party for their own ends, as opposed
to the other way around. The author argues that the new Christian Right wanted to a desire for
52
George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism
1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
53
George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995).
31
political power to re-establish America’s Christian identity through politics – an agenda their
Fundamentalist forefathers set in the earliest part of the 20th century.54
Matthew Sutton’s historical and rhetorical analysis, Aimee Semple McPherson and the
Resurrection of Christian America, is a thorough study of the famous evangelist’s influence on
20th century Protestant America, in particular the role she played framing the rhetoric of
conservative Christian politics. The author’s main contention is that McPherson was a pioneer
who blazed trails that were both celebrated and scorned by both liberals and conservatives. Her
vocal opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools and her support for traditional
political issues gave her credibility amongst many politically conservative Christians. However,
many Evangelical Christian opponents disavowed her because of her proclivity for publicity and
her extravagant lifestyle. Her savvy manipulation of the media and her penchant for luxury
clothing, homes and cars, made her a forerunner of the modern televangelists. While her mass
media exposure built a large following, it also garnered nasty criticism from many
fundamentalists who eschewed her lavish excesses.55
Susan Harding’s tome The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics
is a fantastic historical summary of not simply the events of this 20th century theological and
political debate. More precisely she provides a comprehensive detailing of the rhetoric that
played such a critical role in framing the modernist-fundamentalist debate – a debate that played
a foundational role in creating the coalitions that would develop into a significant part of
Reagan’s own coalition. It was the restructuring of this language that served in many ways to
unite and empower cultural conservatives and give rise to the religious right of the late 20th
54
Daniel K. Williams, God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010).
55
Matthew Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2007).
32
century. Harding’s main thrust is that rhetoric and the framing of cultural debate is what
ultimately traps or frees people and movements to succeed or fail in their influence on culture.
She most aptly demonstrates this in her historical analysis of the Scopes trial and its result when
she notes, “Narrative encapsulation marks cultural dominance, and it is in this sense that the
Scopes trial constituted the beginning of a half century of liberal Protestant and secular dominion
in America.”56
John Green, Mark Rozell and Clyde Wilcox labored together to produce The Christian
Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium. This collection of research papers
analyzes the growth and development of the religious right in North America. Edited by John
Green, Mark Rozell and Clyde Wilcox, this collection of twelve projects features research by
scholars who were experts about their respective geographic areas of study (most were residents
of their particular region of study, too). The benefit of this multi-regional study is both to
compare and contrast how different manifestations of the same political movement varied in
their approaches and success.
As a collection of case studies, there is not a single research question or argument.
However, the inferred analysis is that the Christian right is at the same time diverse and similar
in its make up and function. Diversity would be featured in the ages of the participants and the
wide variety of religious affiliations represented. However, many more common threads run
through the movement. It is largely white and protestant Christian in orientation across the
country. As well, according to the editors, the “Fundamentalists” were always the first group of
Christians to mobilize in each state. Each regional study also saw the strong influence of wellorganized multi-faith organizations such as the Christian Coalition, the American Family
56
Susan Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2000), 65.
33
Association or Focus on the Family. These organizations are adept at the use of a common
conservative, protestant language, which is a unifying agent in this national phenomenon.
Most aptly demonstrated in the Texas research, but also true of the other case studies, the
movement was intentionally not a “third party” effort but instead a strategic effort to “gain a
substantial foothold in the existing major political parties, especially the Republicans.”57 While
varying political climates mandated different approaches and yielded different results, the
Christian right can be characterized as groups of both formal and informal associations that have
attempted to create a group identity and forward social change according to their unified agenda.
This research is in many ways built on the authors and editors’ previous scholarship in
the field. The editors would maintain that this collection of case studies actually propels the field
into a new era of evaluation, looking at less influential regions and more ambitiously evaluating
the long-term effects on democracy as a whole. The authors’ approach the work as critical
scholars and historians. The content of each study specifically cites the events and people who
played critical roles in the states in question. At times these players were part of a national stage
and therefore part of an event that was playing out on a national stage. It is this part of the
reading that was fascinating, seeing how different case studies highlighted the same historical
dates and moments as pivotal (i.e. Pat Robertson’s 1988 Presidential bid, 1980’s “Washington
for Jesus” rally or landmark political decisions such as Roe vs. Wade).
In Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens
America, Randall Balmer argues that the political allegiance of Evangelicals to the Republican
party is misplaced, and that the alliance has little in common with the evangelical Christianity of
early America. He contends that that modern Evangelicals have abandoned the spirit of their
57
John Green et al, eds, The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium (Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 2003), 67.
34
movement, which was founded in 19th-century activism on issues that helped those on the
fringes of society: abolition, women's suffrage and universal education. As a researcher and a
critic of conservative religious politics, Noll provides insight into how former Evangelicals
perceive the power grab and institutional self-righteousness of conservative politics.
58
Balmer
more recently authored Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical
Subculture in America.59 This book was a more contemporary exposition of popular
Evangelicalism, created in concert with a television program produced for PBS.
Mark Noll has written a definitive history of Christian theology in America in the 125
years preceding the outbreak of the Civil War. In America’s God, Noll traces the impact that
religious thought had on American public and private life – including a new confidence in
individual reason, and a focus on the inward spiritual experience. Additionally, the author points
out that the religious convictions that separated north from south during this time period remain
in many ways a part of America to this day. Throughout that era, Evangelical Protestants
campaigned to civilize and to Christianize the United States, and he would contend that for the
most part they succeeded. However, the development of religious individualism produced a
fracturing of America whereby Christians separated by region believed wholeheartedly that God
was on their side. Noll argues that something akin to a "civil religion" developed in the United
States, in distinctive but fundamentally related northern and southern forms. He argues that the
Civil War was caused, in part, by the failure of American Protestants to disentangle essential
Christian belief from their created cultural religions. 60
58
Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America (New
York: Basic Books, 2006).
59
Randall Herbert Balmer, Mine Eyes Have Seen The Glory: A Journey Into The Evangelical Subculture In
America. Expanded ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
60
Mark A. Noll, America’s God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
35
Steven P. Miller’s The Age of Evangelicalism: America’s Born-Again Years summarizes
the cultural forces in play in the two decades before the Reagan years. It was in these same
tumultuous years that Governor Reagan was the Chief Executive of California and politically
took on the hippies and campus radicals. Miller gives an overview of an Evangelical era that
stretches over 50 years, but his most helpful contribution is his recognition that the cultural
upheaval of the 1960s played a significant role in setting up the Reagan Presidency.61
Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson have written the ultimate insider guide to history the Moral
Majority and the downside of the tactics of the “Religious Right.” Thomas and Dobson were
lieutenants of Jerry Falwell, and in Blinded by Might they provide an important critique of the
underlying philosophy that guided the political aspirations of religious conservatives during the
Reagan era.62
Reagan’s Use of Narrative Rhetoric
Aside from his seminal work defining the Narrative Paradigm, Walter Fisher has
contributed a number of specific applications of this theory in relationship to Reagan’s Rhetoric.
In “Romantic Democracy, Ronald Reagan, and the Presidential Heroes,” Fisher assessed the
value of Reagan’s tendency toward grand narratives in his rhetoric. The author compared and
contrasted the language of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter to strengthen the concept that
Reagan skillfully built himself into a leader. Fisher demonstrates that Reagan succeeded where
others failed by using romantic themes about America and by focusing on America’s heroic
61
Steven P. Miller, The Age Of Evangelicalism: America's Born-Again Years (New York: Oxford University Press,
2014).
62
Cal Thomas & Ed. Dobson, Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America? (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999).
36
historical past and its rituals.63 In “Narrativity And Politics: The Case Of Ronald Reagan,” he
gives his case for using the Narrative Paradigm to understand Ronald Reagan’s success. He
argues that viewing communication from this perspective enables us to focus on the message, the
means of communicating and the trustworthiness of the contents of it. Fisher contends that
whatever the means of the conversation, the narrative paradigm frees us to view it as rhetoric.
He concludes that the reason Reagan succeeded as a rhetorician – even though he fails the
rational world paradigm and tests of narrative fidelity – is because he appealed to a mythic,
heroic past and celebrated the culture values of his audience.64
In his work entitled, “Telling America's Story: Narrative Form And The Reagan
Presidency,” William Lewis addressed how Reagan’s rhetoric can be most easily explained by its
use of narrative. Throughout his career, Reagan’s discourse is dominated by narrative, defined
as: story-based truth, stress on morals and heroic themes, and an appeal to “common sense”
judgment. Lewis argues that Reagan differentiated himself from his contemporaries and
succeeded large because of this power. However, Lewis takes exception with others scholars by
contending that there are significant limitations on the moral and ethical capacities of narrative
theme making as demonstrated by Reagan.65
In “Spectator Desire And Narrative Closure: The Reagan 18-Minute Political Film,”
Susan Mackey-Kallis argues through the Narrative Paradigm of human communication that the
RNC film that preceded Reagan’s 1984 acceptance speech at their convention works to further
bestow the mythic hero title to Reagan’s life. Through close analysis of the film, the author
63
W.R. Fisher, “Romantic Democracy, Ronald Reagan, and the Presidential Heroes,” Western Journal of Speech
Communication 46 (1982): 299-310.
64
W.R. Fisher, “Narrativity and Politics: The Case of Ronald Reagan,” in Human Communication As Narration:
Toward A Philosophy Of Reason, Value, And Action, ed. W.R Fisher (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
1987), 143-157.
65
W.F. Lewis, “Telling America's Story: Narrative Form And The Reagan Presidency,” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 73 (1987): 280-302.
37
demonstrates the Presidents intentional use of rhetoric to make the audience feel as if they are
living their lives along side of his – as Reagan spoke to fellow “believers” who want to buy into
a grand vision of American heroism.66
Lynne M. Sallot argued in “The Man On A White Horse: The Presidency, Persuasion,
And Myth” that President Reagan and his team used carefully created myths and mastery of
symbolism to strengthen the American public’s connection to the White House. She presented
the cast that the communications team used myths as varied as the American Frontier and the
Man on a White Horse to the great Individual and the Great Communicator.67
In “Ronald Reagan's 1980 Acceptance Address: A Focus On American Values,” H.Z.
Scheele argued that Reagan’s intentional use of “values” was designed as a rhetorical strategy to
persuade the electorate. These value appeals, says Scheele, enable a communicator to identify
with his audience. That said, the author contends that it was a common Reagan strategy to not be
specific about his meanings, allowing the audience to apply their own definitions to abstract
terms and concepts. As such, they functioned much like code words.68
Ellen Reid Gold looked at varying oral theorists’ evaluations of Reagan rhetorical
approaches. “In Ronald Reagan And The Oral Tradition” she specifically argued that her
findings explained why Reagan’s discourse using grand narrative themes provided such cover for
the misinformation that was often transmitted through them. Gold demonstrated that oral theory
itself provided structures necessary to critique Reagan, as these theories emphasize the use of
66
S. Mackey-Kallis, “Spectator Desire And Narrative Closure: The Reagan 18-Minute Political Film,” Southern
Communication Journal 56 (1991): 308-314.
67
L.M. Sallot, “The Man On A White Horse: The Presidency, Persuasion, And Myth,” Florida Communication
Journal (1990): 18.
68
H.Z. Scheele, “ Ronald Reagan's 1980 Acceptance Address: A Focus On American Values,” Western Journal of
Speech Communication 48 (1984): 51-61.
38
themes and formulas. She concluded that Reagan’s dramatic training was especially useful in this
form of rhetoric, as it is a mode that was championed in pre-literate cultures, too.69
Some scholars have used rhetorical criticism to investigate the sources of influences in a
particular president’s rhetoric. Colleen Shogan has contributed to the study of Reagan as a
communicator by connecting the influence of Calvin Coolidge on Reagan speechwriting. In
“Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence Of Silent Cal On The Great Communicator,”
Shogan details how Reagan speechwriters were themselves given access and encouraged to use
material from Coolidge’s speeches to frame how the 40th president would speak. Reagan and
Coolidge shared a similar approach to government spending and a shared belief in the need for
moral clarity and the influence of organized religion to foster a high functioning democracy.70
Likewise, Sarah Russell Hankins used her essay “Archetypal Alloy: Reagan's Rhetorical
Image” to cast Reagan’s election as part of an American desire for an archetypal hero. She
contends that America cast this actor into the role of President and national hero. To support her
thesis that support for Reagan is rooted in heroic longing, she explores the rhetoric of the hero
President, past and present.71
Reagan’s Religious Rhetoric
While a few scholars have delved closely to the case being made in this project, there has
been a limited amount of research conducted about the specific origins and contents of Reagan’s
religious rhetoric. The most prolific author about Reagan’s religious beliefs is Paul Kengor. In
his 2004 book God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life, Kengor journeys through Reagan’s
69
E.R. Gold, “Ronald Reagan And The Oral Tradition,” Central States Speech Journal 39 (1988): 159-176.
C.J. Shogan, “Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence Of Silent Cal On The Great Communicator,”
Rhetoric and Public Affairs 9 (2006): 215-234.
71
S.R. Hankins, “Archetypal Alloy: Reagan's Rhetorical Image,” Central States Speech Journal 34 (1983): 33-43.
70
39
childhood years, provides excellent references to Reagan’s religious upbringing. The Reagan
kids were active with their mother, Nelle, in the local Disciples of Christ congregation. Kengor
lists the early influence of Harold Bell Wright’s book That Printer of Udell’s, which Reagan
referenced as a book that had great significance to his life. As well, Kengor shows the early
influence of the writing of Whittaker Chambers, converted communist and atheist. As well, the
book chronicles Reagan’s relationship with a missionary named Richard Wurmbrand, whose
evangelistic outreach to Russia made an impression on the President.72
Kengor followed up that work with another historical analysis of Reagan’s crusade
against Communism. The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism is an extensive
research project that forwards a major reassessment of Ronald Reagan's lifelong crusade against
communism, and his political and rhetorical efforts to overthrow the Soviet Union. Kengor’s
work includes considerable archival research of declassified presidential papers and Soviet
media archives, and argues that Reagan knew precisely what he was doing and how he would
bring about the seismic shifts in Soviet policy during the Cold War. 73
Another author, Stephen Vaughn, has made two important contributions to understanding
the roots of Reagan’s rhetoric – one specifically about Reagan’s historical religious faith and the
second a dissection of the influence of Reagan’s film roles on what he said and how he said it.
In the first, “The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ,”
Vaughn argues that Reagan’s primary early religious influences in life were his pastor, Ben Hill
Cleaver (minister of the First Christian Church - Dixon, Illinois), and his mother Nelle Reagan.
In the first research of its kind, Vaughn’s work features archival research from the Tennessee
headquarters of the Disciples of Christ – including actual text from sermons that the President
72
73
Paul Kengor, God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life (New York: Harper Collins, 2004).
Paul Kengor, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (New York: Regan Books, 2006).
40
heard in the early part of his life. The book chronicles many influences on young Ronald Reagan
and the author contends that his experiences in his hometown – including early speaking
opportunities – significantly influenced his later practice of fusing together American patriotism
and Christianity and his other oratorical styles (especially his frequent use of the jeremiad).74 In
his article titled “Nelle’s Boy: Ronald Reagan and the Disciples of Christ,” Garry Wills echoed
themes contained in Vaughn’s work. Wills argues that Reagan’s appeal with Evangelicals was
second nature given his upbringing in church, saying that both he and the Evangelicals were
speaking from their roots.75
More recently, Andrew Hogue contributed a major effort in the field of Reagan’s
Religious Rhetoric, Stumping God: Reagan, Carter, and the Invention of a Political Faith. This
work details the origins of religious political language in contemporary America, arguing that it
can be traced back to the 1980 presidential contest between then President Jimmy Carter and
candidate Ronald Reagan. In his work he examines the evolution of the religious conservative
Evangelical movement as it was attached to Reagan and then develops the case for a new
generation of theologically conservative Christian leaders who have distanced themselves from
Republican politics.76 Hogue’s research also features a stark analysis of the effectiveness of
values voting, charting the relative failure of religious Americans to bring about cultural change
via politics. Hogue has also carved a niche in the analysis of the Cold War Rhetoric that Reagan
used to great effect to court conservative voters.
C.H. Palczewski dissects the status of the President as the “Priest” of America’s civil
religion in “Civil Religion and Public Argument: Reagan as Public Priest of the Antiabortion
74
Stephen Vaughn, “The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ,” Presidential
Studies Quarterly 25-1 (1995): 109-127.
75
Garry Wills, “Nelle’s Boy: Ronald Reagan and the Disciples of Christ,” Christian Century 103-34 (1986): 1002-6.
76
Andrew P. Hogue, Stumping God: Reagan, Carter, and the Invention of a Political Faith (Waco: Baylor
University Press, 2012).
41
Movement.” She concludes that Reagan manages to advocate for a religious position in spite of
the separation between church and state by appealing to “Civil Religion.” The author analyzes
Reagan’s “March for Life” speeches and a contribution to a book about abortion. She troublingly
concludes that Reagan truly believes that there is a singular, coherent perspective about abortion
contained by the American public and that his view is in accord with it. “Reagan knows the mind
of America, even though America’s majority is silent.”77 Coe and Domke use the concept of
“civil religion” as a framework to evaluate the Presidential religious rhetoric of Reagan and
George W. Bush. “In Petitioners Or Prophets?: Presidential Discourse, God, and the Ascendancy
Of Religious Conservative,” the authors explore whether the resurgence of presidential religious
discourse is unique to the late 20th century or it has been part of history. Coe and Domke argue
that both the Reagan and Bush rhetorical patterns linking American themes of freedom and
liberty have been present in presidential speech; particularly, they examine the addresses of
Franklin D. Roosevelt for comparison.78
R.L. Johannesen sets out to explore the ethicality of Reagan’s rhetoric as it applies to
various subjects in his project titled, “An Ethical Assessment of the Reagan Rhetoric: 19811982.” He addresses commonly held objections, such as the perception that the President played
fast and loose with the facts amidst his impressive oratory. This study contributed to the research
associated with Reagan’s first term, in particular the first two years. The author concluded that
the President was at the same time ethical regarding his use of vague and ambiguous concepts for
77
C. H. Palczewski, “Civil Religion and Public Argument: Reagan as Public Priest of the Antiabortion Movement,”
in Reagan and Public Discourse in America, eds. M. Weiler & W. B. Pearce (Tuscaloosa: U Alabama, 1992).
78
K. Coe & D. Domke, “Petitioners Or Prophets? Presidential Discourse, God, And The Ascendancy Of Religious
Conservatives,” Journal of Communication 56 (2006): 309-330.
42
this own purposes and unethical and irresponsible regarding his transmission of facts. He argued
that Reagan’s misstatements of fact were not rare, occasional or made regarding minor matters.79
In “Reagan, Rhetoric, and The Public Philosophy: Ethics and Politics In The 1984
Campaign,” C.L. Johnstone labored to assess Reagan’s rhetoric from an ethical standpoint. The
author focused on the 1984 Presidential campaign. His conclusions were that the Reagan
campaign was lacking in principle when evaluated based on the standards of disclosure,
argument, confrontation and public competence. He concluded, ironically, that his supporters
consider the Reagan legacy moral. Yet, Ronald Reagan’s contribution to the electoral process
was to alter it for all of history by gearing it toward entertainment instead of reasoned
judgment.80 Similarly, W.J. Muir argues in “Ronald Reagan's Bully Pulpit: Creating a Rhetoric
of Values” that Reagan used the presidency as a bully pulpit to forward his own definition of
what constituted morality. The author concluded that for Reagan the key to improving America
was elevating the character of Americans. Muir’s study explored how Reagan developed this
value-laden rhetoric.81
Mary Beth Brown’s Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan,
is a particularly undocumented resource that waxes poetically about Reagan’s faith without often
citing the former President. This book is emblematic of the conservative Evangelical tendency
(religiously speculative though it may be) to cast Reagan in the role of national priest and
79
R.L Johannesen, “An Ethical Assessment of the Reagan Rhetoric: 1981-1982,” in Political Communication
Yearbook, eds. K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid, & D. Nimmo (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1985).
80
C.L. Johnstone, “Reagan, Rhetoric, and The Public Philosophy: Ethics and Politics In The 1984 Campaign,”
Southern Communication Journal 60 (1995): 93-108.
81
W.J. Muir, Jr., “Ronald Reagan's Bully Pulpit: Creating A Rhetoric Of Values,” in Presidential Speechwriting:
From The New Deal To The Reagan Revolution And Beyond, eds. K. Ritter & M. J. Medhurst (College Station, TX:
Texas A&M University Press, 2003).
43
prophet. However, it does demonstrate that Reagan’s religious faith was sincere, if not
particularly learned or rooted in any type of consistent systematic theology.82
Regarding Reagan’s religious rhetoric and how it was shaped by his handlers, Wynton C.
Hall has contributed “The Invention of 'Quantifiably Safe Rhetoric': Richard Wirthlin and
Ronald Reagan's Instrumental Use Of Public Opinion Research In Presidential Discourse.” Hall
explores the implications of poll-driven political rhetoric, something that was inaugurated during
the Reagan Administration. He argues that while it is important that Presidents choose their
rhetoric carefully, it is equally critical for Presidents to know what their constituents are thinking
before they say it. “Listening” to the electorate is the focus of this essay, in particular how
private poll information is incorporated into the creation of rhetoric.
Hall brings new
understanding to the process by virtue of his analysis of Richard Wirthlin’s influence on Reagan
White House communications.83
Rhetorical Analysis and the Triad of Speeches
The Evil Empire Speech
Baylor University’s Martin Medhurst provides great primary research surrounding the
rhetoric of Ronald Reagan’s speeches. In particular his interview with Tony Dolan established
important notions of what life was like in the speechwriting department for the 40th President.84
Medhurst himself gave a poignant analysis of the same iconic Reagan speech (which we’ll
provide close textual analysis), when he wrote “Reagan’s ‘Evil Empire’ Speech.” for the
82
Mary Beth Brown, Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan (Nashville: WND Books,
2004), 293.
83
W.C. Hall, “The Invention Of 'Quantifiably Safe Rhetoric': Richard Wirthlin and Ronald Reagan's Instrumental
Use Of Public Opinion Research In Presidential Discourse,” Western Journal of Communication 66 (2002): 319346.
84
Martin Medhurst, “Writing speeches for Ronald Reagan: An interview with Tony Dolan,” Rhetoric & Public
Affairs 1-2 (1998): 245-256.
44
Encyclopedia Britannica Blog in 2011.85 Anthony R. Dolan, Reagan’s Chief Speech Writer and
former press secretary of Republican patriarch William F. Buckley, himself contributes to the
literature on this speech. In “Impressions: Premeditated Prose: Reagan’s Evil Empire,” Dolan
provides his own perspective on the rhetoric contained in the President’s address to the NAE. 86
Reagan scholarly critic, G. Thomas Goodnight, observed how the Reagan Administration
worked diligently to “reformulate the rhetoric of war” in an age when the world’s super powers
were not only in an arms race, but smaller countries had taken possession of nuclear weapons,
too. Goodnight argued that the need for deterrence was another opportunity for Reagan to
exercise his rhetorical power. He concludes by reasserting the Administration’s great capacity to
reframe objections to policy by appealing to past glories and success of American military might
– by speaking in narrative.87
Another critic of the President’s religious rhetoric was Messianic scholar Yehezkel
Landau, who wrote in Christianity and Crisis, “It is no doubt consoling to a political leader to
identify himself and his nation with the people of God, and to demonize his political adversary
so that the other be- comes not only the Obstacle to furthering the national interest but also Satan
incarnate: the children of darkness versus the children of light.”88 Other scholastic voices of
opposition to the President’s speech came from the Evangelical left. Dr. Richard Mouw opined
in the Reformed Journal, “If such a speech were delivered by a small-town orator at a Fourth of
85
“Reagan’s ‘Evil Empire’ Speech.” Encyclopedia Britannica Blog, February 3, 2011, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/author/mmedhurst.
86
Anthony R. Dolan, “Impressions: Premeditated Prose: Reagan’s Evil Empire,” American Enterprise 4-2 (March–
April 1993): 24.
87
G.T. Goodnight, “Ronald Reagan's Re-Formulation Of The Rhetoric Of War: Analysis Of The ‘Zero-Option,’
‘Evil Empire,’ and ‘Star Wars’ Addresses,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (1986): 390-414.
88
Yehezkel Landau, “The President and the Bible: What Do the Prophets Say to Our Time?” Christianity and Crisis
(December 12, 1983).
45
July rally, one might dismiss it as silly. Coming from the President of the United States, it has to
be considered dangerous.”89
Finally, Dordt College’s Paul Fessler used archival research to argue that the success of
the NAE speech provided what amounted to a rhetorical blueprint that brought about the end of
the Cold War. The Great Communicator was shown to ably adapt his speech to his specific
audience, and that his use of religious rhetoric in this case was rooted in his personal religious
and moral worldview. What makes Fessler’s scholarship unique is that he demonstrates that the
NAE address’s primary purpose was to curry favor with religious conservatives – as even the
press was not anticipating a major foreign policy speech. Fessler’s work argued that Reagan was
much more involved in writing this speech than most originally believed. This work details the
political motivations for the tweaking of a speech that would be considered one of the more
memorable of the Reagan Presidency. And as a rhetorical analysis, it focuses most of its
emphasis on the speech’s impact on foreign policy – including a view to its transition to the next
major Reagan address, the “Star Wars” speech.90
The National Religious Broadcasters and National Prayer Breakfast Speeches
The most effective way to conclude this Literature Review is to demonstrate the need for
my study by asserting that no academic inquiry has been done with the two other speeches in
what I have termed Reagan’s 1983 “Triad of Speeches.” Most of the Reagan Rhetorical
scholarship is concentrated in the area of Reagan’s Rhetorical Skill and Political Strategy. A
subset of that genre of criticism is scholarship related to Reagan political rhetoric with the
Religious Right. There is also a good bit of scholarship highlighting Reagan’s use of rhetorical
89
Richard J. Mouw, “Sectarian Religiosity.” Reformed Journal 33-4 (1983): 2–3.
Paul Fessler, “Ronald Reagan, Address To The National Association Of Evangelicals: The ‘Evil Empire
Speech,’” Voices of Democracy 2 (2007): 26‐49.
90
46
narrative. However, that is where things in this review change. There are few scholars in the
area of Reagan’s Religious Rhetoric. And while other emphases have driven the abundance of
scholarship regarding the “Evil Empire” speech (of which there is limited religious rhetorical
analysis), there has been no analysis of any kind about Reagan’s 1983 speeches to the National
Religious Broadcasters or National Prayer Breakfast.
Reagan scholars are unanimous that he is the “Great Communicator.” Reagan scholars
also agree with Ritter’s assessment that perhaps more than any other Presidential candidate in
history, Reagan’s oratory was what made him successful.91 However, Reagan historians and
rhetorical critics disagree with each other about the amount of influence that the President had on
his administration’s agenda, let alone his own rhetoric. This is a specific question we will be able
to answer in this study. As previously mentioned, the preponderance of opinion would argue that
Reagan’s rhetoric was reckless and that history would judge him as unengaged with policy and
therefore limited in his personal participation in shaping his own Administration. Historian Paul
Kengor would counter this perspective by concluding that Reagan was primarily responsible for
the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism. There is a growing base of
scholarship that would have a more positive opinion about Reagan’s contributions. This research
will provide insight into the President’s level of engagement in the ideas present in his public
addresses. Also, in the area of Reagan’s foreign policy there is considerable difference of
opinion about whether Reagan’s rhetoric was helpful in ending the Cold War or whether it was
dangerous and prolonged tensions. B. Wayne Howell proverbially swam against the stream by
contending that Reagan’s rhetorical superiority is what gave him the edge over the Soviets and
Chairman Gorbachev. Ritter’s scholarship is particularly informative for my study (as it is with
most Reagan rhetorical scholars), but the one area where I hope to delve more deeply than he did
91
Ritter and Henry, 52.
47
is by providing a specific investigation into religious code words that appealed uniquely to
Evangelicals.
Perhaps the most important contribution I will make scholarly will be through my
archival research. I will through my analysis attempt to fill a specific gap in “Reagan Religious”
scholarship to help us see specifically where his contributions shaped the rhetoric of his
administration. Finally, by analyzing these three speeches together as part of a specific reelection
strategy, I will be able to add an original nuance to Reagan studies as well as contribute to the
collection of studies about election politics and rhetoric.
48
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Over the past three years I have spent hundreds of hours at the Ronald Reagan
Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. While there I combed through the archives for
evidence of Reagan’s intentional religious rhetoric as it pertained to the triad of speeches I was
researching. During the same time period I have conducted multiple primary source interviews
with individuals who were present during the Reagan era and others who are currently in places
to offer insight that will enable better understanding of the Evangelical leadership at the time of
the speeches being analyzed. Included in this study is a historiography of 20th Century
Evangelicalism and in particular the phenomenon of the Reagan-era “Religious Right.” I will
critically analyze three speeches by President Reagan and investigate how Evangelical religious
code was embedded in Reagan’s speeches. I’ll ask questions such as, “Why did Reagan’s
religious rhetoric seem to move Evangelicals and yet not appear heavy handed to non-religious,
economic conservatives in his coalition?” “What things were present in the decades immediately
preceding the Reagan Revolution that set conditions that made his audience particularly
receptive?” “What similarities were there between the 1980s era of culturally conservative
resurgence and other periods of American history when these dynamics existed?” And, “What
was it in Reagan’s life and personal experience that caused his quintessential America narrative
to have such resonance amongst religious conservatives?”
These and other questions are best evaluated through a Rhetorical-Critical methodology
known as “Rhetorical Study of Historical Events.” This method is contrasted with Zarefsky’s
other categories of rhetorical criticism: a “History of Rhetoric” (a study of the public address
49
through all time), a “Rhetoric of History” (a study of the devices used to write history itself), and
a “Historical Study of Historical Events” (which focuses more on the events surrounding the
address than the words themselves). While the study of history aids understanding by placing it
properly in its original context (and I will reflect on the influence of Reagan’s life and faith on
his rhetoric), my primary purpose will be striving to let the text of Reagan’s speeches speak on
their own terms and interpreting them in light of the context in which they were given. This
rhetorical study of historical events will consider how Reagan’s messages were created and used
to influence Evangelicals.1 While further study will need to be undertaken later regarding what
differing Evangelicals heard in the 40th President’s rhetoric, this study will focus on specific
terms that symbolically enabled Reagan to signal to conservative Protestants that he was one of
them. Remarkably, the Great Communicator would do this while at the same time not alarming
those who would know little about the term’s meaning.
Through a close analysis of the texts of this triad of speeches, we’ll compare and contrast
the content and look for variations that would be pertinent to each particular audience. When I
speak of “close text analysis” I am referring to an academic discipline within Communication
scholarship. Close text analysis of a public address is comprised of a five-part process that
includes investigation of the composition of the speech, exploring its generic features, probing its
internal workings, gleaning its specific cultural meaning and ultimately exploring its social
importance. This incisive examination of the rhetorical dynamics is done because, as Lucas has
said, “Every rhetorical text is situated within a particular linguistic context with its own
vocabulary, conventions idioms and patois.” 2 Wonderfully relevant for this study is the opinion
1
David Zarefsky, “Four Senses of Rhetorical History,” in Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases, ed.
Kathleen J. Turner (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1998), 19-31.
2
Stephen E. Lewis, “Book Review: The Renaissance of American Public Address: Text and Context in Rhetorical
Criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 74 (1988): 248-249.
50
of some scholars that the Presidency of Ronald Reagan was in part responsible for a resurgence
of interest in the American oratorical tradition that has followed in the decades since the 1980s.
For it was at the first Public Address Conference in 1988 that Martin Medhurst called for this
emphasis.3
Archival research plays a prominent role in my study as well as primary source
interviews. The phenomenon of computerization has created a considerably easier task for
archivists (compared to pre-personal computer, pre-internet, pre-smart phone with high
resolution archival study). The process of access has been simplified by making some documents
available online, and certainly the Reagan Library’s information and cataloging system is a
computer click away. Computerization of records has also made tracking down documents
within a library considerably easier than when I was in graduate school in the 1990s. The ability
to take pictures with my camera phone, immediately tag the photos and then upload them to my
computer, made my cataloging of discoveries simpler. As well, this technological advance cuts
down on the paper and reproduction costs. One downside of my smart phone’s constant presence
was the day the archivist on duty at the Reagan Library politely (as they all do in Simi Valley)
scolded me for singing aloud in the research room. With my headphones comfortably jammed in
my inner ears, and my music turned up loudly to accommodate for my 1980s heavy metal
induced hearing loss, I was unaware that I had become a disturbance to the other scholars. I don’t
know if I was more embarrassed that I was caught singing out loud or that I was crooning to a
Barry Manilow classic.
The challenges of archival research include much more than remaining quiet. The sheer
volume of material to sift through is overwhelming in scope and size and requires an abundance
of time. This is perhaps where my vocation has provided flexibility where others cannot. I work
3
Davis W. Houck, “On or About June 1988,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 9-1 (Spring 2006): 135.
51
weekends (archives are closed on Saturday and Sunday), a significant portion of my work is
done in the evenings (the Reagan Archives closed at 4:00 p.m.), and another portion of my work
is done in isolation (which can be done as easily in Simi Valley as in Pasadena). In addition to
the requirement of time, archival research also requires focus, which in turn requires quality
caffeinated beverages. Presidential Libraries are sticklers about no food or drink being allowed in
research areas, so the ability to have your coffee delivered nearly intravenously (at arms length)
is eliminated. This necessitates leaving that portion of the complex, which disrupts said focus. A
more important potential challenge to this type of research could be restrictions placed on access
to information. Stuckey expressed this danger, made possible when the George W. Bush
Administration gave greater power to current and former Presidents to control whether their
documents are available for public inspection. This change of policy has made the method of
operation for release of information transition from rarely withholding to rarely providing.
Fortunately for my study, the Reagan Administration is beyond their time period (12 years
subsequent to their final year in office) whereby they can close off access. Additionally, the staff
at the Reagan Library has been extraordinarily cooperative and supportive of my work.
Another place where my research will contribute to the conversation will be in the area of
analyzing the influence of Ronald Reagan’s brand of Christianity on his rhetoric and how that
rhetoric was coded in such a way as to persuade people of like beliefs. Archival research is
critical to this process because it is often that hand written notes on speech drafts that point you
in the direction your analysis must go. While my historiography will briefly look at Reagan’s
particular religious upbringing (the theological position of early 20th century Disciples of Christ
Protestantism) and his religious re-birth (purported to have taken place amidst the 1950s and
1960s California Protestant Evangelicals), it will be the archival research that will show how he
52
as President expressed those convictions. The archival process enables us to see how purposeful
he was in altering his public addresses in order to more strongly identify with Evangelicals and
Fundamentalists.
Through archival research that highlights his speech draft notes, I seek to demonstrate
that Reagan’s rhetoric was shaped by his personal alignment with Evangelicalism’s commitment
to the authority of the Old and New Testaments. As well, his penchant for anti-communist
feelings fit conveniently into the dominant pre-millennial eschatology of the 1960s and 1970s
Protestant Evangelicals, and his draft notes will show that he interjected his good verses evil
rhetoric with vigor. While fine research has been done in the area of Reagan’s rhetoric,
Communication Studies scholars have not dug deeply into the substance of the language that
bound together the Protestants Christians of Reagan’s coalition. As mentioned in the Literature
Review, great work in the field of American Christian history has been done through Religious
Studies; some of which will be referenced throughout this work. I intend to focus on how the
language of this religious history produced a shared language and symbolism that enabled
Reagan to speak to Evangelicals in ways that others could not.
My research is distinct because I intend to surmise that it was not just his rhetorical
training and skill that created his resonance with religious voters. I argue that Reagan’s
Evangelical Christian influences and his personal belief in America’s manifest destiny produced
in him a rhetoric that spoke a particular brand of “Grand American Narrative” that was part of
20th century Evangelicalism. Protestant Evangelicals and their Fundamentalist forerunners
believed they were in a spiritual war and that God’s Kingdom was manifest in the early struggles
for control over worldly institutions. Reagan’s rhetoric was particularly suited for this audience.
And in an effort to “re-engage” them, the President would adapt his rhetoric anew in historic
53
ways. As well, the structures of his appeals are presented in the modern, logic-centered approach
of Evangelical Christians. At many points in our study we’ll discover that President Reagan was
not simply waxing eloquently about America’s greatness and goodness, but using his
suppositions to lay the groundwork for argumentation that his policies needed to be adapted.
Close text criticism enables the researcher to see oratory as an art form. Therefore, the
work of the scholar in this field is not simply to look at the picture provided but explore the
substantial meaning behind its creation. This is accomplished by reading and rereading of the
text, analyzing the historical and biographical circumstances at the heart of the discourse’s
construction, recognizing the basic conceptions that establish the coordinates of the text, and
providing an understanding of how all of those elements interact within the text to make the
speech effective. As Leff describes the process, the critic unpacks the text construct in such a
way that the reader is brought into the world of a person who originally heard the speech. The
dynamics in the text already exist (its ideas, rhythms, symbols, etc.) and functioned at the time to
lure the listener into the viewpoint of the orator. The purpose of close text analysis is to bring
those elements together again for the present day reader. “To experience the text is to be coached
to experience the world as the text constructs it.”4 The critic must submerge into the context and
construct of a speech text and then resurface to demonstrate how well the artistic effort put forth
accomplished its end goal.
Put succinctly for the purpose of this study, the main justification for the methodology of
close textual criticism is found in the dominant communication style of Reagan’s audience. The
chief feature of Evangelical Christian culture is a deep commitment to the written word of the
Old and New Testaments. As a group, Ronald Reagan’s NRB, NPB & NAE audiences were
4
Michael Leff, “Textual Criticism: The Legacy of G.P. Mohrmann,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (1986): 382387.
54
theologically conservative Protestants took pride in their perceived identity as a people of “The
Word.” The Protestant Reformation had the material purpose of separating from the Roman
Catholic Church because reformers were committed to the principle of “Scripture Alone” (Sola
Scriptura) being the means of discerning truth. Evangelical Christianity of the 20th century
reinforced this sense of identity in its own battle with modernist Christianity regarding the
inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.
More specifically, Evangelical clergy are committed to “primacy of the word in
worship,” meaning that sermons are the centerpiece to Evangelicalism’s corporate worship
gatherings. Part and parcel of this cultural practice is the discipline of textual exegesis and the
construction of public addresses that calls the faithful to action based on the argument presented.
Leff sums up the symmetry between my methodology and subjects of my research by saying,
“The assessment of a rhetorical discourse must now hinge on the particulars of the case – the
local circumstances that frame and motivate the work and the unique blend of formal and
material elements that constitute its substance.”5 As they say often in Evangelicalism, “Amen.”
Remaining Chapter Overviews
Chapter Four – Nurturing The Evangelical Base
Dick Wirthlin had written that the first priority of the reelection strategy was to nurture
the Republican base. In this chapter I will argue that Evangelicals were the first concentrated
target of the Wirthlin Memo and a critical part of the Reagan Coalition from the first election.
Contained in this chapter will be a summary of Reagan’s religious history, showing the
influences that prepared him use of the language common to the Evangelicals. This chapter will
also look at Reagan’s work in the film industry and show the connection between his personal
5
Leff, 382.
55
narrative, his love for America, as his fervent belief in its American superiority and its destiny as
a land set apart by God. Along those lines, Reagan began to be influenced by conservative
theologians and pastors whom Evangelicals especially trusted. Among these influencers was Dr.
Francis Schaefer, who also was a spiritual and intellectual leader for those in the leadership of
the Moral Majority.
In this chapter, too, I plan to briefly introduce the history of Evangelicals in the 20th
century to give context for why Reagan’s rhetoric (which we’ll study in detail in Chapters 2-4)
would resonate with them. We’ll define the term Evangelical and contrast it with the moniker
“Fundamentalist,” and explain how the issue of Biblical revelation and authority were the
unifying agent between theologically conservative Protestants; and the defining of Scripture was
the dividing line between theological conservatives and theological liberals in both the earlier
and later parts of the century. We’ll show how the “Fundamentalist-Modernist” controversy of
the 1920s forged unlikely coalitions of conservative Protestants, and how similarly a coalition
across denominational lines that brought together conservative Protestants and Catholics to elect
President Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Coalition building was the overarching strategy of Dick
Wirthlin and I’ll show how those existing coalitions were already part of the fabric of
conservative Protestants.
Chapter Five - The National Religious Broadcasters Speech
In this chapter I will break down the NRB speech and show how the President
intentionally used the rhetoric of Evangelicalism to achieve two purposes: to create a common
identity with his audience and to call them to induction into his domestic and international
political wars. Through archival research (including Reagan’s handwritten speech draft notes),
56
I’ll demonstrate that the President himself wanted to raise the tenor of the rhetoric to invite them
to join his reelection bid. This chapter will feature a history of the NRB, an organization formed
by a group of Evangelical broadcasters who believed that the government was working against
them by prohibiting their access to America’s airwaves. The role of the persecuted has always
suited those who are raising funds, and the NRB’s constituents were the most vocal of the
Evangelicals, sounding the alarm via the airwaves about their perception of America’s demise.
The speech to the NRB kicked off the “Triad” of speeches.
Chief among these religious broadcasters was the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the organization
he founded, The Moral Majority. I’ll provide a brief historical account of the Moral Majority’s
history and goals, and via my research in The Reagan Presidential Archives provide evidence of
the personal and professional relationship between the White House and Dr. Falwell.
Additionally, I have conducted primary source interviews with other prominent Evangelicals
who were actively involved on both sides of the political spectrum during this era.
Chapter Six – The National Prayer Breakfast Speech
This second speech of the “Triad” can be summarized as an attempt to build mutual
identification through a shared ideology. In Chapter six we’ll explore the rhetoric contained in
the President’s speech to the National Prayer Breakfast. The speech is filled with reference to
Scripture, a vocal commitment to the authority of Scripture, and the event itself had other public
Scripture readings, one read by a key member of Reagan’s cabinet. As well, the speech was
given just prior to the official Presidential signing of the “1983 Year of the Bible Proclamation.”
I will argue that the event served to reinforce the public perception that Reagan was a committed
57
Bible believer, something that is part and parcel of being considered part of the Evangelical
camp.
A portion of this chapter will be dedicated to the facet of the Evangelical history that I
argue is the real ground of the movement’s existence - the battle over the definition and authority
of Scripture. “Modernism” was the overarching force that led to the creation of the Evangelical
counterculture, which was a byproduct the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy that engulfed
American Christianity in the first part of the 20th century. As a reaction to losing this cultural
tug-of-war, the fundamentalist movement produced a series of organizational phenomenon that
included an entirely new system of Evangelical Bible education and Seminary institutions, along
with a surge in Para-church mission organizations that the newly denominationally displaced
churches would support. The leaders of these new organizations would figure prominently in the
future support of Ronald Reagan, some of which were founded in the Nation’s Capital with the
intention of influencing members of government.
This chapter will include an insider’s look at the organization responsible for directing
the National Prayer Breakfast, the “International Foundation” (the official name of a somewhat
mysterious group). The Fellowship, as it’s widely known, is a supposedly non-partisan
organization that has hosted the annual National Prayer Breakfast since the Eisenhower
Administration. The Fellowship (also referred to as The Family) has a largely undocumented
history, yet it is said to have as much influence in Washington, D.C. as any Evangelical Christian
organization ever has. To balance the insider’s perspective on the group (which I will get through
a one on one interview with a key Associate of The International Foundation), I will reference in
this chapter the work of investigative reporter Jeff Sharlet, who has written the only recorded
58
history of the group in his ethnographic book entitled, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism
at the Heart of American Power.6
Chapter Seven – The National Association Of Evangelicals Speech
Chapter seven will argue that the President sought mutual identification with
Evangelicals through share ideals. In speaking to the NAE, Reagan would address them about
both domestic and foreign policy issues. While the President addressed the domestic issues of
school prayer and abortion, the central focus of his policy was nuclear disarmament and the
opposition of Communism in the Soviet Union. Reagan’s choice of language was laced with
images of “good versus evil.” The domestic policies he was forwarding were also framed in this
way:
his values were good and his opponents’ agendas were by default evil. And it is
noteworthy for our study of Evangelical history that many of the religious opponents of his
nuclear build up happened to be from the liberal Protestant Christian camp – religious people
whom many in the NAE considered to be an enemy on other fronts.
The spiritual battle rhetoric of Evangelical Christianity was featured prominently in the
discourse of this NAE speech. We will show how Reagan presented the case that America and its
people were engaged in a battle for supremacy over communism and for moral good
domestically. The language of this “battle” is contained in the Bible, which for conservative
Christians is the authoritative Word of God and the basis for all that is to be believed. Belief in a
literal Satan and a soon coming apocalypse are part and parcel of being an Evangelical. I’ll
analyze the language used in Reagan speeches that was seen as supporting and affirming an
Evangelical understanding of this spiritual war.
6
Jeff Sharlet, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (New York: Harper Collins,
2008).
59
I’ll also demonstrate that in the face of a nuclear freeze movement that opposed his
military arms race with the Soviets, Reagan used the fear of communism to enlist the support of
those who thought he was fighting a virtual holy war. In that 1980’s context with a perceived
hostile enemy in the USSR, the President’s rhetoric had the effect of stirring the apocalyptic pot.
I will argue very specifically in this chapter that the President’s intent was to rhetorically tie
together his enemies, foreign and domestic.
His speech to the NAE wed the themes of
conservative Christians fighting a battle against their two major enemies: the secular humanists
domestically and the anti-God Communists internationally.
Chapter Eight – Conclusions
According to responses to the NAE speech, it was clear that Reagan was gearing his
speech toward the heart of his base. In his editorial response to the speech in the Christian
Century, James Wall remarked, “Whoever wrote President Reagan's speech to the evangelicals in
Orlando, Florida, knew the intended audience. The members of the National Association of
Evangelicals (NAE) interrupted Mr. Reagan 29 times with applause to show their support for the
address, which contained the memorable line castigating the Soviet Union as ‘the focus of evil in
the modern world.’” 7 In my conclusions I expect to be able to have produced evidence that both
the President and his speechwriters adapted their rhetoric in accordance with the Wirthlin Memo.
I also expect to surmise in the conclusion that Reagan successfully garnered the support
of Evangelicals as he was reelected in another electoral landslide, and managed to rebuild his
winning coalition from the 1980 election. Additionally, I believe we will discover that
Evangelicals entered into this arrangement because of the common narratives they shared with
the President; narratives more easily bought into when the movement sought political power and
7
James M. Wall, “Mr. Reagan Speaks Only to ‘Believers,’” Christian Century 100 (1983): 259.
60
influence to exact cultural change. I also suspect that we’ll discover these same religious leaders
alienated themselves from the general public of non-conservatives because of their willingness to
be seen as surrogates for an overarching Republican agenda (including issues inconsequential to
matters of faith and doctrine).
I anticipate that as a result of understanding the history and meaning behind generic
Reagan phrases such as “this blessed land was set apart in a special way,” and “heed the greatest
message ever written,” and “they are the focus of evil in the modern world,” there will be a more
comprehensive recognition of how politically conservative Christian Evangelicals are activated
through rhetoric to act their part of a broader Conservative political coalition. I hope that this
work will enable non-Evangelicals to better understand the underlying religious beliefs that led
Reagan to carefully choose the rhetoric he used to garner their support.
61
CHAPTER FOUR
NURTURING THE EVANGELICAL BASE
This chapter will seek to clearly identify whom Dick Wirthlin referred to as “The Base”
that Ronald Reagan needed first to nurture on his path to re-election. At a 1979 gathering of the
National Religious Broadcasters, then candidate Ronald Reagan was asked very specifically
about what he would say upon his death if asked by the Lord “Why should you be allowed into
heaven?” Reagan responded using the jargon of Evangelical Christianity, saying that Jesus had
died for him on the cross of Calvary. His answer was what the movement leaders wanted to hear.
It was the beginning of the final year of Reagan’s campaign to win the White House, and he
worked closely with grass roots organizations and national associations to improve his credibility
and expand his Republican voting block.1 Hogue argues that the rhetoric he employed in this
pursuit was the most overtly Evangelical language ever used in a presidential election, and it was
a relatively new invention for Reagan.2 The purpose of this chapter is to clearly define both how
politically conservative Evangelical Christians came to have influence in the Reagan era and
where their history overlaps with Ronald Reagan’s personal religious narrative.
The 1980 election of Ronald Reagan as the Fortieth President of the United States was
attributed in part to the coalition of conservative Evangelical Christians who voted for him.
Reagan’s win over incumbent Jimmy Carter was a 489-49 Electoral College landslide, and has
the distinction of being the largest victory for a non-incumbent President. Reagan capitalized on
the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s, an era that alarmed many Evangelical Christians with
1
Darren Dochuk, From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical
Conservatism (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011), 392.
2
Andrew P. Hogue, Stumping God: Reagan, Carter, and the Invention of a Political Faith
(Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012), 12, 53.
62
Supreme Court rulings that banned school prayer and legalized abortion. However, there have
been studies that brought into question the actual net effect that religious conservatives had in
electing Reagan to his two terms. Johnson and Tamney contended that the net effect was fewer
votes for the Republican candidate because of the negative perception that groups like the Moral
Majority had amongst the electorate.3 Simpson moderated that argument by stating that it is clear
Christian conservatives had an effect, but that it was by virtue of bringing social issues to the
forefront and allowing Reagan to identify with issues which with the majority of American’s
already agreed.4
Hogue has offered a more rigorous argument about the positive influence of Christian
Conservatives by pointing out that the movement of Evangelicals into conservative politics grew
literally by the millions in 1980. He contended that a significant reason for this growth in the
Republican base is that candidate Reagan not only validated the issues of Christian
conservatives, but also their movement as a whole.5 Reagan won over the masses by using a
rhetoric that appealed to them, but also by making significant gestures to those elites who had
assumed leadership in the new Religious Right (such as attending gatherings that the others
candidates would not).6 Former Moral Majority leader, Rev. Ed Dobson, remarked in 1989,
“The Reagan-Bush landslide in 1980 was the greatest moment of opportunity for conservatives
Christians in this century. We had been disgraced in 1925 at the Scopes trial. But now we were
vindicated. We had helped elect our man to the White House.”7 Religious conservatives saw in
3
Stephen D. Johnson and Joseph B. Tamney, “The Christian Right and the 1984 Presidential Election,” Review of
Religious Research, 27-2 (1985): 124-133.
4
John H. Simpson, “Socio-Moral Issues and Recent Presidential Elections,” Review of Religious Research, 27-2
(1985): 115-123.
5
Hogue, 234.
6
Hogue, 166.
7
Cal Thomas & Ed. Dobson, Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America? (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999), 40.
63
their re-ascendance as cultural heavy weights a re-writing of the verdict of their earlier
humiliating defeats at the hands of modernism.
It was the influence and enthusiasm of this voting block that Reagan pollster Dick
Wirthlin was trying to persuade the President to re-capture at the beginning of 1983. Dick
Wirthlin had read the data he had collected and Reagan’s approval numbers were abysmal. So,
how did the President lose the support of that portion of his coalition in two short years? Former
Moral Majority Vice President, Paul Weyrich told the Washington Times that Evangelical
Christians voted Republican in 1980 because of perceived shared values with Reagan. However,
the President’s performance during his first years in office did not strengthen their perception
that he was one of them and that left him vulnerable to defeat in 1984. Reagan’s inaction on
issues such as school prayer and tuition tax credits was now making it likely that this group
would be politically inactive on his behalf.8 Medhurst demonstrated that the Reagan
Administration had early in the first term established a hierarchy of issues to be addressed, and
the social issues of the Religious Right were to be put on the back burner until the economy
recovered.9 However, to be reelected, Wirthlin pointed out that Reagan would need the
Evangelicals to show up again in force. As evidenced by the priority scheduling of Christian
events and an intensified rhetoric, Christian Conservatives were beginning to be courted as they
had been previously. While Mr. Wirthlin had been working with Ronald Reagan since his stint as
Governor of California, his December 8, 1982 memo set a course that would lead to a second
election landslide in 1984 – that one bigger than the first.
8
Newspaper Article, Edmond Jacoby, “Born-Again Lose Fervor For Reagan,” Washington Times, November 14,
1983, Evangelicals Folder 11F, Box 1, Faith Whittlesey Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
9
Martin Medhurst, “Postponing the Social Agenda: Reagan’s Strategy and Tactics,” The Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 48 (Summer, 1984): 264.
64
As a testament to the Wirthlin Memo’s effect on Reagan’s rhetoric, foreign news outlets
such as Germany’s Frankfuter Rundschau even recognized that Reagan was aiming to recapture
the base with which he had lost touch. According to media accounts gathered by the White
House in early March 1983, socialist Europeans were increasingly concerned about the lengths
the President would go to recapture this base.10 Washington Post Staff Writer, Lou Cannon (a
future biographer of Reagan’s) commented on the rather obvious ratcheting up of the rhetoric to
court Evangelicals when he penned, “Although the rhetoric was not new, its use yesterday served
a timely political purpose. Conservative publications and spokesmen have become increasingly
critical of the administration in recent weeks, questioning whether the White House has
abandoned conservative principles and whether the president is a captive of his staff.”11
The return of the religious conservatives to political and cultural prominence provokes
the questions, “When did they once hold such influence?” and, “From where did the movement
originate?” Any analysis of “What Reagan Said to the Evangelicals” would have to clearly
establish who Evangelicals were in American history. Conventional wisdom, even amongst
scholars, has been that fundamentalism was a reaction by late nineteenth and early twentiethcentury evangelical Christians against modernist trends in American society – both cultural and
religious. Before the Reagan presidency this narrative was generally summarized as
fundamentalists fighting and losing a series of theological and ecclesiastical battles to modernists
within mainline Christian denominations. As well, to understand Reagan’s Evangelical religious
10
Newspaper Article, Lutz Krusche, “Reagan Tries to Mobilize Moral Majority for 1984 Election,” Frankfurter
Runschau, March 9, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 5, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
11
Newspaper Article, Lou Cannon, “Reagan Seeks to Shore Up on the Right,” The Washington Post, February 1,
1983, Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Research Office Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
65
rhetoric, it would be essential to see how the history of this 20th century religious movement
paralleled his personal religious and professional life.
My argument in this chapter is that Reagan’s harnessing the coalition of conservative
Protestants wasn’t a matter of creating something new. Instead, Reagan (by virtue of his personal
experience and his ease with church people) was able to say what was needed to create a place
for these already existing coalitions to re-gather. Reagan would create a mutual identity with
Evangelicals by using their religious terminology about the Bible and personal prayer. He also
appropriated the language of spiritual warfare and moral idealism. And perhaps most obviously
he assumed leadership on social issues that they considered critical, namely their opposition to
abortion on demand.
These Protestant coalitions of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals had allied for nearly a
century in America (at times more unified than others). In Reagan they were able to coalesce in
ways not possible since the aftermath of the Scopes Trial. Whether some believe erroneously that
Reagan stitched together this constituency or simply have no notion of where they came from,
the intent of this chapter is to give clarity about the origins of Ronald Reagan’s Evangelical
constituency. The purpose of this project is to highlight the coded language he used in speaking
to theological conservatives, and how in doing so he was able to appeal to them. In order to fully
appreciate the rhetoric we must first take a look at their 20th century history. Along the way we
will get glimpses of Reagan’s evolving religious rhetoric.
Evangelical Christian Influence in 20th Century America
Anti-modernist, “Christian America” culture apologists had manifested themselves in
each decade of the 20th century. Marsden refers to them as “co-belligerents” in their crusade
66
against the effects of modernism on both theology and culture. The climate of the early 20th
century was one of great panic for Fundamentalist Christians. The America they had idolized
seemed to be coming apart at the seams. On the heels of World War I, there was both an increase
in the fears of Communist influence and questioning of the survival of civilization. The “Roaring
20s” introduced a brash moral licentiousness and a domestic organized crime violence that lent
itself to fears of cultural moral collapse. As the dominant religious subculture of the 1800’s,
Fundamentalist Christianity had come under attack by idealistic theological modernists at the
turn of the century and revealed the deep Protestant schism that had been building for decades.12
Broadly speaking, American Christianity can be subdivided into three categories: Roman
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant. For our study of Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric while
speaking to Evangelicals, it is important to recognize that the essence of the 16th Century
Protestant Reformation (which played a role in birthing an American manifestation of
democracy) was theological independence from a perceived abusive authority. Not surprisingly,
this same fighting spirit came to represent Great Britain’s North American colonists, most of
whom would have identified themselves as Protestant Christians.
As historian Mark A. Noll has written, “The Protestant evangelicals who came to
dominate religious life in the early United States shared an emphasis on conversion, the supreme
religious authority of the Bible, and an active life of personal holiness.”13 Many who fought in
the American Revolutionary War were from this theological tribe and also helped establish the
new American government after throwing off the shackles of a British King deemed a tyrant.
The inherent drive to fight for principles is characteristic of Protestant culture and has often
12
A great debt is owed to George Marsden for his detailed summary of the conditions of American Protestantism
during this period of the 20th century. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century
Evangelicalism 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
13
Mark A. Noll, America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002), 11.
67
resulted in divisions between varying Christian faith expressions (Methodists, Presbyterians,
Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.), as well as producing an abundance of splits
within individual denominations and local Protestant churches. Hence, the advent of modernism
created another in the long series of rifts between Protestant Christian factions.
For the purposes of historical reflection and the discussion of religion and politics in this
work, Protestant Christianity will here be divided into liberal and conservative, as is broadly
done with the American political landscape. While these divisions could be explained with much
more complexity, the differences between conservatives and liberals theologically are mirrored
to one degree or another in the historic tension between fundamentalists and modernists. At its
core, Fundamentalism (and its sister Evangelicalism) represents the strand of Protestant
Christianity which emphasizes personal salvation through Jesus Christ and which regards the
Bible to be the final authority concerning all matters of faith and practice.14 If the resistance to
modernism is what marked Fundamentalism, the embrace of modernism is what characterizes
Protestant liberalism. Religious modernism means much the same thing today as it did in the
early 20th century, an adaptation of religious ideas to modern culture – and at times these ideas
can and do involve issues related to the Bible and theology.15 As is the case within any particular
movement, there is a continuum of people who would identify more or less with the overarching
label of religious liberal or religious conservative.
The word “fundamentalist” has its primary origin in a set of 90 essays (contained in 12
volumes) entitled The Fundamentals, published from 1910 to 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los
Angeles. Conservative American and British Protestant scholars and ministers contributed to
14
Corwin Smidt, “Evangelicals within Contemporary American Politics: Differentiating between Fundamentalist
and Non-Fundamentalist Evangelicals,” The Western Political Quarterly, 41-3 (September 1988): 601-602.
15
George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism
1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 146.
68
these works, whose primary purpose was to counteract the theological liberalism of the early 20th
Century. These “fundamentals of the faith” covered the gamut of issues from Biblical inerrancy
to the miraculous and the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This battle against theological and
Biblical liberalism was also reflected in the mainline Protestant denominations and continues to
the present day, even though liberalism now encompasses both theological modernism and
postmodernism philosophical thought. 16
It is important at this juncture to clarify that while the terms “Fundamentalist” and
“Evangelical” are used interchangeably in the media and often in scholarship, there are
significant cultural and theological differences between the two. In modernist terms (liberal
Protestants, academics, and journalists), a Fundamentalist generally is anyone who is a “Bible
believing” Protestant who takes literally the supernatural claims in their holy book. Within
conservative Protestantism, “Fundamentalist” has the more specific meaning to define Christians
whose view of the Bible is in direct opposition to the both the culture and theology of
modernism. These Fundamentalists willingly fight to preserve their cultural traditions and morals
and to defend the elements of a systematic theology.17 To Evangelicals, Fundamentalist moral
crusading about certain social issues (i.e., alcohol prohibition) are misguided causes not directly
addressed in the Bible or severely misunderstood by their theologically conservative brethren.
As well, many Evangelicals have viewed “Fundamentalists” in the same way that some
modernists do, namely as less educated and enlightened. While Fundamentalists were the first
group of conservative Protestants to become mobilized in the new Religious Right, recent
research has confirmed the diversity in the varying groups that comprise the coalition.18
16
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 119.
Susan Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics (Princeton, 2000): xv.
18
John Green, Mark Rozell and Clyde Wilcox, The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the
Millennium (Georgetown, 2003), 9.
17
69
Fundamentalism was largely birthed out of the late 19th century and early 20th century
Christian dispensational theological and revivalist movements, shaped distinctly by the coalition
that was formed between this group and conservatives from the mainline denominational
squabbles of the time.19 Many of the fundamentalists of the post-WWI era were, in fact,
grounded in a highly intellectual tradition. Via their association with the revivalists, these highminded conservatives were also often assumed to be uneducated and anti-science in their
orientation. By contrast to the Fundamentalists who had other worldly priorities regarding
cultural engagement, many pre-WWI Evangelicals were politically progressive, championing the
rights of the impoverished and disenfranchised, including the plight of labor unions. Hart
contends that prior to the discovery of early Princeton theology writing, scholars and journalists
understood Fundamentalism primarily as the protest of anti-intellectual rural southerners who
used the language of revivalist Evangelicalism to express status anxiety and feelings of cultural
alienation.20 Still, these disparate groups found a common foe in modernism and so they banded
together to form coalitions to oppose it. And as one scholar put it, before the creation of the
National Association of Evangelicals, all conservative Protestants would have considered
themselves Fundamentalists.21
The seminal event of Fundamentalist history in the 20th century was the Scopes trial of
1925. Protestant ministers allied with southern politicians to produce a series of legal and
legislative contests over the teaching of evolution in public schools. This Fundamentalist effort
was soundly defeated. As Susan Friend Harding has so eloquently stated, “The public rhetorics
that refashioned a heterogeneous array of conservative Protestants into a unitary cultural “other,”
19
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 102.
D.G. Hart, “When Is a Fundamentalist a Modernist? J. Gresham Machen, Cultural Modernism, and Conservative
Protestantism,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 65:3 (Autumn, 1997): 607-609
21
George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 10-11.
20
70
into Fundamentalism with a capital “F,” were not invented in the Scopes trial. But they were
unfurled in that court battle more vividly, more widely, more sensationally, and more
disparagingly than ever before.”22 So complete was the cultural flogging of Fundamentalism that
for the balance of the century, in virtually every manifestation of media influence, the images of
a defeated religious perspective have dominated the landscape of American culture.
During this contest, however, America’s Protestants banded together across
denominational and ideological lines to oppose their common foe and fight the battle on both
religious and political fronts. Christian leaders on both coasts came to the aid of William
Jennings Bryan, the lawyer leading the church for Fundamentalists against the teaching of
evolution in the schools. Arguably the most influential of his allies in California was Evangelist
and Pastor Amy Semple McPherson. Sister Amy led a worldwide Pentecostal outreach based in
Los Angeles. Her home church, The Angelus Temple, was the headquarters of her Bible college,
radio ministry, and the denomination of churches she pioneered – the Four Square Gospel
churches. Her influence was born during her nationwide evangelistic tent meetings and by virtue
of her close proximity to Hollywood. She was considered by many to be the first Evangelical
media star, the equivalent of the 1980s televangelist (complete with the scandals). Her public
opposition to the teaching of evolution was well documented and Jennings Bryan preached
multiple times at Angelus Temple.23
McPherson’s efforts to produce an interdenominational alliance to reclaim Christian
America were the most visible manifestations of such opposition during the 1920s. Even after
the death of Bryan she crusaded against the evils of alcohol, communism, atheism and evolution.
She and her compatriots believed that the moral decline of America was in part due to these
22
Harding, 61.
Matthew Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2007), 50-54.
23
71
insidious forces, and that the key to cultural social reform was spiritual revival – a revival that
would cleanse America from what ailed her. McPherson’s close relationship with politicians and
issues significantly altered the mission of Angelus Temple to include a political mission.24 In
addition to being a forerunner of the celebrity ministers of later eras, her departure from
traditional Pentecostal views of cultural engagement made her a forerunner of latter century
culture warriors. Her ambition was to restore a Christian America.
After being mocked by the culture at large, most Fundamentalists outside of McPherson’s
circle retreated into their marginalized subculture as the nation moved forward with
modernization, free from the encumbrances of traditional conservatives. Whether or not it is
completely accurate summation of events, the narrative of the exiled Fundamentalists was the
assumed history for the next half century, as defined by the victorious liberal Protestant
establishment and the new secularly defined America.25 In the decades that followed the Scopes
trial, religious conservatives experienced an increase in their church attendance by way of an
American population migration from the Deep South to the southwest United States.
The stock market crash of October 29, 1929 and the subsequent decade and a half of
economic depression drove many Americans west in search of work and new life opportunities.
With them they brought a conservative Protestant theology that birthed large churches, multiple
parachurch organizations and a host of Bible colleges and training centers based in America’s
Sun Belt. With this new frontier of Christian entrepreneurism also came an entirely new wave of
cooperation and coalition building between both denominations and between businesses and
religious leaders.26 In an effort to combat the liberalism they perceived as so prevalent in
24
Sutton, 224-232.
Harding, 64-65.
26
I am indebted to Darren Dochuk’s ground breaking book, From the Bible Belt to the Sun Belt, for overviews of
this facet of Protestant American history.
25
72
California and America, and with many having come to the conclusion that modernism had
ruined their mainline denominations, the 1930s saw a surge in the exodus from these existing
institutions and the establishment of new ones.27 The characteristic of the decade following
fundamentalism’s big defeat was a spirit of “re-creation,” not only in the west, but all over the
country.
As America entered into World War II, the natural outgrowth of the previous decade of
fundamentalist rebuilding was the birth of organizations designed to coordinate and facilitate
cooperation between these new factions of conservative Protestantism. In April of 1942,
conservative Christians from around the country gathered in St. Louis, Missouri for the founding
of the National Association of Evangelicals. Initially referred to as "National Association of
Evangelicals for United Action” (underscoring the nature of its coalition), the NAE functioned as
an interdenominational association of like-minded, theologically conservative Protestants. Their
mission was simple: stem the tide of both doctrinal and cultural liberalism in America.
The organization purposefully changed the nomenclature used to describe their
movement, evolving from the term fundamentalist (largely a culturally pejorative by then) to
Evangelical. A year later, the NAE’s first constitutional convention was hosted in Chicago,
Illinois and over 1,000 attendees were present. Their first president made clear that the agenda of
the organization would include producing politicians who would influence all spheres of society.
To illustrate this, one early political action initiated by the NAE was trying to amend the U.S.
Constitution to declare that Jesus was Lord.28 Not long after its formation, the NAE sponsored
the creation of another interdenominational coalition, the National Religious Broadcasters. This
group initially lobbied for equal access to the nation’s airwaves, but its subsequent agenda would
27
Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, 7.
Daniel K. Williams, God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010), 17.
28
73
include being the mouthpiece for disseminating both the conservative theological and political
agenda of the NAE. The 1940s functioned in many ways as the reconstituting of fundamentalism
as an entity in the United States.
In 1951 on the campus of UCLA, Bill Bright and his wife, Vonette, began a parachurch
ministry to college age students. Campus Crusade for Christ began in much the same way and
for much the same reason that other ministries of its kind did before and after its launch.
Parachurch (defined literally as “along side the church”) organizations were mostly Evangelical
in their theological orientation, yet led by people who were often part of a mainline
denomination. Bright was a member of Hollywood Presbyterian Church, but his entrepreneurial
spirit (he had begun his own candy business in southern California) created in him a sense that
most churches were incapable or unwilling to innovate in their approach to doing ministry on the
college campuses. Bright’s organization would grow into the largest of its kind by the end of the
20th century.29
Campus Crusade would focus on the spiritual conversion of young men and women, but
its leader would later venture into the realm of cultural engagement through politics. Other
parachurch organizations that started during the post-fundamentalist Depression Era, such as The
Fellowship (founders of the National Prayer Breakfast) were also intent on functioning outside of
the boundaries of the local church in order to affect culture in their niches of influence. In the
case of The Fellowship, they aimed to reach culture’s most influential people for Christ,
especially the politically powerful located in Washington, D.C.30 We will discuss the
Fellowship’s influence and goals in greater detail in Chapter six of this work.
29
Dochuk, 178-179.
Jeff Sharlet, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (New York: Harper
Collins, 2008), 196.
30
74
This mid-20th century renaissance for Evangelicals happened to coincide with a time
period in which Ronald Reagan would begin his entrance into public service and ascension to the
role of high priest of American Civil Religion. Reagan’s shared passion for the Bible and
American Values were beginning to be placed on display as post-war America dealt with a new
era of vast change and a new type of international conflict. As Sharlet states, “Between the
rebirth of Fundamentalism in the 1930s and ‘40s and its emergence as a visible force during the
Reagan years sits the historical blob of the Cold War, an era as bewildering to modern minds as
any in American history.”31 But it makes for a great story that a single character, Ronald Reagan,
born in the beginning of a 20th century would star in a narrative about America’s development
into the world’s great power.
Ronald Reagan’s Personal Religious Narrative
Unlike other high profile religious figures in American history, Ronald Reagan wrote
very little about his specific religious beliefs. Most of what can and has been discerned about
him is taken from second hand sources and bits and pieces of speeches containing opaque
references to God, prayer, faith and providence. In fact, tracing a religious history for him has
been a challenge for academicians and one of the reasons why so little has been written on the
subject. One of the most prolific of Reagan historians referred to evidence for Reagan’s faith as
scattered but intriguing. 32
Raised in rural Illinois towns of Tampico and Dixon, his mother Nelle was a committed
Protestant and his father, Jack Reagan, was a nominal Roman Catholic. As he tells it, at the age
of 11 after reading the book That Printer of Udell’s, by missionary Harold Bell Wright, Reagan
31
32
Sharlet, 182.
Paul Kengor, God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life (New York: Harper Collins, 2004), 49.
75
decided to be baptized and join his mother’s church.33 The book would in some ways mirror his
own experience, as it portrayed the Midwest American life of a man from a home where his
father was an alcoholic (like Reagan’s). In the end the Christians help the main character and he
begins to work in politics in Washington, D.C. As Kengor would summarize, “The lesson of
Udell’s is that a Christian must honestly stand by his convictions, actively helping those in need
He must boldly follow God’s will, and not be silent or cowardly in attacking evil.”34
It would become fairly common throughout Reagan’s life for his life to imitate art and
vice versa. Almost as central to his home religious training was a romantic commitment to the
American dream. He would credit his father with instilling in him a work ethic, but his mother
Nelle is the parent who took on the responsibility for training her sons (Reagan’s brother Neil
was three years his senior). The President would recall that his mother’s commitment to prayer
was why he was such as persistent petitioner, but it was her infectious enthusiasm that led him to
dream and believe that he could accomplish whatever he set his mind to.35 The rugged
individualism that comprised so much of his later rhetoric and political philosophy was born in
the America of Reagan’s youth. Born in 1911, he would be raised by working class parents
during World War I and the Great Depression. By all accounts of his childhood, church
attendance was not optional for the Reagan boys, even if it was for their father.
The Reagan’s church was part of the Disciples of Christ denomination, and following the
example of his mother, young “Dutch” (as he was called) taught Sunday School and on occasion
had the opportunity to showcase his natural gift for communication and deliver a sermon. The
Disciples of Christ denomination hadn’t been doctrinally moved by the theological modernism of
that day, but the culture of his church was akin to the Mainline Protestant commitment to cultural
33
Ronald Reagan, An American Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), 32.
Ronald Reagan, An American Life, 26.
35
Ronald Reagan, An American Life, 22.
34
76
engagement and assisting of the poor. The Disciples were also known to be strongly committed
to the authority of Scripture; with some 19th century representations of the movement eschewed
the confessionalism of other denominations.36
The minister at First Christian Church of Dixon was another strong influence on young
Ronnie. Like a second father to Reagan (as his own was an alcoholic and disinterested in things
spiritual), the Rev. Ben H. Cleaver was a proponent of prohibition who showed a keen interest in
Dutch; and Reagan was apparently sweet on the pastor’s daughter, Margaret. According to
historian Stephen Vaughn, the socially conscious nature of the church set patterns for Reagan
that would manifest later in life.37 First Christian Church was a strong supporter of local
businessmen, interacting with local prominent clubs and merchants. As well, the church (as did
many of its era), embraced a pride in their country that often melded their notions of God’s
desires with the nation’s interests. And these interests would at times give reference to the
prophetic or use “millennialistic” phraseology.38
Little is known of Reagan’s spiritual development or theological commitments during the
era after he left home for Eureka College and eventually moved into the professional world of
broadcasting. At age 26 he would head west to enter the show business world of southern
California, and what is a matter of record is that Reagan initially joined the Disciples of Christ
congregation in Hollywood when he arrived.39 It was in Hollywood where he not only quickly
developed into a working actor, but became associated with a brand of movie that would echo
his personal beliefs about people, faith and especially his country. His commitment to expressing
36
Mark Tooley, Ronald Reagan’s Legacy & the Religious Right, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2014/02/10/ronald-reagans-legacy-the-religiousright/#ixzz37Vq7XMjy).
37
Stephen Vaughn, Ronald Reagan in Hollywood: Movies and Politics (Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 1994),
11-13.
38
Stephen Vaughn, “The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ,” Presidential
Studies Quarterly, 25-1 (1995): 111.
39
Ronald Reagan, An American Life, 106.
77
these ideals both shaped and was influenced by his experience of moving from the poverty of
small town obscurity to the wealth and fame of the national silver screen.
These events all melded together to produce talking points that would later guide his
politics. As an actor during the Classic Hollywood Cinema era of film, Reagan’s “American
Exceptionalism” rhetoric had been dramatized in multiple films, honed as a traveling
spokesperson for General Electric, and then echoed as a politician – first as Governor of
California and then as America’s Commander in Chief. American “Exceptionalism” is defined
as the belief that America has a unique role in the world and a superior way of life to protect and
promote around the globe.40 The promotion of this American agenda is present in Reagan’s film
work, with themes of “American Individualism” also promoted and institutionalized in the
Classic Hollywood Film genre. American greatness became part of Ronald Reagan’s lexicon of
rhetorical go-to words – even before he ran for office. Auteur Filmmakers like Frank Capra made
careers of using their movies to make statements about the role of government and the rise of
corporations as the backbone of national economic and social development. The rhetorical
dichotomy of the good individual versus the bad government was a recurring Capra film theme.
These films conditioned audiences to accept Christian traditions and iconic American values. 41
While serving as President, Ronald Reagan wrote to Capra, “You have recognized and
helped us recognize all that is wonderful about the American character."
42
However, this CHC
era came to an end with the de-monopolization of the studios and the advent of television. New
Hollywood would be free from the artistic restrictions of either the dominant cultural ideology or
40
Godfrey Hodgson, “Anti-Americanism and American Exceptionalism,” Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 2-1
(2004): 27-38.
41
Ian Scott, “Populism, Pragmatism, and Political Reinvention: The Presidential Motif in the Films of Frank Capra,”
Hollywood’s White House: The American Presidency in Film and History. (Lexington: The University Press of
Kentucky, 2003): 180-192.
42
Ronald Reagan, “Frank Capra Dies; Directed 'Wonderful Life,” The Los Angeles Times (September 4,1991),
accessed April 1, 2015, http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-04/news/mn-1543_1_frank-capra.
78
the profit making priorities of a few powerful movie studios. Ironically, because later as
President he would be a champion of deregulation, the elimination of the movie studio system
industry effectively ended Ronald Reagan’s film career. He wrote in his memoirs, “I believe the
government’s decision to break up the studio system was wrong. It destroyed the stability of the
industry under the justification that the studios monopolized the picture business.”43 The free
market was brutal for weaker “B” movie stars like Reagan who were guaranteed a paycheck
under the previously system. By his own declaration, Reagan arrived in Los Angeles as a New
Deal Democrat. However, when his time in the entertainment business ended in the early 1960s
he was a brash, conservative Republican who a decade later would serve two terms as
California’s Governor. 44
One of Reagan’s favorite movie roles was in King’s Row, an “A” level picture in which
he starred alongside Ann Sheridan and Robert Cummings.45 According to the actor, this was the
only film that was ever seriously considered for an Academy Award. Yet, when the nominations
were announced, Warner Brothers had put forth their nominee and it was Yankee Doodle Dandy,
starring James Cagney.46 King’s Row was billed as dramatic look at provincial American life as
seen through the eyes of five children as they grow to adulthood at the turn-of-the-century. The
film, however, is ultimately about a young man (Drake McHugh, played by Reagan) who is
denied access to the upper class of society. King’s Row is a story of class struggle and one man’s
attempt to earn the respect of others through his own success.
43
Ronald Reagan, An American Life, 117.
Kiron Skinner, Annelise Anderson, and Martin Anderson, Reagan: A Life in Letters (New York: Simon &
Schuester, 2003), 123.
45
Reagan Archives at the University of Texas, “Ronald Reagan Facts,” accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/facts.html).
46
Ronald Reagan, An American Life, 96.
44
79
In a nod to rugged American individualism, King’s Row concludes with a chorus singing
the poem Invictus: “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” Patriotic music is a
large part of the symbolism present in CHC cinema. By virtue of his time in film, his upbringing
in Middle America, and his rags to riches story, Ronald Reagan was uniquely positioned to
become the embodiment and spokesperson for American Exceptionalism. However, before his
“official” political life began in his 1966 campaign for the Governorship of California, Reagan
would’ve spent two decades off screen speaking out against Communism, writing speeches
about the American experience and making appearances at factories across the country on behalf
of General Electric. These activities began to establish Reagan’s conservatism in the minds of a
wide swath of the American electorate. As Vaughn states, “In these ways, then, the movie career
assisted the later political career.”47 Traveling the countryside, the actor/labor leader initially
began making speeches on behalf of the entertainment industry – the Screen Actors Guild and
the Motion Picture Industry Council. However, his pro-American rhetoric was being
systematically polished while he hobnobbed with influential future conservative political
supporters.48
As previously mentioned, Ritter argues persuasively that Reagan’s tendency toward the
patriotic language of freedom and promise was shown to be instrumental in his success
becoming Governor of California and ultimately the President of the United States. During this
season is when Reagan began to hone what Ritter calls his “secular sermon.” The early 1960s
began a twenty year period of developing a style of speech making that was at the same time
jeremiad in its hope and apocalyptic in warning.49 In his standard speech he would offer hope
47
Stephen Vaughn, Ronald Reagan in Hollywood, 234-235.
Kiron Skinner, Annelise Anderson, and Martin Anderson, 124.
49
Kurt Ritter & David Henry, Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), 50.
48
80
about the promise of the American Dream and his embodiment of that possibility. However, at
different times his public addresses would warn his audience that communism posed a potential
threat to the future of the country – both from without by the power of the Soviet military threat
and from within by the increasing power of America’s growing central government. 50
While Reagan polished his political skills and rose in his standing with the Republican
Party, the National Association of Evangelicals was at the time going through a period of waning
influence. Their own-recorded history makes note of the particularly difficult decade they had in
the 1960s. Its first two decades (1942-1962) were filled with momentum building events and
galvanizing leadership. However, just as the United States experienced monumental political
shifts in rapid succession, the NAE went through multiple leadership changes with shifting
priorities and a lack of unifying initiatives.51
Ironically, while the politically conservatively Christians were quiet and having little
effect on culture, theologically conservative Christians were quietly having a considerable
impact on Ronald Reagan. Reagan was now regularly seen in public with the likes of wellknown religious celebrities such as Pat Boone and made no secret that he was attending Bel Air
Presbyterian Church – a congregation whose pastor was considered the poster child for the
effectiveness of Evangelical parachurch ministry. The Rev. Donn Moomaw was converted to
Christianity as a student athlete at UCLA through the influence of Campus Crusade for Christ.
Reagan’s new pastor and spiritual counselor was known as a strongly theologically orthodox
Evangelical. Moomaw would deliver the invocation on the occasion of Reagan’s first
inauguration as the Governor of California on January 2, 1967. It is apparent that Moomaw’s
teaching ministry had an effect on Reagan even while not attending church in Washington, D.C.
50
Kurt Ritter & David Henry, 15.
National Association of Evangelicals, “Our History,” accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.nae.net/aboutus/history/62.
51
81
The President requested and received sermon tapes from Bel Air Presbyterian while in the White
House and wrote a thank you note in response.52
As a result of these influences, Reagan began to appropriate the personal conversion
rhetoric of the movement, reported writing to one pastor of the moment he “accepted the Lord as
my personal savior.”53 In 1976 during his second attempt to receive the Republican nomination
for President, Reagan visited the radio studio of a faithful political supporter, George Otis. Otis
was a Christian broadcaster who worked with Reagan to revive a dying campaign by offering up
a series of softball questions designed to more clearly identify the candidate with Evangelicals.
In this interview Reagan affirmed the inspiration of Scripture, said he had a religious experience
that could be described as being “born again,” and stated emphatically that he opposed abortion
on demand and the decriminalization of homosexuality.54
Reagan’s turn toward religious rhetoric actually began in the 1964 “Time for Choosing”
speech he made on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Ritter would
assert that out of the ashes of a disastrous loss to their Democratic opponent, Reagan would rise
to become a legitimate Gubernatorial candidate and national political player.55 Reagan would
state in his 1991 autobiography that he didn’t know at the time but that speech was one of the
most important milestones of his life.56 For the purposes of this study we see for the first time
Reagan’s “secular sermon” oratory in the text of a national address. Religious themes of good
verses evil begin to present themselves along with apocalyptic language. These lines from the
speech demonstrate the evolution of the rhetoric:
52
Letter from Ronald Reagan to Rosemary Yelland, Folder RM Religious Matters (030001-075000), Box 1,
WHORM Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
53
Darren Dochuk, 263.
54
Daniel K. Williams, 124.
55
Kurt W. Ritter, “Ronald Reagan and ‘The Speech’: The Rhetoric of Public Relations Politics,” Western Speech 32
(1968): 50-51.
56
Ronald Reagan, An American Life, 143.
82
They call their policy "accommodation.” And they say if we'll only avoid any direct
confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them
are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well,
perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the
courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in
our hearts is morally right. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so
sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for,
when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of
Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross?57
In addition to appeals to morality and the history of oppression, we now have the record
showing Reagan’s use of Judeo-Christian themes. With his star on the rise, the soon to be elected
Governor of California would continue appealing to these themes and developing them further.
Ritter contends that as Reagan developed through the period of the 1960s and 1970s he built a
more potent conservative base for future political success by artfully adapting to the changing
political conditions and presenting a more populist message. “Instead of emphasizing the
apocalyptic rhetoric that had dominated his speeches since 1960, Reagan stressed a conservative
jeremiad that had long been implicit in his rhetoric.”58 After twice seeking and being denied the
Republican nomination for President in 1968 and 1976, and not seeking a third term as
California Governor in 1974, Reagan used the sabbatical from active political involvement to
hone his thinking on a myriad of issues and prepare for his next attempt to secure the Presidency.
57
Ronald Reagan, “Time for Choosing,” accessed July 1, 2015,
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html.
58
Kurt W. Ritter, “Ronald Reagan's 1960s Southern Rhetoric: Courting Conservatives for the GOP,” Southern
Communication Journal, 64:4 (1999): 340.
83
In 1980, the freshly formed religious thinking of Ronald Reagan coincided with the
disappointment many Evangelicals were expressing with professing born again Christian
President Jimmy Carter.59
As Hogue has noted, in the years between the 1976 and 1980 campaigns, Reagan
drastically changed the tenor of his statements pertaining to issues related to Evangelicals.60 In
addition to Hogue, Miller would contend that it was this strongly worded identification with
Evangelicals that won him the Presidency the first time, most notably when Reagan struck “an
explicitly religious note in his acceptance speech (whereas Carter made no direction of God in
his), merging established modes of civil religion with a newer rhetoric of antisecularlism.”61
Three years later in 1983 he would need to revive this emphasis to recapture the interest of this
base; a base that was beginning to doubt that the man they elected was as committed to their
social agenda as they once believed he was.
While Reagan’s presidency featured speeches that appealed to Christian spiritual
symbolism, Reagan used metaphors that many in America didn’t recognize as originating in the
New Testament. One such word picture assumed by Reagan throughout his political career was
the image of “The City on a Hill.” The phrase has its rhetorical roots in the gospel of Matthew
and the language of New England Puritan and Massachusetts governor John Winthrop.62 Quentin
Schultze commented on Reagan’s use of the “City on a Hill” imagery: “Three centuries later,
Republican President Ronald Reagan saw the same city. Hardly a Puritan, Reagan was a movie
star-turned-political orator who preached the metaphor, but with a combination of jeremiad and
59
Michael Cromartie, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 21, 2014.
Hogue, 56.
61
Steven P. Miller, The Age Of Evangelicalism: America's Born-Again Years (New York: Oxford University Press,
2014), 61.
62
A. Kiewe & D.W. Houck, Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989 (Westport:
Praeger, 1991), 216.
60
84
apocalypse. His hilltop city was a providential place of freedom and prosperity, God’s chosen
beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. But it was also a city of villains, including Democrats
and Communists. The Puritans had dreamed of the New Jerusalem in sermons and books.
America’s president, dubbed the Great Communicator, dreamed on television. His pulpit was the
Oval Office of the White House, and his national congregation was a remarkably heterogeneous
collection of residents of the New World, including converted Democrats who helped elect him
in 1980.”63
In his January 31, 1983, speech to the National Religious Broadcasters, Reagan reached
back for this theme when he declared, “I've always believed that this blessed land was set apart
in a special way, that some divine plan placed this great continent here between the two oceans
to be found by people from every corner of the Earth -- people who had a special love for
freedom and the courage to uproot themselves, leave their homeland and friends to come to a
strange land. And, when coming here, they created something new in all the history of mankind - a country where man is not beholden to government, government is beholden to man.”64
Reagan’s appeal to America’s manifest destiny was purposeful.
Conservative religious American broadcasters would take the rhetorical bait. The
President had taken the language of American Exceptionalism (which he had championed during
his years as a Hollywood star and corporate spokesman) and transitioned it seamlessly into
religious speech, drawing his hearers into a spiritual war that would encompass both religious
and economic freedoms.
Reagan used the rhetoric of Populism, speaking of immigrants
traveling to this great land. And forty days later he would ratchet up the symbolic language of
63
Quentin Schultze, Christianity and the Mass Media in America (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press,
2003), 13.
64
Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, Washington, D.C.
(January 31, 1983), accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/13183b.htm.
85
American spiritual superiority in his speech to the NRB’s sister organization, the NAE (see
chapter four).
Tony Dolan was one of President Ronald Reagan’s chief speechwriters. In defending the
authenticity of Reagan’s belief in America’s moral superiority, he demonstrates from an insider’s
perspective Ronald Reagan’s journey that defined his American Exceptionalism. “Unless you
believe in absolutes, there are no ambiguities. And similarly, unless you have in the color
spectrum, black and white, you can't see any grays.” Dolan continued, “And that's just the point.
Reagan came from heartland America. He had a mother who taught him the Bible. He was
deeply and profoundly religious in this sense—it was how he looked at the world. To him, the
good versus evil struggle was how he looked at the world.”65 As Garry Wills remarked in The
Christian Century, it was Reagan's immersion in church culture throughout his life that put him
at ease in dealing with modern Evangelicals.66
Reagan and the Evangelicals – A Match Made in History
As previously noted, conventional scholastic wisdom was that religious conservatives
fled the public square for good after losing their earlier century culture war. It seemed a foregone
conclusion that fundamentalists had lost the 1920s battle over the validity of Biblical literalism
and therefore forfeited their place at the table of social change and politics. However, just in time
for the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan, a band of new Protestant leaders released
themselves symbolically from the terms of the implicit social understanding that had
disenfranchised them. While earlier manifestations of modernist America may have believed that
65
Martin J. Medhurst, “Postponing The Social Agenda: Reagan's Strategy And Tactics,” Western Journal of Speech
Communication 48 (1984): 248.
66
Garry Wills, “Nelle's Boy: Ronald Reagan and the Disciples of Christ,” The Christian Century (November 12,
1986): 1006.
86
conservative Christian perspectives on religiosity would be marginalized and eventually fade
altogether, this volatile group of angry and politically disenfranchised Christian fundamentalists
felt differently.67
A common presumption about the Religious Right is that they walked in lock step on
every political issue. Two different studies in the Journal for the Scientific Study for Religion
revealed the under-publicized fact that substantial diversity existed among Evangelical Christians
during the Reagan years.68 A 1986 study of the Moral Majority in Ohio (a pivotal swing state in
presidential elections) demonstrated differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals in
categories unrelated to their belief systems. Quantifiable differences in voting patterns and
frequency were coupled with results showing that majority of the survey sample embraced the
label evangelical as their group identification, while referring to the label fundamentalist as their
theological designation. Most striking, though, was the disposition of the groups toward one
another. Wilcox states, “Although the Evangelicals found the Fundamentalists to be intolerant,
they expressed little antipathy towards their coalition partners. Fundamentalists, however, were
quite critical of the Evangelicals.” His research revealed that in spite of significant differences of
opinion about theology, these two groups were willing to overlook those issues in order to fight
their common liberal enemies.69
In the 1980s a well-rested and well-thought out Reagan used these themes of America’s
past greatness to declare the importance of Judeo‐Christian values, limited government, and the
principles of the Founding Fathers of America. He often cast opponents of the Judeo‐Christian
67
Harding, 60-63.
Stephen D. Johnson and Joseph B. Tamney, “The Christian Right and the 1980 Presidential Election,” Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 21-2 (June, 1982): 129.
69
Clyde Wilcox, “Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in the New Christian Right: Religious Differences in the Ohio
Moral Majority,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 25-3 (September, 1986): 361.
68
87
worldview as proponents of "modern‐day secularism.”70 As well, his trademark discourse about
smaller government “rugged individualism” was an echo of early 20th century fundamentalism.
American individualism was in part responsible for the perspective of wealthy, conservative
“Roaring 20s” evangelicals who viewed the problem of the poverty as a product of the
downcast’s own lack of effort to better themselves.71
In a remarkable repeat of cultural conditions present in the first fundamentalist-modernist
face off, the same coalition of dispensational revivalists and denominational conservatives
formed the religious conservative movement of the late 20th century. This unlikely partnership
was most evidenced by the televising of Dr. D. James Kennedy’s “Coral Ridge Hour” on the
Trinity Broadcasting Network, a largely independent, Pentecostal and strongly dispensational
Christian television network. Kennedy, a post-millennial Presbyterian, used patriotic rhetoric that
resonated across those theological divides. "God, in his providence, has given us a Christian
nation," Dr. Kennedy said, "and it behooves us as Christians to prefer and select Christians to
rule over us."72 So blurred were the lines between these previously well-defined factions that
Newsweek commented, “So many different kinds of Christians now call themselves evangelical
that the label has lost any precise meaning.”73
Ronald Reagan capitalized on the tensions had been long building between secular
culture, modernist Christians and their Evangelical and fundamentalist adversaries. In speeches
before and after his presidency, Reagan often spoke in grand, romantic narratives about
70
Paul Fessler, “Ronald Reagan, Address To The National Association Of Evangelicals ("Evil Empire Speech" March 8, 1983),” Voices of Democracy, 2 (2007): 37.
71
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 85.
72
Matt Schudel, “Politically Powerful TV Evangelist D. James Kennedy Dies,” Washington Post
(September 6, 2007), accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502441.html.
73
Magazine Article, Kenneth L. Woodward, “The Split Up Evangelicals,” Newsweek, April 26, 1982, Religion 1982
Folder, Box 47, Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
88
American greatness and her manifest destiny. This language was encapsulated perfectly in his
1980 Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech when the candidate departed from his
prepared text to conclude with these words:
I have thought of something that is not a part of my speech and I’m worried over whether
I should do it. Can we doubt that only a divine providence placed this land, this island of
freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breath freely: Jews and
Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of
Cuba and of Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of
Afghanistan and our own countrymen held in savage captivity. I’ll confess that I’ve been a little
afraid to suggest what I’m going to suggest. I’m more afraid not to. Can we begin our crusade
joined together in a moment of silent prayer? God Bless America.74
Reagan masterfully presented to the American electorate a narrative where conservative
cultural morals and Republican economic policies would provide cultural salvation. Religious
conservatives, motivated by a belief that a moral and spiritual decline was endangering the
nation, jumped into the political fray. Many having long been convinced that the religious were
to remain on the sidelines during public discourse, the people who comprised this religious
coalition began to assert that the church has a duty to change America through the political
system.75 The 1970s saw the emergence of a new generation of Christian leaders (trained in
fundamentalist seminaries and colleges) who came into their own and capitalized on the
74
Ronald Reagan, “1980 Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech,” accessed July 1, 2015,
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/7.17.80.html.
75
Johnson and Tamney, 123.
89
instability of their times to lead a conservative cultural resurgence.76 In the early 1970s this
collection of fundamentalists, led by high profile conservative Protestants such as Dr. Jerry
Falwell and Francis Schaeffer recommitted themselves to restore what they termed Christian
America.
76
Joel A. Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1997).
90
CHAPTER FIVE
THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS SPEECH
In this speech, Ronald Reagan would use his communication expertise to identify with
the National Religious Broadcasters, so that they would in turn identify with his crusade to
continue guiding America as President. Specifically, he would leverage his use of language that
was generic enough to demonstrate that he was one of them, without saying anything that would
alienate other parts of his re-election coalition. In speaking to the NRB, Reagan would have
made clear his heavy reliance and close association with Rev. Dr. Jerry Falwell, a friendship that
would give him credibility amongst the NRB’s leadership and rank and file. The speech itself
seeks to cement the President’s identification with socially conservative Evangelicals with the
intent of inducting them into his re-election campaign. To put it another way, by connecting with
the audience on an intensely personal level through shared beliefs and experiences, the President
is calling them to join his battle against evil at home and abroad. He will use this NRB speech as
a means of both “Identification” with them and “Induction” of them into his battle.
As Kenneth Burke states, “A speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic
identifications; his act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing the audience to identify
with the speaker's interests; and the speaker draws on identification of interests to establish
rapport between himself and his audience. So, there is no chance of our keeping apart the
meanings of persuasion, identification ('consubstantiality'), and communication (the nature of
rhetoric as 'addressed')."1 In this speech to the NRB, Reagan seeks to identify with the NRB
rhetorically by implying he’s a born again Christian, celebrating their non-governmental
religious broadcast funding, encouraging their mission to bring Biblical revival, using the
1
Kenneth Burke, On Symbols and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 191.
91
terminology of the movement to describe its enemies, asserting his opposition to abortion, and
restating his commitment to American Democracy over Communism.
The Reagan Edit In
The process of writing a Presidential address is a lengthy one. It starts with a
speechwriter placing the template for the speech on paper, and then submitting it to a review
from all relevant departments (speechwriters find many of the departments wholly unnecessary).
This tension was at work in the Reagan Administration’s work with its speechwriters.2 Former
Reagan speechwriters tell of the ongoing battle between the idealist speech department and the
pragmatist minds that played a large roll in clearing speeches that the 40th President would be
given to deliver. Getting it through the bureaucracy was their biggest struggle.3 The final draft of
a Presidential speech contains hand written notes in the margin and can reveal a good deal about
what the speaker was thinking. A speech “edit in” can mean a number of things to a President: a
last minute idea, a personal stylistic preference, or a politically motivated addition that cared to
avoid the analytical process that is vetting Executive communication.
Just a month from his meeting with pollster Dick Wirthlin and fully aware of his weak
polling numbers, Ronald Reagan edited the speech written for him by Special Assistant Aram
Bakshian, Jr. – a speech he would deliver to the National Religious Broadcasters on January 31,
1983. It wasn’t the first or last time that the President would address this group of Evangelical
Christian media ministers, but it was the first large scale effort he would make to reengage this
segment of his previously winning coalition on the way to his re-election landslide. Roughly
2
William K. Muir, Jr., “Ronald Reagan’s Bully Pulpit: Creating a Rhetoric of Values,” Presidential Speechwriting:
From the New Deal to the Reagan Revolution and Beyond, ed. by Kurt Ritter and Martin J. Medhurst (College
Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003), 198.
3
Martin Medhurst, “Writing Speeches for Ronald Reagan: An Interview with Tony Dolan,” Rhetoric & Public
Affairs 1:2 (Summer 1998): 251.
92
1,300 words into a 2,300-word address, the President inserted a two-paragraph “drop in” that
consisted of 123 carefully chosen words.
I know that many well-intentioned, sincerely motivated people believe that government
intervention violates a woman's right of choice. And they would be right if there were any proof
that the unborn are not living human beings. Medical evidence indicates to the contrary and, if
that were not enough, how do we explain the survival of babies who are born prematurely? We
once believed that the heart didn't start beating until the fifth month. But as medical
instrumentation has improved, we've learned the heart was beating long before that. Doesn't the
constitutional protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness extend to the unborn unless
it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that life does not exist in the unborn?4
Why choose to elaborate further about a political hot potato like abortion? Historical
consensus is that Reagan was appealing to his base, which is the overarching argument implied
in this work. But abortion was not just one of the biggest issues among religious conservatives.
Fighting abortion rights was the biggest issue to the biggest of Reagan’s Religious Right
supporters: Dr. Jerry Falwell, founder of The Moral Majority. The President knew he needed to
pursue the base again, and his first move would be to satisfy Falwell, the religious figure who
had the most influence during his first two years in office. The Moral Majority’s support of
Ronald Reagan was based in part because of their belief that he had promised to end (or at least
curbing the frequency of) abortion on demand. Certainly his turn of phrase indicated that the
onus for proving that life didn’t begin at conception was on the opposition: “And they would be
4
Speech Draft, Ronald Reagan Notes, Folder SP 715 – National Religious Broadcasters, Box 190, WHORM
Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
93
right if there were any proof that the unborn are not living human beings.” The President is
clearly of the mindset that the unborn are human beings.
However, missing from his rhetoric is the phrase “on demand,” which had historically
carried with it the implication that abortion rights came without limits. Part of the angst between
the NRB populous and the President in his first two years in office was that socially conservative
Christians were coming to terms with the President’s seemingly moderate stance on abortion.
Reagan’s position on abortion had always allowed for pregnancy termination in the cases of
rape, incest or the life of the mother. However, the phrase “on demand” implies that abortion
should always and under every circumstance be legal, and this stance would be repugnant to the
NRB audience. Reagan insiders are steadfast in their recollection that the President’s convictions
on this matter were rock solid and very much his own.5
However, the President was now being suspected as being soft in his stance, largely
because of his appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Connie Marsher, a
Roman Catholic Conservative activist with the Heritage Foundation, reacted viscerally to the
nomination by saying, “With this nomination, this administration has, in effect, said to the profamily activists, ‘Good-bye. We don’t need you, we don’t want you, we don’t care about you.”6
Reagan wrote in his diary on the day he nominated O’Connor to the Court, “I made some calls
because someone has started a bonfire among the Right to Life people. Apparently it all started
with a woman – Dr. Gersten in Phoenix. Her claims don’t match the record we have of
O’Connor’s voting record of when she was a state senator. But she’s spread her message far and
wide.”7 According to Reagan, this one vocal critic of O’Connor’s stirred up a hornets nest
5
Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution (New York: Random House, 1990), 166.
Connie Marshner, “The Reagan Presidency: Part 1,” PBS Documentary.
7
Ronald Reagan, Tuesday, July 7, 1981, ed. Douglas Brinkley, The Reagan Diaries (New York: Harper Perennial,
2007), 28.
6
94
amongst religious conservatives and the President was now having to put out fires within this
portion of his conservative base.
The Moral Majority was the most active of all Religious Right lobbying organizations
and certainly had the most access. The issue of greatest importance to them was their fight to end
abortion, with Falwell personally committing to pull out every stop to support the President’s
efforts in the fight.8 Falwell’s church had built a Family Center to help unwed mothers and spent
untold amounts of money supporting pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. However, while their
number one priority, abortion was far from the only issue that this movement was attempting to
influence. Early in Reagan’s first term The Moral Majority was sending telegrams and hand
written appeals for Presidential support on issues such as opposing the Equal Rights
Amendment9 and joined in the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor,
whom Falwell called “Pro-abortion.”10 When the decision to appoint O’Connor to the Bench was
made, Reagan’s Chief of Staff, Edwin Meese was commissioned to break the bad news to
Falwell personally. Meese wrote that the President was going to ignore his concerns about
O’Connor’s past “pro-abortion” stances.11 The President’s elaborated abortion rhetoric via his
editorial addition could be seen as an attempt to assuage fears that the NRB membership had
about his commitment to ending abortion on demand. At the very least it certainly would go a
long way to calming the Moral Majority’s concerns that the President had lost all sensibilities to
their cornerstone social issue.
8
Letter, Jerry Falwell to Ronald Reagan, July 31, 1981 (#035130), Folder F1 010-02 035130, Box 1, WHORM
Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
9
Telegram, Jerry Falwell and other Religious Leaders to Ronald Reagan, January 6, 1982, Folder HU016 Women,
Box 1, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
10
Telegram, Jerry Falwell to Edwin Meece, July 2, 1981, Folder FG51 (Supreme Court), Box 9, WHORM Subject
File, Ronald Reagan Library.
11
Letter, Edwin Meese to Jerry Falwell (#032502), July 17, 1981, Folder FG51 (Supreme Court), Box 9, WHORM
Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
95
But Falwell and Company weren’t just against people and issues, they were very much
working to promote their issues and to support a host of different candidates and nominees for
appointments at most every level of government. In addition to letters highlighting their lobbying
efforts, The Reagan Presidential Archives contain a considerable volume of personal
correspondence between the President and Falwell, with the latter regularly sending tokens of
appreciation such as Bibles and devotional books.12 A thank you letter from the President for the
gift of a Bible was the culmination of a summer exchange of correspondence between the two,
an interaction that gives some insight into the give and take of their mutually beneficial
relationship. In a June 22, 1981 letter, Reagan wrote to offer congratulations from he and Nancy
on the occasion Rev. Falwell’s 25th anniversary as the Pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church in
Lynchburg, Virginia.13 One month later on July 31, 1981, Falwell wrote to congratulate the
President on the passage of his economic plan. In the body of that letter he pledges his support
for and appeals to Reagan to use the “Human Life Amendment” to the Constitution as the
legislative vehicle to stop abortion.14 And one month after that on August 28, 1981, the President
wrote once again, this time to thank Jerry for his help in “concentrating public attention” on the
importance of quickly passing Reagan’s economic programs. This success, Reagan noted, was
only possible because of the coalition of both economic and social conservatives whom Falwell
represented.15
The Reagan White House saw appealing to Falwell as a shortcut to addressing the matters
of importance to the voting block he represented. And the Moral Majority’s lobbying for White
12
Letter, Ronald Reagan to Jerry Falwell, September 18, 1981 (#040252), Folder GI-002, Box 1, WHORM Subject
File, Ronald Reagan Library.
13
Letter, Ronald Reagan to Jerry Falwell, June 22, 1981, Folder ME001 - 029649, Box 7, WHORM Subject File,
Ronald Reagan Library.
14
Letter, Jerry Falwell to Ronald Reagan, July 31, 1981 (#035130), Folder F1 010-02 035130, Box 1, WHORM
Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
15
Letter, Ronald Reagan to Jerry Falwell, August 28, 1981 (#035130), Folder F1 010-02, Box 1, WHORM Subject
File, Ronald Reagan Library.
96
House Staff positions was a critical part of their strategy to influence the Reagan Administration.
They assessed that if not for the presence of Religious Conservatives within the White House
staff, the preponderance of influence would lead the President away from close association with
them. There is some evidence to suggest this is true. Internal White House Memos from Gary
Bauer (future Republican Presidential candidate and the founder of the Family Research Council
– a conservative values lobbying agency originally associated with Focus on the Family) show
his particular influence at the White House. In one such memo he advocates for the support of
anti-abortion legislation but makes the point of needing to shield the President from blame at the
possible congressional defeat.16 However, in her memoirs about life as a White House staffer,
Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan recalls that Bauer was laughed at in strategy meetings for
his suggestions of the President’s involvement in matters close to the heart of Protestant
fundamentalists.17
This perceived drift away from his religious coalition was something those leading the
Moral Majority felt keenly in the year before the 1982-midterm elections. On March 17, 1982,
just days after Bauer’s internal memo on abortion politics, Cal Thomas, Moral Majority Vice
President for Communications, wrote Ed Meese to express this concern: “It has been conveyed
to me by some people who met with Mr. Rosebush that the President is said to believe he needs
to hold Jerry and some others at arms length for fear of criticism. My response is that the people
who are criticizing him now will not criticize him less in the future, no matter what happens; and
that his friends, including Jerry (who praises him nearly every week on 392 television stations),
16
Memo, Gary L. Bauer to Edwin L. Harper, March 11, 1982, Folder SP 067035, Box 2, WHORM Subject File,
Ronald Reagan Library.
17
Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution (New York: Random House, 1990), 241-242.
97
would receive a great boost from such an identification.”18 These tensions between the Moral
Majority Staff and the White House were building in the year before the President’s remarks to
the NRB. As it would turn out, the President’s upcoming 1983 address to the National Religious
Broadcasters would in large part be purposed to clearly identify the Chief Executive once again
with Falwell and conservative Evangelicals, and bring the kettle from boiling over.
Mentioning Falwell’s undying support of President Reagan wasn’t simply the Christian
Right flexing its political muscle; it was something that White House staffer Faith Whittlesey
affirmed in a March 14, 1983 White House memo. In a pre-meeting briefing for the President,
Whittlesey said of Falwell, “Unlike some other national conservative organization leaders, Dr.
Falwell has never criticized you or Reagan Administration policy.”19 However, it wasn’t
uncommon for Falwell’s organization, The Moral Majority, to put public pressure on the White
House. And it was apparently fairly common for Cal Thomas to vent his frustration in letters to
the staff. In a March 25, 1982 response to one such Thomas diatribe, Reagan Special Assistant
Morton Blackwell wrote, “Dear Cal: I presume that the tone of your letter to me of March 23
was at least to some extent calculated. While there is sure room for improvement in the
recognition and support which the President and his Administration have given to key elements
of our winning coalition, it’s far from accurate to say there has been a decision to hold Dr.
Falwell at arms distance, much less to ‘turn a deaf ear, as well as their backs, and pretend that we
don’t exist.’”20
18
Letter, Cal Thomas to Ed Meese, March 17, 1982, Folder SP 067035, Box 2, WHORM Subject File, Ronald
Reagan Library.
19
Document, Meeting with Dr. Jerry Falwell, March 14, 1983, Folder Chronological File (03/12/1983-03/17/1983),
Faith Whittlesey Files, Box 1, Ronald Reagan Library.
20
Letter, Morton C. Blackwell to Cal Thomas, March 25, 1982, Folder SP 067035, Box 2, WHORM Subject File,
Ronald Reagan Library.
98
Only three months later on June 7, 1982, Blackwell was once again addressing a different
Cal Thomas rant in a White House Internal Memorandum to Ken Cribb. The staffer had received
a Thomas blasting, to which Blackwell told him: “I suggest no response to this letter. Cal
Thomas wrote me to this same effect. Sometimes he just blows off steam. I wrote him a strong
reply and subsequently spoke to Dr. Falwell about this matter. Falwell suggested that my
response closed the issue and that he saw no evidence that he was being held at arms length.
Quite the contrary, he feels he has had good access. Falwell is a strong and consistent
supporter.”21 Whether Thomas and Falwell were playing a game of ecclesiastical “Bad Cop –
Good Cop” or there was an internal difference of opinion within their organization, there is no
arguing that by any objective standard, The Moral Majority was given a high level of access to
the White House.
In fact, the common knowledge of Falwell’s access to the corridors of power had by 1981
started creating deeper problems for the Reagan Administration. Hollywood icon Norman Lear,
an old Reagan friend from his days in California, had rallied a new organization to combat the
influence of the Moral Majority. The “People for the American Way” was formed in 1981 as an
advocacy group for a wide variety of liberal causes. However, its stated purpose was indicative
of its founder’s concern about the influence of the Moral Majority. The original vision for the
organization stated: “Our highest purpose is to nurture a national climate that encourages and
enhances the human spirit rather than one which divides people into hostile camps.”22 However,
it wasn’t long before PFAW was drawn into the partisan bickering and direct attacks on Jerry
Falwell. In an early fundraising letter, Lear and company wrote a scathing condemnation of The
21
Memo, Morton C. Blackwell to Ken Cribb, June 7, 1982, Folder WE 003 - 069922, Box 2, WHORM Subject File,
Ronald Reagan Library.
22
People for the American Way, Our Founding Mission, accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.pfaw.org/aboutus/founding-mission.
99
Moral Majority’s position on a nuclear freeze and questioned the alliance between the Reagan
Administration and the nation’s conservative ministers. In the letter’s appeal for funds, PFAW
writes, “Jerry Falwell is without doubt the best general Mr. Reagan could enlist to fight his ‘holy
war.’” The mailing also rehashes a long held rumor that had caused a recurrent headache for the
White House. “As part of his periodic White House meetings, Reverend Falwell is the only
religious leader who receives regular private briefings from the National Security Council.”23
The charge that Jerry Falwell received regular private briefings from the National
Security Council was an accusation that surfaced in an official capacity in an August 22, 1982
letter to Senator Nancy Kassebaum. Two academics from Kansas wrote to inquire about whether
the rumor of Falwell’s access was true and if so what possibly was the rationale for other
religious groups not being included in these high level meetings.24 For the next couple of years
the White House and the National Security Council explained numerous times that Dr. Falwell
neither had a security clearance nor received any NSC briefings. Separate inquiries from Senator
Kassebaum, Congressman Parris, and Senator John Danforth underscore how quickly the
exaggerated rumors of the Moral Majority’s influence spread. Kenneth Duberstein at the White
House wrote Senator Kassebaum on November 4, 1983 to clarify that their Public Liaison Office
will supply information for groups of established religious leaders, but special briefings weren’t
granted for any individuals.25 On December 19, 1983, National Security Council Executive
Secretary Robert M. Kimmit attempted to put the matter to rest in a letter to Senator Danforth
when he wrote: “We have reviewed our files and have found no record of any classified briefing
23
Letter, Norman Lear to PFAW Supporters, Folder WE 003 Family Planning - Abortion, WHORM Subject File,
Ronald Reagan Library.
24
Letter, Riley Bishop and Linda Joslyn-Bishop, Ph.D. to Senator Nancy Kassebaum, August 22, 1982, Folder
MC003 Briefings and Conference, Box 20, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
25
Letter, Kenneth M. Duberstein to Senator Nancy Kassebaum, November 4, 1983, Folder MC 003, Box 20, Ronald
Reagan Library.
100
for Rev. Jerry Falwell. Like others representing a wide range of private organizations, he has
discussed defense and arms control issues here on an informal and unclassified basis.”26
Whether the White House was putting distance between itself and the Moral Majority and
Dr. Falwell, it was clear there was some type of a rift developing. By the time the 1982 midterm
elections came and went, the Reagan re-election machine was ordered by Dick Wirthlin to once
again woo the Religious Right generally, and insiders were working to patch up whatever hurt
feelings existed between Reagan and The Moral Majority. This fence mending included a
personal meeting between the President and Falwell in the Oval Office. Cal Thomas had
previously met with Vice-president, George H.W. Bush (whom Thomas referred to as an “old
and good friend”) in the spring of 1982, at which time they had discussed the Moral Majority’s
agenda and the possibility of the Reagan making time for Jerry. “George and I have been talking
about the possibility of a meeting between Jerry Falwell and the President,” Thomas wrote to
Presidential Assistant Bill Sadleir on December 2, 1982. “As you know the two men have not
really had a chance to meet with each other since the 1980 campaign, though Jerry has been to
the White House on several occasions for “mass meetings.” I believe that such a private meeting
would be useful for both men and I would most respectfully ask that you consider such a get
together.”27
It was clear to those at the White House that Falwell needed a little hand holding, as
Sadleir suggested in an internal White House Memorandum dated January 24, 1983, “This would
be best done in a ‘low key’ basis and without press – personal chat among friends. Maybe done
26
Letter, Robert M. Kimmitt to Senator John C. Danforth, December 19, 1983, Folder MC003 Briefings and
Conference, Box 20, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
27
Letter, Cal Thomas to Bill Sadleir, January 14, 1982, Folder PR007-01, Box 8, WHORM Subject File, Ronald
Reagan Library.
101
at the residence at the end of a day. The gesture to Falwell will be very helpful.” 28 According to
Faith Whittlesey, Director of the Office of Public Liaison for the Reagan Administration in 1983,
the meeting was designed to recognize firm support by Dr. Falwell. She included in her
suggested talking points that the President get Falwell’s feedback on the effect of the recent
speeches to the National Religious Broadcasters and National Association of Evangelicals.29
Later in his diary, President Reagan would specifically remember the meeting by noting that
Falwell was a “good friend and highly supportive.”30 The first two years of Reagan’s relationship
with most religious conservatives was reflected in this seesaw interaction with The Moral
Majority. On an organizational level (through the complaints and pressure from hatchet men like
Cal Thomas) there was concern. But the personal relationship with its leader (which featured
handwritten correspondence and exchanging of gifts) seemed to smooth things over. The
President’s speech to the NRB would be an attempt to do the same with other individual
Evangelical leaders.
The NRB Speech As Identification
Monday, January 31, 1983. A master rhetorician, Ronald Reagan knew that connecting
personally to his audience would pay dividends later in the speech. As the President began his
address to these Evangelical Christian broadcasters, he initially set his sights on identifying with
them. He needed and wanted The National Religious Broadcasters to believe that he was on their
team. The event kicked off at 8:30 a.m. in the ballroom of the Sheraton Washington Hotel.
28
Memo, William K. Sadleir to Red Cavaney – “Request for Scheduling Recommendation,” January 24, 1983,
Folder PR007-01, Box 8, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
29
Document, Meeting with Dr. Jerry Falwell, March 14, 1983, Folder Chronological File (03/12/1983-03/17/1983),
Faith Whittlesey Files, Box 1, Ronald Reagan Library.
30
Ronald Reagan, The Reagan Diaries, 137.
102
The first part of the NRB speech embodied what Kenneth Burke spoke of when he
introduced “Identification through Consubstantiality.” Burke contends that the need to identify is
born of our existing as separate beings and our innate need to identify and connect with others
through the means of communication. Burke would say that in particular through public address,
such as a Presidential speech, human beings experience the phenomenon of being simultaneously
individuals and part of an identified group. At that moment we are "both joined and separate, at
once a distinct substance and consubstantial with another."31 By identifying with the interests of
Religious broadcasters and persuading them that they have shared interests, Reagan sought to be
“substantially one” with them.
I thought about a week ago that maybe I would persuade someone to change their name
from Riggins to Reagan. [Laughter] But after yesterday afternoon, I thought maybe I ought to
change my name to his. [Laughter]
The Great Communicator improvised a bit of current events into his humor. Humor was
a staple resource for Reagan speechmaking, something Meyer analyzed in depth in 1990.32
Reagan’s reference to “Riggins” was referring to Washington Redskins running back, John
Riggins. The day before this speech was given, Riggins was named MVP of Super Bowl XVII,
which Washington won 27-17. Reagan not only attempted to identify with them via sports, but
began using the cultural rhetoric with which they were familiar. One of the President’s most
famous roles was that of Notre Dame football player, George Gipp, in the movie classic Knute
Rockne: All-American. The most frequently quoted and popular Reagan movie line comes from
this film; it was the hospital bedside appeal to Knute Rockne that the boys on his team, “Win one
31
Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 21.
John Meyer, “Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician’s Velvet Weapon,” Communication Studies 41-1 (Spring
1990): 76-88.
32
103
for the Gipper.” Reagan loved playing up his athletic past, having himself played football at
Eureka College. This casual reference to professional football was vintage Reagan, identifying
with the average American.
You all have an expression among you that—well, first of all, you confess to being poor
audiences for others; I haven't found it so. But you also have an expression about preaching to
the choir. I don't know just exactly what my address, how that fits under that today, but what a
wonderful sight you are.
Reagan complimented the broadcasters, then used the colloquial phrase “preaching to the
choir” to humorously assert again that he is one of them. But the President is just getting
warmed up, rhetorically speaking.
That doesn't really bother me, because every year when I come here, when I look out at
your warm and caring faces, I get a very special feeling, like being born again. There's
something else I've been noticing. In a time when recession has gripped our land, your industry,
religious broadcasting, has enjoyed phenomenal growth. Now, there may be some who are
frightened by your success, but I'm not one of them. As far as I'm concerned, the growth of
religious broadcasting is one of the most heartening signs in America today.
“Born Again” was the phrase the President used to describe his special feeling with the
NRB. Using this phrase was significant to Evangelicals, all of whom would claim that a “born
again” experience was necessary to have if one would claim to be a Christian. Without actually
saying he’d been born again at that moment, Reagan intimated that he could compare his visits
with them favorably to the feeling of being born again. Reagan’s capacity to say what needs to
104
be said without saying too much is on display here. As we saw in Chapter one, Reagan was
rumored to have had a “born again” experience, yet it wasn’t something that was ever verified
during his term as California’s Governor. By saying just enough to indicate to the audience that
he was one of them, he avoided saying too much about his own “experience” and thus alienating
other parts of his political constituency. Even some of the President’s strongest supporters
would concede that it was Reagan’s Evangelical speechwriters who often positioned him to
speak well to that constituency. Reagan was a shrewd politician who knew how to adapt his
message to the individual audience.33 Hogue writes, “The political religion of the right was not
part of the Reagan repertoire throughout his political career; it was, instead, an invention that
occurred as he geared up for and then ran for president in 1980.”34
A fantastic example of this Reagan capacity to say enough to satisfy his constituency
without alienating his opponents was the President’s answer to a 1984 Presidential Debate
question. Nationally syndicated Baltimore Sun columnist Fred Barnes initiated this exchange:
MR. BARNES: “Mr. President, would you describe your religious beliefs, noting
particularly whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian, and explain how these beliefs
affect your Presidential decisions?”
THE PRESIDENT: “Well, I was raised to have a faith and a belief and have been a
member of a church since I was a small boy. In our particular church, we did not use that term,
"born again,'' so I don't know whether I would fit that -- that particular term. But I have -- thanks
to my mother, God rest her soul -- the firmest possible belief and faith in God.”35
33
Michael Cromartie, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 21, 2014.
Andrew Hogue, Stumping God: Reagan, Carter, and the Invention of Political Faith (Waco: Baylor University
Press, 2012), 53.
35
1984 Presidential Debate Transcript: Commission on Presidential Debates, October 7, 1984, accessed April 1,
2015, http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-7-1984-debate-transcript.
34
105
Ronald Reagan spoke a generic enough language to convince the people of faith that he
was one of them, but he didn’t so clearly identify with that segment of the population (the
Christian right) that could possibly alienate him from the general public. This was a common
practice of the President, as was pointed out in work on Reagan’s economic discourse. The
authors demonstrate that Reagan had several versions of an individual speech, tailoring that
particular address to specific audiences in an effort not to alienate them with rhetoric he might
use elsewhere.36 However, in addition to the skill Reagan possessed to re-tool the speech to
make it appropriate to the audience, pollster Dick Wirthlin developed safe, albeit generic terms
for Reagan to use that would pack maximum effect. Reagan’s public relations consultants lined
out five critical words that the President could use throughout a variety of speeches: family,
work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. The intent of using these generic words was that
audiences would attach their own meanings to the terms, while understanding the intended
values being highlighted.37 It is the NRB’s frequent use of the term “born again” to define the
authentic Christian experience that produced the President’s use of the term in this speech. It is
the first clear attempt to produce a mutual identity.
When we realize that every penny of that growth is being funded voluntarily by citizens of
every stripe, we see an important truth. It's something that I have been speaking of for quite
some time—that the American people are hungry for your message, because they're hungry for a
spiritual revival in this land. When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring
36
Davis W. Houck and Amos Kiewe, Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan
(Westport: Greenwood Press, 1993), 141-143.
37
Wynton C. Hall, The Invention of 'Quantifiably Safe Rhetoric': Richard Wirthlin and Ronald Reagan's
Instrumental Use of Public Opinion Research in Presidential Discourse,” Western Journal of Communication 66-3
(Summer 2002): 327.
106
for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the
Bible.''
The phrase “every penny of that growth” seems to contrast with other Reagan rhetoric
about the federal government budget, which is always expressed in “billions of dollars.”
However, the phrase would mean much to the NRB as it was an allusion to the organization’s
history of suspicion about the government’s role in funding religious broadcasting.
The
reference would hearken back to the roots of the organization’s struggle against mainline, liberal
Protestant influence in broadcasting. Another component of the President’s rhetoric in this
section is his attempt at identification with the common American. Reagan spoke as if he
actually had conversations with Americans (as if average Americans could get anywhere near the
President of the United States) who reportedly said verbatim to him, “We want the Word of God.
We want to face the future with the Bible.” The President created a myth, placing the theme of
the NRB Convention in the mouths of Americans who he claimed, somehow, to know are
hungry for the message that the NRB is forwarding. He doesn’t bother to detail what that
message is, but the inference is clearly that of moral values.
Hence, in addition to Reagan’s symmetry with religious broadcasters rhetorically and
theologically, there was also camaraderie around the necessity of free markets and the limitation
of government power, all of which made the President’s policy intentions and religious rhetoric
more credible to Evangelicals.
However, according to Hangen, the commercialization of
broadcasting had the unintended consequence of creating even greater tension between factions
of Protestantism that were already locking horns over issues related to theological and cultural
modernism.38 About the time that Reagan addressed the NRB in January of 1983, the NRB had
38
Tona Hangen, Redeeming the Dial: Radio, Religion & Popular Culture in America (Chapel Hill: North Carolina
Press, 2002), 24-25.
107
just crossed its 1,000th member and had the year previous recorded that its members had spent
more than $600 million on the purchase of broadcasting time for religious stations.39
The NRB’s origins were rooted in a struggle against a previous incarnation of the
contemporary National Council of Churches. Founded as part of the National Association of
Evangelicals, the NRB was established to empower theologically conservative broadcasters in
their struggle with their more liberal counterparts in the Federal Council of Churches (later
expanded and renamed the National Council of Churches). In the early 1940’s, a Federal Council
policy statement encouraged broadcast companies and Federal broadcast policy to support the
prohibition of the sale of religious broadcast time.
The growing size of the NCC seemed threatening to Evangelical broadcasters, so the
NAE led the charge to continue a free market, commercially driven religious broadcasting policy
that continues today.40 The Council’s stated policy demonstrated their exclusive relationship
with major broadcast networks and forwarded their stranglehold on determining what could and
could not be broadcast on programs of a religious nature.41 The NCC policy would effectively
shut out Evangelicals and non-mainline Christian churches from “free air time” religious
broadcasting and force them to purchase commercial airtime.42 Ultimately the NCC lobbied to
convince the networks to cease even selling time to independent religious broadcasters. At that
point Evangelical broadcasters were certain that there was a group attempting to squash their free
39
Newspaper Article, Elizabeth Russell, “Religious Broadcasters Boast Expanding Ranks,” The Washington Times,
Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Research Office Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
40
Hangen, 120-121.
41
Hangen, 134.
42
Richard H. Gentry, “Broadcast Religion: When Does It Raise Fairness Doctrine Issues?” Journal of
Broadcasting 28-3 (Summer 1984): 261.
108
speech rights.43 This overreaching attempt to effectively stamp out Fundamentalist broadcasting
would ultimately play into the relationship between Reagan and the NRB.
According to current NRB President, Frank Wright, “It was not until Ronald Regan's
political philosophy (limited government, reduced government regulations, and less government
intrusion into the affairs of its citizens) prevailed in the 1980 presidential election that the
necessary foundation for action on the Fairness Doctrine became a reality.”44 As a result of
Reagan’s culture of deregulation, the NRB believed it could now count on the FCC to reduce any
influence the government would have on broadcasters. Reagan’s acknowledgment of the free
market nature of the NRB’s growth would reaffirm their shared philosophy. This is the second
clear attempt at creating a mutual identification and the speech is only 25% complete.
Facing the future with the Bible—that's a perfect theme for your convention. You might
be happy to hear that I have some "good news'' of my own. Thursday morning, at the National
Prayer Breakfast, I will sign a proclamation making 1983 the Year of the Bible. We're blessed to
have its words of strength, comfort, and truth. I'm accused of being simplistic at times with some
of the problems that confront us. But I've often wondered: Within the covers of that single Book
are all the answers to all the problems that face us today, if we'd only look there. "The grass
withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever.'' I hope Americans will
read and study the Bible in 1983. It's my firm belief that the enduring values, as I say, presented
in its pages have a great meaning for each of us and for our nation. The Bible can touch our
hearts, order our minds, refresh our souls.
43
Hangen, 26-27.
Frank Wright – President of the National Religious Broadcasters, Washington, D.C., Interview with John Charles
Ryor, December 12, 2011.
44
109
This is where Reagan (and Evangelical conservatives as pertains to Reagan) wanted to
have their cake and eat it, too. While paying tribute to the Bible, the President reduces its
contents to moral virtues and “enduring values.” According to the President, the Bible is
utilitarian in nature, touching our hearts, ordering our minds, and refreshing our souls. But does
it really have the answers to “all the problems that face us today?” He was right in saying that
his perspective is “simplistic.” Not only do Evangelicals generally not believe that all of life’s
problems are solved with answers found in the “special revelation” that is Scripture (some
answers are found through general revelation – the vastness of creation or the intelligence of man
as an agency of God), but most would reject that the real function of the Bible is to serve as a
guidebook. Once again Reagan makes a bold claim about the Bible’s influence on life and public
policy but not saying so much as to give his political enemies more ammunition than they would
already have.
Michael Cromartie is the Vice President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a
conservative, religious think tank in Washington, D.C.
Somewhat ironically Cromartie
explained that along with the notion of general revelation, the concept of “common grace” was at
the core of why many of the fundamentalists decided to align with Reagan instead of Carter in
the 1980 election. “Evangelicals discovered that Carter might have been one of them
theologically but not politically. They discovered, partially due to the Reformed doctrine of
‘common grace,’ that regeneration does not equate to political wisdom. Jerry Falwell realized
that this guy (Reagan) made more sense than the other guy (Carter), even though the other guy
teaches Sunday school.”45
The Evangelical doctrine of common grace is defined as God
working mysteriously in the hearts of all – including those who are not spiritually Christians. By
restraining our collective sinful natures and working through even impure motives and evil
45
Michael Cromartie, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 21, 2014.
110
desires, God provides common blessing to humanity by working through all to bring about his
purposes in the Earth.46
Most Evangelical Christians see the Bible as a narrative of God’s plan for humanity,
culminating with the story’s hero, Jesus Christ, saving all who would put their faith in him as
Messiah. Nowhere in Reagan’s rhetoric does he speak in sync with this definition of Scripture.
Yet, in the 1983 National Religious Broadcasting speech, conservative Evangelicals interrupted
him with applause multiple times as he (by his own admission simplistically) intimated that if
people will just start following God’s rules, then God will bless our nation. The confusing nature
of the Christian Right’s theology and philosophy of public policy is precisely where the
dissenting voices of Evangelicalism began to object. One such voice was Dr. Richard Mouw, an
Evangelical scholar who, along with Jim Wallis and other Evangelical Christian liberals, cofounded Sojourners, a strong progressive Evangelical voice in the 1970s. Mouw taught at Calvin
College, then served at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California before retiring in 2012 to write
and speak full-time as a representative of Fuller.
Regarding the Moral Majority’s influence on American politics, the scholar reflected that
his main problem was with how the Religious Right formulated their opinions. “On a lot of the
social and moral issues I agreed with the Moral Majority: opposing the sexual revolution and
abortion. I just worried a lot about a lack of theological explanation of how they had gone from
cultural pessimism to moral majority. This was a significant shift made without explaining how
did this happen theologically. I thought there was a little bit of triumphalism – “take back
America” - that I didn’t think was going to work. Nor did I think it was good theology.” Mouw
and other progressives at Sojourners were confounded that Christian fundamentalism had for
most of its incarnation been steeped in a “Christ against Culture” paradigm. “Evangelicalism
46
Richard Mouw, “The Protestant Theology of Abraham Kuyper,” Weekly Standard 4:16 (January 4, 1999).
111
tends not to think very clearly theologically. When we feel like a cognitive minority on the edges
of culture, all of that Dispensational Pre-millennialism works.
Just be faithful until He
returns…we heard a lot of ‘this world is not my home, I’m just a passin’ through.’” 47
Reagan appeals to Scripture and implies that its contents have application for public
policy when he says, “It's my firm belief that the enduring values, as I say, presented in its pages
have a great meaning for each of us and for our nation. The Bible can touch our hearts, order
our minds, refresh our souls.” The President wanted the Bible to change the ‘mind’ of the
nation. While scholars acknowledge that Evangelicals in America weren’t always working from
that perspective, there was clearly a shift that took place to cause them to reemerge. Historian
Randall Balmer contends that too often the Religious Right is characterized as a movement that
mysteriously appeared for the first time in the 1970s. “Evangelicals really throughout most of the
19th century established the social and political agenda for this country, and it was only in the
late '70s or mid-'70s when they began to reclaim their place in American public discourse.”48
Mouw adds, “There is a deep background of America as a chosen nation. That’s really
post-millennial thinking. In the 1980s, suddenly there was post-millennial surge. Jerry Falwell
went from pre-mil to post-mil in his rhetoric. He’d been trained as a Dispensationalist. He was
saying we are the cognitive minority waiting for the rapture, and then suddenly we are the Moral
Majority. That’s a huge shift.”49 If the fundamentalist understanding of their role in public life
isn’t coherently explained, it should hardly be a surprise that Ronald Reagan’s theology of the
Bible or philosophy of the role of Christians in culture was not clearly defined or systematically
consistent. And yet it was Reagan’s simplistic understanding of the application of Biblical text
47
Richard Mouw, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 19, 2014.
Randall Balmer, “Think Tank Transcripts: The Christian Right in American Politics,” National Public Radio,
accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript118.html.
49
Richard Mouw, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 19, 2014.
48
112
to public policy that would serve to persuade the NRB to identify the President’s faith as theirs.
This deference to the Bible would be the third subject about which Reagan was attempting to
create mutual identification.
Now, I realize it's fashionable in some circles to believe that no one in government should
order or encourage others to read the Bible. Encourage—I shouldn't have said order. We're told
that will violate the constitutional separation of church and state established by the Founding
Fathers in the first amendment.
Ironically, it was this rare rhetorical misstep, “Encourage - I shouldn’t have said order,”
that provided some of the substance for his critics’ fear of Reagan religious rhetoric. These
critics are the ones whom he stated were in “some circles.” Reagan was attempting to make the
case that his domestic enemies are identical to those of the Religious broadcasters; in so doing he
is identifying as a fellow warrior in fighting secularism. In fact, theological modernists were the
real target of this diatribe. More specifically, the President is referring in this section to the
American Civil Liberties Union campaigns against religion in the public arena and the Moral
Majority’s fight with People for the American Way. It’s precisely the rhetoric of us versus them
and verbal slips like “I shouldn’t have said order” that caused these secularists to fear the fear
that Reagan and the Religious Right were positioning themselves to force religious conversion
and compliance.
While the Evangelical left may have wondered how the shift from “Christ against
Culture” to “Christ in Culture” took place in the fundamentalist camp, to conservatives it was
clearly connected to the influence of Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer was a Falwell compatriot
and the intellectual voice of the Reagan era Religious conservatives. Schaeffer was a former
113
Presbyterian pastor, scholar and evangelist. In the mid-20th century he split with the militant
wing of the Fundamentalist movement and established a Switzerland-based intellectual retreat
called L’Abri. In the late 1970s Schaeffer and Falwell collaborated to revive the anti-modernist,
fundamentalist-evangelical alliance that existed in the earlier part of the century.50 Schaeffer’s
influence can be seen in the phraseology of “secular humanism.” These terms were
commonplace and largely undefined outside of Evangelicalism. In the late 1970s Dr. Schaeffer
produced a documentary based on his book, “How Should We Then Live,” which drew
thousands to rallies around the country. According to scholar Daniel K. Williams, conservative
Evangelicals had been looking for an explanation of their waning influence in culture and
Schaeffer’s explanations provided the needed intellectual framework to express their fears.51
As Schaeffer stated in a June 22, 1982 speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington,
D.C. (an event hosted by a committee that included Reagan Cabinet member Energy Secretary
James Watt, Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Howard Baker, Congressman Jack Kemp and
conservative columnist George Will, among others): “The First Amendment was that there
should be no state church for the thirteen colonies, and that the State should never interfere with
the free expression of religion. Today it has been turned over by the humanistic society, the Civil
Liberties Union, and so on, and the first Amendment is made to say the very opposite. That is,
that Christian values are not allowed to be brought into contact with the governmental process.
The terror is, that in the last forty years increasingly government, and especially the courts, have
been the vehicle to force this other world view on the total population.”52 Schaeffer codified the
50
Susan Friend Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 2000), 130.
51
Daniel K. Williams, God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (Oxford University Press: New York,
2010), 141.
52
Speech Text, Francis Schaeffer, “The Secular Humanistic World View Versus the Christian World View and the
Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness,” (June 22, 1982): 6-7, National Association of Evangelicals Folder
5, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
114
difference between “secular” thinking and “Christian” thinking and by virtue of his perspective
on social issues tied conservative politics to Christianity. To disagree on those public policy
issues was to identify yourself as a “humanist” (human’s are center of world) and a secular one
at that. In summary, by incorporating the popular terminology used by Evangelicals to
characterize their philosophical and religious enemies, the President creates rhetorical
identification with his NRB audience.
Well, it might interest those critics to know that none other than the Father of our
Country, George Washington, kissed the Bible at his inauguration. And he also said words to the
effect that there could be no real morality in a society without religion. John Adams called it
"the best book in the world.'' And Ben Franklin said, " … the longer I live, the more convincing
proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men … without His concurring aid,
we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be
divided by our little, partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves
shall become a reproach, a bye-word down to future ages.''
So, when I hear the first amendment used as a reason to keep the traditional moral values
away from policymaking, I'm shocked. The first amendment was not written to protect people
and their laws from religious values; it was written to protect those values from government
tyranny. I've always believed that this blessed land was set apart in a special way, that some
divine plan placed this great continent here between the two oceans to be found by people from
every corner of the Earth—people who had a special love for freedom and the courage to uproot
themselves, leave their homeland and friends to come to a strange land. And, when coming here,
115
they created something new in all the history of mankind—a country where man is not beholden
to government, government is beholden to man.
Myth creation and narrative are Reagan rhetorical staples. Sallot argued that the
President’s handlers sought to project Reagan as the mythological western hero, riding into town
on his horse to save the day.53 Moore echoes these sentiments by elaborating that Reagan was
depicted as the Western Hero against the enemy that was the Federal Government. The hero
rides into town, convinces the people that they have a common enemy and then stirs them to
action – in Reagan’s case both a domestic and foreign morality revolution.54 In the rhetorical
struggle for the hearts and minds of people, President Reagan often appealed to grand narratives
that would justify his perspective that America has historically been exactly what we want it to
be, but the enemies of freedom and God’s people have taken over. In an effort to enlist their
support, Reagan often would appeal to moralistic myths. Walter Fisher asserts that the danger in
doing so with historical documents like the Declaration of Independence or other such moral
values is that their usual association with movements to produce fundamental social and political
change weakens them.55 Hence, they are immediately suspect of distorting reality.
What does myth creation have to do with this portion of the NRB speech? It is evident
by Reagan’s implication that Benjamin Franklin was a man of faith. While history would
confirm that John Adams was a devout Protestant Christian, to imply that Benjamin Franklin was
a Bible believer is pure rhetorical myth. Reagan does accurately quote Franklin, but it is not the
about the Bible that Franklin is speaking; he’s referencing the providence of God in the affairs of
53
Lynne M. Sallot, “The Man on a White Horse: The Presidency, Persuasion and Myth,” The Florida
Communications Journal XVIII – 1 (1990): 5.
54
Mark P. Moore, “Rhetorical Criticism of Political Myth: From Goldwater Legend to Reagan Mystique,”
Communications Studies 42-3 (Fall 1991): 302-304.
55
Walter Fisher, Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 59-2 (1973):
151-153.
116
men. While Franklin may have been a man of his times and believed in a generic Creator
concept of God, he was not the stalwart of morality. Franklin was a hedonist of the first order
who actually, according to historian David McCullough, encouraged Jefferson’s wording in the
Declaration of Independence to move away from overtly Christian imagery.56 But we must
never let the facts interrupt a good story.
Good stories…narrative…that was Reagan’s
wheelhouse. Reagan uses the heroes and imagery of the American Revolution to forge a bond
with the audience that effectively says to them, “We’re at war with a tyrannical government that
would trample your religious rights.” As well, Reagan makes his characteristic nod to the
manifest destiny of America, a land “set apart” by God. As Shannon has written, “Reagan’s
rhetoric reflects some of the deepest themes in American social and political culture, and it does
so in an unpretentious, folksy, and populist manner.”57
To summarize this first section of the speech, in seeking to identify with the National
Religious Broadcasters, Reagan attempts to rhetorically establish in their minds that he is one of
them. But he does so in a way that never alienates the other parts of his re-election coalition,
groups not present but certainly will be privy to the contents of the speech. And while the effort
to create identification isn’t finished, the halfway point of the speech signals a transition point
where the President rhetorically begins to name the common enemies.
The NRB Speech As Induction
The President had received his marching orders from Dick Wirthlin. While identifying
with the NRB was step one in the day’s message, inducting them into his army was the
overarching agenda. To do so, Reagan would need to transition his language to indicate that the
56
David McCullough, John Adams (Simon & Schuester: New York, 2002), 122.
W. Wayne Shannon, “Mr. Reagan Goes to Washington: Teaching Exceptional America,” Public Opinion 4
(December/January 1982): 14.
57
117
circumstances they faced together were dire and required action. In a sense, Reagan could be
accused of using Evangelicals to his own end, something that Evangelical critics maintain. But
Cromartie insists that the question is not “Did Reagan use Evangelicals for his political gain?”
Most supporters would concede that he did but that but that politics is a two-way street. “Sure
Reagan used Evangelicals, but Evangelicals used Reagan, too, to get access so they could be
heard on their issues. Every politician uses Evangelicals because they want their votes. It’s part
of the political process.”58 Whatever the motive, there is no question that Reagan was asking the
Religious Broadcasters to enlist in his efforts to affect the change that they both wanted.
There's another struggle we must wage to redress a great national wrong. We must go
forward with unity of purpose and will. And let us come together, Christians and Jews, let us
pray together, march, lobby, and mobilize every force we have, so that we can end the tragic
taking of unborn children's lives. Who among us can imagine the excruciating pain the unborn
must feel as their lives are snuffed away? And we know medically they do feel pain.
I'm glad that a "respect human life'' bill has already been introduced in Congress by
Representative Henry Hyde. Not only does this bill strengthen and expand restrictions on
abortions financed by tax dollars, it also addresses the problem of infanticide. It makes clear the
right of all children, including those who are born handicapped, to food and appropriate
medical treatment after birth, and it has the full support of this administration.
While the first half of the NRB speech was designed to re-create a mutual identification,
the second half of the speech is a call to mutual fight. While it is a fight to expand restrictions on
abortion, Reagan is careful not to say that he was calling for an overturning of Roe vs. Wade, a
battle cry that would have elicited a stronger reaction from his non-religious and economic
58
Michael Cromartie, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 21, 2014.
118
conservative supporters. I have already demonstrated that the most influential of the Religious
Right and his biggest Evangelical conservative supporter, Dr. Jerry Falwell, had made abortion
the dominant cultural issue of the Moral Majority. The importance of this section of rhetoric was
that it incorporated the language of warfare as it pertained to domestic issues. This call to
cultural warfare in the United States was Reagan’s way of raising the intensity of the rhetoric in
order to re-engage his base. The President would incorporate the language of war by saying “we
wage” a struggle. Reagan calls them to “mobilize every force we have.” In keeping with the
Moral Majority’s strategy, the President isn’t simply going to solicit the prayer support of the
NRB, he is going to act to create legislation such as the “respect human life” bill.
Fuller Seminary’s Richard Mouw was uncomfortable with the intensity of this language:
“Reagan’s rhetoric worried me because I felt that Evangelicalism had a tendency to go along
with a lot of militaristic and demonization rhetoric.”59 The use of the language in Reagan
speeches wasn’t new, but the ramped up reelection discourse echoed the sense that some scholars
had about Reagan. As Goodnight noted, the claiming of the religious ground as it pertained to
foreign policy and social issues was vital to the completion of the administration’s rhetorical
position.60 In chapter seven we will spend a great deal more time addressing the rhetoric of
spiritual warfare and Reagan’s tying this to his own agenda. For now, those who support
abortion are the enemy and they must be defeated. The President wants the NRB to know that he
fully intends to lead them into this battle.
You might be interested to know about a few of the changes that we're making at the
Voice of America. Our transmissions of Christian and Jewish broadcasts are being expanded
59
Richard Mouw, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 19, 2014.
G. Thomas Goodnight, “Ronald Reagan’s Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the “Zero Option,”
“Evil Empire,” and “Star Wars Addresses,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (1986): 403.
60
119
and improved. This year, for the first time in history, the Voice of America broadcast a religious
service worldwide—Christmas Eve at the National Presbyterian Church, in Washington, D.C.
Now, these broadcasts are not popular with governments of totalitarian powers. But make no
mistake, we have a duty to broadcast. Aleksandr Herzen, the Russian writer, warned, "To shrink
from saying a word in defense of the oppressed is as bad as any crime." Well, I pledge to you
that America will stand up, speak out, and defend the values we share. To those who would crush
religious freedom, our message is plain: You may jail your believers. You may close their
churches, confiscate their Bibles, and harass their rabbis and priests, but you will never destroy
the love of God and freedom that burns in their hearts. They will triumph over you.
Ronald Reagan was a crusader against Communism. As historian Paul Kengor states,
“Reagan not only hoped for Communism’s demise; he often predicted it.
More so, his
administration went beyond hoping for the end, and beyond the commander-in-chief’s forecast
that Communism would end up on the ash heap of history.”61 As we’ll cover in chapter seven of
this work, Reagan’s commitment to opposing the Soviet Union was unyielding. But Reagan’s
opposition to Communism predated his Presidency by four decades; a cause he undertook while
an actor and film industry labor leader. And as we’ll see in our next chapters, the President
wants to reaffirm that the Bible is a key weapon in fighting against this evil empire.
Over the course of his political life as California’s Governor and President of the United
States, Reagan’s intense opposition to government collectivism became that for which he is often
most celebrated. Ronald Reagan’s “Cold War” triumph over Communism is arguably the
prevalent legacy of his administration. 62 And his words “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
in his Brandenburg Gate speech in West Berlin, was a seminal moment in 20th century American
61
62
Paul Kengor, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (New York: Harper-Collins, 2006): xiii.
Godfrey Hodgson, 35.
120
history.63
Reagan’s stated hatred for socialism and communism are some of his most
documented commentary. However, Reagan’s rhetoric framed the debate in terms of morality.
He would say, “Communists are not bound by our morality. They say that any crime – including
lying – is moral if it advances the cause of socialism.”64 In his presidential memoirs, Reagan restated his position that Stalin had intended to take over Hollywood and make it a means of
propaganda for the Soviet Union and their ambition to communize the world.65
Reagan says with clarity to the NRB, “Well, I pledge to you that America will stand up,
speak out, and defend the values we share.” Not so ironically, Reagan’s movie characters often
mirrored his later political philosophy of the goodness of the individual and the evils of the
collective (in his case that collective was government bureaucracy). It also should be noted that
the text of standing up and defending are terms used in Reagan’s beloved sport of American
football.
Reagan’s anti-Communist political rhetoric was sharpened by the genre of character he
was typecast to play, a self-made American hero. Reagan would declare multiple times that his
“George Gipp” role in Knute Rockne-All American was the favorite of his career.66 According to
the actor, he stormed into the producer’s office and said, “Listen, this is the greatest football hero
that ever lived and I want to play the part.”67 Reagan simply could not passively sit by he would
be cast to play the part of someone that he considered an icon of American Exceptionalism.
Knute Rockne was the son of an immigrant who made it big in America.
63
Anthony Dolan, “Four Little Words,” The Wall Street Journal (November 8, 2009), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522163362062796.html.
64
Ronald Reagan, The Wit and Wisdom of Ronald Reagan (Washington, D.C.: Regency Publishing, 2007), 12.
65
Ronald Reagan, An American Life, 110.
66
Stephen Vaughn, Ronald Reagan in Hollywood: Movies and Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1994), 87.
67
Cass Sperling, Cork Millner & Jack Warner, Jr., Hollywood Be Thy Name: The Warner Brothers Story
(Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1998), 228.
121
Knute Rockne-All-American was by definition a Classic Hollywood Cinema (CHC) film.
CHC is a designation of film making that was distinct to a time period, but its characteristics
transcend any one era. In CHC films there is always a protagonist (hero) leading the struggle of
good versus evil, all the while producing a moral message and a happy ending. The root of
Reagan’s celebration of the individual over the collective was embedded in CHC. American
superiority flows through the dialog of CHC era and Reagan films, presenting an industry
sponsored Populism as a paradigm for the country. Jeffrey Richards states regarding the CHC
film making period, “Simple, idealistic, optimistic, these Populist movements take their stand on
the Declaration of Independence and their continuing theme was defense of individualism
against the forces of Organization.”68
In his 1981 commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame – an occasion that
saw the reunion of Reagan and fellow Knute Rockne star, Pat O’Brien – the President waxed
eloquently that the film had been about more than just football. It was about values and about a
man who was the symbol of American virtues.69 Knute Rockne-All American was not simply
about football, but was by Warner Brothers design about “American Exceptionalism.” The
film’s opening sequence features Rockne’s father, Lars Rockne (a carriage builder), announcing
the reasons for the family’s emigration to America from Voss, Norway in 1892: “You know, I
like what I hear about America. It’s a new country filled with new life and opportunities for a
working man like me. And I want all that for my children. I want Knute and his sisters to start
their lives on an equal basis with all other children. And they can do that only in America!”70
68
Jeffrey Richards, “Frank Capra and the Cinema of Populism,” Movies and Methods: An Anthology, Volume 1 –
Edited by Bill Nichols (Berkley: University of California Press, 1976), 47.
69
Stephen Vaughn, 82.
70
Transcript of “Knute Rockne-All American” Ronald Reagan, transcript by Chuck Ryor, Florida State University.
122
Both in his identification with American archetypes and the NRB, the President wants to
portray a romantic version of America that he himself embodies.
This embodiment of
“American Exceptionality” is now the one leading the crusade against Communism and he is
attempting to rhetorically call them into his lifelong battle against what he believes to be the
embodiment of evil in the world. And the audience is now primed for the moving conclusion of
the speech; a conclusion that will equate the struggle against communism with the growth and
expansion of Christianity.
Malcolm Muggeridge, the brilliant English commentator, has written, "The most
important happening in the world today is the resurgence of Christianity in the Soviet Union,
demonstrating that the whole effort sustained over 60 years to brainwash the Russian people into
accepting materialism has been a fiasco."
It is perhaps telling that among the responses to the NRB speech was a letter from
Malcom Muggeridge to the President. Muggeridge wrote that he was honored to be quoted, and
went out of his way to credit Reagan with quoting him accurately, saying it was not the usual
practice. Throughout the correspondence Muggeridge reaffirmed the President’s crusade against
Communism and for religious freedom around the world. He concluded, “The concerted effort
instituted by Lenin to extirpate the Christian faith totally and forever in favour of a Marxist
materialist society has been a fiasco, and for one reason only that Christianity happens to be true,
and Marxism what Dr. Johns called the plot of The Tempest – ‘unresisting imbecility.’”71 To
71
Letter, Malcolm Muggeridge to Ronald Reagan, March, 1983, Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious
Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
123
which Reagan responded with a personal note of his own, saying to Muggeridge that he believed
a spiritual revival was coming to Russian and the United States.72
Not every reaction to the speech was as sunny or personal as that of Muggeridge. The
Washington Post recognized that the rhetoric was reflective of the 1970s Reagan speeches, an
obvious effort to court Evangelicals who were increasingly critical of the administration. 73 The
United Press International (UPI) wrote, “President Reagan, invoking religion where fiscal policy
has failed, said yesterday the budget could be balanced sooner if Americans ‘simply tried to live
up to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.’”74 But the real media scrutiny of the
President’s intensified religious rhetoric would come in the weeks and months ahead. For that
time being, communications scholar Quentin Schultze could note: “What used to be a convention
about the media became itself a media event this year.”75
Conclusion
Jerry Falwell’s vocal and unwavering support for Reagan continued through the entire
eight years of his Presidency. His efforts to help the Reagan Administration win Congressional
$100 million aid for the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters (Contras) was described as “herculean” by
one Presidential Assistant.76 Through the remainder of the Reagan presidency, Falwell would
continue laboring at the intersection of faith and conservative values. His post-1984 support is
72
Letter from Ronald Reagan to Malcolm Muggeridge, April 18, 1983, Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious
Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
73
Newspaper Article, Lou Cannon, “Reagan Seeks to Shore Up on the Right,” The Washington Post, February 1,
1983, Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Office Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
74
Newspaper Article, UPI Wire Copy, “Reagan to Fight for Prayer Amendment,” Manchester Union Leader
(February 1, 1983), Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Research
Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
75
Quentin J. Schultze, “The NRB Media Event,” The Reformed Journal 33:3 (March, 1983): 2-3.
76
Letter, Mari Maseng to Jerry Falwell, July 28, 1986, Folder FG 006 (434400-434530), Box 133, WHORM
Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
124
perhaps best encapsulated when Falwell and his Old Time Gospel Hour program collected over
two million signatures and lobbied the White House to pardon Oliver North. North was the
Christian U.S. Army Colonel who lied to congress and took the fall for the illegal actions of the
Reagan Administration.
Falwell called him a hero.77 As far as re-election strategy goes,
approaching Jerry Falwell, the Moral Majority and the National Religious Broadcasters was
demonstrated to be a surefire way to follow the Wirthlin Memo’s directive to “Nurture the
Base.”
NRB members responded to the speech with great enthusiasm. A February 1, 1983
internal White House MEMO from Dee Jepsen (Reagan Special Assistant) to Red Cavaney
(Deputy Assistant to the President for Public Liaison) relayed this analysis: “I attended a meeting
last night regarding the Presidential Proclamation for the National Day of Prayer. It was attended
by many leaders from the National Religious Broadcasters Convention. They were ecstatic about
the POTUS speech. They plan to replay POTUS speech on radio and TV and discussed placing
parts of it in ads across the country. They also may take out ads thanking POTUS for his
commitment and his strong stand on behalf of traditional values, etc. He was a hit!”78 The
President wrote in his diary about the speech: “Billy Graham called this evening and said they
are still talking about it - called it the greatest declaration for the Lord any President has ever
made. I feel very humble.”79
Dick Wirthlin had to be encouraged that President Reagan and his speechwriters were
following his instructions to the letter. One speech of the Evangelical “Triad” was in the books.
77
Religion News Service, “Religious Right Drums Up Support for North,” The Los Angeles Times (September 3,
1988).
78
Memo, Dee Jepsen to Red Cavaney, February 1, 1983, Folder Religion 1982 (1), Box 47, Elizabeth Dole Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
79
Ronald Reagan on Monday, January 31, 1983, ed. Douglas Brinkley, The Reagan Diaries, (New York: Harper
Perennial, 2007), 128.
125
Only days ahead would be a second major rhetorical attempt to garner re-election support;
another address to show this conservative religious base that he was on their team, so they should
continue to remain on his.
126
CHAPTER SIX
THE NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST SPEECH
In this chapter we’ll explore President’s speech to the National Prayer Breakfast. This
second speech of this Evangelical Christian “Triad” of speeches can be summarized as an
attempt to build mutual identification through a shared ideology. The speech is divided into four
parts: the Reagan humorous introduction, the Bible Section, the Prayer Section, and the Reagan
military narrative conclusion. The introduction and conclusion staples present some nuances
tailored to this particular audience and time, and the two main point sections are designed to
communicate clearly that Reagan’s religious experience was akin to what American Evangelicals
have.
In his book Counter-Statement, Kenneth Burke clarifies the realities of forming political
identity. As opposed to ideas that one’s political association is constructed spontaneously
through the material, Burke contended that it was constituted rhetorically through symbolism.
As he says, the symbol provides a framework, and “by its function as name and definition, give
simplicity and order to an otherwise unclarified complexity. It provides a terminology of
thoughts, actions, emotions, attitudes, for codifying a pattern of experience."1 The only way an
audience can interpret the material conditions of the speaker would be through the presence of
symbolic constructions. In this way, Reagan masterfully lifts two of the pillars of evangelical
Christian experience (prayer and Bible reading) to the forefront of his rhetoric and is able,
through those symbols, connect with Evangelicals in attendance at the 1983 National Prayer
Breakfast. Reagan identifies with his audience through an ideology that is shared through the
celebration of these symbols.
1
Kenneth Burke, Counter Statement (Berkeley: University of California, 1968), 154.
127
Since the Eisenhower Administration, all U.S. Presidents have attended the Annual
National Prayer Breakfast, so Ronald Reagan’s presence in 1983 wouldn’t have been out of the
ordinary. Yet, in view of Dick Wirthlin’s edict to nurture the base, the re-election campaign was
fortunate to sync up Reagan’s virtually required attendance with a unique opportunity: the
signing of a proclamation to make 1983 the Year of the Bible. This was the only time in the then
30-year history of the National Prayer Breakfast that this type of parallel ceremonial event had
ever taken place. It hasn’t taken place since. While the wheels were in motion a year earlier for
both the Prayer Breakfast and the Year of the Bible Proclamation, the coordination of the two
into one opportunity for the President was all done subsequent to the Wirthlin Memo.
To demonstrate the haste in which the signing of the Proclamation would take place at
the Prayer Breakfast, more than half of the Committee for the Year of the Bible wasn’t able to
get into the overbooked February 3, 1983 event. The Committee’s Executive Director at the last
moment was furiously trying to get Presidential Assistant Morton Blackwell to arrange for the
President to sign the document in their presence.2 Four days later on January 31, Blackwell
wrote the Prayer Breakfast speechwriter, Ben Elliot to advise him that the President had been
cleared to both sign the document at the event, but that he should also include language in the
speech to accept the honorary chairmanship of the committee.3 This adaptation to the normal
agenda was a welcome change to The Prayer Breakfast. Sell out crowds and abundant media
attention was a mutually beneficial arrangement for both the Presidential re-election machine and
the ministry efforts of The Fellowship.
2
Letter, Glenn A. Jones to Morton Blackwell, January 27, 1983, Folder Annual National Prayer Breakfast (2), Box
73, Speech Writing Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
3
Memo, Morton C. Blackwell to Ben Elliott, January 31, 1983, Folder Annual National Prayer Breakfast (2), Box
73, Speech Writing Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
128
The Fellowship
How, in a religiously pluralistic democracy, does political Washington, D.C. grind to a
halt annually to attend a prayer breakfast that was founded and is guided by theologically
conservative Evangelical Christians? The answer is that the “National Prayer Breakfast” is
organized by a stealthy organization that is so cautious in their communication that they appear
to many to be purposefully evasive in answering questions about themselves. They are called
“The Fellowship,” but are officially named The International Foundation, a non-profit
organization that has been working to spiritually impact cultural leaders at home and abroad
since the mid-20th century. Even in the preparation of this chapter I was confronted with the
challenge of getting straight forward, non-filtered answers. My first roadblock came once I sent
my questions to Doug Coe, the leader of the organization and a man whom Time Magazine in
2005 named one of the “25 most influential Evangelicals in America.” The man Time referred to
“The Stealth Persuader” has been notorious for avoiding interviews.4
However, two mutual friends had arranged for me to exchange email correspondence
with Mr. Coe. He responded to my request to answer questions, which he said he would do when
he returned from an extended summer break in 2014. Months later, presumably after he read my
questions, I was informed by his secretary that he no longer wanted to participate. Fortunately I
had other options to get an insider’s perspective on the activities of the Fellowship, and I was
able to track down someone with first-hand knowledge who was able to provide clear and
concise answers. An outsider to Evangelicalism would imagine that I would be easily trusted
with simple, clear answers about The Fellowship, being myself a theologically conservative
Evangelical minister. However, even with a man I had known for twenty years there was
4
“The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America,” Time Magazine (February 7, 2005), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1993235_1993243_1993262,00.html.
129
reluctance to write answers to questions and return them to me, even though the questions were
not particularly intrusive. Here is the list:
1. Do you have any response or comment about the Jeff Sharlet expose on The Fellowship The Family?
2. How do you respond to the critiques that The Fellowship has willingly attempted to
engage brutal dictatorships?
3. How would you respond to the characterization of Doug Coe’s use of “Hitler” as an
example of successful small group leadership?
4. In Christian terms, what was/is The Fellowship’s goal in hosting the National Prayer
Breakfast?
5. How would you respond to the assertion that President Reagan was the ideal “Fellowship
President” because of how carefully he answered questions about the intersection of his
faith and politics?
6. Did “The Fellowship” get much resistance or opposition from mainline Protestants for its
work in Washington? If so, can you describe?
7. Did “The Fellowship” get much resistance or opposition from Fundamentalist or
conservative Evangelicals for the organization’s work? If so, can you describe?
8. The Fellowship’s purpose in pursuing prayer is clear. What would be the ultimate goal –
in unfiltered Christian terms – be in exposing people to the Bible’s content?
9. Having lived in the middle of it, do you have any concerns about “The Fellowship” or
any laments looking backward?
This deliberate and careful way of answering questions (often characterized by critics as
secretive) is part of The Fellowship’s mystique. On one hand, politicians are grateful for the
behind the scenes nature of it all. This included Ronald Reagan, who once said that the reason
The Fellowship functioned at a high level in Washington was precisely because it was very
private.5 As Tim Perrier, the Chaplain of the Florida House of Representatives and The
Fellowship’s Associate in Tallahassee said, “It’s not being secretive, it’s being discreet. It is like
5
Sharlet, 19.
130
when Nicodemus came to meet Jesus at night [Gospel of John, Chapter 3].” This reference to the
New Testament is part of the overarching strategy of The International Foundation. According to
Perrier, the ultimate goal is to introduce people to Jesus Christ. That means disconnecting the
historical Jesus of Nazareth from the often culturally divisive institution known as Christianity.
The long and short of The Fellowship’s efforts are to use the teachings and life example of Jesus
described in the Bible to pique the interest of non-believers and help them discover the living
Christ. With this strategy easily misunderstood to contain a political dimension, caution is
exercised when defining clearly the organization’s objectives. And Perrier insists the goals are
altruistic and spiritual in nature only.6 Dr. Richard Mouw of First Things, a theologically
progressive Evangelical scholarship journal, would disagree. He relayed that many Evangelicals
in the Senate and in the House are very resentful of The Fellowship, because while they speak of
spiritual unity, they and others see that they do have an ultimate political end.7
The Fellowship’s seeming unwillingness to define the organization’s goals clearly for
outsiders was the impetus behind Jeff Sharlet’s 2008 controversial book The Family: The Secret
Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. Sharlet’s research about the Fellowship’s
power asserted that as many as 1/3 of the most powerful Evangelical “Elites” in Washington
would reference Doug Coe or The Fellowship as an important influence.8 Sharlet spent time in
The Fellowship’s Internship program to see what was taking place inside the organization. His
ethnographic study produced some incendiary accusations. Among these charges were that Doug
Coe was effectively a cult leader, the organization was secretly trying to influence American
politics for Republican issues, and most specifically that Coe was fond of using despots and war
criminals as examples of how to exert influence over an entire culture.
6
Tim Perrier – Associate with International Foundation, Interview with John Charles Ryor, February 26, 2015.
Dr. Richard Mouw, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 19, 2014.
8
Sharlet, 25.
7
131
The Fellowship has attempted to respond to Sharlet’s assertions at various times. In 2010,
Christianity Today featured The Fellowship in its pages, printing an interview/analysis written
by Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor from Grove City College in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. After the 2010 National Prayer Breakfast, Throckmorton (an avowed theological
progressive) had the rare opportunity to sit down with Doug Coe and attempt to get some clarity
about the nature of the organization and possibly answers to some of the concerns expressed by
Sharlet, including that The Fellowship naively engaged with heads of state from countries run by
genocidal dictators.9 Throckmorton relayed that Coe’s “willingness to reach out to other fallen
people may be unsettling to some, but to him, such actions seem entirely consistent with his
understanding of the teachings of Jesus.”10 Others in the organization would say that Jesus
engaged the most sinful people in society, so therefore so should all Christ followers. Further,
insiders say theological modernists rarely criticize the organization, but instead the Fellowship is
routinely criticized by fundamentalists who contend they are not preaching the whole gospel.11
As mentioned in Chapter Four of this work, a wave of parachurch organizations was
created in the aftermath of the 20th century Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Many of
these groups (which included Bible institutes, student ministry organizations and ministries to
effect societal change) were working outside the boundaries of mainline churches, namely
because of the theological direction those churches were headed. Founders of these organizations
were virtually all aligned with the Fundamentalist movement, which was materially about the
reliability and authoritative place of the Bible. In this way the new wave of theologically
9
Sharlet, 245-247.
Warren Throckmorton, “Doug Coe's Vision for the Fellowship: The Man Behind The National Prayer Breakfast
Explains His Original Intent For His Organization,” Christianity Today (May 13, 2010), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/29-42.0.html.
11
Tim Perrier – Associate with International Foundation, Interview with John Charles Ryor, February 26, 2015.
10
132
conservative Christians likened themselves to the Protestant Reformers and their 17th century
mantra, “Sola Scriptura,” which was Latin for Scripture alone.
The genesis of The Fellowship can be traced to these same passions. Perrier notes, “The
ultimate goal of the ministry is no different than Young Life, Campus Crusade, Inter-Varsity or
any parachurch organization: it is that people would know Jesus Christ.” In particular, its roots
lie in the parachurch ministry philosophy of Norwegian immigrant, Abraham Vereide. Abram,
as his friends knew him, believed that ministering to the powerful and culturally significant
would have what amounted to a “trickle down” effect on society.12 When this philosophy of
ministry is combined with a careful declaration of one’s beliefs, it not only would represent that
which has characterized The Fellowship during its history, but accurately would describe the 40th
President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. Perrier concurs, “He [Reagan] encouraged people
to come along as opposed to simply speaking about his Christianity as he pleased and if it
offended people then it offended them. In that sense he operated very much like the Fellowship.
He was a thoughtful communicator. I will say this, The Fellowship is very intentional and
thoughtful in their communication.”13
According to its own declaration, The International Foundation has been a tax-exempt,
non-profit organization since 1949. It describes itself as “a network of friends from all walks of
life and all ages joined together by our interest in the specific person, wisdom and reconciling
power of Jesus.”14 Its primary public activity is the organizing of the National Prayer Breakfast,
which annually calls together politicians and dignitaries from across party lines and from across
the globe for the purpose of praying together. But the Prayer breakfast isn’t simply for political
12
Sharlet, 89.
Tim Perrier – Associate with International Foundation, Interview with John Charles Ryor, February 26, 2015.
14
“About the Fellowship,” The Fellowship Foundation, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://thefellowshipfoundation.org/about.html.
13
133
dignitaries. At this 1983 occasion, Washington Redskins football coach Joe Gibbs was on the
dais, only days after leading the hometown Redskins to a victory in Super Bowl XVII on January
30, 1983. Gibbs’ presence on the platform alongside the President and first lady, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John W. Vesey, Jr., Counselor to the President and future U.S.
Attorney General Edwin Meese, and the Secretary General of the Organization of American
States, Argentina’s Alejandro Orfila was part of the long-standing strategy of The Fellowship:
Influence the Influencers. 15
While the National Prayer Breakfast is the most visible activity of The Fellowship, their
small group emphasis was where they have had the most influence amongst politicians. By their
own declaration, “The key idea is for leaders to be humble enough to admit that the problems
they face are more complex than can be solved out of human ingenuity and to seek inspiration
from studying the teachings of Jesus together.” Small groups are the backbone of the
organization, and the anonymity and group rules are not dissimilar to those of an Alcoholics
Anonymous group. The freedom to share without fear of reprisal has been one of the keys to the
group’s long-term impact with political figures.16
Evidence of Coe’s personal relationship with Reagan and other key members of his
administration are contained in correspondence exchanged between them. Coe was known for
dropping notes of encouragement in the mail to the influencers with whom he had built
relationships, and Reagan Assistant for Public Liaison, Elizabeth Dole was one such person. At
the time Elizabeth Dole’s husband Bob was the ranking Senator from Kansas and Chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee). Using official White House stationary, she wrote to Coe on July
15
Document, Seating Chart For Dais Of 1983 National Prayer Breakfast, Folder National Prayer Breakfast February
4, 1983 – OA8495, Box 5, Advance Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
16
“The Activities of the Fellowship,” The Fellowship Foundation, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://thefellowshipfoundation.org/activities.html.
134
17, 1981: “Dear Doug: Thank you so much for your thoughtful letter. It is always good to hear
from you, and indeed, Thomas a Kempis’ words are inspirational! Again, my thanks for your
thoughtfulness and please continue to remember Bob and me in your prayers. Cordially,
Elizabeth.”17 This type of personal interaction with Washington power brokers is part and parcel
of The Fellowship’s strategy. It’s also how the Prayer Breakfast was birthed in 1953.
Tim Perrier explains: “Here’s how the Prayer Breakfast started: President Eisenhower
remarked to Senator Carlson from Kansas (a friend of Eisenhower’s) that the White House was
the loneliest house in the world; and he’s talking about the isolation of leadership. Carlson
invites the President to meet with he and a couple of Senators who were meeting every Thursday
for fellowship, prayer and encouragement, and Eisenhower agrees to begin attending that Senate
small group. But there were other small groups meeting within the Senate who now wanted to be
part of the President’s group. Then the small groups in the House of Representatives also wanted
to be part of the President’s group. In response, they determined to get all the small groups
together to meet with the purpose of praying for and with the President. That was the simple
idea: let’s meet with the President, let’s encourage him and pray for him. Conrad Hilton was
made aware of the plan for this gathering and offered the use of the Mayflower Hotel in
downtown Washington, D.C. Hence, the first Prayer Breakfast was started and then it became
something they determined to do yearly.”18 Fortunately for President Reagan, the timing of this
annual event couldn’t have been better, as he needed the Evangelicals so show up at the polls in
the upcoming 1984 election as much as they needed him to show up at breakfast.
17
Letter, Elizabeth Dole to Douglas E. Coe, July 17, 1981, Coe, Douglas Folder, Box 17, WHORM Alpha File,
Ronald Reagan Library.
18
Tim Perrier – Associate with International Foundation, Interview with John Charles Ryor, February 26, 2015.
135
The Introduction: Reagan’s Early Ad-Ins
The argument in this chapter is that the President’s speech was an attempt to identify two
areas of ideology that theologically conservative Evangelicals saw as the bedrock of their faith
experience and attach himself to them. In doing so he wanted to validate his faith experience so
they would see it as similar to theirs, and therefore “nurture” this portion of his base so they
would regain enthusiasm for his reelection. The event took place in the International Ballroom
of the Washington Hilton Hotel. Breakfast began at 8:00 a.m. and was accompanied with music,
brief remarks about the purpose of the event, Scripture readings, and prayer. The President began
speaking at 9:03 a.m. In the introduction of this speech, Reagan plays to his warmth and strength
as a communicator by being funny.
Thank you all very much, all our friends and distinguished guests here at the head table
and all of you very distinguished people. General Vessey [Gen. John W. Vessey, Jr., Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff], I'm terribly tempted to call for a vote right now on the defense budget.
[Laughter] Nancy and I are delighted to be with you here this morning.
The President opened his speech with a classic bit of ad-lib humor about calling for a
vote on the defense budget. So proficient at ad-libbing was Reagan that speechwriters simply
made notes on the actual text for the President to do so. Bentley Elliot (the speechwriter
responsible for the Prayer Breakfast remarks) wrote these words in pen next to the introduction:
“ad lib; laugh; applause.”19 In other words, the President was to make a joke, then expect
laughter and applause before he moves on. The President was not only encouraged to ad-lib, but
he can be seen in a number of places in this speech making the speech text both more personal
19
Speech Manuscript - Final, Presidential Remarks: Annual National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday, February 3 1983,
Folder National Prayer Breakfast (1), Box 73, Speechwriting Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
136
and more politically charged. The argument in this work is that these changes are in direct
response to the directive from Dick Wirthlin. In the next part of his introduction the President
added in another jab at his opponents.
You know, on the way over, I remembered something that happened a long time ago
when teachers could talk about things like religion in the classroom. And a very lovely teacher
was talking to her class of young boys, and she asked, "How many of you would like to go to
heaven?'' And all the hands instantly shot into the air at once, except one, and she was
astounded. And she said, "Charlie, you mean you don't want to go to heaven?'' He said, "Sure, I
want to go to heaven, but not with that bunch.''
The anecdote about “Charlie” was not Reagan’s. In speechwriter Tony Dolan’s files is a
copy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1940 “Address to the Jackson Day Dinner.” FDR opened
his speech with the exact story minus a different first sentence. FDR said, “Once upon a time.”20
Reagan instead remarked that the story “happened a long time ago when teachers could talk
about things like religion in the classroom.” This phraseology was not merely a historical
reference point. In his handwriting on the final draft of the speech you can see that Reagan
wanted this remark inserted instead of what was proposed by Bentley Elliott, which read
“happened quite a while back and which I thought might interest you.”21 Presumably the
President wanted to remind the Religious Right that the issue of school prayer had been front and
center during his first two years in office. In May of 1982 the President proposed an amendment
20
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Address to the Jackson Day Dinner” (January 8, 1940), Folder 02/03/1983 National
Prayer Breakfast, Box 81, Speechwriting Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
21
Speech Draft – RR Changes, Presidential Remarks: Annual National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday, February 3
1983, Folder National Prayer Breakfast (1), Box 73, Speechwriting Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
137
to the U.S Constitution that would permit organized prayer in public schools.22 Granted, there
was no further progress made between the time of the announcement and the prayer breakfast
speech. However, if politically conservative Evangelicals wondered if Reagan’s election
promises were genuine, the President could reference putting on the gloves to fight for this losing
political contest. McAndrews notes, “It was hard to find a more representative explanation for
Reagan’s popularity than this simple yet potent plea to "return" American society to the putative
values and virtue which proceeded Engel v. Vitale, when teachers exercised authority, students
learned right from wrong, courts respected legislatures, and the federal government yielded to
the states.”23 Without conceding defeat on the issue, by the time of this speech, school prayer (an
issue of importance to many fundamentalists) was all but politically dead. By making the quick
aside, Reagan effectively introduced a political issue into a prayer breakfast that had in
attendance legislators who opposed any attempts to legalize teacher led prayer in public school
classrooms. But to his supportive base, the message was loud and clear. The President was
unhappy about this state of educational affairs.
Maybe there's a little bit of Charlie in each of us. [Laughter] But somehow I don't think
that wanting to go to heaven, but only on our terms, and certainly not with that other bunch, is
quite what God had in mind. The prayer that I sometimes think we don't often use enough -- and
one that I learned a few years ago and only after I had gotten into the business that I'm in -- is
one of asking forgiveness for the resentment and the bitterness that we sometimes feel towards
someone, whether it's in business dealings or in government or whatever we're doing, and
22
Associated Press Writers, “Reagan Proposes School Prayer Amendment,” The New York Times (May 18, 1982),
accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/18/us/reagan-proposes-school-prayer-amendment.html.
23
Lawrence McAndrews, 'Moral' Victories: Ronald Reagan and the Debate over School Prayer, Religion &
Education Journal 30:1 (Spring 2003).
138
forgetting that we are brothers and sisters and that each of them is loved equally by God as
much as we feel that He loves us.
While still working his way through the introduction, the President once again is seen in
the final draft of the speech to introduce another personal thought: ”The prayer that I sometimes
think we don't often use enough -- and one that I learned a few years ago and only after I had
gotten into the business that I'm in -- is one of asking forgiveness for the resentment and the
bitterness that we sometimes feel towards someone.” Reagan’s use of personal pronouns like
“we” and “I” are intentionally inserted to express his personal engagement with his faith – a
cornerstone experience and way of expressing belief for Evangelicals. With perhaps the echoes
of the outgoing thoughts of another Californian President, Reagan shares a personal prayer
anecdote to express the importance of forgiving others who have harmed you politically. If you
don’t forgive them, in the end you may become bitter. Or, as Richard Nixon said in his farewell
speech after resigning the Presidency in 1973, “Never be petty; always remember, others may
hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy
yourself.”24 This is somber and pitiful advice from a failed President Nixon. However, from his
position of strength, President Reagan humbly shared virtually the same thought and its purpose
was to ring of Christian humility. This identification through ideology is off to a rousing start
and he’s only just finished his introduction to the speech.
Section One – Scripture: The Mantra Of The Evangelicals
As Presidential speeches go, the National Prayer Breakfast address is classified as
“Presidential Remarks.” With the introduction in his rearview mirror, the speech is almost a
24
Richard Nixon, “Farewell Speech,” (August 9, 1974), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/nixon-farewell.html.
139
quarter of the way complete. Speaking in the context of a religious gathering had appropriately
shortened the length of the President’s speech. Practically this meant that Reagan was going to
have to do more with less. And as he begins his transition from the introduction to the first of
two main points, the President will demonstrate the carefulness of speech that both he and his
hosts, The Fellowship, have in common.
I'm so thankful that there will always be one day in the year when people all over our
land can sit down as neighbors and friends and remind ourselves of what our real task is. This
task was spelled out in the Old and the New Testament.
As previously discussed in Chapter Four, President Reagan mastered the art of saying
enough without saying too much. As Tim Perrier says of Reagan, “I think he was able to engage
people with spiritual truths and with his faith in a way that didn’t come off as too religious or as
divisive.”25 In this beginning of his first major point, the President is careful to state, “This task
was spelled out in the Old and the New Testament.” The reason for this turn of phrase was to not
alienate Jewish attendees, while still affirming the authority of the Bible as a whole. Ironically,
he makes this statement on the heels of celebrating “one day in the year when people all over our
land can sit down as neighbors and friends” and attend the prayer breakfast. In this case,
Reagan appears to be practicing what he preaches. And he is going to be particularly careful in
this “Bible Section” of the speech to make sure he doesn’t show too much deference to Jesus
Christ, or quote exclusively from the New Testament; while on the other hand making bold
assertions about the power and high place of the Scriptures.
25
Tim Perrier, Interview with John Charles Ryor, February 26, 2015.
140
Can we resolve to reach, learn, and try to heed the greatest message ever written -- God's
word and the Holy Bible. Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has
ever known. Now, I am assuming a new position; but I should warn our friends in the loyal
opposition, this new job won't require me to leave the White House. With the greatest
enthusiasm, I have agreed to serve as honorary chairman for the Year of the Bible.
No single issue is more central to the history of Evangelicalism than the foundational
principle of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Historians will cite any number of
secondary differences of opinion that Fundamentalist and Modernist (and more recently
neoorthodox) Christians have about what Scripture says or means, but most would concur that
the substantial dividing line between the factions of Protestant Christianity in the 20th century
was how the Bible would be defined, what authority it had, and how it was to be viewed in light
of science and material reality. In 1974, Evangelical scholars Geisler and Nix summarized this
historic tension: “Historically, theories about the inspiration of the Bible have varied with the
essential characteristics of the three theological movements: orthodoxy, modernism and
neoorthodoxy. Although these three views are not limited to one time period only, their primary
manifestation is characteristic of three successive periods in the Christian Church. For most of
church history the orthodox view held sway, namely, the Bible is the Word of God. With the
rise of modernism many came to believe that the Bible merely contains the Word of God. Even
more recently, under the influence of contemporary existentialism, neoorthodox theology teaches
that the Bible becomes the Word of God when one personally encounters God through it.”26
By referring to the Bible as “God’s Word” and proclaiming that, “Inside its pages lie all
the answers to all the problems that man has ever known,” Reagan was announcing that he was
26
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974),
17.
141
on the side of the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists with regards to the Scriptures. Serving as the
honorary chairman for the Year of the Bible (the first time in American history such a
proclamation was ever signed by a President) was another benefit to the President’s efforts to
align with Evangelicals. The Committee Chairman and the one from whom President Reagan
would receive the request was none other than Dr. Bill Bright, President of Campus Crusade for
Christ (the largest Christian parachurch organization in the world). The committee’s other vicechairman included an Assemblies of God Pentecostal, a Roman Catholic, and a Jew. To
Evangelicals, though, Bill Bright’s leadership would cement the legitimacy of the effort and
bolster the President’s association in their eyes.
Scripture was that central to fundamentalism. It literally was one of the original
“Fundamentals” established to guide theological conservatives during the early part of the 20th
century.27 The other particular doctrines that would later play a critical role in Evangelicalism’s
rise are founded on a core belief and specific definition of the inspiration and inerrancy of the
Bible. There were multiple fronts on which this theological war was fought, but the origin of the
contest was about the reliability of the Old and New Testaments for the formation of
fundamental doctrines of Christianity. As opposed to the common perception and reputation of
the Christian Fundamentalists, it was the highly educated and lettered scholars from Princeton
Seminary and other prominent institutions that led the Christian Evangelicals. The intellectual
Evangelical of that era was J. Gresham Machen, but his 19th century predecessors at Princeton
Seminary (such as Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield) had laid the groundwork for his 20th
century fight. Men such as Hodge were convinced that correct religious experience must be built
on a correct understanding of truth.
27
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 119.
142
In the absence of an accurate set of ideas, your religious experience couldn’t be genuine.
This “common sense” approach to the Bible and theology formed the basis for the conservative
Protestant doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. As Marsden explains, “Many Americans
during the first half of the century employed the Common Sense categories, but at Princeton the
appeal had especially to do with their conscious preservation of the classic Protestant emphasis
on scriptura sola.” The conservative Protestants of the late 19th and early 20th century saw
themselves as the remnant holding onto the truth while the unfaithful allowed their beliefs to be
guided by the reasoning of culture. Marsden adds, “The Princeton theologians saw themselves as
champions of impartiality in the careful examination of the facts, as opposed to metaphysical and
philosophical speculations such as those of German Biblical critics.”28 The spirit of the
theologically conservative movement was that they were defenders of a faith that was under
attack from liberals. Already contained in their rhetoric was similar terminology to identify
opponents. Hence, Reagan’s conservative rhetoric simplified his effort to link his struggle to
theirs.
When we think how many people in the world are imprisoned or tortured, harassed for
even possessing a Bible or trying to read one -- something that maybe we should realize how -and take advantage of what we can do so easily. In its lessons and the great wealth of its words,
we find comfort, strength, wisdom, and hope.
International dignitaries are always present in the audience for the National Prayer
Breakfast. In 1983, American Evangelicals were concerned about the persecution of believers,
particularly Christians in Communist countries like the Soviet Union. Reagan hints at this when
he says, “When we think how many people in the world are imprisoned or tortured, harassed for
28
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 110-112.
143
even possessing a Bible or trying to read one…” This reference to persecuted Christian believers
is another opportunity for Reagan to edit in his own “amped up” rhetoric and subtly tie his
political war on Communism to Christianity. According to Reagan historian, Paul Kengor,
“Ronald Reagan believed America was chosen by God to confront the Soviet Communist empire
and prevail. As the leader of the United States at a special moment in time, he sensed that God
had ordained such a role upon, as he put it, his ‘team.’ It was this religious dimension to
Reagan’s Cold War assault that enraged the Kremlin.”29 As we’ll read in Chapter Four, the
President’s lifelong crusade against Communism would be connected to the “Spiritual War” that
all Christians are told to fight. And like any good Christian, the President is going to summon the
National Prayer Breakfast to fight this battle spiritually by addressing the chief methodology of
spiritual warfare for Evangelical Protestants. Reagan has concluded the first point of his remarks
by setting up the second section of the speech, which focuses on their mutual experience of
praying.
Section Two – Prayer: The Methodology Of The Evangelicals
Carl E. Armerding is Principal and Professor at Regent College, Vancouver, B.C. In
addition to presiding over this Evangelical College for decades, Dr. Armerding is one of the
principle contributors to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. The book, published by
the Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. in 1989, was a continuation of the efforts a book by the
same name made in the early 20th century – namely to counteract modernist higher criticism of
the Bible. Armerding was in attendance at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 3, 1983,
and while he could’ve been elated about the President’s verbal affirmations of Scripture, his
29
Paul Kengor, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (New York: Harper Perennial, 2006),
xii.
144
reporting in the college’s newsletter later that month was ecstatic about the place of prayer.
Armerding wrote: “Those who planned and worked so hard to make the breakfast a success
clearly had an agenda. Even the casual observer could detect it; those in the leadership really
believe in the necessity and power of prayer. There was little doubt that the reason for the whole
show came down to the central fact of praying.” He went on to say, “I returned to Vancouver
deeply touched. If Regent College is going to fulfill its mission, these qualities we must have.”30
Dr. Armerding points out one of the central tools of The Fellowship, small group prayer
gatherings and large group prayer breakfasts held all over the globe. Their most public of
ministries is organizing the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.. However,
their small groups of politicians are established with the purpose of getting influential people
together to pray.31 But prayer has always been central to the practice of faith. All Presidents
would admit to praying and all attend the prayer breakfast, so there is nothing unique about
Reagan’s participation—except to say that the President’s earlier confession of needing to pray
to forgive his political enemies, lest he grow bitter, was a more candid admission than one might
expect. Even if the prayer breakfast has evolved into a much more inclusive inter-faith event (it
was much more Protestant Christian in its origins), the mission of The Fellowship is in part to
light a spiritual passion under the likes of Christian College leaders like Carl Amending.
And we have just passed the half way mark of the President’s address.
And when we find ourselves feeling a little like Charlie, we might remember something
that Abraham Lincoln said over a hundred years ago: `We have forgotten the gracious hand that
30
Newsletter Article, Carl E. Arberdeen, “Principal’s Column,” Regent College Newsletter, March, 1983, National
Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
31
“The Activities of the Fellowship,” The Fellowship Foundation, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://thefellowshipfoundation.org/activities.html.
145
preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly
imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some
superior wisdom and virtue of our own . . . we have become too proud to pray to the God that
made us!'' Well, isn't it time for us to say, ``We're not too proud to pray''? We face great
challenges in this country, but we've faced great challenges before and conquered them. What
carried us through was a willingness to seek power and protection from One much greater than
ourselves, to turn back to Him and to trust in His mercy. Without His help, America will not go
forward.
The significance of this section of the speech is not so much what is in it, but what isn’t at
the end of it. We’ve made the case throughout this work that Dick Wirthlin had issued the
marching order for the reelection, and that President Reagan and his speechwriters were finetuning the message to nurture their base of Evangelicals. But I’ve also argued that Reagan was
careful not to spook the other parts of his coalition by misspeaking about his Christian activities.
Even more concerned about the President’s rhetoric were his handlers, senior staff and others
outside of the speechwriters. Speechwriter Tony Dolan called them the “pragmatists” who tried
to push Reagan in a moderate direction. “It was frequently our writers who came up with not just
the great rhetoric, but the great strategic breakthrough in terms of communications. It was
frequently the writers who did this far better than any of the so-called geniuses in the West Wing
or the various departments.”32
The tension between the idealists in the speechwriting department (whom Reagan loved
because he shared their optimism) and politicians like David Gergen (whom Reagan also
appreciated, as history has shown that the 40th President was certainly a pragmatist) was
32
Martin Medhurst, “Writing Speeches for Ronald Reagan: An Interview with Tony Dolan,” Rhetoric and Public
Affairs 1-2 (1998): 235-256.
146
legendary, told vividly by former speechwriters like Peggy Noonan. Bentley Elliot, the
speechwriter responsible for the National Prayer Breakfast remarks, was the leading Evangelical
speechwriter on Reagan’s staff and the director of the department from 1982-86. Says Noonan,
“He was a great writer. Ronald Reagan said a lot of famous things, and he said them in part
because Ben Elliott got them past the bureaucracy, past the powerful so-called pragmatists, so
Reagan could consider them, rewrite them, underscore them. But Ben is the one who got the
draft to him.”33 This portion of the speech is one of those times when the material didn’t even get
through to the President.
As mentioned in Chapter Four, the process of getting a final draft of a speech involves
the original draft being sent to virtually every senior staff person for review. The “pragmatists”
of whom Noonan speaks were most frustrated when speechwriters would get the President’s ear
before they could keep Reagan from seeing what they wrote and falling in love with the idea.
The White House Action/Comment response sheet that the Reagan Administration used has over
20 people that would be tasked with reading a speech and providing feedback. In this case, two
days before the speech Ben Elliott attempted to send a final draft to the President without doing
as some had asked (see David Gergen34). Some had wanted Elliott to remove the following
paragraph: “You might be interested to know that our Administration is renewing a tradition
observed during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. Henceforth, when our Cabinet meets, we
will being our deliberations with a moment of silent prayer.”35 This proposed section was to
follow the President’s words, “What carried us through was a willingness to seek power and
33
Peggy Noonan, “The Ben Elliott Story,” The Wall Street Journal (June 14, 2004), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122460039897754255.html.
34
White House Staffing Memorandum: Remarks to Annual Prayer Breakfast - David Gergen, February 1, 1983,
Folder 02/03/1983 National Prayer Breakfast, Box 81, Speechwriting Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
35
Speech Draft, Remarks to the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1983, Folder SP 714 National Prayer
Breakfast 2/3/81(1), Box 190, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
147
protection from One much greater than ourselves, to turn back to Him and to trust in His mercy.
Without His help, America will not go forward.”
Elliott wrote in a February 1, 1983 Memo to the President, “On page four, we have
bracketed a paragraph on the decision to begin cabinet meetings with a moment of silent prayer.
We thought this would be the right occasion to make the announcement, should you want to do
so. If not, please delete.
Thank you.” Just below this Memo (discovered in the Reagan
Presidential Archives) is the handwritten note: “Return to Sender! EM/MKD said remove
bracketed.” EM was senior advisor Ed Meece and MKD was Deputy Chief of Staff, Michael
Deaver.36 They weren’t alone as Craig Fuller, Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs,
wrote in his response, “Please consider dropping paragraph 3 / page 4. There are about 150
cabinet meetings a year…this is more prayer than we may need.”37 We know that the President
never saw the bracketed remarks because the final speech draft he sees is always the last one
marked up before the address is locked. These copies always contain his RR initials and are
verbatim copies of the teleprompter version that are saved in the archives. The President’s
marked up copy of the Prayer Breakfast speech had entire paragraphs which he wanted removed,
paragraphs and turns of phrase that he wanted added in, and is identical to the one he gave that
day. All that to say, we have in these Prayer Breakfast Remarks an example of perhaps an
indication of who was pulling back the reins on the President’s religious rhetoric so he wouldn’t
alienate others in the Reagan coalition.
36
Memo, Bentley Elliott to The President, February 1, 1983, Folder SP 714 National Prayer Breakfast 2/3/83(1),
Box 190, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
37
White House Staffing Memorandum: Remarks to Annual Prayer Breakfast - Craig Fuller, February 1, 1983,
Folder 02/03/1983 National Prayer Breakfast, Box 81, Speechwriting Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
148
I have a very special old Bible. And alongside a verse in the Second Book of Chronicles
there are some words, handwritten, very faded by now. And, believe me, the person who wrote
those words was an authority. Her name was Nelle Wilson Reagan. She was my mother. And she
wrote about that verse, ``A most wonderful verse for the healing of the nations.” Now, the verse
that she'd marked reads: ``If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves,
and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven . . .
and will heal their land.'' I know that at times all of us -- I do -- feel that perhaps in our prayers
we ask for too much. And then there are those other times when we feel that something isn't
important enough to bother God with it. Maybe we should let Him decide those things.
There are three parts of this section of the speech that are relevant to our rhetorical
analysis. First, once again the President changed the final draft of the speech to substitute more
personal connections. He exchanged the words, “And, believe me” for the first draft’s “Now,” to
have the line read, “And, believe me, the person who wrote those words was an authority. Her
name was Nelle Wilson Reagan. She was my mother.” Why would he make such a minor
change? Some might chalk it up to a folksy way of speaking, but even that would lend itself to
the argument that the President really was trying to regain the trust of the audience – which I’ve
contended was paramount in his thinking. The final two lines after the Scripture perform much
the same duty rhetorically: ''I know that at times all of us -- I do -- feel that perhaps in our
prayers we ask for too much. And then there are those other times when we feel that something
isn't important enough to bother God with it. Maybe we should let Him decide those things.”
Combining humility and “I” and “We” language as it applies to prayer, the President identifies
149
with the audience, effectively giving those present a glimpse into the real spiritual practices of
the most powerful man in the world. 38
The second significant point of this portion of the speech is the reading of the Old
Testament verse, Chronicles 7:14. While it happens that it is a verse that his mother noted in his
old Bible, this was clearly part of the Reagan mythology because Bentley Elliott included the
reference in his first draft. Additionally, as the Evangelical speechwriter at the White House,
Elliott was aware of the ubiquity of that particular verse whenever Evangelicals had mass prayer
gatherings (such as 1980’s “Washington for Jesus” rally). As a result, the President managed in
this section (as he had in the speech) to use two Evangelical ideological staples, the Bible and
Prayer, to create a mutual identity with his audience as a means to nurturing this part of his
political base.
The final component worth recognizing in this section of the speech worth is the
President’s mentioning of his dear old mom. Nelle Reagan was the parent whose spiritual
influence meant the most to “Ronnie,” and the sentimental and romantic notions of his
speechwriters didn’t miss a chance to play on this “family value.” Mom, who taught him the
Bible and raised him in the faith, would serve to reinforce his common religious experience and
through her put forth a shining American example about life’s possibilities when parents love
kids.
And now we’ve reached the conclusion of this speech.
Conclusion
The conclusion of Reagan’s speech is typical for the 40th President. Without knowing
how the President or Bentley Elliott were trying to connect this story to his message (it isn’t the
clearest of connections), Reagan rhetorical scholars know that military narrative is his “go to”
38
Speech Manuscript - Final, Presidential Remarks: Annual National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday, February 3 1983,
Folder National Prayer Breakfast (1), Box 73, Speechwriting Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
150
closing story. In this particular case the story paints the picture of a man willing to sacrifice
greatly for his country, in incalculably difficult physical circumstances, and yet he has the
character to be grateful for what he has and hope for tomorrow.
The war correspondent Marguerite Higgins, who received the Pulitzer Prize for
International Reporting because of her coverage of the Korean war, among all her writings had
an account one day of the Fifth Company of marines who were part of an 18,000-man force that
was in combat with a hundred thousand of the enemy. And she described an incident that took
place early, just after dawn on a very cold morning. It was 42 degrees below zero. And the weary
marines, half frozen stood by their dirty, mud-covered trucks, eating their breakfast from tin
cans. She saw one huge marine was eating cold beans with a trench knife. His clothes were
frozen stiff as a board; his face was covered with a heavy beard and crusted with mud. And one
of the little group of war correspondents who were on hand went up to him and said, "If I were
God and could grant you anything you wished, what would you most like?'' And the marine stood
there for a moment, looking down at that cold tin of beans, and then he raised his head and said,
"Give me tomorrow.''
The creation of myth is often a means of projecting oneself onto a preexisting narrative,
which was a lifestyle for Reagan when he was a Hollywood actor. Sarah Russell Hankins has
argued that the synthesis of fact and fiction was part of the Reagan rhetorical strategy in his first
Presidential victory.39 And it is not too much to surmise that President Reagan would fancy
himself a war hero of sorts – leading the battle charge to bring the Bible front and center in
American culture. Immediately after these concluding words the President descended from the
39
Sarah Russell Hankins, “Archetypal Alloy: Reagan’s Rhetorical Image,” Central States Speech Journal 34
(Spring, 1983): 33-34.
151
lectern to sign the Year of the Bible Proclamation, making official two things: First, 1983 would
be the Year of the Bible. Secondly, the President not only gathered for prayer like every
President for the three decades previous, but went further by announcing to the world that they
needed “God’s Word,” too.
The next day, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina fired off a note of thanks to
President Reagan which read in part, “Americans can be proud to have a fine Christian such as
yourself leading our Country, and we thank God for the example you set as one who desires to
honor Him in all things.”40 The same day, Carl Shipley, Republican director for Washington,
D.C. and partner of international securities law firm of Shipley, Smoak and Henry, wrote Reagan
Assistant Ed Meece to thank him for reading the Bible during the service: “The 24th Psalm was
an excellent choice for the Old Testament reading at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday.
Your participation gave the event special significance.”41 But perhaps the most telling thanks to
Ed Meese came on February 22, 1983 from The Fellowship’s Doug Coe: “Thank you so much
for your willingness to participate in the National Prayer Breakfast. Your reading from the Old
Testament was deeply meaningful to the guests and many have commented about in
particular.”42 Why so significant? Because Meese had helped the Fellowship achieve its goals,
and in so doing helped his boss, the President, accomplish his, too. The base was being nurtured
back to health in accordance with the Wirthlin Memo.
40
Letter, Strom Thurmond to Ronald Reagan (document #123575), February 4, 1983, Folder TR001, #FG006-01,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
41
Letter, Carl L. Shipley to Honorable Edwin Meese III (document #123889), February 4, 1983, Folder FG 006-01,
Box 39, WHORM Subject File Ronald Reagan Library.
42
Letter, Douglas E. Coe to Honorable Edwin Meese III (#127041), February 22, 1983, Folder FG 006-01, Box 40,
WHORM Office File, Ronald Reagan Library.
152
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS SPEECH
On March 9, 1983 the pro-Social Democratic, German newspaper the Frankfurter
Runschau reported, “The campaign for the Presidential elections in 1984 is in full swing.
Accordingly, Reagan is trying to mobilize the moral majority, which has taken its distance from
him.”1 One day earlier in Orlando, Florida, President Ronald Reagan addressed the annual
convention of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). It was the third speech the
President had made to Evangelical Christians in three months and the reverberations were felt
across Europe and behind the Iron Curtain. Britain’s The Guardian reported that the President’s
tone “recalled the early days of his Presidency and veered sharply from his recent, more
temperate comments. To a degree, of course, the speech was tailored to his Christian
fundamentalist audience…”2 Foreign journalists picked up on the intensified religious rhetoric,
yet they were unaware of how right they were about how much effort went into crafting what
would become known as “The Evil Empire Speech.”
In this chapter we’ll explore the President’s 1983 speech to the National Association of
Evangelicals. Of Reagan’s speeches made to the so-called “Religious Right,” this is by far the
most well known; it is listed often as one of Reagan’s most famous speeches.3 It is also by far
the most researched of all addresses Reagan made to Evangelicals, as was discussed earlier in the
introduction. While Paul Fessler argued that the NAE speech was purposefully crafted to curry
1
Newspaper Article, Lutz Krusche, “Reagan Tries to Mobilize Moral Majority for 1984 Election,” Frankfurter
Runschau, March 9, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 5, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
2
Harold Jackson, “Reagan Calls Moscow an Evil Empire,” The Guardian (March 9, 1983), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/mar/09/archive-1983-reagan-russia-evil-empire/print.
3
Gabrella Ferrari, “Ronald Reagan’s Top Ten Speeches and Debate Moments,” Houston Chronicle (February 5,
2011), accessed April 1, 2015, http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/02/reagans-top-ten-speeches-and-debatemoments.
153
favor with Evangelicals regarding the President’s foreign policy, I contend that it was instead an
effort to energize his political base for a reelection push that produced the heightened rhetoric of
shared ideals and therefore shared enemies. Medhurst predicted this strategy well before the
1984 election, writing in The Western Journal of Speech Communication that the Reagan
Administration would likely have to move conservative social issues “from the back burner to
the front and start to serve large rhetorical (and perhaps legislative) helpings in his effort to win
re-election. By all accounts the prime candidates for rejuvenation are school prayer and tuition
tax credits. Rhetorically, the time will be right for this part of the agenda.”4 Medhurst couldn’t
have known then what we know now for certain; namely, that Dick Wirthlin had declared to the
President that rhetorical largesse would be an absolute necessity in order to win.
As stated in previous chapters, Reagan specifically used carefully crafted language when
speaking to Evangelicals to create a mutual identity. This rhetoric sought to express to this
audience a common personal religious and moral worldview. In this chapter I will highlight two
components that led to his success in creating a shared identity through mutual ideals. First, I
will argue that the overall text of the speech proposed a very simple line of reasoning: a basic,
logical argument that enabled the President to equate both his domestic and foreign enemies as
the spiritual enemies of the National Association of Evangelicals. Put succinctly, we see this
basic structure to the speech’s argument:
Argument Introduction – You’re good and many of us politicians are, too.
Argument A - America is great because we share ideals that make us good.
Argument B - Our domestic enemies are evil because they don’t share our ideals.
Argument C - Our foreign enemies are evil because they don’t share our ideals, either.
4
Martin J. Medhurst, “Postponing the Social Agenda: Reagan’s Strategy and Tactics,” The Western Journal of
Communication, 48:3 (Summer 1984): 272.
154
Argument Conclusion - Our domestic enemies are supporting our foreign enemies, so
help me defeat them.
In other words, the overarching goal of the NAE speech was for the President to be able
to rhetorically link his domestic enemies with his foreign ones. Reagan would attempt to take
advantage of the pre-existing conservative cultural fears about Communism and then draw
substantial comparisons between American liberal Democrats and the Soviets. In the end, his
appeal to the NAE would be to help him oppose their mutual foes – both foreign and domestic.
Secondly, I will demonstrate in the subtext of the speech how the President’s editorial
changes to the final draft interjected culturally significant Christian language, which he used
exclusively with Evangelicals. This is consistent with this project’s overall theme that the
President was making a concerted effort to nurture this portion of his political base. In the case of
the NAE speech this invigoration would come through the creation of a mutual identity that
included shared ideals about what is right and wrong, and how the world should ideally be. For
instance, the President will state, “Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in
that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God.” Reagan presumes
that his audience shares his perspective that salvation comes through encounter with God and
that all who live in a totalitarian state are in a perpetual state of spiritual darkness.
The assigned speechwriter for this address was Anthony J. Dolan, a then 34-year old
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who served the Reagan Administration during both terms as a
speechwriter and advisor. However, Dolan was a Roman Catholic, not a Protestant. While he
shared a broad worldview and a base theological common ground with the President, it was
Reagan who would make additions and subtractions to the text in order to make it not only more
“his,” but more familiar to Evangelicals. Fessler’s work argued that Reagan was much more
155
involved in writing this speech than most originally believed. Dolan’s “Reagan Draft” notes
confirm this claim. The President added substantial sections to the speech and reworded others
with nuanced language for his Evangelical audience. Dolan acknowledged that this was a
particular skill set of Reagan’s, and what he termed the “first rule of speechwriting.”5 In keeping
with Reagan’s commitment to bolster the confidence of his base and energize them to join his
fight, the President would try to push the right buttons when speaking to the NAE.
The Genesis Of The NAE
As previously mentioned in Chapter Four, there were remarkable similarities between the
union of Bible-believing Dispensational revivalists and denominational conservatives that
formed the conservative Christian movements of both the early and the late 20th century. In
addition to the unlikely denominational alignments, the wartime chaos that surrounded both time
periods is another striking similarity between the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the
early 20th Century and the surge of religious conservatives in American in the 1970s and 1980s.
The religious squabbles during the first half of the century took place amidst the time periods
before and after WWI and WWII. Similarly, the turmoil of the Vietnam War and the Cold War
produced a climate that fed on fears of global cataclysm. And for conservative Protestants these
conditions produced a heightened anticipation that the Biblically prophesied end times may be
upon them. In the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 24, verse seven, Jesus hints about the conditions
present before his return, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There
will be famines and earthquakes in various places.”
5
Martin Medhurst, “Writing Speeches for Ronald Reagan: An Interview with Tony Dolan,” Rhetoric and Public
Affairs, 1-2 (1998): 250.
156
American incivility between 1960s and early 1970’s conservatives and liberals,
traditionalists and modernists, produced a reaction from fundamentalist Christians that echoed
their 1920s response. In the Vietnam era, the dispensational, revivalist traditions were
repackaged into folk music playing, hippie dress-code churches. Still, their apocalyptic message
was the same as it was in an earlier era: “The end is near.” Hal Lindsay, a rabid dispensationalist
and Pre-millenialist (who hosted his own television show on the Trinity Broadcasting Network),
wrote the 1970 New York Times best-seller The Late Great Planet Earth, which sold over 20
million copies in the two decades after it was published. Its original publisher, Zondervan, still
features the book cover description reading, “In the midst of an out-of-control generation, it
reveals a grand design that's unfolding exactly according to plan. The rebirth of Israel. The threat
of war in the Middle East. An increase in natural catastrophes. The revival of Satanism and
witchcraft.”6
It was much the same amidst the turmoil of WWI (1914-1918), a chaos that was the
catalyst and opportunity for an association of mainline evangelical and fundamentalist Christians
to make a full-scale frontal attack on modernism. WWII (1939-1945) did little to relieve the
tension between the forces of theological modernism and those of Christian orthodoxy. In fact,
the climate during and after the war may have exacerbated the sense among some conservative
Christians that the world was coming apart at the seams. In her book Millennial Dreams and
Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of Political Evangelicalism, Angela Lahr argued
that the combination of Cold War nuclear threats and the pre-millennial eschatology of
evangelicals and fundamentalists played a role in the explosion of conservative political and
theological cultural engagement in America. About nuclear weaponry she commented, “Form
one evangelical perspective, the atomic bomb materialized as evidence of biblical prophecy from
6
The Late Great Planet Earth, Book Profile, accessed April 1, 2015, http://zondervan.com/9780310277712.
157
a very unlikely source. It appeared that science, instead of disproving God’s existence, had
helped to substantiate it. Science had produced a weapon that made the disastrous predictions of
Evangelical Pre-millennialists reasonable.”7 It was during the post-WWI decade that the cultural
war escalated to new heights, with fundamentalists strategically attacking modernity on two
fronts. First, pastors and lay people engaged in battles for power and control within their
denominations. Second, culture warriors like William Jennings Bryan campaigned to ban the
teaching of Darwinism in public schools.8
As mentioned in Chapter Five, the fallout from the fundamentalist-modernist controversy
manifested itself through the middle part of the 20th century in multiple realms of American
society, including the burgeoning broadcasting industry. Hangen argued that both the NAE (in
1942) and the NRB (in 1944) were born in much the same way as the fundamentalist alliances of
the early part of the century; as reactions to perceived attacks by religious liberals. With a
common enemy in modernism, the National Association of Evangelicals represented a renewal
of interdenominational alliances.9 It was the same alliance that would manifest itself in Reagan’s
religious coalition. The NAE helped elect Reagan the first time in 1980 and he would need them
again in order to get re-elected.
There can be no overstating how empowering President Reagan’s endorsement of the
National Association of Evangelicals was to the group. For the first time in many years their
fortunes had changed and they were now political players who had the ear of the President. The
euphoria of the thrill of victory is how former Moral Majority Vice-president Cal Thomas
7
Angela Lahr, Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of Political Evangelicalism
(New York: NYU Press, 2007), 31.
8
George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 6.
9
Tona Hangen, Redeeming the Dial: Radio, Religion, and Popular Culture in America (Chapel Hill: UNC Press,
2002), 23,105, 122.
158
described the atmosphere after Reagan was first elected President.10 While the NAE had been
firmly behind the President’s conservative cultural agenda, it was not clear whether the
organization could galvanize its membership to come to Reagan’s defense as it pertained to a
nuclear weapons build up to deter a perceived Soviet threat. In the NAE’s January, 1983
newsletter the organization recognized its newfound political clout: “Because Evangelicals
comprise one of the three major segments of organized Christianity, their ultimate position is
critical. NAE is being courted from both sides. Liberals want Evangelicals to jump onto the
nuclear freeze bandwagon. Conservatives, and perhaps even the White House itself, hope that
Evangelicals will become a major religious bloc supporting the President’s position.”11
Some conservative theologians found the political involvement of this group of religious
conservatives odd because the largest subset of the NAE was a group that historically and
theologically was not optimistic about political engagement or cultural transformation. More
than one academic wondered how a group of fundamentalists could reconcile the rhetoric of “this
world is not my home” with fighting against the apocalyptic evil through their participation in
politics and inevitably take back the nation and world for God.12 Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller
Seminary commented that this change in views was abrupt: “Suddenly this is a chosen nation,
founded on Christian principles, and we have to rescue it from these forces. So now we’re no
longer the minority waiting for Jesus to return, we’re the citizens of God’s nation and we’re
going to take it back from those who are trying to turn it into Babylon.”13 Historian George
10
Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, Blinded by Might (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 22.
“Nuclear Arms Debate,” Insight – The Monthly Newsletter of the National Association of Evangelicals V:1
(January, 1983): 2.
12
Gary North, “The Eschatological Crisis of the Moral Majority,” Christian Reconstruction (Jan/Feb, 1981).
13
Richard Mouw, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 19, 2014.
11
159
Marsden similarly asked how a revivalist movement that steered clear of politics became perhaps
best known for being a politically powerful American force?14
However, the American religious conservative holy war of the early 1980s wasn’t simply
being waged domestically. The issue of military preparedness was front and center in the Cold
War conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, debated around the globe and centered
around the tensions with communism. In Reagan’s first term as President, the Nuclear Freeze
movement had garnered enormous support in virtually all American religious groups (Roman
Catholic, Orthodox, Liberal Protestant and Jewish), except for Protestant Evangelicals. However,
there were some corners of Evangelicalism (including Mouw and other moderates) who were
beginning to speak out against nuclear proliferation, particularly when it was being cloaked in
the language of spiritual warfare, Biblical prophecy about the end of the world, and further
confused by the rhetoric of fighting to take back culture for Christ.
“Did Reagan intentionally use apocalyptic language?” Mouw reflected. “Definitely! And
that was fed in part by the Bible prophecy movement. That tendency to say ‘Russia is the AntiChrist’ and take the apocalyptic language of the book of Revelation and impose it on whole
systems and cultures and peoples, I think was very dangerous.”15 It was this type of hysteria that
the Soviets objected to. On January 7, 1983, the Moscow newspaper Pravda wrote that the world
would not believe the absurd slander being propagated by the United States against the U.S.S.R.
“However hard the imperialists are trying to distort the Soviet Union’s domestic and
international policy, the truth about its great achievements, its honest and constructive peace
policy speaks for itself. It is for this reason that the peoples do not believe American
14
15
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 232.
Ibid.
160
propaganda.”16 The New York Times would report the perspective of Georgi A. Arbatov, a
leading Soviet expert of the time, who said that the frenzied calls for a crusade against the USSR
was downright medieval.17
A Christianity Today editorial in January 1983 took a moderate position that “America
should rely upon a limited nuclear defense while working desperately toward the goal of a
nuclear freeze-and then a nuclear cutback, and then an outlawing of nuclear weapons.”18
However, groups like the Moral Majority had previously declared that their purposes for
existence included the support of the state of Israel and Jewish people everywhere and a strong
national defense to deter war.19 These organizations were encouraged in their support of military
spending by politically conservative Christian intellectuals like Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer was
for a short time a student of J. Gresham Machen’s at Westminster Theological Seminary and
then a disciple of Presbyterian fundamentalist Carl McIntire. In the 1950s Schaeffer went his
own way and established the L’Abri Fellowship study center in Switzerland.20 His 1981
“Christian Manifesto” suggested that there existed in American culture a struggle between
Christians and secularists who were attempting to engineer a change that would eliminate the
foundation of faith upon which the nation was built.21
As the designated scholar of the Christian Right, Schaeffer saw war as a means of
extending Christian love to oppressed peoples around the world, as the coalition of nations did
by fighting against Germany in WWII. In 1982 Schaeffer addressed a room full of conservative
16
Newspaper Article, “Pravda Says U.S. Propaganda Not Believed,” Moscow TASS in English, January 7, 1983,
Nuclear Freeze Folder (8 of 8), Box OA9422, David Gergen Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
17
Newspaper Article, John F. Burns, “Soviet Rebuts ‘Focus of Evil’ Speech,” The New York Times, March 18,
1983, Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
18
Kenneth S. Kantzer, “What Shall We Do About the Nuclear Problem?” Christianity Today (January 21, 1983), 11.
19
Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, 38.
20
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 245.
21
Steven P. Miller, The Age of Evangelicalism: America’s Born-Again Years (New York: Oxford University Press,
2014), 69.
161
Evangelical politicians with these words, “I would say that from my study of the Scripture, to not
do what can be done for those in the power of those who automatically and logically oppress is
nothing less than lack of Christian love. This is why I am not a pacifist. I am not a pacifist
because pacifism in this poor world in which we live, this lost world, means that we desert the
people who need our greatest help.” 22
Leading up to his NAE speech in Orlando, the President was being lambasted in the press
for his escalation of the nuclear arms race. As well, religious leaders from all manner of faiths
involved with the Freeze movement were seemingly steering the national and international
debate and challenging the President to halt the creation and spread of nuclear weapons.23 The
U.S. House of Representatives had in 1982 attempted to pass Nuclear Freeze legislation, but it
was narrowly defeated. The Christian Science Monitor commented in the aftermath, “The
nuclear freeze may have lost, but its near victory in the House of Representatives last week
shows that the movement that has swept through town meetings from New England to Colorado
has clout. Nowhere is that message clearer than in the Reagan administration, which gave little
attention to the freeze vote until the final days. Then, a clearly alarmed White House launched a
massive last-minute effort to defeat a freeze resolution that it said would tie the hands of
Americans negotiating arms control with the Soviets.”24 The National Council of Churches (a
conglomerate of liberal and Protestant mainline denominations) had strongly condemned the
President’s proposed escalation of military spending, and when Reagan and Dolan began
22
Speech Text, Francis Schaeffer, “The Secular Humanistic World View Versus the Christian World View and the
Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness,” (June 22, 1982): 12, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 5,
Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
23
Newspaper Article, Charles Austin, “Religious Leaders Chide Reagan Talk,” National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
24
Julia Malone, “Despite House Vote, Nuclear Freeze May Prove Potent Come November,” The Christian Science
Monitor (August 9, 1982), accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0809/080948.html.
162
working on the speech in the weeks before the NAE convention, they clearly had in mind
answering these critics.25
The Invitation To The NAE Convention
This speech to the NAE would be the third time that President Reagan had addressed the
group as the Commander in Chief. His two recent speeches to other Evangelical groups in the
preceding weeks went very well, achieving their goals on multiple levels. In a White House staff
memo from Special Assistant Dee Jepsen to White House Speechwriting Chief Ben Elliot, she
stated that the January, 2013 National Religious Broadcasters speech “is still being talked about
and replayed on National Christian Television and radio – cited as the best speech ever made by
any President.”26 She added that upcoming NAE address provided a unique opportunity to build
on strong stands he had taken in the NRB speech. The official invitation from NAE Director
Robert Dugan was sent on December 3, 1982 and was even more direct with the President: “We
would be delighted to have you address us on whatever subject you wish. If it is not overly
presumptuous, however, let us suggest the possibility of articulating your position on national
defense. Some well-known Evangelical voices are attempting to draw evangelicals into support
on a nuclear freeze. Your persuasive voice would have a marked impact upon the evangelical
community.”27 That same day Dugan wrote letters to Reagan Chief of Staff James Baker and
Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver. In these identical notes, Dugan wrote, “We believe that
an address to NAE could be strategic politically, were the President to articulate his position on
national defense. The National Council of Churches has already positionalized itself on the
25
Richard Reeves, President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 139.
Memo, Dee Jepsen and Morton Blackwell to Red Cavaney, February 18, 1983, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 7, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
27
Letter from Robert P. Dugan to President Ronald Reagan, December 3, 1982, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
26
163
left.”28 As was the case 40 years earlier, the NAE found itself squaring off politically with the
more liberal collection of American clergy.
In the weeks leading up to the “Evil Empire Speech,” Dee Jepsen and Morton Blackwell
wrote to Red Cavaney suggesting speech content for the Public Liaison Deputy Assistant to pass
along. In this February 18, 1983 memo the two would specifically encourage including
extraordinarily incendiary language about the abortion fight: “At the NAE convention, he should
call for hearings in Congress on infanticide, which is a step beyond abortion and is intensifying
the debate and concern in the area of the value of human life.”29 This evidence supports my
claim that the primary purpose of the speech wasn’t to forward the Foreign Policy agenda of the
Reagan Administration as much as it was a coordinated effort to inflame the Evangelical base.
The sense of urgency was even evident in this same season as the White House
transitioned between Deputy Assistants for Public Liaison. When Douglas Holladay was brought
on staff in late 1982, Charles W. Jarvis (a future Focus on the Family Executive Vice-President
who at the time was serving as Legislative Director for Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA), wrote
an enthusiastic if not pressing note of introduction: “You have six months to: Solidify friends;
attract potential friends; and disarm potential enemies (or at least reduce their impact).”30 Does
this language sound familiar? It should, because it contains the sentiments expressed by Dick
Wirthlin. The Reagan team was now officially in campaign mode, and the Wirthlin Memo was
the catalyst to zealously work to get the Evangelicals excited about re-electing the President. The
speech to the NAE would throw fuel onto the fire in historic ways.
28
Letter from Robert P. Dugan to James Baker, December 3, 1982, Folder X, Box X, WHORM File, Reagan
Presidential Library.
29
Memo, Dee Jepsen and Morton Blackwell to Red Cavaney, February 18, 1983, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 7, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
30
Letter, Charles W. Jarvis to J. Douglas Holladay, Folder Evangelicals, Box 12, Holiday, J. Douglas Files, Reagan
Presidential Library.
164
The “Evil Empire” Speech
At 3:04 p.m. on the afternoon of March 8, 1983, President Reagan spoke to the annual
convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, an audience of over 1,200 assembled in
the Citrus Crown Ballroom at the Sheraton Twin Towers Hotel in Orlando, Florida. The speech
itself would last just over 30 minutes, and as was always his case, this President launched into
his address by merging his warmth and humor in an attempt to charm the audience in front of
him.
Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in many
ways. And believe me, for us they've made all the difference. The other day in the East Room of
the White House at a meeting there, someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out
there who were praying for the President. And I had to say, ``Yes, I am. I've felt it. I believe in
intercessionary prayer.'' But I couldn't help but say to that questioner after he'd asked the
question that -- or at least say to them that if sometimes when he was praying he got a busy
signal, it was just me in there ahead of him. [Laughter] I think I understand how Abraham
Lincoln felt when he said, ``I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming
conviction that I had nowhere else to go.''
The correct word to have used would have been “intercessory” prayer, not
intercessionary. The President rewrote this portion of the speech introduction to try to introduce
a term that Evangelicals used to characterize the type of prayer that is centered on the needs of
others. Unfortunately, the President wrote the word down incorrectly in his draft corrections, and
it was left as is by Tony Dolan, who we can speculate as a Catholic was unfamiliar with the term.
The real emphasis of speaking about prayer would be the President attempting to equate his
165
contemporary struggles with those of Abraham Lincoln. Rhetorically the reference to Lincoln
was designed likely to demonstrate that the heritage of the United States included many
Presidents (including our favorites) who were religious. By invoking Lincoln’s struggle in a
Civil War that was largely a culture war of ideals, Reagan wished to have the audience see him
in the same light as the historical hero. Interestingly, speechwriter Dolan referenced similarities
between Lincoln and Reagan in the Washington media’s responses to the speech: “They thought
Lincoln was sort of a hopeless case as a leader-told a lot of funny stories, spoke in anecdotessome of the things they said about Reagan.”31
Romanticizing the presidency was something that was characteristic of Ronald Reagan
speeches. Narration, anecdote and myth are rhetorical devices recognized as Reagan staples by
scholars like Walter Fisher: “America needs heroes and rituals, presidents and elections, to
signify her whole meaning – moralistic and materialistic; she requires symbols her citizens can
identify with and gain sanction from for what they are as individuals and what they represent as a
nation.”32 It was Reagan’s hope that through his rhetoric he could connect his legacy with the
heroic achievements of Lincoln. William Lewis writes similarly: “Reagan portrays American
history as a continuing struggle for progress against great obstacles imposed by economic
adversity, barbaric enemies, or Big Government. It is a story with great heroes – Washington,
Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt – with great villains – the monarchs of pre-Revolutionary Europe,
the Depression, the Communists, the Democrats – and with a great theme – the rise of freedom
and economic progress. It is a story that is sanctified by God and validated by the American
31
Medurst, “Writing Speeches for Ronald Reagan,” 252.
Walter R. Fisher, “Romantic Democracy, Ronald Reagan, and Presidential Heroes,” The Western Journal of
Speech Communication 46 (Summer 1982): 310.
32
166
experience.”33 The President would take an early opportunity in the introduction of this speech to
identify the ideals of Lincoln with his own and with his Evangelical Christian audience. He
would in later paragraphs make similar appeals to the founding fathers and George Washington.
Argument Introduction – We Politically Conservative Christians Are All Good.
Reagan would now begin the transition to the body of his speech by making a joke about
a politician and clergyman that simultaneously arrive in heaven. The minister appeared before
Saint Peter and was given modest quarters, whereas the politician was given royal
accommodations because he was the only one of his kind to have made it through the pearly
gates. The ministers laughed hysterically, and the President used the shtick to make the assertion
that he and other politicians were on the NAE’s team.
But I don't want to contribute to a stereotype. So, I tell you there are a great many Godfearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And, yes, we
need your help to keep us ever mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the
public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to
freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom
prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.
He said it: he and other leaders in Washington, D.C. are “God-fearing.” This begins the
section of the speech where the President is going to state the ideals of the NAE and then declare
that he shares and practices them. Reagan states that the American ideal is freedom, and that
freedom is only possible when its people ask for God’s blessings and humbly accept them. As
33
William F. Lewis, “Telling America’s Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency,” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 72 (1987): 282.
167
previously stated, Reagan’s first argument would be that his audience is what has kept America
good and safe. By adding subtext to the speech to identify one of them, the President is now in a
position to say exactly what he wants them to hear (“we have the same ideals”) and get them to
do exactly what he wants them to do. The introduction completes the first 1/7 of the speech.
And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de
Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness
and genius -- and he said: ``Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits
aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. . . America
is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.'' Well, I'm
pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only
through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this
perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.
Argument A: America is great because we share ideals that make us good.
Dolan had penned the observation from Alexis de Tocqueville, but Reagan immediately
adds his edits to the quote. Before we make the connection between the argument that America is
great because it is good and the ministers being good, it would be critical to recognize that the
line from Tocqueville has been challenged as inauthentic. John J. Pitney, Jr. wrote in the Weekly
Standard that the line does not appear in Democracy in America or anywhere else in the corpus
of Tocqueville’s writing. According to Pitney it was Reagan’s speechwriters who carelessly
168
checked the source of the passage. Once unchallenged by its use in the Evil Empire speech, the
Reagan staff used it several more times without any specific reference.34
That piece of potential misinformation aside, the President was making the point that
America was good because of its churches and specifically because of how its churches were
aflame with righteousness. Interestingly, Reagan edited Dolan’s quote of Tocqueville, but neither
was accurate. However, Reagan did make one change to Dolan’s text that was significant: the
original draft said “I am so pleased to be here today with the people who are in the business of
keeping America great by keeping her good.”35 Reagan changed the wording to say “you”
instead of “the people” and eliminated the four words, “in the business of.” Hence, the phrase
then read, “…you, who are keeping American great by keeping her good.” Attributing the
keeping of America “good” to the NAE would make the President’s point: America was good
because they were. He would add to reinforce the point next.
I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that
sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods,
communities -- the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect
for the rule of law under God. Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or
at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day
secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based.
No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most
34
John J. Pitney, Jr., “The Tocqueville Fraud,” The Weekly Standard (November 13, 1995), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.tocqueville.c-span.nsatc.net/pitney.htm.
35
Draft of Presidential Address to the National Association of Evangelicals (March 5, 1983, Noon): 3, Folder
National Association of Evangelicals Orlando, FL 3/8/83 (1 of 3), Box 85, Speechwriting Research Office Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
169
Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've
taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation.
Ideal We Share #1: We believe in God. This section of the speech was completely
rewritten by the President. Of the nearly 3,900 words in the speech, Reagan used 483 words of
his own in this “A” section of the speech to detail his apologetic for belief in God, for his moral
stand on abortion, and for his fight against the intrusive nature of centralized government. In
speaking of his commitment to the “rule of law under God,” the President is making a critical
transition statement from the first of two ideals that the President would put forth as making
America great, two specific beliefs that he and the NAE held dear. And while the above words
are simply the first paragraph of this section, they contain the essence of his argument for shared
ideals of faith in God and freedom from tyranny. There is one buzzword in this first paragraph
that would’ve surely merited the attention of the NAE. While stating that his belief system puts
“us” (inclusive language) out of step with prevailing attitudes, the President shows how with it
he is by using the terms “modern-day secularism,” a phrase that had its genesis in the teachings
of Francis Schaeffer.
“Secular Humanism” was the buzzword used in the Reagan-era by a wide range of
Evangelicals and Fundamentalist Christians to describe a worldview devoid of God.
The
designation “Secular Humanist” was popularized by a 1979 film Schaeffer produced entitled
“Whatever Happened to the Human Race.”36 Contained in the NAE speech files for Tony Dolan
was a copy of a June 22, 1982 speech made by Schaeffer to a star-studded collection of
conservatives. The host committee of this gathering at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel included
White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker, Secretary of Energy James Watt, Reagan Advisor
Edwin Meese, Senator Strom Thurmond, Congressman Jack Kemp, and syndicated columnist
36
Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 245.
170
George Will. Schaeffer’s speech that evening was entitled, “The Secular Humanist World View
versus The Christian World View and The Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness.”
As mentioned previously, Francis Schaeffer was considered the intellectual father of the
so-called religious right, a claim that was bolstered by his son Frank’s 2008 autobiography Crazy
for God, in which the younger Schaeffer claims that he and his father were the principle
architects of the movement.37 In the speech given to elite conservatives in the summer of 1982,
the elder Schaeffer explained his logic for belief in God and argued against what he termed the
“final reality” being taught in schools and the framework of much of the writing of the day. “The
real issue is the question of final reality. The difference lies in what the final reality is: Either the
infinite-personal God to whom not everything is the same, or merely material or energy which is
impersonal, totally neutral to any value system or any interest in man as man.” He went on to
say, “So you have relative personal values and arbitrary law, and you will also have the loss of
any intrinsic value of the individual person. This is the reason that today in this country we
accept what would have been an abomination just ten years ago, and that is abortion growing on
into infanticide, the killing of babies after they are born if they don’t not come up to someone’s
stand of value, and on into the drift toward euthanasia of the aged.”38 These and other Schaeffer
themes present themselves in Reagan’s speech to the NAE. And once again, in the preparation of
the NAE speech, the word “infanticide” finds its way into the research material. However, the
primary point the President would make is that America is good and safe because of its first
ideal: It believes in God. And the attendees at this particular speech are clearly identified as
being partners with the Commander in Chief as he battles the secularists on the American left.
37
Frank Schaeffer, Crazy for God (New York: Da Capo Press, 2008), ii.
Speech Text, Francis Schaeffer, “The Secular Humanistic World View Versus the Christian World View and the
Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness,” (June 22, 1982): 2-4, National Association of Evangelicals Folder
5, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
38
171
The final 101 words of this extensive personal treatise transitions the President easily into
the second ideal that makes America good; that he and his audience believe that Government
exists to serve the people and not rule them.
Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can
be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological
harm? And isn't it the parents' right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from
making mistakes that may affect their entire lives? Many of us in government would like to know
what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We're going to fight in the
courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washingtonbased bureaucrats and social engineers.
Ideal We Share #2: We hate intrusive centralized government. The President refers to
the government as “social engineers.” The implication is that liberals in government want to use
the power of the government to control the lives of the American people and eliminate the rights
of parents and families. By making parental notification for minors seeking abortions his chief
example of the elimination of family rights, Reagan has painted a rhetorical picture that was
intended to frighten Evangelicals. The portrait drawn is that of a large central government that
denies the Almighty’s rule of law and worse yet is trying to persuade your daughters to get
abortions in direct contravention of the command not to kill. It is entirely possible at this point
that the President is capitalizing on the fears Evangelicals had as it pertained to China’s abortion
policy. Two years later in 1985 the President would attempt to cut off U.N. Funds to communist
China because of their supposed forced abortion policy. Chinese President Li Xiannian would
172
respond by calling the allegations of forced abortion and infanticide a "total fabrication."39
Whether addressing China by inference or not, according to this NAE speech text, the U.S.
government is big, powerful, and without morals.
Creating a moral panic would be critical to get the response Reagan was shooting for in
the NAE speech. According to scholar James Bennett this creation was part and parcel of the
President’s rhetorical strategy throughout his presidency. Later in 1983 when addressing an arms
control agreement he would use a similar methodology that, while perhaps not intentionally
devious, creates an exaggerated potentiality for disaster which in turn reduces the likelihood that
the audience (particularly a friendly one) would question the premise. Bennett reflected that
crisis speeches are founded upon the appearance of reliable information, but also require a fast
moving presentation of the information. Cramming complex subject matter into a 30-minute
speech lessens the capacity for an audience to detect deception, for not even political enemies
would assume the President of the United States would outright lie.40 For Evangelicals the
narrative was consistent with what they perceived to be the role of government in social
engineering since the 1960s. As Andrew Hogue so ably demonstrates in Stumping God, Reagan
masterfully identified with those Evangelicals who considered themselves a “silent majority”
having the liberal cultural agenda (the elimination of prayer in schools and the legalization of
abortion) forced upon them by government bureaucrats.41 The President would now transition to
his second argument, that there are individual politicians who embody this liberal agenda.
39
UPI Staff, “Abortions Not Forced, China President Says” Los Angeles Times (July 11, 1985), accessed June 1,
2015, http://articles.latimes.com/print/1985-07-11/news/mn-8452_1_family-planning-policy.
40
James R. Bennett, “Double Think and the Rhetoric of Crisis: President Reagan’s October 22, 1983 speech on
‘Arms Reduction’” Oldspeak/Newspeak: Rhetorical Transformations (1985): 58.
41
Andrew Hogue, Stumping God: Reagan, Carter, and the Invention of a Political Faith (Waco: Baylor University
Press, 2012), 54.
173
But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to
water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy.
Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.
When our Founding Fathers passed the first amendment, they sought to protect churches from
government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between
government and the concept of religious belief itself.
Argument B: Our domestic enemies are evil because they don’t share our ideals.
As Schaeffer instructed the power elite of Washington, the original intent of the first
amendment of the constitution was principally not to protect government from religion but
protect religious freedom of expression from government intrusion. “The First Amendment, of
course has been stood on its head,” Schaeffer declared. “Today it has been turned over by a
humanistic society, the Civil Liberties Union, and so on, and the First Amendment is made to say
the very opposite. That is, that Christian values are not allowed to be brought in into contact
with the governmental process.
The terror is, that in the last forty years increasingly
government, and especially the courts, have been the vehicle to force this other world view on
the total population.”42 The President and his speechwriters were now making the connection
between a central government that was hostile to religion and the Democrats on Capitol Hill;
they were the ones who appointed the liberal Supreme Court justices who are forcing their
agenda on religious Americans.
42
Speech Text, Francis Schaeffer, “The Secular Humanistic World View Versus the Christian World View and the
Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness,” (June 22, 1982): 6, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 5,
Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
174
The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation. And the Members
of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the schoolchildren of the
United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court Justices and Congressmen.
Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools.
Already this session, there's growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am calling on
the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray. Perhaps some of you read
recently about the Lubbock school case, where a judge actually ruled that it was unconstitutional
for a school district to give equal treatment to religious and nonreligious student groups, even
when the group meetings were being held during the students' own time. The first amendment
never intended to require government to discriminate against religious speech.
According to the President, one of the ways that our domestic enemies use centralized
government is to restrict the religious practices of children. The Lubbock school case had
become a lightning rod for conservatives, giving them a concrete example of government
overreach into religious freedoms. On December 10, 1982 The White House sent a referral to the
Justice Department forwarding correspondence from Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.
Falwell asked the Reagan Administration to submit a “Friend of the Court” brief in defense of
the religious groups.43 An internal White House Memo sent ahead of the NAE Convention
pointed out the importance of this issue to Evangelicals and suggested it be a central part of the
speech. Jepsen and Blackwell wrote, “The NAE has been very concerned about the Lubbock,
Texas case where a Federal Court of Appeals judged as unconstitutional a school district policy
grading equal treatment to religious and nonreligious student groups meeting during non-
43
White House Office Referral to Brad Reynolds at the Department of Justice (December 10,1982): Folder RM 020
Prayers – Prayer Periods (104001-130000), Box 3, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
175
instructional time.”44 Speechwriter Dolan was not only aware of these events, but received a
letter from NAE President Robert Dugan eleven days before the speech reminding him to include
the word “voluntary” when speaking of school prayer, so as to quiet some objections that
Evangelicals were pressing for compulsory prayer.45 Dolan didn’t include the language, even in
the early drafts of the speech.
However, there is an interesting line in this section of Dolan’s speech draft that President
Reagan eliminated from the final version. In the speech given to the NAE, this paragraph ended
with the sentence, “The first amendment never intended to require government to discriminate
against religious speech.” In Dolan’s draft there was previously the wording, “You can see,
can’t you, how the first amendment has been stood on its head.”46 If this sounds familiar that’s
because it’s a verbatim quote of Francis Schaeffer’s aforementioned June 22, 1982 speech
(which, again, was found in the Dolan speech research files for the NAE address).
More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of 50
States statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives
of up to 1 and 1/2 million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will
some day pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can
be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness must be protected. You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many,
and, indeed, I'm sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect
44
Memo, Dee Jepsen and Morton Blackwell to Red Cavaney, February 18, 1983, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 7, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
45
Letter, Robert P. Dugan to Anthony R. Dolan, February 25, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 2,
Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
46
Speech Draft of Presidential Address to the National Association of Evangelicals (March 5, 1983, Noon): 8,
Folder National Association of Evangelicals Orlando, FL 3/8/83 (1 of 3), Box 85, Speechwriting Research Office
Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
176
for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would
ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life -- infanticide or mercy
killing.
A second way that the President intended to show that his domestic enemies use
Government power to make our country bad is by virtue of abortion rights laws. Reagan edited
the Dolan draft to rephrase the blaming of the Supreme Court for its action wiping off the books
50 state laws protecting unborn children. Then the President inserted his own familiar reasoning
regarding the burden of proof being on those who would say an unborn child isn’t alive.
Medhurst refers to the line as arguing from similitude and reasoning in the hypothetical.47 By
stating that unless and until it can be proven an unborn child isn’t a living entity, the President
gives the fetus equivalent Constitutional rights of any living American human being.
The final sentence of this paragraph contains two elements of rhetoric specifically
designed to connect with Evangelical leaders in attendance. The first is a change whereby the
President edited the draft language from “You may remember that when abortion on demand
began many religious leaders warned…” to “many, and, indeed, I'm sure many of you,
warned…” This adaptation gives credit to ministers in attendance that they were correct in their
initial analysis of the potential cultural devastation. This is an important change because it
established credibility in the minds of the NAE, giving them a greater capacity to process the
issues put forth that day, and cause to follow their moral instincts about how right they are, and
go forward to confidently stand with the President. The second part of this particular sentence
that merits notice is the obedient inclusion of the word “infanticide” in the speech text, used to
describe the slippery slope that began with abortion. Not only was this twice documented as
encouraged language to be included in the address, the President is arguing this before the NAE:
47
Martin Medhurst, “Postponing the Social Agenda: Reagan’s Strategy and Tactics,” 270.
177
because you were right about abortion the first time, let me introduce this notion that it will
eventually lead to infanticide and mercy killing, and you can be sure that this will happen. If you
don’t oppose this then we will have a national moral catastrophe on our hands.
But the
Commander in Chief wasn’t going to leave them in this state of moral panic; he wanted to
further build their confidence as his Christian soldiers.
Now, I'm sure that you must get discouraged at times, but you've done better than you
know, perhaps. There's a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional
values that have been the bedrock of America's goodness and greatness. One recent survey by a
Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were far more religious than the
people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief in God and a huge
majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives. And another study has
found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of adultery, teenage sex,
pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a deep reverence for the
importance of family ties and religious belief.
After reiterating that the traditional spiritual values they share have formed the bedrock
of America’s goodness and greatness, the final description that Reagan was going to make about
his domestic enemies was that they don’t share the ideal of faith in God. The President assumes
an empathetic tone about their mutual potential for discouragement about the country’s direction.
In response to this sense of discouragement, Reagan offers assurance that Evangelicals are
making a difference. By trotting out generic statistics about American belief in God, the
President accomplished the dual task of encouraging his audience that they appear to be in the
mainstream, implying that the majority of Americans support his conservative cultural agenda.
178
By logical extension, the President suggested that a small minority of American liberal
politicians were not part of the majority of America that prizes family values – “our” ideals of
faith in God and morality. The NAE audience was left to infer (and not question Reagan’s logic)
that there exists somewhere in Washington, D.C. a group of powerful, liberal people who
approve of and promote adultery, teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And what
the Evangelical leaders seemed by their applause to agree with the President about is that this
vocal minority of which the President conjectured had no reverence for family or religion.
And we’ve crossed the halfway point in the Evil Empire Speech.
Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I've talked about is
based on a positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country's
accomplishments and record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to
perfect man. We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call
the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin. There is sin and
evil in the world, and we're enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our
might.
As a transition from his first two points of argumentation to his final one, Reagan issues a
call to arms and simultaneously introduces the first use of the word evil. With an appeal to
Scripture (see Chapter 3 for that significance), the President tells the NAE that they have a
mandate from God to oppose evil. He’s setting them up for the logical conclusion that all of their
collective political enemies are evil or promoting evil and must be opposed. What makes the
final sentence of this paragraph significant is that for the first time in the Triad of speeches
179
analyzed, the President boldly invokes “the Lord Jesus” in a way other than quoting Jesus calling
people to love others.
At many points in this work we have demonstrated that it was in Reagan’s political
interest to be as inclusive as he could be in using religious rhetoric (see Chapter 2). In his speech
to the National Religious Broadcasters he waxed eloquently about unity amongst all believers in
God, while being careful to not alienate Jewish listeners: “And all of us, as Protestants,
Catholics, and Jews, have a special responsibility to remember our fellow believers who are
being persecuted in other lands. We're all children of Abraham. We're children of the same
God.” In the same speech he does mention Jesus once in tandem with quoting from the Gospel of
John.48 But the NRB speech had only one largely poetic mention of Jesus while proclaiming the
comfort one could find in him. In his speech to the National Prayer Breakfast there was also only
one mention of the name Jesus, and this in reference to Christ’s greatest command to love your
neighbor as yourself. Accordingly, there was only one specific use of the name Jesus in the NAE
speech, even though the audience (unlike the religious broadcasters or the prayer breakfast) was
only comprised of Protestant Evangelical Christians. In the same way that the Motion Picture
Association of America has a policy of allowing only one non-sexual use of the “f-word” per
PG-13 film, this actor turned President is apparently held to one “J-word” use per speech.
What makes Reagan’s invoking of Jesus’ name interesting in the NAE speech is that,
unlike in his previous two speeches where Jesus was encouraging his hearers to love others, the
President is using “the Lord Jesus” to call his comrades to fight evil. And that evil was embodied
in people who don’t share Reagan and the NAE’s collective ideals of belief in God and nonintrusive central government. And Reagan genuinely believed in the concept of evil, as Dolan
48
Speech Manuscript - Presidential Address to the National Religious Broadcasters (January 31, 1983): Folder
SP715 (National Religious Broadcasters, 01/31/1983) 1/2, Box 190, SP-SPEECHES, WHORM Subject File, Ronald
Reagan Library.
180
points out: “Reagan came from heartland America. He had a mother who taught him the Bible.
He was a deeply and profoundly religious in this sense – it was how he looked at the world. To
him, the good versus evil struggle was how he looked at the world.”49 Rhetorically speaking, it
was important to introduce the word “evil” into the discussion before turning his attention to
foreign enemies. If the President, as I argue in this chapter, is going to rhetorically link his
domestic opponents with his foreign ones, he would need to sum up his argument thus far by
calling the supposed wrongs he’s pointed out as evil. While this speech became known as “The
Evil Empire Speech,” the first uses of the word evil were in reference to the activities of
Reagan’s political opponents within the United States.
And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as President,
in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders
have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further
their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their
guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural
ideas -- that's their name for religion -- or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is
entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for
the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
Argument C: Our foreign enemies are evil because they don’t share our ideals, either.
And the first evidence that the communists don’t share the President’s ideals is their
declaration of atheism. Dolan’s research folder contained copies of V.I. Lenin’s selected works,
one of which has a bracketed notation that is used in this section to provide the heft needed to
argue the Soviet rejection of religion as a basis for morality. Lenin wrote, “We reject any
49
Martin Medhurst, “Writing Speeches for Ronald Reagan,” 248.
181
morality based on extra-human and extra class concepts.” He continues, “We say that our
morality is entirely subordinated to the interest of the proletariat’s class struggle.”50 This analysis
of the Soviet Union’s worldview was accurate, but the significance of the President’s use of them
is how he connects them to his administration’s overall agenda.
The prevailing fear in the country was not unique to Reagan, but he had been an
outspoken anti-communist for decades. In his autobiography he proudly recalls that some
considered him a “one-man battalion” opposing the communist attempt to infiltrate Hollywood.51
In February of 1981, Time produced a side bar article entitled “On Soviet Morality,” which was
also discovered amongst Tony Dolan’s NAE speech research at the Reagan Archives. In it they
quote Reagan saying of the Soviets: “They don’t subscribe to our sense of morality; they don’t
believe in an afterlife; they don’t believe in a God or a religion.” Then the article proceeds to
make the President’s case by quoting past party leaders Khrushchev and Brezhnev.52 As the
President begins to paint a picture of the U.S.S.R. that looks very similar to how he describes
American “secularists,” he begins by echoing his concerns about values and ideals that are not
rooted in God. In this first way he has rhetorically linked his domestic and foreign enemies.
Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they
preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its
eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
50
Tony Dolan Speech Research, V.I. Lenin: Selected Works: 613, Folder National Association of Evangelicals
Orlando, FL 3/8/83 (3 of 3), Box 86, Speechwriting Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
51
Ronald Reagan, An American Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), 114.
52
“On Soviet Morality,” Time (February 16, 1981), accessed April 15, 2015,
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954653,00.html.
182
The second way the President was going to demonstrate a symbiotic relationship between
his domestic and foreign enemies is by declaring how the U.S.S.R. is by definition big,
centralized government. More importantly, they take the “religion” of their state so seriously that
Reagan uses the term “preach” to describe their public proclamation of its supremacy. To say
“preach” to a group largely composed of preachers would obviously be effective rhetoric. But
the call to pray for those in darkness so they can know the God of the light is literally speaking
the language of the Evangelical Christian church. For the Evangelical, particularly the leadership
of the NAE, “salvation” doesn’t simply mean deliverance from a totalitarian state but a spiritual
rebirth made possible through a personal experience with God through Jesus Christ. “Salvation”
is as loaded a term as exists in Evangelicalism.
But the key portion of this paragraph is the first linguistic salvo fired across the Atlantic
in this speech: Reagan’s declaration that the Soviets were the focus of evil in the modern world.
While many members of the NAE would concur with that assessment, more moderate
Evangelicals like Richard Mouw were concerned with the rhetoric: ““I was really upset by the
Evil Empire speech, but in retrospect I think it did a lot of good. I think Reagan was a hero in
terms of the Cold War. But I don’t like the rhetoric, though. G.K. Chesterton said it is bad to
worship false Gods, but it’s also bad to set up false demons – and I think there was and is a
demonization tendency that Evangelicals have.”53 Much of Reagan’s good versus evil language
was perceived as apocalyptic in nature, and for good reason. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon
(who as a reporter had covered the President dating back to when he was California’s Governor)
recounted the 1960s beginnings of Reagan’s fascination with the book of Revelation, Biblical
53
Richard Mouw, Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 19, 2014.
183
prophecy and the end of the world.54 Cannon isn’t alone in documenting Reagan’s interest in
“eschatology,” and the influence that Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth had on his thinking.
As the President understood things, it was altogether possible that Russia was going to be
revealed as the Anti-Christ of the end times.55 Seeing them in this role could only have
emboldened Reagan’s fervor to fight the communists, and during the Reagan era the
predominant popular Evangelical teaching on the subject parroted this view. Angela Lahr
contends that this interpretation of Biblical end times prophecy (known as pre-millennialism)
during the Cold War era fueled anti-communism.56 In the case of the NAE speech there was a
clear implication being made that the U.S.S.R. was a prime candidate for the Anti-Christ.
Hence, good Americans would do what was necessary to defeat this evil. Having made the case
that the Soviets didn’t share the NAE’s and Reagan’s ideals of a small centralized government
and belief in God, the President would turn his attention once again to those domestic enemies
who opposed his plan to defeat the Communists by escalating military spending (including
nuclear weaponry).
So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position
of military and moral inferiority. You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his
best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals,
I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves
above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive
impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby
remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.
54
Lou Cannon, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Public Affairs, 1991), 247-248.
Steven P. Miller, The Age of Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 47.
56
Angela Lahr, Millennial Dream and Apocalyptic Nightmares (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 81.
55
184
Concluding Argument: Our domestic enemies are supporting our foreign enemies, so help
me defeat them.
While the President was careful as always not to attribute the error of his domestic
enemies to ill motives, without having to say so the Evangelicals would make the assumption
that the intentions of domestic liberals was to thwart the progress they were making
domestically. Interestingly the President begins the most famous paragraph of the speech by
declaring the efforts of the American secularists as making us inferior militarily and morally.
These domestic enemies were making America weak by promoting a nuclear freeze and not
allowing the Reagan Administration’s military build up. But, in the antithesis of the purported de
Tocqueville platitude that America is great when it is good, America’s cultural liberals were also
making America weak by making her morally bad.
The day before the President delivered the “Evil Empire Speech”, speechwriter Anthony
Dolan received encouragement for taking this rhetorical hard line. William F. Buckley, Jr.,
Editor of the conservative publication National Review, wrote to Dolan that “there is no more
difficult a point to communicate in a world essentially secular which simply thinks of the Soviet
Union as another society given to occasional spasm of barbarism.”57 While the praise came from
conservative stalwarts like Buckley, the President’s characterizing the nuclear freeze movement
as morally inferior didn’t go over so well with American Christians involved in the movement,
including the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the American Lutheran Church. Even a rogue
spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Convention (understood to be Reagan allies) noted that he
57
Letter, William F. Buckley, Jr. to Tony Dolan, March 2, 1983, Folder March, 1983-1,” Box 76, Tony Dolan Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
185
had an issue with the President’s assertion that a nuclear freeze would place the U.S. in a
position of weakness.58
New York Times columnist Tom Wicker chastised the President for his effort to “link
supporters of a nuclear freeze to those who would place the United States in a position of
military and moral inferiority.” This impugning of the patriotism of Americans who disagree
with him was seen as a smoke screen for not being able to provide an adequate defense of why
he would need a massive military build up.59 However, according to Tony Dolan, Wicker and the
New York Times regularly soft-peddled the evils of totalitarian governments. Dolan specifically
was thinking of the Times when he wrote “beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of
blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault.” He reflected:
“You always had the New York Times trying to strike a neutral position and advise both sides of
its lofty and higher perspective editorially. That's just people who are puffed up.”60 Ironically it
didn’t occur to the Reagan Administration that its opponents would think it arrogant to portray
themselves as on the side of the angels while their opponents were minions of the Devil. This
point was driven home by the President’s reference to Screwtape – the main character in C.S.
Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters; a novella about a demon in training. Two paragraphs earlier in
the NAE speech Dolan had quoted from the book (see Appendix C). He then came back to the
fictional reference so the President could communicate in the parlance of the Evangelical leaders
that he believed they were engaged in a spiritual war with the Devil. And the spiritual battle was
not only in the U.S.S.R., but right here in America’s backyard.
58
Newspaper Article, Charles Austin, “Synagogue Council Endorses Nuclear Freeze,” The New York Times,
February 25, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
59
Newspaper Article, Tom Wicker, “More is Not Safer,” New York Times, National Association of Evangelicals
Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
60
Frank Warner, “New World Order: Seventeen Years Ago This Week, Ronald Reagan Called The Soviet Union
The Focus Of Evil In The Modern World,” The Allentown Morning Call (March 5, 2000): A1.
186
Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one
of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western
World exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it
collaborates in communism's attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said,
for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden
with the words of temptation, ``Ye shall be as gods.'' The Western World can answer this
challenge, he wrote, ``but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as
great as communism's faith in Man.''
Concluding Story: One of my heroes should be one of yours. Reagan regularly ended
speeches with heroic stories. In this case he references the heroic life of Whitaker Chambers, a
man whom the President had idolized for decades. In 1984 Reagan would give a Medal of
Freedom posthumously to Chambers, writing in his diaries that the highlight of the ceremony
was Chambers’ son accepting in person the award for his late father.61 Dolan commented that it
was Whitaker Chambers’ common sense appreciation of the good versus evil basic structure of
the world that drew the President to him.62 According to biographer Cannon, it was during the
1960s when as the Governor of California Reagan read Chambers’ book Witness and committed
to memory passages of what was considered an anti-communism manifesto. It was Cannon who
also noted that Dolan and Buckley were also devotees of Chambers.63 That explains, in part, why
Buckley celebrated Dolan’s NAE text as he did, focusing on the subjects that Chambers uniquely
focused on as a Christian imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain during the height of the Cold War.
This speech in many ways is demonstrative of the President and his speechwriter working in
lockstep to invite the Evangelical leaders to embrace someone they believe is worthy to honor.
61
Ronald Reagan, The Reagan Diaries (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 228.
Medhurst, “Writing Speeches for Ronald Reagan,” 248.
63
Cannon, The Role of a Lifetime, 252, 274.
62
187
I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre
chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the
source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because
it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their
fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: ``He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no
might He increased strength...But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they
shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary...'' Yes, change your
world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, ``We have it within our power to
begin the world over again.'' We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.
God bless you, and thank you very much.
Concluding Thought: We’re fighting a spiritual war and God’s on our side. In
keeping with themes present in the early part of this chapter, the President ties together the plight
of America’s Founding Fathers and his current struggle against oppressive governments at home
and abroad. The reiteration of his perception of a spiritual war at the heart of these conflicts is
met with a quote from the prophet Isaiah and one from Thomas Paine. But perhaps it was the
President’s line “We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself” that sums
up the aim of the speech; to energize and nurture the base of his support and call them to a
political battle with enemies foreign and domestic.
Responses To The Speech
Lest one think that this author was alone in detecting the logical progression argued in
this chapter, the Washington Post’s Juan Williams described this in his March 29, 1983 piece on
the influence of Reagan’s speech writers. Williams cites a former Carter Administration
188
speechwriter, who recognized that if the Russians are evil and we are good, than whatever we do
to stop them is acceptable and morally correct.64 And by logical extension, whatever means is
necessary to stop our domestic enemies will in the end be justified. This line of criticism was
echoed in newspapers across the world. The French paper L’Humanite asked if Reagan intended
to tell the nuclear freeze prone Catholic Bishops of America they were supporting evil.65 In now
declassified documents archived at the Reagan Presidential Library, we can read in total the
vitriolic response of the Soviet government, and the uniform condemnation from communist
media outlets in Communist Russia. TASS political news analyst Sergey Kulik wrote: “In
announcing a crusade against communism, the U.S. President openly – as an official state policy,
intends to impose upon the rest of the world the present U.S. tenets as the only possible and
obligatory ones. This crusade is not only against communism, it is above all against the whole of
mankind.”66
Moscow based Pravda wrote, “President Reagan delivered his usual provocative speech,
once again confirming the current Washington Administration’s talent for dishing up not only
the usual categories of confrontation but also those of a war-mongering and frantic anticommunism nature.”67 Even the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church spoke publicly and
critically of the NAE speech. Writing in an open letter to Reagan that was paid for and placed in
newspapers around the world, His Holiness Pimen charged, “You, Mr. President, take a great sin
upon your soul when you speak about a horrible Soviet threat. There has been no such threat.
64
Newspaper Article, Juan Williams, “Writers Breath Fire In To Reagan’s Speeches,” Dayton Journal-Herald,
March 29, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
65
Newspaper Article, Foreign Press Reports, “Communist Paper: Reagan’s Holy War,”: 7, March 10, 1983, Folder
5, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
66
Declassified Soviet Reaction to President’s Orlando Speech, (March 14, 1983): A3, Folder 5, Box 19, Tony Dolan
Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
67
Newspaper Article, Pravda (in Russian with translation), Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
189
Mr. President, you did say many harsh, unjust and even insulting words about our motherland.
May the Lord be your judge.”68
The U.S. press was only slightly less strong in their reaction. The New York Post headline
read, “RON TO CHURCH: DECLARE WAR ON NUKE FOES.” The New York Daily News
banner stated, “Ron urges evangelists: PREACH AGAINST NUCLEAR FREEZE.” The
Washington Times front page declared: “Reagan: Fight nuke freeze from pulpit.”69 Harvard
Journalism Professor and New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote, “When a politician
claims that God favors his programs, alarm bells should ring. That is what Ronald Reagan has
just done.”70 USA Today’s Henry S. Commager opined, “Reagan’s speech was the words and
most dangerous speech made by a president.”71
The condemnation of the President’s speech was countered by varying endorsements of
the speech by some friendly opinion makers. Pat Buchanan wrote in the Washington Times that
“The preachers who interrupted the President two dozen times with cheers and applause loved it;
the press loathed it.”72 William F. Willoughby wrote in the Washington Post, “I am quite
impressed with the theological prowess of the man who sits in the Oval Office. He will be
remembered, among so many other things, as the man who ranks along with Abraham Lincoln as
68
Letter, An Open Letter to: His Excellency, Mr. Ronald Wilson Reagan from His Holiness Pimen, Patriarch of
Moscow and All Russia, March 28, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
69
Newspaper Headlines, Responses to NAE (March 9, 1983), National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box
19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
70
Newspaper Article, Anthony Lewis, “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” New York Times (March 9, 1983), National
Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
71
Newspaper Article, Henry S. Commager, USA Today (November 9, 1983), Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
72
Newspaper Article, Patrick J. Buchanan, “Reagan’s Fiery Sermon,” New York Post, March 15, 1983, National
Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
190
a president who saw his country, its times and its future in the light of a strong scriptural
framework.”73
More to the point of the argument made in this chapter, NBC’s John Chancellor
commented after the NAE speech, “So, we’re watching a swing to the right with the first
political contests of ’84 just ten months away. The President has given no hint of his plans for
next year, but his courtship of the conservatives won’t hurt if he decides to run for a second
term.”74 Juan Williams wrote that the President “plainly was moving in his speech to re-energize
the conservative base of support that helped elect him.”75 Perhaps the simplicity of the headline
of Bruce Drake’s column in the New York Daily News demonstrates best that Reagan and his
speechwriters served Dick Wirthlin’s stated purpose that they start to recapture the enthusiasm of
their base: “Reagan gives Evangelicals a call to arms.”76 Late in March of 1983, White House
Communications Director David Gergen would concede to the press that the NAE speech was
intentionally designed to espouse core beliefs so that everyone can understand how the
Administration sees reality.77
The in-house praise for Dolan and the President came from the Vice-President’s office,
another letter from William F. Buckley, and multiple letters from NAE President Bob Dugan to
the White House. Dugan wrote on June 10, 1983 that the “impact of President Reagan’s speech
73
Newspaper Article, William F. Willoughby, “Reagan’s Religious Savvy,” Washington Post, March 16, 1983,
National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
74
White House News Summary, “Network News Summary for Tuesday Evening, March 15, 1983,” National
Association of Evangelicals Folder 2, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
75
Newspaper Article, Lou Cannon, “Reagan Seeks to Shore Up on the Right,” The Washington Post, February 1,
1983, Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Research Office Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
76
Newspaper Article, Bruce Drake, “Reagan Gives Evangelicals A Call To Arms,” New York Daily News, March 9,
1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
77
Newspaper Article, Juan Williams, “Writers Breath Fire In To Reagan’s Speeches,” Dayton Journal-Herald,
March 29, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
191
to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida, continue to be felt.”78 But it was
the headline that appeared seven days later which testified to the success of the NAE speech:
“Baptists back Reagan on freeze.” The Washington Times reported that the 14.7 million-member
Southern Baptist Convention (the nation’s largest Protestant denomination) had endorsed a
position on nuclear disarmament that was in general agreement with the President’s. Reagan
went to the NAE Convention to very specifically call Evangelical Christians to join him in
opposing his secularist domestic enemies, whom he depicted as essentially possessing the same
worldview as the Soviet Union. Dick Wirthlin had to agree that this rhetorical mission had been
accomplished.
78
Letter, Robert P. Dugan to Morton Blackwell, June 10, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 2, Box
19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
192
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSIONS
Robert Dugan, Director of the National Association of Evangelicals, wrote in his April,
1983 newsletter that the press coverage of President Reagan’s speech to the NAE was less than
kind. “Many commentators took umbrage that the President, heaven forbid, publicly affirmed his
faith. He spoke not merely of a vague divine providence, but of the Lord Jesus.”1 After scouring
the NAE text to find the single reference to Jesus, I can’t help but wonder if Dugan is hearing
something that isn’t there or he attended another speech altogether. One aspect of this project has
been to analyze Reagan’s generic, common sense religious language to see if it was sufficient to
create mutual identity with Evangelicals. Dugan’s comment would seem to validate such a
notion. I think his comment also confirms that Reagan’s language was loaded with code words
that meant something to Evangelicals. Otherwise, an objective critic would have conducted a
close textual analysis and discovered more overt references to Jesus Christ and Christian doctrine
- elements that traditionally were key Evangelical indicators that someone could identify as one
of them. Would honest Evangelical ministers believe that someone who referred to intercessory
prayer as “intercessionary prayer” was a person who regularly participated in such a practice?
It is also entirely possible that Dugan’s comments substantiate my claim that politically
conservative Evangelicals of the Reagan era had such a profound need for a political hero that
they heard what they wanted. So great was their thirst for a political champion that a politician
would merely need to use the right rhetoric full of their subcultures symbols. So strong is this
compulsion that the religious right ignored glaring inconsistencies to support Reagan. Of course,
1
Newsletter Article, Robert P. Dugan, NAE Washington Insight V-4 (April, 1983): 1-2, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 2, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
193
the NAE would deny such a contention. Dugan wrote: “Was the President simply pandering to
his evangelical audience for political purposes, as some have alleged? We don’t think so. We
suggest that such pundits ought to ask themselves whether it is possible that the President really
believes what he is saying.”2 This scholastic project has ventured to ask questions, not about the
sincerity of Reagan’s beliefs (for who could know the heart of a person) but instead the
consistency of the standard applied by theologically conservative Evangelicals.
As we bring to a conclusion this research project about Ronald Reagan’s religious
rhetoric, these are my findings regarding how Ronald Reagan spoke to Evangelicals in the triad
of speeches I’ve analyzed.
1. Reagan’s rhetoric was designed to create mutual religious identity with Evangelicals.
2. Reagan did intensify his religious rhetoric in these speeches written to Evangelicals.
3. Reagan was personally involved in his speech writing, contrary to popular opinion.
4. Reagan’s intensified rhetoric was discerned by both Evangelicals and other observers.
As a result of these findings, I have drawn three conclusions about how Ronald Reagan’s
religious rhetoric and its relationship to politically conservative Evangelicals in 1983. First,
because of Reagan’s religious rhetoric, Evangelicals were willing to assume the President was
one of them despite barely a glimpse into what he really believed.
Secondly, to court
Evangelicals you need to woo them rhetorically. As a people of the spoken and written word,
they must sense that you are one of them rhetorically. Finally, Reagan’s rhetorical efforts likely
yielded him 80% of the Evangelical Christian vote in 1984. As Daniel K. Williams has pointed
2
Ibid.
194
out, they provided even greater electoral support in the 1984 re-election than they had in 1980.3
The result was an even larger landslide re-election victory for Ronald Reagan.
The research done here was undertaken for the purposes of discovery but has yielded at
least three specific benefits to the field of religious rhetoric and political communication. First, it
enables those not conversant in Evangelical theology or subculture to gain insight into the
underpinnings of the rhetoric the religious right has used and still uses. Secondly, it serves
scholars by providing practitioners another history of how politicians have adapted rhetoric to
gain their support. Thirdly, it serves politically active religious conservatives who may use its
findings to aid in future analysis of politicians seeking their endorsement.
As with any research project, along the way you discover other areas where future
research can and needs to be done. The most urgent research that needs to be undertaken is
additional primary source interviews with attendees of these particular (and any other) Reagan
speeches to Evangelicals. These participants are elderly and need to be talked to sooner than
later, as many of that era’s leaders have passed away, including Jerry Falwell. One benefit of
conducting deeper primary source research with these Reagan era conservatives would be to
discover why on a personal, gut feeling level these Evangelical leaders were so supportive of
Reagan. It would be helpful to know more about what key leaders heard in Reagan’s seemingly
generic religious rhetoric. And one final area of research that would be vital to a continued study
of theologically conservative Evangelicals and politics would be a complete analysis of the net
results of their efforts. In 1999 Cal Thomas stated that the results were not encouraging. “Very
little that we set out to do has gotten done. In fact, the moral landscape of American has become
worse. The Moral Majority folded in the late eighties, giving way to the Christian Coalition and
3
Daniel K. Williams, God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010), 205.
195
other organizations that have taken up its agenda, using with minor variations, the same
strategies to achieve the same ends we failed to achieve.”4 It would be fascinating to observe
through statistical analysis what long term legislative progress has been made on the important
politically conservative Evangelical issues of Reagan’s era.
Finally, I think this project demonstrates what Reagan said to persuade Evangelicals to
surmise once again that he was one of them. In response to Dick Wirthlin’s memorandum, which
directed the President and his advisors to first nurture the conservative base, it seems that Ronald
Reagan took that advice to heart and adapted his rhetoric accordingly. As well, religion
continued to play a major role in the debates of the 1984 Presidential campaign. Loyal soldiers
like Jerry Falwell appeared on the weekly news shows in defense of the President, all the while
attacking the Democratic challenger, Walter Mondale. Falwell was rewarded for this
commitment to Reagan by being given the honor of delivering the benediction at the Republican
National Convention in Dallas.5
And as the landslide election results would indicate, his
Evangelical base of support once again embraced Ronald Reagan, “The Great Communicator.”
4
Cal Thomas & Ed. Dobson, Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America? (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999), 23.
5
Newspaper Article, Paul Taylor, “Falwell Hits Mondale on Religion,” The Washington Post, September 10, 1984,
Reagan Administration: Religion and Politics (4), Box 12, Holladay, J. Douglas Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
196
APPENDIX A
REMARKS AT THE ANNUAL CONVENTION OF
THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS
January 31, 1983
Thank you all very much, and thank you, Brandt Gustavson. [President of the National Religious
Broadcasters]. Ladies and gentlemen, the distinguished guests, thank you all very much.
I had a little problem last night myself with regard to my name. [Laughter]
I thought about a week ago that maybe I would persuade someone to change their name from
Riggins to Reagan. [Laughter]
But after yesterday afternoon, I thought maybe I ought to change my name to his. [Laughter]
You all have an expression among you that—well, first of all, you confess to being poor
audiences for others; I haven't found it so. But you also have an expression about preaching to
the choir. I don't know just exactly what my address, how that fits under that today, but what a
wonderful sight you are.
In a few days I'll be celebrating another birthday, which, according to some in the press, puts me
on a par with Moses. [Laughter]
That doesn't really bother me, because every year when I come here, when I look out at your
warm and caring faces, I get a very special feeling, like being born again. There's something else
I've been noticing. In a time when recession has gripped our land, your industry, religious
broadcasting, has enjoyed phenomenal growth. Now, there may be some who are frightened by
your success, but I'm not one of them. As far as I'm concerned, the growth of religious
broadcasting is one of the most heartening signs in America today.
When we realize that every penny of that growth is being funded voluntarily by citizens of every
stripe, we see an important truth. It's something that I have been speaking of for quite some
time—that the American people are hungry for your message, because they're hungry for a
spiritual revival in this land. When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring
for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the
Bible.''
Facing the future with the Bible—that's a perfect theme for your convention. You might be
happy to hear that I have some "good news'' of my own. Thursday morning, at the National
Prayer Breakfast, I will sign a proclamation making 1983 the Year of the Bible.
We're blessed to have its words of strength, comfort, and truth. I'm accused of being simplistic at
times with some of the problems that confront us. But I've often wondered: Within the covers of
197
that single Book are all the answers to all the problems that face us today, if we'd only look there.
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever.'' I hope
Americans will read and study the Bible in 1983. It's my firm belief that the enduring values, as I
say, presented in its pages have a great meaning for each of us and for our nation. The Bible can
touch our hearts, order our minds, refresh our souls.
Now, I realize it's fashionable in some circles to believe that no one in government should order
or encourage others to read the Bible. Encourage—I shouldn't have said order. We're told that
will violate the constitutional separation of church and state established by the Founding Fathers
in the first amendment.
Well, it might interest those critics to know that none other than the Father of our Country,
George Washington, kissed the Bible at his inauguration. And he also said words to the effect
that there could be no real morality in a society without religion.
John Adams called it "the best book in the world.'' And Ben Franklin said, " … the longer I live,
the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men … without
His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of
Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded,
and we ourselves shall become a reproach, a bye-word down to future ages.''
So, when I hear the first amendment used as a reason to keep the traditional moral values away
from policymaking, I'm shocked. The first amendment was not written to protect people and
their laws from religious values; it was written to protect those values from government tyranny.
I've always believed that this blessed land was set apart in a special way, that some divine plan
placed this great continent here between the two oceans to be found by people from every corner
of the Earth—people who had a special love for freedom and the courage to uproot themselves,
leave their homeland and friends to come to a strange land. And, when coming here, they created
something new in all the history of mankind—a country where man is not beholden to
government, government is beholden to man.
I happen to believe that one way to promote, indeed, to preserve those traditional values we share
is by permitting our children to begin their days the same way the Members of the United States
Congress do—with prayer. The public expression of our faith in God, through prayer, is
fundamental—as a part of our American heritage and a privilege which should not be excluded
from our schools.
No one must be forced or pressured to take part in any religious exercise. But neither should the
freest country on Earth ever have permitted God to be expelled from the classroom. When the
Supreme Court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional almost 21 years ago, I believe it
ruled wrong. And when a lower court recently stopped Lubbock, Texas, high school students
from even holding voluntary prayer meetings on the campus before or after class, it ruled wrong,
too.
Our only hope for tomorrow is in the faces of our children. And we know Jesus said, "Suffer the
little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of God.'' Well, last
year we tried to pass an amendment that would allow communities to determine for themselves
198
whether voluntary prayer should be permitted in their public schools. And we failed. But I want
you to know something: I'm determined to bring that amendment back again and again and again
and again, until [applause].
You know, we were frustrated on two other fronts last year. There are 5 million American
children attending private schools today because of emphasis on religious values and educational
standards. Their families, most of whom earn less than $25,000 a year, pay private tuition, and
they also pay their full share of taxes to fund the public schools. We think they're entitled to
relief. So, I want you to know that shortly, we'll be sending legislation back up to the Hill, and
we will begin the struggle all over again to secure tuition tax credits for deserving families.
There's another struggle we must wage to redress a great national wrong. We must go forward
with unity of purpose and will. And let us come together, Christians and Jews, let us pray
together, march, lobby, and mobilize every force we have, so that we can end the tragic taking of
unborn children's lives. Who among us can imagine the excruciating pain the unborn must feel as
their lives are snuffed away? And we know medically they do feel pain.
I'm glad that a "respect human life'' bill has already been introduced in Congress by
Representative Henry Hyde. Not only does this bill strengthen and expand restrictions on
abortions financed by tax dollars, it also addresses the problem of infanticide. It makes clear the
right of all children, including those who are born handicapped, to food and appropriate medical
treatment after birth, and it has the full support of this administration.
I know that many well-intentioned, sincerely motivated people believe that government
intervention violates a woman's right of choice. And they would be right if there were any proof
that the unborn are not living human beings. Medical evidence indicates to the contrary and, if
that were not enough, how do we explain the survival of babies who are born prematurely, some
very prematurely?
We once believed that the heart didn't start beating until the fifth month. But as medical
instrumentation has improved, we've learned the heart was beating long before that. Doesn't the
constitutional protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness extend to the unborn unless
it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that life does not exist in the unborn? And I believe
the burden of proof is on those who would make that point.
I read in the Washington Post about a young woman named Victoria. She's with child, and she
said, "In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles.
Yet everyone wanted me to throw away my baby.'' Well, Victoria's story has a happy ending.
Her baby will be born.
Victoria has received assistance from a Christian couple, and from Sav-A-Life, a new Dallas
group run by Jim McKee, a concerned citizen who thinks it's important to provide constructive
alternatives to abortion. There's hope for America. She remains powerful and a powerful force
for good, and it's thanks to the conviction and commitment of people like those who are helping
Victoria. They're living the meaning of the two great commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord
199
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might'' and "thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.''
Each year, government bureaucracies spend bills [billions] for problems related to drugs and
alcoholism and disease. Has anyone stopped to consider that we might come closer to balancing
the budget if all of us simply tried to live up to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule?
That's what's happening with CBN and the 700 Club's "Operation Blessing.'' They've given
nearly $2 1/2 million to more than 8,500 churches, and this money is then matched by the local
churches. The result has been fantastic: More than 100,000 needy families helped, either through
direct or in-kind contributions, ranging from food and clothing to education, dental care, and
housework.
The PTL - TV network is carrying out "A Master Plan for People that Love,'' opening centers all
across the country to provide food, clothing, furniture, and job bank centers at no cost. Don't
listen to those cynics—some of them here in the Capital—who would run our country down.
America's heart is strong, and its heart is good.
You know, I mentioned drugs a moment ago. And I hope you'll forgive me if I digress just long
enough—because I don't often get the chance to say this publicly—how proud I am of Nancy
and the job she's doing helping to fight drug addiction.
I do that every day for her. [Laughter]
I know that each of you is contributing in your own way to rebuilding America, and I thank you.
As broadcasters, you have unique opportunities. And all of us, as Protestants, Catholics, and
Jews, have a special responsibility to remember our fellow believers who are being persecuted in
other lands. We're all children of Abraham. We're children of the same God.
You might be interested to know about a few of the changes that we're making at the Voice of
America. Our transmissions of Christian and Jewish broadcasts are being expanded and
improved. This year, for the first time in history, the Voice of America broadcast a religious
service worldwide—Christmas Eve at the National Presbyterian Church, in Washington, D.C.
Now, these broadcasts are not popular with governments of totalitarian powers. But make no
mistake, we have a duty to broadcast. Aleksandr Herzen, the Russian writer, warned, "To shrink
from saying a word in defense of the oppressed is as bad as any crime." Well, I pledge to you
that America will stand up, speak out, and defend the values we share. To those who would crush
religious freedom, our message is plain: You may jail your believers. You may close their
churches, confiscate their Bibles, and harass their rabbis and priests, but you will never destroy
the love of God and freedom that burns in their hearts. They will triumph over you.
Malcolm Muggeridge, the brilliant English commentator, has written, "The most important
happening in the world today is the resurgence of Christianity in the Soviet Union,
demonstrating that the whole effort sustained over 60 years to brainwash the Russian people into
accepting materialism has been a fiasco."
200
Think of it: the most awesome military machine in history, but it is no match for that one, single
man, hero, strong yet tender, Prince of Peace. His name alone, Jesus, can lift our hearts, soothe
our sorrows, heal our wounds, and drive away our fears. He gave us love and forgiveness. He
taught us truth and left us hope. In the Book of John is the promise that we all go by—tells us
that "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
With His message and with your conviction and commitment, we can still move mountains. We
can work to reach our dreams and to make America a shining city on a hill. Before I say
goodbye, I wanted to leave with you these words from an old Netherlands folk song, because
they made me think of our meeting here today:
We gather together to ask the Lord's blessing.
We all do extol Thee, Thou leader triumphant
And pray that Thou still our Defender wilt be.
Let Thy congregation escape tribulation.
Thy name be ever praised! O Lord, make us free!
To which I would only add a line from another song: America, America, God shed His grace on
thee.
Thank you again.
Note: The President spoke at 2:07 p.m. in the main ballroom at the Sheraton Washington Hotel.
Speech accessed at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/13183b.htm.
201
APPENDIX B
REMARKS AT THE ANNUAL NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST
February 3, 1983
Thank you all very much, all our friends and distinguished guests here at the head table and all of
you very distinguished people. General Vessey [Gen. John W. Vessey, Jr., Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff], I'm terribly tempted to call for a vote right now on the defense budget.
[Laughter] Nancy and I are delighted to be with you here this morning.
You know, on the way over, I remembered something that happened a long time ago when
teachers could talk about things like religion in the classroom. And a very lovely teacher was
talking to her class of young boys, and she asked, "How many of you would like to go to
heaven?'' And all the hands instantly shot into the air at once, except one, and she was astounded.
And she said, "Charlie, you mean you don't want to go to heaven?'' He said, "Sure, I want to go
to heaven, but not with that bunch.'' [Laughter]
Maybe there's a little bit of Charlie in each of us. [Laughter] But somehow I don't think that
wanting to go to heaven, but only on our terms, and certainly not with that other bunch, is quite
what God had in mind. The prayer that I sometimes think we don't often use enough -- and one
that I learned a few years ago and only after I had gotten into the business that I'm in -- is one of
asking forgiveness for the resentment and the bitterness that we sometimes feel towards
someone, whether it's in business dealings or in government or whatever we're doing, and
forgetting that we are brothers and sisters and that each of them is loved equally by God as much
as we feel that He loves us.
I'm so thankful that there will always be one day in the year when people all over our land can sit
down as neighbors and friends and remind ourselves of what our real task is. This task was
spelled out in the Old and the New Testament. Jesus was asked, "Master, which is the great
commandment in the law?'' And He replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. The second
is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the
law and the prophets.''
Can we resolve to reach, learn, and try to heed the greatest message ever written -- God's word
and the Holy Bible. Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has ever
known.
Now, I am assuming a new position; but I should warn our friends in the loyal opposition, this
new job won't require me to leave the White House. With the greatest enthusiasm, I have agreed
to serve as honorary chairman for the Year of the Bible.
202
When we think how many people in the world are imprisoned or tortured, harassed for even
possessing a Bible or trying to read one -- something that maybe we should realize how -- and
take advantage of what we can do so easily. In its lessons and the great wealth of its words, we
find comfort, strength, wisdom, and hope.
And when we find ourselves feeling a little like Charlie, we might remember something that
Abraham Lincoln said over a hundred years ago:
“We have forgotten the gracious hand that preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched
and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all
these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own . . . we have
become too proud to pray to the God that made us!'' Well, isn't it time for us to say, “We're not
too proud to pray''?
We face great challenges in this country, but we've faced great challenges before and conquered
them. What carried us through was a willingness to seek power and protection from One much
greater than ourselves, to turn back to Him and to trust in His mercy. Without His help, America
will not go forward.
I have a very special old Bible. And alongside a verse in the Second Book of Chronicles there
are some words, handwritten, very faded by now. And, believe me, the person who wrote those
words was an authority. Her name was Nelle Wilson Reagan. She was my mother. And she
wrote about that verse, “A most wonderful verse for the healing of the nations.''
Now, the verse that she'd marked reads: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall
humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I
hear from heaven . . . and will heal their land.''
I know that at times all of us -- I do -- feel that perhaps in our prayers we ask for too much. And
then there are those other times when we feel that something isn't important enough to bother
God with it. Maybe we should let Him decide those things.
The war correspondent Marguerite Higgins, who received the Pulitzer Prize for International
Reporting because of her coverage of the Korean war, among all her writings had an account one
day of the Fifth Company of marines who were part of an 18,000-man force that was in combat
with a hundred thousand of the enemy. And she described an incident that took place early, just
after dawn on a very cold morning. It was 42 degrees below zero. And the weary marines, half
frozen stood by their dirty, mud-covered trucks, eating their breakfast from tin cans.
She saw one huge marine was eating cold beans with a trench knife. His clothes were frozen stiff
as a board; his face was covered with a heavy beard and crusted with mud. And one of the little
group of war correspondents who were on hand went up to him and said, "If I were God and
could grant you anything you wished, what would you most like?'' And the marine stood there
for a moment, looking down at that cold tin of beans, and then he raised his head and said, "Give
me tomorrow.''
203
Now I would like to sign a proclamation which will make 1983 the Year of the Bible. And I want
to thank Senator Bill Armstrong and Representative Carlos Moorhead and all those inside and
outside of Congress who assisted them and made this all possible. Thank you, and God bless
you. And I'm going down and sign the proclamation.
Note: The President spoke at 9:03 a.m. in the International Ballroom at the Washington Hilton
Hotel.
Speech accessed at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/20383a.htm.
204
APPENDIX C
REMARKS AT THE ANNUAL CONVENTION OF
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS
March 8, 1983
Reverend clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional
delegation, and all of you: I can't tell you how you have warmed my heart with your welcome.
I'm delighted to be here today.
Those of you in the National Association of Evangelicals are known for your spiritual and
humanitarian work. And I would be especially remiss if I didn't discharge right now one personal
debt of gratitude. Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in
many ways. And believe me, for us they've made all the difference.
The other day in the East Room of the White House at a meeting there, someone asked me
whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the President. And I had to
say, ``Yes, I am. I've felt it. I believe in intercessionary prayer.'' But I couldn't help but say to that
questioner after he'd asked the question that -- or at least say to them that if sometimes when he
was praying he got a busy signal, it was just me in there ahead of him. [Laughter] I think I
understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said, ``I have been driven many times to my
knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.''
From the joy and the good feeling of this conference, I go to a political reception. [Laughter]
Now, I don't know why, but that bit of scheduling reminds me of a story -- [laughter] -- which I'll
share with you.
An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven's gate one day together. And St. Peter,
after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters
would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this
was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for
him. And he couldn't believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with
lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.
And he couldn't help but ask, he said, ``But wait, how -- there's something wrong -- how do I get
this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?'' And St. Peter said, ``You
have to understand how things are up here. We've got thousands and thousands of clergy. You're
the first politician who ever made it.'' [Laughter]
But I don't want to contribute to a stereotype. [Laughter] So, I tell you there are a great many
God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And,
yes, we need your help to keep us ever mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us
into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment
205
to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that
freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.
The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph
of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said: ``If we will not be governed by
God, we must be governed by tyrants.'' Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said,
``The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.'' And it was George Washington
who said that ``of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and
morality are indispensable supports.''
And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put
it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius -- and
he said: ``Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with
righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. . . . America is good.
And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.'' Well, I'm pleased to be
here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your
work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and
keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.
I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the
greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods,
communities -- the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect
for the rule of law under God.
Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a
prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried
and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well
intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while
they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon
themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation.
Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority. An example of that
vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I'm
involved, I've been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing
to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?
Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely
motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving
girls well below the age of consent, sometime ago established a nationwide network of clinics to
offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not
fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide
advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their
parents.
For some years now, the Federal Government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In
providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental
206
participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent
or giving notification after they've done so. Girls termed ``sexually active'' -- and that has
replaced the word ``promiscuous'' -- are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or
abortion.
Well, we have ordered clinics receiving Federal funds to notify the parents such help has been
given. One of the Nation's leading newspapers has created the term ``squeal rule'' in
editorializing against us for doing this, and we're being criticized for violating the privacy of
young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I've
watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no
one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.
Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be
looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm?
And isn't it the parents' right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making
mistakes that may affect their entire lives?
Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their
family by government. We're going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of
family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.
But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water
down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom
prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When our
Founding Fathers passed the first amendment, they sought to protect churches from government
interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the
concept of religious belief itself.
The evidence of this permeates our history and our government. The Declaration of
Independence mentions the Supreme Being no less than four times. ``In God We Trust'' is
engraved on our coinage. The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation.
And the Members of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the
schoolchildren of the United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court Justices
and Congressmen.
Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools.
Already this session, there's growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am calling on
the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray.
Perhaps some of you read recently about the Lubbock school case, where a judge actually ruled
that it was unconstitutional for a school district to give equal treatment to religious and
nonreligious student groups, even when the group meetings were being held during the students'
own time. The first amendment never intended to require government to discriminate against
religious speech.
207
Senators Denton and Hatfield have proposed legislation in the Congress on the whole question of
prohibiting discrimination against religious forms of student speech. Such legislation could go
far to restore freedom of religious speech for public school students. And I hope the Congress
considers these bills quickly. And with your help, I think it's possible we could also get the
constitutional amendment through the Congress this year.
More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of 50 States
statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up
to 1\1/2\ million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will some day
pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven
that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness must be protected.
You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and, indeed, I'm sure many of
you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the
philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify
other attacks on the sacredness of human life -- infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough,
those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a
handicapped infant.
I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care
facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons
against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step
of requiring that each and every recipient of Federal funds who provides health care services to
infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that ``discriminatory
failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by Federal law.'' It
also lists a 24-hour, toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to
save the infant's life.
In addition, recent legislation introduced in the Congress by Representative Henry Hyde of
Illinois not only increases restrictions on publicly financed abortions, it also addresses this whole
problem of infanticide. I urge the Congress to begin hearings and to adopt legislation that will
protect the right of life to all children, including the disabled or handicapped.
Now, I'm sure that you must get discouraged at times, but you've done better than you know,
perhaps. There's a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that
have been the bedrock of America's goodness and greatness.
One recent survey by a Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were far
more religious than the people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief
in God and a huge majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives.
And another study has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of
adultery, teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a
deep reverence for the importance of family ties and religious belief.
208
I think the items that we've discussed here today must be a key part of the Nation's political
agenda. For the first time the Congress is openly and seriously debating and dealing with the
prayer and abortion issues -- and that's enormous progress right there. I repeat: America is in the
midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal. And with your Biblical keynote, I say today,
``Yes, let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.''
Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I've talked about is based on a
positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country's accomplishments and
record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man. We
know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the
phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.
There is sin and evil in the world, and we're enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose
it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The glory of
this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long
struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war, is now a
point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, antiSemitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.
I know that you've been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching
bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your
churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is
clear and simple: ``Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.''
But whatever sad episodes exist in our past, any objective observer must hold a positive view of
American history, a history that has been the story of hopes fulfilled and dreams made into
reality. Especially in this century, America has kept alight the torch of freedom, but not just for
ourselves but for millions of others around the world.
And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as President, in
answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have
openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their
cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their
guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural
ideas -- that's their name for religion -- or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is
entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for
the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet
doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw
this phenomenon in the 1930's. We see it too often today.
This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I
intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was
the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and
209
which now proposes 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire
class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our
principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our
belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of
these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.
The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of
peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.
I would agree to a freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets' global desires. A freeze at current
levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva
and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed.
Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.
A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It
would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses
and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require
extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to
ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested
would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our
current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions.
A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment
world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the cold war,
and communism and our own way of life were very much on people's minds. And he was
speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, ``I love my little girls more
than anything -- -- '' And I said to myself, ``Oh, no, don't. You can't -- don't say that.'' But I had
underestimated him. He went on: ``I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in
God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God.''
There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts of
joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the
physical and the soul and what was truly important.
Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they
will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach
the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual
domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
It was C. S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable ``Screwtape Letters,'' wrote: ``The greatest evil is
not done now in those sordid `dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in
concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and
ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted
210
offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do
not need to raise their voice.''
Well, because these ``quiet men'' do not ``raise their voices,'' because they sometimes speak in
soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they're
always making ``their final territorial demand,'' some would have us accept them at their word
and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it
teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It
means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.
So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of
military and moral inferiority. You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his
best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze
proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring
yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the
aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and
thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.
I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our
efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and
verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total
elimination.
While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that
the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or
military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will
and faith.
Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one of the
terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western World
exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in
communism's attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for MarxismLeninism is actually the second oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the
words of temptation, ``Ye shall be as gods.''
The Western World can answer this challenge, he wrote, ``but only provided that its faith in God
and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism's faith in Man.''
I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter
in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source
of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it
knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their
fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: ``He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no
might He increased strength. . . . But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they
shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary. . . .''
211
Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, ``We have it within
our power to begin the world over again.'' We can do it, doing together what no one church could
do by itself. God bless you, and thank you very much.
Note: The President spoke at 3:04 p.m. in the Citrus Crown Ballroom at the Sheraton Twin
Towers Hotel.
Following his appearance before the convention, the President attended a Florida Republican
fundraising reception at the hotel and then returned to Washington, D.C.
Speech accessed at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/30883b.htm.
212
APPENDIX D
REAGAN’S TIME FOR CHOOSING SPEECH
A TIME FOR CHOOSING (The Speech – October 27, 1964)
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been
identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script.
As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas
regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I
believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been
telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has
been used, "We've never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base
our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third
of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax
collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than
the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've
raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a
half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion
dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion
dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its
total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the
wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this
is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just
want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in
the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced
mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and
in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment
that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time
we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding
Fathers.
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had
escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said,
"We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had
someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here,
there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
213
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power
except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of
man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or
whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a fardistant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest
there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged
dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap
of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would
trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few
days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the
people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the
things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For
example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not
undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must
be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual
freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright
has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as
"our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of
power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for
us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman,
defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of
centralized government."
Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men
and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in
America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing
the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A
government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a
government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also
knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing
as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy
over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of
farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is
out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all
its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that's regulated and controlled by the federal
government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every
dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.
214
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to
eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've
had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also
find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the
farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for
the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government.
The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell
them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have
allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's
now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of
grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the
farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers
voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes
up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private
property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners
decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such
spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years
ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of
the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the
thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing
Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken
back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of
unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners
plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.
They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two
hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in
personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down
and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to
the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to
solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well,
now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of
it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be
telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the
need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were
told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably
215
true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are
poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10
times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on
welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up
equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a
year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor,
however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there
must be some overhead.
Now—so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they
honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one
more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it
just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear
by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't
duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile
delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps],
and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and
we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we
help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong.
I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me
here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She
had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband
was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's
eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea
from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against
their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things—we're never "for" anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so
much that isn't so.
Now—we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old
age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its
fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to
end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance"
to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court
and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the
people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and
the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head,
appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment
is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long
216
as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they
needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution
would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a
month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take
out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense
that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments
will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare?
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do
better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the
non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits
supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our
beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior
citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But
I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government
program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France
admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give
up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security
pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?
I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace.
But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so
structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General
Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think
we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony,
while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of
people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which
share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government,
creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're
helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar
yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n]
government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity.
In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are
receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched,
never disappear.
217
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and
local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating
bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards.
How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant?
They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize
and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas,
James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment.
And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a
warning to others to make the system work.
Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for
President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would
stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.
But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this
parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat
himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the
leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road
under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never
returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that
Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose
socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your
business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or
property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring
against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment.
Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to
be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping
from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I
believe that this is a contest between two men—that we're to choose just between two
personalities.
Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that
which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and triggerhappy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long
before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a
man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan
before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his
employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a
218
pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill
and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores.
When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew
medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War,
and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he
said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a
voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to
runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry
Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load
up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside
an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient,
but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care."
This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty
and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in
God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other
people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've
discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they
have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And
they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways
and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple
answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but
simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy
based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an
immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain,
"Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal
with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to
danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no
argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can
have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells
us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal
friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no
choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate,
continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And
what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He
has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the
time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time
219
we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this
because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than
dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And
therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at
the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in
the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under
the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have
thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of
history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the
Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a
point beyond which they must not advance." And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry
Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not
measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn
we're spirits—not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and
beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to
take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you
and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our
own destiny.
Thank you very much.
Speech accessed at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html
220
APPENDIX E
REAGAN’S 1980 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION ACCEPTANCE SPEECH
Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech
7/17/80
Mr. Chairman, delegates to the Convention, my fellow citizens of this great nation: With a deep
awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust, I accept your nomination for the
Presidency of the United States. I do so with deep gratitude.
I am very proud of our party tonight. This convention has shown to all America a party united,
with positive programs for solving the nation’s problems; a party ready to build a new consensus
with all those across the land who share a community of values embodied in these words: family,
work, neighborhood, peace and freedom.
I know we have had a quarrel or two in our party, but only as to the method of attaining a goal.
There was no argument about the goal. As President, I will establish a liaison with the 50
Governors to encourage them to eliminate, wherever it exists, discrimination against women. I
will monitor Federal laws to insure their implementation and to add statutes if they are needed.
More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country; to renew the American spirit
and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party
affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values.
Never before in our history have Americans been called upon to face three grave threats to our
very existence, any one of which could destroy us. We face a disintegrating economy, a
weakened defense and an energy policy based on the sharing of scarcity.
The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of
Democratic party leadership-in the White House and in Congress-for this unprecedented
calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be
done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its
zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to
cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.
My fellow citizens I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth,
who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only
make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have
no business leading the nation. I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself
under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and
purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to
whom they entrust our nation’s highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do
something about it.
221
We need a rebirth of the American tradition of leadership at every level of government and in
private life as well. The United States of America is unique in world history because it has a
genius for leaders – many leaders – on many levels. But, back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, “Trust
me.” And a lot of people did. Now, many of those people are out of work. Many have seen
their savings eaten away by inflation. Many others on fixed incomes, especially the elderly, have
watched helplessly as the cruel tax of inflation wasted away their purchasing power. And, today
a great many who trusted Mr. Carter wonder if we can survive the Carter policies of national
defense.
“Trust me” government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust
him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party,
but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs – in the
people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders.
That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of
compact; an agreement among themselves to build a community and abide by its laws.
Three hundred and sixty years ago, in 1620, a group of families dared to cross a mighty ocean to
build a future for themselves in a new world. When they arrived at Plymouth, Massachusetts,
they formed what they called a “compact”; an agreement among themselves to build a
community and abide by its laws. The single act – the voluntary binding together of free people
to live under the law – set the pattern for what was to come.
A century and a half later, the descendants of those people pledged their lives, their fortunes and
their sacred honor to found this nation. Some forfeited their fortunes and their lives; none
sacrificed honor.
Four score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln called upon the people of all America to
renew their dedication and their commitment of, for and by the people. Isn’t it once again time
to renew our compact of freedom; to pledge to each other all that is best in our lives; all that
gives meaning to them – for the sake of this, our beloved and blessed land?
Together, let us make this a new beginning. Let us make a commitment to care for the needy; to
teach our children the values and the virtues handed down to us by our families; to have the
courage to defend those values and the willingness to sacrifice for them.
Let us pledge to restore, in our time, the American spirit of voluntary service, of cooperation, of
private and community initiative; a spirit that flows like a deep and mighty river through the
history of our nation.
As your nominee, I pledge to restore to the federal government the capacity to do the people’s
work without dominating their lives. I pledge to you a government that will not only work well,
but wisely; its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good balanced by the
knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us
blinds us to its great power to harm us.
222
The first Republican President once said, “While the people retain their virtue and their
vigilance, no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the
government in the short space of four years.”
If Mr. Lincoln could see what’s happened in these last three-and-half years, he might hedge a
little on that statement. But, with the virtues that are our legacy as a free people and with the
vigilance that sustains liberty, we still have time to use our renewed compact to overcome the
injuries that have been done to America these past three-and-a half years.
First we must overcome something the present Administration has cooked up: a new and
altogether indigestible economic stew, one part inflation, one part high unemployment, one part
recession, one part runaway taxes, one part deficit spending and seasoned by an energy crisis.
It’s an economic stew that has turned the national stomach. It is as if Mr. Carter had set out to
prove, once and for all, that economics is indeed a “dismal science.”
Ours are not problems of abstract economic theory. These are problems of flesh and blood;
problems that cause pain and destroy the moral fiber of real people who should not suffer the
further indignity of being told by the White House that it is all somehow their fault. We do not
have inflation because, as Mr. Carter says, we have lived too well.
The head of a government which has utterly refused to live within its means and which has, in
the last few days, told us that this year’s deficit will be $60 billion, dares to point the finger of
blame at business and labor, both of which have been engaged in a losing struggle just trying to
stay even.
High taxes, we are told, are somehow good for us, as if, when government spends our money it
isn’t inflationary, but when we spend it, it is. Those who preside over the worst energy shortage
in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline and natural gas a little
more slowly. Conservation is desirable, of course, for we must not waste energy. But
conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs.
America must get to work producing more energy. The Republican program for solving
economic problems is based on growth and productivity. Large amounts of oil and natural gas
lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present Administration seems to
believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more
energy.
Coal offers great potential. So does nuclear energy produced under rigorous safety standards. It
could supply electricity for thousands of industries and millions of jobs and homes. It must not
be thwarted by a tiny minority opposed to economic growth which often finds friendly ears in
regulatory agencies for its obstructionist campaigns.
Make no mistake. We will not permit the safety of our people or our environmental heritage to
be jeopardized, but we are going to reaffirm that the economic prosperity of our people is a
fundamental part of our environment.
223
Our problems are both acute and chronic, yet all we hear from those in positions of leadership
are the same tired proposals for more government tinkering, more meddling and more control –
all of which led us to this state in the first place.
Can anyone look at the record of this Administration and say “Well done”? Can anyone
compare the state of our economy when the Carter Administration took office with where we are
today and say, “Keep up the good work”? Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world
today and say, “Let’s have four more years of this”?
I believe the American people are going to answer these questions the first week of November
and their answer will be, “No – we’ve had enough.” And, when the American people have
spoken, it will be up to us – beginning next January 20th – to offer an Administration and
Congressional leadership of competence and more than a little courage.
We must have the clarity of vision to see the difference between what is essential and what is
merely desirable; and then the courage to use this insight to bring our government back under
control and make it acceptable to the people.
We Republicans believe it is essential that we maintain both the forward momentum of economic
growth and the strength of the safety net beneath those in society who need help. We also
believe it is essential that the integrity of all aspects of Social Security be preserved.
Beyond these essentials, I believe it is clear our federal government is overgrown and
overweight. Indeed, it is time for our government to go no a diet. Therefore, my first act as
Chief Executive will be to impose an immediate and thorough freeze on federal hiring. Then, we
are going to enlist the very best minds from business, labor and whatever quarter to conduct a
detailed review of every department, bureau and agency that lives by federal appropriation. We
are also going to enlist the help and ideas of many dedicated and hard-working government
employees at all levels who want a more efficient government as much as the rest of us do. I
know that many are demoralized by the confusion and waste they confront in their work as a
result of failed and failing policies.
Our instructions to the groups we enlist will be simple and direct. We will remind them that
government programs exist at the sufferance of the American taxpayer and are paid for with
money earned by working men and women. Any program that represents a waste of their money
– a theft from their pocketbooks – must have that waste eliminated or the program must go – by
Executive Order where possible; by Congressional action where necessary. Everything that can
be run more effectively by state and local governments we shall turn over to state and local
government, along with the funding sources to pay for it. We are going to put an end to the
money merry go round where our money becomes Washington’s money, to be spent by the states
and cities only if they spend it exactly the way the federal bureaucrats tell them to.
I will not accept the excuse that the federal government has grown so big and powerful that it is
beyond the control of any President, any Administration or Congress. We are going to put an
end to the notion that the American taxpayer exists to fund the federal government. The federal
224
government exists to serve the American people and to be accountable to the American people.
On January 20th, we are going to re-establish that truth.
Also on that date we are going to initiate action to get substantial relief for our taxpaying citizens
and action to put people back to work. None of this will be based on any new form of monetary
tinkering or fiscal sleight-of-hand. We will simply apply to government the common sense we
all use in our daily lives.
Work and family are at the center of our lives; the foundation of our dignity as a free people.
When we deprive people of what they have earned, or take away their jobs, we destroy their
dignity and undermine their families. We cannot support our families unless there are jobs; and
we cannot have jobs unless people have both money to invest and the faith to invest it.
These are concepts that stem from the foundation of an economic system that for more than two
hundred years has helped us master a continent, create a previously undreamed of prosperity for
our people and has fed millions of others around the globe. That system will continue to serve us
in the future if our government will stop ignoring the basic values on which it was built and stop
betraying the trust and good will of the American workers who keep it going.
The American people are carrying the heaviest peacetime tax burden in our nation’s history –
and it will grow even heavier, under present law, next January. This burden is crushing our
ability and incentive to save, invest and produce. We are taxing ourselves into economic
exhaustion and stagnation. This must stop. We must halt this fiscal self-destruction and restore
sanity to our economic system.
I have long advocated a 30 percent reduction in income tax rates over a period of three years.
This phased tax reduction would begin with a 10 percent “down payment” tax cut in 1981, which
the Republicans in Congress and I have already proposed.
A phased reduction of tax rates would go a long way toward easing the heavy burden on the
American people. But, we should not stop here.
Within the context of economic conditions and appropriate budget priorities during each fiscal
year of my Presidency, I would strive to go further. This would include improvement in business
depreciation taxes so we can stimulate investment in order to get plants and equipment replaced,
put more Americans back to work and put our nation back on the road to being competitive in
world commerce. We will also work to reduce the cost of government as a percentage of our
Gross National Product.
The first task of national leadership is to set honest and realistic priorities in our policies and our
budget and I pledge that my Administration will do that.
When I talk of tax cuts, I am reminded that every major tax cut in this century has strengthened
the economy, generated renewed productivity and ended up yielding new revenues for the
government by creating new investment, new jobs and more commerce among our people.
225
The present administration has been forced by us Republicans to play follow the leader with
regard to a tax cut. But, we must take with the proverbial “grain of salt” any tax cut proposed by
those who have given us the greatest tax increase in our history.
When those in leadership give us tax increases and tell us we must also do with less, have they
thought about those who have always had less – especially the minorities? This is like telling
them that just as they step on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity, the ladder is being pulled
up. That may be the Democratic leadership’s message to the minorities, but it won’t be ours.
Our message will be; we have to move ahead, but we’re not going to leave anyone behind.
Thanks to the economic policies of the Democratic party, millions of Americans find themselves
out of work. Millions more have never even had a fair chance to learn new skills, hold a decent
job, seize the opportunity to climb the ladder and secure for themselves and their families a share
in the prosperity of this nation.
It is time to put Americans back to work; to make our cities and towns resound with the
confident voices of men and women of all races, nationalities and faiths bringing home to their
families a decent paycheck they can cash for money.
For those without skills, we’ll find a way to help them get skills. For those without job
opportunities, we’ll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live.
For those who have abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great
national crusade to make America great again!
When we move from domestic affairs and cast our eyes abroad, we see an equally sorry chapter
in the record of the present Administration.
A Soviet combat brigade trains in Cuba, just 90 miles from our shores.
A Soviet army of invasion occupies Afghanistan, further threatening our vital interests in the
Middle East.
America’s defense strength is at its lowest ebb in a generation, while the Soviet Union is vastly
outspending us in both strategic and conventional arms.
Our European allies, looking nervously at the growing menace from the East, turn to us for
leadership and fail to find it.
And incredibly more than 50 of our fellow Americans have been held captive for over eight
months by a dictatorial foreign power that holds us up to ridicule before the world.
Adversaries large and small test our will and seek to confound our resolve, but the Carter
Administration gives us weakness when we need strength; vacillation when the times demand
firmness.
Why? Because the Carter Administration live in the world of make-believe. Every day, it
dreams up a response to that day’s troubles, regardless of what happened yesterday and what will
happen tomorrow. The Administration lives in a world where mistakes, even very big ones, have
no consequence.
226
The rest of us, however, live in the real world. It is here that disasters are overtaking our nation
without any real response from the White House.
I condemn the Administration’s make-believe; its self deceit and - above all – its transparent
hypocrisy. For example, Mr. Carter says he supports the volunteer army, but he lets military pay
and benefits slip so low that many of our enlisted personnel are actually eligible for food stamps.
Re-enlistment rates drop and, just recently, after he fought all week against a proposal to increase
the pay of our men and women in uniform, he helicoptered out to our carrier the USS Nimitz,
which was returning from long months of duty. He told the crew that he advocated better pay for
them and their comrades! Where does he really stand, now that he’s back on shore?
I’ll tell you where I stand. I do not favor a peacetime draft or registration, but I do favor pay and
benefit levels that will attract and keep highly motivated men and women in our volunteer forces
and an active reserve trained and ready for an instant call in case of an emergency.
An Annapolis graduate may be at the helm of the ship of state, but the ship has no rudder.
Critical decisions are made at times almost in Marx Brothers fashion, but who can laugh? Who
was not embarrassed when the Administration handed a major propaganda victory in the United
Nations to the enemies of Israel, our staunch Middle East ally for three decades, and then
claimed that the American vote was a “mistake,” the result of a “failure of communication”
between the President, his Secretary of State and his UN Ambassador?
Who does not feel a growing sense of unease as our allies, facing repeated instances of an
amateurish and confused Administration; reluctantly conclude that America is unwilling or
unable to fulfill its obligations as leader of the free world?
Who does not feel rising alarm when the question in any discussion of foreign policy is no
longer, “Should we do something?”, but “Do we have the capacity to do anything?”
The Administration which has brought us to this state is seeking your endorsement for four more
years of weakness, indecision, mediocrity and incompetence. No American should vote until he
or she has asked, is the United States stronger and more respected now than it was three-and-ahalf years ago? Is the world today a safer place in which we live?
It is the responsibility of the President of the United States, in working for peace, to insure that
the safety of our people cannot successfully be threatened by a hostile foreign power. As
President, fulfilling that responsibility will be my Number One priority.
We are not a warlike people. Quite the opposite. We always seek to live in peace. We resort to
force infrequently and with great reluctance – and only after we have determined that it is
absolutely necessary. We are awed – and rightly so – by the forces of destruction at loose in the
world in this nuclear era. But neither can we be naïve or foolish. Four times in my lifetime
America has gone to war, bleeding the lives of its young men into the sands of beachheads, the
fields of Europe and the jungles and rice paddies of Asia. We know only too well that war
comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants
are tempted.
227
We simply cannot learn these lessons the hard way again without risking our destruction.
Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace. We
must always stand ready to negotiate in good faith, ready to pursue any reasonable avenue that
holds forth the promise of lessening tensions and furthering the prospects of peace. But let our
friends and those who may wish us ill take note: the United States has an obligation to its citizens
and to the people of the world never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future
course of human life on this planet.
I would never regard my election as proof that we have renewed our resolve to preserve world
peace and freedom. This nation will once again be strong enough to do that.
This evening marks the last step – save one – of a campaign that has taken Nancy and me from
one end of this great land to the other, over many months and thousands and thousands of miles.
There are those who question the way we choose a President; who say that our process imposes
difficult and exhausting burdens on those who seek the office. I have not found it so.
It is impossible to capture in words the splendor of this vast continent which God has granted as
our portion of his creation. There are no words to express the extraordinary strength and
character of this breed of people we call Americans.
Everywhere we have me thousands of Democrats, Independents and Republicans from all
economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of
family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. They are concerned, yes, but they are the kind
of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote – during the darkest days of the
American Revolution – “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Nearly one-hundred-and-fifty years after Tom Paine wrote those words, an American President
told the generation of the Great Depression that it had a “rendezvous with destiny.” I believe this
generation of Americans today also has a rendezvous with destiny.
Tonight, let us dedicate ourselves to renewing the American Compact. I ask you not simply to
“Trust me,” but to trust your values – our values – and to hold me responsible for living up to
them. I ask you to trust that American spirit which knows no ethnic, religious, social, political,
regional or economic boundaries; the spirit that burned with zeal in the hearts of millions of
immigrants from every corner of the earth who came here in search of freedom.
Some say that spirit no longer exists. But I have seen it – I have felt it – all across this land; in
the big cities, the small towns and in rural America. The American spirit is still there, ready to
blaze into life if you and I are willing to do what has to be done; the practical, down to earth
things that will stimulate our economy, increase productivity and put America back to work.
The time is now to limit federal spending; to insist on a stable monetary reform and to free
ourselves from imported oil.
The time is now to resolve that the basis of a firm and principled foreign policy is one that takes
the world as it is and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by lecture and harangue.
228
The time is now to say that while we shall seek new friendships and expand and improve others,
we shall not do so by breaking our word or casting aside old friends and allies.
And the time is now to redeem promises once made to the American people by another
candidate, in another time and another place. He said, “… For three long years I have been
going up and down this country preaching that government – federal, state and local – costs too
much. I shall not stop that preaching. As an immediate program of action, we must abolish
useless offices. We must eliminate unnecessary functions of government….
“… we must consolidate subdivisions of government and, like the private citizen, give up
luxuries which we can no longer afford. “I propose to you, my friends, and through you that
government of all kinds, big and little be made solvent and that the example be set by the
President of the United States and his cabinet.” So said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his
acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention in July, 1932.
The time is now, my fellow Americans, to recapture our destiny, to take it into our own hands.
But, to do this will take many of us, working together. I ask you tonight to volunteer your help
in this cause so we carry our message throughout the land.
Yes, isn’t now the time that we, the people, carried out these unkept promises? Let us pledge to
each other and to all America on this July day 48 years later, we intend to do just that.
At the end, Reagan departed from his prepared text:
I have thought of something that is not a part of my speech and I’m worried over whether I
should do it. Can we doubt that only a divine providence placed this land, this island of freedom,
here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breath freely: Jews and Christians
enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and of
Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan and our
own countrymen held in savage captivity.
I’ll confess that I’ve been a little afraid to suggest what I’m going to suggest. I’m more afraid
not to. Can we begin our crusade joined together in a moment of silent prayer?
God Bless America.
Speech accessed at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/7.17.80.html
229
REFERENCES
Reagan Presidential Archive References
Declassified Soviet Reaction to President’s Orlando Speech, (March 14, 1983): A3, Folder 5,
Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Document, Meeting with Dr. Jerry Falwell, March 14, 1983, Folder Chronological File
(03/12/1983-03/17/1983), Faith Whittlesey Files, Box 1, Ronald Reagan Library.
Document, Seating Chart For Dais Of 1983 National Prayer Breakfast, Folder National Prayer
Breakfast February 4, 1983 – OA8495, Box 5, Advance Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Address to the Jackson Day Dinner” (January 8, 1940), Folder
02/03/1983 National Prayer Breakfast, Box 81, Speechwriting Office Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Letter, An Open Letter to: His Excellency, Mr. Ronald Wilson Reagan from His Holiness Pimen,
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, March 28, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals
Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Cal Thomas to Bill Sadleir, January 14, 1982, Folder PR007-01, Box 8, WHORM Subject
File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Cal Thomas to Ed Meese, March 17, 1982, Folder SP 067035, Box 2, WHORM Subject
File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Carl L. Shipley to Honorable Edwin Meese III (document #123889), February 4, 1983,
Folder FG 006-01, Box 39, WHORM Subject File Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Charles W. Jarvis to J. Douglas Holladay, Folder Evangelicals, Box 12, Holiday, J.
Douglas Files, Reagan Presidential Library.
Letter, Douglas E. Coe to Honorable Edwin Meese III (#127041), February 22, 1983, Folder FG
006-01, Box 40, WHORM Office File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Edwin Meese to Jerry Falwell (#032502), July 17, 1981, Folder FG51(Supreme Court),
Box 9, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Elizabeth Dole to Douglas E. Coe, July 17, 1981, Coe, Douglas Folder, Box 17,
WHORM Alpha File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Glenn A. Jones to Morton Blackwell, January 27, 1983, Folder Annual National Prayer
Breakfast (2), Box 73, Speech Writing Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
230
Letter, Jerry Falwell to Ronald Reagan, July 31, 1981 (#035130), Folder F1 010-02 035130, Box
1, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Kenneth M. Duberstein to Senator Nancy Kassebaum, November 4, 1983, Folder MC
003, Box 20, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Malcolm Muggeridge to Ronald Reagan, March, 1983, Folder 01/31/1983 – National
Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Letter, Mari Maseng to Jerry Falwell, July 28, 1986, Folder FG 006 (434400-434530), Box 133,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Morton C. Blackwell to Cal Thomas, March 25, 1982, Folder SP 067035, Box 2,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Norman Lear to PFAW Supporters, Folder WE 003 Family Planning - Abortion,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Riley Bishop and Linda Joslyn-Bishop, Ph.D. to Senator Nancy Kassebaum, August 22,
1982, Folder MC003 Briefings and Conference, Box 20, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Letter, Robert P. Dugan to Anthony R. Dolan, February 25, 1983, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 2, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Robert P. Dugan to James Baker, December 3, 1982, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 6, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Robert P. Dugan to Morton Blackwell, June 10, 1983, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 2, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter from Robert P. Dugan to President Ronald Reagan, December 3, 1982, National
Association of Evangelicals Folder 6, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Robert M. Kimmitt to Senator John C. Danforth, December 19, 1983, Folder MC003
Briefings and Conference, Box 20, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Ronald Reagan to Jerry Falwell, June 22, 1981, Folder ME001 - 029649, Box 7,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Ronald Reagan to Jerry Falwell, August 28, 1981 (#035130), Folder F1 010-02, Box 1,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Ronald Reagan to Jerry Falwell, September 18, 1981 (#040252), Folder GI-002, Box 1,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
231
Letter from Ronald Reagan to Malcolm Muggeridge, April 18, 1983, Folder 01/31/1983 –
National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech Writing Research Office Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
Letter from Ronald Reagan to Rosemary Yelland, RM Religious Matters (030001-075000), Box
1, WHORM Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, Strom Thurmond to Ronald Reagan (document #123575), February 4, 1983, Folder
TR001 123575, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Letter, William F. Buckley, Jr. to Tony Dolan, March 2, 1983, Folder March, 1983-1,” Box 76,
Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Magazine Article, Kenneth L. Woodward, “The Split Up Evangelicals,” Newsweek, April 26,
1982, Religion 1982 Folder, Box 47, Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Memo, Bentley Elliott to The President, February 1, 1983, Folder SP 714 National Prayer
Breakfast 2/3/83(1), Box 190, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Memo, Dee Jepsen to Red Cavaney, February 1, 1983, Folder Religion 1982 (1), Box 47,
Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Memo, Dee Jepsen and Morton Blackwell to Red Cavaney, February 18, 1983, National
Association of Evangelicals Folder 7, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Memo, Gary L. Bauer to Edwin L. Harper, March 11, 1982, Folder SP 067035, Box 2, WHORM
Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Memo, Morton C. Blackwell to Ben Elliott, January 31, 1983, Folder Annual National Prayer
Breakfast (2), Box 73, Speech Writing Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Memo, Morton C. Blackwell to Ken Cribb, June 7, 1982, Folder WE 003 - 069922, Box 2,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Memo, Richard B. Wirthlin to President Ronald Reagan, December 8, 1982, Folder “Political
Affairs” (3), Box 5, James Baker Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Memo, William K. Sadleir to Red Cavaney – “Request for Scheduling Recommendation,”
January 24, 1983, Folder PR007-01, Box 8, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newsletter Article, Carl E. Arberdeen, “Principal’s Column,” Regent College Newsletter, March,
1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Newsletter Article, Robert P. Dugan, NAE Washington Insight V-4 (April, 1983): 1-2, National
Association of Evangelicals Folder 2, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
232
Newspaper Article, Anthony Lewis, “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” New York Times (March 9,
1983), National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Newspaper Article, Bruce Drake, “Reagan Gives Evangelicals A Call To Arms,” New York
Daily News, March 9, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan
Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, “Can Clerics Be Cleric and Presidents Presidents?” The Economist, March
19, 1983: 33, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 5, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Charles Austin, “Synagogue Council Endorses Nuclear Freeze,” The New
York Times, February 25, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony
Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Charles Austin, “Religious Leaders Chide Reagan Talk,” National
Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Edmond Jacoby, “Born-Again Lose Fervor For Reagan,” Washington Times,
November 14, 1983, Evangelicals Folder 11F, Box 1, Faith Whittlesey Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Newspaper Article, Elizabeth Russell, “Religious Broadcasters Boast Expanding Ranks,” The
Washington Times, Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80, Speech
Writing Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Foreign Press Reports, “Communist Paper: Reagan’s Holy War,”: 7, March
10, 1983, Folder 5, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Henry S. Commager, USA Today (November 9, 1983), Folder 1, Box 19,
Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, John F. Burns, “Soviet Rebuts ‘Focus of Evil’ Speech,” The New York
Times, March 18, 1983, Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Juan Williams, “Reagan Steps Up Defense Push,” Washington Post, March
8, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Juan Williams, “Writers Breath Fire In To Reagan’s Speeches,” Dayton
Journal-Herald, March 29, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony
Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
233
Newspaper Article, Lou Cannon, “Reagan Seeks to Shore Up on the Right,” The Washington
Post, February 1, 1983, Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box 80,
Speech Writing Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Lutz Krusche, “Reagan Tries to Mobilize Moral Majority for 1984 Election,”
Frankfurter Runschau, March 9, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 5, Box 19,
Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Patrick J. Buchanan, “Reagan’s Fiery Sermon,” New York Post, March 15,
1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 3, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Newspaper Article, Paul Taylor, “Falwell Hits Mondale on Religion,” The Washington Post,
September 10, 1984, Reagan Administration: Religion and Politics (4), Box 12, Holladay, J.
Douglas Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Pravda (in Russian with translation), Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, “Pravda Says U.S. Propaganda Not Believed,” Moscow TASS in English,
January 7, 1983, Nuclear Freeze Folder (8 of 8), Box OA9422, David Gergen Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, Tom Wicker, “More is Not Safer,” New York Times, National Association of
Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, UPI Wire Copy, “Reagan to Fight for Prayer Amendment,” Manchester
Union Leader (February 1, 1983), Folder 01/31/1983 – National Religious Broadcasters (1), Box
80, Speech Writing Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Article, William F. Willoughby, “Reagan’s Religious Savvy,” Washington Post,
March 16, 1983, National Association of Evangelicals Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
Newspaper Headlines, Responses to NAE (March 9, 1983), National Association of Evangelicals
Folder 1, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Speech Draft of Presidential Address to the National Association of Evangelicals, Folder
National Association of Evangelicals Orlando, FL 3/8/83 (1 of 3), Box 85, Speechwriting
Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Speech Draft, RR Changes, Presidential Remarks: Annual National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday,
February 3 1983, Folder National Prayer Breakfast (1), Box 73, WHORM: Speechwriting,
Ronald Reagan Library.
234
Speech Draft, Remarks to the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1983, Folder SP 714
National Prayer Breakfast 2/3/81(1), Box 190, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Speech Draft, Ronald Reagan Notes, Folder SP 715 – National Religious Broadcasters, Box 190,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Speech Manuscript - Final, Remarks of the President to the 41st Annual Convention of the
Nationals Association of Evangelicals, March 8 1983, Folder Address National Association of
Evangeliclas (Orlando)(Dolan) (1 of 6), Box 77, Speechwriting Office Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Speech Manuscript - Final, Presidential Remarks: Annual National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday,
February 3 1983, Folder National Prayer Breakfast (1), Box 73, Speechwriting Office Files,
Ronald Reagan Library.
Speech Manuscript - Presidential Address to the National Religious Broadcasters (January 31,
1983): Folder SP715 (National Religious Broadcasters, 01/31/1983) 1/2, Box 190, SPSPEECHES, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Speech Text, Francis Schaeffer, “The Secular Humanistic World View Versus the Christian
World View and the Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness,” (June 22, 1982): 6-7,
National Association of Evangelicals Folder 5, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
Telegram, Jerry Falwell and other Religious Leaders to Ronald Reagan, January 6, 1982, Folder
HU016 Women, Box 1, WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Telegram, Jerry Falwell to Edwin Meece, July 2, 1981, Folder FG51 (Supreme Court), Box 9,
WHORM Subject File, Ronald Reagan Library.
Tony Dolan Speech Research, V.I. Lenin: Selected Works: 613, Folder National Association of
Evangelicals Orlando, FL 3/8/83 (3 of 3), Box 86, Speechwriting Research Office Files, Ronald
Reagan Library.
White House News Summary, “Network News Summary for Tuesday Evening, March 15,
1983,” National Association of Evangelicals Folder 2, Box 19, Tony Dolan Files, Ronald Reagan
Library.
White House Office Referral to Brad Reynolds at the Department of Justice (December
10,1982): Folder RM 020 Prayers – Prayer Periods (104001-130000), Box 3, WHORM Subject
File, Ronald Reagan Library.
White House Staffing Memorandum: Remarks to Annual Prayer Breakfast - Craig Fuller,
February 1, 1983, Folder 02/03/1983 National Prayer Breakfast, Box 81, Speechwriting
Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
235
White House Staffing Memorandum: Remarks to Annual Prayer Breakfast - David Gergen,
February 1, 1983, Folder 02/03/1983 National Prayer Breakfast, Box 81, Speechwriting
Research Office Files, Ronald Reagan Library.
Book References
Balmer, Randall, Mine Eyes Have Seen The Glory: A Journey Into The Evangelical Subculture
In America. Expanded ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Balmer, Randall, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens
America (New York: Basic Books, 2006).
Bennett, J.R., “Double Think And The Rhetoric Of Crisis: President Reagan's October 22, 1983
Speech On Arms Reduction" in Oldspeak/Newspeak Rhetorical Transformations, ed. C. W.
Kneupper (Arlington: Rhetoric Society of America, 1985).
Brinkley, Douglas, ed., The Reagan Diaries (New York: Harper-Collins, 2007).
Brown, Mary Beth, Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan
(Nashville: WND Books, 2004).
Burke, Kenneth, A Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).
Burke, Kenneth, Counter Statement (Berkeley: University of California, 1968).
Burke, Kenneth, On Symbols and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).
Cannon, Lou, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991).
Carpenter, Joel A., Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
Chase, K.R., “Reagan's First State Of The Union Address: A Case Study In Language, Argument
And Culture,” in Argument And Social Practice: Proceedings Of The Fourth SCA/AFA
Conference On Argumentation, eds. J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, & G. B Walker (Annandale: Speech
Communication Association, 1985).
Dickinson, Greg, “Creating His Own Constraint: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Crisis,”
The Modern Presidency and Crisis Rhetoric, ed. Amos Kiewe (Westport: Praeger, 1994).
Dochuk, Darren, From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the
Rise of Evangelical Conservatism (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011).
236
Fisher, W.R., “Narrativity and Politics: The Case of Ronald Reagan,” in Human Communication
As Narration: Toward A Philosophy Of Reason, Value, And Action, ed. W.R Fisher (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1987).
Foote, J.S., “Reagan on Radio” in Communication Yearbook 8, ed. R. N. Bostrom (Beverly Hills:
Sage, 1984).
Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E., From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1974).
Goodnight, G.T., “Reagan, Vietnam, And Central American: Public Memory And The Politics
Of Fragmentation,” in Beyond The Rhetorical Presidency, ed. M.J. Medhurst (College Station,
TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1986), 122-152.
Green, John, et al, eds, The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium
(Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003).
Hangen, Tona, Redeeming the Dial: Radio, Religion & Popular Culture in America (Chapel Hill:
North Carolina Press, 2002).
Harding, Susan, The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2000).
Hart, R.P., “On Genre, Computers, And The Reagan Inaugural” in Form, Genre, And The Study
Of Political Discourse, ed. H. W. Simons & A. A. Aghazarian (Columbia: USC Press, 1987).
Heisey, D.R., “Presidents Ronald Reagan's Apologia On The Iran-Contra Affair,” in Oratorical
Encounters: Selected Studies And Sources Of Twentieth-Century Political Accusations And
Apologies, ed. H. R. Ryan (Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1988).
Hogue, Andrew P., Stumping God: Reagan, Carter, and the Invention of a Political Faith
(Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012).
Houck, Davis W. and Kiewe, Amos, Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of
Ronald Reagan (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1993).
Johannesen, R.L., “An Ethical Assessment of the Reagan Rhetoric: 1981-1982,” in Political
Communication Yearbook, eds. K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid, & D. Nimmo (Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1985).
Kengor, Paul, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (New York: Regan
Books, 2006).
Kengor, Paul, God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life (New York: Harper Collins, 2004).
Kiewe, Amos & Houck, Davis W., Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric,
1951-1989 (Westport: Praeger, 1991).
237
Lahr, Angela, Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of
Political Evangelicalism, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Marsden, George M., Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of TwentiethCentury Evangelicalism 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
Marsden, George M., Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New
Evangelicalism, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995).
McCullough, David, John Adams (Simon & Schuester: New York, 2002).
Miller, Steven P., The Age Of Evangelicalism: America's Born-Again Years (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2014).
Muir, William K., Jr., “Ronald Reagan’s Bully Pulpit: Creating a Rhetoric of Values,”
Presidential Speechwriting: From the New Deal to the Reagan Revolution and Beyond, ed. by
Kurt Ritter and Martin J. Medhurst (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003).
Noll, Mark A., America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2002).
Noonan, Peggy, What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era (New York:
Random House Publishers, 1990).
Palczewski, C. H., “Civil Religion and Public Argument: Reagan as Public Priest of the
Antiabortion Movement,” in Reagan and Public Discourse in America, eds. M. Weiler & W. B.
Pearce (Tuscaloosa: U Alabama, 1992).
Reagan, Ronald, An American Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990).
Reagan, Ronald, The Reagan Diaries (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007).
Reagan, Ronald, The Wit and Wisdom of Ronald Reagan (Washington, D.C.: Regency
Publishing, 2007).
Reeves, Richard, President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 2006).
Richards, Jeffrey, “Frank Capra and the Cinema of Populism,” Movies and Methods: An
Anthology, Volume 1 – Edited by Bill Nichols (Berkley: University of California Press, 1976).
Ritter, Kurt & Henry, David, Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator (New York: Greenwood
Press, 1992).
Ritter, Kurt & Medhurst, Martin J., Presidential Speechwriting: From the New Deal to the
Reagan Revolution and Beyond (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003).
238
Schaeffer, Frank, Crazy for God (New York: Da Capo Press, 2008).
Schultze, Quentin, Christianity and the Mass Media in America (East Lansing: Michigan State
University Press, 2003).
Sharlet, Jeff, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (New
York: Harper Collins, 2008).
Sperling, Cass, Millner, Cork & Warner, Jack, Jr., Hollywood Be Thy Name: The Warner
Brothers Story (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1998).
Stuckey, Mary E., Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan (New York:
Praeger, 1990).
Stuckey, Mary E., To Slip the Surly Bonds: Ronald Reagan’s Challenger Address (College
Station: Texas A&M Press, 2006).
Sutton, Matthew, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).
Thomas, Cal & Dobson, Ed, Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America? (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1999).
Vaughn, Stephen, Ronald Reagan in Hollywood: Movies and Politics (Oxford: Cambridge
University Press, 1994).
Williams, Daniel K., God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010).
Zarefsky, David, “Four Senses of Rhetorical History,” in Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts
and Cases, ed. Kathleen J. Turner (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1998).
Journal Articles
Adams, W.C., “Recent Fables about Ronald Reagan,” Public Opinion 7 (1984): 6-9.
Alexander, L., “In The Service Of The State: Public Diplomacy, Government, Media, And
Ronald Reagan,” Media, Culture, and Society 1 (1987): 29-46.
Barber, J.D., “Candidate Reagan And "The Sucker Generation," Columbia Journalism Review 26
(1987): 33-36.
Bennett, James R., “Double Think and the Rhetoric of Crisis: President Reagan’s October 22,
1983 speech on ‘Arms Reduction’” Oldspeak/Newspeak: Rhetorical Transformations (1985).
239
Benoit, W.L., Gullifor, P. & Panici, D.A., “President Reagan's Defensive Discourse On The IranContra Affair,” Communication Studies 42 (1991): 272-294.
Birdsell, D.S., “Ronald Reagan On Lebanon And Granada: Flexibility And Interpretation In The
Application Of Kenneth Burke's Pentad,” Quarterly Journal Of Speech 73 (1987): 267-279.
Bostdorff, D.M. & Goldzwig, S.R., “History, Collective Memory, And The Appropriation Of
Martin Luther King, Jr.: Reagan's Rhetorical Legacy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (2005):
661-690.
Ceaser, J.W., “As Good As Their Words: Reagan's Rhetoric,” Public Opinion 7 (1984): 10-17.
Chester, E.W., “Shadow Or Substance?: Critiquing Reagan's Inaugural Address,” Presidential
Studies Quarterly 11 (1981): 172-176.
Coe, K. & Domke, D., “Petitioners Or Prophets? Presidential Discourse, God, And The
Ascendancy Of Religious Conservatives,” Journal of Communication 56 (2006): 309-330.
Covington, C.R., K. Kroger, G.W. Richardson, Jr. & J.D. Woodard, “Ronald Reagan's 'Issue Of
The Day' Strategy And Differences and Its Impact On Television And The Print Media During
The 1980 Election,” Political Research Quarterly 46 (1993): 483-498.
Crable, R. E. & Vibbert, S.L., “Argumentative Stance And Political Faith Healing: The Dream
Will Come True,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 69 (1983): 290-301.
D.C. Klope, “Defusing A Foreign Policy Crisis: Myth And Victimage In Reagan's 1983
Lebanon/Grenada Address,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 50 (1986): 336-349.
Davis, M.H., “Voting Intentions And The 1980 Carter-Reagan Debate,” Journal Of Applied
Social Psychology 12 (1982): 481-492.
Dolan, Anthony R., “Impressions: Premeditated Prose: Reagan’s Evil Empire,” American
Enterprise 4-2 (March–April 1993): 24.
Dowling, R.E. & Marraro, Gabrielle, "Grenada And The Great Communicator: A Study In
Democratic Ethics," Western Journal of Speech Communication 50-4 (1986): 350-367.
Enholm, D.K. & Gustainis, J.J., “Ronald Reagan And The Mixed Forms Of Argument,” Journal
of The American Forensics Association 24 (1987): 48-56.
Fessler, Paul, “Ronald Reagan, Address To The National Association Of Evangelicals: The ‘Evil
Empire Speech,’” Voices of Democracy 2 (2007): 26-49.
Fischer, B.A., “Toeing The Hardline? The Reagan Administration And The Ending Of The Cold
War,” Political Science Quarterly 112 (1997): 477-496.
240
Fisher, Walter R., “Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream,” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 59-2 (1973): 151-153.
Fisher, Walter R., “Romantic Democracy, Ronald Reagan, and the Presidential Heroes,” Western
Journal of Speech Communication 46 (1982): 299-310.
Gentry, Richard H., “Broadcast Religion: When Does It Raise Fairness Doctrine Issues?”
Journal of Broadcasting 28-3 (Summer 1984): 261.
Gilboa, E., “Effects Of Televised Presidential Addresses On Public Opinion: President Reagan
And Terrorism In The Middle East,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 43-54.
Gold, E.R., “Ronald Reagan And The Oral Tradition,” Central States Speech Journal 39 (1988):
159-176.
Goodnight, G.T., “Ronald Reagan's Re-Formulation Of The Rhetoric Of War: Analysis Of The
‘Zero-Option,’ ‘Evil Empire,’ and ‘Star Wars’ Addresses,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72
(1986): 390-414.
Hall, Wynton C., The Invention of 'Quantifiably Safe Rhetoric': Richard Wirthlin and Ronald
Reagan's Instrumental Use of Public Opinion Research in Presidential Discourse,” Western
Journal of Communication 66-3 (Summer 2002).
Hankins, Sarah Russell, “Archetypal Alloy: Reagan’s Rhetorical Image,” Central States Speech
Journal 34 (Spring, 1983): 33-34.
Hart, D.G., “When Is a Fundamentalist a Modernist? J. Gresham Machen, Cultural Modernism,
and Conservative Protestantism,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65-3 (Autumn,
1997): 607-609.
Hawdon, J.E., “The Role Of Presidential Rhetoric In The Creation Of A Moral Panic: Reagan,
Bush, And The War On Drugs,” Deviant Behavior 22 (2001): 419-445.
Hodgson, Godfrey, “Anti-Americanism and American Exceptionalism,” Journal of Transatlantic
Studies 2-1 (2004): 27-38.
Houck, Davis W., “On or About June 1988,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 9-1 (Spring 2006): 135.
Howell, B. Wayne, “Ronald Reagan's Address at Moscow State University: A Rhetoric of
Conciliation and Subversion,” The Southern Communication Journal 68-2 (2003): 107-120.
Howell, B. Wayne, “Reagan and Reykjavak: Arms Control, SDI, and the Argument from Human
Rights,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 11-3 (2008): 389–415.
241
Ivie, R.L. & Ritter, Kurt, “Whither The ‘Evil Empire’: Reagan And The Presidential Candidates
Debating Foreign Policy In The 1988 Campaign,” American Behavioral Scientist 32 (1989):
436-450.
Johannesen, R.L., “Ronald Reagan's Economic Jeremiad,” Central States Speech Journal 37
(1986): 79-89.
Johnson, Stephen D. and Tamney, Joseph B., “The Christian Right and the 1980 Presidential
Election,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 21-2 (Jun., 1982): 129.
Johnson, Stephen D. and Tamney, Joseph B., “The Christian Right and the 1984 Presidential
Election,” Review of Religious Research 27-2 (1985): 124-133.
Johnstone, C.L., “Reagan, Rhetoric, and The Public Philosophy: Ethics and Politics In The 1984
Campaign,” Southern Communication Journal 60 (1995): 93-108.
Jones, John M. & Rowland, Robert C., “A Covenant-Affirming Jeremiad: The Post-Presidential
Ideological Appeals Of Ronald Reagan,” Communication Studies 56 (2005): 157-174.
Jones, John M. & Rowland, Robert C., “Reagan At The Brandenburg Gate: Moral Clarity
Tempered By Pragmatism,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 9 (2006): 1-21, 50.
Jones, John M. & Rowland, Robert C., “Reagan at Moscow State University: Consubstantiality
Underlying Conflict,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10-1 (2007): 87.
Keller, J.W., “Constraint Respecters, Constraint Challengers, and Crisis Decision Making in
Democracies: A Case Study Analysis of Kennedy versus Reagan,” Political Psychology 26
(2005): 835-868.
Landau, Yehezkel, “The President and the Bible: What Do the Prophets Say to Our Time?”
Christianity and Crisis (December 12, 1983).
Lee, R. & Spano, S.J., “Technical Discourse In Defense Of Public Virtue: Ronald Reagan’s
Explanation Of The Iran/Contra Affair,” Political Communication 13 (1996): 115-129.
Leff, Michael, “Textual Criticism: The Legacy of G.P. Mohrmann,” Quarterly Journal of Speech
72 (1986): 380.
Lewis, Stephen E., “Book Review: The Renaissance of American Public Address: Text and
Context in Rhetorical Criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 74 (1988): 248-249.
Lewis, William F., “Telling America's Story: Narrative Form And The Reagan Presidency,”
Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987): 280-302.
Lule, J., “The Political Use Of Victims: The Shaping Of The Challenger Disaster,” Political
Communication 7 (1990): 115-128.
242
Mackey-Kallis, S., “Spectator Desire And Narrative Closure: The Reagan 18-Minute Political
Film,” Southern Communication Journal 56 (1991): 308-314.
Martin, M.A., “Ideologues, Ideographs, And The ‘The Best Man’: From Carter To Reagan,”
Southern Speech Communication Journal 49 (1983): 12-25.
Martin, M.H., “President Reagan's Return to Radio,” Journalism Quarterly 61 (1984): 817-821.
McAndrews, Lawrence, 'Moral' Victories: Ronald Reagan and the Debate over School Prayer,
Religion & Education Journal 30-1 (Spring 2003).
Medhurst, Martin J., “Postponing the Social Agenda: Reagan’s Strategy and Tactics,” The
Western Journal of Communication 48-3 (Summer 1984).
Medhurst, Martin J., “Writing Speeches for Ronald Reagan: An Interview with Tony Dolan,”
Rhetoric & Public Affairs 1-2 (1998): 245-256.
Meyer, John, “Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon,” Communication
Studies 41-1 (1990): 76-88.
Moore, Mark P., “Rhetorical Criticism of Political Myth: From Goldwater Legend to Reagan
Mystique,” Communications Studies 42-3 (Fall 1991): 302-304.
Mouw, Richard J., “Sectarian Religiosity.” Reformed Journal 33-4 (1983): 2–3.
Olson, K.M., “The Controversy Over President Reagan's Visit To Bitburg: Strategies Of
Definition And Redefinition,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): 129-151.
Paletz, D.L., & Guthrie, K.K., “The Three Faces Of Ronald Reagan,” Journal Of
Communication (1987): 7-23.
Preston, G.T., “Reagan's ‘New Beginnings’: Is It The ‘New Deal’ Of The Eighties,” Southern
Speech Communication Journal 49 (1984): 198-211.
Ritter, Kurt W., “Ronald Reagan and ‘The Speech’: The Rhetoric of Public Relations Politics,”
Western Speech 32 (1968): 50-51.
Rushing, J.H., “Ronald Reagan's ‘Star Wars’ Address: Mythic Containment Of Technical
Reasoning,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (1986): 415-433.
Sallot, Lynne M., “The Man on a White Horse: The Presidency, Persuasion and Myth,” The
Florida Communications Journal XVIII – 1 (1990): 5.
Scheele, H.Z., “ Ronald Reagan's 1980 Acceptance Address: A Focus On American Values,”
Western Journal of Speech Communication 48 (1984): 51-61.
243
Schultze, Quentin J., “The NRB Media Event,” The Reformed Journal 33-3 (March, 1983): 2-3.
Scott, Ian, “Populism, Pragmatism, and Political Reinvention: The Presidential Motif in the
Films of Frank Capra,” Hollywood’s White House: The American Presidency in Film and
History. (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2003): 180-192.
Shannon, W. Wayne, “Mr. Reagan Goes to Washington: Teaching Exceptional America,” Public
Opinion 4 (December/January 1982): 14.
Shogan, C.J., “Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence Of Silent Cal On The Great
Communicator,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 9 (2006): 215-234.
Simpson, John H., “Socio-Moral Issues and Recent Presidential Elections,” Review of Religious
Research 27-2 (1985): 115-123.
Skinner, Kiron, Anderson, Annelise and Anderson, Martin, Reagan: A Life in Letters (New
York: Simon & Schuester, 2003), 123.
Smidt, Corwin, “Evangelicals within Contemporary American Politics: Differentiating between
Fundamentalist and Non-Fundamentalist Evangelicals,” The Western Political Quarterly 41-3
(September 1988): 601-602.
Stuckey, Mary E., “One Nation (Pretty Darn) Divisible: National Identity In The 2004
Conventions,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8-4 (2005): 639-656.
Vaughn, Stephen, “The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of
Christ,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 25-1 (1995): 109-127.
Wall, James M., “Mr. Reagan Speaks Only to ‘Believers,’” Christian Century 100 (1983): 259.
Wilcox, Clyde, “Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in the New Christian Right: Religious
Differences in the Ohio Moral Majority,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 25-3
(September, 1986): 361.
Wills, Garry, “Nelle’s Boy: Ronald Reagan and the Disciples of Christ,” Christian Century 10334 (1986): 1002-6.
Periodical References
Kantzer, Kenneth S., “What Shall We Do About the Nuclear Problem?” Christianity Today
(January 21, 1983): 11.
Mouw, Richard, “The Protestant Theology of Abraham Kuyper,” Weekly Standard 4:16 (January
4, 1999).
244
North, Gary, “The Eschatological Crisis of the Moral Majority,” Christian Reconstruction
(Jan/Feb, 1981).
“Nuclear Arms Debate,” Insight – The Monthly Newsletter of the National Association of
Evangelicals, V:1 (January, 1983): 2.
Religion News Service, “Religious Right Drums Up Support for North,” The Los Angeles Times
(September 3, 1988).
Warner, Frank, “New World Order: Seventeen Years Ago This Week, Ronald Reagan Called
The Soviet Union The Focus Of Evil In The Modern World,” The Allentown Morning Call
(March 5, 2000).
Media Obtained References
1984 Presidential Debate Transcript: Commission on Presidential Debates (October 7, 1984),
accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-7-1984-debatetranscript.
“About the Fellowship,” The Fellowship Foundation, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://thefellowshipfoundation.org/about.html.
Associated Press Writers, “Reagan Proposes School Prayer Amendment,” The New York Times
(May 18, 1982), accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/18/us/reaganproposes-school-prayer-amendment.html.
Balmer, Randall, “Think Tank Transcripts: The Christian Right in American Politics,” National
Public Radio, accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript118.html.
Clymer, Adam, “Richard Wirthlin, Pollster Who Advised Reagan, Dies at 80,” New York Times,
March 17, 2011, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/us/politics/18wirthlin.html.
Connie Marshner Speech, “The Reagan Presidency: Part 1,” Duncan Entertainment, American
Public Television.
Dolan, Anthony “Four Little Words,” The Wall Street Journal (November 8, 2009), accessed
April 1, 2015,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522163362062796.html.
Ferrari, Gabrella, “Ronald Reagan’s Top Ten Speeches and Debate Moments,” Houston
Chronicle (February 5, 2011), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/02/reagans-top-ten-speeches-and-debate-moments.
245
Jackson, Harold, “Reagan Calls Moscow an Evil Empire,” The Guardian (March 9, 1983),
accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/mar/09/archive-1983reagan-russia-evil-empire/print.
Malone, Julia, “Despite House Vote, Nuclear Freeze May Prove Potent Come November,” The
Christian Science Monitor (August 9, 1982), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0809/080948.html.
National Association of Evangelicals, “Our History,” accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.nae.net/about-us/history/62.
Nixon, Richard, “Farewell Speech,” (August 9, 1974), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/nixon-farewell.html.
Noonan, Peggy, “The Ben Elliott Story,” The Wall Street Journal (June 14, 2004), accessed
April 1, 2015, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122460039897754255.html.
“On Soviet Morality,” Time (February 16, 1981), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954653,00.html.
People for the American Way, Our Founding Mission, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.pfaw.org/about-us/founding-mission.
Pitney, John J. Jr., “The Tocqueville Fraud,” The Weekly Standard (November 13, 1995),
accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.tocqueville.c-span.nsatc.net/pitney.htm.
Reagan admitted this fact at the October 7, 1984 Presidential Debate, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3995301.
Reagan Archives at the University of Texas, “Ronald Reagan Facts,” accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/facts.html).
“Reagan’s ‘Evil Empire’ Speech.” Encyclopedia Britannica Blog, February 3, 2011, accessed
April 1, 2015, http://www.britannica.com/blogs/author/mmedhurst.
Reagan, Ronald, “Frank Capra Dies; Directed 'Wonderful Life,” The Los Angeles Times
(September 4, 1991), accessed April 1, 2015, http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-04/news/mn1543_1_frank-capra.
Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, Washington, D.C.
(January 31, 1983), accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/13183b.htm.
“Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review” (June 7, 2004), accessed
April 1, 2015. http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspectivegallup-poll-review.aspx.
246
Ronald Reagan Speech, “1980 Republican Nomination Acceptance Speech, accessed July 1,
2015, http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/7.17.80.html.
Ronald Reagan Speech, “Time for Choosing,” accessed July 1, 2015,
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html.
Schudel, Matt, “Politically Powerful TV Evangelist D. James Kennedy Dies,” Washington Post
(September 6, 2007), accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502441.html.
“The Activities of the Fellowship,” The Fellowship Foundation, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://thefellowshipfoundation.org/activities.html.
The Late Great Planet Earth, Book Profile, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://zondervan.com/9780310277712.
“The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America,” Time Magazine (February 7, 2005), accessed
April 1, 2015,
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1993235_1993243_1993262,00.h
tml.
Throckmorton, Warren, “Doug Coe's Vision for the Fellowship: The Man Behind The National
Prayer Breakfast Explains His Original Intent For His Organization,” Christianity Today (May
13, 2010), accessed April 1, 2015, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/2942.0.html.
Tooley, Mark, Ronald Reagan’s Legacy & the Religious Right, accessed April 1, 2015,
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2014/02/10/ronald-reagans-legacy-thereligious-right/#ixzz37Vq7XMjy).
UPI Staff, “Abortions Not Forced, China President Says” Los Angeles Times (July 11, 1985),
accessed June 1, 2015, http://articles.latimes.com/print/1985-07-11/news/mn-8452_1_familyplanning-policy.
Ryor Oral History/Primary Source References
Cromartie, Michael – Vice President of Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, D.C.,
Interview with John Charles Ryor, November 21, 2014.
Mouw, Richard – Former President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, Interview
with John Charles Ryor, November 19, 2014.
247
Perrier, Tim – Associate with International Foundation, Tallahassee, FL, Interview with John
Charles Ryor, February 26, 2015.
Transcript of “Knute Rockne-All American” Ronald Reagan, transcript by Chuck Ryor, Florida
State University.
Wright, Frank – President of the National Religious Broadcasters, Washington, D.C., Interview
with John Charles Ryor, December 12, 2011.
*This project (specifically these oral history references) was determined by the FSU Office of
Research as not needing approval from the Institutional Review Board. The Human Subjects
policy of the FSU Office of Research states, “Oral History research projects, in general, are not
designed to contribute to generable knowledge and therefore, do not involve ‘research’ as
defined by (DHHS at 45 CFR 46.102(d), and do not need to be reviewed by the IRB.”1
1
Florida State Office of Research website, http://research.fsu.edu/research-offices/human-subjects/faq/
248
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
John Charles “Chuck” Ryor is the founding Pastor of Prism Church in Pasadena,
California. He serves as an Adjunct Professor of Communications at Providence Christian
College, also located in Pasadena. Previous to moving to California he was the founding Pastor
of Center Point Church in Tallahassee, Florida.
Educated at West Virginia University (B.S. Journalism, 1987), Reformed Theological
Seminary
(M.A.
Theological
Studies,
1993),
and
Florida
State
University
(Ph.D.
Communications, 2015), Chuck worked as a disc jockey and radio sportscaster before going into
full-time pastoral ministry in 1995. Chuck was also the founder and Chairman of the non-profit
organization that led the effort to establish Christian radio station 88.1, WAY-FM in Tallahassee.
He and his wife, Carolyn, have two grown children and live in California. Aside from the
passion he has for his faith and his family, Chuck is a diehard, couch burning, Old Gold & Blue
wearing, WVU “Mountaineer Maniac” sports enthusiast. In his spare time he is a staff writer for
a national WVU fan website.
249