A Covenant‐affirming jeremiad: The post‐presidential ideological appeals of Ronald Wilson Reagan

Abstract

In his post‐presidential discourse, Ronald Reagan did not assume a typical jeremiadic posture, warning that America was straying from conservative dogma. Instead, he warned of other dangers, some of which required alteration in conservatism. He combined those warnings with an optimistic celebration of American exceptionalism. In that way, they served a function similar to a traditional jeremiad, but from an optimistic perspective and without any sense that the nation was straying from its covenant. We coin the term, Covenant‐affirming Jeremiad, to describe the rhetorical characteristic of these addresses.

Keywords:

• Reagan
• Jeremiad
• Covenant‐affirming Jeremiad
• Conservation

Notes

John M. Jones is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Pepperdine University. Robert C. Rowland is Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas.

A review of media coverage of Reagan’s post‐presidential speeches did not identify other important texts aside from these addresses. Furthermore, material pertaining to the composition of the post‐presidential speeches is not available because it is part of the private collection of Ronald Reagan. The rhetoric we discuss in this essay is the most comprehensive collection of Reagan’s post‐presidential discourse that is available.

Not all critics agree with this judgment. See Owen’s summary of the arguments (2002, pp.253–254, 273–274). In our view, the jeremiadic call for healing the breach caused by failure to follow the covenant is an inherently conservative message since it is based on a return to covenantal values (Dionisopoulos, Gallagher, Goldzwig, & Zarefsky, 1992, pp. 97, 105). It is important to note, however, that a sub‐group in society might use jeremiadic rhetoric that was conservative for the covenant of the sub‐group, but radical for the society as a whole.

We suspect that this label also may fit his campaign rhetoric, although that judgment is beyond the scope of this essay.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

John M. Jones

John M. Jones is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Pepperdine University. Robert C. Rowland is Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas.