The "Evil Empire" of Abortion

Paul Kengor

Paul Kengor is associate professor of political science at Grove City College. He is currently writing What Reagan Knew, a book about the personal role of President Reagan in his administration's effort to undermine the Soviet empire.

Following her recent death, the obituaries for Maureen Reagan, daughter of President Ronald Reagan, all duly noted her strong disagreement with her father on "women's issues," namely "abortion rights." I was surprised by her stridency on this issue. On most else, Maureen agreed with her father, and was very much a conservative. In my research on her father, I came across more than one reference from former Reagan staffers-usually the "moderates"-about her being to the "right of Attila the Hun." Well, that certainly wasn't true for the abortion issue, where she was clearly on the left.

I puzzled over this. More accurately, as a pro-lifer who has studied Reagan up and down, including his family relations, I anguished over it. If Maureen Reagan, who agreed with her father on so many issues, was so often persuaded by him, was so frequently literally brought to tears of joy and inspiration by his leadership, speeches, words, and life and presidency in general, could remain pro-choice all her adult life, then what are the prospects of changing the hearts and minds of the rest of the country? If this nearly lifelong conservative Republican, whose father made countless pro-life statements and even wrote a book against abortion as president, could be and remain staunchly pro-choice, what hope do we pro-lifers have? Sure, she was only one, but a good barometer of the mountain pro-lifers must overcome.

I had just left the Reagan Library after two months of research on my current book on Maureen's father when her death was announced. Among the documents I carefully read over was Ronald Reagan's famous "Evil Empire" speech, made on March 8, 1983 to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida. It was there that Reagan spoke gravely of the USSR. He declared that while the Soviets

...preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual men, predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

In response, the mainstream media, of course, went nuts. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times described the speech as "sectarian," "dangerous," "outrageous," "simplistic," before ultimately concluding it was "primitive-the only word for it." Richard Cohen of the Washington Post charitably labeled Reagan a "religious bigot." But aside from these predictably hysterical reactions from the left, there were more sober reactions. Andrew Sullivan, now editor of the bible of the left, The New Republic, at the time lived on the western front of the Iron Curtain as a teen growing up in the United Kingdom. "I will never forget the moment I heard his 'evil empire' speech," recalled Sullivan in an Op-Ed piece for the London Sunday Times.

It was broadcast on Radio 4, with skeptical British commentary about this inflammatory new president who knew nothing about the complexities of Communism. . . . But for all the criticism. . . .

remembered Sullivan,

What came through to my teenage brain was an actual truth. Yes, the Soviet Union was evil.

Sullivan now grasps the importance of someone saying that simply and forthrightly. "Who now doubts that?" he correctly asks today.

Edmund Morris, the Reagan biographer, says,

A lot of Russians will tell you that when he used that language, that Biblical language-"Evil Empire"-that was when they, for the first time, began to accept the fact that they were an evil system.

One such Soviet is Arkady Murashev, Moscow police chief, a leader of Democratic Russia, and a person close to Boris Yeltsin. He told reporter David Remnick:

[Reagan] called us the "Evil Empire." So why did you in the West laugh at him? It's true.

I spoke to Ukrainian citizen Alexander Donskiy, who served in the Red Army and then worked at a military-weapons plant. When asked about his thoughts when Reagan used the words "Evil Empire," Donskiy said he was not at all offended. Why not? "I agreed with them," he explained.

It was true. At that time we had no freedom politically, socially, economically, religiously. That was true. [Reagan] was correct.

I have pages of text from former Soviets saying the same thing.

So, what does this have to do with abortion?

The single most important effect of the Evil Empire speech is that it planted a seed. Reagan's statement about Soviet "evil" succeeded in helping change minds inside and outside the USSR. It made something click in the minds of many who otherwise were not given to think of the USSR as "evil," or anywhere near quite that bad. Reagan knew it was important to get them to think this way. This was not just another country that, like the United States, had "legitimate" interests that should be respected. This was not a country morally equivalent to the United States-as asserted the doctrine of "moral equivalency" that plagued so much of the left during the Cold War. This was indeed an Evil Empire. The most basic of civil liberties were banned, even the right to believe in God. A true war on religion was persecuted with reckless abandon, leaving piles of corpses in its wake. From 1917-87, the Soviet leadership killed anywhere from 30 to 60 million of its own people. Need we note anything else? Such an empire was, beyond doubt, evil.

And this is where abortion comes in. We need a similar wake-up call on the issue of abortion. It would help greatly if an individual of the highest visibility-a president, one who occupies what Teddy Roosevelt deemed the "bully pulpit"-gave a major speech on the "evil" of abortion. That precise word must be used. It is imperative that abortion be called what it is-an act of evil. This needs to be done because too much of the American public is clearly not thinking about it that way, from Maureen Reagan to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their sons and daughters, grandkids, friends and relatives, and the people they watch on TV, listen to on the radio, and read about in books and newspapers.

There is a pro-life advocate in southern California who is currently driving large trucks all over the area with huge pictures of aborted fetuses on the sides of the trucks. He has a team of brave drivers who drive the trucks on the freeway during rush hour, where a captive largely pro-choice audience must confront the pictures face to face. Many see this tactic as extreme. I'm not debating it here. But the purpose is clear: People need a wake-up call. The nation is not seeing-literally in this case-abortion for what it is.

Here, I'm not going so far as to call for a picture or billboard campaign. I'm talking about simple, basic language-getting people to think about abortion as the evil it is. Someone needs to plant the seed-to plant the word to get the nation thinking that way. If a president made such a speech, the media publicity would be overwhelming.

At the same time, such a speech needs to be carefully crafted. With the benefit of hindsight, one mistake of the Evil Empire speech was that Reagan did not articulate that he was calling the Soviet system evil-the Soviet state and even leadership. He was not, he should have made it clear, calling the Soviet people evil. This apparently needed to be said.

Likewise, a speech that blasts abortion as evil-especially if given by a politician-would probably need to state that the speaker himself does not view the women who had abortions as evil. The speaker must make clear that he is calling the act of abortion evil. With our culture of ultra-sensitivity, this would probably need to be said.

Equally important, the speech ought to be made before a religious audience, as was the Evil Empire speech. There, the speaker could emphasize that women who have had abortions, and regret having done so, can receive God's forgiveness if they sincerely ask. The speaker can affirm that he personally forgives them, for what that's worth. But, more important, God will forgive them. The speech could focus on the trauma of abortion for women and their need for healing.

Again, I think a president needs to do this. But which president?

Obviously, Clinton would not have, and neither would a President Al Gore, despite his patronizing nonsense about how we must instead focus on "changing the hearts and minds" of those who have abortions-a common refrain from those in the pro-choice community who do little to nothing to change those hearts and minds.

Does this leave the matter to George W. Bush? Not necessarily. A case, however, could be made that he has some of what it takes to make such a pronouncement.

For example, a president who takes this step needs to possess remarkable boldness and confidence. Reagan had these traits. Bush seems to share much of Reagan's security and confidence. These characteristics are needed because the liberal media would go berserk over such a speech. Anthony Lewis and Richard Cohen would be back with a mean vengeance. Throughout the nation, liberals would say that Bush believes that women who have had abortions are evil and doomed to hell. They will say this even if he said the exact opposite-a point Bush would need to calmly, firmly, stoically reiterate again and again among reporter after reporter, year after year.

But it's precisely that media outrage-that media spotlight-that would start people thinking, examining, and talking. It would make the issue the topic of discussion it needs to be on talk radio, around office coolers, in homes-perhaps even internationally in regions like Western Europe, where the message also desperately needs to be heard. Such a president also must be one who prefers to lead rather than follow. (Bush has shown willingness to lead with his tax cut and on some other matters.) He needs to be one who could care less about media criticism. Like Reagan, Bush appears to have this. Each man seems unfazed by the fact that he has been labeled a dummy. Such a president must also not fret over opinion polls. But if Bush did this, he would need to master the abortion issue, understanding the full breadth of arguments and counter-arguments, just as Reagan understood freedom and democracy vs. totalitarian Communism. This is because any president who made a speech like this would be peppered with questions about it incessantly throughout his presidency. In answering these questions, he needs to be convincing in explaining why abortion is truly "evil." When liberals in the press come up with predictable rhetorical questions on abortion, which seem clever to those who haven't thought deeply about the subject, Bush would need to be schooled enough to debunk them on the spot. Here's one example, for instance: "Mr. President: How can you be pro-capital punishment but pro-life on abortion?" This would get posed to Bush because of his record on executions in Texas as governor. Liberals and pro-choicers think this is clever a question and ask it with arrogance. It is an easy question to counter. Within his response should be this rejoinder to the questioner:

Now, having answered your question, tell me: How can you be anti-capital punishment but pro-choice on abortion? That's much more troubling.

The president who gives this speech would need to understand the moral relativism of the pro-choice argument-cut from much the same cloth as those on the left who preached moral equivalency between the United States and USSR during the Cold War. He needs a firm understanding of this relativism in order to address its practitioners.

Bush, or whoever, must not appeal to this blather about how abortion is a "difficult" or "complex" or "agonizing" issue. It is not. It is wrong. It is a horrible act. Abortion is an abomination. There can be no dissembling on this matter. Just like for Reagan there was no debate over whether Communism was good or bad.

Is George W. Bush up to the challenge? I don't know. Whoever accepted this challenge must want this challenge. This would take a rare individual with a burning pro-life passion-someone who sees abortion as the great social injustice of the day. Perhaps even someone consumed with ending abortion to a degree similar to how Reagan was consumed with ending the Soviet Communist empire.

To be frank, I don't expect this from Bush. That's not meant as a criticism. Such leaders of such causes seldom come along, sometimes just once in a lifetime, as Reagan was there in ending the Cold War. Bush may not have the necessary level of passion.

This is a tall order. But so was the Evil Empire speech. The goal of such a speech would not be to win the war against abortion, just as Reagan never intended that the Evil Empire speech would win the Cold War. A speech is not a panacea.

The fight against abortion needs more than mere words. Action is imperative. Still, it's vital that a seed is communicated and thus planted. A speech on the evil empire of abortion would be a key step, not an end. The scourge of abortion is its own evil empire. Someone needs to tell us so.