Perception is often more important than reality - and can often determine our reality by changing how we act. Language frames our experience of reality, thus it determines our experience of reality. Use of the right words and phrases can turn a defeat into a perceived victory, a warrior into a perceived wimp, and stability into perceived chaos.

In the April 1982 issue of Political Quarterly, Michael Johnson discusses some of the concepts and words used by the Christian Right:

One was struggle. The nation was seen as caught in the grip of strong, dangerous forces which NCR [New Christian Right] supporters were obliged to fight. ... A second theme was mobilisation: maximising the strength of unified numbers. ... This theme of mobilisation has significance at several levels. First, of course, it is simply an appeal for like-minded persons to join forces. But it implies two related ideas: first, that the mobilised movement will be characterised by singleness of purpose and conviction; and secondly, that it can become a dominant, even a majority, movement. These subthemes are common to many mobilisation movements, and are not the property of the NCR alone; still, they are the basis for much of the concern which has been voiced over the movement and its goals.

That some of this concern has a real basis can be seen in the third theme of the fundamentalist insurgency’s political language: victory and redemption. Growing out of the themes of struggle and mobilisation, this theme suggested that the NCR would not only “ win ”, but that its mandate would be virtually unlimited.

These themes, words, and concepts are what tended to make the early Christian Right a revolutionary movement rather than simply a reactionary one. The Christian Right wanted to transform American society on a fundamental level — not just government, but society as a whole.

In a sense, the political language of this first phase offered a complete scenario of political conflict and redemption. America is attacked, and seemingly conquered, by the sinister forces of “humanism”; right-thinking citizens mobilise their unified strength, and win a great victory which redeems the nation, presumably once and for all. Such a scenario, it seems, would have a natural attraction for people who think of the world in millenarian terms. The redemption part of the scenario in particular presents a virtually unlimited conception of the majoritarian mandate: that a majority — especially a “moral” one — need not be reluctant to make a nation over in its own image.

It’s only natural that minorities should be concerned about such language and ideas — when a majority believes that it is following the Will of God and possess an unrestricted mandate to reform all of society, it’s easy for minorities to be trampled in the ensuing rush. Majorities which don’t respect the equal worth and rights of minorities are tyrants. Majorities which are uninterested in limits on their own power and unwilling to place themselves completely under the law will become vicious tyrants.

 

Read More:

• Godless Liberalism
• Godless Political Notes
• Godless Constitution
• Christianism & Christian Nationalism