How the Left Lost Its Power of Expression

Historically, the left thrived by crafting words and expressions that resonated with the public, inflamed passions, and engendered sympathy for their cause. Their ideological wordsmiths understood the importance of using words to mask their dark agenda.

However, something has recently changed in the American left; they no longer express themselves well. Their expressions offend and belittle ordinary citizens. They push their unattractive programs without bothering to mask their intentions.

Old-school progressives are noticing the change. The Third Way, a group of centrist Democrats, recently complained about the shift in language by releasing a memo expressively titled “Was It Something I Said?”

The moderates’ memo blames the radicals for saying things that bring their cause to ruin, and are now asking them to stop.

Words have consequences in the struggle for hearts and minds. Catholic thinker Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira affirmed that the left has long developed a science in which its ideologues choose special words that they then use to subvert society.

His insightful study, “Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue,” meticulously showed how the left employs very flexible, attractive words and expressions that can express a wide range of positions and emotions. 

Progressive media then endow words like dialogue or peace with an almost magical quality of persuasion, which, through constant usage over time, pulls people leftward. These ambiguous “talismanic” words hide their true intention of moving unsuspecting individuals.

Old leftist expressions endowed with talismanic qualities include dialogue, peace, détente, coexistence, tolerance, diversity, gay, ecumenism, love, pacifism, pastoral, inclusive, equality, and pro-choice,among others.

Oliveira observed that all revolutionary movements use such words to mislead the unsuspecting and overcome resistance from rightist opposition and neutral parties. Conservatives can combat this maneuver by unmasking the false meanings behind these talismanic words. 

The Third Way memo inadvertently confirms Oliveira’s thesis by similarly identifying and describing the goals and characteristics of talismanic words. The memo—corresponding with Oliveira’s description—explains that such words should “include, broaden, empathize, accept and embrace.”

The memo explains how Democrat’s have failed to use these words and, as a result, are suffering politically. Instead of attracting voters, the party is alienating them by crafting expressions that make the left sound “extreme, divisive, elitist and obfuscatory”—the characteristics that talismanic words are designed to hide. The new words fail to mask the left’s extreme intent—rather, they proclaim it. 

Activists, according to Third Way, are using expressions that are disconnected from the mainstream. “To please a few,” they warn, “we have alienated the many—especially on culture issues.”

The left is, above all, failing to choose elastic, nonthreatening words that are relatable—but easily distorted. Such moderate-sounding but easily weaponized words appear normal and raise no alarm.

The radicals have trouble using more moderate-sounding terms because they themselves can no longer identify with anything moderate, even as a mask.

Democrats have created a verbal wall between themselves and average Americans—who don’t live in the leftist dreamworld—by insisting that everyone must adopt their woke terminology. Third Way insinuates that the radicals do not realize how foreign their terminology sounds to the average American. The memo begs the radicals to reconsider their words, but not their toxic ideologies. 

The Third Way memo is a fascinating study of a spectacular failure. The progressive authors of the memo compile a long list of failed talismanic words that lost their magic charm, if they ever had one. 

The memo goes a step further by categorizing the terms and commenting upon their negative effect. The results are anti-talismanic words that repel rather than invite, that end conversations rather than start them, and which confuse rather than clarify.

Walking through the graveyard of spent expressions provides a lesson in failed propaganda. Some terms enjoyed limited success, while others never gained any traction.

In the “Therapy-Speak” category, for example, the memo lists words that speak of liberal hurt feelings, not mainstream resilience, words like triggering, othering, microaggressions, and safe space. Of course, these don’t resonate with the American public. Leftist radicals wrongly assume most people are weak-willed victims.

The category “Seminar Room Language” lists words that imply intellectual superiority instead of the “kitchen table common sense” of the average American. These expressions include subverting norms, systems of oppression, cultural appropriation, and existential threat to democracy (or the planet, or whatever). The effect of these words is to blame all problems on systems, not individuals. 

Other categories aim to establish empathy through inclusion or attempt to identify with individuals who face disadvantages. 

For example, the “Organizer Jargon” category is meant to cause empathy for those not represented in modern social structures. However, the terms ultimately convey bitterness, entitlement, and struggle. Some expressions found in this category include radical transparency, small ‘d’ democracy, stakeholders, food insecurity, and person who immigrated.

The “Gender Orientation Correctness” category wants to establish empathy by forcing inclusion upon everyone. However, the category screams word policing, since it threatens cancellation for anyone who misgenders or mischaracterizes. Shaming people into compliance can never elicit empathy.

In this regard, the memo has a list of expressions that the left has weaponized. There are now birthing persons,  pregnant people, cisgender, deadnaming, and even the ever-growing LGBTQIA+ alphabet. All these are expressions that mislabel people into created fantasy categories. The average American cannot relate to them.

A similar section is dedicated to expressions that confound even those being described. Thus, the average American (and Latino) is encouraged to use the neutral yet absurd Latinx designation instead of Latino or Latina to describe someone of Latin American origin. Other confounding words include BIPOC (Black, Indigenous People of Color), allyship, and intersectionality.   

A final category deals with crime and law enforcement. The left is active in trying to minimize crime and defund law enforcement.

To achieve this goal, it will use new terms to describe criminal situations more empathetically. Thus, the list includes expressions such as carceration, justice-involved, and involuntary confinement. 

Such terms insinuate that the present justice system is an unjust social construct that victimizes those who break the law. It sends the message to ordinary Americans that their security is an unmerited, unjust privilege. These words present the criminal—as the left’s true victim—in the best possible light.

The left’s failure to communicate represents an inability to follow the strategy that previously worked in moving society leftward. The left yielded to impatient radicals who no longer want to hide behind words while pushing their sinister revolution forward.

This failure represents an opportunity for those who defend Christian civilization. Christians are now freer from the effects of the powerful and terrible weapon of well-crafted talismanic words. People alienated by anti-talismanic words are more open to hearing the truth. Today, Christians must speak freely, boldly and clearly.

There is no need for artifices that mislead the unwary. The object of words and speech is truth, not leftist ideology. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Word made Flesh. He is the Truth, who sets men free.

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/how-the-left-lost-its-power-of-expression