From the earliest days of this country’s history, religion has played both a central and a conflicting role with respect to the structure, organization, and function of political life.[1][2] The founding fathers recognized that religion, while profoundly important for society, could have a significant impact on political efficacy, and their anticipation of this possibility led them to create certain conditions that would respect the autonomy both institutions. One of their most notable efforts in this regard was the development of the ideal of the separation of church and state.[3] History has shown, however, that the ideal division between the church and the state has always been an uneasy and uncomfortable one.[4] Because political decisions and the policies and programs that result from them affect almost every aspect of social life in the United States, those Americans who define themselves as deeply religious are often concerned about the ways in which politics either supports their values or lifestyle or, on the contrary, seems to threaten it.[5] It hardly comes as a surprise, then, that across the course of the nation’s complex political, social, and religious history, various religious groups have emerged in order to express their concerns and to shape the direction and content of American politics. One of the most significant and influential of these religious groups was the Moral Majority, Inc., founded by the Reverend Jerry Falwell in 1979.[6]

In 1979, Reverend Falwell was the pastor of a Baptist church in Lynchburg, Virginia, a town that was traditionally conservative and which would eventually become what it remains today: the axis around which religious conservativism spins.[7] As was the case with many other religious figures during this time and into the present, while Falwell’s physical pulpit may have limited his sphere of influence in Virginia, that domain was expanded exponentially by his nationally broadcast television show, which brought home viewers into the Thomas Road Baptist Church through their TV screen every Sunday.[8] The TV show, titled “Old Time Gospel Hour,” was not only an opportunity for Falwell to unite viewers around the entire country in the practice of Baptist worship, but also to disseminate his concerns about what he viewed as the decline of morality in America, thus offering him an opportunity to comment extensively on the social and political aspects of America, not just the religious. In so doing, he was able to test the waters of conservative religious interest in and concern about America’s moral compass, and the response to his passionate rhetoric was overwhelming.[9] Reverend Falwell understood that many Americans felt a need to recuperate and instill again the values that they considered to have been lost by corrupt and Godless politicians, and he used the momentum of the enthusiastic response to his televised sermons to found the group the Moral Majority. As he himself reflected, the country was tired of “seventeen years of liberal insensitivity to promoral concerns.”[10] Reverend Falwell also foreshadowed what qualities would come to characterize the Moral Majority and how it would be different from other organizations that had preceded it: We will not just “cry ‘Enough,’” he explained, “but also to stop crying and organize and do something about it.”[11] From the beginning it was clear that rhetoric was aimed at infusing religion back into politics with the ultimate hope that this religious influence would eventually reawaken the American public to the moral concerns that had assumedly been drifting.

With the rising popularity of the television broadcast of the sermons of the Reverend Jerry Falwell, the Moral Majority grew quickly, expanding its membership by appealing to those individuals and communities who had traditionally been overlooked by other conservative social movements.[12] Many other conservative social actions groups organized themselves along clearly demarcated lines according to denominational affiliations rather than a more loosely-based assimilation of people who were, quite literally, first joined together through similar viewing of the speeches and sermons offered by Falwell on his nationally-televised program. With this in mind, it is also important to note that although Reverend Falwell and his most ardent supporters had extreme views, he was also extreme in his membership strategy. What was particularly remarkable and compelling about the Moral Majority was that although the Reverend Falwell represented the extreme right of religious-political thought, he succeeded in appealing to a broad swath of American conservatives of every denomination—including those from the Jewish community—by appealing over and over again to his single primary complaint and the broad goal of his organization, namely, to “restore a religious and moral order to the United States.”[13] In short, it was this wide and for many, inarguable thesis that there was a moral lack in the United States that was, due to its very broad and wide appeal, the true formula for the success of the Moral Majority, particularly during its formative stages.

In a pamphlet in which Reverend Falwell answered the question, “What is the Moral Majority?” he noted that the organization was, at its height, “made up of millions of Americans,” and that among the Moral Majority’s membership were 72,000 ministers, [Catholic] priests, and rabbis,” all of whom were united in their “concern about the moral decline of our nation.”[14] Through the very language of this mission statement and answer, Falwell was making sure to include the fact that this was almost non-denominational and that membership into this entity required only an agreement with the founding ideas about the correction of moral decay in America. By including the fact that there were those of Jewish, Catholic, and other faiths, he did not alienate any groups and his message was so broad that nearly anyone, regardless of his or her religious affiliation could not necessarily agree with the organization, simply because of its vague call to action. More specifically, through his answer about what the Moral Majority was, the task that Falwell set forth for himself and the organization was “to serve as a special interest group providing a voice for a return to moral sanity in these United States of America.”[15] He united these formerly disparate groups through media that had never before been used for quite the same purpose, nor quite so effectively.[16] This combination of an all-inclusive action based on moral decline that went beyond traditional modes of gaining followers and against the idea of religious or affiliation exclusivity was hugely successful. More importantly, because Reverend Falwell’s supporters were so committed to his cause, he had attracted a large donor base that helped the organization raise funds, promoting not only its concerns, but also sounding the call for concerned Americans to join them. Advertisements, direct media mail campaigns, and the use of other media purchased with donor funds allowed the Moral Majority to attract a solid base of support early on in its beginning phases.

Without a doubt, even the early aims of the Moral Majority were present in many political and social arenas and the group had many focuses on several issues that seemed to be continuing or perpetuating what the group and Falwell saw as pre-existing conditions of moral decline in America. The specific concerns that the Moral Majority intended to tackle were numerous, and included, among many others, abortion; rights for homosexuals; the problems of divorce and bearing children out of wedlock, both of which seemed to signal the erosion of the nuclear family; the expanding influence and glorification of violence, drugs, pornography and greed in movies and other media; sex before marriage; and the supposed removal of God from America’s classrooms.[17] All problems were defined in moral terms, and all were linked together as the causes for the supposed decline of the country, its alienation from its religious roots, and a host of other domestic and foreign social problems. The strategy that the Moral Majority applied to realize its goals was one that was both simple and consistent.[18] First, it was persistent in asserting its perspective, offering up its opinion about every issue within its agenda of concerns at every opportunity that it was given. Second, Reverend Falwell appointed himself as the principal mouthpiece of the organization, and reiterated the Moral Majority’s platform each time he spoke, and he did, in fact, speak often, appearing frequently on news and opinion programs as the representative of the extreme right’s conservative perspective. Third, the Moral Majority always found a way to link their concerns to a single scapegoat, and liberal politicians were their favored targets. If the Moral Majority could select one individual, look at his or her record, and make a connection between that record and specific observed social problems, so much the better. The public would have one person to blame for the nation’s ills.

While the simplicity and consistency of the strategy was nothing short of brilliant, it was the strategy itself and the insistence that its pattern be followed and adhered to unfailingly that would eventually precipitate the decline of the Moral Majority as an organization, as well as the influence of its most visible members, including Reverend Falwell. First, although the Moral Majority’s agenda was broad enough to appeal to many other special interest groups that had previously tackled these items singly, thus uniting disparate groups under a single special interest umbrella, a multiple-item action agenda would ultimately prove ineffective for the organization; quite simply, the agenda was too diffuse it was too diffuse to be managed easily or effectively.[19] Second, the use of a single spokesperson, the extremist Reverend Falwell, undermined the organization’s credibility among liberals and even, eventually, among some of the Moral Majority’s own members. Reverend Falwell’s personality was larger than life, and his complete and unwavering dedication to the cause of rescuing America from the clutches of moral evils so infused him with a charisma that was infectious for his followers but repellent for those who viewed him as suspect. Critics noted that he spoke in broad, generalist terms, and relied more upon rhetoric than on reason. The diversity of his organization was not, they argued, reflected in Reverend Falwell’s public presentations, which were frequent.[20] Finally, the use of a scapegoat, while a rather common tactic in politics, was viewed by many as a poor strategy to use because it failed to reflect the exact kinds of moral values that Reverend Falwell and the Moral Majority hoped to promote.[21] Critics contended that the Moral Majority could have been much more effective had it chosen to take a more thoughtful and respectful strategy, one that promoted dialogue rather than one that promulgated a monologue, and one that could hardly be interrupted at that.[22]

Just seven years after its founding, the Moral Majority had already entered the phase of its decline.[23] In fact, perhaps Reverend Falwell recognized that his strategy was not sustainable if he hoped to achieve long-term change, as it was he himself who decided to shutter the Moral Majority as an organization, subsuming its membership and its mission within a new organization that he spearheaded, the Liberty Federation. Reverend Falwell himself would no longer enjoy the public prominence he had once commanded, but would leave behind a legacy of extreme Christian right institutions and ideologies that carried on the battle against moral decline in the United States. When Reverend Falwell died earlier this year, he was celebrated by the Christian right for the network of services he created to advance the agenda that he had first established through the Moral Majority. Although the lifespan of the Moral Majority itself was short-lived, its ideology and the inspiration that it evoked in followers continue, even after the deaths of the organization and its leader.

 

Works Cited

[1] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 31.

[2] David Domke and Kevin Coe, “The God Strategy: The Rise of Religious Politics in America.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 42.1 (2007): 53.

[3] Derek H. Davis, The Separation of Church and State Defended: Selected Writings of James E. Wood (Waco, TX: J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, 1995) 28.

[4] Ted G. Jelen, To Serve God and Mammon: Church-State Relations in American Politics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000) 3.

[5] Ted G. Jelen, To Serve God and Mammon: Church-State Relations in American Politics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000) 3.

[6] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 2.

[7] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 2.

[8] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 2.

[9] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 2.

[10] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 2.

[11] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 2.

[12] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 13.

[13] Ted G. Jelen, To Serve God and Mammon: Church-State Relations in American Politics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000) xiii.

[14] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 13.

[15]  David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 13.

[16] Robert C. Liebman and Robert Wuthnow, The New Christian Right: Mobilization and Legitimation (New York: Adilene Publishing, 1983) 153.

[17] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 13-15.

[18] David Domke and Kevin Coe, “The God Strategy: The Rise of Religious Politics in America.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 42.1 (2007): 53.

[19] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 181.

[20] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 181.

[21] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 181.

[22] David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 181.

[23]David Snowball, Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991) 2.