Democracy dying, theocracy rising: Christian nationalist IRS voids critical pro-democracy law

Various sources report that the IRS will no longer enforce the Johnson Amendment in any meaningful way. The Johnson Amendment prohibited religion from advocating for political candidates during regular religious services. That was the qui pro quo for religion getting all those juicy tax breaks from the IRS. Well, now religion has its cake and gets to eat it and all of us too. What was the reasoning the IRS asserts? 

The Christian nationalist "rationale" for this is pure cynical, insulting bullshit. The IRS says that religious endorsements are just like "a family discussion concerning candidates." The greedy, morally corrupt Christian nationalist theocrats that run the IRS argued this:

“Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.”

The Johnson Amendment, named after then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, was enacted in 1954 as part of the Internal Revenue Code. It prohibits all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from "participating in, or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The amendment was created to prevent tax-deductible contributions from being used to support political campaigns, ensuring that charitable organizations remain nonpartisan in exchange for their tax-exempt status.

So, exactly what, if anything, might violate the "properly interpreted" law? Not anything of major importance. Churches can theoretically still lose their tax exempt status if they (1) buy newspaper, television or radio ads that oppose or support candidates that God opposes or supports, (2) distribute campaign materials to the general public, or (3) host public political rallies or campaign events. Given the fact that the IRS is now controlled by Christian nationalists, the chances of any Christian church losing its tax exempt status is almost zero no matter how blatantly it violates the law. Before this, the IRS very rarely used the Johnson Amendment to revoke tax exemptions from any religious group. Tax break revocations were extremely rare.** Now revocations will be non-existent. 

** How rare? Pretty rare. Apparently only 1 religious group, a televangelist, lost its tax exemption since the Johnson Amendment's creation in 1954.

What about Islamic Mosques and Jewish Temples? Higher odds of loss of tax breaks, but still very low.

Estimated benefits to Christian theocracy 

The bottom line: The Christian nationalist IRS has put its finger on the scale of elections to heavily favor Christian nationalist candidates and theocracy at the expense of secular candidates and democracy. How heavily in favor? This heavily:

Summary of benefits estimate: Gutting the Johnson Amendment is worth about $42.6 billion in free advertising for Christian nationalist theocrats and Republican candidates and ~150,000 to ~800,000 added votes in the next election, but with this caveat:

Q6: Considering human society, human behavior, psychology and sociology, will the impact on added votes for Christian or theocratic candidates increase as religious political advocacy in religious services is normalized and society comes to accept this as normal? Also consider social science evidence that indicates that when social safety nets in democracies weaken, as they now are in the US, church attendance and religiosity tends to increase.  

A6: Executive Summary: The IRS's reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment represents far more than a simple policy change—it triggers a normalization process that will progressively amplify Christian nationalist voting power through multiple reinforcing mechanisms. As religious political advocacy becomes routine and social safety nets continue to erode, both the frequency and effectiveness of Christian political messaging will increase dramatically, creating a compounding effect that could generate millions of additional votes for Christian nationalist candidates over the next decade.

Phase 1: Initial Acceptance (2025-2026) The normalization of religious political advocacy follows a predictable three-stage pattern identified in political science research. Initially, political endorsements from pulpits will be socially stigmatized by the broader population—77% of Americans currently oppose church political endorsements. However, this opposition will gradually weaken as explicit political messaging becomes routine.

Phase 2: Activation and Mobilization (2027-2028) As prominent religious leaders achieve electoral breakthroughs through their political advocacy, other clergy will observe their success and join the movement. This creates a bandwagon effect where religious leaders face social pressure within their professional networks to make political endorsements.

.... very long analysis .... 

Conclusion: .... The democratic implications are profound. This development threatens core principles of religious freedom, church-state separation, and pluralistic democracy. .... The window for effective response is limited. As religious political advocacy becomes normalized over the next several years, reversing this trend will become increasingly difficult.

Q7: Is obliterating the separation of church and state a core Christian nationalist theocratic goal?

A7: Yes, Eliminating Church-State Separation is a Core Christian Nationalist Theocratic Goal 

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that obliterating the separation of church and state is indeed a core Christian nationalist theocratic goal. This is not a peripheral or incidental objective but rather the central organizing principle of multiple Christian nationalist movements that seek to transform American democracy into a Christian theocracy. 

.... long analysis ....

The entire Q&A thread with Pxy is at this link.

Q: In the power struggle that will follow the death of djt, what major faction/mindset is most likely to come out on top, (1) autocrats with a new dictator-kleptocrat, (2) oligarch-kleptocrats running a plutocracy, (3) Christian nationalist theocrat-kleptocrats, (4) some combination of two or all three of those, or (5) pro-secular democracy forces?

The Christian nationalist IRS 

just obliterated the wall

Classless political messaging

GOING CLASELESS

A recent comment by Ron triggered another deep dive down another Pxy rabbit hole. This time it is about political messaging that intentionally omits any reference to or suggestion of class. The core point is this. Do not refer to groups like the "top 1%", "working class" or "lower class." Those labels run contrary to core values that most Americans adhere to, e.g., (i) we are all equal under the law, (ii) equality in dignity, (iii) equal opportunity in life choices and jobs, and (iv) social mobility without class barriers. 

The reality is that class differences are real in America. However, poll data indicates that most Americans are resistant to identifying with a class. When pressed most Americans say they are middle class, even if they are not. Research on belief in American exceptionalism, indicates that the US is unique among developed nations because it lacks a major working-class political party. In European countries class consciousness usually drives political movements. By contrast, American political culture emphasizes individual opportunity and social mobility over class solidarity. 

Instead of referring to classes, Ron proposes referring to groups by functional language that does not invoke any class. Instead, refer to groups by what they do, financiers, or where they do it, Wall Street executives. This functional approach resonates with American ideals of equality and meritocracy. As the Ron correctly notes that people have different capabilities ("What they can do on an IQ test, or in lettuce field, or in a boardroom is not equal"), but they remain equal as citizens under the law.

One study of political messaging suggested that values-based framing often outperforms policy-specific appeals. When progressive candidates frame their policies using traditionally conservative values like patriotism and family, they gain support among moderate and conservative voters. A classless approach could similarly broaden appeal by avoiding the cultural markers that divide Americans. Some research indicates that despite populist movements' emphasis on class warfare, Americans don't actually organize politically around traditional class lines.

Some populist communication research indicates that the most effective messages focus on specific grievances and solutions rather than class identity. Economic populist messaging that emphasizes fairness and opportunity tends to outperform both class-based appeals and appeals to threats to democracy.

Concrete, Specific Language

Studies demonstrate that concrete messaging outperforms abstract appeals. Instead of vague class categories, use specific occupational descriptions: 

"Factory workers and retail employees" vs. "working class"
"Office managers and teachers" vs. "middle class"
"Food service workers and cashiers" vs. "lower class"

Emphasize Shared American Values
The research confirms that values-based framing is more effective than class-based appeals. Focus on:
Work ethic: "Americans who work hard every day"
Community service: "People who serve our communities"
Economic contribution: "Workers who keep our economy running"

Low cognitive load: Concise messages are more memorable and have greater impact. Simplicity trumps complexity. KISS.

SOME EXAMPLES 

"The top 1%" 

Professional categories:
"Americans like surgeons and finance executives"
"Professionals such as doctors and investment managers"
"People doing specialized work like medical specialists and Wall Street executives"

Functional Descriptions:
"Americans earning from specialized services"
"High-skill professionals in finance and healthcare"
"Specialists managing major businesses"

Geographic and Functional Combined:
"Americans working in financial centers and major hospitals"
"Professionals in Wall Street firms and medical centers"

"The Middle class"

Working class or manual labor and service jobs:

What they do:

Americans working in factories and warehouses
People in construction, manufacturing, and maintenance
Service workers in restaurants, retail, and hotels
Skilled trades professionals like electricians and plumbers
Americans earning hourly wages in physical jobs

Examples:
"Americans who build our infrastructure and serve our communities"
"People working in factories, restaurants, and construction sites"
"Workers who maintain our buildings and serve our food"

Middle class or professional and management workers:
What they do:
People working in offices and professional services
People in management, education, and healthcare roles
Professionals in finance, technology, and administration

Americans with college degrees working in specialized fields:
Employees in government, schools, and corporate headquarters
Americans working in offices and professional services
People managing businesses and teaching in schools
Professionals in healthcare, finance, and technology

"Lower class or poor" 

Americans struggling to meet basic needs
Describe by situation:
Americans working multiple jobs to pay rent
People in minimum-wage service positions
Workers in food service, retail, and personal care
Americans whose jobs don't provide health benefits
People working part-time without steady hours

Messaging examples:
"Americans working in food service and retail for minimum wage"
"People whose jobs don't pay enough to cover basic expenses"
"Workers struggling to afford rent and groceries"

It takes time and effort to be careful about effective messaging. As always, most everything about politics comes back to cognitive biology and social behavior and context.

Regarding the authoritarian mindset and tactics of Benjamin Netanyahu

A NYT article (not paywalled), How Netanyahu Prolonged the War in Gaza to Stay in Power, discusses the steps that Netanyahu took to stay in power after the Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attack on Israel.

• Netanyahu deliberately sabotaged ceasefire negotiations to extend the war, viewing it as essential for his political survival. In April 2024, he was reportedly prepared to accept a ceasefire deal but backed down when Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich threatened to collapse the government. Corroboration: an academic study, Israeli expert analysis, Joe Biden comments 

• He maintained power by appeasing extremist coalition partners who demanded prolonged conflict.  He formed Israel's most right-wing government in its history with convicted extremists. Corroboration: extremists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich put in government, extremist threats to topple Netanyahu if there was a ceasefire

• Netanyahu altered official records and manipulated documentation related to the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack. Corroboration: chief of staff questioned about forgery, Israeli military was ordered to stop documenting war cabinet meetings

• He fired key officials who could threaten his position, particularly those involved in investigations into his alleged corruption. Corroboration: dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara (prosecutor overseeing his corruption trial), firing of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar for refusal to delay Netanyahu's corruption trial

• He used the Hamas war as an excuse to delay his corruption trial proceedings. Corroboration: trial was postponed due to the war, he repeatedly requested trial delays that court rejected

If Netanyahu did that to stay in power and gets away with it, can anyone of the same mindset do the same or similar?

Q2: Is there evidence that Trump has engaged in the same or similar tactics to gain and stay in power?

A2: Trump has employed numerous strategies similar to Netanyahu's approach, with extensive documented evidence supporting these claims. 

1. Prolonging Legal Conflicts for Political Survival

2. Undermining Legal and Security Institutions

3. Institutional Manipulation and Document Tampering

4. Targeting Political Opponents for Retribution

5. Consolidating Executive Power Through "Unitary Executive Theory"

6. Coalition Manipulation with Extremist Partners

7. Attempting to Overturn Election Results

Understanding types of mental responders to different kinds of political messaging & psychological pressure

An interesting question is this: Approximately what % of the American public is more responsive to demagoguery, dishonest speech, crackpottery, irrational appeals to emotions, prejudices and social loyalties, and threats to identity, than the % that mostly responds to facts, sound reasoning and good faith honest speech.

A summary of a long, complex analysis by Pxy indicates that we more or less fit with a bell curve in three groups, HD, MX and HF. About 25% are mostly demagoguery and dishonest speech responders (HD), and about 25% are mostly fact, sound reasoning and good faith honest speech responders (HF). The middle ~50%, Pxy calls them "mixed-conditional responders" (MX), are somehow between the two modes, maybe depending on the issue and cognitive and social load the issue presents, and/or how it is presented.

That raises an interesting question. 

Q: Is there social science research that indicates whether the ~50% MX group (mixed/conditional responders) in your table flip from the HD mode of thinking to the HF mode, or is their mode of thinking a simultaneous mix of both the HD and HF modes? What mode of reasoning in the MX group does the available evidence and expert opinion mostly support?

A: Conditional Reasoning in the “MX” Majority: Flip-Flop or Hybrid Thinking?

Political‐communication, cognitive‐psychology, and neuroscience studies converge on a nuanced portrait of the 40–50% “mixed/conditional responders” (MX) who fall between high-demagoguery (HD) and high-fact (HF) audiences in susceptibility to persuasive messages. Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that MX reasoning is conditional—they may “flip” toward either HD-style heuristic processing or HF-style analytic processing depending on motivation, cognitive load, and identity threats—but that flip occurs against a constant backdrop of simultaneous, low-effort heuristics. In short, both processes run in parallel; shifts in dominant mode, not wholesale replacement, explain MX behavior.

The mind-grouping biology that emerges is absolutely fascinating.  

1. All human minds are basically MX but can be split into three groups mostly HD with some HF, mostly HF with some HD, and mostly MX with a variable but significant mix of HD and HF. Sophisticated political messaging and how it is presented can nudge minds toward either the HD mode or HF mode. 

2. People in the mostly HD group can sometimes be in HF thinking mode, but they are more easily flipped to HD by applying some psychological pressure, e.g., threaten their identity, don't give them time to think, send virtue signals from the tribe or cult, trigger rationality-killing emotions, especially fear, anger or prejudice, etc. Call it level 1 or "low" psychological pressure.

3. People in the mostly HF group can sometimes be flipped to the HD thinking mode with more intense psychological pressure. Call it Call it level 3 or "high" psychological pressure, which are the same as level 1 pressures, but just more intense. 

4. People in the MX group can sometimes be flipped to the HD thinking mode with more intense psychological pressure. Call it Call it level 2 or "moderate" psychological pressure.

If one accepts that assessment as basically correct, one one can see why over the top MAGA demagoguery, lies, slanders and crackpottery is so dominant in MAGA and authoritarian messaging. The more people feel identity threatened, fearful, angry or disloyal to tribe or cult, the more likely they are to default to the evolutionary personal safety mode of HD thinking. That is why demagoguery and dishonest speech is usually (almost always?) more powerful and persuasive than good faith honest speech.

Q: Does all of this make sense to you, or is it gobbeldygook?