Christian nationalism history

The NPR program Throughline broadcast a very interesting historical summary of American Christian nationalism (CN). Christian nationalist beliefs are rooted in the idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and that its laws should reflect certain Christian values. And versions of these beliefs are widely held by Americans of different ages, races, and backgrounds. In 2022, a Pew Research poll reported that 45 percent of Americans believe the country should be a Christian nation. More than half of those people said the Bible should influence U.S. laws.

The main points are:

• The concept started with colonists coming to America for religious freedom. The idea of the shining city on a hill came from the bible, Book of Matthew, and the colonists echoed it in the American colonies. Colonist John Winthrop, English Puritan and the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, said: We shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world. In other words, if you colonists fail, God will punish you. The colonists had an obligation to live up to the special covenant that as God's chosen people, they had a moral obligation to be a model for the rest of the world to marvel at, i.e., a Christian nation, not a secular one.

• In the mid 1900s CN was significantly anti-communist. With the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education supreme courts decisions on desegregating public schools, the political focus of the CN movement shifted to defending segregation. As opposition to desegregation because untenable, the elites latched onto the idea of opposition to abortion. That took hold and gained dominance. But until Barry Goldwater came on the scene in 1964, CN was generally on the fringes of politics and political power. Goldwater, a hard core libertarian, openly invited Christianity into power. Goldwater was a game changer for the CN movement. Throughline asserted that Goldwater gave a permission structure for extremism that still resounds today. If you want your country, you got to be a radical. If you're not a radical, you're not one of us: 

Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall return to proven ways, not because they are old, but because they are true. Freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God. .... That extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. 

• After Goldwater, the CN movement became vocal in opposition to civil rights, feminism and opposition to the Vietnam war. The CN movement mobilized around issues like tax exemption for a private religious university, which the IRS had rolled back when the school refused to desegregate. CN elites opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have prohibited gender-based discrimination in the United States. And when neither of those strategies proved universal enough to draw in the voters it needed, the Republican Party pivoted to abortion. One CN partisan criticized the left like this:

They think they're above things like the Pledge of Allegiance, they're above this patriotism, they're above things like God. It's an attack on God, on Christianity, and it's an attack on Western civilization. What the left has done is it's replaced Christianity with secular humanism.

• In 1980, Ronald Reagan gave the CN movement another boost. He appealed directly to CN elites at the 1980 GOP convention in Dallas, TX:

I know you can't endorse me. I want you to know that I endorse you. .... When the Israelites were about to enter the promised land, they were told that their government and laws must be models to other nations, showing to the world the wisdom and mercy of their God. To us, as to the ancient people of the promise, there is given an opportunity, a chance to make our laws and government not only a model to mankind but a testament to the wisdom and mercy of God.

That 1980 GOP convention was the same one where CN elite Paul Weyrich directly attacked free and fair elections with his goo goo government screed:

• Throughline comments: The separation of church and state and what the founding fathers meant by it is a flash point in the debate surrounding Christian nationalism today. Some Christian nationalists say they don't have a problem with separating the institutions of church and state, but that divorcing morality from the state is a bad idea, if it's even possible. Others claim the founders came up with the First Amendment as a way of protecting the church from political influence, not vice versa. Republican activist David Barton has been a leader in this line of thinking and has even claimed the U.S. Constitution contains direct quotes from the Bible. Those claims, for the record, have been debunked.

Note the moral arrogance of CN belief that morality has to come from the bible. Secular law often deals with matters of morality, e.g., illegality of child porn, prostitution, slavery and discrimination.

Exactly what are the biblical values that the CN wealth and power movement demands? That is impossible to know. It could mean laws demanding all speeches end with God Bless America. It usually means advocating for more prayer in public schools, and sometimes requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments. It almost always means opposing and restricting abortion, same-sex marriage and gender-affirming health care. And in my opinion, among a couple of other bad things, it means opposition to free and fair elections and thus democracy itself.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Wonk alert: For the folks not yet at the TL/DR stage, here are two nuggets:

Nugget 1: One thing that baffles me is why Goldwater said to fear the Christians in politics while embracing them. 

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

That makes no sense to me. Regardless, it is fair to say that the preachers finally got control of the GOP more or less. That was something that Goldwater enabled and empowered, but then claimed to fear. 

Nugget 2:

Q: Is Christian nationalism most influential in the western hemisphere for historical or other reasons?

A: Christian nationalism has indeed been particularly influential in the Western Hemisphere, especially in the United States, for both historical and cultural reasons. The roots of Christian nationalism in the Americas can be traced back to European colonization. In 1493, following Christopher Columbus's voyages, the Catholic Church established the Doctrine of Discovery, which claimed European Christian superiority over other cultures and religions. This doctrine provided religious justification for colonial conquest and laid the groundwork for Christian nationalist ideologies in the Americas.

Founding Mythology: Despite the First Amendment's prohibition on establishing an official religion, a narrative of the U.S. as a "Christian nation" has persisted since its founding. This mythology was promoted by some evangelical historians and pundits to sacralize the nation's origins.

20th Century Resurgence: Christian nationalism experienced a resurgence in the 1930s, driven by anti-New Deal business interests seeking to link American capitalism with Christianity. The Cold War era saw further reinforcement of religious language in national mottos and pledges.

Contemporary Influence: In recent years, Christian nationalism has gained significant political traction in the U.S. It played a role in Donald Trump's 2016 election victory and subsequent policies. According to a 2023 survey, over half of Republicans either identified as Christian nationalists or sympathized with Christian nationalist views.

Cultural factors: In the U.S., Christian nationalism often intersects with white identity politics and notions of racial hierarchy. Increasing political division has led some groups to embrace Christian nationalism as a reactionary ideology.

Q2: To what degree is Christian nationalist ideology anti-Semitic?

A2: Christian nationalists tend to believe in more antisemitic tropes, primarily due to their investment in the social dominance of Christians. Antisemitism among Christian nationalists appears to be part of a broader set of negative views toward all minorities. The desire for Christian social dominance can lead to negative attitudes toward non-Christian groups, including Jews.

Q3: Is American Christian nationalism generally unwilling to compromise in its politics?

A3: American Christian nationalism generally demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise in its political approach. Several key points support this:

1. Ideological rigidity: Christian nationalists often view their beliefs as divinely inspired and infallible, leaving little room for negotiation or compromise. They believe their interpretation of the Bible and God's law should supersede human laws when there's a conflict.

2. Cultural dominance: There's a strong belief among Christian nationalists that America was founded as a Christian nation and should remain so. This leaves little room for accommodating other religious or secular viewpoints in governance.

3. Authoritarian tendencies: Christian nationalism is often described as "authoritarian" and "boundary-enforcing", suggesting a preference for imposing their views rather than finding middle ground.

4. Rejection of democratic norms: Some scholars argue that Christian nationalism promotes anti-democratic sentiment.

7. Indoctrination against compromise: According to one source, Christian nationalists are "indoctrinated to never compromise, making them dreadful politicians."

While individual Christian nationalists may vary in their willingness to compromise, the overall ideology and political approach of the movement appear to be largely incompatible with political compromise. This stance is rooted in their religious convictions, cultural beliefs, and perception of existential threats to their vision of America.

About the whistleblower behind Trump's first impeachment

A very long WaPo article (not paywalled) reviews the impact on the life of the CIA analyst who blew the whistle on Trump for trying to pressure Ukrainian officials to get personal and political favors:

The CIA analyst would soon submit a meticulously sourced nine-page memo to the U.S. intelligence community inspector general that would spark Trump’s first impeachment. In Washington and around the world, the analyst would be known as “the whistleblower,” a moniker that he didn’t choose and has come to see as a burden.

In the half decade since his complaint kicked off a political firestorm, the analyst has declined all requests to speak publicly about his actions, even as he has reckoned privately with whether they made a difference. Did his lonely stand help to check what he saw as Trump’s bad behavior or reveal the weakness of the guardrails around the presidency? Did it strengthen his country’s democracy or lay bare its flaws?

He described his experience, which included death threats that upended his life and required the CIA to provide him with round-the-clock protection, in interviews over the past two months. The Washington Post is granting him anonymity because of the ongoing concerns for his safety and has confirmed his account with more than a half dozen former senior officials.

His story mirrors those of dozens of other bureaucrats, diplomats, intelligence analysts, FBI agents, politicians and military officers who stood up to what they saw as efforts by Trump to subvert the country’s democracy. Some of these officials were fired or resigned in protest. Others sought to temper Trump’s demands without alienating him and, in the process, protect themselves and their institutions from retribution.

Trump has routinely described these people as participants in a “deep state” conspiracy to destroy the country and rob his voters of their voice. If elected next month to a second term, he’s vowed to purge them from government.  

Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, said the former president’s actions leading to his first impeachment had been “litigated and re-litigated” and described the evidence against him as “manufactured lies from the Democrat Party.”  

The CIA lawyers seemed “at a loss” about what to do, the analyst said. He hoped they would notify Congress. Instead, they informed the NSC’s top lawyer that a CIA employee was raising concerns about the president’s conduct. White House officials hurriedly moved the call transcript to a server set aside for highly classified information and warned NSC officials not to talk about Trump’s call with anyone.

Two months later, the Senate voted almost entirely along party lines to acquit Trump. The sole dissenting Republican vote was Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) who spoke from the floor about his faith and the president’s “flagrant assault” on voters’ rights.

The analyst listened to Romney’s speech at his desk and to the final roll call as he was driving home from work. That evening he wrote a personal reflection: “Huge disappointment that more Republicans didn’t stand up against this lawless behavior. Relief that this chapter is over, but extreme apprehension about the backlash against me. The country will have moved on, and I will be stuck with Trump’s ire.”

That reality has left the analyst reckoning with whether his actions made a difference, whether his stand was worth it. In 2020, shortly after Trump was acquitted, the analyst discussed the outcome over dinner with a former CIA colleague. The analyst summarized his and his colleague’s thoughts in a journal entry: “We kind of decided that the system basically worked, and that I had given a clear and convincing case for what abuse of power looks like … even if it didn’t ultimately hold him accountable.”

The interpretation now seems “charitable,” he said.

He never deviated from believing that he did the morally right thing. “The public needed to know,” he said of Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election. (emphases added)

Yes, the public needed to know. But today in 2024, about half the American public still either (i) rejects what Trump did as a pure lie by the Democratic Party, just as his spokesperson is quoted above as saying[1], or (ii) at least somewhat knows what Trump tried to do but rationalize it into something of insufficient importance to change their current support for Trump.

Q: Is this blog post (i) useless old news, (ii) too biased, hyperbolic, partisan, crackpot, or insulting, and/or (iii) just a pack of pure lies as the Trump and the GOP still assert?

Footnote: 

1. Perplexity:

Q1: How does the Republican Party talk about the reasons for Trump's first impeachment?

A1: Republicans largely rejected the charges against Trump, arguing that the articles of impeachment failed to allege any specific crimes or violations of law. They maintained that impeachable offenses must be violations of established law. 

Constitutional Concerns: Some Republicans claimed that the impeachment process itself was unconstitutional, arguing that the House lacked proper authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding and violated due process.

First Amendment Defense: During the trial, Trump's attorneys invoked the First Amendment, asserting that his political statements were protected as core free speech and thus not impeachable offenses.

Key Republican Arguments
1. No Quid Pro Quo: Many Republicans argued that there was no clear evidence of a quid pro quo in Trump's interactions with Ukraine.

2. Abuse of Power Not Impeachable: Some contended that "abuse of power" was too vague and not a sufficient basis for impeachment.

3. Partisan Motivations: Republicans often characterized the impeachment as a partisan attempt by Democrats to remove Trump from office.

4. Lack of Criminal Conduct: They emphasized that the articles of impeachment did not allege any specific criminal acts.

Q2: On balance, how valid are Republican defenses of Trump in relation to what he actually did to trigger the first House impeachment?

A2: .... It's notable that Republican defenses shifted over time, from denying the charges to arguing they weren't impeachable even if true. This evolution [I call it partisan motivated reasoning] suggests a struggle to maintain a consistent, factually-based defense. In conclusion, while Republicans presented various defenses, many of these arguments appear to have limited validity when compared to the evidence and testimony presented during the impeachment proceedings. The shifting nature of these defenses further undermines their overall credibility.

Political mindset questionnaire

The NYT republished an interesting opinion (not paywalled) from 2021 dealing with what political group analysis perceive amongst all the thunder, fury, smoke and dark free speech. If you answer 20 questions, you get to see where you are by the analysis:

I'm in the neighborhood of

the New Liberal Party if one uses

a liberal-conservative spectrum

What is reasonable to expect from democracy? Is reversion to the mean inevitable?

A thought about ECCs (essentially contested concepts) recently became quite insistent. It is that ECCs constitute a major part of politics. But despite that, its scope and depth is poorly understood by most of the public. People know what they are talking about, but others may not because their conceptions of concepts are different. People wind up talking past each other and never reaching mutual understanding or stasis.

This helps to exemplify the scope and depth of the issue:

Q: Other than empirical facts, are there any concepts that are common in politics that are not themselves essentially contested concepts or that include an essentially contested concept(s) in how it is described or defined?

A: In politics, it's challenging to find concepts that are entirely free from contestation or don't include essentially contested concepts in their definition. However, some concepts are less contested than others, particularly those that are more procedural or technical in nature. .... While some procedural and technical concepts in politics may be less contested, the field of politics is characterized by the prevalence of essentially contested concepts. As Connolly argues, "conceptual contests are central to politics," and engaging with these contested concepts is itself a dimension of politics

What helped to kick this thought into high gear was my recent foray into knowledge with Perplexity about whether the concept of “rational thinking” was an ECC or not. Its first answer was that rational thinking is not. Then I pointed out that human rationality, at least for politics, is mostly unconscious, intuitive, moral, biased and influenced by various psychological factors and social contexts. Perplexity mulled it over and concluded that rational thinking was an ECC. I was able to ask the right question because I base my conception of humans doing politics mostly on cognitive biology, social behavior and some moral logic. Most people probably would intuitively believe that rational thinking is a simple concept without much to disagree about. They would be mistaken.

So, (1) if concepts like constitutional, democracy, freedom, fair, justice, common sense, honest, corrupt[1], kleptocratic, moral, immoral, Founder’s intent, qualified candidate, transparency, truth, rational, biased, partisan, rule of law, civil liberty, equal protection, due process, theocracy, authoritarianism, free and fair election, election integrity, reasonable compromise, genocide, war, military action, police action, and so on, are all essentially contested, and (2) most people are unaware of what ECCs are, how prevalent they are, and how they shape thinking and belief, then (3) what can reasonably be expected from our democracy? There will be endless disagreements about most things because humans are human. For better or worse, ECCs reflect how the human brain-mind works. They are not going to go away.

Authoritarian regimes deal with ECCs is a pretty direct way using various forms of force like the rule of law, physical violence or intimidation and establishing norms and social infrastructures that defend and maintain the regime, e.g., infrastructure like an authoritarian political party and authoritarian institutions that support authoritarianism. Various forms of authoritarianism include autocracy (dictatorship), plutocracy, theocracy, kleptocracy, military junta, monarchy, aristocracy, single-party rule and regimes that blend two or more of those. 

Here is the question: In view of ECCs and attendant unresolvable disagreements, what can people reasonably expect from American democracy? From what I can tell, there are millions of sincere, well-meaning people who refuse to vote for Harris or Trump because both are bad enough to warrant that course of action. I suspect that for most of those people, very probably nearly all, differences in conceptions of various ECCs plays a non-trivial role in their refusal to vote for either of the two candidates.

To me, ECCs constitute a major weakness that democracy has in spades, while authoritarian regimes deal with them by various forms of force. Maybe that is why most humans have lived under authoritarian regimes for most of human history. Authoritarianism is the norm, while democracy is the rare exception to the rule. America appears to be on the verge of reversion from exceptionalism (democracy) to the mean (authoritarianism). Maybe we can reasonably expect no more than that reversion.

Footnote:

1. A recent supreme decision, Snyder v. United States, basically legalized corruption in politics by applying the labels “gratuity” and “reward” to various forms of payments to politicians and judges for their “good work.” The sleight of hand the court used was that the payment or tip had to come after the politician or judge did something commendable and worthy of a gratuity. I see that as legalization of corruption. The six radical Republicans on the bench who voted for that, see their conception of payments in politics as honest, not corrupt. Agreement on that point will probably never happen for me as long as I am alive. Corruption is an ECC!

Something on the serious side, for a weekend…

 

I like the emails I get from BigThink.com, one of my favorite online sites.  They give you a lot to think about.  Here’s a good one:

Everyday Philosophy: Are Stoicism and Buddhism unhealthy philosophies?

• This week we look at the philosophy of non-attachment and ask how healthy it is.

• To answer our question, we look at the idea of “spiritual bypassing” and how detachment should not be done lightly.

Great questions, IMO.  

Have you ever gotten to the point where you think, “F it!”? That usually happens when we reach some “critical mass” moment, an inflection point, where we are exacerbated and no longer, well, give a “F”.  We’ve been “pushed that far.”  No longer giving a “F” also happens when people reach a point of “desperation.”  Things/situations no longer matter, and you lose all sense of morality, fairness, reason.  You’ve, at least temporarily, had it!

When does detachment cross the healthy border? People often say, “Don’t take things to heart.” “Accept without pride. “Let go.” But at some point, this becomes too much. But where? How do we know?

– Jiri, Czechia

Q1: What do you think?  When does detachment cross the healthy border?

*            *            *            *

NOW, LET'S WORK RELIGION INTO THE PICTURE

Welwood: Religion is not therapy

Religion is a great comfort to many people. In fact, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Friedreich Nietzsche, and B.F. Skinner all argued that it’s a defining characteristic of religion to act as a defense mechanism. It’s a balm to soothe our pains and a crutch to keep us from falling.

Q2: Do you have any kind of “spiritual crutch?”  Is there some concept that provides you with a sense of spiritual understanding about your world that helps you cope?

Link to the full article here.

(by PrimalSoup)

First time we’ve ever done it…

No, not that. 😜  My husband and I voted for the first time today using in-person early voting.  Other than in 2020, where we used mail-in ballots because of the pandemic, we’ve always gone to our assigned precinct to vote on actual Election Day. 

It went well. There were a lot of people there at Board of Elections site, but we didn’t have to wait except for about 1-2 minutes to get checked in.

How about you?  Have you early voted yet?  

(by PrimalSoup)