Religious War

A few days ago, I participated in a panel discussion following a showing of “Bad Faith,” a documentary film about Christian Nationalism. Coming so soon after reading “The Kingdom, The Power and The Glory,” it was even more traumatizing.

The film began with videos of the violent January 6th insurrection, and focused in on the multiple signs of “religious” motivation–placards linking Jesus to Donald Trump, crosses, rioters waving bibles and numerous other bits of Christian iconography. The rest of the documentary alternated between films of mega-church pastors preaching fire and brimstone to huge adoring audiences and anguished commentaries from scholars and clerics, including many religious figures who–like Tim Alberta–are devout Evangelicals appalled by the White Christian Nationalism that has replaced authentic Christianity for millions of believers.

The film underscored the dimensions of the religious war these “believers” are waging.

  • The sheer number of “soldiers” who have substituted White Christian Nationalism for Christianity is stunning. The videos showed “sermons” of well-known pastors (many of who have benefitted monetarily from the movement) and panned over huge audiences. According to the scholars interviewed, the movement numbers hundreds of pastors whose names are less familiar than those of the usual subjects, but whose messages are equally strident, intemperate and theocratic.
  • The movement is thoroughly racist and misogynist. Adherents are men and women who are threatened by social change and who express strong disapproval of the emerging “non-biblical” social equality of women and Black people. (Especially Black people.) The audiences for the diatribes about America’s “decline” were virtually all white, and the rhetoric employed left little room for alternative explanations.
  • This phenomenon is not just a fundamentalist tantrum against diversity and feminism; it’s leadership is strategic, well-planned and and coordinated. The role of Paul Weyrich in forming and growing the movement was amply documented, but what really struck me was the longevity of the effort. Weyrich and the others–Falwell, Robertson, Ralph Reed, etc.–began many years ago putting together a political movement intent upon replacing the government with a Christian theocracy. They made common cause with the very rich by promising to protect them from “confiscatory taxation.” They created a number of not-for-profits and think tanks that have worked in tandem for many years. Weyrich’s original manifesto has basically been reproduced in Project 2025.
  • Movement leadership accomplished their planned takeover of the GOP, expelling traditional Republicans and conservatives, and turning the party into a White Christian Nationalist cult.
  • The widespread belief that Evangelical political activity was sparked by Roe v. Wade is a myth. As I’ve previously noted and multiple religious historians have confirmed, initial Evangelical responses to that ruling were positive or neutral. It wasn’t until five years later that movement honchos decided to use “baby killing” as a tool to motivate activism from previously non-political Evangelicals–although their real trigger was withdrawal of tax-exempt status from the segregation academies they had established in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education.
  • The pastors have sold Trump to their Christian Warriors by insisting, variously, that he is a flawed “tool” of the Almighty and/or that he found God and was “born again” during his first term.
  • The movement substitutes country for God and far-Right politics for religion, using bogus history to claim that the United States was established as a “Christian country.” Evangelical clergy who focus on the essence of Jesus’ message–for example, the Sermon on the Mount–lose church members who tell them that such sentiments are “woke” and then decamp for more belligerent congregations.

There was much more, and if you get a chance to see the film, it is definitely worth your time. It will increase your understanding of the threat we face, and will underscore the imperative of reaching the millions of Americans who don’t bother to vote.

What is sobering is the realization that this effort to replace America’s Constitutional democracy with a psuedo-Christian theocracy has been active for over fifty years. Those of us in the larger, “woke” American culture have, for the most part, been blissfully unaware of its well-financed and strategically-sophisticated leadership, or the significant danger it poses to tolerance, individual liberty and the rule of law.

Like Micah Beckwith, these biblical literalists think they–and only they– own God. They are certain that they, and only they, are “on God’s side.” They are convinced that there’s a bright line between (their definition of) Godliness and sin (which is pretty much everything in modern culture), and that God wants them to impose His rules (as they understand them) on the rest of us.

They are the core of Trump’s base. They vote. And he knows he owes them.

Comments

When You’re Rich They Think You Really Know

I typically listen to music when I’m trudging on the treadmill, and my preference is for tuneful songs with lyrics I can understand. (I’m old!).

I’ve previously posted about the insights and real wisdom often conveyed by musical lyrics, especially a favorite line from Fiddler on the Roof’s “If I Were a Rich Man.” Tevya sings that, if he were rich, the men of the town would all call on him for advice; he then sings “And it wouldn’t matter if I answered right or wrong. When you’re rich, they think you really know.”

As Trump assembles an administration of very rich men, we are about to see the fallacy that Tevya identified play out in real time.

Americans have a long history of confusing celebrity with competence and wealth with intellect. Those with eyes to see have always recognized that Trump himself is a deranged ignoramus with a bloated ego. Before Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into “X,” he’d been able to maintain a reputation as highly intelligent partly because few people knew that–like Trump–his fortune began with an inheritance, and that he’d purchased Tesla–not invented it.

The United States is about to be governed (or ruled) by a whole cohort of equally clueless rich White guys, and the most pertinent  question is how much damage will they do? These are, after all, the “captains of industry” who think they know more than they do, who don’t know what they don’t know, and who are unlikely to listen to people who have actual expertise in economics and/or a wide variety of public policies. (As Tevya would say, “they think they really know.”)

Paul Krugman recently considered that conundrum in a newsletter titled “Never Underestimate the Ignorance of the Powerful.” He began by reproducing one of Trump’s “Truth Social” posts, in which the incoming President proposed substituting tariffs for income taxes. “Tariffs” Trump posted, “Will pay off our debt and MAKE AMERICA WEALTHY AGAIN.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m still extremely unsure what the incoming president will actually do about trade. The Smoot-Hawley level tariffs he promised during the campaign would be disastrous, but sometimes I think he may have at least a vague sense of the damage those tariffs would do, so what he’s really aiming for is an extortion scheme — one in which most companies would secure exemptions via political contributions and/or de facto bribes (e.g. buying Trump crypto.)

But then he’ll come out with something like the Truth Social post above, and I’ll be reminded that wealthy and powerful people like Trump or Andreesen or, of course, Elon Musk are often far more ignorant than policy wonks can easily imagine.

As Krugman reminds us, Trump very publicly disdains expertise, and Musk “appears to get what he thinks is intelligence from random posts on X.”

Krugman attributes this intellectual defect to “the arrogance of success.”

In the academic world there’s a familiar phenomenon sometimes called “great man’s disease,” in which a successful researcher in one field assumes that he (it’s usually a “he”) is so much smarter than experts in other fields that he doesn’t need to pay attention to their research. Physicists make confident, deeply ignorant pronouncements about economics; economists make confident, deeply ignorant pronouncements about sociology…

This kind of arrogance presumably comes even more easily to men of great wealth. After all, if these so-called experts are so smart, why aren’t they rich like me?

As Krugman also notes, wealth and power attract hangers-on who will tell the great man what he wants to hear. “There are wealthy men with enough humility to accept constructive criticism — I’ve met some of them. But such men don’t seem likely to play a role in the incoming administration.”

When Trump or Andreesen ask why we can’t go back to the McKinley era, when the government subsisted on tariffs and didn’t need an income tax, their problem isn’t failure to understand the revenue function; it’s failure to appreciate the simple fact that in the 1890s America barely had a government by modern standards.

Sure, tariffs could pay for a government without Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, at a time when even the military was tiny. But the constituency for returning to that kind of small government consists, as far as I can tell, of a couple of dozen libertarians in bow ties. And the kind of government we have now needs a lot more than tariffs to pay its way.

Bottom line: we’re about to discover the real downsides of a kakistocracy…

Comments

What We Will Inaugurate

In a little over a week, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the (dis)United States–an outcome that seemed unthinkable not that long ago. Among the reasons for that outcome was the refusal of millions of Americans to cast a ballot; if turnout had just held steady from 2020, Harris would have won. It’s hard to dismiss suspicion that racism and misogyny were more potent than a desire to keep a mentally-ill felon out of the Oval Office.

Some political supporters saw Trump as a path toward personal gain. As Josh Marshall wrote on Talking Points Memo, many Washington “players” saw Trump as a vehicle for their own ambitions. He wasn’t just old and increasingly worn out, but he also wasn’t particularly invested in what would happen once he was in the White House. His focus was on not going to jail and  exacting vengeance over his foes. As Marshall noted, that disinterest in actual governing leaves lots of openings for people who see an opportunity to direct–and benefit from– government policy. There’s little sign Trump cares. He’s already gotten what he wants.

We see evidence supporting Marshall’s thesis in what currently looks like the “co-Presidency” of Elon Musk. An article in Common Dreams introduced readers to the Mump regime:

Welcome to America’s “Mump regime,” governance of, by and for the oligarchs in which an erratic unelected white supremacist gazillionaire whose new hobby is buying presidents is cosplaying as shadow president to cash in – and fuck kids with cancer – alongside a senile grifter selling everything in sight: Bibles, sneakers, perfume, hotels, cabinet seats, diplomatic posts and democracy itself. Beware: Just to be clear, “We now have a criminal enterprise, not a government.”

The article notes that Trump has assembled a group of billionaires–13 so far–to staff his oligarchy, but notes that Musk is both the richest and most influential.

A likely illegal alien and white supremacist who grew up in apartheid South Africa, made a fortune from a car that kills twice as many people as the industry average, and though foreign-born found a way to power by giving a useful idiot $277 million to become his puppet master. A good investment: Since the election, Musk has made $170 billion, most from Tesla and SpaceX investors eager to see him end all those pesky safety and labor rules that cut into profits.

Buying Trump was so profitable Never-Elected Pres. Musk is already malevolently branching out. He’s threatening people in Congress, including “jackass” moderates of both parties, with unseating them by throwing money at potential primary opponents if they dare to disagree with him. Governing by threat, tweet and financial heft comes so easily to the guy who quickly turned Twitter into a bigot-invested haven for hate akin to “a Munich beer hall hall in 1933” that he’s even telling Germans how to vote – for Nazis. “Only the AFD can save Germany,” he posted in defense of anti-immigrant fascists who want to purify Europe by casting out people it considers lesser, if not subhuman. Weirdly, he did it on the same day 100 years ago Hitler was released from a Bavarian prison, and the New York Times declared him a “tamed…sadder and wiser man” than when he’d tried to overthrow the government.”

It’s difficult to predict how successful the Mump Administration will be in implementing its announced policies. Despite having “served” as President for a term, Trump has clearly learned little or nothing about governance, and Musk (who believes he knows everything) is equally ignorant of the way things actually work. The GOP’s majority in the House is narrow and it’s filled with culture warriors and White Nationalists more intent upon appearing on Fox News than governing. They’re adamantly opposed to anything approaching negotiation or compromise. If the country emerges relatively unscathed by the looney-tune administration taking shape, we will owe that escape to their massive dysfunctions.

Unfortunately, however, even incompetent clowns can do a lot of damage.

I keep thinking of that Mark Twain quote: Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

On Inauguration Day, a number of Hoosiers who might be considered “Mark Twain patriots” will reaffirm our support for and love of our country and for what I have called “the American Idea”–the philosophy animating our constituent documents, and summarized by America’s first motto: e pluribus unum. 

Ours will be a simple message: in our America, government serves the common good, and everyone deserves a seat at the civic table. (You can find more information about that gathering here.)

Join us if you can.

Comments

One Zip Code At A Time

In yesterday’s post, I shared my stunned reaction to the people described in Tim Alberta’s book, “The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory.”

I have always known that there are people who–for one reason or another– are emotionally or mentally unable to cope with the world they actually inhabit. I’ve also recognized that conspiracy theories and flat-out lunacy have increased significantly over the past few years. (QAnon, Jewish space lasers, etc., etc.) But I’m willing to wager that those of us who go about our daily affairs without interacting with the millions of “bible believers” Alberta describes simply haven’t grasped the degree to which these angry and fearful folks have rejected contact with reality.

Their bizarre beliefs explain Trump’s narrow win.

So much for an explanation. We are left with the question: what do sane folks do when the inmates are running the asylum? Granted, we must resist the efforts of a federal administration to pander to MAGA dysfunctions, but–as the Brookings Institution has recently counseled–there are other steps we can and should take.

At the national level, bipartisan collaboration to identify the systemic sources of our economic and social distress will be a long time coming. In the meantime, voters still want someone to address the chronic challenges they see in front of them in the places where they live and work.

In short, the rise of the digital world means that in the real world, we have more work to do than ever to solve problems. The good news is that in the remaining places where people mix and encounter those they don’t already know—whether that’s their neighborhood Main Street or downtown—the seeds of solutions already exist. At this hyperlocal level, individuals and institutions avoid ideological arguments, build trust, and do the on-the-ground work—often starting with public spaces—across the civic, nonprofit, private, and public sectors.

The authors remind us that neighborhood quality of life has been shown to be a key determinant of both personal well-being and voter satisfaction, and argues that–contrary to the argument that hyperlocal efforts are somehow a form of secession– they are actually the opposite: a way to keep people and places engaged.

The article traced former actions of people the authors call “local champions—sometimes residents, other times businesses or local civic entities”—who have previously taken action focused on the local public realm, creating business improvement districts, parks conservancies, creative “placemaking” groups, community gardens, public markets, and community development corporations. As the article noted, these hyper-local efforts stimulated place-based vibrancy and culture, and rebuilt social and civic infrastructure.

In recent years, some of these entities have expanded to co-managing and programming a major new category of public space in partnership with transportation advocates: streets and sidewalks (and plazas created on them). At the same time, some of the most promising experiments in addressing specific issues such as homelessness, crime, education, health, and small business support have focused on a place-centered approach, integrating an array of public, private, nonprofit, and philanthropic players at the place level.

The “moral of the story” is obvious: in the face of coming dysfunction at the national level, Americans can lean into and improve the place-based partnerships that build community, trust, health, and wealth at the hyperlocal, zip-code level.

Such efforts should start with research into past successes and failures.

How can we learn from—and improve upon—the last 50 years’ of place-based partnerships that played a key role in reversing urban decline? Who has succeeded in building and sustaining strong places? What are the legal, regulatory, governance, and management mechanisms that link those players with government at the hyperlocal level and incentivize their working together for the common good? Which bureaucratic barriers hold them back? What are the financial mechanisms that sustain place-centered institutions? Where are these place-centered partnerships not happening and why not?

I think this is sound advice. Focusing on local improvements encourages and facilitates participation by citizens who feel powerless to affect national policy. While we certainly should continue to do what we can to resist dangerous and damaging federal actions (emailing our representatives, attending protests, funding resistance organizations), an individual’s ability to effect change is far greater at the local level. And citizens who participate in local successes are much more likely to take an interest in all policy issues and to vote.

Even some of the rabid “believers” Alberta described might be induced to visit reality, however briefly, if reality visits their zip codes.

Comments

Christian MAGA

A Northwest Indiana newspaper recently reported that Micah Beckwith, Indiana’s incoming Lieutenant Governor, is telling people to refuse to comply with hospital requirements to wear masks when visiting to avoid spreading respiratory illnesses. Beckwith, you will (not) be pleased to know, speaks to God, who evidently doesn’t want us to mask up…

Those of us who find people like Beckwith difficult–okay, impossible–to understand or take seriously, need to read Tim Alberta’s book, “The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory.” It’s eye-opening. And sleep-disturbing.

Alberta himself is a devout Evangelical Christian. His father was a Southern Baptist preacher, and it is very clear from the book that Alberta has not only remained wedded to that tradition, but is in possession of deep biblical knowledge. He is also, however, sane, and inhabits an America with which most of us are familiar.

He appears to be one of the declining number of deeply religious Christians who refuse to cherry-pick biblical passages in order to bolster very unChristian bigotries.

In the wake of his father’s death and the 2016 election, Alberta tried to get his head around a question that has stumped many of us: how could so many ostentatiously devout Christians be in thrall to a figure like Donald Trump? (In 2020, Trump’s share of the White Evangelical vote was a whopping 84 percent.) Alberta took a year and a half to visit numerous Evangelical congregations to try to understand what motivated them.

His book was the product of those visits. I found it terrifying.

As one review noted,

This phenomenon, Alberta says, cannot simply be a matter of evangelicals mobilizing against abortion access and trying to save lives; after all, they have kept remarkably quiet when it comes to showing compassion for refugees or curbing gun violence, which is now, as Alberta notes, the leading cause of death for children in the United States.

What he finds instead is that under the veneer of Christian modesty simmers an explosive rage, propelling Americans who piously declare their fealty to Jesus to act as though their highest calling is to own the libs.

The book demonstrates that the “veneer” has pretty much peeled off. Alberta interviews some of the “usual suspects”– con-artist preachers of the Religious Right–and those interviews amply confirm what we “libs” have already concluded. Far more revealing were his interactions with members of the “flocks,” the congregants, a great many of whom had left churches where the pastors had declined to substitute MAGA politics for biblical sermonizing, and most of whom occupy an alternate, imaginary  and unrecognizable America.

Two things about those reports especially dumbfounded me: the sheer number of people who embrace what Alberta calls “blood-and-soil Christian nationalism;” and the widespread rejection of logic, fact, science and basic humanity among those thousands of “biblical literalists”. As the linked review noted,

“The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory” charts a transformation in evangelicalism, from a midcentury moment when white American Christians were such a dominant force in the country that many could “afford to forget politics” to a time when many more feel, as one prominent pastor puts it, “under siege.” Alberta suggests that this panic has less to do with any existential threat to American Christianity than a rattled presumption of privilege. “Humility doesn’t come easy to the American evangelical,” he writes. “We are an immodest and excessively indulged people.”

A majority of these congregants have turned religion into politics, and substituted (their version of) the “real” America for God. In one sanctuary, Alberta sees “a lot of American flags” but not a single cross.” He found belligerent culture warriors who never spoke about helping immigrants or the poor, and noted that “bashing the left tends to stimulate conservative passions more reliably than trying to teach Jesus’ example of good deeds and turning the other cheek.”

A booth at the Faith and Freedom Coalition was selling T-shirts with “Let’s Go Brandon,” the conservative chant that stands  for an expletive directed at Joe Biden. In case the expletive was unclear, the T-shirts included a hashtag #FJB. When Alberta questioned the propriety of such merchandise at a Christian event, the proprietor responded that he was protesting the “fact” that “we’ve taken God out of America.”

Shutdowns during the pandemic particularly incensed many of these culture warriors, and Alberta recounts multiple conversations with people who sound a lot like Indiana’s Micah Beckwith. COVID, they insist, was a liberal assault on Christianity and the church. (One woman insisted that Dr. Fauci had “invented” it.) Masks and vaccines are a liberal plot.

These are the people who elected Donald Trump.

The book is chilling. Read it.

Comments