(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Last week, Donald Trump accused the Left of wanting to “tear down crosses… and cover them up with social justice flags”. “But no one will be touching the cross of Christ under the Trump administration,” he reassured a convention of religious broadcasters. His speech appeared to confirm widespread suspicion that “Christian nationalism” will play a prominent part in the next Republican White House.
After all, it came just three days after Politico published a report pointing to a Christian nationalist faction of conservatives that is preparing to “to infuse Christian nationalist ideas in [a future Trump] administration”. For detractors, such as Atlantic writer Tim Alberta, this is an attempt to establish “far-Right religious dominion over the government”; for its leader Russell Vought, former Office of Management and Budget Director under Trump, it is a positive step towards “preserving our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage”.
Such accounts would suggest that Christian nationalism is a novel, ascendant force on the American Right. Yet politically vocal Christians have been a part of the Republican coalition for decades: from the days of the Moral Majority to Trump’s successful courting of the Evangelical vote. Vought’s fiscally hawkish brand of “Christian nationalism” is not, therefore, a catalyst for radical change — but rather a device for the old Republican political class to insulate itself from drastic reform. In fact, Vought embodies the striking ideological continuity between the pre-Trump and post-Trump Republican Party.
Vought began his political career at the turn of the millennium as a staffer to Senator Phil Gramm of Texas and later to then-Representative Mike Pence of Indiana. The two figures reflected Vought’s own mixture of social conservatism and devotion to fiscal austerity, at a time when the Reaganite gospel of cutting taxes, slashing regulations, and unleashing the free market was the unchallenged dogma of the Republican Party. Vought later made a name for himself as a policy wonk in the House Republican Study Committee, where the main priority was finding ways to cut entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, before joining the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, the most prestigious think tank in the conservative firmament, in time to fight the battles of the Obama years. This era was the high tide of the “fusionist” creed of conservatism, which saw no contradiction between hard-line Christian moral conservatism and free-market fundamentalism.
Besides his expertise in shrinking government, Vought became known for his aggressive personal style. When Trump emerged as a presidential contender in 2015, Vought became a convert to the nascent MAGA cause — though his affinity with the Republican standard bearer was more stylistic than ideological. This is because Trump ran the first time around against the GOP’s fusionist sympathies: he promised to tax the rich and defend popular entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, while expressing a nonchalant stance toward Planned Parenthood and transgenderism. In many ways, this early incarnation of Trump was the opposite of Vought: a most un-Christian social liberal with a penchant for redistributive economic populism.
It speaks to his sheer tenacity that Vought, on joining the Trump administration in 2018, thought that he could bend the president to his vision of traditional fusionist conservatism. In the White House, an interesting dynamic emerged between the two men, one that perfectly encapsulates the push-and-pull dynamic between the pre and the post-populist versions of the GOP. As a former senior Trump administration official told The Washington Post: “[Vought would] take these dream budgets in to Trump, and Trump would say, ‘I don’t want these cuts; don’t make these cuts. I don’t want to touch social programmes. I don’t want to touch entitlements.’ And he’d back down… It would drive Russ crazy, because he wanted to make actual cuts.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeChristian Nationalism is a boogeyman created by the progressive left to demonize Christians.
Ya. Suddenly this is a dire threat – during an election year of course. All those Christian nationalists marching in the streets are the fever dreams of Democrats and their loyal foot soldiers.
It’s not the “marching in the streets” that’s the problem, it’s the judges abolishing Roe v Wade and making the absurd “Alabama IVF” decision.
It’s not like there’s a bunch of Christian nationalist judges running around either. What exactly is the worry – abortions today and Jim Crow laws tomorrow?
Isn’t this how a federalist democracy works? Some states go one way, other states go another way.
The problem is that some States are moving to be theocracies. I mean, an embryo created as part of an IVF program is a “person”? In pretty much every other country, you create a bunch of embryos, implant a few, and throw the rest in the bin.
Returning the decision-making to the states, as our federalist system requires, allows voters to determine the laws in their states. Overturning Roe v Wade, a bad law which had never been voted on and was simply done by unconstitutional judicial fiat, was necessary and long overdue.
As for the IVF decision, it is the people of Alabama who will decide if they agree. If you live in Alabama, you can work to change the law. If you don’t, it’s none of your d*mn business.
Whether it was good or bad, Roe was not a law.
—Kimberly
Lots of people opposed to Christian nationalism were good with those rulings.
Tell me you don’t understand the decision on Roe without saying you don’t understand it. The Court put the issue in the hands of states, which have taken very different applications. Some are restrictive, others allow abortion for any reason at any point in a pregnancy, the latter being something that the original Roe decision never contemplated.
I think pretty much everyone on the Left, and a lot of people in the Centre, think that abortion is a fundamental human right.
Roevwade is an inappropriate extension of federal power. They need to stay in their lane.
So I guess Griswold was an inappropriate extension of federal power. No worries. The Republicans want to outlaw contraceptives anyway.
—Kimberly
I’ve never met a Republican who wanted to do that. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but there are nut-jobs on all sides.
This essay, like the braying about “Christian Nationalism” as some existential threat to America, is just a dog whistle for the Left.
I’m a Christian. I am also a civic nationalist. Am I a ‘Christian nationalist’? Not sure. Was the older Maynard Keynes a ‘Christian nationalist’? It’s all just BS as far as I can see.
Christian nationalism is just another Boogeyman that progressives leftists conjuring up for their own benefit in order to deal with their existential angst, it’s kind of interesting that despite how much these people despise their ideological enemies, they have an odd codependent relationship with them. That being by opposing these people it gives their life meaning and purpose that they completely lack, and serves an outlet for their own anger and frustration they feel towards their unfulfilling circumstances. By supposedly combating these people, it gives them the illusion of being heroic and noble, and bringing a false sense of satisfaction to their existence. I get the impression that despite the fact that these people want them to cease to exist, they deep down fear the possibility of these people one day not existing because they would no longer have a source of self esteem they can derive from, that being defined themselves in opposition to them. Even more so, the left would implode upon itself because the personal anger and frustration that motivates progressives leftists would find another outlet through infighting with other leftists, which happens presently but is kept under the control due to the existence of external enemies. The modern left is not defined by what it wants but what it’s against, conflict is an end on to itself, not a means to an end. The left hates it’s enemies not because of what they do but because they hate themselves. What they’re doing is taking their self-hatred and projecting onto others. They like to think of themselves as rebels who are speaking truth to power and confronting evil, but in reality they serve power, and on some level they know this better in denial because they like the benefits benefits of doing so and don’t want to confront the fact because doing so would be too painful for them, they are in an extreme sense of denial about themselves.
The left hates it’s enemies not because of what they do but because they hate themselves.
That could be said of the Right too.
I’m not sure this is true. Progressives hate the right and they use all kind of language to reflect that – fasc!sts, racists, genocide etc…Up until about a week ago in the U.S., anyone who opposed open borders was a racist. That’s still the mantra in Britain. Similarly, anyone who opposes sex change surgery for children is a genocidal homophobe.
While I am strongly opposed to progressives, I don’t hate them. I think they are captured by a destructive ideology. On the other hand, I think it’s fair to say the right doesn’t have a vision of the future. The right is defined by what it opposes, not by what it supports.
Progressives are authoritarian, the right is defined by subsidiarity. They are in direct opposition.
I don’t want to deal in absolutes or group-labels, but my impression is that much of the left denounce their opposition as evil while those on the right think their opposition doesn’t account for all the facts.
The whole Left/Right concept is stupid and false. Labels, separating people into convenient groups – it’s all created to keep us at each other’s throats instead of holding those in power responsible for their malice and incompetence.
Unless one is a full-blown ideologue for whom politics and identity is a religion, most people are fairly moderate, live-and-let-live in practice. You should try it.
But those people you just describe are large number these days, tend have power and influence over lives regular people due to institutional power, and are being enabled by powerful interests. I for the most part tend to keep to myself and mind my own business like most people, but thing is do extremes insistences and interferences of the modern left its gradual become more impossible take that route do to the absurd nonsense they are trying to force onto to the rest of society.
You are saying that all people on the left are extreme. Not so. You are talking about only eight percent of the Democratic Party—the progressives. The rest of us are not extremists We are liberals and moderates.
Then why don’t you and people like you do the right thing and stand up tell them to shut up and sit down. You people either too cowardly or too self-intrested stand up to them, same to be silly about high ranking leaders within the party do the exact same thing as well. It’s because they benefited by being involved with these people. It shows that these up I have a complete lack of character that they have by not standing up to them.
I was in the US last year. The relatives I engaged with on the left were far closer to ‘full-blown ideologues’ than their close relatives on the right who generally act as though politics fits into a small corner of their lives. One side has led to family breakdowns and division even amongst close siblings. Most people could guess which side.
The reason this didn’t happen until fairly recently was that politics was mostly viewed as a semi-private affair–so that my dad and his siblings were at opposite ends of at least the Republican/Democrat divide and yet I never once saw them argue about it. Now, for many, everything is political.
That’s because left wingers have no self esteem, and thus no faith in themselves, so in order to compensate for this they subsume themselves into both ideologies and movements. They merge their identities with these concepts the adopted the hope that by doing so they can acquire some self-esteem. The result being whenever someone ever challenges or rejects their beliefs, they’re not just disappointed they’re personal hurt because they take it as a personal rejection, and an attack upon their self-esteem. That’s the reason why they’re so combative towards those who don’t agree with them.
True, but seems more wide spread on the left, and left is in a position to do more damage do to institutional power.
The religion point is irrelevant. I had hoped these small state obsessed neocons had been wiped out by Trump but apparemtly not.
Whole groups are not “wiped out” very easily–not even when you make a determined and coordinated attempt to kill them all.
But perhaps you meant that you hoped they’d surrender to the blinding light of DJT, your hero and leader.
This feels like a USA Today article, not something worthy of UnHerd. If the author wanted to explore the political significance of so-called ‘Christian nationalism’ in the US today, he has completely whiffed. His point seems to be that many Christian nationalists (a derogatory term to begin with) have similar policy positions to traditional Reagan conservatives. Well, duh.
What distinguishes Christian nationalists as a recent cultural development isn’t unusual policy preferences but their theological perspective on history and their emphasis on the significance of cultural solidarity. This is, in other words, a distinctively American-evangelical-flavored corner of the right-wing counter-revolution to identity wars, mass immigration and social secularism.
If the author were truly interested in grappling with the Christian nationalist phenomenon, he should have been investigating the real questions…
Does any serious thinker actually accept the ‘Christian nationalist’ moniker, and if so, what do they think defines it?
What is the basis for “the symbiosis between political Christianity and free-market economics” and why or how does Christian nationalism either advance or impede this symbiosis?
Or (perhaps the greatest challenge), what can non-Christian nationalists make of the fact that for most of America’s history, it was indeed a ‘Christian nation’ – both in terms of pure demographic numbers and in terms of cultural outlook… and that America’s current struggles seem correlated with a loss of that identity?
A better article here would be articulating Christian nationalist arguments, and they trying to support or rebut them.
what does “socially conservative on LGBT identity” mean? is it the same as anti-homosexual? if it is, why not say so?
No, it’s not the same as anti-homosexual. Typically, it’s anti-castration of children in the current fad of genderism. And there may be some people who are not yet on board with same sex marriage, but the law has left them behind.
The more I see of the religion of social justice and the far left ideology of critical theory and trans dogma and faith based self flagellation and the cult of George Floyd I think the world was saner and safer when the judeo Christian ethos was the dominant one.
Meet the new label; much like the old one. Apparently, it’s out with white supremacy, which ran into the problem of insufficient supply to satisfy the demand, and in with Christian nationalism, which no one can define but, apparently much like pornography, everyone can recognize on sight.
Just last week, an American talking head was ruminating about this new scourge, clutching her pearls about these nationalists and their belief that rights come from God or our own humanity instead of being granted by some earthly authority. What do we do with a “journalist” who fails to understand how rights work.
They’re not given by govt; if they were, then govt could also take them away, which would them privileges rather than rights. One need not be religious to understand the concept of rights. Far from bestowing rights, the role of the earthly authority is to safeguard them.
Spot on. Anyone who thinks that “inalienable rights” are some sinister fantasy of so-called Christian Nationalists clearly didn’t take civics, or was asleep when the Declaration of Independence was discussed in History class. And what about that reference to “Nature’s God?” Oh, the humanity!!
The problem for anyone claiming to be a Christian nationalist is that, while it’s fine to be Christian and be proud of your nation or a politician with Christian beliefs, Jesus could hardly have been any clearer about not mixing the spiritual realm with politics. Any suggestion of a theocratic government, whether autocratic or democratically elected, is alien to the teachings and example of Jesus.
Amen. Case in point: “My Kingdom is not of this world”.
The heart of the Left’s hatred for Christians and many non-Christians, for that matter, was summed up by Politico’s Heidi Pryzbyla about a week ago. We rubes believe our rights are derived from nature or nature’s god. Silly us.
Let’s dispense with the labels for a moment and look at our country. Unpayable debt. Plummeting fertility rates. An up-and-coming generation that refuses to be held accountable to anyone or anything but themselves and their devices. A sense that traditional families, religion, classical education, truth, patriotism, national sovereignty are at best passé, at worst weapons of white oppression so destructive that the oppressors must be expunged from recorded history (thanks, Google). Anyone objectively surveying our current condition would, I hope, seek to expunge the malign forces promoting it from our midst. But we don’t. We bend over and take it every day and let the likes of Heidi Pryzbyla spew her crap unchallenged on the air, in our newspapers, and in our town halls, our churches, and our schools. When we point out the obvious, we’re accused of being unhinged. What an upside down statist world.
Trump needs evangelical votes and will do whatever they tell him to get those votes. The religious wingnuts that he has appointed to the US supreme court and the removal of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy over her own body are the outcome – with worse to follow if a crook like Clarence Thomas gets his way. Gay marriage? Contraception? Interracial marriage? All gone.
These people see The Handmaid’s Tale as a guidebook, not a cautionary tale. And they choose a scumbag like Trump to implement it. It would be comical if it wasn’t coming true…
The USA (and much of the Western world) was founded upon Christian principles.
This has created a rich free society that is the envy of the world.
People are voting by their feet by trying to get into the Western countries by any means possible.
They are not going in the other direction.
It shows that societies based upon Christian principles are a success.
Change that winning combination and the result may not be as rich and/or free.
If the Republicans axe Social Security, Medicare and/or Obama Care Americans will storm the Capitol again. This time it won’t just the MAGA crowd , it will be Americans of all stripes—atheists and Christians and Muslims and Hindus; teachers and cops and farmers; young and old; cats and dogs; Democrats, and yes, Republicans. Vought and company will be wanted men.
If you seriously think that Republicans are anywhere close to serious about axing Social Security, Medicare, or like entitlement programs, you’ve had way too much of the left’s Koolaid. That is fever dream stuff from the DNC, akin to the infamous ad showing Paul Ryan pushing Granny over a cliff in her wheelchair.
DNC propaganda.
The problem with Christian Nationalism in the US is, it’s not very… Christian.
Having read this article and the comments below, reinforces my lack of understanding as to why Christians in the US usually vote Republican; why are all of the same political persuasion?
I write from England where Christians are represented across the political spectrum; in fact our centre party had a Christian leader, Tim Farron.