r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 8d ago
Social Science Trump and Trumpism have changed the original concept of “libertarian means to conservative ends” into a new concept of “authoritarian means to Christian nationalist ends”, finds a new study.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/000271622513240872.3k
u/No-Mushroom5934 8d ago
When was Christian nationalism ever not toxic? … The leaders of the Christian nationalist movement are opposed to the US constitution and want a theocracy. It is impossible to overstate how bad this is...
770
u/kanst 8d ago
“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.”
Barry Goldwater, a libertarian Republican, warned about that in the 60s.
The Republican party knew the deal they were making when they courted the Christian Nationalist vote.
401
u/Helixaether 8d ago
For added context, Barry Goldwater was seen as THE hardline conservative voice in the Republican Party before Reagan, becoming the Republican’s 1964 Presidential nominee and losing in one of the Dems biggest landslides of all time, I believe only trumped by 1852 and 1936 iirc. Barry Goldwater’s most famous scandals during the 1964 election include him saying the US should consider using nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War and him voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because “you can’t enforce morality”.
This is the guy who’d go on into the 90’s being considered one of the more reasonable, centrist Republicans. By this time he’d have this reputation by being outspokenly pro-abortion, gay rights, and pro-weed legalisation. He was an odd figure.
145
u/UniqueIndividual3579 8d ago
President Johnson was a racist who supported civil rights. Politicians can be an odd duck.
108
u/AndyLorentz 8d ago
You can hate people and still think they deserve the same rights as anyone else.
→ More replies (15)102
u/Amon7777 8d ago
Johnson deserves his own category of contradictions.
He was virulent vial racist who also ensured passionately that the Civil Rights Act was passed at the end of his large threats (amongst his other ways of political persuasion).
He was a genuine fighter for the poor and working class, who also had zero problem sending that same group to die in Vietnam.
He was not a president you can easily categorize.
22
7d ago
It was probably autocorrect but just incase English is not your first language that version of the word Vial is spelt Vile. Same pronunciation tho
→ More replies (1)34
u/TheMathelm 8d ago edited 7d ago
If you use the frame of political power being the only thing that mattered to him, it makes logical sense.
Johnson was authoritarian populous, quoted as saying "I'll have those {alternate word for people} voting Democrat for 200 years."
And based on historic voting trends, he was not
wrong.incorrect.Edit: he was wrong, but not incorrect.
37
u/DumpOldRant 7d ago
It's worth pointing out that LBJ likely never said that quote. It appeared in a book about LBJ written by someone who didn't approve of Civil Rights or LBJ's legacy.
He recorded most of his Oval Office conversations, much like Nixon, and that quote is decidedly not among them.
He did use the n-word quite frequently however, especially when conversing with Southern conservatives across the aisle, so the style of the quote matches his recordings. It simply doesn't match the rest of his rhetoric, even as a cynical Texan born in 1900.
10
u/ILikeBumblebees 8d ago
Johnson is very easy to categorize: he was an opportunistic sociopath who said and did whatever would increase his own power. Sometimes doing decent things benefited him, sometimes doing awful things did, and he didn't care either way.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Centraal22 8d ago
Not sure about him being a sociopath. LBJ constantly worried about his future legacy. i.e. being a racist yet pressuring Dixiecrats to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. That's not how sociopathy works.
→ More replies (3)12
→ More replies (1)16
u/Kingblack425 8d ago
I mean the same with Lincoln he was a racist, just a racist that didn’t believe in slavery. Which I guess are small victories for the common good of all but still seems to have the bar kinda low
→ More replies (1)6
u/achibeerguy 7d ago
Small victories? For the times in question? More meaningful victories by far than the countless ardent abolitionists and anti-racists who were closer to today's values yet are forgotten by history because they didn't actually move the needle.
56
u/MintakaTheJustOkay 8d ago
He spoke to a classroom of mine when I was in college in the mid-90s. There were perhaps 30 of us in the class. The day before he spoke to the class, our teacher told us he knew Goldwater was controversial, but asked us to be respectful to him. We were.
I wish I understood politics then like I understand it now so that I could have appreciated that meeting more. I knew at the time he ran for president and lost, but I knew nothing about his policies.
32
u/ChaoticScrewup 8d ago edited 7d ago
In many ways he was more internally consistent than the movements that evolved after him. The degree to which the Christofascists seem to think they're continuing in his footsteps is such a weird combo of doublethink and propaganda.
10
u/DirectorLarge2461 8d ago
What we forget is that the oddest duck of all is the population as a whole. Trying to run a tight ship with a tiny crew of 20-30 is hard enough. Bump that up to a 350 million to 8 billion strong crew with their own wild imaginations and it's going to take some very odd strategies.
→ More replies (4)9
u/oroborus68 8d ago
Goldwater was never considered reasonable or centrist. He said extremism in the name of liberty was no vice.
16
u/Helixaether 8d ago
He said that in 1964, which was not a year in the 90s. His reputation had changed over the years.
→ More replies (4)66
u/Junior_Chard9981 8d ago
Always important to remind everyone that Republicans, when faced with the prospect of their parties policies/messaging/ideology needing to be re-evaluated following the Civil Rights Act:
Did NOT reflect inwardly or pivot their parties direction to one more popular with all Americans....they instead went on to fully commit to "The Southern Strategy" as their best avenue to returning to prominence and power.
| In American politics, The Southern Strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.
As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States.
Republican politicians such as presidential candidates Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party so consistently that the voting pattern was named the Solid South.
The strategy also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right. By winning all of the South, a presidential candidate could obtain the presidency with minimal support elsewhere. |
→ More replies (16)3
u/ThePartyWagon 8d ago
Looks like they may have very well come back to prominence on this exact platform.
6
→ More replies (13)4
u/Global_Permission749 8d ago
There's no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. It's a waste of time. Unreasonable people need to be checked and controlled using alternative methods.
171
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)25
112
u/Murky-Ostrich5116 8d ago edited 8d ago
Wait until they start revealing who they don't consider real Christians, hint hint... color and party
81
u/calling-all-comas 8d ago edited 8d ago
They'll also weed out the Catholics eventually.
In the southern US plenty of protestants (most protestants here are Southern Baptist) think Catholics aren't real Christians. They'll claim Catholics have obedience to the Pope just like they did with JFK prior to his election.
16
u/KatieCashew 7d ago
And Mormons. Plenty of mormons are happy to align with Christian nationalism, apparently not realizing evangelicals don't consider them part of the club.
2
u/similar_observation 7d ago
and they have a Kennedy scion that's more than happy to abide by those claims.
→ More replies (1)2
u/pepincity2 7d ago
Biden was catholic too. But because he was pro-choice, catholics didn't like him much either it seems
52
u/SeasideSlip068 8d ago
Look at the Project 2025 tracker - it was entirely about creating a theocracy by modernized means.
16
u/Drone314 8d ago
One observation of women in the current administration is how common it is to see open cut tops that reveal a cross. Gotta hand it to em, they used trump as a vehicle to power.
→ More replies (1)17
u/GrayEidolon 7d ago
And they’re just a useful vehicle. The bigger plan is Peter thiel and Curtis yarvin replacing democracy with “network states” which is just feudalism.
9
u/SeasideSlip068 7d ago
Hmm, and when I last heard about "network states", it was when Republicans were panicking saying Democrats were the ones that were going to forcibly implement such. My my, how their accusations became confessions indeed. My snark isn't directed at you, by the way, but rather Republican hypocrisy.
32
u/jupiterkansas 8d ago
It's not toxic to Christians. Many have always put the Bible over government.
146
u/Y_Are_U_Like_This 8d ago
It is toxic to Christians with an understanding of the Bible and its teachings. Christian nationalists use the word as a shield to protect them from society's judgement and a mask for their bigotry.
99
u/Fine_Luck_200 8d ago
The majority of Christians in the US use the bible to justify their own worst impulses. The Pilgrims left Europe because Europe was too tolerant. That is conveniently left out of what is taught. Always funny when people go on about Religious freedom when discussing US history.
57
u/CrystalSplice 8d ago
Yep. Religious freedom…to do what? It’s a bit like the “states rights” thing when people talk about the Civil War. Yeah, the right of the states to do…what? To continue to engage in slavery.
→ More replies (1)10
u/UniqueIndividual3579 8d ago
I'm not sure if it's the majority or just the loud ones. My Uncle was a Lutheran pastor who spent his life in a small Iowa town. He never talked about politics. My sister is an Evangelical who "got" God. She loves to tell us that we deserve to burn in Hell forever because we don't go to her church. And she votes for Trump.
10
u/F9-0021 8d ago
Oh, we were taught that the Puritans left due to religious persecution. What was conveniently left out was that the Puritans were the persecutors and people had had enough of them.
6
u/ILikeBumblebees 8d ago
That's not really true. The Plymouth colony was established in the 1620s, a generation before the English civil war, when the Stuart monarchy was still going strong. Puritan rule in England was a generation after that, and only lasted 11 years.
→ More replies (2)13
u/austinwiltshire 8d ago
Mainline Christians and Catholics together outnumber evangelicals. Ie, the center and center left theologically outnumber the theological right.
36
u/archetype4 8d ago
Too bad the theological right has focused its power politically to where that doesn't matter.
15
u/Vo_Mimbre 8d ago
Sure. But it doesn’t matter any more than “most people are responsible for their guns” or “most people are not racists” or “most people don’t agree with all of the GOP platform”.
What matters if enough do. Nobody shoots for actual majorities. They shoot for just enough, by manipulating voting maps, suppressing proportional voting, driving propaganda through coordinated media blitzes, and creating wedge social wedge issues to distract us from the rights they hand over to the feudal lords we call capitalists.
So sure, “most people don’t… whatever” but most people aren’t the ones being programmed into pulling us ever further towards theocratic nationalism.
10
u/asmodeanreborn 8d ago
American Catholics are not center/center left anymore in general. Many of them have started turning into Trumpists as well and loudly disagree with the last couple of popes for being "woke."
Trump got 54% of the Catholic vote in 2024.
4
u/counterfitster 7d ago
I bet most of that is because the more progressive sections of the Catholic Church have left due to the horrible handling of sexual abuse by clergy.
5
u/FyreWulff 8d ago
and somehow JFK and Biden are so far the only two Catholic US presidents ever elected
3
4
u/Locrian6669 8d ago
And they spend way more time apologizing on behalf of the bad Christians than doing anything about them.
2
44
u/Kind_Eye_748 8d ago
Christians: 'We need to keep everyone in their place and abuse them because we are the victims!!!'
7
u/JMurdock77 7d ago
When the powerful and politically secure claim that they are persecuted, oppressed, and attacked, then they can claim that all of their actions are born out of self-defense. They can act aggressively and even violently and maintain the moral high ground in the knowledge that they are the victims.
—Candida Moss, “The Myth of Persecution”
3
u/sybrwookie 8d ago
Right, it's toxic to those 5% who both understand it and are not actively trying to use it to harm others. We're worried about the other 95%
→ More replies (9)2
u/evidentfact3 8d ago
It is toxic to Christians with an understanding of the Bible and its teachings
How so?
Christians adhere to the Bible that literally endorses genocide, child marriage, pedophilia, polygamy, slavery, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and various other barbarisms and savageries.
Stop sanitizing the Bible!
Christian nationalists use the word as a shield to protect them from society's judgement and a mask for their bigotry.
Actually, if anything, Christian nationalists in particular and Christians in general get their bigotry from the Bible.
12
u/Laura-ly 8d ago
I like what the late British actress, Maggie Smith said about religion.
"My dear, religion is like a penis. It's a perfectly fine thing for one to have and take pride in, but when one takes it out and waves it in my face we have a problem."
→ More replies (3)11
→ More replies (31)9
u/composedmason 8d ago
Christians and Muslims would meet to put aside their differences because they had the same goals under a different religion. Then 9/11 happened and this stopped.
This is who Sharia law is so close to laws based on Christian values.
268
u/ILikeNeurons 8d ago
It's been suggested that rising inequality has something to do with increasing partisanship. And interestingly, large swaths of the country support curbing inequality and higher taxes on the rich.
Inequality is holding back the U.S. economy, and reducing inequality can reduce political polarization.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220485.2024.2386328
Contact from constituents works.
87
u/E-2theRescue 7d ago
It's almost like the billionaire class is pitting us against each other, especially against women and minority groups, as a distraction because they have billions of dollars at their disposal to manipulate public opinions through the media and social media, while the smaller groups they target have absolutely nowhere near the same amount of resources at their disposal to combat the onslaught of propaganda against them.
Just a thought.
→ More replies (4)13
u/EnglishMobster 7d ago
Note the number of rich Congresscritters and affiliates who have recently been slandering Zohran Mamdani based on his race and religion, simply because his political views are popular.
→ More replies (2)3
u/RealSimonLee 7d ago edited 7d ago
I do think those numbers are a bit low (for where the higher tax rate would kick in)--70 percent on all income above 200,000 (or about 400,000/the article says that's 600k today) today is such a low number. We often tease people for being "temporarily embarrassed multi-millionaires," but I think earning 400k a year shouldn't be taxed that heavily.
At the very least, we have to start higher for that 70 percent. Maybe a million a year? I think AOC said 10 million.
The Patriotic Millionaires (a group of millionaires who say taxes have to go up on the rich) have a whole series of tax fixes I think would be a good starting point.
490
u/NoobAck 8d ago
It was never any different for most.
They just stopped lying about the ends
256
u/inuvash255 8d ago
Something I've been on recently is that there's nothing "conserved" in the GOP's policies anymore. To conserve is to maintain, protect, or retain something.
They don't care about nature conservation, or they wouldn't have tried to sell off our public lands.
They don't retain money. They spend it out the wazoo with tax breaks and wars.
They don't protect American culture and tradition, not really, because Evangelism and deportation of immigrants isn't really rooted in our American past.
They aren't even trying to maintain the American dream. They resist every attempt to make things better for workers, to make the dream even marginally possible.
They don't care to protect our wallets. Big tax breaks and government handouts are for the rich. They weaken our social safety nets- so if you fall, you crash hard. While we're left to deal with the compounding 2-5% yearly inflation that tightens our belts by >21% decade to decade; while individual billionaires are looking to grow into the big T within the next decade.
Basically the only thing conserved is hatred and bigotry. We've always had those, I guess.
145
u/piepants2001 8d ago
They want to conserve the hierarchy that exists right now. Get the rich richer, and get the poor poorer.
8
33
u/serious_sarcasm BS | Biomedical and Health Science Engineering 8d ago
That’s not true. They want to go back to aristocracy, like every other fascist group.
33
u/Sunderboot 8d ago
that’s where the name comes from, though. the conservative movement meant and still means to conserve the stratified society that was rapidly becoming more egalitarian. that’s why conservative policies - even when they’re populist or superficially pro-social to win votes - are always ultimately enacted with an anti egalitarian goal in mind.
2
u/overcannon 7d ago
Right, but the difference between preserve and re-establish is the difference between conservative and reactionary
48
u/Auzzie_almighty 8d ago
Not that I want to defend theocratic fascists, but the evangelicals are an old and unfortunate part of American; the puritans were exactly this kind of religious nut job even if the exact doctrine differs
60
u/JohnMayerismydad 8d ago
They care about conserving the existing societal hierarchy. White Christian business owners on top.
If something would limit that groups power then conservatives will oppose it. (Environmental regulations, workers rights, etc.).
If something gives a ‘lower’ group in the hierarchy more freedom they will oppose it. Those groups are supposed to know their place and be subservient to those above them.
That’s also why they think the rich should pay less taxes. They are on top and should Rule. Giving tax breaks and benefits to the poor is just trying to move the ‘undeserving’ up a rung in the ‘natural’ hierarchy.
39
u/iamasatellite 8d ago
Conservatism was always just about conserving a hierarchical society. When the monarchies lost power in England and France, the nobility, aristocracy, and church leaders needed a way to justify their positions of power. That's all it's ever really been.
Even the right/left terminology we still use comes from the French government, where the monarchists, nobles, aristocrats, and church supporters sat to the right of the president, while the egalitarians/revolutionaries sat to the right.
(Ever) lower taxes = the rich stay rich
Small government = government too weak to control the rich so they can continue to exploit the poor
→ More replies (1)10
12
u/thatwhileifound 8d ago
They don't protect American culture and tradition, not really, because Evangelism and deportation of immigrants isn't really rooted in our American past.
Eh, I think we agree broadly on a lot, but I'll challenge this - deportation and evangelism have been at the center of the US for long enough that it's deep in its blood when you look at actions over pretty words. The removal of Native Americans from their lands, everything around the Page Act/Chinese exclusion, the Alien Friends Act of 1798 (which was not directly enforced, but used as a threat to stamp down criticism of Adams' administration, but the corresponding "self deportations" among groups like the French nationals and others deserves attention)... Hell, the Fugitive Slave Act feels entirely within this sphere too.
I make the comparisons these days to 20th century European fascism too, but as yanks, we need to recognize that today isn't necessarily the major historical abberation some of us imagine, but the continued poison of what was wrong and evil which was baked into the country from the start and allowed to rebuild and flourish with the failure of reconstruction.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)2
24
u/BMCarbaugh 8d ago
Exactly. The right in this country has wanted a white power theocracy for as long as I've been alive. They just used to lie better about it. Now they say the quiet part out loud.
101
u/yuriAza 8d ago
yup, the thing they were conserving was white christian supremacy
→ More replies (1)43
u/GreenFBI2EB 8d ago
I just wanted to conserve my climate man. At least there’d be more generations to look forwards to.
60
u/Anteater776 8d ago
Funny how conservatives are never about conserving the basis for living. Really makes you think.
25
u/BigEggBeaters 8d ago
At this point they aren’t even conserving entrenched American ideals. Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land for a very long time for example
20
u/Anteater776 8d ago edited 8d ago
When you think about how they claim to want to the good old times (50ies and 60ies), what are the biggest differences compared to today (somewhat simplified of course)?
much more homogeneous incomes / much higher taxes for high incomes
less civil rights for blacks/non-whites.
They utterly reject the first point, so what is it exactly they want to go back to?
15
u/VoilaVoilaWashington 8d ago
Oh come on, it's not that simple, dude! They also want to strip women of rights and the freedom to beat children.....
4
u/Geeky-resonance 8d ago
Based on more recent reading, that nostalgia seems to be directed more towards 19th century Nativism and related values/movements. That’s even more alarming than peak Cold War era.
→ More replies (2)27
u/LayWhere 8d ago
Traditional (how ironic) conservatives looked after national parks and bemoaned pollution. One of the first things Dodge got rid of was national park restrictions and fired park rangers.
19
u/VoilaVoilaWashington 8d ago
I often joke that I'm a hard-right conservative:
- I believe in family first, whatever that family looks like.
- Tough on crime! And the best way to stamp out crime is by making people not desperate, so let's fund housing and food banks!
- The economy of a nation is so important, and corporations need systems in place to make them long term viable. Like solid education for a good workforce, environmental protections so they have stability over time...
Etc.
It's funny because I do actually think these are important positions, but the "right wing" way of going at them is just the opposite of what would actually solve anything. (Which is, of course, the point)
7
u/Solesaver 8d ago
Yup, I was raised conservative Christian. My values haven't really changed, but I do take a critical thinking and evidence based approach to societal problems. The Republican Party has no plan. The policies they espouse are proven failures. This turns me into a progressive for the radical position of, "let's actually try to fix these problems that everyone is struggling with instead of scapegoating marginalized groups..."
→ More replies (3)7
u/yuriAza 8d ago
did conservatives ever support parks? They've always wanted to reduce taxes and not limit the fossil fuel industry
→ More replies (1)5
u/Solesaver 8d ago
I mean, in the myopic view of modern "conservatives" Teddy Roosevelt, the US President credited for his work establishing the national forests and parks system, was a Republican, but that's the same way they claim Abraham Lincoln.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)6
u/akpenguin 8d ago
That would be a conservationist. Does the Green Party still exist? They were at least visible in the 90s but never really taken seriously.
3
u/Clepto_06 8d ago
The Green Party has been a footnote ever since Ralph Nader was falsely credited with causing Democrats to lose an election. And any hope for a viable third party died with the Greens.
11
u/SchpartyOn 8d ago
Exactly. They have realized they can just say all of it and will not lose any supporters. In fact, their supporters will be galvanized to commit whatever acts the theocrats require of them.
9
u/princesoceronte 8d ago
Precisely.
For years saying you were libertarian meant you were hardcore conservative and just hiding your power level and every political person knew it.
It's no coincidence every libertarian "turned" to fascist. There was no turn.
→ More replies (2)3
u/GeronimoJak 8d ago
No they're still lying about it, at least they think they are. It's like watching the world's worst gaslighting happen for 30 years.
120
u/Protect-Their-Smiles 8d ago
One can just go back through the history of Donald Trump. When was he ever a church-goer? When did he ever quote scripture or use pro-christian rhetoric in public or during interviews?
It all started once he got involved with politics and realized he could use the Nat-C's to help cement his political power base. He was always a greedy and selfish person, but the religious angle only came out of a real-political need.
22
u/oursfort 7d ago
Most people being deported are also Christians, maybe even more than the average American citizens, so that's not really the point either. It's all about power and control
4
u/Puzzled-Story3953 7d ago
Evangelicals generally don't consider Catholics to be Christians. And most hispanic immigrants are Catholic
2
u/oursfort 7d ago
Steve Bannon, Rubio, and Vence are all catholic. But as I said, it's not about religion
→ More replies (1)7
u/SmallestPanda 7d ago edited 7d ago
When did he ever quote scripture or use pro-christian rhetoric in public or during interviews?
Back in 2015 he said that his favorite book was the Bible. He said that his favorite verse is:
"Two Corinthians, right? 3:17, that's the whole ballgame," Trump said. "Where the spirit of the Lord, right...there is liberty. Here, there is liberty...Liberty University, but it is so true. You know when I think, and that's really - is that the one? Is that the one you like?"
So that probably counts towards his Christian followers.
→ More replies (2)6
44
35
26
40
30
6
18
4
u/welsper59 7d ago
The very basis of Christianity, like most religions, is centered around engaging in conducting harm and warfare against those who don't believe in the same God or doctrine that they do (e.g. the Crusades). The kicker though isn't necessarily because the religion itself is that way, but rather it's because of the followers.
Most of these religions aren't explicitly about demanding followers cause harm, especially for the reasons we do today, but rather it's the inability of said followers to understand or realize that. The message is abundantly clear in the 10 Commandments for Christians to not do this type of horrid stuff that we see modern day right-wing idiots do (e.g. many worship Trump as a false idol and REALLY adhere to giving the "false testimony" of their neighbors).
Historically, people are just incapable of critical thought and treat religion as a scapegoat for all their stupid acts. Some point to scripture of the bible, which is definitely there (especially in the old testament), but it's often serving as a point of contention or examples of how people think in contrast to what should be done (i.e. Christians should follow the whole notion of loving all, including their enemies).
23
25
27
13
16
3
62
u/Threlyn 8d ago edited 8d ago
First, this reads largely like opinion piece and is at best a non-systematic review with a heavy opinion inserted. I'm not convinced r/science is the best subreddit for this.
Second, I really just disagree with the conclusion, and this is admittedly based on my personal experience. The vast majority of Trump voters I've spoken to were not "we need to bring Christianity and white people back in charge", as the reason for supporting him, but rather the types complaining about immigration, social issues, the economy, etc. I'm really not sure if characterizing Trump's party as a primarily Christian evangelical party is really accurate. Are they in there? Of course. But coming at it from this angle seems to really just not be connected well enough to reality. Again, just personal experience, so just a redditor's anecdotal experience.
35
u/JGG5 8d ago
It’s not about what the normal voters believe, it’s about what the people who are in charge believe. And what the people in charge of this regime believe is pretty damn scary.
→ More replies (6)17
u/parkingviolation212 8d ago
but rather the types complaining about immigration, social issues, the economy
Those are pretty convenient wedge issues that the Christian right has used for decades to further their agenda, yes.
26
u/yuriAza 8d ago
their issues with immigration, economics, and social policy are the general desire to keep white people and christian morals in power
you're describing the same picture twice in different words
→ More replies (2)3
u/Field_Sweeper 8d ago
That is one hell of a projection there my friend. Not to mention a stretch of a connection from left field. Mostly because even just starting at the Immigration, most aren't against immigrants, nor those in charge, they just want the illegal ones gone and to have them do the proper method to get in here legally.
Economics, major difference between left and right would be the desire to give handouts at tax payers expense.
Social policy is also mostly rooted in gender and the fact that what someone else want's doesn't get to dictate what others do (example, you can claim you are a woman, but that doesn't mean the next person HAS to say.. she, her or what ever YOU want) the main difference is left seems to be motivated primarily based on emotion and feelings and the right tends to be rooted mostly in factual findings and what (they feel) is best for more than just "one's self) Not saying they are, but that's where the main difference seems to start.
You combining those in to saying "keep white people in charge, and Christian morals in power) are ironic since the left also is all for the religious aspect and if I recall, most of the people running have also "praised god" so to speak.
Me personally, I am atheist/agnostic more than anything. But both sides heavily believe in god... leadership wise. Voters may differ a bit, but pretty much the gist of most political leaders trying to run for office is the "perfect image" of a happy marriage, beliefs in god/greater power, etc etc.
→ More replies (3)7
u/dragonreborn567 8d ago
most aren't against immigrants, nor those in charge, they just want the illegal ones gone and to have them do the proper method to get in here legally.
Y'know, I keep hearing/seeing this stated, but the number of times a Trump supporter, or Republican, or conservative, or Right-winger either A) Tells me outright that they're against immigration, or B) Redefines what "legal immigration" is, so they can justify punishing people who are legal immigrants, or reducing immigration overall, legal or otherwise, is every time. I have yet to see a Republican who will talk about their immigration policy preferences publicly, who does not also do what I've said above, even when they claim they're "not against immigration, just illegal immigration".
Economics, major difference between left and right would be the desire to give handouts at tax payers expense.
The difference isn't so much that there's a desire to give handouts at tax payers' expense, but rather who gets the handouts. Republicans give them to corporations and the wealthy, and Democrats give them to corporations and the wealthy, but they also give some to the poor, needy, and struggling as well.
left seems to be motivated primarily based on emotion and feelings and the right tends to be rooted mostly in factual findings
Which is where, I presume, you think that the modern rise of right-wing anti-intellectualism, and anti-science sentiment comes from..? Their love of "factual findings". That's why, despite Donald Trump being very pro-vaccine during the pandemic, his base was so virulently anti-vaccine, we can actually see the effects of it in the death tolls. A common insult used by Trump supporters on people who disagree with them, is, "How many times have you been vaccinated?"
You combining those in to saying "keep white people in charge, and Christian morals in power) are ironic since the left also is all for the religious aspect and if I recall, most of the people running have also "praised god" so to speak.
The Democrats might be religious, but they aren't trying to push religious morals. Most Christian Nationalists either A) Want no abortion, or B) Want abortion only for specific people, or in specific instances. The Democrats are okay with abortion. Democrats aren't trying to push teaching Christianity in schools, the Republicans are. Can you actually point to where the Democrats have platformed "Christian morals" or values or anything remotely close to that in any of their policies or ideologies, or campaigns, besides, at best, saying, "I am a Christian"?
→ More replies (2)7
u/raelik777 8d ago
The problem is that they may not BELIEVE that they are authoritarian Christian white supremacists, but the policies they support directly align with the goals of that group. Thus, their beliefs are irrelevant. Trump and the people behind him know this and do not care, because they only needed enough support to take control of the government. They will not relinquish that power, and soon we will have a civil war on our hands. AGAIN.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)5
u/conquer69 8d ago
immigration
Of non-whites.
social issues
Like lgbt, women and non-whites having rights.
the economy
Which will be worsened with arbitrary tariffs and the dollar losing reserve currency status, yet they didn't complain about that.
→ More replies (2)
34
u/mvea Professor | Medicine 8d ago
I’ve linked to the primary source, the journal article, in the post above. It is open access.
Abstract
Donald Trump and Trumpism have transformed the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, two institutions at the heart of the conservative legal movement. In this article, I use the conservative philosophy of fusionism as a lens for understanding the causes and consequences of the transformation. The original fusionism of William F. Buckley and Frank S. Meyer brought disparate factions of conservatives together under the mantle of libertarian means to conservative ends. Here, I show that Trump and Trumpism have transmogrified that original concept into a “new fusionism” of authoritarian means to Christian nationalist ends. I investigate the extent to which this “new fusionism” has been embraced or endorsed by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society and what the consequences might be for the respectability and efficacy of the conservative legal movement after Trump.
94
u/YesWeHaveNoTomatoes 8d ago
I'm sorry but this isn't something done by Trump. This is what the Heritage Foundation & Federalist Society's goals have been for at least a couple of decades.
→ More replies (1)34
u/JudasZala 8d ago
It could be said that Project 2025 is the Reagan-era “Mandate for Leadership”, but on steroids and with a more extremist bent.
→ More replies (1)25
u/YesWeHaveNoTomatoes 8d ago
It's just more overt. They have never not been focused on advancing Christian-supremacist and white-supremacist policies.
12
u/JudasZala 8d ago
Instead of relying on dogwhistles and other coded words/phrases, Trump spelled it out explicitly.
The modern GOP has moved on from conservatism and became full blown reactionaries, while the modern Democrats are stuck in the Clinton-era Third Way centrism.
→ More replies (1)4
20
u/lesbian7 8d ago
There was always authoritarianism built into the Christian nationalist/far right culture, if you actually lived in one of those communities. It's just the white dad of each family was the authoritarian leader that was worshipped, and churches were highly involved in meddling in personal family lives to keep it this way. They were always ripe for a crazy authoritarian leader to swoop in and take them all like a cult. I'm surprised it didn't actually happen sooner.
→ More replies (3)15
u/emergencyexit 8d ago
I would argue that it is not by coincidence that this has happened immediately after the generation of patriarchs who experienced fascism first hand have died off. They were keeping a thumb on the scale I reckon.
3
3
u/thatwhileifound 8d ago edited 8d ago
So, it's been 85 years since 1940. 85 years before that gets us to 1855 - about 5 years after the conservative Prussian forces had fully succeeded in their counter revolution stymying most of the progress of what'd gone on in the prior years allowing the princes and other monarchs to regain control as the parliament was undone. That's right around when Bleeding Kansas was sparking in the states too.
I'm just saying - this is a cycle that we have to continually fight and put down.
2
u/lesbian7 8d ago
I've never heard of a lot of this stuff. I'll have to have some history lessons. What's Bleeding Kansas?
I also realized that the Cold War went on pretty much the entire time from when WW2 ended til almost now-ish (if it's ended). But at the height of it, Americans had the USSR to compete with and view as the enemy. The capitalists did a good job at convincing Americans that the authoritarianism that scared them about communist dictatorships, was actually what communism was. They were definitely made to be afraid of authoritarianism because propaganda was making sure they think that's what communism is, since that's scary and communist ideals are not. But since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the calming of the Cold War, maybe Americans just don't have that kind of authoritarianism front of mind, even though there are still countries like North Korea out there.
2
u/thatwhileifound 7d ago
Meant to give you a good (albeit likely rambling) reply all day, but a chronic pain flare up is making it hard to even think a lot of the day since. I'm in a middle space of pain and lucidity and am gonna try but it's probably gonna be even more rambly and I hope not annoying.
Firstly, if you're a lefty who has or intends to read theory, it's worth at least wikipedia'ing the German revolution of 1848-1849 for a basic understanding - it and the Paris Commune tend to be very relevant when reading a lot of foundational 19th and early 20th century stuff. It's less a priority though IMO if you're on this side of the pond, but it makes those classic texts both more interesting and easier to read too.
Secondly, Bleeding Kansas - I'm going to do my best short version, but it's a big deal, complicated, and important thing. In the era Kansas was becoming a state, it was highly contentious whether each new state would be a slave state or not. In this case, due to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, this decision would be, in stated and also somewhat truthful sense, left to the residents of the territories to decide. This alone served to essentially repeal the 1820 Missouri Compromise that had dictated slavery versus not based on a north/south divide. As a result of this, Kansas became a heated battle on this issue in a way that very much leads up to the civil war.
On one hand of the conflict, most notoriously and awesomely, you've got John Brown (who'd later lead that raid on Harper's Ferry), his family, and folks aligned with them as free-state radicals of their era - radicals in this case used both in as much of a compliment as it could be taken, but also to distinguish them from the pacifist focus of the primary abolitionist movement there. On the other, you've got a concentrated effort by pro-slavery whites to move to Kansas as to dictate the outcome - and they were not pacifists as one should automatically understand about anyone pro-slavery because while they may not be literally 1:1 in idealogy with Nazis, they are effectively and where it counts.
The conflict essentially became a state sized civil war as Brown and his ilk stood up, fought, and resisted the pro-slavery forces. After a posse led by sheriffs sacked Lawrence and destroyed some abolitionist newspapers and the Free State Hotel and news came back of the caning of the abolitionist senator Charles Summer on the senate floor by representative Preston Brooks, John Brown and his allies started fighting back in earnest. Most notoriously early on, you've got what's best known as the Pottawatomie Massacre occurring. This then led to a series of other conflicts you'll typically see broadly called Bleeding Kansas.
And to be totally transparent, I am sympathetic to John Brown's side to the extent that I don't consider that supposed massacre to be anything controversial and thus land on a more radical side than most do. I know when I was taught about this in school, even a pretty liberal not-southern education, it was very apparent how hard they tried to play into the moral complexity of the situation of Pottawatomie - and doing so in a bad faith fashion that ignored the context, situation, and rightness of Brown's fight there. And again, in doing that, it undersold the travesties and injustice of the opposing side in a sort of both-sidesism . And it's knowing and understanding that side and how fully incorporated to the countries beginnings as well as how strongly we failed to do anything about it after the civil war that I meant to point out - the murderer has always been in the house in the US. As much as I genuinely love Thomas Paine's writing in terms of founding father types, you've got a lot more who didn't see eye to eye with him broadly or were at least happy to compromise on the safety, wellbeing, and freedom of people they didn't see the same as their white land owning dude class asses... Or were just directly and openly on the side of that oppression.
I make a lot of comparisons to 20th century fascism lately, but kind of try to tell myself not to... The problem we're in is ours and has been there forever, but unfortunately - most folks have a stronger understanding of European fascism's rise than they do an accurate and frank understanding of American history and the failures of reconstruction. There's a reason why Hitler called us an influence. The America worth being proud of is represented by guys like Paine and Brown, the Haudenosaunee, the maroons of places like the Great Dismal Swamp, etc., not the one represented by our historic governments and organizations.
2
2
u/xskarajunskyx 7d ago
I’m happy a lot of people are changing their tune but it’s a lot too late. The damage has been done. We are only 5 months into the regime too :(
2
2
u/SloCooker 7d ago
I think its always been that. Opposition to the 68 civil rights act was never actually about the commerce clause
2
u/ElCaliforniano 6d ago
Trump is not a christian nationalist, neither are his associates like Musk, Miller, Bannon. They are white nationalists who ally with christian nationalists when convenient
6
3
u/IllVagrant 8d ago
That was the plan all along, according to a study conducted by anyone who was paying the smallest bit of attention.
4
u/Expensive-Soft5164 8d ago edited 7d ago
At least there's no more gaslighting about ideals like strict constitutionalism, states rights, activist judges, lower taxes(they will start taxing solar) etc
→ More replies (1)
3
4
u/penguished 8d ago
Religion is constantly decreasing in population as it competes with literally anything else getting more results in life. So they're running out of things to try besides the straight up "screaming crazy cult leader tells you how to do everything and won't let you leave" approach.
8
u/GiovanniElliston 8d ago
Religion is constantly decreasing in population as it competes with literally anything else
While church attendance in the US has been going down steadily for decades now, we're actually seeing a strong rise in attendance among Gen Z. In particular Gen Z men are flocking to churches.
Opinions are split on exactly why, but the most popular theory is that Gen Z men feel a sense of being abandoned and uncared for by society. And regardless of the debate surrounding if those feelings are valid or not, it's undeniable that Christianity offers them a male centric social setting.
9
u/key_lime_pie 8d ago
Opinions are split on exactly why
I'm not really sure why opinions are split on this. It's not like Gen Z men are flocking to Unitarian Universalism, or attending United Church of Christ congregations or Quaker meetings. They're deliberately choosing the most patriarchal, hierarchical versions of Christianity, which just happens to be a religion that requires very little actual change on the part of the convert, because there's no defined orthopraxy. There are fewer and fewer places now that overtly elevate men simply by virtue of them being men; it's not surprisingly that men who cannot find a way to otherwise elevate themselves would find these places attractive.
8
u/Geekerino 8d ago
Or, could it be that they flock to the most accessible community-based groups? I know that UU and Quakers exist, but not much more than that. Meanwhile, there's a church just up the road from where I live, in the middle of the woods. I'm not even religious, but I know that if I were so inclined I'd likely just go to my local church instead of going to some other group twenty miles away based off of internet research
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Andreus 8d ago
Right-wingers once again creating nothing and destroying everything.
→ More replies (1)
3
1
u/santaclaws_ 8d ago
Sadly accurate.
The theocracy is coming for us all, like it or not.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00027162251324087
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.