| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision |
| reading:jesus_and_john_wayne [2023-03-27 05:37] – [A New High Priest] asdf | reading:jesus_and_john_wayne [2023-03-30 23:08] (current) – Struct data changed asdf |
|---|
| * I wager that the actual effect at play was authoritarianism; this was neither a contradiction nor a reversal, but rather completely contiguous with their existing values (as Du Mez notes later) | * I wager that the actual effect at play was authoritarianism; this was neither a contradiction nor a reversal, but rather completely contiguous with their existing values (as Du Mez notes later) |
| * Trump was exactly the embodiment of the militantly masculine figure they had wanted for so long (or more accurately, had been trained to seek) | * Trump was exactly the embodiment of the militantly masculine figure they had wanted for so long (or more accurately, had been trained to seek) |
| | * "The election was not decided by those 'left behind' economically, political scientists discovered; it was decided by dominant groups anxious about their future status." |
| | * an excellent, well-stated point |
| * a year into his presidency, Scott Lamb and David Brody published //The Faith of Donald Trump: A Spiritual Biography//, in which they laundered his apparent flaws into forms more palatable to evangelical followers | * a year into his presidency, Scott Lamb and David Brody published //The Faith of Donald Trump: A Spiritual Biography//, in which they laundered his apparent flaws into forms more palatable to evangelical followers |
| * he was (or presented as) a believer in a black-and-white morality with clear lines between good guys and bad guys; he validated his followers' most outlandish fears and promised to protect them, with violence if necessary; he promised to provide them with order | * he was (or presented as) a believer in a black-and-white morality with clear lines between good guys and bad guys; he validated his followers' most outlandish fears and promised to protect them, with violence if necessary; he promised to provide them with order |
| > Mr. and Mrs. Baptist may not be able to understand or adjudicate the issue of biblical inerrancy when it comes down to nuances, and language, and terminology...But if you believe abortion should be legal, that's all they need to know. | > Mr. and Mrs. Baptist may not be able to understand or adjudicate the issue of biblical inerrancy when it comes down to nuances, and language, and terminology...But if you believe abortion should be legal, that's all they need to know. |
| |
| With that in mind, what would happen if they were granted the "Christian nation" they claim to crave? Deep discussions of theology have never been particularly popular in American churches (as Hofstadter demonstrates), but those churches still hold a great diversity of beliefs. Could they remain as cohesive as they are today without the culture wars? The closest we've come to such a scenario was the vindication of the anticommunist evangelicals with the end of the Cold War. The defeat of a major military rival did not sate their militarism. How could it have when their identity had so long been built on a false sense of marginalization? Their only option was to find a new enemy, and if that meant preemptive war, then so be it. | With that in mind, what would happen if they were granted the "Christian nation" they claim to crave? Deep discussions of theology have never been particularly popular in American churches (as Hofstadter demonstrates), but those churches still hold a great diversity of beliefs. Could they remain as cohesive as they are today without the culture wars? The closest we've come to such a scenario was the vindication of the anticommunist evangelicals with the end of the Cold War. The defeat of a major military rival did not sate their militarism. How could it have when their identity had so long been built on a false sense of marginalization? Their only option was to find a new enemy, no matter the logical or moral leaps required to justify it. |
| | |
| | It's easy to see how well Christian nationalism aligns with fascism: "Our nation was once great, prosperous, and (most importantly) Christian, but then the secularists and the humanists and the communists came along. And once they stripped the God out of America, they took the prosperity, too. Only by purging the nation of their influence can we catalyze a national rebirth and reclaim our rightful place atop the world stage." |
| | |
| | It is immediately clear from the early pages that this book was written largely in response to the Trump presidency. Untold quantities of ink, paper, and bytes have been consumed trying to make sense of it all. It's all too easy to open such a piece with one's jaw firmly on the floor and close without ever picking it up, let alone making a coherent point beyond the self-evident "Trump bad". Perhaps that failure stems from clinging too tightly to the belief that his presidency was somehow an anomaly or that it was without precedent. "Why does two plus two equal four? Because it does, of course---now let's discuss something else." |
| | |
| | Du Mez, however, demonstrates that not only was such a presidency very much precedented, it was in fact the culmination of decades worth of cultural crusades. Evangelical leaders have long stoked fears of existential threats to the nation and their religion---which they view as one and the same---in order to mobilize their followers into political action. Their surprise was realizing how little control they had over the shape of that mobilization in the end. It would almost be amusing if not for the cruelty that ensued. |
| | |
| | Having read Altemeyer's //The Authoritarians//, I felt a gap of sorts in Du Mez's analysis. While she frequently points out that apparent ideological contradictions are often not, she never directly invokes authoritarianism as a key factor. That understanding is a missing piece; trained by their leaders to fear attacks from evil actors in an unambiguous binary spiritual struggle, it is no surprise that evangelicals lined up behind a strong man who confirmed those vaporous fears and offered protection. Indeed, I now wonder how much of the correlation between authoritarianism and religion noted by Altemeyer is coincidental and how much was cultivated by the groups outlined in this book. Are the two meaningfully separable? |
| | |
| | Given that the most powerful players in the text are from the same generation or two, it is tempting to believe that the Religious Right's power will wane as its figureheads and loudest followers die off. But that hope has proven false before. |
| |
| It's easy to see how well this line of thinking aligns with fascism: "Our nation was once great, prosperous, and (most importantly) Christian, but then the secularists and the humanists and the communists came along. And once they stripped the God out of America, they took the prosperity, too. Only by purging the nation of their influence can we catalyze a national rebirth and reclaim our rightful place atop the world stage." | |
| ===== Related reading ===== | ===== Related reading ===== |
| * [[Anti-Intellectualism in American Life]], particularly Part 2 | * [[Anti-Intellectualism in American Life]], particularly Part 2 |
| readinglist.title : Jesus and John Wayne | readinglist.title : Jesus and John Wayne |
| readinglist.summary : Discusses the long-running campaign of American evangelicals to masculinize Jesus and the ripple effects that campaign has had on the nation's political discourse. | readinglist.summary : Discusses the long-running campaign of American evangelicals to masculinize Jesus and the ripple effects that campaign has had on the nation's political discourse. |
| readinglist.status : reading | readinglist.status : read |
| readinglist.subjects : politics, history, evangelicalism | readinglist.subjects : politics, history, evangelicalism |
| ---- | ---- |
| |