US Politics

According to a May 2022 poll from the University of Maryland, 61% of Republicans favor declaring the United States a Christian nation – even though 57% recognized that it would be unconstitutional. Meanwhile, 31% of all Americans and 49% of Republicans believe “God intended America to be a new promised land where European Christians could create a society that would be an example for the rest of the world,” a recent survey from the Public Religion Research Institute found.

Those statistics underscore the influence of a set of ideas called “Christian nationalism,” which has been in the spotlight leading up to November 2022 midterm elections. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has openly identified as a Christian nationalist and called for the Republican Party to do the same. Others, like Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert and Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, have not claimed that label but have embraced its tenets, such as dismissing the separation of church and state.

Few Americans use the term “Christian nationalist” to describe themselves, but many more have embraced some aspects of this worldview. There is widespread confusion over what the label really means, making it important to clearly explain. My work on how race and religion shape Americans’ attitudes toward government led me to study Christian nationalism, and to co-write a book detailing how it shapes Americans’ views of themselves, their government and their place in the world.

Christian nationalism is more than religiosity and patriotism. It is a worldview that guides how people believe the nation should be structured and who belongs there.

Mission from God

The phenomenon of white Christian nationalism has been studied by historians, sociologists, political scientists scholars of religion and many others. While their definitions may differ, they share certain elements.

Christian nationalism is a religious and political belief system that argues the United States was founded by God to be a Christian nation and to complete God’s vision of the world. In this view, America can be governed only by Christians, and the country’s mission is directed by a divine hand.

In my recent book “The Everyday Crusade: Christian Nationalism in American Politics,” written with fellow political scientists Irfan Nooruddin and Allyson Shortle, we demonstrate that this worldview has existed since the Colonies and played a central role in developing American identity. During the American Revolution, political and religious leaders linked independence from the British as part of God’s plan to set the world right.

‘Apotheosis of Washington,’ by John James Barralet, imagining the first president rising from his tomb.
Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

From then on, many Americans’ belief that God favors their nation has guided their view of pivotal events – such as supporting Manifest Destiny, the idea that the U.S. was destined to expand west across North America; or framing the “war on terror” as a conflict between Christians and non-Christians in the 21st century.

Today, only about 4 in 10 people in the U.S. are white Christians. The thought of no longer being the majority has prompted some of them to see Christian nationalism as the only way to get the nation back on the right track. Christian nationalism typically restricts adherents’ view of who can be considered a “true” American, limiting it to people who are white, Christian and U.S.-born, and whose families have European roots.

Dissidents, disciples and laity

The majority of Americans do not embrace Christian nationalism. Even so, its echoes appear everywhere from American flags in church pulpits, to the Pledge of Allegiance, to “In God We Trust” on money, license plates and government vehicles.

My book co-authors and I argue that Christian nationalist ideas exist along a spectrum. For our book project, we developed a measure we refer to as “American Religious Exceptionalism” and used it to analyze nationally representative and state surveys from 2008 to 2020. Based on that data, we categorized U.S. citizens into three groups: dissidents, laity and disciples.

“Dissidents” reject the idea of the U.S. having a divine founding and plan, and express a more open understanding of what it means to be an American. Among the nationally representative samples, the proportion of dissidents ranges from 37% to 49% of the population.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the “disciples” strongly believe in the divine founding and guidance of the U.S. and express more restrictive ideas about who can be a “real” American and who should be allowed to enter the country. Disciples, who represent between 10% and 14% of the population, are more likely to see immigrants as a threat to American culture, and to express concern about the decreasing percentage of Americans who are white and Christian.

Those in the “laity” in the middle represent between 37% and 52% of the population. They demonstrate support for many of the same views the disciples do, such as anti-immigrant, anti-Black, and anti-Muslim attitudes, but less intensely.

Master salesman

Politicians can be thought about as entrepreneurs constantly looking for new consumers. Some of them have found a devoted audience among the disciples, who tend to be politically engaged and eager to vote for a candidate who will advance their view of the nation.

Former President Donald Trump has been particularly successful at attracting voters who are sympathetic to Christian nationalist ideas, by portraying himself as a defender of Christians “under siege.” In June 2020, in the midst of upheaval over police killings of unarmed Black Americans, tear gas was used to disperse protesters to allow then-President Trump to have his picture taken holding a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. His open animus toward Muslims has also helped bring Christian nationalists from the fringes into the mainstream.

Supporters of then-President Donald Trump pray outside the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

Images linking Christianity with the nation and with Trump, as part of a larger divine mission, were on full display during the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In the most extreme Christian nationalist views, the government must be brought into alignment with this ideology – even if force is necessary.

Our research found that 68% of disciples agree that force may be necessary to maintain the traditional American way of life. Most disciples express strong support for representative democracy; however, 48% of disciples support the idea of military rule, compared with 6% of dissidents.

Heading to the polls

Christian nationalism’s movement toward the mainstream is evident in the 2022 midterms, as several candidates have announced their support for Christian nationalism or made statements highly in line with it. Not only does such rhetoric mobilize disciples, but it has the potential to persuade the laity that these candidates will best represent their interests. An atmosphere of increasing partisan polarization, where political debates are sometimes portrayed as between angels and demons destroying the country, provides a fertile environment.

What this means for American democracy is unclear. But as some white and Christian Americans fear a loss of status, I believe Christian nationalism is coming back – attempting to reclaim its “holy land.” More

Joe Biden is right: America needs a windfall profits tax on big oilRobert WeissmanThe case for a windfall profits tax is straightforward. There’s a reason why the idea is so popular Consumers are paying as big oil has gobbled up more than $125bn in profits in 2022 – triple the total from last year – doing nothing other than watching world oil prices soar due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.The solution to this heist is simple enough: a windfall profits tax that extracts big oil’s unjust enrichment and returns the money to the people.Outraged by big oil’s greed, President Biden was right to call for a windfall profits tax – but wrong to encourage more oil production as an alternative.The Guardian view on Shell’s profits: enabling climate and inequality emergencies | EditorialRead moreThe case for a windfall profits tax is straightforward. The cost of getting oil out of the ground remains the same. Still, the market price of oil has skyrocketed due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. For the integrated major oil corporations, that means they have been able to charge consumers far more, despite their costs remaining flat.Whether you think the companies doing that are displaying unmitigated greed or just following the rules of the market, there’s no question that they are reaping windfall profits – and doing so at consumers’ expense. A windfall profits tax, with the revenue fully rebated to taxpayers, would offset the pain at the pump and limit big oil’s egregious rip-offs.There’s nothing revolutionary about this. Although the implementation has been uneven, a number of European countries have already put windfall profits taxes in place and others are lined up to do so. UN Secretary General António Guterres has called for such a tax. Even Shell’s CEO, Ben van Beurden, acknowledges that it makes sense for governments to tap the industry to aid struggling consumers.Not surprisingly, the American people overwhelmingly support the idea. They know they are being ripped off, they know it hurts and they’d like something done about it.All of this is deeply felt. It’s not just that, in a car-dependent society, many people have little choice about driving and fueling their cars. It’s that nothing in America is as clearly labeled as the price of a gallon of gasoline. We post it on signs outside filling stations, project it from towers along our highways and have built software to ensure people know where they can find the best price in town.It’s also that big oil’s profits are so eye-popping: $19.7bn for Exxon in just the third quarter of the year. More than $11bn for Chevron. $9.5bn for Shell and $8.2bn for BP. In a time of significant inflation, all of this stings.The main arguments against taxing big oil’s enormous profits are easily refuted. Some highlight design difficulties of a windfall profits tax, but there are a number of possible alternatives that would do the job. Others argue it would raise prices for consumers, but a tax on excess profits will not affect consumer prices at all – except perhaps to bring them down. And others say, just let supply and demand work itself out – but that’s just a way to rationalize big oil’s windfall profits.The only genuine argument against a windfall profits tax is that big oil has so much political power that it would never let such a thing come to pass. That, of course, is not a merits argument. It also overstates big oil’s political invulnerability – if a windfall profits tax gains momentum, given its popularity and simplicity, it will be increasingly hard for big oil’s political allies to stop it.That’s why it was a major breakthrough on Monday when President Biden lent his support to such a tax. Unfortunately, Biden linked the call for a windfall tax to a demand that big oil companies increase production.That’s a wrong turn. Drilling more will not lower prices for US consumers. More oil from US lands will just be exported – as 29% of US crude production now is, thanks to the 2015 elimination of a crude oil export ban – and will not affect the global price of oil.Worse, more investment in oil drilling will deepen our dependence on fossil fuels when the worsening climate catastrophe demands we speed the transition away from fossil fuels. The global energy disruption caused by the Russian invasion absolutely requires short-term and makeshift responses to address supply and price challenges. But the only sane long-term response is to accelerate the move to clean energy.Americans know they are being ripped off by big oil profiteering and they want a direct solution. A windfall profits tax on big oil is exactly that.
Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen
TopicsUS newsOpinionOilJoe BidenUS politicscommentReuse this content More

After the flood: inside the 4 November Guardian WeeklyCop27’s climate prospects. Plus: Can the Democrats rescue the US midterms?Get the Guardian Weekly delivered to your home address For readers of the Guardian Weekly magazine’s North American edition this week, the cover focuses on the Democrats’ precarious hopes in the midterm elections. Elsewhere, the spotlight shines on the Cop27 climate summit in Egypt.Cautious optimism followed the last Cop conference in Glasgow, where an international roadmap was agreed to keep the world within 1.5C of global heating. On the eve of this year’s summit, however, a slew of alarming reports have shown that carbon emissions are still rising.Further carbon cuts therefore ought to be a priority, argue scientists. However, Cop27 is likely to be dominated by debate about compensation that poorer nations feel richer countries should be paying for climate damage. Observer science and environment editor Robin McKie sets the scene for a summit that seems engulfed in a storm of its own. And there’s a fascinating report by Mark Townsend on the Just Stop Oil protests, as debate stirs among activists about whether direct action tactics are effective in changing attitudes.The US midterm elections next week could see a Republican party still dominated by Donald Trump gain control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. David Smith asks whether an intervention by former president Barack Obama could give a late kickstart to the Democrats’ hopes.Jubilation and relief accompanied Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s narrow election victory in Brazil, ending Jair Bolsonaro’s era of Amazon destruction. Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a much-needed moment of hope for the region and the world, but Andrew Downie warns that difficult challenges await the returning president-elect.On the culture front there’s an interview by Simon Hattenstone with the actor Damian Lewis, who talks about life after the death of his wife, Helen McCrory. And Jonathan Jones meets the artist David Shrigley, for whom a move to the countryside has not exactly mellowed his anxiety-laden brand of pop art.Get the Guardian Weekly delivered to your home addressTopicsCop27Inside Guardian WeeklyClimate crisisUS midterm elections 2022DemocratsRepublicansUS politicsBrazilReuse this content More

More ways to listen

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

RSS Feed

Download

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email

We are raiding the Audio Long Read archives to bring you some classic pieces from years past, with new introductions from the authors.
This week, from 2016: The Republican intellectual establishment is united against Trump – but his message of cultural and racial resentment has deep roots in the American right

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Timothy Shenk’s new book Realigners: Partisan Hacks, Political Visionaries, and the Struggle to Rule American Democracy – an eye-opening new history of American political conflict, from Alexander Hamilton to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – is available here Read text version here More

DoJ mulls immunity deal for Trump ally to secure testimony in Mar-a-Lago caseKash Patel’s close relationship with ex-president could provide information on how documents ended up at Trump’s resort The justice department is weighing whether to grant immunity to the Trump adviser Kash Patel and force his testimony about claims that highly sensitive government documents the FBI seized from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort were declassified, according to sources familiar with the matter.The status of the documents has emerged as relevant to the criminal investigation surrounding Trump’s mishandling of national security materials since it could strengthen a potential case that the former president was in violation of state secrecy laws.Trump and advisers such as Patel have claimed repeatedly since the FBI search in August that the documents bearing classification markings found at the property had in fact been declassified before the former president departed the White House.The claims that the documents were declassified have not been supported by evidence, however, and Trump’s lawyers have not repeated the assertions in a related legal dispute before a judge or in court filings where they could face penalties for lying.Justice department officials are examining whether to allow federal prosecutors to seek an order from the chief US district court judge in Washington Beryl Howell granting Patel limited use immunity to compel his testimony on the declassification issue and other matters, the sources said.The consideration for Patel appears to center on the fact that as one of Trump’s appointed representatives with the National Archives, he could offer material insight into the nature of the documents and how the former president regarded the records.And as a confidant to Trump with whom he maintains a close personal relationship, Patel appears to be in a position to speak to additional areas of interest in the investigation, including about how the documents came to end up at Mar-a-Lago and how Trump responded to requests for their return.Patel is an ardent Trump loyalist who started the Trump administration railing against the Russia investigation when he served on the House intelligence committee’s Republican staff and ended it as chief of staff to the defense secretary.Trump considered installing Patel as deputy CIA director in the weeks after the 2020 election until he was dissuaded by lawyers in the White House counsel’s office. Patel remained at the defense department, which delayed the deployment of the national guard for hours during the Capitol attack.The justice department is broadly averse to granting immunity – which offers guarantees against prosecution based on testimony or information derived from testimony – since it can potentially make bringing charges against the person in the future more difficult.The approval must also come from the top echelons of the justice department, according to guidelines, and the preference for prosecutors to obtain testimony is to have defendants plead guilty and then have them offer cooperation for a reduced sentence.In contemplating granting use immunity to Patel, the justice department would essentially be weighing whether to forgo a case against him in order to secure testimony that could lead to constructing a case against a more significant target such as Trump, a former US attorney said.The justice department had sought testimony from Patel when he was summoned to testify before a grand jury in Washington hearing evidence about Trump’s potential mishandling of national security materials and obstruction when he appeared resisted requests for their return, one source said.But Patel asserted his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination to an array of questions at the 13 October appearance, the source said, though the basis for some was not clear; even if the documents were not declassified, making false public statements would probably not be a crime.In the obstruction investigation surrounding Trump by the former special counsel Robert Mueller, for instance, prosecutors concluded that the former president’s false statements about his campaign’s ties to Russia would only have been criminal if he made them to Congress or the FBI.That led to the justice department seeking a hearing before Howell, the source said, where prosecutors disputed Patel’s basis for declining to testify – but the chief judge broadly agreed with Patel’s lawyers that he could reasonably believe he had reason to assert the fifth.A spokesman for the justice department and a lawyer for Patel declined to comment. But it appears to face a tricky decision about how to proceed with Patel, as well as with additional Trump aides and employees who have become caught up in the ongoing criminal investigation.Prosecutors in recent weeks have attempted to reinterview Trump’s personal valet Walt Nauta, who previously worked as West Wing valet before following the former president to Mar-a-Lago at the end of the administration, the sources said.The justice department grew skeptical of Nauta’s accounts about how he removed boxes from a storage room at the property where documents marked classified were being stored, after it issued a grand jury subpoena in May for the return of a range of documents.Nauta’s accounts – as well as testimony about Trump directing him to move boxes from the storage room – changed slightly between interviews, the sources said, leading prosecutors to seek a further interview under the tacit threat of potentially charging him with obstruction.That shadow of potential prosecution has alarmed Nauta, according to a source directly familiar with the matter, and he appears to have so far declined to be interviewed on the advice of his lawyer, who coincidentally also represents Patel.TopicsDonald TrumpMar-a-LagoUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Liz Cheney backs second Democrat, picking Ryan over Vance for Ohio SenateLeading anti-Trump Republican has already endorsed Democrat Elissa Slotkin for re-election in Michigan The Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney has now endorsed two Democrats for election in the midterms next week by backing Tim Ryan in his Ohio US Senate race against JD Vance after endorsing Elissa Slotkin for re-election to the US House in Michigan.Michigan Democrat’s lead shows abortion may be the issue that decides midterm racesRead moreIn Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday, Cheney told the journalist Judy Woodruff she backed Ryan, currently a Democratic congressman, over Vance, the Hillbilly Elegy author and venture capitalist who abandoned criticism of Donald Trump in order to publicly embrace him.“I would not vote for JD Vance,” Cheney said.Asked if she would vote for Ryan if she lived in Ohio, she said: “I would.”In an unexpectedly tight race, the polling website FiveThirtyEight puts Vance two points up.The daughter of the former vice-president Dick Cheney is a stringent conservative but has nonetheless emerged as perhaps the leading anti-Trump Republican. She rose to national prominence as vice-chair of the House January 6 committee, seeking to establish Trump’s guilt regarding the US Capitol attack, but in August lost her primary in Wyoming to a Trump-backed challenger.Speculation continues over whether Cheney will mount a presidential run in 2024, whether for the nomination in a party dominated by Trump or as an independent. She has not confirmed or denied any plans.She has said she will leave the Republican party if Trump is the nominee again.Cheney endorsed Slotkin last week, saying: “While Elissa and I have our policy disagreements, at a time when our nation is facing threats at home and abroad, we need serious, responsible, substantive members like Elissa in Congress.”It was Cheney’s first ever endorsement of a Democrat. She was due to campaign for Slotkin on Tuesday evening.Earlier on Tuesday, Slotkin told CNN: “While we disagree – and I look forward to debating her in the future on issues of policy – on democracy, we are in vehement agreement. We agree on one really big thing and that’s that there has to be a democratic system … It’s pretty important to me.”The endorsement happened, Slotkin said, after the Republican approached the Democrat on the House floor in September.“She just said, ‘Look, if there’s anything I can do to help, you just let me know,’ and I said, ‘Really?’ and she said, ‘Yeah,’ and that began the conversation. So I’m appreciative because it’s again just another point of bravery that I think I really admire about her.”JD Vance playing defense in unexpectedly close Ohio Senate race Read moreBefore entering politics, Slotkin was a CIA analyst under Barack Obama, a Democrat, and George W Bush, the Republican to whom Dick Cheney was vice-president.Slotkin is running in a newly drawn district against a Republican state senator, Tom Barrett, in what has by some measures become the most expensive midterms race.With a week to go until polling day, Slotkin is pinning her hopes on opposition to Republican abortion bans and the supreme court ruling which this summer overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Cheney has said she remains an opponent of abortion rights.On Tuesday, the polling website FiveThirtyEight gave Slotkin a 74% chance of victory.TopicsLiz CheneyUS midterm elections 2022US politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

Jokes about Paul Pelosi aren’t just in bad taste. They normalize political violenceArwa MahdawiRightwingers are laughing about an attack that left an 82-year-old in hospital. It’s a watershed moment in politics What do you do when an 82-year-old man is attacked at his home with a hammer? You laugh about it, of course. A number of Republicans – people who like to preach to others about family values and civility – seem to find the recent attack on Paul Pelosi very amusing indeed.Donald Trump Jr, for example, posted a meme on Sunday night showing a pair of underwear and a hammer next to the caption: “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.” On Monday night, the self-proclaimed “Meme Wars General” doubled down on his post, which referenced a baseless conspiracy theory about Pelosi and put up another crude meme mocking the attack.Either Trump Jr is capable of feeling shame or someone talked some sense into him. In any case, the former president’s son has deleted those memes. He’s replaced them with a message cynically politicizing the assault on Pelosi instead. “Imagine how safe the country would be if democrats took all violent crime as seriously as they’re taking the Paul Pelosi situation,” he posted. “They simply don’t care.” Trump Jr, it should be said, can always be relied on to react to a situation in incredibly bad taste.Paul Pelosi attack suspect charged with attempted kidnapping and assaultRead moreThe only reason it’s worth mentioning his disgusting comments is because he wasn’t alone in mocking Pelosi. Far from it. On Monday, Kari Lake, the Republican candidate for governor of Arizona, drew laughter at a campaign event with a joke about security at the Pelosi residence. Glenn Youngkin, the Republican governor of Virginia, drew criticism from Democrats on Friday after a comment he made while Pelosi was in hospital that appeared to make light of the attack. And on Monday, Claudia Tenney, a Republican who represents a district in central New York, tweeted a picture of a group of men holding hammers for Halloween with the caption “LOL”.I’ll be fair here. Not everyone on the right mocked the attack on Pelosi. Some spread misinformation about it and some minimized it instead. Elon Musk, self-proclaimed “Chief Twit” of Twitter, posted a link to a baseless conspiracy theory about Pelosi, then deleted it. Meanwhile the rightwing commentator Dinesh D’Souza crowed: “The Left is going crazy because not only are we not BUYING the wacky, implausible Paul Pelosi story but we are even LAUGHING over how ridiculous it is.” On Monday, Charlie Kirk, a rightwing pundit, called for an “amazing patriot” to bail out 42-year-old David DePape, who is accused of perpetrating the attack on Pelosi. It seems, alarmingly, that there may be an appetite on the right to turn DePape into the next Kyle Rittenhouse and make him a hero.You wouldn’t think it from looking at the Republican reaction but it can’t be stressed enough how serious the attack on Pelosi was. Were it not for the fact that he managed to make a secret 911 call from the bathroom, the House speaker’s husband, who suffered skull injuries, might have fared a lot worse.It has also been reported that DePape was looking for Nancy Pelosi and was planning to hold her hostage and break her kneecaps because he saw her as “the leader of the pack” of lies told by the Democratic party. There’s nothing remotely funny about any of this. Republicans should be united in their condemnation of politically motivated violence and pledge to find ways to turn down America’s political temperature.It goes without saying that, had a Republican politician been the subject of the attack, they’d be demanding that Democrats do just that. There was more Republican outrage about the time the supreme court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his steak dinner interrupted by protesters than there was about the attack on Pelosi. And there was certainly a lot more outrage when Kavanaugh was the subject of an unsuccessful assassination attempt earlier this year.Kavanaugh, by the way, has been brought up a lot by Republican politicians who are pushing the talking point that “both sides” are to blame for political violence. Senator Tom Cotton, for instance, condemned the attack on Pelosi but also said: “You see deranged lunatics attack both Democrats and Republicans alike,” mentioning the alleged attempt in June by 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske to assassinate Kavanaugh.It’s certainly true that there are unhinged people across the political spectrum and politicians from both sides have been targeted for violence. However, “both-sidesing” this issue is dangerously dishonest. Both sides aren’t engaging in inflammatory rhetoric: that’s very much the Republicans’ area of expertise. Both sides don’t have a history of encouraging their supporters to storm the Capitol. Both sides aren’t pushing lies that the 2020 election was stolen. Both sides don’t turn people like Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two protesters, into folk heroes. Both sides don’t glorify political violence. Both sides aren’t using an attack on an 82-year-old to generate laughs on the campaign trail.The Republican reaction to the attack on Pelosi feels like a watershed moment in US politics. The fact that so many on the right felt comfortable joking about the attack demonstrates the extent to which extremism has become accepted and political violence has been normalized. Pelosi may be on the road to recovery, but American democracy is going down a very dark path.TopicsNancy PelosiOpinionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

More ways to listen

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

RSS Feed

Download

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email

Jonathan Freedland travels around the state of Georgia, a state that gave Democrats the Senate at the start of 2021. He follows Stacey Abrams and Herschel Walker, talking to their voters along the way. He also sits down with the co-founder of Black Voters Matter, LaTosha Brown, about why this election is about more than any one candidate

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Subscribe to the Guardian’s new pop culture podcast, which launches on Thursday 3 November Send your questions and feedback to [email protected] Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More