With Senate confirmation hearings of Trump’s motley crew of Cabinet-level nominees, one issue Democrats will need to confront right away is when and whether the appointees’ often-exotic religious views are an appropriate subject for discussion. I offered some simple guidelines at New York:
Amid all the hotly disputed allegations that he has a history of excessive drinking and inappropriate (or even abusive) behavior toward women, Donald Trump’s defense-secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, has another potential problem that’s just now coming into view: His religious beliefs are a tad scary.
Early reports on Hegseth’s belligerent brand of Christianity focused on a tattoo he acquired that sported a Latin slogan associated with the medieval Crusaders (which led to him being flagged as a potential security problem by the National Guard, in which he served with distinction for over a decade). But as the New York Times reports, the tattoo is the tip of an iceberg that appears to descend into the depths of Christian nationalism:
“’Voting is a weapon, but it’s not enough,’ [Hegseth] wrote in a book, American Crusade, published in May 2020. ‘We don’t want to fight, but, like our fellow Christians one thousand years ago, we must …’
“In his book, Mr. Hegseth also offered a nod to the prospect of future violence: ‘Our American Crusade is not about literal swords, and our fight is not with guns. Yet.’”
His words aside, Hegseth has chosen to associate himself closely with Doug Wilson, an Idaho-based Christian-nationalist minister with a growing educational mission, notes the Times:
“[After moving to Tennessee two years ago] the Hegseth family joined Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, a small church opened in 2021 as part of the growing Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. The denomination was co-founded by Doug Wilson, a pastor based in Moscow, Idaho; his religious empire now includes a college, a classical school network, a publishing house, a podcast network, and multiple churches, among other entities …
“In his writings, Mr. Wilson has argued that slavery ‘produced in the South a genuine affection between the races,’ that homosexuality should be a crime, and that the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote was a mistake. He has written that women should not ordinarily hold political office because ‘the Bible does say that when feminine leadership is common, it should be reckoned not as a blessing but as a curse …’
“Mr. Hegseth told [a] Christian magazine in Nashville that he was studying a book by Mr. Wilson; on a podcast Mr. Hegseth said that he would not send his children to Harvard but would send them to Mr. Wilson’s college in Idaho.”
All this Christian-nationalist smoke leads to the fiery question of whether Hegseth’s religious views are fair game for potential confirmation hearings. Would exploration of his connections with a wildly reactionary religious figure like Doug Wilson constitute the sort of “religious test … as a qualification to any office or public trust” that is explicitly banned by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution? It’s a good and important question that could come up with respect to other Trump nominees, given the MAGA movement’s cozy relationship with theocratic tendencies in both conservative-evangelical and traditionalist-Catholic communities.
Actually, the question of the boundary between a “religious test” and maintenance of church-state separation came up conspicuously during the first year of Trump’s earlier presidency in confirmation hearings for the then-obscure Russell Vought, whom Trump nominated to serve as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget (he later became director of OMB, the position to which Trump has again nominated him for the second term). Bernie Sanders seized upon a Vought comment defending his alma mater, Wheaton College, for sanctions against a professor who said that Christians and Muslims “worship the same God.” Sanders suggested that showed Vought was an Islamophobic bigot, while Vought and his defenders (included yours truly) argued that the man’s opinion of the credentials of Muslims for eternal life had nothing to do with his duties as a prospective public servant.
This does not, to be clear, mean that religious expressions when they actually do have a bearing on secular governance should be off-limits in confirmation hearings or Senate votes. If, for example, it becomes clear that Hegseth believes his Christian faith means echoing his mentor Doug Wilson’s hostility to women serving in leadership positions anywhere or anytime, that’s a real problem and raising it does not represent a “religious test.” If this misogyny was limited to restrictions on women serving in positions of religious leadership, that would be another matter entirely.
More generally, if nominees for high executive office follow their faith in adjudging homosexuality or abortion as wicked, it’s only germane to their fitness for government offices if they insist upon imposing those views as a matter of public policy. Yes, there is a conservative point of view that considers any limitation on faith-based political activism in any arena as a violation of First Amendment religious-liberty rights. But those who think this way also tend to disregard the very idea of church-state separation as a First Amendment guarantee.
Critics of Christian nationalism in the Trump administration need to keep essential distinctions straight and avoid exploring the religious views of nominees if they are truly private articles of faith directed to matters of the spirit, not secular laws. It’s likely there will be plenty of examples of theocratic excesses among Trump nominees as Senate confirmation hearings unfold. But where potential holders of high offices respect the lines between church and state, their self-restraint commands respect as well.
One point to shoehorn into your point, Mike: there is now a growing base of suburban support for Dems in Texas. I know there’s anecdotal evidence in the other big southern states to agree with that. And I’m doubtful of there being much to corroborate this in the smaller ones.
That’s one of the aspects I wanted to look at beyond my own home state of Texas.
You’re definitely right about the WD40-class of Dems being a diminishing breed in many areas. I was really surprised, though, to see how less of a problem it was in states like MS and AL in particular compared to TX. In looking at the Texas vote by precinct, I think the reality is more accurately stated as the pool of Dem support is diminishing as the rural areas get older. There are still similar pockets of support that exist in these areas for other candidates higher than State Rep. But the vote share in Dem areas has generally decreased as other areas around them have gotten more and more Republican. So I think that several of these seats – although definitely fewer – may be survived by other Dems. But they’ll have GOP State Senators and GOP Members of Congress.
Then again, there are some pretty creative tools for redistricting available these days 😉
I can comment on Greg’s map at least in so far as Texas is concerned. Of those State House of Representative Districts are concerned, the Democratic districts fall into one of three categories: 1) minority held districts; 2) urban districts; and 3) rural Democratic districts.
Category one and two are growing. Category three is a vanishing species. They’re called WD-40’s om Texas — white Democrats over 40. People like Jim McReynolds (Lufkin), Chuck Hopson) Jacksonville), and Stephen Frost (Atlanta, though not over 40), etc. In all likelihood, these guys (with the possible exception of Hopson) can hold their seats until they retire. But then, the Republicans will take those seats.
But all the growth in Texas in Democratic State House seats is coming in urban areas, and to a lesser degree in minority districts. And if the Republicans control the redistricting process in Texas again in 2011, even these white rural Democrats will find themselves with tougher fights than they presently have.
Interesting timing of your post, Ed. I just wrapped up a minor mapping project that shows that Democratic candidates for State Rep. in the south aren’t quite as dead as conventional wisdom leads us to believe. It’s a pretty remarkable view of the remaining strength the party has in the south after 30 or so years of conservative activists driving religious voters over to the GOP.
http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/009358.html
But then again, I’m sure this is nothing new to you 😉
Blanche should do fine unless there’s some broader tilt in public opinion heading into 2010.