TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
December 6: When the Religious Views of Trump Nominees Are and Aren’t Fair Game
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.
Good riddance to the distraction of the race based affirmative action debate.
Class and geography based admissions could achieve much better results.
Affirmative action based on race is an inter elites controversy, part of the (mostly useless) cultural wars.
Blacks, Hispanics and Asians don’t support race based affirmative action and those that do don’t obsess about it.
The left still has a general mess with many of the not so progressive views of working class “people of color”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html?fbclid=IwAR3X67kFr2D2a49YlvaD9tiRHhzlHVFwtc6tQklRZn_l6sXRmpW2CJXQkSY
If Democrats wanted to get rid of legacy admissions they could have done so one of the many times they have controlled Congress or Department of Education regulations.
Trying to ban legacy admissions via the courts is dangerous.
Legacy admissions are about class. If they result in fewer minority admissions it is only due to an indirect effect.
But it would be rich for Democrats to achieve the precedent of banning class based affirmative action via jurisprudence that would set the stage for also banning class based affirmative action in favour of poorer students.
Ban legacy admissions and next the right will ban privileges for Pell Grant and scholarship admissions.
Color blindness is required by the Constitution and entirely consistent with traditional left wing values, as explained by MLK and other civil rights era leaders.
Legacy admissions should be banned, but they are not the correct tit for tat neither in political discourse nor in judicial caselaw.
Class blindness has not traditionally been seen as required by the Constitution and civil rights law.
It is moronic that Democrats would make the analogy. The fact that they do just shows just how overtaken by elites the party is.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/high-court-ruling-dems-take-aim-legacy-admissions-rcna91983
“White Democrats (75%) are also significantly more likely than nonwhite Democrats (40%) to support broadening how gender is taught.
Clear majorities of both whites (68%) and people of color (57%) say transgender and sexual identity issues should be given less attention.
Similarly, both groups support limiting how gender identity is taught in schools (59% white and 52% people of color).
As may be expected, white Republicans (93%) are much more likely than white Democrats (20%) to want to limit how gender identity is taught in schools.”
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_062823/?fbclid=IwAR0rBgVPOI7ntaIh_C3SSfoFQS3rqvaLchPYdRwQdqeuqHDD2MnGoMmaGl0
“A majority of Hispanic voters (58%), young voters ages 18 to 34 (57%), Democrats who backed progressive Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primary (55%) and Black voters (52%) say they’re open to considering a third-party or independent presidential candidate in a Biden-Trump rematch.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/dems-republicans-are-open-third-party-presidential-candidate-rcna91368?fbclid=IwAR2m8IoPEE8F7kcvlsZG0BL2wm6rl9flCkI9e0x598jwRrP-PqM4n2fMUjE
“Our findings suggest that work stress generally increased from 1995 to 2015, and that the increase was mostly driven by psychological demands.
People working in lower-skilled occupations had generally higher levels of job strain and effort-reward imbalance, as well as they tend to have a steeper increase in job strain than people working in higher-skilled occupations.
Most of the change occurred from 1995 to 2005.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8032584/