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.
If you want to have historical discussions these takes coming from all over the ideological spectrum are actually rooted in history:
https://hypertext.niskanencenter.org/p/the-declining-leverage-and-status?fbclid=IwY2xjawGkQGpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdPxZqsergjluFFC3-ERPGwKMBtx6DD3x68SuKZGLqhFhihnk5aQel2fpA_aem_EZLAgtLziEwXVPBFYzVVmA
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGkQL5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcJCyxwNipZOJdaz-dmCLqsOp9i8uq88twhhEOA_Dm0EYvi91oiAwgKfUg_aem_rSra7x5Nob6TsJBXeujyuA
https://jacobin.com/2024/11/economic-inequality-political-philosophy-history/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGkQLhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUOi9-vZ6EjPEP9N3BvtqcgW3t_WPXeHp_FqToge90DV5iPWCGfac9gQgg_aem_43YbYijXCRtodzJ1oJDiIw
Kamala was wrong to go against this trend:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/29/majority-of-americans-take-a-dim-view-of-increased-trade-with-other-countries/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGkPndleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWbwjU1jYDCznjHROKE13h1d5bMpjweYziMKZIlZaXhVJI9bg6tX2A_XYA_aem_7QtDqbYbm8oUZqfkjZUDwg
If we are going to keep following the neoliberals, at least take a look at good ideas:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-blue-cities-must-be-fixed?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=35345&post_id=151531665&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ecbqk&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwY2xjawGkPl9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdvrwdRVcu609TEqB5wrzQYNB5yQBhWDhwmOffkk3eLeitPCQ3yH–vqvQ_aem_A2AB6WrGKu3EKUhnY0T06w
“A century of global history makes clear that right-wing populists cannot be beaten with left-wing populism.”
This has got to be the most intellectually dishonest take I have read about this election so far.
Reagan was not a right wing populist, so Clinton didn’t beat him. (Also, Clinton only won because a right wing populist -Perot- took away votes.)
In any case the purpose of the politics of beating him gets lost if one beats conservatism, neoliberalism or right wing populism just to continue implementing their policies or just to keep the status quo ante that leads to the election of the right.
Bush II was certainly not a right wing populist. In fact he ended up governing more to the left than Clinton. The wars don’t fall neatly into the left-right spectrum.
Obama didn’t beat Bush II in any case. The wars and the Great Recession did.
It took the Great Recession to get back a Senate supermajority for a while.
So that’s for very contemporary history, the last few decades.
What is a terrible lie about this take is that it talks about a century back look.
A century back means we should look at the origins and response to the World Wars and the Great Depression.
Where Democrats not populists then? Was there not an even better organized progressive movement? Where unions not in their heyday?
What do Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt stand for if not left wing populism?
Third Way is bankrupt on how to move forward.
Blue Labor didn’t work, by the way.
I don’t disagree with moving to the right culturally, but it’ still the economy, stupid and the status quo doesn’t cut it.
Bill Clinton didn’t win because Perot took votes from Bush, though Perot did give Clinton a boost by advising his voters to listen to Clinton’s speech. If you check the October 1992 polls before Perot rejoined the race, Clinton was winning by 5 to 7 points.
Thank you, Staff, for the link to the Politico article. It’s not just worth a read, it is worth a re-read.