Why I Do Not Support Christian Nationalism
Why I Do Not Support Christian Nationalism
Like "socialism," "nationalism" is a European idea that doesn't resonate in America
I personally am not that interested in the Christian nationalism debate, but the Claremont Institute’s American Mind site asked me to write up my take on it for a symposium on the topic.
Before we can talk about Christian nationalism, we first have to talk about nationalism. As many people conclude that something has gone fundamentally wrong in America, nationalism is just one of the proposed solutions. Christian nationalism is a variant of that.
Catholic integralism is another variation on this same theme. Others promote “post-liberalism.” The Left, of course, wants some kind of socialism. Some call for an American Pinochet. Some people on the dissident Right even flirt with discredited continental political philosophies.
While it is understandable that people want to see America change for the better, these approaches won’t work because they are foreign to the American political and cultural tradition.
Click over to read the whole thing.
My piece stirred up some controversy on Twitter, so I want to clarify a few things:
My piece is not a specific response to Stephen Wolfe’s book The Case for Christian Nationalism. I have read the book, but am not qualified to assess his interpretation of Reformation political theology. (I do think that Wolfe’s criticisms of contemporary evangelicalism are insightful and quite often deadly accurate).
My piece represents my own arguments and is not intended to be an endorsement of other people’s criticisms of Christian nationalism.
When I wrote “America is not a ‘nation’ in the European sense,” I was not intending to imply that America is not a real nation. There is an American nation and an American people. America is not an “idea” or a “proposition nation.” It is a real nation and a real people. My intent was simply to contrast America with European examples like Italian unification. America was, dare I say it, a settler colonial nation, and arguably a continental scale empire.
I was surprised to see that several people took issue with my statement that our challenges today are lesser than those of the Civil War or the Great Depression. It’s clear that some people’s positions today are shaped by an apocalyptic perspective on society. And as I’ve argued several times in the past, while we should be clear-eyed and realistic, we should also reject apocalyptic thinking.
My basic belief is that, like “socialism,” “nationalism” is a European term that doesn’t resonate with Americans. Donald Trump, who has an extremely powerful resonance with a lot of Americans, doesn’t use the term that I know of. Instead, he talks about “America First.” Donald Trump is very attuned to what language resonates with his audience. Also, I don’t recall the “great communicator” Ronald Reagan using this language.
My view is that given the left’s general hostility to historic America and its symbols, the American right should double down on them. Adopting rhetoric around “post-liberalism,” “Catholic integralism,” or “Christian nationalism” does not do this.
As I’ve said before, I believe the best path forward for the country is to remain anchored within the American political and cultural tradition, which has all the resources we need to address contemporary problems.
I can understand Aaron's argument - that certain ideas won't play in America - in the abstract. But, frankly speaking, the application leaves me a bit dumbfounded. If the examples of presidents "refreshing our institutions to address new challenges" equate to upending the constitutional order, which indeed Lincoln and Roosevelt did, then why would anything be off the table?
Having of late discovered the work of Christian and historian David Barton, and before that deeply moved to get active locally in politics here in suburban Phoenix because of Pastors like Rob McCoy, Rick Brown, Voddie Baucham, and writers and pod casters like Eric Metaxas, it certainly seems that the Author enjoys all the fruits of a warm comfortable den to do his heavy contemplations, because he doesn't appear to have spent much time lately in the mean streets or the soup kitchen of any major American city recently.
Not at least since George Bush was doing his pedestrian routine on conservative compassion in New Orleans. Does this new secular barb of a name interfere with your advanced pursuit of Bridge Playing or Crypto investment? Just what wart on your fanny prompted these sagacious distinctions?
And given that since we lost Reagan to Demetia and the nation found itself saddled with the Bush Dynasty, a disaster that arrived with the beginning of the precipitous decline of middle class opportunity, an opportunity likewise battered by another dynasty - the Clintons which followed - whose willingness to sell this country short (as recognized by both Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot) only accelerated once he welcomed China into the WORLD TRADE ORG - and as Trump proved and Steve Bannon continues to elucidate to the nations favor, just how much pain, misery and back to the seventies inflation and insane spending - all due to the unnecessary de-industrializing of America under the ruse of 'free trade' and the unimaginable THEFT of our country into the coffers of privileged few -just what do you need to convince a time out off the hobby horse?
What 'double downs' are you considering? Another 10 trillion in debt by this time next year? Or just plain stupid? Or that Israel loses its first war due in part to the likes of these feckless idiots helping Obama re-establish his fetish that Persia get its just historical props?
Simply put. I don't have any idea what hour you believe we're living in. And as a Christian, what country.
What you fail to understand is Populism rising doesn't care what the coarse secularists on either side of the isle name us. We are going to save this country. With or without you brother.
Why not try and put AMERIFEST on your radar. It's only a little more than a month away. Try it. It just might cure your brain freeze.