I'm a little confused there. People believe the election was stolen, rightly or wrongly... how in the world does that make them Christian Nationalists? I suspect there were a number of secular, functionally secular, and non christian people involved in stop the steal. Many of the most radical and worrisome in the post liberal right are not Christian at all, rather adopting pagan frameworks. Even then - the stop the steal people are not even necessarily post liberal. Most of them are poor folks who were down on their luck, putting all their eggs in Trump's basket.
I was hopeful about this series, but this is poor analysis Dr. Beck.
Christian Nationalism, as it was understood until it became a political weapon of the Left, was the integration of Church and State power. Maybe some of the integralists meet that definition. Vermule certainly bothers me a bit. And Dominionists are obviously disturbing and increasingly a problem since they seemingly are working hand in hand with Netanyahu - but most people use Christian Nationalism as a cudgel, just the same as the definition of racism and all the "phobias" are expanded as a weapon to silence any who disagree with leftist political conclusions.
To clarify, I wouldn’t apply the label “Christian Nationalist” to non-Christians. The analysis was for Christians who become vulnerable to illiberalism, like overturning an election, because of their cognitive biases. And while you might call the analysis “poor” I think it’s straightforwardly accurate.
Can one not be philosophically liberal and question the legitimacy of an election?
What of all the folks who still are convinced that Al Gore won, or that John Kerry lost because of diebold voting machines? Or Hillary Clinton who thinks that Russia stole the election in 2016?
I don’t mean to get lost in minutia, but the Whitehead/Perry devotees run with this line repeatedly.
I would consider myself a post liberal Christian and post liberal politically. I still think that a Republic is probably the best form of government. But I don’t think it makes me illiberal if, for instance, it doesn’t make any sense that Spencer Pratt came in 3rd in the LA mayoral race because the obvious 3rd place candidate came in first in mail in voting, eeking him out of the run off.
I think we should probably stick to calling people Christian nationalists who claim it, and then also maybe ask them what they mean by it. Doug Wilson and Adrian Vermule have significant differences of opinion that make labeling them as one a little tricky I’d think.
I don't have any inside knowledge, but I strongly suspect you are right that many of the insurrectionists were secular. The media, both here in Britain and (as far as I can see) in the US, tends to conflate "evangelical" with "right-wing", which is not 100% true in the US and much less true elsewhere.
I also agree with you about "poor folks who were down on their luck" and we see similar trends here (happily, without an insurrection) here with the vote in favour of Brexit and the growth of Reform UK - both of which I believe were/are largely based on false premises.
However I did find Dr Beck's article helpful, as per my other comment above.
Richard, here's your definition of Christian Nationalism:
"the pursuit of a Christian vision of the good must take precedence over the preservation of freedom and liberty." Then you quote Hungary's Viktor Orbán: "The new state that we are are building in Hungary is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state."
Do you understand what Orbán meant? It's a very weird thing when we have to untangle definitions that used to be clear. Orbán was not abjuring classical liberalism, whose values we all agree are good and helpful for a pluralist society with Christians in it; that's what people our age usually mean when they use the word. But it has come to have a different sensibility in Europe, especially those in charge of the EU. Dreher (and others I hear from who have lived there) has shown that the "liberalism" of the EU elites is actually antithetical to true pluralism and the classical liberal values. Dreher has highlighted some instances of the lack of freedom and liberty in western Europe; you can surely find information on the 'net about two-tier policing, sharply increased crime rates in cities with immigrants who are not assimilating, restrictions on assembly of people who are even a little bit to the "right" of Brussels, people being arrested for standing on streetcorners praying silently? What Orbán was saying was a push-back against the "liberal" ideology of Brussels, of the ideology of "liberalism" that is actually acting against true classical liberalism.
I'm not defending the corruption of the Orbán govt, and because he and his cronies didn't stem the corruption they were justifiably voted out. Did you know that Brussels fined the Orbán government a million Euros *a day* because they did not allow the numbers of immigrants Brussels thought they should allow? That same-sex couples have the freedom to have civil unions with all the civil rights pertaining to such unions, and nobody is persecuting gays? That the vast majority of Hungarians were behind the law that restricted discussion of homosexuality in schools (not restricted anywhere else)? That there is not a police presence or CCTV everywhere, as there would be in a truly fascist state? That Hungary has comparably low church attendance with other European countries - the Orbán govt has not forced church attendance? That Orbán left office willingly without complaint when voted out? That Hungarian citizens have had the liberty to protest the Orbán govt's actions, including in the press? I don't think these are the actions of a "Christian Nationalist" government as you have defined it.
I think it's okay to want Dreher to clarify his ideas, and question his political thought vis-a-vis the Benedict Option. I do see your point about that. I also think, if your were to sit down and talk to Dreher, you would find that he understand that preserving freedom and liberty - as in "classical liberalism", the real thing, not the Brussels version of it - is what we need to do in order to simply live peacefully as Christians alongside everyone else, and that government forcing a Christian vision of the good is exactly the wrong tack to take.
Im appreciating the analysis. I agree that Laura Field’s book, "Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right" is an excellent tour of the intellectuals behind this movement. She calls out a cast of characters, some you will recognize, others you may not. All are serious deep thinkers, political and cultural philosophers, intellectuals in academia, the church and the judicial. Not to be distracted by the Trump show and his theatrics, Fields provides a curious and fascinating tour of the movement, both within the US and the world.
Frankly, Im surprised by my agreement with their diagnosis and some of their critical writings, but their recommendations for the cure are beyond. Been listening to the audible book on a road trip ( chp 6), pausing often, so I know Im missing much.
As one who, from the other side of the Pond, has read several analyses of the unholy alliance between Evangelicals and the Republican Party (especially Trump), but remain perplexed as to how such an alliance could come about, I find your post interesting and helpful. The cognitive dissonance is a dimension I hadn't come across before.
However, concerning the January 6 insurrection, my view starts with the undisputed fact that Donald Trump is an extreme narcissist. Just as (much less seriously) he couldn't bear the thought of the crowd at his inauguration being less than that at Barack Obama's, he couldn't thole the possibility of losing the 2020 election. But he is (or was) more cunning and devious than he is often made out to be, and he had enough wit to realise that he might lose, so he started planting the seeds of the Big Lie well ahead of the election. This prepared his followers to believe it.
As for whether the insurrection was Christian Nationalism, I respond: Nationalism - yes. Christian - not on your Nellie (as we say in Scotland). No way is a violent event based on an untruth Christian. And even for those who were conned or brainwashed into believing it to be true, it was still violent. But your analysis is probably the first I have read by a psychologist, and that perspective definitely sheds light on the mentality. (See also my reply to David Lipscomb, below.)
Christian nationalism remains alive and well (although past its prime) in Northern Ireland. I'd see it as more "Christian" than the USA version, as it has more of a theological (Protestant Reformation / Calvinist) basis than anything I see in the USA. And yet I still reject it as a true expression of Christianity. I know of no better commentary on the Northern Ireland situation than Runrig's song "Eirinn" (google it!), the last verse of which is:
Now one world window opens wide and demons they show face
Some of your men have taken seeds of truth and planted fields of hate.
This way has never won a war, and I fear that when harvest comes
You'll see your freedom fall on stony ground and the green all overgrown.
Haha! "narrative...insurrection...big lie" The worst insurrection ever. But you are correct that magatards are cognitively compromised in whining about Biden's illiberalism then cheering on Trump illiberalism. Now all politics is reduced to FAFO for the ruling party.
I'm a little confused there. People believe the election was stolen, rightly or wrongly... how in the world does that make them Christian Nationalists? I suspect there were a number of secular, functionally secular, and non christian people involved in stop the steal. Many of the most radical and worrisome in the post liberal right are not Christian at all, rather adopting pagan frameworks. Even then - the stop the steal people are not even necessarily post liberal. Most of them are poor folks who were down on their luck, putting all their eggs in Trump's basket.
I was hopeful about this series, but this is poor analysis Dr. Beck.
Christian Nationalism, as it was understood until it became a political weapon of the Left, was the integration of Church and State power. Maybe some of the integralists meet that definition. Vermule certainly bothers me a bit. And Dominionists are obviously disturbing and increasingly a problem since they seemingly are working hand in hand with Netanyahu - but most people use Christian Nationalism as a cudgel, just the same as the definition of racism and all the "phobias" are expanded as a weapon to silence any who disagree with leftist political conclusions.
To clarify, I wouldn’t apply the label “Christian Nationalist” to non-Christians. The analysis was for Christians who become vulnerable to illiberalism, like overturning an election, because of their cognitive biases. And while you might call the analysis “poor” I think it’s straightforwardly accurate.
Can one not be philosophically liberal and question the legitimacy of an election?
What of all the folks who still are convinced that Al Gore won, or that John Kerry lost because of diebold voting machines? Or Hillary Clinton who thinks that Russia stole the election in 2016?
I don’t mean to get lost in minutia, but the Whitehead/Perry devotees run with this line repeatedly.
I would consider myself a post liberal Christian and post liberal politically. I still think that a Republic is probably the best form of government. But I don’t think it makes me illiberal if, for instance, it doesn’t make any sense that Spencer Pratt came in 3rd in the LA mayoral race because the obvious 3rd place candidate came in first in mail in voting, eeking him out of the run off.
I think we should probably stick to calling people Christian nationalists who claim it, and then also maybe ask them what they mean by it. Doug Wilson and Adrian Vermule have significant differences of opinion that make labeling them as one a little tricky I’d think.
I don't have any inside knowledge, but I strongly suspect you are right that many of the insurrectionists were secular. The media, both here in Britain and (as far as I can see) in the US, tends to conflate "evangelical" with "right-wing", which is not 100% true in the US and much less true elsewhere.
I also agree with you about "poor folks who were down on their luck" and we see similar trends here (happily, without an insurrection) here with the vote in favour of Brexit and the growth of Reform UK - both of which I believe were/are largely based on false premises.
However I did find Dr Beck's article helpful, as per my other comment above.
Richard, here's your definition of Christian Nationalism:
"the pursuit of a Christian vision of the good must take precedence over the preservation of freedom and liberty." Then you quote Hungary's Viktor Orbán: "The new state that we are are building in Hungary is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state."
Do you understand what Orbán meant? It's a very weird thing when we have to untangle definitions that used to be clear. Orbán was not abjuring classical liberalism, whose values we all agree are good and helpful for a pluralist society with Christians in it; that's what people our age usually mean when they use the word. But it has come to have a different sensibility in Europe, especially those in charge of the EU. Dreher (and others I hear from who have lived there) has shown that the "liberalism" of the EU elites is actually antithetical to true pluralism and the classical liberal values. Dreher has highlighted some instances of the lack of freedom and liberty in western Europe; you can surely find information on the 'net about two-tier policing, sharply increased crime rates in cities with immigrants who are not assimilating, restrictions on assembly of people who are even a little bit to the "right" of Brussels, people being arrested for standing on streetcorners praying silently? What Orbán was saying was a push-back against the "liberal" ideology of Brussels, of the ideology of "liberalism" that is actually acting against true classical liberalism.
I'm not defending the corruption of the Orbán govt, and because he and his cronies didn't stem the corruption they were justifiably voted out. Did you know that Brussels fined the Orbán government a million Euros *a day* because they did not allow the numbers of immigrants Brussels thought they should allow? That same-sex couples have the freedom to have civil unions with all the civil rights pertaining to such unions, and nobody is persecuting gays? That the vast majority of Hungarians were behind the law that restricted discussion of homosexuality in schools (not restricted anywhere else)? That there is not a police presence or CCTV everywhere, as there would be in a truly fascist state? That Hungary has comparably low church attendance with other European countries - the Orbán govt has not forced church attendance? That Orbán left office willingly without complaint when voted out? That Hungarian citizens have had the liberty to protest the Orbán govt's actions, including in the press? I don't think these are the actions of a "Christian Nationalist" government as you have defined it.
I think it's okay to want Dreher to clarify his ideas, and question his political thought vis-a-vis the Benedict Option. I do see your point about that. I also think, if your were to sit down and talk to Dreher, you would find that he understand that preserving freedom and liberty - as in "classical liberalism", the real thing, not the Brussels version of it - is what we need to do in order to simply live peacefully as Christians alongside everyone else, and that government forcing a Christian vision of the good is exactly the wrong tack to take.
Okay, I'll leave this alone now.
Dana
Im appreciating the analysis. I agree that Laura Field’s book, "Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right" is an excellent tour of the intellectuals behind this movement. She calls out a cast of characters, some you will recognize, others you may not. All are serious deep thinkers, political and cultural philosophers, intellectuals in academia, the church and the judicial. Not to be distracted by the Trump show and his theatrics, Fields provides a curious and fascinating tour of the movement, both within the US and the world.
Frankly, Im surprised by my agreement with their diagnosis and some of their critical writings, but their recommendations for the cure are beyond. Been listening to the audible book on a road trip ( chp 6), pausing often, so I know Im missing much.
As one who, from the other side of the Pond, has read several analyses of the unholy alliance between Evangelicals and the Republican Party (especially Trump), but remain perplexed as to how such an alliance could come about, I find your post interesting and helpful. The cognitive dissonance is a dimension I hadn't come across before.
However, concerning the January 6 insurrection, my view starts with the undisputed fact that Donald Trump is an extreme narcissist. Just as (much less seriously) he couldn't bear the thought of the crowd at his inauguration being less than that at Barack Obama's, he couldn't thole the possibility of losing the 2020 election. But he is (or was) more cunning and devious than he is often made out to be, and he had enough wit to realise that he might lose, so he started planting the seeds of the Big Lie well ahead of the election. This prepared his followers to believe it.
As for whether the insurrection was Christian Nationalism, I respond: Nationalism - yes. Christian - not on your Nellie (as we say in Scotland). No way is a violent event based on an untruth Christian. And even for those who were conned or brainwashed into believing it to be true, it was still violent. But your analysis is probably the first I have read by a psychologist, and that perspective definitely sheds light on the mentality. (See also my reply to David Lipscomb, below.)
Christian nationalism remains alive and well (although past its prime) in Northern Ireland. I'd see it as more "Christian" than the USA version, as it has more of a theological (Protestant Reformation / Calvinist) basis than anything I see in the USA. And yet I still reject it as a true expression of Christianity. I know of no better commentary on the Northern Ireland situation than Runrig's song "Eirinn" (google it!), the last verse of which is:
Now one world window opens wide and demons they show face
Some of your men have taken seeds of truth and planted fields of hate.
This way has never won a war, and I fear that when harvest comes
You'll see your freedom fall on stony ground and the green all overgrown.
Haha! "narrative...insurrection...big lie" The worst insurrection ever. But you are correct that magatards are cognitively compromised in whining about Biden's illiberalism then cheering on Trump illiberalism. Now all politics is reduced to FAFO for the ruling party.
Great analysis!
Worrisome indeed!