No Prophets: Jared Huffman and Jim Wallis on Christian Nationalism and Democracy

Well, you write about attacks on public education, higher education, science and critical reasoning.

What are those institutions? Why are they such important targets for Christian nationalist politics? And what is at stake if public policy abandons what you call evidence and expertise?

Yeah.

We talk about Christian nationalism often as a fight over our form of government because MAGA Christian nationalism, and we can talk about how today's movement evolved from even a generation ago when the moral majority was not fundamentally at odds with democracy.

It was working within the system of democracy.

Today's Christian nationalist movement is done with democracy.

It has moved on and is literally, and with no exaggeration, trying to replace democracy with something theocratic and authoritarian.

So that's the form of government part of this threat.

But it's bigger than that.

As you mentioned in your question, Jim, this movement is also targeting public education, secular education, higher education, our institutions of research and science and innovation, things we count on for the next cures, for the next vaccine that will save us from pandemics, for climate science and other things that we need to survive on this planet.

So I argue in the book that this threat has gone from a fight and debate over liberty to something that is truly existential.

And at stake here is our ability potentially to live on this planet.

So your mention of what was the religious right, the old religious right.

I'm older than you, and I debated Jerry Falwell often on television.

He would never talk behind the scenes, but some of his people did.

And there's a real distinction, which your book points out, between Falwell was very much into persuading and getting his people out to vote.

He would brag about how many times a week he talked to Ronald Reagan and so on.

But he was he was within the system trying to change the system for his issues.

Only a handful of issues really for him.

And it was it was aggressive.

It was militant for sure.

But it clearly was obeying the rules of democracy.

And your book points out that this new version doesn't do that.

That's right.

I think it's a critical piece of this that needs to be understood.

Well, you write about attacks on public education, higher education, science and critical reasoning.

What are those institutions? Why are they such important targets for Christian nationalist politics? And what is at stake if public policy abandons what you call evidence and expertise?

Yeah.

We talk about Christian nationalism often as a fight over our form of government because MAGA Christian nationalism, and we can talk about how today's movement evolved from even a generation ago when the moral majority was not fundamentally at odds with democracy.

It was working within the system of democracy.

Today's Christian nationalist movement is done with democracy.

It has moved on and is literally, and with no exaggeration, trying to replace democracy with something theocratic and authoritarian.

So that's the form of government part of this threat.

But it's bigger than that.

As you mentioned in your question, Jim, this movement is also targeting public education, secular education, higher education, our institutions of research and science and innovation, things we count on for the next cures, for the next vaccine that will save us from pandemics, for climate science and other things that we need to survive on this planet.

So I argue in the book that this threat has gone from a fight and debate over liberty to something that is truly existential.

And at stake here is our ability potentially to live on this planet.

So your mention of what was the religious right, the old religious right.

I'm older than you, and I debated Jerry Falwell often on television.

He would never talk behind the scenes, but some of his people did.

And there's a real distinction, which your book points out, between Falwell was very much into persuading and getting his people out to vote.

He would brag about how many times a week he talked to Ronald Reagan and so on.

But he was he was within the system trying to change the system for his issues.

Only a handful of issues really for him.

And it was it was aggressive.

It was militant for sure.

But it clearly was obeying the rules of democracy.

And your book points out that this new version doesn't do that.

That's right.

I think it's a critical piece of this that needs to be understood.