The story of contemporary American history is intricately tied to the rapid secularization of a society that traditionally understood itself in explicitly Biblical terms. Once a devoutly Christian nation – the progeny of the millennialist aspirations of Puritans fleeing religious persecution in the Old World – the American republic has become decidedly more agnostic about its spiritual heritage in recent decades. This nationwide secularization has conventionally been thought of as something of a partisan issue: The country’s leftward-moving political shift and its abandonment of traditional religion are often regarded as two related phenomena within a series of larger demographic, sociopolitical and structural changes to the nature of American society itself. Americans, it seems, are becoming increasingly progressive in their political outlook, more cosmopolitan in their disposition towards the world at large, and decisively less interested in traditional Judeo-Christian teachings on the nature of mortal existence and eternity as a result.
Throughout all of these recent developments, the American Right has been considered the natural home for the remaining traditionalist Christians and Jews scattered throughout American society. The so-called “religious Right” is the last stronghold of those who continue to resist the secularizing forces that have been so effective in removing religion from the public square and ostracizing its adherents. To be sure, the American conservative movement contains a variety of political sensibilities, not all of which are religiously informed – we need not re-litigate the most recent bout of animosities between its libertarian and traditionalist factions – but the Right has been seen by most religious traditionalists as the more hospitable of the two partisan dispositions for decades. This has only solidified in recent years, as the Democratic Party has embraced progressive secularism in its entirety whilst the GOP has become increasingly influenced by a dialectical relationship with the religious conservatives in its base, growing more sympathetic to their interests as religious voters became a solidified contingent of the Republican coalition.
The religious Right wields significant power in our national politics, although their influence continues to wane as a direct result of the country’s sweeping agnosticization. This influence has garnered suspicion and animosity from various corners of the American body politic; traditionally, the loudest critics of the religious Right were self-styled liberal rationalists like the New Atheists, a particularly influential collection of militantly anti-theistic public intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. These rationalists championed the preeminence of science and reason as chief among the methods for solving core philosophical and sociopolitical issues, and lamented the fact that religiously-informed governance drew its inspiration from primitive superstitions and an undue reverence for tradition rather than from logic and rational deduction. Religion, for the New Atheists, was the manifestation of pre-Enlightenment ignorance, rife with prejudice stemming from a hopelessly antiquated worldview. If only the religiously devout stopped imposing their draconian theistic intolerance on the rest of us, these enlightened rationalists complained, we could finally progress towards a more enlightened and just society.
More recently, the introduction of post-modern theories of “social justice” presents a new, unprecedented challenge to religious traditionalists in America. Thinkers of the New Left such as Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault and Franz Fanon have all introduced various unique attacks on institutionalized religious belief. These new criticisms are altogether separate from, and sometimes even opposed to, those of the rationalistic New Atheists; in fact, as a result of their discomfort with the latent illiberal proclivities of the philosophical dernier cri, thinkers like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have become anathema on the Left, sacrificing the coveted good standing they previously enjoyed amongst progressive intelligentsia. These newly ascendant philosophies of decolonization, intersectionality and neo-Marxist cultural critique are profound departures from the Enlightenment liberalism of Hitchens and Harris, but all are unified in their mistrust of religious institutions. Gramsci famously spoke of a “long march through the institutions” as a necessary precursor to revolution; for the new radicals, liberation from the suffocative influence of the Church is a political imperative.
Though they are increasingly finding themselves at odds with one another, these various anti-theistic forces in American society have been collectively engaged in a bitter battle with the remaining religious contingency of the broader culture for decades. For years, those seeking to excise religiosity from American public life were fiercely critical of what they saw as the theocratic aspirations of the religious Right, seeing its persistent existence as an insufferable barrier to their political aspirations.
But yet – what would an American conservatism stripped of its Judeo-Christian roots look like? And would progressives really find it to be so preferable to the religiously inspired conservatism that they attacked? We may not need to answer such a query in the abstract, for the post-religious Right has already arrived; look no further than the phenomenon that is Donald Trump.
Indeed, the rise of Donald Trump speaks volumes to the secularization of the American Right. The New York real estate magnate’s takeover of the Republican Party – and subsequent victory in the general election – can only be understood as the direct result of a decline in religiosity among Republican voters and the working class writ large.
Upon initial consideration, this might be a surprising contention. Much has been written about the religious Right’s loyal support of Trump. It’s undeniable that most of this voting bloc went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 – and most likely will do so again in 2020. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that this is more of a transactional relationship than a love affair – it’s not unlikely that a president Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz would have enjoyed similar support from this coalition for their stances on issues like religious liberty and abortion. Despite their voting for Trump, polling shows that the devoutly religious members of the conservative coalition were not the group responsible for Trump’s ascendance.
It is true that in a choice between Trump and the progressive Left, most of the religious Right held their nose and chose Trump. But the voter base that propelled Trump’s meteoric rise to power – the faction of the Republican electorate that forced Trump to be the only viable alternative to Hillary Clinton, as it were – is overwhelmingly the secularized portion of the Republican coalition. This is an important nuance that is often missed by the mainstream coverage of Trump’s relationship with conservative voters across the country: Trump’s core constituency is disproportionately comprised of Republican voters who tell pollsters that they seldom or never go to church.
The narrative about the religious Right’s disproportionate support for Trump isn’t wrong, per se, but it’s incomplete: Republican voters who regularly report church attendance were significantly more likely to support mainstream candidates like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson in the primary, and were uninterested in supporting Trump until the general election. But Trump’s base is largely comprised of the Republican voters who no longer regularly attend religious services.
Tim Carney, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who recently published a book documenting this phenomenon, writes:
We broke down Republican primary voters by church attendance. Among the most frequent attenders—those going more than once a week—Trump got about 32 percent of the vote. Trump also got a minority of those who simply go once a week. Among those who reported going “a few times a year,” Trump got about half. He got an easy majority (55 percent) of those Republicans who “seldom” attend, and a full 62 percent of those who never attend. That is, every step down in church attendance brought a step up in Trump support, and vice versa. The most frequent attenders were half as likely to support Trump as were the least frequent attenders…the GOP electorate has secularized, and [that secularization] helped Trump win the GOP nomination.
In short, the Trump phenomenon is a clear indicator that the American Right has not been immune to the broader national trend of secularization. Indeed, it was the very abandonment of religion within the broadly conservative voter base that made Donald Trump president. We have yet to fully understand the nature of this new post-religious conservatism, but the political viability of its newly assembled voter bloc means that its influence will be felt in American politics for some time – just as the religious Right wanes, weakened by sustained attacks from the secular Left, a post-religious Right has risen to take its place.
This post-religious Right is more populist than conservative, and more interested in political dominance than the promotion of virtue and the good. This development should be unsurprising, for it is the political consequence of a faithless society – an empty nihilism made flesh, the necessary political coalition that logically follows from a conservatism robbed of its moral foundations. Attempts to chase religion out of American culture, ranging from the Obama Administration’s persecution of Catholic charities who refused to pay for abortive agents, to a pervasive broadside assault on the conscience rights of religious businesses across the country who do not conform with secularized attitudes towards transgenderism and same-sex marriage, have eventually taken their toll on the state of religious observance in America.
Those who criticized what they identified as the excesses of the religious Right should consider if the grievance politics, pettiness and chauvinism of this new populist coalition is preferable to a politics of a religiously informed disposition towards social issues surrounding sexual morality and the sacred nature of unborn human life. Those, too, who advocate the continual secularization of American society should look to the state of our national politics to understand the nature of their achievement. When God exits the public square, humans do not magically lose their innate thirst for transcendent meaning. Rather, the pursuit of a personal relationship with one’s maker is replaced by the quest for political power, the spiritual community of one’s church, synagogue or mosque is discarded for membership in a partisan tribe, and the eternal struggle between Good and Evil is subjugated to whatever cheap ideological battles happen to be momentarily fashionable.
If you didn’t like the religious Right, you’re going to hate the post-religious one. Reap, meet sow.
15 comments
Well written article that supports many people’s intuition that nations have lost their cultural distinctiveness, if they ever had it at all. However, this is just an opinion that is apparently unsupported by a systematic investigation: 00220221211044780
>> Gramsci famously spoke of a “long march through the institutions” as a necessary precursor to revolution
Seems like Newt Gingrich did just this. Him and Breitbart and Bannon. Gingrich would have been familiar with Gramsci and it seems he used Gramsci’s ideas to undermine the political status quo and unleash the populism that eventually elevated Trump and, in the UK, Boris Johnson. However, if I understand Gramsci at all, he would describe Gingrich’s and others’ achievement as a passive revolution because actually leaves the elite still in control of most of the wealth.
Good read. Thanks.
This is all so insane. Is the author and subsequent commentary from Americans? Maybe the author of this opinion piece is an American but is just naive, too young to have experienced the bizarre changes of Democrats and Republican platforms which did a 180-do-see-do after Kennedy was assassinated thus confusing those who have lived and voted for quite some time.
It was bad enough when people elected a Republican movie actor who was suave and could read a TelePrompTer with an actor’s ease but to elect a person because he wasn’t the usual kind of politician who speaks from both sides of their mouth in order to get re-elected was no reason to elect DT—a mere narcissistic television personality famous for then today version of a kingly jackassness dismissal of saying You’re Fired! Yet, there are people who staunchly follow this kind of human being much like televised Christian preachers who fell from all decency even after they cried on the news for people to forgive their sins. However, DT will never admit his many character flaws even when caught on open mics and cellphone calls.
So here we are. For now.
As far as the author veering from politics to another completely different subject makes the read become long and unfocused as to what the intent and purpose was all about.
The decline of religion is a general phenomenon, and the fact that Trump’s base is less religious than the rest of the right is worth commenting on. However, the rest of this article leaves a lot to be desired. It makes enormous, evidence-free leaps to finger wag at ‘godless’ liberals, while ignoring other factors. The implication seems to be that “bad” Trump supporters would have been restrained from their worst impulses if they were more religious, but this hasn’t been the liberal experience of history.
“This post-religious Right is more populist than conservative, and more interested in political dominance than the promotion of virtue and the good.”
I’m glad you’ve noticed, but this isn’t a new phenomenon. Going back through Gingrich, the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, etc. the right has been perfectly ruthless in pursuit of power and somehow their religious principles have never gotten in the way. Reagan’s was, after all, the decade of greed, and Trump is a poster boy for that attitude. Corruption runs very deep in the party. Rather than blame everything on overreaching leftists, why not look at the years upon years of right-wing propaganda through reactionary magazines, then talk radio, then Fox news, and now the internet. These are the forces that asserted power at any cost was an acceptable method and truth could be manipulated as needed to support the talking points of the day. Remember, Trump entered the political scene backing the insane birther conspiracy theory that played into religious fears of a “secret Muslim” in the White House. His mentor was Roger Stone, a self-proclaimed dirty trickster from the Nixon era.
At the same time, the religious right has long been known for enabling fraudsters, conspiracy theorists and hypocrites. (Think Jim Baker, Ted Haggard, etc.) And, as noted, they might voice their theoretical disapproval of Trump, but that hasn’t stopped them from abetting him. I’ve noticed that Trumpists regularly bring up the same cultural grievances as the religious. Abortion rights and anti-homosexual bakers may not be couched in the same degree of religious language, but it’s not clear what has substantively changed.
As bad as Trump is, I’m not sure I would prefer Pence, who is obviously on board with all Trump’s corruption and demagoguery, but whose ‘advantage’ is that he’s a sincere theocrat.
The author seems to leave out the fact that the religious right are some of the most vehement supporters of DT. It’s not like they’ve left and been replaced. It’s more like their claimed values have been exposed as being just pretty covers they put on their inherent misogyny and racism. DT and his merry group of thugs and kleptocrats seem to be absolutely fine with them, if not ideal.
“DT and his merry group of thugs and kleptocrats seem to be absolutely fine with them, if not ideal.”
Before the election I saw an interview with the leader of a Hispanic Christian organization. The interviewer knew that this organization was supporting Trump and she asked how that was possible, given that DT would not seem to be exactly a Christian. The response was long and very thoughtful. The guy said that, indeed, Trump was almost the opposite of a Christian, however he seemed to have no agenda to actually attack Christianity and seemed to really believe in freedom of religion. Money is Trump’s thing, he has no interest in what folks believe. He contrasted that with the Democrats who actively work against freedom of religion and seem to genuinely hate Christianity. Islam is their favored religion. Thus he said that Trump was the lesser evil in his view. But evil.
“…seemed to really believe in freedom of religion. ”
Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban.
“He contrasted that with the Democrats who actively work against freedom of religion and seem to genuinely hate Christianity”
Obama was a Christian, as was every Democratic president in history, with the arguable exception of early deists. There are approximately 0 open atheists in Congress.
I won’t say your interviewee was insincere, but he was misinformed, or else blatantly ignoring evidence in favor of a propaganda narrative.
“Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban.”
So he did. Islam, being as infected with jihadism as it is, is rightly quarantined. Freedom of religion is one thing, sound immigration policy is another.
“Obama was a Christian, as was every Democratic president in history, with the arguable exception of early deists. There are approximately 0 open atheists in Congress.”
There is a kind of Christian who is one mostly for show. Mind, that applies to all religions. However much certain Dems might claim to be Christian, they invariably act to restrict religious freedom (except for Muslims), and work hard to undermine the Christian foundations of the nation.
“I won’t say your interviewee was insincere, but he was misinformed, or else blatantly ignoring evidence in favor of a propaganda narrative.”
The water is muddy of course. But the huge numbers of Christians who voted for Trump need to be understood. We can posit that, as above, they really like the guy, or you can believe what they actually say, which is that they voted for him in despair. They seem to feel that the woke Dems are the enemies of Christianity and I agree with them. They are undeniably the enemies of the white-protestant heritage of the country (The Patriarchy), and want the US to become a 3d world country as quickly as possible, which they openly proclaim.
“Freedom of religion is one thing…”
It’s among the first rights outlined in the Constitution. But it seems you admit it’s nothing Trump really believes in. I’m not a fan of Islam (or any other religion), but I’m not some coward who thinks we should strip equal protections away from a group of mostly innocents. By the same logic we should ban white immigrants since some of them would inevitably be far-right terrorists.
“…they invariably act to restrict religious freedom (except for Muslims)”
Oh please, Dems spend their time trying to pass health care, environmental and business reforms. Are there any proposed laws that make a special exception for Muslims? You can argue about public accommodation laws all day but there is no genuine threat to religion from paying insurance taxes or possibly selling a cake to a gay couple. Moreover, Dems aren’t campaigning on this stuff and the idea that the party spends even a significant part of its time on woke posturing is a fiction. In the real world, “In God We Trust” continues to be printed on my money and promoted by various state legislatures. It’s an affront to people like myself, and the legal basis is pure fiction, but I wouldn’t vote in a liberal version of Trump just to get rid of it. You say Trump is all about money. Well, Jesus makes a very explicit point that you can’t serve money and god. He doesn’t say one word about transgender people in public bathrooms. If Republicans cared about sincere Christians they would build a monument to Jimmy Carter.
I am not disputing that there are right-wing Christians who genuinely hold their nose at Trump. I’m pointing out that their priorities make no sense and they are in the grip of a blinkered, propaganda-driven narrative. Please give me a quote from a prominent Democrat who proclaims they want the US to be a third world country! The heritage of the US includes white protestants, as well as black baptists, Mexican catholics, freethinkers, Jewish refugees, tribal Indians, Chinese laborers, assorted eastern mystics and immigrants of all stripes. E pluribus unum and all that. What it’s not supposed to include is a barely literate, monomaniacal grifter abusing the powers of his office and playing out the fantasies of an actual 3rd world kleptocrat.
A powerful post Josh, civilly made and not without merit. The situation is not black and white and a case can be made for everything you say. There’s always more than one vector pushing on things, no? Sometimes stated reasons are not the real reasons yet the stated reasons have merit just the same.
“but I’m not some coward who thinks we should strip equal protections away from a group of mostly innocents. By the same logic we should ban white immigrants since some of them would inevitably be far-right terrorists.”
Few are suggesting stripping rights. The question is who gets into the country, and no one has a right to immigrate. Smart countries take the best and least likely to cause trouble. Should it turn out to be the case that some corner of the world was producing a crop of white terrorists who’s stated aim was the destruction of our civilization, then we’d do well to quarantine then too. Chechnya comes to mind.
“Are there any proposed laws that make a special exception for Muslims?”
If you haven’t noticed that Islam is all the rage among Dems then I won’t be able to convince you. But no, no specific laws.
“the idea that the party spends even a significant part of its time on woke posturing is a fiction”
Warren and Harris and AOC in particular might disagree with you. I suspect that even Old Joe would probably try to claim that he’s woke. Contrary wise, who would publicly disavow wokeness among the Dem candidates? Any video clips?
“If Republicans cared about sincere Christians”
I doubt that many of them do. They like money. But they are not attacking Christianity and sorry, but the Dems are. Or at least millions of Christians and Jews think so. I’m agnostic, but I see it clear as day. I expect to live long enough to see the Bible declared hate-speech and churches forced to perform gay weddings.
“Please give me a quote from a prominent Democrat who proclaims they want the US to be a third world country!”
Not verbatim, but open-door immigration policies amount to that don’t they? Will America retain it’s character when Hispanics are the majority? I doubt it. Especially when immigrants are encouraged to bring their culture with them. More Guatemalans mean a country more like Guatemala. This is obvious.
“E pluribus unum and all that.”
But united under a clearly established religious-ethnic-political hegemony. No one ever doubted who was in charge until recently. America made immigration work by demanding integration into (sorry) Protestant-Enlightenment-democratic-liberal society that was not open to Islamization.
“a barely literate, monomaniacal grifter”
Cheer up, only a year to go then, if there is a God above, surely the nightmare will be over.
People don’t stop going to church because they feel assaulted by ‘wokeness’. If anything, they would find many churches a refuge from it. No, secularization is a long-term trend that cannot simply be blamed on a recent fad within progressive politics. If anything, it’s the other way around.
In any case, I can imagine forms of conservatism that do not depend on religious justifications. After all, plenty of moral conservatives develop non-religious arguments for their positions, because they know that is more persuasive than simply saying ‘God says so’. But I don’t think secularization means that Trumpism is only kind of conservatism that will be on offer.
It’s clear that Trump is a very odd fit for many of his supporters. Hawks should have a problem with his isolationist withdrawal of troops, libertarians with his tariff walls, and moral conservatives with his personal conduct, as indeed some vocally do: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/donald-trump-king-david-comparisons-evengelical-supporters/?fbclid=IwAR33iSaIxSFcAMu5-vindt4yM78Y1LZW2w3ULOc5KWQMMdQ5kmtoFgS3Ae8
Although I’m pretty sure that there’s some truth to the main point hammered home in your article, Nate Hochman, that said, I also know that the non-religious George Will provides an exemplary model of how—and maybe even why—to be non-religious and conservative. (Also, although I’m not religious myself, although I lack what Freud called that “oceanic” feeling, I imagine that a devout Quaker could articulate how marrying the best of Christianity to the best of progressivism improves both.)
There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Marriage is about procreation, not about sex, idiots 🙂
If America would have stayed on the Biblical path America wouldn’t need to be made great again. The path of “social justice” has turned America into a sewer.
Hopefully our President can right the ship. TRUMP 2020..
Thanks very much. The future will be controlled either by the dictatorship of the woke, or the absolute greed of the billionaires.