A Movement to Destroy Democracy

But while economic devastation may create fertile preconditions for this anti-democracy movement, Stewart notes, it has drawn coherence from both its ​“highly self-interested group of movers and backers” as well as the Right’s shared mindset of conservative victimhood, which extends across many sectors and factions of the movement.

Stewart introduces readers to many of these — chronicling the intellectual pretenses of scholars at the ​“MAGA think tank” the Claremont Institute, the fantastical claims of charismatic hucksters on the ReAwaken America Tour or the ​“spirit warriors” who advanced Trump as ​“God’s Chaos Candidate” — and tracing the common thread of fear-driven politics that binds this movement together, but also provides the opportunity to unravel it.

Stewart spoke with In These Times this February about her book, the reactionary movement seeking to remake the nation and the hope for defeating it.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Your first book, The Good News Club, focused on one specific organization — the school evangelization group you cite in the book’s title. Your second book, The Power Worshippers, focused on Christian nationalism as a political project. In Money, Lies and God, you describe a broader anti-democratic movement threatening the United States that you call ​“reactionary nihilism.” What do you mean by that term?

I think of nihilism as a description of those whose fundamental aim is to destroy rather than to create, and who, by their actions rather than any declaration, deny there is any real truth or value in this world. By ​“reactionary” I mean that rather than advance toward a better state, this movement emphasizes a return to some imaginary version of an allegedly better past — a past that includes elements of a regressive social order, such as gender hierarchy, the suppression of certain forms of speech and attacks on the religious freedom of those who fail to conform.

I put those words together to describe the anti-democratic reaction. To be sure, not everybody who wants to go back to the good old days is a nihilist. But the ones who believe that a democratic political system and its ideals and institutions are so bad they need to be destroyed — and at the same time exalt a completely fictitious fantasy about the golden age of yore — I think these people count as nihilists. Their vision is not based on reality; it’s retreating into a fantasy projected onto the past.

What role does Christian nationalism play from this broader perspective?

It plays a central role because, for the rank and file, it’s an important way of legitimizing their support for amoral and authoritarian leaders and the antidemocratic movement. This political movement sets itself quite clearly against the Constitution and America’s democratic ideals. But the leaders of the movement need to square this with people who have been brought up to be patriotic, and promoting the ideology of Christian nationalism helps them to that end.

However, we need to keep in mind that Christian nationalism is not the whole explanation for what they are doing. When we look at the bigger picture, we can see that it is, in many respects, a rationalization strategy.

Christian nationalism motivates a lot of voters or local activists who may not identify as Christian nationalists, but whose actions lend support to a Christian nationalist agenda. This rank and file has to be distinguished from the small cadre of leaders, of political pastors and national activists, who are often driving the agenda and who articulate Christian nationalism in its most extreme form.

You argue that, while outsiders characterize Christian nationalism in terms of identities, doctrines and policies, ​“on the inside, it looks more like a specific collection of feelings” or a mindset with four elements. What are those elements and why is this a better way to understand the movement?

The first element consists of identity politics. A core message of the movement is that there is an ​“us” versus a ​“them,” those who are properly American and those who are not. Those in the ​“in-group” feel entitled to rule because they are ​“authentic” representatives of the nation.

The second element is the persecution narrative, or the idea that there is no group more at risk of persecution and annihilation than white conservative Christians.

Then there’s the catastrophism, the idea that America is on the edge of an apocalypse because of secular liberals and feminists, ​“the woke,” etc., and dramatic measures are necessary to save true Americans from an ugly fate.

And finally, movement leaders say we need a leader who will break the rules because the rules are already broken; only a tough guy can save us. It’s the idea that we need an authoritarian leader who will seize power and scrap the rule of law in favor of the iron fist.

In your own outside analysis, you divide the principal actors of this antidemocratic movement into five categories: the funders, the thinkers, the ​“sergeants,” the ​“infantry,” and the ​“power players.” And you warn that ​“what the Funders are buying is not always what the Thinkers and Sergeants are selling or what the Infantry is hearing.”

It helps to think in terms of categories because, first, we need to understand that this is a leadership-driven movement; the agenda is not set by the rank and file. Second, it helps us to grasp that the movement is not monolithic. The different constituencies can be at odds with one another, but they can also egg each other on in cycles of mutual exploitation and codependency. The funders pay the thinkers to come up with ways of rationalizing their quest for power and privilege. The thinkers use at least some of that money to provoke the funders’ insecurities and radicalize them in ways they might not have anticipated, and which may not be consistent with their long-term goals. And of course, they also use that money to manipulate the rank and file.

It’s also helpful to think about these categories because it helps us separate the leaders’ ideological rhetoric from the movement’s deeper motivations. Christian nationalism is very important, but money and power are perhaps even more important.

Part of the leadership endorses a pseudo-libertarian economic vision, while other sectors of movement leadership are pursuing more dictatorial or theocratic governance. But in spite of their differences, all of these groups are now rowing in the same boat, collaborating on a common political vision that will deliver legal and financial privileges to their interests.

The biggest disconnect is between the funders, who want policies that justify and increase enormous concentrations of wealth at the top of the economic ladder, and the rank and file who, when you peel away the religious nationalism, generally want a better deal for themselves and for the workforce.

The main strength is what we see in front of us, which is that they are able to work together in pursuit of power, to set aside their differences and unite to destroy the ​“woke.”

The anti-woke stuff is always framed in the language of merit and individual responsibility, yet it couldn’t be more obvious that it’s affirmative action for the ruling clique and a way of putting disadvantaged communities back in their place.

Many of the thinkers you examine are associated with the Claremont Institute. What exactly are they selling?

The Claremont Institute is a think tank that came together in the late 1970s when some graduate students were inspired by the political philosophy professor Harry Victor Jaffa. It was always conservative but has become more and more reactionary and extreme over the years.

It has also become very powerful. Claremont has a very deep network connected with Trump, a good number of his cabinet pics and other leading features of Republican politics.

Today, Claremont provides a platform for supporters of political violence and fundamental illiberalism. It publishes, affirmatively reviews or even offers fellowships to racist ​“replacement” theorists and other conspiracists, along with those who just want to burn democracy down.

One of the most important ideas emerging from this think tank is what the Nazi political theorist Carl Schmitt calls the ​“State of Exception” (or state of emergency). In their view, America is so broken, and so certain to collapse, that any intervention is justified and we need to set aside any laws and institutions that get in the way.

More specifically, they believe that the source of this crisis is the rise of a so-called ​“woke elite” that captured the ​“administrative state,” is bent on destroying America and which must be rooted out at any cost.

Catholic funders and thinkers also play an important role. But you note that their institutions ​“work outside and alongside the traditional hierarchy rather than within and through it.”

The Catholic side of the story is very important, but woefully neglected. Often Christian nationalism and white evangelicals are understood to be synonymous. In fact, conservative Catholics play a critical role, especially in the leadership. But there’s a schism within the Catholic church.

Part of the hierarchy leans to the Left on certain issues, particularly economic and environmental. The hard Right is pushing in the opposite direction. It includes direct appeals to right-wing populism and demagoguery but it has also formed a very strong alliance with economic conservatives and ​“pro-capitalist” people.

But within the hard Right, there’s a further division. There is an old hierarchy, it’s anti-Francis and extremely conservative socially, but it has been weakened considerably, thanks to the child sexual abuse scandals, which have diminished the traditional hierarchy’s legitimacy in the eyes of many rank and file Catholics. To fill this vacuum, a sector of super-wealthy Catholic conservative laity is now stepping in and taking control of funding streams of church related activities. They are funding outside organizations, including messaging operations, that seek to fuse theology with hard-right economic and social positions.

You devote one chapter to what you call ​“Spirit Warriors” primarily growing out of the Pentecostal tradition, which was multiracial from its beginning, putting it at odds with much of Christian nationalism. How does it fit into the broader picture?

The important thing to understand is religion hasn’t stayed constant in the U.S. It has always been evolving and is now going through a very strong transformation. The winners in this latest change are the ​“hot” religions, which appeal to strong emotions, offer immediate rewards and interpret all events, especially political events, as signs of a spiritual battle.

This form of religion has given new energy to the Christian nationalist movement and the anti-democratic reaction. And the language and style of this religion has spilled over into sectors of American religion that are not themselves Pentecostal or charismatic. Even political leaders who are nonbelievers have learned to exploit this language.

In your conclusion, you talk about reasons for hope.

There’s no easy fix, but I can offer a few recommendations. First, this is the time for moral courage. Appreciate that the attacks are having real consequences on real people, including federal employees who have lost their jobs and Americans who rely on or benefit from critical government services.

Second, engage in democracy-building in meaningful ways. We have elections in less than two years. We need to get out the base of voters who support democratic principles such as equality, pluralism, rule of law, accountable leadership. We also need to go after low-propensity voters, and we need to start now.

Third, abandon purity tests. We need a big tent. We’re not going to agree on everything, nor should we in a country as large and diverse as ours. But if we can agree on some core values, we can and should work together.

We also have to focus on the fact that the policies the anti-democratic movement is pursuing are harming the majority of Americans. We need to be much more aggressive in pushing policies that promote the common good.