Recently, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal officials to install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Trump says Smithsonian exhibits are anti-white and dishonest.

Groups like the Organization of American Historians and the National Council on Public History rejected the report's findings, characterizing the document as a politically motivated effort to restrict honest discussions of the nation's past

Donald Trump is the least qualified person to interpret history of any kind, but it isn’t Trump at work in this executive action. It is the white Christian nationalists who fill Trump’s administration who are trying to fulfill a decades-long dream: impose a “Christian nation” historical narrative to American life.

Subscribe now

Get 25% off for 1 year

Public Schools In the Crosshairs

The Smithsonian is only one of the targets. The biggest target is public education, which is under state governance. At least 18 states have passed laws, administrative rules, or revised academic standards since 2021 that restrict or water down how teachers discuss race, systemic racism, and historical events in public schools.

Prominent examples include Florida, Tennessee, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, and Idaho, which critics argue significantly diminish the teaching of racial history.

The various state initiatives reflect a common ideology: patriotic education, American exceptionalism, the nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations, and an emphasis on the achievements of great men, mostly white.

These themes reminded me of the years I spent as a history teacher in private Christian schools. These concepts provided the core of the history curriculum and were embedded in the textbooks we used from Bob Jones University and ABeka Publishers from Pensacola Christian College. Today it is Hillsdale College.

This was a curriculum designed to produce Christian nationalist-patriots who truly believed that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. There was no ambiguity, historical questioning, or room for alternative narratives.

At one time, I enthusiastically taught these Christian nationalist concepts. And with the infiltration of various Christian nationalist history standards, materials, and resources being forced into public school classrooms, it is time to be ready to defend true history and the separation of church and state.

Inside the Christian Nationalist History Class

That is why, when I came across Warren Throckmorton’s book, The Christian Past That Wasn’t, I was struck by chapter nine, which focuses on the assault on public education by Christian nationalists. In that chapter, Throckmorton provides a glimpse into a public school classroom where an enthusiastic teacher promotes the Christian nationalist curriculum.

Here, reprinted with the author’s permission, is a hypothetical conversation between Mrs. Johnson, a sixth-grade teacher, and her class about their upcoming history course. This will give you an understanding of where we are headed if white Christian nationalism is not challenged and stopped.

Mythological History At Work

The talking points Mrs. Johnson is using are filled with errors, distortions, and, in some cases, outright lies. She may not be aware of those distortions because she trusts the curriculum writers and textbook authors. Additionally, the narrative aligns with her Christian nationalist viewpoint, which she most likely learned at Bob Jones University or Hillsdale College.

Just for starters, Mrs. Johnson makes the audacious statement that the Founding Fathers created a nation based on Jesus Christ and the Bible, and in some cases, the Constitution quotes the Bible directly.

There is no evidence anywhere that this is true. It is a fabrication based on wishful thinking and a vague, unreliable summary of the literature of the founding period, in which countless references to the Bible appear in letters, sermons, books, and other writings of the day.

Christian nationalists use this “evidence” as proof that the Constitution quoted the Bible. The truth is, there are no such references in the Constitution, nor in the founders’ notes, minutes, or other material related to the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention.

Other parts of Mrs. Johnson’s rhetoric follow the same pattern. Her reference to Benjamin Franklin calling for prayer during the Convention is only partially true. Franklin did indeed propose a season of prayer during the Constitutional Convention, but the proposal was never acted upon. Most of the delegates saw no need. It was essentially ignored.

Four Objectives of Christian Nationalist History

The essential question is: in light of these obvious distortions in the historical record that Christian nationalists rely on, why do they twist and distort history so much?

An extended question is:

What story about America must Americans believe in order for a Christian-nationalist political order to appear legitimate today?

The short answer is that the whole white Christian nationalist project depends on controlling and dictating historical narrative. The history doesn’t have to be accurate; it only has to sustain the mythology.

Here are four reasons white Christian nationalists are desperate to control the historical narrative and create a mythologized past.

An Authoritarian Playbook

Authoritarian movements understand that control of the past is a form of control over the present. Control the story, control the people.

Christian nationalists are a minority in the United States. Their agenda will never be approved by a majority of voters. That leaves authoritarian tactics for imposing a minority view on the majority.

Mythological history provides one pathway.

If citizens accept the premise that their nation has always had one legitimate identity, moral tradition, and cultural hierarchy, then challenges to that hierarchy can be portrayed not as democratic change but as an attack on the nation itself. Opponents are then characterized as unpatriotic and, worse, a threat to the nation.

The connection with authoritarianism is not speculative. PRRI's 2026 research found a strong relationship between Christian nationalism and right-wing authoritarian attitudes: 79% of Christian Nationalism Adherents scored high or very high on its Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale, compared with only 11% of Christian Nationalism Rejecters.

Control of history is an authoritarian tool because whoever controls the acceptable story of the past can define what kinds of political change are legitimate in the present.

The Myth of the Pristine Christian Past

Christian nationalism needs a purified and sanitized American history. It needs a particular version of Christianity in American history that paints the US as an “exceptional nation” and a virtuous nation because it was Christian.

The problem is that the actual history is extraordinarily complicated.

• The founders disagreed about religion. Some were devout Christians; others were Deists or religious skeptics.

• The Constitution contains no declaration that America is a Christian nation. The First Amendment establishes religious liberty rather than Christian governmental authority.

• The country permitted slavery while proclaiming liberty.

• Native peoples were dispossessed while Americans invoked Providence.

• Catholics, Jews, atheists, and other religious minorities were often treated as outsiders.

• Women were excluded from political citizenship. Black Americans were enslaved and later subjected to Jim Crow.

• And evangelical Protestantism itself has never been politically monolithic.

That history creates a problem for the Christian-nationalist narrative. So the past has to be purified and reinterpreted to present a pristine white Protestant past.

Christianity becomes the invisible moral foundation beneath everything. White Protestant Christianity must be pristine and uncontaminated because that historical pristine Christianity is used to justify asserting Christian power today through the government.

A pristine past doesn’t have to be historically accurate. It has to be emotionally satisfying and usable. That is what makes Christian nationalist historical mythology politically powerful.

Dictating Who A True American Is

If the preferred historical narrative says that America was founded by Christian Europeans who were Protestants who established a supposed pristine Christian civilization, then history provides a ready-made definition of a “real American.”

Immigrants are suspect. Muslims become outsiders. Jews can be tolerated but remain religiously different. Secular Americans become people who have abandoned America’s foundations. Christian nationalist history allows for the marginalization of some people.

And America’s two original sins, enslavement and genocide of indigenous tribes, can be justified or at least minimized.

Black Americans can be told that they are fully American but only after their history is incorporated into a whitewashed narrative in which the dominant white Christian society ultimately grants them inclusion.

And Indigenous peoples can become “noble” figures in America’s past rather than sovereign peoples whose histories challenge the story of American expansion and exceptionalism.

PRRI’s research is particularly helpful here. Its 2026 survey found that white Christians were more likely than Christians of color, non-Christians, or religiously unaffiliated Americans to qualify as Christian-nationalism supporters. It also found that Christian-nationalist supporters were substantially more likely to agree with the idea that immigrants are “invading” the country and replacing its cultural and ethnic background.

The Christian nationalist historical curriculum becomes a mechanism for answering:

Whose America is this? And the answer can be embedded in the curriculum without ever appearing as an explicit racial declaration.

A Christian Past Justifies a Christian Present

Christian nationalist historical logic looks something like this:

If America was always a Christian nation, then Christian nationalism isn’t an attempt to transform America. It is an attempt to restore America.

It allows a political movement to describe profound changes in constitutional interpretation, education, government, family policy, immigration, women’s rights, or religious liberty as restoration rather than revolution.

This is also why the phrase “Christian foundations” is so important.

PRRI’s Christian nationalism measure includes the proposition that “if the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.”

Notice the logic.

If Christianity is merely one religious tradition among many, then removing Christian privilege is pluralism.

But if Christianity is America’s foundation, then removing Christian privilege becomes destruction of America itself.

The battle over history is really a battle over legitimacy: who controls the country and who belongs here.

Get ready to challenge this mythological history that will most certainly be infused into public school curriculum. The battle is as much in your backyard as it is in Washington.

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

On Monday of this week, I published an article outlining 90 potentially corrupt or unethical actions taken by Donald Trump during his second term. If you weren’t able to read that article, you can find it here: The Trump Administration Legacy Will Be Corruption-Corruption and More Corruption.

In that list of corruption, one category was conspicuously left out: potential war crimes and violations of the US Constitution in wartime. That is because it deserves its own column.

This category of corruption by the Trump administration is perhaps the most egregious because of the harm it does to the standing of the United States and the security risks they pose. Trump’s actions overseas do not make us safer, but they compromise our security, our alliances, and our moral standing in the world.

This column will present ten potentially illegal or unconstitutional acts by the Trump Administration related to foreign policy. The goal is not to adjudicate these, but to raise awareness of the scope of potential criminality to which Trump has exposed himself.

It will be up to Congress, the United Nations, and other international investigative bodies to provide conclusive evidence that puts Donald Trump in political and perhaps legal peril.

With the introduction of these ten new allegations, Trump’s total number of corrupt exposures now stands at 100. Certainly a record.

Get 25% off for 1 year

Subscribe now

Ten Illegal or Unconstitutional Acts of Trump’s Foreign Policy

Donald Trump’s most aggressive actions on the foreign field include its actions toward Venezuela and Iran. This summary of questionable actions will focus on those two theaters.

Key Question: Did the administration have the legal authority to do what it did (is doing) in Venezuela and Iran?

That question encompasses both American constitutional law and international law and presents an enormous responsibility for Congress if Democrats regain control of the House: to determine what actually happened, what authority the administration claimed, what evidence supported those claims, and whether presidential actions crossed legal boundaries.

I am not attempting to make those determinations here. That is well above my pay grade. However, that is precisely what congressional investigations, inspectors general, courts, and, where appropriate, international institutions do.

Here are ten areas that deserve serious investigation.

Venezuela

Killing alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers without arrest or trial

The administration’s campaign against suspected drug-smuggling vessels raises perhaps the most fundamental question:

When does a drug suspect become a lawful military target?

The administration has treated suspected narcotics traffickers as enemies in an armed conflict. But drug trafficking is ordinarily a law-enforcement problem. The normal response is interception, arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment, not execution by military strike.

The scale of the campaign makes the issue impossible to dismiss as an isolated incident. The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) documented 67 boats struck in 63 attack events and 221 people reported killed, including two survivors whom U.S. authorities allegedly killed in a follow-up strike.

The central congressional question should therefore be:

What legal authority permitted the United States to deliberately kill people suspected of committing drug crimes rather than arrest them?

Killing survivors of an initial strike

If a person survives an attack but is wounded, incapacitated, shipwrecked, surrendering, or otherwise no longer participating in hostilities, deliberately killing that person can raise an entirely different category of international-law concerns.

It is one thing to argue that an individual was a lawful military target when an attack began. It is another to kill someone after he has ceased to be a threat.

WOLA reports two cases in which U.S. authorities killed survivors in follow-up strikes. Those incidents deserve investigation down to the operational level:

If the facts establish that people who were hors de combat were deliberately killed, the legal implications could be extremely serious.

Transforming drug trafficking into an armed conflict by presidential declaration

The administration has effectively treated cartel activity as warfare.

But governments cannot necessarily create an international armed conflict simply by labeling criminals “enemy combatants.” This is important because the legal rules governing war are dramatically different from those governing ordinary law enforcement.

The administration therefore needs to answer a basic question:

What legal facts transformed the fight against narcotics trafficking into an armed conflict in which lethal military force was authorized?

Congress should examine the administration’s legal memoranda, intelligence assessments, rules of engagement, and communications among the White House, the Pentagon, and the Justice Department.

The answer cannot simply be: The president said these people were enemies. In a democracy, the law has to supply the authority.

Using military force against Venezuela without a recognized basis for self-defense

This takes the issue beyond the individuals aboard the boats.

International law generally prohibits states from using force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence. The UN Charter’s Article 2(4) establishes that basic rule, while Article 51 recognizes self-defense in the event of an armed attack.

The United States therefore needs a legal theory explaining why its military operations against Venezuelan-linked targets are lawful.

These are not semantic distinctions or questions. They determine whether the use of force is lawful under the international system the United States helped create.

Iran

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched major attacks against Iran. The UN Secretary-General immediately condemned the military action and emphasized that states must comply with the UN Charter and international humanitarian law.

The United States subsequently notified the UN that it was acting under Article 51 and claimed an inherent right of self-defense. That assertion deserves scrutiny rather than automatic acceptance.

Initiating a major war without congressional authorization

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The constitutional history also makes clear that the precise boundary between congressional and presidential war powers remains contested. The president does possess authority to respond to sudden attacks, but the executive branch’s claim to broader unilateral authority has long been disputed.

The problem is scale. There is a profound constitutional difference between ordering a limited military strike to repel an imminent attack and initiating a sustained war against another nation.

Congress had not declared war on Iran, and legislation introduced in Congress explicitly noted that neither the 2001 nor 2002 authorizations for military force provided specific authorization for war against Iran.

The constitutional question is therefore straightforward:

Did the president initiate a war that only Congress had constitutional authority to authorize?

Continuing the Iran war after Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution

In June, both chambers moved to invoke war powers authority regarding Iran. The House passed its resolution 215–208, and the Senate later passed its own measure 50–48.

That creates a remarkable constitutional confrontation:

What happens when Congress says the president does not have authority to continue hostilities and the president continues them anyway?

That question is bigger than Donald Trump. It concerns whether Congress still possesses meaningful constitutional control over the decision to wage war.

Claiming that a ceasefire ended the war-powers clock while military operations continued

Trump has argued that the hostilities were terminated by a ceasefire, thereby affecting the War Powers Resolution’s operation.

But Reuters reported that military activity and the naval blockade continued even after the administration characterized the hostilities as terminated, while legal experts questioned that interpretation.

This raises a potentially important statutory question:

Can a president terminate the legal consequences of a war simply by declaring the hostilities over while continuing military operations related to that conflict?

If so, the 60-day limitation would become meaningless.

A president could theoretically fight beyond the statutory limit, announce that the war has ended, continue military operations under another description, and restart the clock.

That is precisely the kind of question Congress should settle.

Attacking civilian targets or infrastructure without demonstrating military necessity

The UN secretary-general reported that the initial Iranian attacks included strikes affecting approximately 20 cities and cited reports of a girls’ school in Minab being hit, with at least 85 people reportedly killed.

Iran subsequently submitted extensive allegations to the Security Council concerning attacks on civilian infrastructure, including sports complexes and other facilities. Those allegations themselves are not proof of a war crime, but they establish a clear evidentiary trail for investigation.

Congress should therefore ask about the targeting process:

What was the military objective? What intelligence supported the target? What civilian casualties were anticipated? What alternatives were considered?

International humanitarian law does not prohibit attacks merely because civilians are harmed. It does, however, impose requirements of distinction, proportionality, and precaution.

Those requirements need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Attacking targets outside the immediate theater of hostilities

One particularly important question concerns attacks against Iranian military assets outside Iran or far from the immediate battlefield. The farther an operation extends geographically, the more important the legal justification becomes.

Congress should investigate whether particular targets were:

• lawful military objectives;

• directly participating in hostilities;

• necessary to the military campaign;

• located within a recognized theater of war;

• or attacked primarily as a form of coercion or punishment.

Here is why this is important: not everything associated with an enemy government automatically becomes a lawful military target.

A government does not acquire unlimited authority to attack anything belonging to an enemy simply because a war exists.

Expanding presidential war-making into a general doctrine of national-security authority

Look at the pattern in Trump’s actions:

In Venezuela, the administration argues that criminal organizations can be treated as military enemies.

In Iran, it argues that the president can initiate major military operations without a congressional declaration of war.

When Congress objects, the administration disputes the practical consequences of Congress’s war-powers authority.

And when international law is raised, the administration invokes national security and self-defense.

Taken individually, each claim can be debated. Taken together, however, they suggest something much larger:

A theory of presidential power in which the president can identify a national-security threat, define the threat as an armed enemy, authorize military force, and determine the legal framework under which that force operates.

That would represent a profound shift in the constitutional balance.

The Biggest Question

The question confronting the country now may be larger than Donald Trump.

It is whether the United States is still operating under a constitutional system in which Congress has meaningful authority over war or where the rule of law means anything.

If Democrats regain control of the House, I don’t think their first responsibility should be to announce that Trump committed ten war crimes. Their responsibility should be to find out what happened.

It means determining precisely what legal authority the administration believed permitted the war in Iran to begin and continue.

But there are enough serious questions here that simply moving on would be an abdication of Congress’s constitutional responsibility.

The ultimate issue is not whether Donald Trump’s foreign policy was aggressive. It is whether the president of the United States can make war without Congress, kill people without trial by labeling them enemies, and redefine the limits of international law through executive declaration.

If the answer becomes yes, then the implications are astounding.

It means:

the rule of law in the US is gone

the United States is being governed by a war criminal

the Constitutional system has been compromised

The final legacy of the Trump administration might not be just another impeachment or even a potential removal from office. Imagine an International Court of Justice putting a former President on trial for war crimes.

That could be Trump’s final legacy.

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

We have had corrupt Presidents in our history, but none will match the breadth and depth of corruption that the Trump administration has reached in the first 18 months of his second term.

Day by day, our democracy grows weaker under the weight of unaccountable corruption.

Here is a recent example: what if you had information about Trump administration actions and policies BEFORE they are announced? And you were a Wall Street investor and could profit from that information?

Cha’Ching!

Recently, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) launched the "Truth API," a subscription service charging up to $100,000 a month to give Wall Street trading firms split-second early access to official and market-moving posts by President Donald Trump.

Because Trump routinely uses Truth Social to announce critical government policies, tariffs, and geopolitical actions, selling faster access creates an unfair advantage for elite Wall Street firms over everyday investors.

Guess who pockets the $100k?

The sheer number of such schemes is overwhelming. What makes these corrupt actions innocuous is their sheer brazenness. Trump’s methodology is to do these things publicly and often, blunting their impact on the general public.

Corruption becomes visible and normal.

In other words, he conducts the corruption, hiding it in plain sight. There is little or no accountability, certainly not from kowtowing Republicans in Congress.

Subscribe now

Get 25% off for 1 year

Rather than just banter about the word corruption and watch the news cycle that highlights the latest scandal, I have decided to create a Checklist of Trump’s Corruption.

I asked, “Just how many instances of corruption are there?”

The project became bigger than I ever realized. I came up with 90 potential abuses. Looking at 90 instances of scandal and corruption, categories emerged easily. The result is a top-ten list of corruption across nine categories.

All these actions have taken place in Trump’s second term. Nothing from his first term appears here.

1. Presidential Self-Enrichment

The first and most obvious category is the use of the presidency alongside an expanding private business empire.

Trump entered his second term still holding substantial ownership interests in businesses rather than placing his assets in a traditional blind trust. His family’s business operations have continued while he exercises presidential power.

The cryptocurrency sector illustrates the scale of the problem. Trump’s 2026 financial disclosure reported roughly $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency-related income for 2025, according to reporting based on the disclosure.

The ethical problem isn’t simply that a president is wealthy. It is that the president is making policy in industries from which he and his family are simultaneously making enormous amounts of money.

That creates a conflict that would be considered unacceptable for most public officials.

Here is a list of scandals in this category:

2. Family Enrichment

The Trump family has interests connected to World Liberty Financial and other cryptocurrency ventures, while Trump has actively promoted a more crypto-friendly regulatory environment.

That creates a self-reinforcing cycle:

Presidential policy → favorable environment for crypto → increased value of Trump-linked assets → personal and family enrichment.

That sequence does not, by itself, prove a quid pro quo.

But the conflict is difficult to dismiss. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 63% of Americans, including half of Republicans surveyed, believed Trump had allowed private business interests to influence presidential decisions.

The important question is therefore not simply, “Did Trump break a law?”

It is: Should the president be personally positioned to profit from an industry over which his administration is making consequential policy decisions?

Here are some specific examples of corruption that directly benefits the Trump family business operations:

3. Financial Markets - Selling Access To Presidential Decisions

This may ultimately become one of the most important controversies of the second term.

Trump Media & Technology Group has introduced the Truth API, a commercial service that offers rapid access to Truth Social posts from high-profile accounts, including Trump’s. Reuters reported that the service was being marketed to institutional investors for as much as $100,000 a month.

The distinction is important because Trump doesn’t merely use Truth Social for political commentary. He uses it to announce policy decisions, tariffs, foreign-policy positions, and other matters that can affect financial markets.

TMTG’s own SEC filing describes Truth API as a licensed real-time data service and identifies recurring revenue as part of the business model. So we have something remarkably unusual:

A company in which the president has a financial interest is selling rapid access to information published by the president.

That does not automatically establish insider trading or another crime. Those are legal questions requiring much more evidence.

But ethically, the question is staggering:

Should presidential communications become a commercial product from which the president can personally benefit?

Here are the specific examples of potential corruption in the financial markets:

4. Pardon Power as Political Currency

Trump’s sweeping January 6 pardons are the most dramatic example. The Justice Department’s official clemency database documents the January 20, 2025 action covering offenses connected to January 6.

Trump has also pardoned people convicted of serious financial and other crimes. The DOJ database provides the underlying dates, recipients, and offenses, which gives us a factual foundation for examining individual cases.

The issue isn’t whether presidents possess pardon power. They do.

The question is whether that power is increasingly being used as a political currency, rewarding loyalty, allies, influential individuals, or people with connections to the president.

What happens when extraordinary presidential pardons appear increasingly connected to political relationships and financial influence?

Here are some examples under this category:

5. Foreign Influence or “Pay to Play” Schemes

Trump’s private businesses can potentially receive economic benefits from foreign individuals, companies, and governments while Trump simultaneously negotiates with those same countries as president.

It is an obvious conflict of interest and violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

The foreign money doesn’t have to arrive as an envelope of cash. It can take the form of hotel stays, property transactions, investments, licensing arrangements, or other commercial relationships.

That creates an obvious constitutional and ethical question:

Can a foreign government or foreign-connected business provide economic benefits to a president’s private interests while that president is conducting American foreign policy?

Here is the list of specifics:

6. Politicizing the Department of Justice

The erosion of the traditional boundary between the White House and federal law enforcement is astounding in this administration. This is particularly significant now that Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, has become attorney general.

More strikingly, Blanche recently declined to pledge that the Justice Department would operate independently of the White House and said Trump should have a voice in individual prosecutions.

That is an important development because prosecutorial independence is one of the institutional safeguards against political persecution.

The danger isn’t simply that Trump has appointed people he trusts. The danger is the possibility that loyalty to the president becomes a prerequisite for administering federal justice.

The specific list of Department of Justice infractions includes:

7. Abuse of Executive Power - Weakening the Watchdogs

Democracy depends upon people whose job is to tell powerful officials, “You can’t do that.”

Inspectors general, civil servants, internal watchdogs, congressional oversight bodies and independent agencies all serve that function. During his second term, Trump has repeatedly weakened those institutional checks.

The Justice Department provides a particularly disturbing example. Reuters reported this month that the department’s internal watchdog functions have been significantly reduced even as complaints of misconduct have risen. The Office of Professional Responsibility lost nearly half its staff, while the Inspector General’s office also experienced substantial departures.

Corruption becomes easier when the people responsible for detecting corruption are weakened.

Specific examples include:

8. Immigration & Human Rights Violations

Immigration policy is clearly within the executive branch’s identified powers. However, Congress has passed laws to govern how the executive branch implements those policies.

Additionally, the Constitution provides protections and rights to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. This includes immigrants, whether they are documented or not.

The Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement provides many examples of the violation of human rights. Legal experts, advocacy organizations, and federal courts have identified several potential and adjudicated violations of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes related to the Trump administration's immigration policies.

The question is not whether a President has legal authority to remove immigrants for breaking the law or being undocumented. They do.

The real question is: How far can a President go in violating Constitutional protections in the process of enforcing immigration law?

Specific examples of executive overreach or violation of law:

9. Attacking Democratic Institutions

The use of governmental authority against perceived political enemies is an egregious violation of executive power. This includes investigations, personnel decisions, regulatory actions, litigation, and other exercises of state power.

A prosecution of a political opponent isn’t automatically political persecution. Sometimes political figures really do commit crimes.

The relevant question is whether government authority is being exercised because someone violated a neutral rule of law or because that person is the president’s political enemy.

This difference is fundamental to democracy.

And the concern is no longer entirely theoretical. Reuters reported that the Justice Department is seeking to interview FBI officials involved in the 2022 Mar-a-Lago search as part of a new investigation into past investigations of Trump.

Whether those investigations are legitimate or retaliatory is a question that requires evidence. But the broader transformation of federal law enforcement into an instrument for settling political grievances deserves serious scrutiny and Congressional oversight.

The specifics in this category include:

The deepest concern about Trump’s second term isn’t simply whether Donald Trump has committed 90 separate acts of corruption. That alone is mind-boggling.

It is whether America’s institutional system has become increasingly incapable of preventing a president from turning public power into private, political and familial advantage.

That is a much bigger question than any individual scandal. And it may ultimately be the most consequential scandal of all.

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

When Donald Trump stood on the Capitol steps in January 2017 and declared,

“From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First,” he revived a slogan that had largely disappeared from presidential politics for many years.

To supporters, the phrase meant putting American workers, American borders, and American interests ahead of those of other nations. To critics, it carried echoes of an earlier movement associated with isolationism, xenophobia, and even antisemitism.

Both reactions contain enough credibility to approach the truth, however, as usual, the truth is complicated.

The History of America First

The history of “America First” is not linear. It is better understood as a recurring political idea that resurfaces whenever Americans experience periods of rapid social, economic, or geopolitical change.

Each generation has given the phrase new meaning while preserving a recognizable core: the belief that America has drifted from its proper identity and that restoring the nation requires distinguishing between those who truly belong and those who do not.

Understanding that history helps explain why the slogan continues to resonate—and why it remains so deeply divisive.

Early 20th Century Origins

Although the phrase and idea had 19th-century manifestations, it re-emerged in the 20th century in national politics during Woodrow Wilson’s 1916 reelection campaign. Facing growing pressure to enter the First World War, Wilson’s supporters appealed to voters with the message that he had “kept us out of war.” “America First” largely meant avoiding European conflicts and focusing on domestic concerns. At that point, the slogan carried little of the ideological baggage it would later acquire.

The end of World War I, however, transformed both the country and the phrase.

The years immediately following the war were marked by labor unrest, the First Red Scare, bombings by anarchists, economic uncertainty, and unprecedented levels of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Millions of Americans feared that the nation was changing too quickly. Anxiety over Bolshevism blended with long-standing prejudices against Catholics, Jews, and recent immigrants.

It was in this environment that “America First” evolved from a foreign policy slogan into a broader cultural and political identity. An identity that equated being an American with being a white-skinned American.

Perhaps most influential was the revived Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s. Unlike the Reconstruction-era Klan, the second Klan expanded its targets beyond African Americans to include Catholics, Jews, immigrants, and anyone perceived as threatening Protestant cultural dominance.

The Klan rarely branded itself as “America First,” but it relentlessly promoted “100 Percent Americanism,” a phrase nearly interchangeable with the slogan during the decade. By the mid-1920s, the organization claimed between three and five million members, making it one of the largest mass movements in American history.

Its vision of America rested on an explicit racial and religious hierarchy. Native-born white Protestants occupied the center of national identity, while immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and African Americans were portrayed as threats to the nation’s character.

America First And Immigration Restrictions

The Immigration Restriction League also reached the height of its influence during this period. Its leaders argued that immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were culturally and biologically less suited (inferior) to American democracy than immigrants from Northern Europe.

Today these claims sound overtly racist, but at the time they were often presented as objective science.

That scientific veneer came from organizations such as the American Eugenics Society and the Eugenics Record Office. Their researchers claimed that intelligence, morality, and civic virtue were inherited traits tied to race and ethnicity.

Harry Laughlin, one of the movement’s leading figures, testified before Congress in support of immigration quotas that favored Northern Europeans while severely limiting immigration from Italy, Poland, Greece, Russia, and elsewhere.

These arguments helped shape the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act, which fundamentally reshaped American immigration policy for decades.

Not every organization associated with “Americanism” embraced the Klan’s extremism. Groups such as the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution promoted patriotism, civic education, and loyalty to the Constitution. Many members sincerely believed they were strengthening national unity rather than excluding minorities.

Yet even these mainstream organizations often supported immigration restriction, aggressive assimilation programs, English-only instruction, and campaigns against radical political movements.

This complexity is important to understand.

It would be historically inaccurate to suggest that every person who embraced “America First” or “100 Percent Americanism” was motivated by racial prejudice or religious intolerance. Many Americans simply feared another devastating European war.

Others worried about revolutionary violence after witnessing the Russian Revolution and domestic bombings. Still others believed immigration should proceed more slowly to encourage assimilation.

Reducing the entire movement to white supremacy oversimplifies history. Yet, at the same time, it is equally inaccurate to ignore how frequently the slogan became intertwined with exclusionary definitions of who counted as a “real American.”

Throughout the 1920s, “America First” was repeatedly adopted, or closely associated with movements that sought to preserve an America defined primarily by native-born, white, Protestant cultural norms.

America First And World War II

Those associations became even more visible on the eve of World War II.

In 1940, the America First Committee emerged as the nation’s leading anti-intervention organization. At its peak, it attracted roughly 800,000 members, including conservatives, liberals, Midwestern farmers, business leaders, and students. Most simply hoped to avoid another catastrophic European war.

The committee was not a fascist organization, nor were most of its members antisemitic. Nevertheless, it became increasingly associated with some of the darker currents already embedded within the broader “America First” tradition.

No figure better illustrates that tension than Charles Lindbergh. A celebrated aviator and one of the committee’s most prominent spokesmen, Lindbergh argued that Britain, President Franklin Roosevelt, and “the Jewish groups” were pushing America toward war.

His notorious speech in Des Moines in September 1941 permanently damaged the movement’s reputation by giving public voice to ideas many Americans recognized as antisemitic.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the America First Committee dissolved almost immediately. National unity replaced isolationism, and the slogan largely disappeared from mainstream politics for generations.

During the Cold War, presidents of both parties embraced international leadership. The Marshall Plan, NATO, and a network of global alliances reflected a bipartisan consensus that American security depended upon engagement rather than withdrawal.

Even Ronald Reagan, remembered for his robust patriotism, envisioned America as what he famously called a “shining city upon a hill.” His nationalism was outward-looking rather than isolationist. Reagan celebrated legal immigration, championed free trade, and framed American leadership as beneficial to the wider world.

Pat Buchanan Keeps the Flame Alive

Following World War II, “America First” largely disappeared from presidential politics. Republicans from Dwight Eisenhower through Ronald Reagan generally embraced free trade, robust international alliances, and an American-led international order.

The slogan, however, never entirely vanished.

In 1992, conservative commentator and former Nixon and Reagan adviser Pat Buchanan challenged incumbent President George H. W. Bush for the Republican nomination. Although Buchanan did not build his campaign exclusively around the phrase “America First,” he repeatedly invoked its underlying themes.

He criticized free trade agreements, opposed mass immigration, warned that globalization was hollowing out American manufacturing, questioned interventionist foreign policy, and argued that America’s political and cultural elites had become detached from ordinary citizens.

Perhaps most memorably, Buchanan declared at the 1992 Republican National Convention: “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America.”

His speech framed politics not merely as a contest over policy but as a struggle over national identity, a theme that would become increasingly prominent over the next two decades.

At the time, Buchanan was viewed as representing the insurgent wing of the Republican Party. His calls for tariffs, immigration restriction, economic nationalism, and skepticism toward global institutions placed him outside the party’s dominant Reagan-era consensus.

Looking back, however, Buchanan appears less as a political dead end than as a transitional figure. Buchanan provided an on-ramp for more extremist positions to infiltrate and overwhelm the Republican Party.

Many of the issues he championed in the early 1990s such as trade protection, border security, criticism of global elites, and appeals to cultural nationalism, would later become defining features of Donald Trump’s “America First” or MAGA agenda.

Donald Trump intentionally resurrected “America First” as the organizing principle of his campaign and presidency in 2015.

His version differed in important respects from earlier movements. It focused less on avoiding foreign wars than on economic nationalism, immigration enforcement, border security, skepticism toward international institutions, and criticism of globalization.

“America First” Myth-Making

Yet the MAGA slogan also echoed older themes.

Like previous “America First” movements, it emerged during a period of rapid demographic change, economic anxiety, and declining trust in institutions. It appealed to voters who believed political elites had neglected ordinary Americans while prioritizing international commitments, multinational corporations, and immigration.

The most revealing continuity, however, lies not in specific policies but in political storytelling. Whether in the 1920s, the 1940s, or the twenty-first century, “America First” has consistently told a similar story:

America was once stronger. Something valuable has been lost. Powerful outsiders or disloyal insiders are responsible. National renewal requires recovering an earlier vision of the “greatness” country.

The villains change. In the 1920s they were radicals, immigrants, and internationalists. During World War II they included interventionists and, for some extremists, Jewish influence. In the modern era they may be globalists, undocumented immigrants, multinational corporations, or the so-called “deep state.”

But the underlying narrative remains remarkably stable.

This does not mean today’s MAGA movement is simply a continuation of the America First Committee, nor does it mean everyone who embraces “America First” shares the prejudices of earlier generations.

History is more complicated than that.

Political slogans evolve because each generation projects its own hopes and fears onto familiar language. “America First” has meant isolationism, economic protectionism, immigration restriction, patriotic renewal, and national sovereignty at different moments in history.

Yet history also reminds us that slogans accumulate layered meaning. They carry memories of earlier movements, even when later users emphasize different priorities.

An American Rorschach Test

That is why “America First” remains such a powerful political Rorschach test. Supporters hear patriotism, national self-interest, and accountability to American citizens. Critics hear echoes of exclusion, nativism, and a narrower definition of who belongs.

Both interpretations are rooted in history.

Perhaps that is the enduring lesson of the phrase. For more than a century, “America First” has been less about specific policies than about competing visions of American identity. Every generation that revives it answers the same question in its own way:

Who is America for? Who is a real American?

The answer to that question has never been settled. And as long as Americans continue debating the nation’s identity, “America First” will almost certainly return—adapted to new challenges, attached to new movements, but carrying with it the weight of its complicated past.

Note: My new book was published today. This is a complimentary chapter from Reflections of a Recovered Evangelical: Love Plus Nothing Else. If you are a paid subscriber, you qualify for a 25% discount. Just message me, and I’ll sign a copy and get it out to you. If you want to buy it online, here is the link, or click on the book image below.

Rev. Robin Meyers is the retired Teaching Pastor of First Congregational Church in Norman, Oklahoma. The above quote is from his book, Saving God from Religion: A Minister’s Search for Faith in a Skeptical Age. Meyers represents a segment of the Christian faith known as the progressive Christian movement. He is also a Distinguished Professor of Social Justice in the Philosophy Department at Oklahoma City University, where he has been teaching since 1991.

Get 25% off for 1 year

What is it about this quote that resonates with people when they read it? I suspect it is the same impulse or reason why I liked it and shared it in the first place. Christianity, as a religion, has a bad case of beliefism.

Over the centuries, starting approximately 300 years after the time of Jesus, church leaders reduced the faith to a set of beliefs, as reflected in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed. If you grew up in many churches today, you would know one or both creeds by heart. You can say them in your sleep.

If you didn’t attend a church that recited a creed, you probably went to a church that had a denominational statement of faith. You know, the ones by which they judge who can be part of their church and force conformity to their dogmatic preferences and doctrines.

Establishing a religion based on a specific set of beliefs enables that religion to assert a claim to truth and unequivocal certainty. This empowers the belief system to be enforced upon others, including through violence if needed. It grants leaders the power to demand “correct belief” instead of prioritizing humanity in carrying out religious responsibilities.

But Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount? Most Christians have only a cursory or vague understanding of what it is and what it requires. As Meyers points out, the entirety of the Sermon on the Mount is about how to live, what kind of humans we should be, and how to practice mercy and love. There is nothing within those words of Jesus about the sweet by-and-by and what we are supposed to believe. It is all about how we are supposed to be.

It is no wonder that most Christians, and especially the MAGA-Christians, don’t like to spend too much time reflecting on this sermon of Jesus. After all, look at the contrast between what Jesus is calling followers to do and become from Matthew 5:1-9 (ASV) and how MAGA-Christians behave.

Poor in spirit? Mourn? Meek? Hunger for righteousness? Merciful? Peacemakers? Today, Jesus would not be welcomed in many patriotic, white Christian nationalist churches where the emphasis is more on denigrating and owning the libs and seeking political power to declare their religion as the official American one. Besides, Jesus never recited the Apostle’s Creed; how good a Christian can he be?

If they do not want to promote one of their creeds, then many white nationalist Christians still like to quote and display the Ten Commandments publicly. That’s something they can get behind and support—a list of ten laws, not attitudes, that make their religion exclusive and emphasize a jealous and vengeful God to be shoved down everyone’s throat. Never mind following those commandments; use them to promote the superiority of their religion.

I’ve never heard one of these white Christian nationalists ever push to have the Beatitudes posted in a public spot. Their actions seem to shout,

“Sorry, Jesus, your teachings don’t help us own the libs and take power. Talk about the Sermon on the Mount? Naw, we’ll take a pass on that one. Way too progressive, and frankly, it is too much work. To follow the Sermon on the Mount means I must change myself, work toward becoming more human and more humane, and extend love and mercy to others. Not a chance…I’d rather recite the creeds, post the Ten Commandments, not worry about my behavior, and attack the Capitol to try and keep Donald Trump in office. That is a Christianity I can get behind.”

The overall spirit and tenor of the sermon is about being human and how we treat each other. Here is another example: Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; (verses 43-44, ASV).

Again, I hear the echo of a million MAGA voices.

“Love my enemies? I’m sorry, Jesus, we don’t do that sort of thing in this church…but we do recite the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles’ Creed. We carry guns and go to school board meetings and harass board members and teachers because they’re teaching our children seditious lies, such as critical race theory, whatever that is.”

There are several reasons why MAGA Christians aren’t into the Sermon on the Mount. Here are three of those reasons:

Emphasis on the marginalized: Jesus’s Beatitudes bless those who are poor in spirit, meek, mournful, and persecuted. These passages highlight the value of marginalized people, a theme also central to modern social justice movements.

Pacifism and non-retaliation: Jesus’s teachings to “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” advocate for non-violence and forgiveness, even in the face of harm. Some critics argue these principles are naive, immoral, or politically irresponsible in a world with real threats. It doesn’t fit with the hyper-masculinity preached by many evangelical ministers.

Confronting hypocrisy: The sermon critiques those who perform acts of piety for public praise rather than from a genuine heart. Some believe these challenges established religious and social norms and may feel secular progressive movements have co-opted them.

Many Biblical scholars explain that these teachings are not intended as a political manifesto for any era but rather as a challenge to the deeply ingrained values of the world, which are based on power, competition, and status. The values of the Kingdom of God, which are inside every person, are often upside-down when compared to societal norms. The Beatitudes flip the world’s power dynamics on its head. Instead of valuing the powerful, wealthy, and strong, Jesus proclaims that the poor in spirit, meek, and persecuted are truly blessed and will inherit the kingdom.

Framing the Sermon on the Mount as “woke” is a recent and politicized interpretation that misunderstands the timeless, countercultural, and radical nature of Jesus’s teachings.

“The Sermon on the Mount?” they say with a sneer. “We don’t do that sort of thing here, Jesus…sorry, you’ll have to go somewhere else.”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

First, let me thank you personally for being a paid subscriber. This is my fifth year of writing and providing content that hopefully informs, encourages, and gives you stimulating conversation. Your support makes this newsletter possible.

With that, I want to give you an exclusive offer, just for paid subscribers. My new book will go on sale tomorrow (T…

Read more

Note: August is the anniversary of this newsletter. It has been five years now that I’ve been sharing my posts. To celebrate I’m offering a 25% discount on an annual paid subscription. See below for the details.

PLUS

My new book will be published on August 18. Please check it out and purchase a copy. If you would like a signed copy, message me. Here is the link to the book, Reflections of a Recovered Evangelical: Love Plus Nothing Else. Paid subscribers will receive a 25% discount on any of my books. Comment or message me for details on the discount.

When the Democrats Get Religion

In 1980, when I was a young evangelical Christian school teacher, it became incumbent on me to vote Republican to show my Christian credentials. That peer pressure was strong and only grew stronger over the decades.

For much of the past forty years, one assumption has shaped American politics: if a politician spoke openly and often about Christian faith, chances were they were a Republican. Ignore Jimmy Carter.

That assumption is beginning to crack.

Get 25% off for 1 year

It isn’t because America has become more religious. It hasn’t. Surveys consistently show that religious affiliation has declined over the past two decades. In 1980, approximately 90% of American adults identified as Christian, compared to about 62% today according to the Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Study.

Rather, a growing number of Democratic candidates are becoming more comfortable speaking publicly about their Christian faith, not as a personal footnote, but as a source of their moral and political convictions.

That shift raises an intriguing question. It isn’t whether Christianity is “on the ballot” this fall. Christianity never appears on a ballot. The real question is whether competing interpretations of Christianity are becoming part of our political conversation.

If so, white Christian nationalism may be confronting a challenge it has not faced in a generation. Justin Douglas, a minister running for a House seat as a Democrat in southern Pennsylvania, commented:

We’re seeing the ways Christian nationalism is corrupting the church and public life, and the way our faith is being misused in legislation. That’s something we feel an obligation to push back against — to not legislate our faith, and show a faith guided by love and justice.

For decades, many Americans came to associate public Christianity with a fairly predictable set of political positions: opposition to abortion, resistance to expanding LGBTQ rights, support for school prayer, and a belief that America possesses a distinctly Christian identity.

Whether those positions accurately reflected Christianity as a whole is another question. But politically, the association became deeply ingrained.

Beginning with the Moral Majority in the late 1970s and continuing through the Christian Coalition, the Tea Party, and today’s MAGA Christian nationalist movement, conservative Christianity has developed an influential political infrastructure. Churches became political organizing hubs. Christian media expanded. Candidates learned to speak the language of evangelical faith.

Meanwhile, many Democrats largely ceded that terrain. They often spoke about values, justice, and equality, but many avoided explicitly theological language, fearing it would be dismissed as inauthentic or alienate secular supporters.

Democrats Are Speaking About Their Christian Faith

There were exceptions to this rule, usually Black candidates such as Jesse Jackson and, more recently, Raphael Warnock and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. They were and are able to speak clearly and genuinely from a historical Biblical social justice tradition of the Civil Rights movement. Yet, most white Democrats have been silent.

That dynamic appears to be changing.

At least 12 pastors, seminarians, and former clergy have run for federal office as Democrats this year, and seven have already become the Democratic nominees as of Wednesday (Aug 5).

Candidates such as James Talarico in Texas, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, Frederick Haynes in Texas, Sarah Trone Garriott in Iowa, and others are openly discussing how their Christian faith shapes their understanding of public service.

Although they differ theologically and politically, they share one notable characteristic: they are comfortable quoting Scripture while defending pluralistic democracy and the constitutional separation of church and state.

Rather than presenting faith and progressive politics as incompatible, they argue that one informs the other. Their language sounds familiar to Christians across traditions.

These are hardly new biblical themes. What is new is hearing them advanced so explicitly and articulately within Democratic campaigns.

The Dilemma for White Christian Nationalists

That creates an interesting dilemma for Christian nationalism. For example, the case of the Rev. Sarah Trone Garriott, a Lutheran pastor running as a Democrat for Congress in Iowa, is giving Republicans in the state a difficult target to attack.

The Religion News Service reported the attack in an August 4 post:

At last month’s Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines, Iowa, Joe Mitchell, a Republican running for U.S. Congress in the state’s second congressional district, jabbed at his Democratic opponent, state representative the Rev. Lindsay James, saying she “calls herself a pastor.” He then turned to the crowd of conservative evangelical pastors and coined a term he said applies to James, a Presbyterian minister, and other faith-forward Democratic candidates — namely, Lutheran minister the Rev. Sarah Trone Garriott, an Iowa state senator also running for another seat in Congress, and James Talarico, a state senator and Presbyterian seminarian running for U.S. Senate in Texas.

“I call them PINOS,” he said, explaining the term is an acronym for “Pastors in Name Only.” “Because they’re not real pastors, right? They don’t profess the true gospel of Jesus Christ,” added Mitchell, who has attended an evangelical church in the past.

Other Republican officials have referred to Garriott as the “Wicked Witch of Woke.” Republican evangelicals have never been challenged so directly on their own turf. Attacking the faith of an opponent directly does not seem to be an effective strategy.

Political movements are often strongest when they enjoy a near monopoly over a powerful symbol or identity. For years, many Americans implicitly equated “Christian voter” with “Republican voter.” That assumption simplified political identity even though millions of Christians never fit neatly into that category.

As more Democratic candidates speak openly about their faith, that equation becomes more difficult to sustain. Christian nationalists now find themselves on the defensive and try to articulate what is the “true gospel of Jesus Christ.”

This changes the debate. It is no longer simply whether Christianity belongs in politics. It becomes which understanding of Christianity is being presented. For Christian nationalists, their version was the assumption; now they must defend it.

Voters Will Have a Choice This Fall

Voters will be presented with that choice this fall, whether or not it is officially on the ballot. It is implicit now in the conversation.

Scholars generally describe Christian nationalism not simply as religious devotion but as an ideology that closely links American civic identity. Many do not even equate Christian nationalism with the religion of Christianity.

Christian nationalists often argue that the nation’s laws and institutions should explicitly reflect that identity. Researchers note that supporters vary widely, but common themes include viewing America as a fundamentally Christian nation and believing that Christianity should enjoy a privileged place in public life.

Many Christians who reject Christian nationalism do so not because they reject Christianity but because they understand the faith differently. For them, Jesus’ teachings about humility, compassion, forgiveness, and concern for marginalized people point toward a different vision of civic responsibility.

That disagreement is not only political but also theological.

One of the more interesting aspects of this emerging conversation is that criticism of Christian nationalism is increasingly coming from Christians themselves.

James Talarico, for example, has argued that Christian nationalism distorts the Christian message rather than fulfilling it. His opponent, Texas Lt. Gov. Ken Paxton, who has a long rap sheet, has said he has “never seen anyone commit so much blasphemy against the word of God and the Bible” as Talarico, and insisted he believes the seminarian may end up “going to Hell.”

That is an interesting campaign tactic.

William Barber II has long maintained that concern for the poor, voting rights, and economic justice are deeply rooted in biblical ethics. Rev. Adam Hamilton, running for governor in Kansas, has frequently emphasized that churches should resist becoming extensions of political parties while encouraging Christians to bring moral reflection into public life.

None of these leaders agrees on every policy question.

Yet together they illustrate something significant: Christian faith does not inevitably produce a single political program. And that reality presents a more complicated environment than the one that has existed for much of the past generation.

Christian nationalist leaders now encounter fellow Christians who know Scripture well, affirm historic Christian beliefs, and challenge nationalist claims using theological rather than secular arguments.

It is one thing to dismiss criticism from atheists or secular political opponents. It is another to engage Christians who quote the same Bible while reaching different conclusions. The outcome of this development remains uncertain.

It is entirely possible that voters will continue to associate public Christianity primarily with conservative politics. Political identities formed over decades do not disappear overnight.

It is equally possible that this marks the beginning of a broader realignment in which Americans become more accustomed to seeing multiple Christian voices participating in public life without assuming they all belong to the same political movement.

If that happens, the cultural significance will extend well beyond any single election. It could reshape how Americans think about the relationship between faith and democracy into the future.

The Constitution never asks citizens to leave their deepest moral convictions at the voting booth. Nor does it grant any religious tradition a privileged claim over public life. The American experiment has always depended on people of many faiths and of none, bringing their convictions into public debate while accepting that government belongs equally to everyone.

Perhaps that is the most important question raised by this election season. Not whether Christianity is returning to politics. Christianity has never really left.

The more interesting question is whether Americans are entering an era in which no political movement can plausibly claim to speak for Christianity by itself. If that is happening, then Christian nationalism’s newest challenge is not secularism.

It is competition—from fellow Christians who read the same Scriptures, worship the same Jesus, and offer the country a markedly different understanding of what faithful citizenship looks like.

That is something white Christian nationalists have never had to face before.

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

“The nation needs more babies.”

That simple sentence is one of the most influential political ideas of our time. The question is: Why does the government care how many women are having babies? Why is it any of their business?

The reality is, it is true. Our birth rates are declining, and there are dire consequences if it continues.

Across the developed world, politicians, economists, religious leaders, and even technology billionaires are sounding the same alarm. Birth rates are falling. Consider the data:

The Replacement Level for a population is 2.1 children per woman which is the average needed to keep a population stable from one generation to the next.

United States: ~1.6 children per woman.

Germany: ~1.46 children per woman.

Japan: ~1.2 to 1.4 children per woman.

Italy: ~1.2 children per woman.

South Korea: ~0.7 to 0.8 children per woman (lowest globally).

Populations are aging. Fewer workers will support more retirees. Nations fear economic stagnation and diminished geopolitical influence. So, the concerns are real. The projection is that by the end of this century, global population will actually decrease.

The question is not whether demographic decline exists. It does. The question is what governments think they should do about it. And should they do anything?

The Heritage Foundation Has An Idea

The Heritage Foundation’s 2026 report, Saving America by Saving the Family, offers one answer. It argues that America’s future depends on rebuilding the traditional family through public policy that encourages marriage, childbearing, and the “natural family” as the foundation of society.

Supporters, especially those of the evangelical persuasion, view the report as a commonsense defense of marriage and children. Critics see something far more consequential and ominous.

They see the emergence of a distinctly American form of pronatalism closely intertwined with conservative Christianity and increasingly influential within the Republican Party. I’ll return to the Heritage Foundation later.

As usual, history offers a cautionary lesson. Whenever governments decide they need more babies, women rarely remain simply citizens. They become instruments of national policy, whether they want to or not.

Pronatalism Is Older Than You Think

Pronatalism has been around a long time, and it is neither uniquely conservative nor uniquely religious. It is a political philosophy that posits that governments have a legitimate interest in encouraging higher birth rates. Sometimes this means:

• tax incentives to have more children

• subsidized childcare

• housing assistance

Under the current administration, it also means:

• medals for mothers

• Trump baby account

• restrictions on contraception and abortion

Sometimes it is all of the above.

From liberal democracies to communist states to fascist dictatorships, all have at times embraced pronatalism. What unites them is not ideology; rather, it is the belief that reproduction serves the nation. Translated, women’s reproduction and their bodies are meant to serve the state.

Here are a few more examples: France has long offered generous family allowances. Singapore provides baby bonuses and tax incentives. Scandinavian countries heavily subsidize childcare and parental leave in hopes of raising fertility.

These policies generally expand individual choices. They do not infringe on a woman’s reproductive rights.

But history also reveals a darker side.

Benito Mussolini launched the “Battle for Births” in the 1920s, rewarding large families while taxing bachelors. Motherhood became patriotic service.

Adolf Hitler combined pronatalism with racist eugenics, awarding the Mother’s Cross to women bearing multiple “Aryan” children while forcibly sterilizing and murdering those the regime deemed undesirable.

Nicolae Ceaușescu banned abortion and contraception in 1966, subjected women to mandatory pregnancy monitoring, and dramatically increased maternal mortality while filling orphanages with unwanted children.

Modern Hungary under Viktor Orbán offers generous tax exemptions and housing subsidies to encourage larger families while explicitly framing demographic renewal as an alternative to immigration.

These governments differed profoundly. Yet each eventually reached the same conclusion: The nation’s future depends upon women’s reproductive capabilities.

Heritage’s American Version

In the Heritage Foundation’s 2026 Report, it does not advocate authoritarianism directly. Something more nuanced is going on.

It doesn’t call for women to leave the workforce directly. That would be an inaccurate characterization. The report reads like a moderate set of proposals that are based on common sense.

However, Saving America by Saving the Family presents a comprehensive vision in which nearly every public policy should strengthen one preferred family model:

• lifelong heterosexual marriage

• biological parenthood

• higher fertility

• stronger parental authority

• religiously informed moral formation

The report diagnoses declining marriage, delayed childbearing, falling fertility, and weakened religious institutions as interconnected symptoms of national decline.

Its solution is equally comprehensive.

• Taxes should reward marriage.

• Public policy should encourage childbearing.

• The legal system should reinforce family stability.

• Culture should discourage women from entering the workforce

• Government should privilege institutions that strengthen the traditional family.

Viewed individually, many of these proposals are defensible. Viewed collectively, they redefine citizenship. The ideal citizen increasingly becomes the married parent raising children within one preferred family structure.

What becomes punished is singlehood, single mothers, gay marriages, and even childless heterosexual couples. These categories become second-class or worse, discriminated against.

Enter Christian Nationalism

This is where the report intersects with white Christian nationalism.

Sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry describe Christian nationalism not simply as religious belief but as an effort to fuse a particular understanding of Christianity with American identity and public policy.

Historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez has documented how modern evangelical politics frequently idealizes patriarchal family structures, masculine authority, and female submission, not necessarily through explicit legal commands, but through cultural expectations and institutional incentives.

The Heritage report never declares that women should be subordinate to men. It does something more sneaky.

It assumes that the “natural family” should become the organizing principle of public life. That assumption inevitably privileges one theological understanding of gender, marriage, sexuality, and parenthood over others.

A pluralistic democracy protects many ways of forming a family, but Christian nationalism seeks to establish one preferred model. Pronatalism becomes one of its most powerful cultural policy tools.

Women Become Baby Factories

The language changes almost imperceptibly. Instead of asking:

“What allows women to flourish?”

Government begins asking:

“How do we increase births?”

Notice what is happening. Women increasingly become discussed through demographic statistics, not human needs:

• fertility rates.

• age at first birth.

• marriage rates.

• children per household.

The state develops preferences, and those preferences become incentives. Eventually, incentives become expectations. History demonstrates that this progression rarely begins with coercion.

It begins with culture. It isn’t always necessary to control people through laws. That is the danger of the Heritage Foundation philosophy.

Silicon Valley Has Joined the Conversation

Guess what? Pronatalism is no longer confined to religious conservatives.

A growing movement among technology entrepreneurs argues that declining fertility represents civilization’s greatest long-term threat.

Among its best-known advocates are Malcolm Collins and Simone Collins, who urge educated Americans to have significantly larger families. They argue that societies with collapsing birth rates risk economic decline, cultural stagnation, and even civilizational collapse. They have stated their goal is to have seven to fourteen children and encourage others to do the same.

Others in Silicon Valley have echoed concerns about population decline, though they propose different solutions and hold diverse political views.

This emerging “tech pronatalism” differs from Heritage’s explicitly family-centered and religious framing. Yet both movements share a common premise:

America needs more babies.

Once that premise is accepted, political disagreement shifts from whether government should encourage births to how it should do so.

Apparently, encouraging immigration has never crossed their minds. There is a reason for that.

Project 2025: The Larger Policy Framework

The Heritage report does not stand alone. Many of its themes echo those found in Project 2025, the Heritage-led transition blueprint published before the 2024 election.

Across the two documents, several consistent priorities emerge:

• stronger legal protection for unborn life

• expanded support for married-parent households

• greater parental authority over education

• skepticism toward gender ideology

• renewed emphasis on religious liberty for conservative Christians

• policies designed to reinforce traditional family structures

Read together, these documents reveal more than a collection of isolated proposals. They articulate a coherent philosophy. The family becomes the primary institution through which social order is restored.

The state then aligns public policy with that preferred vision. Laws follow the culture, not the other way around.

The Missing Economic Conversation

There are many issues surrounding pronatalism that its adherents conveniently leave unexamined. Most are economic in nature. Young Americans consistently identify practical barriers to family formation: housing costs, student debt, expensive childcare, healthcare costs, stagnant wages, precarious employment.

These are not cultural complaints. They are economic realities.

Many economists argue that improving economic security would naturally increase family formation without requiring government to privilege one model of citizenship.

Heritage instead places greater emphasis on moral and cultural renewal. They reflect profoundly different understandings of why Americans are delaying marriage and having fewer children.

Supporting Families Is Not the Same as Directing Families

Common goals do exist. There is broad agreement that families deserve stronger support. Parents need affordable childcare, flexible workplaces, paid family leave, affordable housing, good schools, and reliable healthcare.

These policies expand freedom regardless of who they are. They make parenthood more attainable for people who already want children. That differs fundamentally from organizing public policy around producing more children. One enlarges opportunity. The other risks reshaping citizenship around reproduction.

The Lesson History Teaches

Every nation has a legitimate interest in its future. Every society depends upon families. This is undeniable.

But free societies should remain deeply cautious whenever governments begin defining demographic outcomes as political objectives. History repeatedly demonstrates that pronatalism changes the relationship between citizens and the state.

Women become mothers in waiting. Motherhood becomes civic service. Family choices become matters of public concern. Having a baby and a large family is a patriotic thing to do.

The Heritage Foundation undoubtedly believes its recommendations will strengthen America. Many Americans will find portions of its agenda attractive. But history invites a deeper question.

When governments decide they must increase births, who ultimately decides how women should live? That question has confronted democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, communist states, and fascist regimes alike.

The same question confronts us today. It deserves just as much attention in twenty-first-century America.

The measure of a free nation is not how many children its citizens produce. It is whether those children are welcomed into families that choose them freely, and whether every woman retains the freedom to decide whether motherhood is her calling, rather than her patriotic obligation.

Supporting Sources

• The Heritage Foundation, Saving America by Saving the Family (2026).

• The Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 (2023), particularly sections on family policy and the Department of Health and Human Services.

• Taking America Back for God by Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry.

• Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes Du Mez.

• One Nation Under God by Kevin M. Kruse.

• Scholarship on comparative pronatalism by demographers and political scientists, including work on Hungary, Romania, France, and Singapore.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Note: I am spending the summer in Spokane, WA. What a summer to be in Spokane. On Saturday, August 1, wildfires exploded on the northwest side of the city and spread rapidly into city neighborhoods. The whole city became thick with smoke, and emergency alert notices began sounding on my phone. They reminded me of the tornado alerts I would get in Iowa. Before it was over, 800 homes were burned to the ground and over 10,400 acres of land, much of it residential, was destroyed. The only good news was nobody was killed.

Why do I tell you this story? The one stellar result that I witnessed here was the community response. Local businesses donated their daily profits to fire relief efforts, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars in days. Firefighters showed up from around the country, totaling around 8,000 heroes. Tent camps arose on high school campuses and the fairgrounds to house the out-of-town volunteers. People were bringing in truckloads of donated food, water, and other goods for both the firefighters and those who are homeless. The response is inspiring (it is still ongoing).

It reminded me of the response to the Iowa tornadoes that hit Greenfield, Iowa, and other towns. It was the local response and the community coming together that made the difference. It tells us something about who we are and what we are capable of.

That is the story here: human capacity, human agency, and human compassion.

Here is what I know. Spokane will emerge better and stronger than ever before. The tragedy will provide an opening for progress. But humans have to choose progress over doom.

It is easy to be discouraged by circumstances. But it is inspiring to watch the human response to the challenges and disasters we face.

But here is the prediction: we will be facing many, many more of these disasters to come. Get ready.

This article will allow us to see future challenges through a different lens. Perhaps a hopeful lens, if we choose to do so.

Subscribe now

A Sense of Doom & Gloom

Spend a few minutes with the news, and it is easy to conclude, at least on the surface, that the world is coming apart.

Democracies appear increasingly fragile.

Political polarization has reached levels unseen in generations.

Trust in institutions continues to collapse.

Technological change is accelerating faster than many people can comprehend.

Climate change threatens established ways of life, while demographic shifts are transforming the cultural composition of nations across the developed world.

The dominant narrative of our age feels like one of crisis and collapse. And the media loves to focus on doom and gloom. The media zeroes in on division. It is easy to lose hope.

But what if we are misreading the moment? Humanity has been through this cycle many times before. Let me take you on a 30,000-foot view of the terrain to gain a historical perspective.

What if we aren’t so much in a crisis of collapse as in a predictable transition of civilization?

What if the turmoil surrounding us is not evidence of civilizational decline but of civilizational change and perhaps renewal?

I have written before about the convergence of three major transformational trends that will reshape the world we live in over the next 25 years. (See: Did You Feel The Ground Shaking? A Revolution is Coming!)

What if the political instability, cultural conflict, and institutional dysfunction we see today are not signs that society is failing, but signs that society is being transformed by forces larger than any election, political party, or individual leader?

History suggests that periods of profound change rarely feel like progress while they are occurring. They feel like disorder and chaos. They feel like a loss. They feel like a crisis. Yet, in retrospect, they often mark the birth of entirely new social and political orders.

I believe the early decades of the twenty-first century may be one of those moments.

The futurist Alvin Toffler anticipated this possibility more than fifty years ago. In Future Shock and later in The Third Wave, Toffler argued that societies experience severe psychological and political stress when technological change outpaces social adaptation.

Toffler wasn’t right about everything, but he did understand that institutions built for one era become increasingly incapable of managing the realities of another. The resulting confusion produces anxiety, polarization, and backlash.

That description sounds remarkably familiar in the age of MAGA and rapid AI implementation.

Technological Transformation

The industrial-age institutions that shaped modern society were built for a world of factories, nation-states, mass media, fossil fuels, and relatively stable demographic patterns. Yet we now live in a world defined by digital networks, artificial intelligence, global economic interdependence, unprecedented human mobility, and ecological constraints that previous generations largely ignored.

The problem is not simply that change is occurring. The problem is that multiple transformative forces are arriving simultaneously. And the changes are happening at lightning speed historically speaking.

Consider technology. Artificial intelligence, automation, biotechnology, and digital communications are reshaping every aspect of human life. Just as the Industrial Revolution transformed physical labor, today’s technological revolution is beginning to transform cognitive labor. Entire professions may be redefined. Long-standing assumptions about education, expertise, creativity, and employment are being challenged. For millions of people, the economic rules they were taught to follow no longer seem reliable.

This uncertainty is not unlike the experience of workers during the early Industrial Revolution. Traditional occupations disappeared. Communities were uprooted. New technologies generated both extraordinary wealth and profound insecurity. The migration of people seeking industrial jobs seemed overwhelming. From the perspective of those living through it, industrialization often appeared less like progress than chaos. For many, it was an existential threat.

Yet historians now recognize that period as the birth of the modern world, which has led to incredible wealth and rising standards of living.

Demographic Transitions

At the same time, demographic changes are reshaping societies throughout the developed world. Populations are aging rapidly. Birth rates are declining. Immigration and cultural diversification are altering national identities that many people assumed were permanent. These developments create opportunities, but they also generate anxiety. Individuals who grew up in one social reality often experience rapid change as a form of cultural loss.

Political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that modernization frequently intensifies identity conflicts rather than dissolving them. When familiar social structures weaken, people often cling more tightly to cultural, religious, or national identities. This helps explain the resurgence of nationalism, populism, and reactionary politics across many democracies. This is the core of the MAGA backlash.

Such movements are often interpreted as causes of instability. In reality, they may be symptoms of deeper transformations already underway. MAGA may be a passing backlash phase in a much larger social transformation.

Economic Transformation

The economic historian Karl Polanyi offered a similar insight nearly eighty years ago. In The Great Transformation, Polanyi argued that periods of rapid economic change frequently generate powerful social reactions. Communities disrupted by new economic realities seek protection from forces they perceive as threatening their security and identity. Political upheaval, in this sense, is not evidence that change has failed. It is evidence that change is occurring.

The neo-liberal economic assumptions that have driven the economy over the past 40 years are no longer viable. Economic dislocation, massive inequality, and a sense that the American dream is out of reach are common manifestations of a dying system. Yet, perhaps a new economic system is being born, one that can work for everyone.

Viewed through this lens, many contemporary political movements can be understood not simply as ideological conflicts but as reactions to structural transformations reshaping society from the ground up.

The economic challenges are real, but the transformative nature of a new economy is immensely hopeful in its reach and ability to end poverty as we know it.

Environmental Transformations

Climate change adds another layer to this transition. Being in Spokane this summer is a wake-up call.

While often discussed as an environmental issue, climate change is fundamentally a civilizational challenge. It affects agriculture, migration, infrastructure, energy systems, insurance markets, and geopolitical stability. It compels societies to reconsider assumptions about growth, consumption, and resource use that have defined the fossil-fuel era.

The energy scholar Vaclav Smil has argued that energy transitions are among the most significant forces in human history. The shift from wood to coal transformed civilization. The shift from coal to oil transformed it again. The transition toward renewable energy may prove equally consequential.

Such transformations do not occur smoothly. They generate winners and losers. They create uncertainty and resistance. Entire industries and communities become invested in preserving systems that are gradually losing viability.

Again, such conditions often produce a backlash.

The resulting political conflicts are often interpreted as evidence of decline. Yet history suggests it may simply be the friction produced when an old order confronts an emerging new one.

It is clear that the future will be a clean-energy economy and not a fossil fuel one.

The “Network Society”

Sociologist Manuel Castells has described the rise of what he calls the “network society”—a world in which information flows, digital connections, and decentralized forms of organization increasingly define economic and political power. Many of our institutions, however, remain products of the industrial age. Governments, educational systems, media organizations, and political parties were designed for a slower and more centralized world.

As a result, we find ourselves trying to govern twenty-first-century realities with twentieth-century institutions. It is not working well, and the failures suggest we need significant changes.

This institutional mismatch helps explain the decline in trust in traditional authorities. Citizens often perceive governments as ineffective, not necessarily because leaders are uniquely incompetent, although some are, but because inherited structures are struggling to adapt to radically new conditions.

The historian Peter Turchin’s research offers additional support for this perspective. Through large-scale analysis of historical societies, Turchin has identified recurring periods of instability associated with rising inequality, elite competition, and declining institutional legitimacy. Such periods often precede significant political and social restructuring.

Instability To Renewal

Importantly, instability does not automatically lead to collapse. It can also lead to renewal. This is a critical distinction.

Much contemporary punditry assumes that institutional dysfunction must inevitably culminate in national or civilizational failure. History offers a more nuanced picture. Societies frequently experience severe turbulence during periods of adaptation.

Existing structures weaken before new ones emerge. Old assumptions lose credibility before replacements are fully developed. For individuals living in the “in-between” period, it can be psychologically jarring and disorienting.

The transition from medieval Europe to the modern world provides a useful example. The period between roughly 1450 and 1650 witnessed religious wars, political upheaval, technological disruption, demographic shifts, and profound social uncertainty. To those living through it, the familiar world seemed to be disintegrating.

In many respects, it was.

Yet what emerged from that turmoil was not civilizational collapse but the foundation of the modern age: the Renaissance, scientific inquiry, constitutional government, global commerce, the Enlightenment, and new conceptions of human rights and individual liberty.

Progress Is a Choice

The lesson is not that progress is inevitable. History offers no such guarantee. Civilizational transitions can produce authoritarianism as well as democracy, fragmentation as well as renewal. The outcome depends on the choices societies make as they navigate change.

But recognizing the difference between crisis and transitional changes helps to understand the present moment.

A crisis implies breakdown without direction. A transition implies movement from one system to another. The evidence increasingly suggests that we are living through the latter.

Technology is redefining work and communication. Demographic shifts are reshaping identities and institutions. Climate pressures are forcing economic and political adaptation. The information revolution is transforming the nature of power itself. The turbulence surrounding these developments is real, but it is not necessarily proof of civilizational decline.

It may instead be the predictable consequence of civilization reorganizing itself. But reorganizing is an exercise of human agency. It doesn’t happen by itself. It will take visionaries, leaders, and those who can imagine a new structure for civilization itself to lead the way.

Future historians may ultimately view the early twenty-first century much as we view the Industrial Revolution or the Renaissance—not primarily as an age of collapse, but as an age of transformation. The political turmoil, cultural conflict, and institutional uncertainty that dominate today’s headlines may someday be understood as the visible surface of a deeper historical process.

The defining mistake of our era may be confusing transition with apocalypse.

Civilizations do not evolve quietly. They change through conflict, disruption, experimentation, and uncertainty. The world we inherited is being reshaped by forces that transcend politics and ideology. The old order is struggling to survive, while a new one is struggling to be born.

That struggle is not evidence that history is ending. It may be evidence that a new chapter is beginning, if we dare to embrace it.

Fasten your seat belts…there is turbulence ahead.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

I have a feeling this post won’t be universally popular. Those who believe in unregulated capitalism will not like my suggestion to impose enormous regulations on data centers. On the other hand, those who are opposed to data centers entirely will not like my argument that data centers should be allowed to be built because, well, they will be anyway.

Binary choices are almost always unproductive and only lead to polarization. So bear with me while I explore some nuances and options related to this hot issue.

Today’s main argument is that data centers might offer a rich opportunity for local communities to advance and prosper if it is done correctly.

The Brookings Institution recently argued that local governments should think beyond ribbon-cuttings and construction jobs. Their report, "Turning the Data Center Boom Into Long-Term Local Prosperity," asks communities to negotiate for lasting public benefits rather than accepting whatever deal is placed before them. That got me thinking about what those negotiations might actually sound like.

So let me start with a mock conversation that could take place in “Anywhere County, Iowa” should one of the big-ass AI companies come calling. The setting is a County Board of Supervisors Meeting. Imagine this conversation taking place:

Subscribe now

For decades, the citizens of oil, mineral, and gas-rich states like Alaska and North Dakota have received direct payments from oil revenues through state-operated entities like the Alaska Permanent Fund and the North Dakota Legacy Fund. More recently, New Mexico created a $7 billion fund for universal childcare, using endowment revenues from the oil and gas industry.

What if regions or states that invest heavily in data centers were able to end state income taxes, or give periodic rebates to citizens based on the profitability of AI? Or, fund universal childcare, provide tuition-free education through college, or insure every citizen with healthcare benefits.

I ask ‘Why Not?’

What Is The Essential Question To Ask About DCs?

For many Americans, the words data center evoke a familiar set of real concerns: acres of concrete, enormous warehouses, towering transmission lines, massive electricity demands, water consumption, and tax incentives for some of the world’s largest technology companies.

It is understandable and necessary that communities ask whether the costs outweigh the benefits. Those are legitimate questions.

But they are not the only questions.

As artificial intelligence rapidly transforms the economy, the debate over data centers is becoming increasingly emotional and polarized. On the political right, the temptation is to view data centers simply as economic development and to minimize concerns about water use, energy demand, or local quality of life.

On the political left, the temptation is to oppose them as another example of corporate overreach and for their environmental impact.

Both reactions are incomplete.

If artificial intelligence is becoming as essential to the twenty-first century as electricity was to the twentieth, then the challenge is not deciding whether to build digital infrastructure. It is deciding how and where to build them responsibly and in a way that benefits the local communities that host them.

I believe there is a better way beyond the binary of the right-left argument.

Increasingly, data centers are becoming the infrastructure of the AI economy. Just as railroads powered the Industrial Revolution, interstate highways fueled the automobile age, and broadband enabled the digital economy, data centers provide the computing power that will underpin artificial intelligence, scientific research, manufacturing, finance, education, health care, and national security.

Whether we welcome it or not, the AI economy is arriving. The challenge before us is not stopping technological change. It is ensuring that technological change serves the public interest.

The Brookings Institution Report

Rather than framing data centers as inherently good or bad, Brookings, which is not a conservative think tank by any means, argues that

the central question is not whether data centers are ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ but how benefits and risks get allocated and what forms of governance, local authority, and transparency can help leaders maximize local benefits while protecting community interests.

I believe that is exactly the conversation Americans should be having.

Notice what is significant about this observation. It does not come from a business lobbying organization or a technology company seeking government subsidies. It comes from one of the nation’s leading public policy institutions, one generally regarded as center-left. Even Brookings recognizes that the debate is not about whether data centers should exist. It is about how democratic communities govern them.

Brookings is offering a pragmatic solution rooted in both technological reality and local concerns that must be mitigated. It falls back on the quintessential American trait of practicality.

History offers an important lesson.

Moreover, history offers an important precedent for how a democratic society can handle such changes. Every generation has confronted new forms of technological infrastructure that reshaped the nation.

Railroads crossed farmland and transformed rural communities. Many people objected.

Electric power plants altered landscapes and polluted rivers. Citizens fought back.

Highways divided neighborhoods while connecting entire regions. Residents have sued and pushed for redress.

Cell towers appeared on hillsides. They spoil the view.

Wind farms changed rural skylines. Again, they spoil the view.

Each innovation generated fierce local opposition. Citizens worried about environmental damage, property values, corporate power, and quality of life. Many of those concerns proved justified. Others were eventually addressed through better regulation and technological improvement.

What history teaches is not that communities should passively accept every new technology. It teaches that progress requires governance.

Learn from the Progressives

The Progressive Era of the early twentieth century provides perhaps the best model.

Progressive reformers did not argue that America should reject industrialization. They understood that factories, railroads, electricity, and mass production were transforming the economy. Their objective was to ensure that these powerful forces operated within rules that protected workers, consumers, and communities.

That vision produced food safety laws, public utility commissions, workplace protections, antitrust enforcement, conservation policies, and modern systems of democratic accountability.

The lesson remains relevant today.

Artificial intelligence may become as transformative as electricity itself. If so, then the question is not whether America should build the infrastructure necessary to support AI. It is whether we establish twenty-first-century guardrails that ensure the benefits are broadly shared while the costs are responsibly managed.

This perspective also helps move us beyond simplistic arguments about economic development.

Brookings recommends a proactive local community process for negotiating eco-friendly contracts. Their report recommends:

“Regions should treat data center negotiations not as isolated real estate transactions but as ecosystem-shaping moments that trade infrastructure access for commitments to advance local innovation, talent, and industry strengths.”

That is where local governments possess far more leverage than they often realize.

In other words, local governments can govern and regulate rather than merely react.

This is precisely the point Brookings emphasizes. Communities possess opportunities not only to reduce harms but to negotiate long-term prosperity if they approach these projects strategically. It can be a win-win scenario.

There Is A National Interest

There is another reason this conversation matters.

The United States is engaged in an increasingly intense global competition to develop artificial intelligence. Computing capacity has become a strategic national asset.

Countries that build advanced AI infrastructure will likely enjoy advantages in scientific discovery, medical research, advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, defense technologies, and economic productivity. Those that fall behind may become dependent on technologies developed elsewhere.

This does not mean local communities should sacrifice their interests in the name of national competitiveness.

It does mean that refusing to build data centers altogether is unlikely to prevent their construction. They will be built somewhere else, perhaps in another state, perhaps in another country operating under weaker environmental protections and lower standards of public accountability.

The more constructive question becomes: if this infrastructure is going to exist, where should it be built, and under what rules? And, who decides?

That is a question democracy is well equipped to answer.

Reality is rarely simple.

Too often, however, our public debates encourage us to choose between ideological extremes. We are told to embrace technology uncritically or reject it reflexively. We are encouraged to see every issue as a battle between corporate interests and environmental protection, between economic growth and community well-being.

The truth is much more complicated.

The AI economy will require physical infrastructure. That is not speculation; it is already happening. It has been for nearly a decade.

The responsibility of democratic government is not to pretend otherwise. It is to establish rules that ensure innovation strengthens rather than weakens the communities in which it occurs.

That may be the most important lesson of the Progressive Era. Our predecessors did not stop industrialization. They civilized it.

Now it is our turn.

Data centers are likely to become as commonplace in the twenty-first century as electrical substations and interstate interchanges became in the twentieth. Future generations may view them as ordinary infrastructure supporting everyday life.

The question is whether we build that infrastructure with foresight or with conflict.

Communities should absolutely insist on responsible environmental standards. They should demand transparency, fair taxation, meaningful local benefits, and careful stewardship of water and energy resources.

But they should also recognize a larger reality. Artificial intelligence is not a passing trend. It is rapidly becoming foundational to modern economic life. The challenge before us is about deciding whether to participate in that future.

It is deciding whether we will shape it—or merely react to it.

Democracy has always been strongest when it resists false choices. This is one of those moments. We do not have to choose between surrendering to corporate interests and rejecting technological progress.

We can do what Americans have done at our best throughout history: embrace innovation, insist on accountability, and build institutions capable of serving both prosperity and the common good.

What I would hate to see is twenty years from now, local officials waking up and saying, “Darn, we should have built those data centers years ago. We missed a golden opportunity.”

Subscribe now

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Before I jump into the hot mess at the University of Iowa, let me tell you about some of the great reporting on this topic from the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative (IWC). A few weeks ago, Cedar Rapids Gazette reporter Vanessa Miller broke a story about inner turmoil at the University over the newly created Center for Intellectual Freedom.

Lyle Muller, a member of the IWC, provides a good background description of the problem that has arisen at the University so that I won’t need to go into those details. If you are an Iowan, you’ve probably already heard the horror stories. If you need the background, then definitely read Muller’s Substack on this topic. (Read it and subscribe anyway)

Another IWC writer, Dave Busick, has written on the mess at the University of Iowa as well. Here is the link to his Substack, Dave Busick On Media. Dave’s media experience as former news director for KCCI in Des Moines gives his insights and observations great gravitas. His is another great must-have Substack.

The Iowa Writers Collaborative is a group of some of the most talented and outstanding writers and journalists in the state, providing independent journalism and opinion.

The group, under the expert leadership of Julie Gammack, publishes a twice-weekly Collaborative Roundup (Sunday & Wednesday editions). There, in one email newsletter, you will hear from fantastic writers like Art Cullen, Laura Belin, Robert Leonard, John Busbee, Rehka Basu, Dave Price, Christie Vilsack, and dozens of other outstanding writers. I am honored and privileged to be counted among them… and humbled, I might say.

Ok, let’s talk about that hot mess at the University of Iowa!

Subscribe now

What Is Going On At The University of Iowa’s “Center for Intellectual Freedom?”

It is a hot mess! We can do so much better!

Lyle Muller, a former Gazette reporter and a member of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative, posted an interview with Vanessa Miller, who broke a story about the inner turmoil over governance and administrative confusion at the Center. You can find the interview here. I highly recommend you watch it to understand the mess fully.

My goal isn’t to revisit the confusion and chaos surrounding the Center. The University, the Board of Regents, and the Center are tripping over each other to try and figure out who is on first. It is a bureaucratic nightmare. Vanessa lays this out clearly in the podcast.

I am much more interested in the opportunity that the state legislature, the University, and the Center itself may be overlooking. This is a classic case of missing the main point.

During Lyle’s podcast interview with Vanessa Miller, she made this statement toward the end, which I think is on the mark:

“There’s one thing that just seems to kind of stick with me. It feels like everybody is coming into this from their respective sides with their own biases and their own assumptions about the other person’s biases. So, instead of people coming together, trying to sort of solve a problem to make something work and function, people are coming into it with all this baggage and sort of, like, pent-up anger.”

Because Republican lawmakers in Iowa fear that Iowa’s public universities lack “intellectual diversity,” they passed House File 437 in 2025. The concern, of course, is that universities are much too liberal and not enough of the faculty or course content contain conservative principles, viewpoints, and values.

They may have a point… B.U.T. (Behold the Underlying Truth)

In short, Republicans have charged the University with “indoctrinating” students with liberal or even Marxist ideas. So their answer to liberal indoctrination is conservative indoctrination.

Exchange one form of indoctrination for another…problem solved.

Simply adding a “Center for Intellectual Freedom” as an adjunct to the university and requiring students to take a couple of conservative-flavored courses in American history and government does not add to the intellectual rigor of a college education in any demonstrable way.

Since these courses will not come under the College of Liberal Arts, what will students do? Will they be forced to take two American history courses? One that is considered “liberal” and the other “conservative,” all in the name of equal time?

This approach fundamentally misrepresents the problem. Instead of asking “what do students need?” the legislature and conservative pundits are asking, “What do we need (or want)?”

Another way to put it is, “What gives us a hand up on the liberals?”

Asking The Right Questions

Taking a step back from the current morass of confusion and chaos at the Center for Intellectual Freedom, I suggest reframing the issue by asking a completely different set of questions.

Asking the right questions often helps clarify an issue, even if the questions are hard to answer. (Hint: they are)

Every institution carries assumptions: Universities, legislatures, churches, news organizations, and think tanks all operate from particular traditions and values. The challenge is not to pretend those assumptions or biases don't exist or wish they didn’t; it is to expose them to criticism, evidence, debate, and competing perspectives.

Intellectual freedom flourishes when no idea is immune from examination, including the institution's own.

The questions I pose below are hard to answer; much harder than simply asking, “How do we get equal time for conservative viewpoints at the University of Iowa?”

Here are some questions that I believe will redirect the whole nature of the enterprise: If we are going to have a Center for Intellectual Freedom, should we be asking questions like these:

This list of questions could go on and on, but I think it is clear that the concept of “Intellectual Freedom” is not a simple liberal vs. conservative binary. It is much more complicated.

What Should Students Learn at a Center For Intellectual Freedom?

This seems like a fundamental question. The Iowa legislature thinks that students need to learn conservative viewpoints because they’ve been getting liberal ones throughout their courses.

That is what happens when politicians try to solve complex problems.

Let’s outline a proposed curriculum for a Center for Intellectual Freedom that goes far beyond a conservative vs. liberal cage match. This Center could be a model for universities across the nation that are caught up in an ideological conflict. It shouldn’t be a tug-of-war over ideology but rather a true quest to understand ideology, indoctrination, and its influence in education.

I know it sounds audacious, but if lawmakers and the University want a program worthy of the name and respectful of students, it needs to go well beyond a couple of conservative-driven courses.

Course One - The Theory and History of Indoctrination

Students need a rigorous intellectual approach to indoctrination and intellectual freedom. The Center should help students consider and develop a theory of indoctrination that includes a historical review.

Students can investigate scientific studies on indoctrination in education and society. Philosophers have addressed this issue and should be considered. A genuine center would expose students to all of these competing theories.

Historically, indoctrination has been abundant in all ideologies. The mechanisms are remarkably similar regardless of ideology, and patterns emerge:

Indoctrination requires certain conclusions become unquestionable. Alternative viewpoints become suspect and discouraged. Loyalty becomes more important than inquiry, and identity replaces evidence.

That becomes indoctrination regardless of the ideology. Spotting this type of indoctrination in history will help equip students to identify it in their world of social media and education.

Course Two - Intellectual Freedom in the Social Media and AI Age

Today, classrooms compete with TikTok, YouTube, X, Reddit, podcasts, AI assistants, recommendation algorithms, political campaigns, influencers, churches, corporations, and foreign disinformation operations.

The central question becomes: How do you know when your opinions are truly your own? What would such a course entail?

This list is obviously not comprehensive, but it starts the conversation about whether humans even have intellectual freedom with so many competing external influences.

In many ways, this is the kind of education universities have long aspired to provide. The technologies have changed dramatically, but the underlying challenge remains the same: cultivating citizens who can think critically in a world where countless actors such as governments, media organizations, corporations, social movements, and increasingly AI systems are competing for their attention and assent.

Given today's information environment, a course like this could become one of the most relevant offerings on any university campus.

A Short Reading List for the Center for Intellectual Freedom

If the Center is to be intellectually credible, it can't simply become a repository of books that confirm one political viewpoint. Instead, it should expose students to the best thinkers who have wrestled with truth, authority, education, propaganda, freedom, and the psychology of belief. Here is a short list for starters (many more could be included):

Final Suggestions

How about a few more courses or seminars offered through the Center for Intellectual Freedom with titles like:

If the University of Iowa adopted a curriculum like this, the Center for Academic Freedom could become something much more ambitious: a national model for teaching how to think about freedom of inquiry rather than what to think about politics.

That would make it difficult for either the legislature or the university administration to claim the Center as a partisan victory, and that is precisely what would give it lasting credibility.

A successful Center for Academic Freedom ought to produce graduates who can recognize indoctrination in progressive activism, conservative activism, media, churches, corporations, political campaigns, social media, and even in themselves.

That last point is the hardest. Intellectual freedom ultimately requires intellectual humility.

Something tells me Iowa Republican lawmakers had nothing like this in mind when they passed House File 437. Sadly, they missed the main point by an Iowa country mile.

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

It is one of the most concise sentences ever written about race in America.

Simple. Memorable. Seemingly Fair.

At first glance, it seems almost unassailable. If discrimination based on race is wrong, then government should stop considering race altogether. No preferences. No special treatment. No affirmative action. No DEI. No racial classifications in hiring, admissions, or public policy.

This principle has become the philosophical foundation of the Trump administration’s approach to race and its attack on DEI programs. Its goal is what supporters describe as a “colorblind” America, one in which skin color is legally irrelevant.

The only thing that being colorblind in a racially diverse nation such as the United States accomplishes is to keep people with white skin blind to their own white supremacy.

Racial colorblindness is an appealing ideal. The problem is that it assumes we are starting from a level playing field.

We are not.

The real question is not whether people should eventually be treated without regard to race. Most Americans agree they should.

The real question is whether refusing to acknowledge race in a society still shaped by centuries of race-conscious public policy actually produces equality or merely preserves the inequalities that already exist.

That distinction is the heart of today’s debate.

Equal Rules Do Not Create Equality

Imagine two runners competing in a marathon.

One runner has been forced to carry a fifty-pound backpack for the first twenty miles. The other has been able to run unencumbered.

At mile twenty-one, the referee announces:

“From now on, everyone will be treated exactly the same.”

No one is carrying a backpack anymore. The rules are now equal. But the race is not. The burden carried during those first twenty miles still puts one runner at a disadvantage. Leveling the rules does not create equality. Equal rules do not create a meritocracy.

America’s racial history resembles that marathon more than a race beginning at a mythical equal starting line. The starting line for America’s Black people began in 1619 under enslavement. We are now over 400 years into the marathon.

Simply saying we will no longer consider race will have severe unintended consequences.

For centuries, federal, state, and local governments explicitly distributed opportunity by race. It is cynical now to suggest that by saying, “we aren’t looking at race,” it somehow means the inequities have magically disappeared.

These were not isolated acts of private prejudice. They were intentional public policies supported by local, regional, state, and even federal law.

Many of those policies have ended, but their effects did not. Colorblindness now will not magically create equal outcomes. By claiming colorblindness, white supremacy locks in its status and continues to exist, hiding in plain sight.

The Numbers Tell the Story

If America had already achieved genuine racial equality, a colorblind approach might simply preserve status quo equality.

But today’s disparities are striking. Consider:

Wealth

According to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, the median White household holds approximately $285,000 in wealth. The median Black household holds about $45,000, while the median Hispanic household holds roughly $61,000.

That means the typical White family possesses about six times the wealth of the typical Black family.

Wealth matters because it buys opportunities. Even if the rules level the field, the past inequities have still created present inequality.

It determines whether parents can help with college tuition, provide a down payment on a first home, finance a small business, weather a job loss, or leave an inheritance.

Homeownership

The principal source of middle-class wealth in America shows a similar pattern. Roughly 74 percent of White households own their homes, compared with about 45 percent of Black households and 51 percent of Hispanic households. Those differences did not emerge by accident. They reflect decades of public policies that either opened or closed the door to homeownership depending on race.

Educational opportunity

Because public schools are largely funded through local property taxes, neighborhoods shaped by decades of housing segregation continue to produce unequal educational resources and therefore unequal outcomes. Students in many predominantly minority districts are more likely to attend schools with fewer Advanced Placement courses, fewer experienced teachers, and fewer enrichment opportunities.

Black college graduates also tend to leave school with higher student debt than their White peers, affecting their ability to purchase homes, accumulate savings, or start businesses.

None of these disparities prove discrimination in every individual case. But together they demonstrate something important: Americans are not beginning the race from the same starting line.

To suggest there is an equal starting line is foolish, self-imposed ignorance.

Colorblind Policy Freezes Opportunities

Supporters of colorblind policies argue that government should simply stop considering race. That sounds neutral and oh, so noble.

But neutrality applied to unequal conditions often preserves or freezes the inequality.

Imagine two neighborhoods struck by a hurricane.

One loses eighty percent of its homes.

The other loses only five percent.

The government announces that every neighborhood will receive exactly the same recovery assistance.

The policy is equal. The outcomes are not because the conditions are not equal.

No one can seriously argue that identical treatment automatically produces equal recovery. The same principle applies to racial inequality.

Colorblind policies did not create today’s racial wealth gap. They did not create unequal homeownership. They did not create differences in inherited wealth or educational opportunity.

But they do NOT reduce them. Instead, they accept those disparities as the baseline from which competition begins. There can be no meritocracy when the starting lines are unequal.

The Status Quo Always Benefits Those Already Ahead

This lesson extends far beyond race.

Whenever society declares, “From this point forward, everyone plays by the same rules,” those who already possess wealth, education, influence, and social networks begin with enormous advantages.

Economist Glenn Loury has argued that race-neutral institutions operating within an unequal social structure often reproduce inequality because advantages are transmitted through families, neighborhoods, schools, and social networks.

Sociologists Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro similarly demonstrated that racial wealth inequality is not simply the result of individual effort but the cumulative product of generations of public policy.

Philosopher John Rawls approached the issue from a different angle. He argued that justice cannot be judged solely by whether rules are identical on paper. A just society must also ask whether its institutions produce fair opportunities for those who begin with the fewest advantages.

Their disciplines differ. Their conclusion converges: Equal rules applied to unequal circumstances reproduce unequal outcomes.

Acknowledging Race Is Not the Same as Favoring Race

One of the strongest objections to race-conscious policies is that they themselves constitute discrimination.

That concern deserves to be taken seriously. No democratic society should casually classify citizens by race. Yet there is an equally important distinction.

Recognizing the continuing effects of past racial discrimination is not the same as endorsing permanent racial preferences. It is acknowledging that history leaves institutional footprints.

As Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his dissent in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a similar argument in her dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, warning that exclusive reliance on race-neutral policies can entrench existing disparities rather than eliminate them.

Whether one ultimately agrees with those conclusions is less important than recognizing the question they pose:

Can a society honestly claim to be colorblind if the inequalities created by explicitly race-conscious policies remain largely intact?

The Difference Between Formal Equality and Real Opportunity

There is a profound difference between treating everyone the same and ensuring everyone has a genuinely comparable opportunity to succeed. Chief Justice Roberts emphasizes the first. His critics emphasize the second.

Both value equality. They simply define it differently.

One believes justice requires government to stop noticing race.

The other believes justice also requires confronting the lasting effects of centuries during which government constantly noticed race.

That is the debate America is having.

A Colorblind Future Requires More Than Colorblind Rules

Colorblindness may indeed be the right destination as Rev. King aspired to in his 1963 “I Have a Dream Speech.” It was a dream in 1963 and still is in 2026.

But it is a questionable roadmap if the road itself was built through centuries of unequal public policy.

Ignoring race does not erase the racial wealth gap. It does not erase unequal schools. It does not erase inherited advantages or inherited disadvantages.

It simply accepts them.

History has already distributed opportunity unevenly. Declaring that government will no longer see race does not redistribute that opportunity. It leaves the existing distribution largely untouched.

The irony is that a policy presented as the end of racial preference may function, in practice, as the preservation of the racial hierarchy produced by earlier preferences embedded in law and public policy.

A truly colorblind society is a worthy aspiration. But aspirations are not accomplishments.

Until Americans begin from something closer to genuine equal opportunity, refusing to see race may not end the legacy of racial inequality.

It may simply make that inequality easier to ignore.

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Give a gift subscription

Doud was a Republican strategist but left that part of his life in 2004 during George W. Bush’s presidency, around the same time I did. The white Christian nationalist takeover of the Republican Party has been an ongoing effort since the 1980s. I saw it firsthand, and it disgusted me so much that by the mid-2000s, I abandoned both Christianity and the Republican Party.

When I attended a Republican caucus in Polk County, Iowa (in Des Moines) in the 1980s, the evangelicals running the caucus—yes, evangelicals control Iowa Republican politics—only wanted one thing: power. They wanted to gain power so they could use the government’s control to promote their cultural views and values in society. It wasn’t about helping the least of these or using power to protect the vulnerable or marginalized.

Their emphasis is on the word power. White Christian nationalists are on a mission to attain power across the nation and globally. It’s not only political operatives and pundits like Matthew Dowd who are raising concerns about this anti-democratic movement that has now taken over the GOP. A number of those who still identify as evangelical Christians are worried and sounding alarm bells.

In Andrew Whitehead’s book, American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel and Threatens the Church, many Christians like Whitehead are sounding an alarm. In a remarkably nuanced analysis of the white Christian nationalism movement, Whitehead rightly points out that not all Christians are Christian nationalists. He suggests there is a range of beliefs and commitment to white Christian nationalism among evangelical Christians.

Whitehead is a professional sociologist and a committed evangelical Christian, although he is uncomfortable using that label today. His book is written from the perspective of what the valid gospel message of Jesus is, which runs counter to the idea that America is a Christian Nation.

According to Whitehead, the Kingdom of God has no boundaries and isn’t based on political or military strength. American Christians do not own the Kingdom of God. God loves all people and all nations. To claim that the United States is God’s chosen nation is nothing less than idolatry.

Whitehead emphasizes a central point in his book: the extreme idolatry that American Christians, especially white Christian nationalists, show toward crude political power. Their goal, desire, and dominant aspiration—like a golden calf using a Biblical metaphor—is to pursue power. In doing so, they have forsaken the core teachings of the Jesus narrative, from which the transformative power of love can originate.

Since the 1980s, white Christian nationalism has prioritized gaining political power over evangelization, not by applying Jesus’s teachings to serve the least of these. They pursue power because they feel their traditionally privileged status is slipping away due to demographic shifts. The number of white Christians is decreasing, and they are no longer the majority. As of 2024, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, white Christians account for about 40 percent of Americans.^[i] This percentage has been declining for decades, but white Christians mistakenly see their shrinking demographic as persecution. Embracing a multi-religious democratic culture has never been part of the white Christian America agenda.

Whitehead’s comments reminded me of a section in the New Testament where the gospel writers directly and spiritually tackle the theme of power. Matthew 4:5-9 (ASV) describes Jesus being tempted by the devil in the wilderness, symbolizing His spiritual purification. Below are the relevant verses:

Whether or not you believe this is a true story, the message is stark and clear. Imagine being offered political power and control over all the kingdoms of the earth, which would include Jesus’s own contemporary Roman Empire, Greece, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese Empires, African Empires, the Communist Empires, the British Empire, and today’s American Empire. Imagine what you could do if you controlled all the earthly kingdoms and power. It is the ultimate ring in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings story.

Why, you could force your religious beliefs on everyone and eliminate other religions that are bothersome. You could make everyone follow your cultural values and interpretations of the Bible. You could put an end to the threat of Communism. You could enforce compliance within a Christian cultural framework through political and military coercion. What an opportunity...but there is only one catch.

You must sell your soul to the devil.

Jesus rejected the offer and set the standard for all his followers to emulate, if they would. His example is wholly lost on today’s white Christian nationalists.

Just after this spiritual encounter, Jesus began his public preaching career and clearly and transparently identified his purpose, which had nothing to do with political power. It comes from the same chapter in Matthew. In a synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus is given the floor to speak and picks up a scroll that contains verses from the prophet Isaiah. He reads to them:

Jesus declared that his mission and purpose were to proclaim good news to the poor and liberty to captives, not to seek political power. He had already overcome that temptation in the wilderness and purified himself of such idolatry. Jesus would not make a very good Christian nationalist today.

He came to proclaim good news to the poor. What exactly would be good news to the poor? Having food security and a place to live.

He was bringing liberty to the captive. What would that good news look like to them? Freedom, justice, fairness, and support for those who are unfairly incarcerated or suffering under labor enslavement.

He was helping the blind to see again. What does that mean? Maybe it means that the physical needs of those who need them are met, and that medical care is accessible to everyone.

He came to set at liberty those who are oppressed… slavery was widespread then, and for the slave, this meant freedom; it meant wealthy landowners could not exploit the poor. Liberty for the marginalized. Perhaps it was about ending racism.

None of these goals that Jesus proclaims is part of what white Christian nationalists have in mind in their idolatrous pursuit of power. When was the last time you heard white Christian nationalist leaders promote food programs for the poor, help for the incarcerated, and public health care for the marginalized? Using government power to assist people, especially those in need, is not what Christian Nationalists want to do.

As Whitehead points out, “Christian nationalism is fundamentally concerned with wielding power for the benefit of one’s own group. It is focused on defending ‘our’ rights, practices, history, or privileges.” ^[ii] By extension, defending the rights and privileges of white Christians comes at the expense of other groups. They have distorted Jesus’s narrative into the first shall be first, and the last shall be last.

The threat of white Christian nationalism is far more than a danger to our democracy and government. It also threatens the story and message of Jesus, as well as the empathy and compassion Jesus showed toward the marginalized and poor. These qualities are sacrificed for power. In fact, for many in the Christian nationalist movement, empathy is considered a sin.

Joe Rigney, a pastor and author of The Sin of Empathy, warns against what he calls “untethered empathy,” which he defines as empathy not rooted in conservative biblical principles. He argues that Satan influences people by exploiting cultural pressures to feel others’ pain, particularly for marginalized groups.

American evangelical Christianity compromised itself long ago. I witnessed this shift in the 1980s when evangelicals traded the true gospel for a selfish pursuit of political power to protect and grow their influence. This has eroded any credibility evangelical Christianity once had, and by the 2020s, that credibility has evaporated entirely. Instead, it has evolved into a dangerous and violent movement.

Using religious symbols, Bible verses, and theological interpretations to justify seeking and gaining power for self-protection from enemies, whether real or perceived, is not good news. Pretending to do God’s will while pursuing your own goals is idolatrous.

White Christian nationalism is idolatry.

^[i] 2024 PRRI Census of American Religion, May 5, 2025. https://prri.org/spotlight/2024-prri-census-of-american-religion/

^[ii] Andrew Whitehead, American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel and Threatens the Church, (Brazo Press, 2023) p 41.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

One of the most common phrases in American politics today is also one of the least understood and defined.

“Biblical principles” “Christian values” “Judeo-Christian values” “Godly principles”

Have a conversation with any Christian nationalist and almost as if on cue, one of these phrases will come spewing out of their mouths as a cudgel to end the conversation. All these phrases are interchangeable.

Moreover, Christian nationalists rely on these phrases to generate authority, credibility, and historical veracity. By claiming the mantle of “Christian principles,” it is as if all conversation, reason, or critical thinking must come to an end.

Subscribe now

Christian nationalist politicians promise to “restore biblical principles.” Certain advocacy groups insist that America was founded on “Christian values.” Mom’s for Liberty-controlled school boards invoke “godly principles” when debating curriculum or banning books. Christian nationalists frequently argue that our nation’s problems stem from abandoning “Judeo-Christian principles.”

The phrase carries enormous rhetorical power. It sounds authoritative, reassuring, and familiar to millions of Americans. But there is an obvious follow-up question that is rarely asked and should be asked every time.

Which biblical principles are you talking about? Can you define what this means? What are those principles? Why do you choose those principles at the expense of others?

I encourage readers to ask these questions every time a good Christian nationalist utters this phrase. They are obliged to explain themselves and what they mean.

The question isn’t whether the Bible contains moral principles. Nearly every Christian, and even many non-Christians, believe it does. The essential question is which of those principles are being elevated into political priorities, and which are quietly scuttled, ignored, and left behind.

That question deserves an honest answer.

The Bible is not a collection of a dozen talking points. It contains hundreds of commands, teachings, stories, and moral themes. Any movement claiming to represent “biblical principles” must inevitably choose which ones receive the greatest emphasis.

One would assume that the principles Christians choose to elevate would be those most prominent in the Bible. Upon close inspection, however, that isn’t necessarily the case. Those choices reveal more about the movement than the Bible itself.

Today, Christian nationalism tends to emphasize a fairly consistent set of conservative issues under the banner of Christian principles: opposition to abortion, traditional one-man, one-woman marriage, opposition to LGBTQ rights, male leadership in the family, public displays of Christianity, religious expression in schools, strong national borders, and the belief that America has a unique covenantal relationship with God.

Whether one agrees with those positions or not, they are familiar. They dominate political speeches, campaign advertisements, church conferences, and legislative priorities associated with the movement. In fact, these so-called biblical principles are the backbone of Project 2025, written and financed by the Christian nationalist Heritage Foundation, and adopted by the Trump administration.

But what if we compare that conservative list with the subjects Jesus discussed most often? The contrast is striking. It turns out that Jesus spoke very little, or in some cases not at all, about some of those priorities.

Read through the four Gospels, and one discovers that Jesus spends remarkably little time discussing national identity or sexual ethics compared with the attention he gives to poverty, wealth, humility, forgiveness, mercy, justice, hypocrisy, and care for society’s most vulnerable people.

Consider Matthew 25, where Jesus describes the final judgment. The separating line is not whether nations displayed the Ten Commandments in public buildings or required prayer in schools. Instead, He asks whether people fed the hungry, welcomed strangers, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, and visited prisoners.

That should give every Christian nationalist pause. Yet, the typical Christian nationalist retort is that, “sure, Jesus talked about these things but within the confines of private practice and piety. He never demanded nations to provide these for people.”

Well, that just isn’t so.

The Hebrew prophets repeatedly define national righteousness in ways that sound surprisingly modern.

Isaiah urges God’s people to “seek justice,” “defend the oppressed,” and “plead the cause of the widow.”

Amos declares, “Let justice roll down like waters.”

Micah famously summarizes God’s expectations in three phrases: “Do justice. Love mercy. Walk humbly.”

Jeremiah praises national leaders who defend “the cause of the poor and needy.”

These prophets certainly addressed idolatry and personal morality. But again and again, they measured a nation’s faithfulness by how it treated vulnerable people.

The New Testament continues this emphasis.

James defines “pure religion” in remarkably practical terms: caring for orphans and widows in their distress while remaining personally faithful to God.

Notice what is missing: nothing about national greatness, nothing about political dominance, and nothing about preserving cultural power.

Instead, the focus falls squarely on compassion and justice, and national leaders are held to account for these. These are true Biblical principles.

This is where the phrase “biblical principles” deserves closer examination.

Imagine Congress announced tomorrow that because the United States is a “Christian nation,” every law would be based on the teachings Jesus emphasized most frequently in the Bible.

Whether one supports those specific policies is almost beside the point. The broader observation is that these themes recur throughout Scripture repeatedly, yet they rarely occupy the center of Christian nationalist political messaging.

This does not mean Christian nationalists reject these biblical teachings. Many devote themselves to charitable work, disaster relief, foster care, food banks, prison ministries, and overseas missions. Those efforts should be recognized and respected.

But the real question is different:

Why do some biblical principles become defining political priorities while others remain largely matters of private charity?

That distinction is vitally important. Christian nationalists should be required to provide a rationale. They must answer this question.

Then there is another issue that often goes unnoticed.

Jesus consistently warns against the pursuit of power itself. His disciples repeatedly argued over who would become greatest. Jesus’ response was always the same.

“The greatest among you must become the servant.”

The kingdoms of the world seek domination; the Kingdom of God seeks service.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus resists political power, refuses attempts to make Him king by force, rejects Satan’s offer of worldly authority, and tells Pilate that His kingdom is “not of this world.”

Those passages raise an uncomfortable question for any movement, left or right, that seeks to fuse religious identity with governmental power.

Is Christianity at its strongest when it governs? Or when it serves?

History offers a sobering lesson.

Whenever Christians have gained significant political power, the temptation has often been to confuse defending Christianity with defending the interests of those already in authority. Abuse and authoritarian governments always arise when fused with religious zeal.

That temptation is hardly unique to Christians. Every religion and every political ideology wrestles with the seduction of power.

Perhaps that is precisely why Jesus spoke so frequently about humility and the rejection of human power.

The phrase “biblical principles” should therefore invite curiosity and questioning rather than applause.

Ask which principles.

Ask why these principles rather than others.

Ask why sexual morality receives sustained political attention while economic justice receives comparatively little.

Ask why public displays of faith often generate more legislative energy than caring for prisoners, welcoming strangers, or confronting corruption.

These are not hostile questions. They are biblical questions.

They arise from taking Scripture seriously enough to examine the whole witness of the Bible rather than selecting only those passages that reinforce certain existing political preferences.

In a pluralistic constitutional republic, Christians will naturally disagree about public policy. Good people can reach different conclusions about immigration, taxation, education, healthcare, or criminal justice while remaining faithful believers.

But no Christian movement should be allowed to invoke “biblical principles” without explaining what it means.

Because the Bible speaks about far more than sexuality. Far more than public prayer. Far more than national identity.

It speaks continuously and relentlessly about justice…

…About mercy.

…About humility.

…About truthfulness.

…About generosity.

…About the dangers of wealth and the abuse of power.

…About caring for the least among us.

If we are going to invoke “biblical principles” in our politics, then intellectual honesty requires that we ask a simple question every time the phrase appears.

Which biblical principles? And why did you choose those over others?

Only after answering that question can we begin an honest conversation about whether our politics truly reflects the breadth of Scripture, or merely the portions that happen to support our preferred political ideology.

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Our “Grifter-in-Chief” has refused to sign the bipartisan housing bill, which would provide real help to Americans. His reason? He wants the Republicans in Congress to ram through the so-called “SAVE Act.” He knows that without the SAVE Act, the 2026 midterms will wash away his majority.

Trump has tried to sell the SAVE Act by constantly harping on his imagined fraud in the 2020 election.

Now… Trump will be going on television tonight (Thursday, July 16) for a “major prime time speech” to the American people to tell them “something new” about the so-called stolen election of 2020.

He just can’t let it go. IT’S BEEN SIX YEARS, MAN!

Never underestimate Trump’s fragile ego and thin skin. He is still licking his wounds over the 2020 election.

Dozens of court losses, recounts, audits, and investigations have debunked his claims. They have become less about proving what happened in 2020 than keeping alive a false story that many supporters accept as fact.

But that raises an important question. If every major argument about 2020 has already been made and debunked, why keep returning to it?

The answer has less to do with revisiting the last election than shaping expectations for the next one.

The lie of 2020 is Trump’s strategy to steal the 2026 midterms.

Trump is desperately worried about a Democratic takeover of Congress, so he is falling back on the 2020 Big Lie and adding more lies to it to cast suspicion on the midterm elections of 2026.

Here is the apparent Trump methodology for the 2026 elections:

Step One: Create a Permanent Narrative of Fraud

Every election has mistakes. But there is a significant difference between isolated irregularities and the claim that the entire system cannot be trusted.

By constantly repeating (ad nauseum) that elections are fundamentally corrupt, Trump is trying to create a default assumption: “If we lose, it wasn’t legitimate.”

That assumption changes how his supporters interpret future results before votes are even cast.

Step Two: Make Election Officials the Enemy

Since 2020, election administrators, judges, local officials, and even Republican secretaries of state who certified results have frequently been portrayed as participants in a corrupt system.

That has two consequences.

First, it erodes confidence in the institutions that administer elections.

Second, it makes it easier to dismiss future certifications that don’t produce the desired outcome.

Step Three: Normalize Extraordinary Responses

The aftermath of 2020 introduced ideas that once would have been considered extraordinary:

• Legislatures overturning certified results.

• Alternate slates of electors.

• Vice presidential authority to reject electoral votes.

• Declaring widespread fraud without verified evidence.

• Pressure campaigns directed at state officials.

All of these efforts failed. But once ideas enter political debate, they can be normalized.

The Overton Window shifts. That is the point. (Joseph Overton proposed that the political viability of an idea depends primarily on whether it falls within an acceptability range or window, rather than on the individual preferences of politicians who use the term or concept.)

Step Four: Frame Every Future Loss as Suspicious

This may be the most politically important step.

If supporters are persuaded for years that elections are routinely stolen, then any disappointing result becomes suspect almost automatically. Evidence becomes secondary. Suspicion becomes the default.

This methodology allows Trump to call into question the 2026 midterm elections before a single vote has taken place… that is the objective.

Why 2026 Matters

The 2026 midterm elections will determine control of Congress and, in many states, key statewide offices.

Historically, midterm elections often serve as a referendum on the sitting president’s performance, though outcomes vary depending on economic conditions, public opinion, and local races.

If Republicans perform worse than expected, an already-established narrative about election fraud provides a ready-made rationale.

If they perform well, claims about election insecurity may still be used to justify additional election-law changes.

Either outcome can reinforce calls for further reforms from those who argue the system is vulnerable.

The Long-Term Goal

Whether intentional or not, persistent claims that elections are fundamentally illegitimate can shift political culture.

Instead of asking, “Who won?”

Citizens begin asking, “Can we trust the result?”

That represents a profound change.

Democracies depend not simply on voting but on widespread acceptance of verified outcomes, including losses.

Without that shared commitment, elections cease to function as peaceful mechanisms for resolving political disputes. January 6 was simply the first salvo in possible future insurrections if the results go the “wrong way.”

The Real Audience

The most interesting aspect of Trump’s continued focus on 2020 is that he is no longer trying to persuade his critics. He is simply reinforcing beliefs among supporters.

His critics understand evidence and facts, and cannot be persuaded. Trump isn’t trying to convince you or me… he has another audience in mind.

Political scientists sometimes describe this as maintaining a shared narrative within a coalition rather than converting opponents.

Repetition of the 2020 lie strengthens group identity and expectations. Trump isn’t interested in convincing a majority but simply keeping his MAGA base swimming in the goo of his pernicious lie.

Why This Should Concern Everyone

However, this is not simply a Republican issue or a Democratic issue.

History offers examples from across countries in which sustained attacks on the legitimacy of elections weakened public trust over time.

When citizens lose confidence that elections can fairly determine political power, polarization often intensifies and governing becomes more difficult.

The health of democratic institutions depends not only on conducting elections but on maintaining public confidence in their legitimacy through evidence-based processes.

How Citizens Can Guard The Integrity Of Our Elections

Trust in elections is strengthened less by persuasion and more by transparency, participation, and accountability. Regardless of political views, there are practical ways citizens can help improve confidence in the electoral process:

• Learn how elections actually work in your state. Election rules vary by state and even by county. Understanding voter registration, ballot handling, signature verification (where applicable), audits, and certification can replace assumptions with firsthand knowledge. Here is a useful resource for learning about voting laws in your state: Voter Ready.

• Volunteer as a poll worker or election observer. Many jurisdictions recruit citizens from across the political spectrum to staff polling places or observe ballot counting. Seeing the process firsthand often provides a more accurate picture than secondhand accounts.

• Support bipartisan election administration. Encourage practices that involve officials from different political affiliations in key stages of the process, such as ballot handling, tabulation, and certification, to reduce opportunities for partisan bias.

• Read primary sources before sharing claims. When questions arise about elections, look for official court rulings, audit reports, election office statements, or inspector general findings rather than relying solely on social media or commentary.

• Be cautious about viral misinformation. Many election-related rumors spread rapidly because they evoke strong emotions. Before reposting a claim, check whether credible, independent sources have corroborated it.

• Support post-election audits. Risk-limiting audits and other transparent verification procedures can help confirm the accuracy of reported results while also identifying any problems.

• Advocate for adequate funding for election offices. Local election administrators are responsible for maintaining voter rolls, securing equipment, training poll workers, and administering elections. Sufficient resources can improve both security and efficiency.

• Encourage transparency rather than secrecy. Public observation of vote counting, clear explanations of procedures, published audit results, and timely communication from election officials can all build confidence.

• Accept that close elections often take time to count. Counting absentee, military, overseas, or provisional ballots in accordance with state law can delay final results. Delays are not, by themselves, evidence of wrongdoing.

• Distinguish between errors and fraud. Every large election has administrative mistakes. Those should be investigated and corrected, but isolated errors are different from evidence of organized fraud affecting the outcome.

• Participate in local election oversight. Attend meetings of local election boards, ask respectful questions, and engage with officials about procedures and improvements. Constructive civic involvement can strengthen accountability.

• Support peaceful acceptance of verified outcomes. In a democracy, disputes should be resolved through established legal processes such as recounts, audits, and court challenges, rather than intimidation or violence.

Ultimately, confidence in elections doesn’t depend on everyone agreeing about politics. It depends on broad agreement that the rules are transparent, consistently applied, and that concerns are addressed through evidence and lawful processes.

You can play an important role by staying informed, participating directly in election administration when possible, and evaluating claims carefully before accepting or sharing them.

Election Integrity Is Up To Us

Perhaps the most important political battle isn’t over what happened in 2020. It’s over what Americans will believe about 2026 before the first ballot is cast.

The most effective way to challenge confidence in an election is not to do so after Election Day. It’s to spend years convincing voters that the system is already broken.

By the time votes are counted, many people have already decided whether they’ll accept the outcome.

And once faith in elections becomes conditional on whether your side wins, democracy itself becomes the loser.

Democracy depends on the good-faith participation of citizens to ensure and secure accurate election procedures.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

.

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

July 5, 2026

JACKSON COUNTY, Miss. (WLOX/Gray News) - An 18-year-old in Mississippi was found dead after vanishing on the Fourth of July, according to authorities. The body, believed to be that of 18-year-old Nolan Xavier Wells, was found around 8:45 a.m. by a park ranger.

The sheriff also said the body found did match the description of Wells, and Wells’ mother shared a post on Facebook confirming the loss.

“My heartbroken for my sweet son who was always willing to cheer and uplift others,” she said. “Nolan was a special soul, God took his time creating our son. I ask that you please give me and my family time to grieve.”

This report of Wells’ death ends with “the cause of death is unclear.” Unclear indeed. If this were an isolated, once-in-a-lifetime event, the circumstances might not be suspicious. But, given Mississippi’s history and culture of lynching, one cannot help but raise an eyebrow. The death is still under investigation and deservves a thorough one.

Sadly, Wells isn’t the only Black person in this category in Mississippi in the past 26 years. Dozens of “unclear” deaths of Black people have been reported in southern states in the twenty-first century.

Some were Black males hanging from trees…. is that unclear?

Most Americans think of lynching as a relic of our nation’s darkest past. We picture grainy black-and-white photographs, mobs gathered beneath oak trees, bodies hanging from ropes while smiling spectators pose for postcards. We associate lynching with the era of Jim Crow, believing it ended as the civil rights movement dismantled legalized segregation.

But what if that understanding is incomplete?

The better question may not be whether lynching still exists in exactly the form it did a century ago. The better question is whether the function of lynching, using violence or the threat of violence to reinforce racial hierarchy and intimidate entire communities, has evolved into forms that are less visible, less public, and more difficult to prove.

That is the provocative argument advanced by the civil rights organization JULIAN in its recent report, A Crimson Record. Whether one ultimately accepts its conclusions or not, the report deserves careful consideration because it asks a question that American society has been reluctant to confront:

What if racial terror did not disappear? What if it simply adapted?

History offers an important starting point to answer these questions.

Contrary to popular mythology, lynching was never simply about punishing crime. Journalists such as Ida B. Wells exposed this lie more than a century ago. Wells meticulously documented that many victims had committed no crime at all. Some were accused without evidence. Others were targeted for attempting to vote, owning successful businesses, challenging white authority, or violating unwritten racial customs.

The true purpose of lynching was social control. It communicated a message not merely to the victim but to an entire community:

Know your place and stay in it.

That message was reinforced by public spectacle. Lynchings were announced in advance. Families attended. Photographs were distributed as souvenirs. Local officials frequently looked the other way, and prosecutions were rare. The violence itself became a public performance designed to maintain a racial hierarchy.

By the middle of the twentieth century, this form of public mob violence had dramatically declined. Civil rights legislation, federal prosecutions, changing public opinion, and persistent activism made overt lynching politically and legally unacceptable.

Few historians dispute that profound change.

The debate begins when we ask a different question.

Did the underlying purpose disappear as well? JULIAN argues that it did not.

Its report, A Crimson Record, examines more than seventy suspicious deaths across seven Southern states between 2000 and 2025. Rather than claiming these cases have been definitively proven to be lynchings, the report argues that many deserve renewed investigation because they share recurring characteristics that echo historical patterns of racial terror.

That distinction is extremely important.

The report does not claim that every unexplained death involving a Black victim is a lynching. Instead, it argues that investigators, journalists, and the public may too quickly accept official conclusions without fully examining alternative explanations.

Investigators, especially in the South, frequently and quickly declare: “The cause of death is unclear.”

Among the patterns JULIAN identifies are deaths rapidly classified as suicides, limited homicide investigations, disputed forensic findings, resistance to independent autopsies, and families who continue to challenge official rulings long after cases have been closed.

Whether every case ultimately supports JULIAN’s thesis remains debatable. But the broader question it raises is difficult to dismiss. If investigative failures disproportionately affect certain communities, then unresolved deaths may never receive the scrutiny they deserve.

One reason the report has attracted attention is its discussion of Black men found hanging from trees in recent decades. Historically, hanging carried unmistakable symbolic meaning in the United States.

Today, many such deaths have been ruled suicides or accidents after official investigations. JULIAN argues that at least some of these cases warrant renewed independent review rather than unquestioning acceptance of their original classifications.

Reasonable people can disagree with that conclusion. But it is not unreasonable to ask whether investigative standards have always been sufficiently rigorous.

Enter The Equal Justice Initiative

This debate intersects with another conversation already taking place among historians and legal scholars.

Organizations such as the Equal Justice Initiative have argued that racial terror did not simply end after the civil rights era but changed its methods. Bryan Stevenson has frequently observed that while America remembers slavery and segregation, it has been far less willing to confront the legacy of racial terror that connected those systems.

Few scholars argue that modern America experiences lynching exactly as it existed in 1905. However, many argue that some forms of racial violence continue to perform similar social functions.

The murder of Ahmaud Arbery illustrates why this comparison persists.

Arbery was pursued by armed civilians who suspected him of wrongdoing without evidence. He was chased through a neighborhood and ultimately killed. Initial investigations resulted in no immediate arrests until public pressure and video evidence transformed the case into a national story.

The circumstances differ significantly from the public mob lynchings of the Jim Crow era. Yet many historians, legal scholars, and civil rights advocates observed similarities that extend beyond the mechanics of the killing itself: racial suspicion, extrajudicial violence, delayed accountability, and the message such events send to communities about whose lives are presumed threatening and whose deaths receive urgent attention.

The comparison is not universally accepted, but it is not frivolous either.

Focus On Institutions, Not Individuals

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of JULIAN’s report is its focus on institutions rather than individuals.

Historical lynchings often involved sheriffs who failed to intervene, prosecutors who declined to act, and juries unwilling to convict. Modern institutions function very differently, and many officials work diligently to investigate violent crimes. Nevertheless, JULIAN asks whether unconscious bias, inadequate investigative resources, or premature conclusions may sometimes produce outcomes that leave families without answers and communities without confidence.

That is a claim requiring evidence, not assumptions. It is also a claim worthy of investigation rather than dismissal.

Critics of the modern-lynching framework raise important objections. They note that today’s legal system routinely prosecutes hate crimes, that perpetrators are far more likely to face criminal charges than they were a century ago, and that public opinion overwhelmingly condemns racial violence. Those are meaningful differences. Equating every controversial death with a lynching risks obscuring the unique horror of the historical phenomenon.

That caution is well taken. Historical precision matters.

History also teaches another lesson.

However, systems of power rarely disappear overnight. They evolve. The end of slavery gave way to convict leasing. The end of convict leasing gave way to Jim Crow. The collapse of Jim Crow did not eliminate racial inequality; instead, new debates emerged over housing, voting rights, policing, criminal justice, and economic opportunity.

No serious historian would claim these systems are identical. Many would agree they reveal a recurring pattern: institutions adapt to changing legal and political realities while longstanding inequalities persist in new forms.

That is why the question raised by A Crimson Record deserves attention.

Not because it settles the debate. Because it reopens it.

If America wishes to believe that lynching belongs safely in the past, then every suspicious death should receive an investigation so thorough, transparent, and independent that families and communities have confidence in the result, whatever that result may be.

Justice depends not only on reaching the correct conclusion but on demonstrating that every conclusion was reached through a process worthy of public trust.

The greatest lesson of America’s history of lynching is not merely that terrible crimes occurred. It is that entire communities were once taught to accept official silence rather than demand official accountability.

Our obligation today is not to assume every suspicious death is evidence of racial terror. Our obligation is to ensure that none are denied the careful, impartial investigation that justice requires.

Whether JULIAN’s conclusions ultimately prove correct in every case is less important than the challenge the report poses to all of us.

Have we become so confident that lynching ended that we no longer ask whether its underlying purpose could survive in different forms?

History suggests that democracies are healthiest not when they assume injustice has vanished, but when they remain willing to investigate uncomfortable questions with rigor, humility, and an unwavering commitment to the truth.

I’ll close this essay with a statement from Jill Collen Jefferson, a lawyer and founder of JULIAN. She claims that at least 8 killings in Mississippi have been lynchings since 2000. She began her research into lynchings across the country in 2017 and focused on Mississippi, her home state, in 2019. In each case of lynching she discovered, Jefferson said the police ruled the deaths suicides, but the families of the deceased said their loved ones were lynched.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Texas may want to reconsider what it wishes for…Bible reading in public school classes. The intent is clear. Many Texas legislators want to promote the Christian faith as the foundation of the United States government. They believe that reading the Bible will help to solidify that position.

The results could backfire… dramatically.

This isn’t an anti-Christian argument, nor is it a proposition to ban the Bible from public education. The main argument is the untenable position teachers will be in trying to implement this new curriculum.

It is unfair and unwinnable.

There is a profound difference between teaching about religion and teaching religious texts as a way to indoctrinate students in a particular faith. No other religious texts are included on the required list aside from the Bible. The goal is clear: steer kids toward Christianity… even the non-Christian ones.

However, the goal that Texas legislators have in mind may inevitably invite questions about whether the supernatural claims of the religious texts are true.

That distinction and unintended result appear to be getting lost in Texas.

The state’s new Bible reading curriculum asks students at different grade levels to read selected passages from Scripture. Supporters argue that the Bible is foundational to Western civilization, American history, and English literature. On that point, there is little disagreement. One cannot fully understand John Milton, Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, the civil rights movement, or even much of American political rhetoric without some familiarity with the Bible.

The difficulty begins the moment students do what schools are supposed to encourage them to do: think critically and ask questions. That is the last thing the evangelical Texas legislators want students to do…. ask questions.

What happens when a seventh grader asks whether Moses’ burning bush literally spoke? Or whether Daniel actually survived a night in a den of lions? Or whether Jonah could physically live inside a great fish for three days?

Those are not questions about vocabulary or literary symbolism. They are questions about the authenticity of religious claims. Every good evangelical believes in the literal historical events of these stories.

At that moment, a public-school teacher is no longer simply teaching literature or history. The teacher has become, whether they want to or not, a referee in a theological debate.

That is an impossible role. How many teachers will lose their teaching license for giving a “wrong” answer to students?

Imagine a classroom where the teacher is herself a conservative Christian who accepts these stories as literal history. Even that teacher understands there is a tightrope to walk here.

Here is how that conversation might unfold:

The teacher has reached a crossroads. If she answers that the miracle is objectively true, she risks crossing the constitutional line separating education from religious endorsement. If she refuses to answer, students conclude that obvious questions are somehow off limits. If she says miracles are matters of faith rather than evidence, she has already shifted the discussion away from history and literature into theology.

No teacher should be placed in that position.

Now imagine the opposite classroom.

This teacher is skeptical of literal miracles but is still required to teach the assigned passages. Now the tightrope is even tighter and thinner.

This teacher faces exactly the same dilemma as the conservative teacher. Every answer risks offending someone. Every attempt to avoid the question appears evasive.

The irony is striking.

The curriculum may have been intended to strengthen appreciation for the Bible, yet it may instead encourage the kind of skeptical inquiry that accompanies any serious classroom discussion.

Children are naturally curious. After 30 years of classroom instruction, I can guarantee that these types of questions will arise.

If students are encouraged to think critically in science, history, and literature, why would they suddenly stop asking questions when the reading assignment comes from the Book of Exodus?

In fact, the very skills schools spend years cultivating- questioning evidence, identifying different interpretations, distinguishing historical claims from symbolic narratives, comparing sources—are precisely the skills students will bring to biblical texts.

Teachers cannot reasonably tell students that critical thinking applies everywhere except here. Nor should they.

I am not certain that the evangelicals who are pushing this legislation have critical thinking in mind as the outcome. After all, when these texts are read in their homes or churches, there is no expectation that children will ask probing questions. They would be discouraged from doing so.

Public education exists precisely because students deserve to ask questions without fear that certain conclusions are predetermined by the state.

This is also why the issue is larger than Christianity.

Suppose Texas next required passages from the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, or Buddhist scriptures. Christian parents would almost certainly want their children asking difficult questions about those texts.

Were Muhammad’s revelations literal?

Did Krishna actually deliver the Bhagavad Gita on a battlefield?

Did Joseph Smith truly receive golden plates from an angel?

Most Christians would expect teachers to allow thoughtful discussion of those claims. The same principle must apply to biblical stories.

Religious liberty depends upon government neutrality, not because religion is unimportant, but because it is too important to be placed under state supervision.

That neutrality protects believers as much as skeptics.

It protects conservative Christians from having their sacred texts explained by teachers who may not share their beliefs.

It protects Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, and agnostic students from feeling that their public school has endorsed one religious tradition over others.

Most importantly, it protects teachers.

Teachers should never have to wonder whether answering an honest question about Noah’s Ark, the Resurrection, or the burning bush could result in complaints from parents on one side or accusations of religious endorsement on the other.

That is not teaching.

That is navigating a legal and cultural minefield.

One final conversation captures the predicament.

That may be the most truthful answer any teacher could give.

The real lesson here is not about the Bible. It is about the limits of government.

Public schools can and should teach students about religion’s enormous influence on history, literature, philosophy, art, and politics. They can compare religious traditions, examine their historical impact, and explore how sacred texts have shaped civilizations.

What they cannot do without creating impossible dilemmas is place public-school teachers in the role of answering questions that belong to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, families, and individual conscience.

Once students begin asking whether miracles literally happened, teachers are no longer leading a literature lesson. They have entered territory where every answer carries theological implications.

That is why this curriculum may ultimately backfire. It asks teachers to perform a task that public education was never designed to perform, and it asks students to suspend the very habits of inquiry that schools exist to cultivate.

The result is not stronger education or stronger faith. It is confusion about where one properly ends, and the other begins.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Americans are often told that the nation’s political dysfunction stems from polarization. We hear that Democrats and Republicans have grown too far apart, that compromise has become impossible, and that citizens increasingly inhabit separate political realities.

There is truth in that diagnosis. But it may not be the deepest explanation for why American politics feels so broken.

What if the problem is not primarily ideological? What if it is structural and representational?

Recent research by the Pew Research Center has identified multiple distinct political typologies within the American electorate. Rather than neatly sorting into two camps, Americans occupy a range of political identities shaped by different combinations of economic views, cultural attitudes, religious beliefs, demographic experiences, and policy priorities. There are nine distinct groups.

In other words, America does not contain two political tribes. It contains many political tribes. Yet our political system recognizes only two.

This mismatch between the complexity of public opinion and the simplicity of our political institutions may be one of the central reasons why American democracy feels increasingly strained, out of touch, and irrelevant.

A Country More Complex Than Its Political System

The popular image of American politics is deceptively simple. We imagine conservatives on one side, liberals on the other, and a shrinking number of moderates somewhere in the middle.

The reality is far more complicated. Consider these scenarios:

• A working-class union member in Michigan may support labor protections and government investment while holding relatively conservative views on cultural issues.

• A suburban professional may favor market-based economic policies while supporting progressive positions on social questions.

• A libertarian entrepreneur may favor low taxes and limited government while rejecting religious conservatism.

• A religious voter may support strong social safety nets while remaining deeply conservative on matters of faith and family.

These are not unusual combinations of beliefs. They are common throughout the American electorate. Yet our political structure forces these diverse viewpoints into two massive coalitions that are expected to behave as coherent ideological camps.

The result is a system that increasingly struggles to represent the nation it governs.

The Forced Marriage of American Politics

The Pew Research Center in its Political Typology Report identifies nine distinct groups based on their political and cultural values rather than their party affiliation. Imagine nine different political groups being told they must divide themselves into only two houses: red or blue.

Not all of these groups are equally engaged in the political process. In fact, it is a minority who are. For instance, on the Republican side, the two most active groups are the “No Apologies Right” and the “Faith First Conservatives.” Together, they account for only 21% of the country.

On the Democratic side, the “Loyal Liberals” and the “Leftward Progressives” make up only 18% of the country. Yet it is these two minorities that dominate party politics in the two respective parties.

Together, the four activist groups only represent 39% of Americans, yet they have the loudest voice.

The other six groupings have definite leanings and priorities, but are left out of typical party politics. It is no wonder most Americans feel they are not represented or that politics is irrelevant to them. They have little voice.

Some of those groups will find themselves living alongside people with whom they share only a handful of political priorities. Their coalition survives not because they agree with one another but because they disagree even more strongly with the people in the other house.

This is essentially how modern American politics functions.

The Democratic Party contains progressives, moderates, labor advocates, minority communities, environmentalists, suburban professionals, and others whose priorities often conflict.

The Republican Party contains business conservatives, populists, libertarians, religious conservatives, nationalists, and traditional conservatives whose visions for the country can differ substantially.

These coalitions are not natural ideological families. They are political necessities created by a system that allows only two viable governing parties. To suggest that both parties are substantially divided is an understatement.

The two major parties increasingly resemble uneasy marriages rather than unified movements. To say that Democrats and Republicans are divided among themselves is an understatement of an obvious truth.

A System Built for Another Era

The two-party system did not emerge because Americans naturally divide into two camps. It emerged because America’s electoral structure rewards only two major competitors.

Winner-take-all elections create strong incentives for political consolidation. Third parties struggle to gain traction because voters fear wasting their votes. Political entrepreneurs seeking influence are encouraged to work within existing parties rather than build new ones.

For much of American history, this arrangement was manageable.

The country’s social, cultural, and economic divisions were often organized around a smaller set of major questions. Americans also shared a more limited media environment and a stronger sense of common civic identity.

Today, however, the nation is far more diverse in every sense.

Globalization has transformed local economies. Immigration has reshaped communities. Technology has revolutionized communication. Social media has fragmented public discourse. New issues such as climate change, artificial intelligence, globalization, identity politics, and demographic change cut across traditional political categories.

As society has grown more complex, the political system has remained largely unchanged. The result is growing tension between what the American electorate actually is and the electorate our institutions assume it to be.

Why the Two-Party System Encourages Tribalism

One of the less appreciated consequences of the two-party structure is its tendency to encourage political tribalism.

When only two major parties can realistically compete for power, every disagreement becomes an existential battle between two teams.

Internal dissent becomes dangerous because it threatens coalition unity.

Nuance can be risky because it may be perceived as a weakness.

Independent thinking often gives way to partisan loyalty.

Political leaders become less concerned with persuading opponents and more concerned with maintaining coalition discipline.

Over time, the central political question shifts. Instead of asking, “What policy would best solve this problem?”

Citizens are increasingly encouraged to ask, “Which side are you on?”

This dynamic rewards outrage, simplifies complicated issues, and turns political identity into something closer to cultural identity.

The system’s incentives push citizens toward camps, even when their actual beliefs are far more nuanced and diverse.

The Rise of Political Homelessness

One of the defining features of contemporary American politics is the growing number of citizens who feel politically homeless. We see this phenomenon in the vast numbers of people who don’t bother to vote.

Many voters find themselves choosing not between candidates who represent them, but between candidates who represent them least poorly.

A voter may support universal healthcare while opposing progressive cultural activism.

Another may support free markets while rejecting nationalist politics.

Another may favor immigration reform while holding conservative religious views.

Such voters often discover that neither party fully reflects their priorities. This creates frustration and cynicism.

People begin to feel unseen by the political system. They participate reluctantly. Trust declines. Political institutions lose legitimacy.

The problem is not necessarily that citizens have become more extreme. In many cases, their actual views are too complicated to fit comfortably within the categories available to them.

The Democratic Cost

The consequences extend beyond voter dissatisfaction.

When large portions of the electorate feel inadequately represented, political instability becomes more likely. Populist movements gain traction because they promise to disrupt a system perceived as unresponsive.

Conspiracy theories become more attractive because people lose confidence in established institutions.

Political anger intensifies because elections begin to feel like winner-take-all struggles between rival tribes rather than contests among multiple competing visions.

The public’s trust in government falls not simply because government fails to deliver results, but because many citizens no longer believe government reflects who they are.

A healthy democracy depends upon representation. Citizens must feel that their voices can find meaningful expression within the political system. When representation narrows while society becomes more diverse, democratic stress inevitably increases.

The Real Question

Americans often debate whether the country is becoming too liberal or too conservative, too progressive or too traditional.

Those debates are important. But they overlook a more fundamental question.

Can a nation containing many distinct political communities continue to be adequately represented through a system built around only two dominant parties?

That question does not require us to embrace any particular reform. Reasonable people can disagree about ranked-choice voting, proportional representation, open primaries, or other institutional changes.

It is worth noting that neither political party is very eager to engage in these types of reform discussions. It could end up decreasing their respective power over the system.

What matters is recognizing the underlying problem.

America’s political crisis may not stem solely from polarization. It may stem from a growing gap between the complexity of the American people and the simplicity of the political structure that represents them.

Perhaps Americans are not becoming impossible to govern because they disagree too much. Perhaps they are becoming harder to govern because a nation containing many political identities is still trying to express itself through a system that recognizes only two.

If that is true, then the challenge facing American democracy is not merely ideological. It is representational.

How to find out which of the nine political typology groups you are closest to? Take the Pew Research Quiz and find out. Click the image below:

Subscribe now

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Exceptional Declaration of Independence

Today is our common national heritage birthday…on July 4, 1776, 250 years ago, the members of the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence to sever ties with the British Monarchy.

That Declaration has been our compass and North Star, defining our values and purpose as a nation since.

Subscribe now

This is a worthwhile document to celebrate. Yet, as I have shown throughout this six-part 250th Anniversary series, the American ideal and the reality have seldom aligned. Our history is revealed more as a testament to a ruling elite who distrust the common US citizen and feared democratic tendencies. This is evident in the structure and functioning of a government system that seems to be “of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.”

Telling this truth about US history is not unpatriotic. It is necessary to reckon with the past to create a better future. Only the brave are willing to confront it; cowards seek to hide it.

The history of the United States is not exceptional if that means sugar-coating it with a white-male-only story of a spotless and perfect union.

Additionally, the US is not an exceptional country because it is “chosen by God,” nor is it more deserving of God’s blessings than any other country or people on earth.

Many point to the amazing wealth and abundance that this country enjoys as evidence of some divine blessing. But what is overlooked is the exploitation of the groups of people who built the economic infrastructure that provided the bounty for elites, the prime beneficiaries.

The elite cannot grant inalienable rights because people already possess them. But they can obstruct and block the realization of those rights from other groups: women, native Americans, enslaved Black people, immigrants, gay and trans people, disabled people, laborers, and even poor landless Euro-Americans.

True Exceptional American Heroes

The story of American democracy is a long struggle to expand who counts as a full citizen. Some of the most influential figures are not the ones who dominate textbooks. Many heroes worked quietly as organizers, lawyers, journalists, educators, or local activists. They often laid the groundwork that more famous leaders built upon.

Gaining inspiration and motivation from that founding document, we need to celebrate those people at the country’s 250th Anniversary. Here are a few of those exceptional unsung heroes who need to be included in our celebration: (click their name to learn more about each of them)

United States history is much more than the story of a few great white men. They have their place, but more representative are those whose stories are seldom heard.

The Real American Exceptionalism

Their work illustrates an important historical point: the expansion of American rights has usually been driven not by a single heroic leader but by networks of organizers who changed public opinion, built local institutions, and forced the nation’s laws to live more closely aligned to its founding ideals.

That is the definition of American exceptionalism.

In this series, I have tried to develop these themes. And, given the current era of MAGA politics, it is clear there is much more work to do. In fact, we need a new American Revolution to move the nation closer to our founding ideals; to follow our original North Star.

Here is a review of each of the articles in this series if you haven’t had a chance to read them all. The title links to the article in my archives for you to read.

250th Anniversary Series - The Declaration of Independence and the Mess We Are In Today

Part One - White Christian Nationalism and the Erasure of the Founding’s First Losers

This opening essay begins with one of the most persistent and politically consequential distortions of the founding era and our own:

The claim that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and that secular governance represents a later betrayal of that original vision.

Known today as white Christian nationalism, it asserts that biblical Christianity was intended to guide American law and government, and that modern pluralism and church–state separation are corruptions imposed by courts, elites, or cultural liberals at a later time.

This assertion is false.

Part Two - Slavery In The Origin Story: Responsibility, Not Inevitability

Slavery did not merely survive the American founding; it was deliberately protected and institutionalized by it. The Founders did not stumble into compromise. They engineered one on purpose. It was a deliberate betrayal of the Declaration of Independence, which heralded and promised equality.

By 1787, there was no confusion about what slavery was or what it meant. The same generation that declared all men were created equal understood perfectly well that human bondage violated natural rights, mocked consent of the governed, and hollowed out democratic government. But that was the point.

Part Three - A Republic For Rich Patriarchal White Men

A Patriarchal, male-dominated society headed by wealthy white men is not a fluke…it is the original design.

From the beginning, the United States was not created as a democracy of equals. Despite the idealism of the Declaration of Independence, it was designed as a hierarchy with rich white men at the top, carefully constructed to concentrate power in the hands of a narrow elite while excluding, by law, custom, and constitutional structure, most of the people who lived under it.

That elite threatens our democracy yet today!

Part Four - Celebrating the Sacred Right To Vote And Attempts to Restrict It

There is no other act of political participation that empowers “the people” more than the right to vote. The founders understood how powerful the vote could be and, therefore, designed mechanisms to restrict and control the franchise. Though voting was initially restricted to white men who owned property, the story of the United States is that of additional groups who fought for, and sometimes died for, the right to vote.

Today, the patriarchal elite is once again working to restrict who can vote and therefore, who belongs in American society. Preserving the right to vote is a never-ending vigilant process.

Part Five - The Founder’s Greatest Contribution: Separation of Church & State

What the founders established was remarkably new in history: a nation without religious establishment or affiliation. If the founders had wanted to establish the United States as a “Christian nation,” they would have said so explicitly. They didn’t. It was a deliberate decision that many clergy criticized at the time.

But the founders’ commitment to the separation of church and state should not be interpreted to mean they were egalitarian. They still favored a hierarchy, just not a religious one.

Part Six - A New American Revolution: Ten Democratic Reforms for the 21st Century

If the American political system was built to restrain democracy, then a true democracy cannot be achieved by reverence and mythmaking alone. It requires structural change, constitutional, legal, and institutional, designed to undo the hierarchy embedded at the founding and reinforced ever since.

To put it bluntly, it is time for a new American Revolution! This is not radicalism. It is completion. It is time to complete the American Revolution.

Every democratic advance in America’s history has come from confronting the system’s original deficiencies head-on at the grassroots. The question now is whether the United States is willing to do so again, or whether minority rule, sanctified by tradition and religion, will harden into permanence.

Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff said it well:

Share

Share Things We Don't Talk About Like Politics & Religion

Leave a comment

Get more from Daniel Henderson in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

For those of you who have followed my writing for any length of time, you already know that my prior life as an evangelical played a significant role for nearly 40 years. In 2006, I walked away from that religious faith and found a whole new world of ideas, concepts, and ways of being.

I have written extensively about that experience. In 2022, my first book, Confessions of a Recovering Evangelical, was published. Additionally, from time to time, I write about my religious background and experience, especially where it intersects with white Christian nationalism.

Writing for me is a process of both therapy and self-discovery. At times, it feels almost like I am having a conversation with myself as I search through my own soul and the ideas I’ve entertained over the years. Those ideas are in constant flux and change as I learn more. Then I share those interior, self-conversations with you.

I’ve written what will now be my fifth book, which will be published next month (August). It is called Reflections of a Recovered Evangelical: Love Plus Nothing Else. Since you subscribe to my Substack column, I wanted to give you a heads-up about the book and provide an opportunity to be involved in the book launch.

Here is a copy of the table of contents for the new book:

HOW TO GET INVOLVED:

Okay, if you want to be involved in this project, here is how. I need “beta-readers.” A beta reader receives a complimentary digital copy of the book (asap) and has 1 month to read it.

In August, you would do three things….

1. Buy the book on Amazon

2. Leave a review on Amazon and/or Goodreads

3. Tell your friends about the book on your social media platforms

If you want to help in this way, please message me or leave me a comment with a way to contact you.

I am excited about this manuscript because I believe it speaks directly to the challenges that we face today from white Christian nationalism, which has morphed into an authoritarian governmental system. We need bold clarity and the ability to speak truth to power…that is what I have tried to do in Reflections of a Recovered Evangelical.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment