Republican Theocrats Threaten America at Home and Abroad
By Ambassador David Carden
Much is being written concerning the lies being told by some Republicans. They’re properly seen as part of an effort to politicize spiritual, scientific, and social issues critical to the nation’s democracy, making it difficult to have the fact-based conversations necessary to address our shared challenges. Of course, these Republicans aren’t alone. Other politicians, including Democrats, lie. But some Republicans are lying on a level rarely, if ever, seen on the American political scene. Why are they doing it? Almost two decades ago, Republican Representative Christopher Shays offered insight into the answer to this question, when he said his party “has become a party of theocracy.” What he didn’t say, but which history has made clear, is that both religious and secular theocracies are totalitarian forms of governance built on foundations of lies.
Hannah Arendt exposed this truth in her seminal work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, where she wrote: “The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.” As the political philosopher Jacob Levy wrote, “The great analysts of truth and language in politics...George Orwell, Hannah Arendt, Vaclav Havel—can help us recognize this kind of lie for what it is…. Saying something obviously untrue, and making your subordinates repeat it with a straight face in their own voice, is a particularly startling display of power over them. It’s something that was endemic to totalitarianism.”
In a series of articles entitled As I Please, George Orwell explained the relationship between totalitarianism and falsity: the “really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits ‘atrocities’, but that it attacks the concept of objective truth; it claims to control the past as well as the future.” In Books v. Cigarettes, he further observed “[f]rom the totalitarian point of view, history is something to be created rather than learned.” For this reason, he wrote, it requires the past be continuously rewritten to suit the purposes of those in power. Hannah Arendt echoed Orwell’s assessment, observing in The Origins of Totalitarianism that totalitarian rulers rely on people “for whom the distinction between fact and fiction…and the distinction between true and false…no longer exist.”
This effort to destroy truth by secular and religious regimes seeking totalitarian control often is reflected in their war on reason and science. The reason for such a war is straight forward—reason and science are seen as enemies of the faith and the subservience upon which their totalitarian control depends. Well-known examples include the Catholic Church’s trial and conviction of Galileo for “vehement suspicion of heresy” because the heliocentric universe he posited was seen as being inconsistent with the Bible; Christianity’s opposition to “Darwinism” and the theory of evolution because it contradicts the biblical account of Adam and Eve; and opposition to the idea human beings are capable of contributing to climate change.
The Soviet Union’s persecution and imprisonment of Nicoli Vavilov, at the time one of the world’s leading geneticists in plant biology, offers another example of the way totalitarianism often makes war on science. Stalin thought Vavilov’s theories of genetic selection supported the idea of “survival of the fittest” and could be seen as supporting the superiority of capitalism over communism. For this reason, he appointed Trofim Lysenko, a self-taught biologist who rejected Vavilov’s genetic theories, to be head of director of the Institute of Genetics. The result was an estimated 7 million Russians starved to death when the Soviet Union experienced widespread agricultural failure. Andrei Sakharov, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, said Lysenko’s “pseudo-scientific” views “probably killed more human beings than any individual scientist in history.”
Republicans also regularly attack science. The Trump Administration espoused and promoted the opinions of pseudo-scientists, quack doctors, and non-scientists on matters far beyond their experience or expertise and of great public importance, including characterizing COVID-19 as a “hoax;” appointing a climate science denier, Scott Pruitt, to head of the Environmental Protection Agency; proposing legislation to replace EPA’s Science Advisory Board with representatives of the industries it regulates; and censoring scientific government publications and websites on such things as pollution, climate change and endangered species. Peter Navarro, a former Trump economic advisor, claimed to be qualified to disagree with Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the world’s recognized infectious disease experts, on whether anti-malarial medication is effective to fight the COVID-19, because he is a “social scientist” and “knows how to read statistical studies.”
Other Republicans also have attempted to discredit science, often in areas beyond their expertise. For example, Senator Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, has repeatedly attacked Dr. Fauci regarding his views on how to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tellingly, Paul also claims, inaccurately, the First Amendment “says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government.” Marjorie Taylor Green, who has a B.A. in Business Administration, has said she doesn’t “believe in evolution” or “that type of so-called science.” She’s also called for America to become a Christian nationalist nation. Senator Ron Johnson, formerly a machinist and accountant, has asked with regard to the COVID vaccines, “[w]hy do we think we can create something better than God in terms of combatting disease.” He also said he believes “standard gargle, mouthwash, has been proven to kill the coronavirus.” And former Senator Inhofe, who was an insurance executive prior to joining Congress, rejects mainstream climate science, saying “the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate to me is outrageous.”
The relationship Republicans had with Pastor James Kennedy suggests a reason for this attack on science and reason. Kennedy was a favorite of Republican Presidents, Vice-presidents and members of Congress before he passed away. His goal was “to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors—in short—over every aspect and institution of human society.”
Kennedy’s views are emerging as mainstream Republicanism. His ministry established the Center for Christian Statesmanship to reach out to lawmakers and congressional staff to “equip Christian statesmen.” It gives an award to a “Distinguished Christian Stateman Award” for political leaders who have demonstrated a “commitment to Christ.” Recent recipients include former Vice President Mike Pence; Republican Senators Brownback, Inhofe, and Langford; former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows; and former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Kennedy also established “The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ,” which hosts “America for Christ” conferences where Republicans are listed as being regular speakers.
Some Republicans’ willingness to conflate church and state also emerged during the recent hearings on the events of January 6, which exposed text messages exchanged between Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, and Mark Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff and one of Pastor Kennedy’s “Distinguished Statesmen.” In one of her texts Ms. Thomas exhorted Meadows to “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!,” referring to Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. Meadows responded, assuring her the “King of Kings” ultimately would “triumph” in what he characterized as “a fight of good versus evil.”
Comments by the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates suggest similar inclinations. Thus, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis exhorted Republicans to “put on that full armor of God,” predicting “you’ll be met with flaming arrows but the shield of faith will stop them;” and Nikki Haley suggested Trump was put into the Presidency by God. Even Trump has joined the chorus, saying “[w]e are Americans and Americans kneel to God, and God alone.”
But perhaps the most transparent theocratic statement by a Republican in recent years came from Representative Lauren Boebert, who said she is “tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution.”
The Republican’s theocratic narrative is being amplified by Fox News, whose viewers “trend religious.” Fox’s “hateful” rhetoric has been described as bolstering the Republican Party’s attack on the LGBTQ community, which often is vilified by the religious right. For example, some of Fox’s coverage concerning same sex marriage has been based upon the impact it has or will have on those Christians who oppose it, not on those who wish to sanctify their relationships. The recent revelations in the Dominion libel lawsuit against Fox have revealed Fox’s fraught relationship with the truth. Orwell would have recognized the network’s lack of commitment to “objective truth,” including its participation in the effort by some Republicans to re-write history concerning the events of January 6.
The Republican’s attack on objective truth and the separation of church and state also has serious foreign policy implications. For example, at least some American evangelicals support Israel because they believe its existence is a prerequisite for Christ’s Second Coming, which has been predicted by someone, somewhere, for almost two thousand years. It may seem fanciful that the Republican Party would base any aspect of the country’s foreign policy on Scripture or Christian dogma, but recent events and statements suggest otherwise. Consider the support of some in the religious right for Putin, who has been called the global leader of the Christian nationalist and Christian rights movement. Evangelical Pastor Franklin Graham has said Putin is protecting traditional Christianity. The World Congress of Families has gone further, calling Putin the “hope of the world.” Liz Cheney has criticized the “growing Putin wing of the Republican Party.”
The Founding Fathers and others who contributed to the creation of America saw this coming. They understood the risk of theocratic rule in America, and separated church and state in order to protect them both. George Washington wrote “[w]henever a government is to be instituted or changed by Consent of the people, confidence in the person placed at the head of it, is, perhaps, more peculiarly necessary. [Shall I] “set up my judgment as the standard of perfection?…The mind is so formed in different persons as to contemplate the same object in different points of view.” John Adams was more direct, affirming: “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Thomas Jefferson was equally clear, saying the First Amendment was designed to “build a wall of separation between church and state.”
Some believe America’s institutions are too strong and the separation of church and state too indelible for theocratic rule ever it to be established in the country. Others believe that “the religious right [has] proved too conservative and parochial (and scandal-plagued) for a diverse and liberalizing country, and it cracked up with George W. Bush’s presidency.” Perhaps they are right. But the risk is real. It’s made clear by the attack on science by some Republicans; their efforts to undermine the country’s secular political structures and norms; their ongoing attempt to marginalize those with whom they disagree, or see as having life styles and beliefs inconsistent with Christianity, including by suppressing the right to vote and attacking the rights of women and those in the LBGTQ communities; their book bans and legislation to limit what can be taught in our schools; and their willingness to impose minority rule. To this last point, it’s important to remember the Nazi’s secular totalitarian state came into being after the Nazi party won the 1933 German election with only 43.9% of the vote.
The question thus becomes, what can Americans do to defend against the Republican attack on the separation of church and state? The thicket of falsehoods being told by some members of the party, amplified by Fox and other media outlets, make the challenge particularly difficult. Arendt recognized how an avalanche of lies can render a populace powerless to resist. Indeed, this is exactly what “gaslighting” is designed to do. But something must be done to shape a more honest narrative about the issue and the Republican slide towards theocracy. Here are some ideas:
· The history of the Founding father’s separation of church and state, and their rationale for it, must be reinforced;
· The social and economic benefits of the separation must be made clear, and on a continuous basis;
· The war on science and marginalizing certain communities should be tied to their historic role in empowering theocracies;
· Identifying and exposing those who are pursuing a theocratic agenda should be made a priority;
· The private sector must become more active in combating the effort, even at the risk of short-term economic disadvantage, in protecting marginalized Americans and countering the theocratic narrative;
· Americans, and publicly traded corporations, should withhold funding from candidates with theocratic leanings, or who fail to oppose theocratic initiatives;
· Legacy media and online news providers must take a more active role in raising and addressing the issue, and in limiting the dissemination of falsehoods, including by hosting meaningful, substantive discussions informed by facts;
· Science needs to be made more understandable and available by designing and developing mainstream programing;
· Civics needs to be reintroduced into the classrooms of America, and the teaching of the nation’s history expanded, not contracted;
· Legislation designed to hold those who tell palpable falsehoods responsible for the harm their comments cause should be considered.
But perhaps more than anything else, the American people must understand their country depends upon protecting all of their fellow Americans, regardless of their race, religion, beliefs and life styles. It is the commitment to this broad principle that has led the country to unparalleled success, not the narrow, biased, and uninformed views of the few.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the risks Americans would face if church and state were not kept separate. The history of secular and religious totalitarian states the world over has validated their wisdom. It’s time for the America people to remember why the Founding Fathers acted as they did, and reject the agenda of the new Republican theocrats.
David L. Carden served as the first resident U.S. ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. He is the author of Mapping ASEAN: Achieving Peace, Prosperity, and Sustainability in Southeast Asia and has written for Foreign Policy, Politico, the SAIS Review of International Affairs, the Guardian, the South China Morning Post, and Strategic Review, among others. He also is a mediator and serves on the Board of the Weinstein International Foundation, which promotes the use of mediation around the world.
Photo is by Madison and is licensable under CC BY-NC 2.0
