The War on Evangelicalism, Part Four

In many ways, the battle for the Bible and for the “soul” of evangelicalism mirrored the same lines of reasoning that undergirded the American Civil War. The Bible read literally simply did not clearly disparage slavery. One could find ample support for “Biblical slavery.” Abolitionists were at a clear disadvantage, then, if one assumed the Bible was to be taken literally. Likewise, the struggle for racial equality and women’s rights found scant support when the Bible was read literally and deemed “inerrant.”

Secondly, by defending an inerrant Bible (despite all the intellectual hoops one had to jump through to do so) Lindsell and other fundamentalists were afforded a certain “moral high ground in the battle, at least in their own eyes. While others sought to elevate blacks and women in society, fundamentalists defended the “Word of God,” from modernity and secularism. Inerrancy became the rule of engagement for the coming war for evangelicalism. Fundamentalism almost always assumes issues are binary, either all right or all wrong, and they were sure they were on the side of all-right. As Clark Pinnock once observed, “How awfully easy it is for people who think themselves in possession of God’s infallible Word to transfer some of that infallibility to themselves…And how easy for them, to respond to anyone who questions any aspect of their fortresslike position with righteous anger and adamant rejection.”  (1)

Thirdly, the fundamentalist’s views on scriptural authority and inspiration tended to downplay experience and practice in favor of knowledge. The Bible became largely a compendium of “facts” about God that Christians were to intellectually absorb. Orthodoxy was primarily defined as believing the right things. “The Bible, then, is not a ‘book full of timeless truths’ (2) but a revelatory vehicle that contains many types of revelation, all of which surround and support that which is primary in scripture: narrative.” (3) 

Nowhere was the battle to believe the “right things” more apparent than in the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s. As David Gushee recounts, “Those identifying with the conservative side…believed that the denomination as a whole, and the seminaries and colleges in particular, were straying into mainline liberalism, including an eroding belief in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible.” (4) By this, of course, conservatives meant inerrancy of scripture. The battle for the Bible intertwined with secular politics, and with the Southern fundamentalist views of Jerry Falwell and others, Meant that the “Southern Baptist fights were the most visible. But in Brian McLaren’s 2016 book, ‘The Great Spiritual Migration,’ he describes a political fundamentalist takeover of the whole of evangelical Christianity, not just the Southern Baptists. …A movement of once-considerable theological and moral diversity was gradually and intentionally moved to a place of conservative theological and moral rigidity.” (5) 

But this brings us to a different level of theological infighting. The so-called battle for the Bible and the subsequent takeover of evangelicalism was strongly intertwined with a certain political stance and agendas. There were underlying political motives of the fundamentalist battle for control of American evangelicalism. More on that in part 5 of this series.

To be continued.

1 Roger E. Olson, “Reformed and Always Reforming,” Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 55-56, (quoting Pinnock) from “An Evangelical Theology: Conservative and Contemporary,” Christianity Today, January 5, 1979, p. 23.

2 Clark Pinnock, “Tracking the Maze: Finding our Way Through Modern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective,” Harper and Roe, 1990, p. 175

3 Olson, p. 54.

4 David P. Gushee, “Still Christian, Following Jesus out of American Evangelicalism,” p. 30.

5 Ibid., p. 31.

The War on Evangelicalism, Part Three

While Harold Lindsell’s “The Battle for the Bible” may have been the opening salvo on the war on Evangelicalism, Baptist segregationist Pastor and televangelist Jerry Falwell and his “Moral Majority” movement marked the beginning of an all-out assault on evangelicalism. It marked the D-Day politically of the war and would set the tone for the next two decades.

Depending on whom one talked to, Falwell was either a fundamentalist or an evangelical. He certainly started out as a fundamentalist. His foray into politics somewhat sullied his reputation as a fundamentalist, as Bob Jones University “declared that the Moral Majority organization “was Satanic”, holding the view that it was a step towards the apostate one-world church and government body because it would cross the line from a political alliance to a religious one between true Christians and the non-born-again, which was forbidden by their interpretation of the Bible.“ (1) But, Falwell never disavowed fundamentalism, and continued to espouse many of its tenants.

Which is part of the point I wish to make. By allying with conservative politicians and Catholics, Falwell was able to infiltrate evangelicalism, while still able to forward a fundamentalist agenda. But let’s be clear here. This entanglement with American politics was a major departure for a fundamentalist. Instead of rejecting politics, as most fundamentalists before, Falwell heartily jumped into the fray, while still clinging to most fundamentalist beliefs, the most prominent of which was racism.

Viewing the fight for civil rights as a communist plot, Falwell was a staunch defender of segregation. For him and other fundamentalists, communism fostered American racial discontent as a tool to discredit capitalism. The political ploy he relied on was, of course, “states rights.” (2) The argument that States, not the federal government, should decide issues of discrimination has been a consistent tool in the fight against inclusion by conservatives ever since.

However, the racism inherent to fundamentalists like Falwell put him at a tremendous political disadvantage. “Although Southern fundamentalists were advancing in socioeconomic status and becoming more politically active, they were unable to create a nationally,  influential political movement, primarily because their defense of segregation ran counter to the nation’s increasing acceptance of civil rights and left them regionally isolated.” (3)

As Falwell positioned his morality troops in 1979, fundamentalists of another sort were preparing their assault on Southern Baptist colleges. David P. Gushee, a renowned Christian ethicist, who has since renounced evangelicalism, describes the bitter cultural battle being fought when he attended seminary in the 80’s.

“The Southern Seminary where I arrived in 1984 was embroiled in a fierce denominational controversy…Little known to me before my arrival was that the fact that the Southern Baptists were at the forefront of the religious wars of the 1980s and beyond, and that Southern Seminary was ground zero. I showed up in the midst of the carefully organized campaign of ‘fundamentalist-conservatives’ to take over (back?) the denomination from ‘moderate’ (moderate-conservative? liberal?) control.” (4)

Interestingly, I was finishing up my seminary degree from Fuller Seminary about the same time Dr. Gushee was beginning his. I was aware of the battle, but as I was not Southern Baptist, didn’t think that much of it. I was also aware of Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority, but likewise, dismissed it as “fringe.”

So, as the 1980’s began, a basic two-pronged fundamentalist strategy formed: one on the popular level with the Falwell-led Moral Majority, the other on campuses and within the Southern Baptist Convention, led by fundamentalists such as Paige Patterson. More on that later.

To be continued.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell_Sr.

2 “God’s Own Party, The Making of the Christian Right,” Daniel K. Williams, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 46.

3 Ibid, pp. 46-47.

4 “Still Christian, Following Jesus out of American Evangelicalism,” David P. Gushee, Westminster John Knox Press, 2017, p. 28.

The War on Evangelicalism, Part One

At a recent town hall meeting, Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, took questions from an “evangelical” man named Tim. Tim started the conversation by stating that he loved America and Americans but was disheartened by what he viewed as a “bombardment” from Democrats “demonizing” his political and religious beliefs as “bigoted and intolerant.” Furthermore, he did not feel his beliefs were getting “the respect and honor” that were due them. (1) 

There are reasons evangelicals like Tim feel this way. Society is changing, and depending on one’s perspective, either it has always been changing, or the change is a dramatic harbinger of the “end times.” 

“Where conservatives and liberals differ, of course, is in interpretation.  To liberals and secularists, America has always changed, and if it is changing for the more multicultural and less religiously homogeneous, the better.

But for conservatives, these trends are signs of, depending on one’s point of view, the approaching end-times (over 75 percent of American evangelicals say they believe the Rapture will take place in the next 50 years); the possession of the United States by demonic entities (Trump’s closest religious adviser believes this); a ‘war on religion’ by secular elites and government; a conspiracy by Hollywood and media moguls; or at the very least, a dangerous loss of our moral center.” (2)

But where conservative American Christianity is concerned, Tim’s concern is not new, but has a history dating back at least to the beginnings of the 20th century. Part of the problem stems from the perception of loss, another is the tendency to wear rose-colored glasses when longing for the past. 

Prior to the American Civil War, the American governance and White Protestant ethos went remarkably well in hand. Like Protestantism and Catholicism in European countries, the status quo of society assumed a certain parallel between religion and society, church and state. However, in Europe that glove in hand relationship was dissolving as secularism gained ground. With the rise of German “Higher Criticism” many conservatives felt the previous assumptions of Biblical authorship were under attack.

What followed the rising secularism and critical studies of scripture was the development of fundamentalist Christianity. In the succeeding decades until WWII, among these fundamentalists, there was a rigorous rejection of secularism and critical study as well as a general rejection of society’s trajectory. All of those distractions were “worldly” and the church needed to separate herself from them. Following WWII, a more nuanced conservatism arose, breaking ranks with fundamentalism. It was called evangelicalism. This is the story of the attack on that evangelicalism.

In the fundamentalist telling of the story the attack came from a myriad of things: humanism, secularism, movies, dances, communism, liberalism, feminism, the list is long. In reality, though, the attack on evangelicalism was from within. It would be “friendly fire” that would eventually topple evangelicalism. Tim, as with most 21st century evangelicals, is unaware of the war that ensued in the last 20 years of the 20th century. Most experienced it but were deceived as to its real nature, and where the shells were coming from. The battle was fought over how the church was to understand and define itself. As such, it was an internal affair, and as with most wars, the victor rewrites the history of that war.

Many of the conservative evangelical denominations such as the Pentecostal Assemblies of God or the Southern Baptist were, and could be argued, still are, fundamentalist denominations. Dispensationalism and end times eschatology are rather new developments within the last 150 years, and tend to define fundamentalism. Along with that is the belief in the “inerrancy” of scripture, one of the fundamental tenants of fundamentalism. While it has been argued that fundamentalism is a smaller subset of evangelicalism; since fundamentalism arose from the modernist debate in the early 20th century, and evangelicalism, as is known today is post-WWII, I consider modern                                    evangelicalism as a subset, or outgrowth of fundamentalism.

This is apparent when observing the development of the term evangelical in the late 20th century by preachers such as Billy Graham and the development of evangelical institutions like Fuller Theological Seminary and the National Association of Evangelicals. While evangelicalism existed prior to the 20th century, it differed markedly from what would become fundamentalism because of its emphasis on social reform. This would be revived with the new post-war evangelicalism of the 50’s. These new evangelicals came from fundamentalist backgrounds but wished a more socially engaged experience than the separatism of fundamentalism.

Adding more confusion to the matter is that many of the most vocal evangelical leaders in the news today, like Jerry Falwell and his son, as well as Billy Graham’s son, Franklin Graham, are, actually fundamentalists. The vitriol and harsh judgmental expressions of Franklin Graham or the ultra Calvinism of John Piper track more closely to fundamentalism than evangelicalism. It is understandable that the News Media and even evangelicals are confused, as I believe the confusion between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is intentional. But more on that in part two.

To be continued.

1 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiJsbDo04PnAhUBQawKHbPFBIkQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FNowThisPolitics%2Fvideos%2Fsen-elizabeth-warren-answers-evangelical-mans-question-about-their-differences%2F966749423707518%2F&usg=AOvVaw1fPrXM8whbEqoGUHhOBwJ6

2 https://www.thedailybeast.com/of-course-christian-conservatives-compare-trump-to-jesus-they-think-theyre-fighting-for-americas-soul

Deconstruction and the Culture Wars

My spirit is disquieted. I have a hard time falling asleep. I cannot turn my mind off. I have mixed feelings of anger, anguish, dread. At times deep sorrow washes over me. Other times a feeling of loss. But at times I feel a fleeting sense of peace…of feeling I am heading in the right direction. I tend to be a rather introspective person, always have been, so this is not some pathology, I have known depression enough to know that this is not simply depression. Most of my life I have been actually rather optimistic. No, this is no doubt a byproduct of spiritual deconstruction coupled with the sense of loss of my childhood beliefs.

In some ways I envy the British and Europeans, for whom Christendom died a century or more ago. The merger of religion and state was a failure, so the whole misguided experiment was simply abandoned. Here in the States, we doggedly refuse to abandon the effort to force the Kingdom of God down everyone’s throats. I am watching helplessly as fundamentalism reasserts its hold on American politics and presents society with an ugly Jesus.

As I have mentioned in the past, my wife and I grew up in the Assemblies of God denomination. We still attend one such church, largely because it was the church my wife has attended all her life, and because my 95 year old mom needs a ride to church, and that’s her church. I am not a member, I have grown apart from that denomination theologically, and have gradually come to the realization that I no longer identify as “evangelical.”

As can be expected, attending a meeting every Sunday where you no longer fit in is not very satisfying. It is not that I expect everyone to applaud my journey or my theological views, but I have found in the last half dozen years, that fundamentalism does not encourage the exchange of differing theological or spiritual understandings. I miss seminary where we were encouraged to wrestle with scripture, to debate ideas, bounce things off each other…in other words, it was a “safe” place to deconstruct and reconstruct unhindered by ecclesiastical censure.

But it is not the inability to “be myself” that I am bemoaning, but, rather the inability to “reach” lost evangelicals. It is not a pleasant experience to watch the church dying in real time, to see family members and friends succumb to self-delusion and harmful confirmation biases. Being “saved” in scripture, the concept of salvation, is not a “point” in one’s life that one can look back on and say, “that’s it, that’s when I was saved and said the sinner’s prayer.” Nor is it a destination when you die. Again and again, Jesus showed us that salvation was a continuous, lived experience.

A century and a half of individualistic, “sawdust trail” conversion experiences has numbed the conservative church to the central call of the Gospel message: love your neighbor. Conservatism has replaced the gospel in too many American churches. The gospel of unbridled capitalism and libertarianism has replaced the open generosity of Jesus’ message. The culture war that is being fiercely waged by the Religious Right is not political but spiritual. It is not, as conservatives opine, about gay marriage, feminism and transgender bathrooms. No, the struggle has always been about defining “who is my neighbor?”

So, once again, yesterday, I had the jarring experience of sitting through another service that started with everyone holding up their Bibles and in lock-step repeating the mantra…”I believe the WHOLE Bible, what it says about me, what it says about you…” as I glanced around the room and saw the frozen smiles of a couple hundred people waving their Bibles in complete obedience to their leader a chilling realization came over me, “it’s a cult.” Even though the pastor’s message was helpful for those facing hard times, the picture of everyone holding their Bibles up was so jarring, and the revelation that evangelicalism is a cult so disturbing, I was distracted for the rest of the service. It didn’t help that as we pulled out of the parking lot, the car ahead proudly displayed a Trump/Pence 2020 sticker.

Abortion: The Great Evangelical Trigger

All social constructs have their own particular interpretation of their history, their own myths. The supposed lengthy anti-abortion stance among evangelicals is one such myth, as well as the supposed abhorrence for abortion that has supposedly existed for time immemorial. Prior to 1979, most evangelical leaders viewed abortion as a “Catholic issue.” Life began at birth. The reason for the timing of the switch in 1979 coincided with increased pressure on evangelical “segregation academies,” in the American Bible Belt to desegregate or be fined and lose tax exempt status. Evangelicals seem to conveniently forget the seamy underbelly of racism that was such an integral part of much of the fundamentalist Christian background in America.

Jerry Falwell needed the support of Catholic conservatives to turn the tide of progressive social action and desegregation (he was a segregationist). Catholics had always been consistently anti contraceptive, anti abortion. Together with the fundamentalist theologian, Francis Schaeffer and Paul Weyrich a plan was concocted to launch a movement Falwell called “The Moral Majority.” By doing so, undermining desegregation and fomenting racial tension could continue largely hidden by a “righteous and noble” cause.

This is largely unknown among the evangelical faithful even though the information is readily available online and many books have addressed it. I do not doubt the sincerity of most evangelical parishioners. The tragedy is that they are being used, and have been for the past 35 years. Falwell’s plan was brilliant, as the simple mention of “abortion” is a powerful dog-whistle to those that have been brainwashed. It is a convenience relied on by evangelicals like John MacArthur, to discourage attempts at social justice while still appearing highly moral. It is the underlying reason evangelical talking heads like James Dobson use such inflammatory language as genocide, murder and infanticide…to rile up their supporters. For evangelical leadership it has always been about control.

The reasons behind the evangelical about-face on abortion may be highly suspect but they are right about one thing: both Jews and Christians have generally opposed abortion on ethical grounds. Of course, it should be noted that, for the most part, we are talking about Patriarchal societies, where women were highly controlled by men. Evangelicals will claim the Bible is unequivocally “pro-life,” but is it truly? Sanctity of life covers more than the human fetus in the womb. The intrinsic value of EVERY human life lies at the heart of Jesus’ teaching. Yet, this was not the message of large swaths of the Old Testament. This is problematic for evangelicals that claim the Bible is GOD’S WORD and inerrant in everything it claims. While God may be against abortion, that is not an easy deduction from a “flat” reading of scripture.

Much like the swordsman in Princess Bride when evangelicals claim the Bible is pro-life, they keep using that word, but I don’t think they truly know what that means. Parts that are inconvenient to the pro-life claim are glossed over, or ignored completely in favor of Bible harmonized to fit their agenda. The evangelical “flat reading” of scripture tends to result in some very questionable understandings of pro-life, such as strong support for the death penalty among evangelicals. Also lost on most evangelicals is the role poverty plays in the decision to have an abortion, and the disproportionate financial burdens draconian abortion laws place on poor Black women in America. This is due in large part because evangelicals think in terms of sin and punishment.

Then again, evangelicals are not known for nuance in their reasoning. Having an inerrant Bible, read largely literally and a history of distrusting science has led to a dangerous political climate in America and has put a great deal of women’s lives in jeopardy.

Back in 2016, after the first large Women’s March on Washington, I wondered why Pro-Life women’s groups were not listed as officially in the march, as they comprise a large group of women, and I thought, women should be allowed to iron out the differences and arrive at a reasonable compromise without men’s input, after all it’s their bodies at stake here. Silly me. Fundamentalists do not compromise. This is the danger of fundamentalism when it infiltrates the politics of a democratic nation. Dialogue ceases and progress stops.

Yet this does not address the ethical questions abortion raises, and I believe they are valid. What makes dialogue extremely difficult among Christians I have found from my own experience, is the difference between how the Bible is used and what are the underlying presuppositions about the nature of scripture itself. The pro-life inerrantist will marshal numerous quotes from early christian leaders showing the church believed abortion to be a sin. Likewise Jewish sources as well as carefully selected scriptural passages. Scripture is seen as a monolithically pro-life “rule book.” Conversation grinds to a halt when I explain that I do not follow scripture, but instead follow Jesus Christ. To a Biblican this is heresy. Let me be clear, the average evangelical “follows” the Bible, and because the Bible is unevenly “pro-life,” we end up with a group of people claiming to follow Christ that end up supporting the same man Neo Nazis do. There is a deep incongruity that results from treating the Bible as a rule book rather than a guide leading us to Christ.

So rather than ask the difficult questions of how to reduce unwanted pregnancies and how to prevent the need for abortions, evangelical pro-life leadership attempt to push laws outlawing abortion. Draconian measures to force women to bear children, even in the instances of rape for example. Obsession over sexual activities before marriage lead to ineffectual purity culture and sexual abstinence teaching as a birth control method. 

So, what we have ended up with in the current political crisis in American is a rather large group of citizens that is easily controlled and directed primarily by one “trigger.” “Vote pro-life” becomes the only qualification a candidate needs to meet to garner the evangelical vote. It covers a multitude of sins. This type of reductionist reasoning has had disastrous results for both the church in America and for our country.

Further reading:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

https://newrepublic.com/article/140961/amazing-disgrace-donald-trump-hijacked-religious-right

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237

Blinded by the Light: The Boss, and What it Means to be Human

I just finished watching the movie: Blinded by the Light in our local theater. It is based on the real life story of a young Pakistani in Great Britain who is inspired to achieve something other than the pedestrian ambitions of his conservative father. I walked away uplifted and strangely spiritually moved. A Pakistani, and a Muslim at that, and yet I felt more in common with him than my own conservative Christian background.

At movie’s end, Javid comes to realize that the Springsteen lyrics “blinded by the light” were not referring to a love affair, or something solely personal, but referred  to how blinded we become to our shared humanity, our shared struggles as humans, how we are family. No matter how far we roam, we are still family, both literally and figuratively.

Javid’s journey in many ways, mirrors my own. No, not that my father was unsupportive or that my parents weren’t proud of me, but that we all belong to non biological families that we are “born into.” The family I am referring to, that I was born into, was American conservative Christianity.

The movie, set in the 1980s, shows a Britain in turmoil. Loss of jobs, a slumping economy and severe racial tensions. Javid is caught between two worlds, the world of White GB and his Pakistani heritage. His father’s stern warnings about becoming “British” instead of Pakistani, reminds me of dozens of sermons I’ve hear over the years in church. In listening to The Boss, Javid is suddenly aware that someone who doesn’t look like him, with an entirely different culture than his Pakistani one…understands!

In his 1980s GB, the culture wars are in full swing, White Nationalism and the inevitable clash between working class whites and working class immigrants. Sound familiar? Both traditions strove to separate themselves from each other, to concentrate on their differences rather than commonalities. Javid is exasperated when his father refuses to confront racism and ignorance, but instead states Pakistanis must keep their heads down and not draw attention to themselves. Like the way blacks were expected to behave in America for so many years.

And this is where it started to hit home for me. Conservative Christianity, like the practice of Javid’s father’s Muslim heritage, is divisive. At core, religion done badly points to the faults of others and creates an “us vs them” mentality. It was this realization, some half dozen years ago, that started me down the road of deconstructing my Christian heritage. Christians like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham, to name a few, didn’t sound like Christ.

At first, I thought it was mainly their tone that was unlike Christ. As though there was a polite way to tell gays they were living in sin and going to hell! The problem was, the church offered no way to simultaneously “witness” in a loving fashion, without completely invalidating another’s existence. And this hits at the heart of the evangelical “problem,” they say they love others with the love of Christ, but their actions say otherwise. This is not to say that all individual conservative Christians fall into this category, but rather, the system is rigged to be judgmental and exclusive. There is a great, big “IF’ attached to the so-called, unmerited love of God. God loves you IF you’re not gay, God loves you IF you’re not a Muslim, God loves you IF you believe the Bible is inerrant, there are myriads of “ifs” attached.

The biggest “if” is attached to being white and conservative. And of course, Republican. This is a shoe-in for being on God’s “good side.” A rather slip-shod and shallow reading of the New Testament gives the conservative church a platform to build a narrow, divisive and somewhat paranoid version of Christianity that leads to a church that no longer feels itself a part of the human race, the vast majority of whom “are not lovers of truth,” and are “going to hell.” While hell-fire preaching has fallen out of vogue among evangelicals, the animus is still lying just below the surface. It comes out, rather, in the way conservative Christians wage the “culture wars.” The way they throw their support and hopes onto someone who represents everything Christ is NOT about. Abortion is a diversion from the ugliness that so much the church in America has come to represent. And please, this is not politics I am talking about. Rather, it hits at the core of not only what kind of America do we wish to be, but what kind of Christian do we wish to be.

In conclusion, the movie helped me see that I am a human first, and share that bond with the entire human race. If I strive to be anything, it is to be a better human, or as Jesus said, a better “neighbor.” It’s not about being a better “Christian,” although that should logically follow if one seeks the first. This is backwards, from most sermons I have heard, I know, but I think if the church started behaving more human, they’d end up being more Christ-like.

White Nationalism: The Republican New Normal

“Go back to where you came from” appears to be the new rally cry for Republicans, a more honest, yet ugly slogan than the previous MAGA one. Yet the two are intrinsically linked as their meaning is clear: “America is for White people. If you don’t like that, you can leave.” Republicanism is no longer a “big tent” party, but is has increasingly allowed itself to be distracted by White Nationalism. In doing so it has become clear that Republicans under the leadership of the current occupant of the White House, have given up on appealing to a wide swath of Americans. Instead, they have realized that increasingly they are at odds with the majority of Western Democracies and the progressive gains in them, and so have decided to appeal to a smaller constituency: White Racists.

The adage “you can’t please everyone” may be part of the strategy the White House is employing here. Democrats may fail in trying to be “all things to all people,” while Republicans will, perhaps, have greater success by appealing to a smaller group: their base. It is far easier to appeal to a small group rather than a larger, disparate group. There is no concerted effort, it would seem, to appeal to people of color, women, sexual minorities, non-Christians, in short the Republican appeal seems to be directed straight at middle class Whites with 2 years or less of college education. As this is a shrinking demographic, we may be witnessing the “beginning of the end” for the Grand Old Party.

The Two Party system itself may be partially to blame here, as in other countries xenophobic populism is more confined to minority parties. Here in the US it has no choice to do so but has become the “mainstream” alternative to a broader centrist party: the Democratic.

“The difference is that in Europe, far-right populist parties are often an alternative to the mainstream. In the United States, the Republican Party is the mainstream.”

“That’s the tragedy of the American two-party system,” Mr. Greven said. In a multiparty government, white working-class populists might have been shunted into a smaller faction, and the Republicans might have continued as a “big tent” conservative party. Instead, the Republican Party has allowed its more extreme elements to dominate. “Nowhere in Europe do you have that phenomenon.” 1

Thomas Greven is a political scientist at the Free University of Berlin who has studied right-wing populism. He goes on to say that “The Democrats fall closer to mainstream left and center-left parties in other countries, like the Social Democratic Party in Germany and Britain’s Labour Party, according to their manifestos’ scores.

And the United States’ political center of gravity is to the right of other countries’, partly because of the lack of a serious left-wing party. Between 2000 and 2012, the Democratic manifestos were to the right of the median party platform. The party has moved left but is still much closer to the center than the Republicans.” 2

One of the arguments used on both sides is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. You hear it constantly. Those women “hate America!” They are “unAmerican,” or “antiAmerican.” To be fair, the Democrats, in turn, return the jib: Trump is “unAmerican.” Let me be perfectly clear, this is not a contest to determine who is the most patriotic or nationalistic candidate to run our country, but, what kind of America do we wish to be!

You see, America was not always welcoming, inclusive and color-blind. We quickly forget our past history with our First Nation peoples, slavery and Jim Crow. We forget the arrogant assumptions of Western European imperialism. We prefer to gloat over a false narrative of American exceptionalism, and pat ourselves on the back over our Constitution, one that claimed universal “truths” yet denied those privileges to a large swath of people. So when the current White House occupant-in-Chief says, “Make America Great Again,” he is talking about returning to that America, the narrow, small minded one. Those who don’t like that can leave.