In the time that’s elapsed since Sightings published my essay “Redefining the American Civil Religion” (October 6, 2017), it seems that positions of those on both ends of the political spectrum have hardened, while those in the center have become even more dismayed. One might have imagined that the new president—who appeared to have little truck with conventional Republicanism to begin with—might chart a new non-partisan course. But in fact, even on the comparatively narrow spectrum of partisan politics, Washington appears to be occupied by opposed camps, and there is little in the way of collaboration for the greater good.

Political discourse has been more or less polarized in the United States now for decades. In many respects, the conflicts of the 1960s also can be understood in terms of a war between egalitarianism and hierarchic social structures, arguably represented by communalist experimentation at the one extreme and the Vietnam War on the other. American counter-cultures and their institutional opposition have quite a history by now. Battles to (re)define the American civil religion have been going on for a long time.

Candidate Trump was unusual because, among other things, he rejected not only “political correctness,” but also much of conventional Republicanism (for instance, “free trade” ideology), and thus presented at least the possibility of new alliances and a reconfiguration of the political spectrum. His chief strategist, Steve Bannon, (reportedly a Catholic Guénonian Traditionalist by inclination) didn’t fit conventional political categories very well. Some of Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail and in his early speeches (including standing for the “forgotten” in this country) coopted Democratic language. The possibility was there for new coalitions to emerge. That hasn’t happened, at least thus far. 

Of course, much bigger tectonic dimensions underlie the obvious political divisions and rancorous discourse. Rural Americans voted overwhelmingly for Trump. In the rural Michigan counties near where I live, Trump signs were everywhere, and the rural vote was instrumental in President Trump’s victory. The urban vote, including here, was resoundingly for Clinton. These are not superficial divisions, but are driven by deep economic and cultural divides. The Wall Street Journal, in arresting detail, has shown how in almost every economic indicator rural America has fallen dramatically over the past ten years, and continues to decline. Urban and rural America really do seem to be entirely different worlds.

A similar divide holds nationally. California is exemplary in this regard. In many respects, (urban) California represents “the resistance” to the Trump administration’s signature initiatives. California passed “sanctuary state” legislation, effective January 1, 2018, that restricts state officials from cooperating with federal immigration agents, thus directly countering the Trump administration’s anti-illegal-immigration rhetoric of “building a wall.” And the opposition goes both ways. Almost immediately after California’s legalization of marijuana took effect early in 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded a directive that kept federal prosecutors from enforcing federal marijuana law. Again, we are looking at clashes with roots in the 1960s.

Extreme political rhetoric that demonizes others encourages violent expression. And this too goes both ways. Suppressing and seeking to criminalize some perspectives, however objectionable they may seem, in turn may result in a counter-reaction. Can we refer to a kind of civil war? Not at present, for sure, but if the rhetoric remains as strident as it has been—if on the one side are “libtards” and on the other are “deplorables”—then it may well be that political polarization will drive violent conflict. 

During the time before and since the election, we saw sporadic violence. One thinks here of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville and the demonstrators’ encounters with the antifa movement, but also of the shooter in Dallas targeting police officers; one recalls the protests against various campus speakers including Richard Spencer; and one thinks of the mass murder in Las Vegas, targeting a perhaps Trump-supporting country-music audience. The point here is not that these examples are the same, but rather only that violence is not as far away as we might like to believe.

It is perhaps surprising to think of polarized discourse or violence in the context of civil religion. But behind and infusing such incendiary rhetoric are starkly different religious perspectives. One perspective in Christianity invokes the New Testament as fundamentally a socialist gospel, encouraging equality and the sharing of goods in common; another defended slavery; and still another provided New Testament support for the American revolution and for the Canadian rebellion of 1837. While I am not arguing that another American revolution or civil war is imminent, certainly it is the case that historically, the level of rhetorical fury we have seen in recent American political discourse has resulted in political violence before. 

Where is the line between battles over redefining the American civil religion and outright battles? I’m not sure the line is all that clear. We are talking about whether to maintain or remove statues (what is included and what is excluded from public memorialization), whether to accept or reject ballot initiatives approved by a vote of the people, whether to tolerate free speech of others with whom we may disagree, whether due process is recognized—in other words, about fundamental values as expressed through governmental institutions. Ultimately, we are talking about which “side” (egalitarian or hierarchic) has the upper hand of political power. Much of the divisive political rhetoric and actions of the past year is better understood in the context of a larger battle, be it figurative or literal, to (re)define American civil religion for better or for worse. 

Resources

- Forbes, James. “God Has Opened the Eyes of the People: Religious Rhetoric and the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837,” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring 2018): 1-25.

- Green, Joshua. Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency. Penguin, 2017.

RETURN TO TRUMPISM REDUX

---

Author, Arthur Versluis, is professor and chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Michigan State University.

---

Sightings is edited by Brett Colasacco (AB’07, MDiv’10), a PhD candidate in religion, literature, and visual culture at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Sign up here to receive Sightings via email. You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter.