Since US President Donald Trump’s election, the American left has asked itself tough questions about what it must do to respond to his rise. An equally important conversation needs to happen over the future of the American right.
In a democratic system based on alternation in power, the left has an interest in the kind of opponent it is confronted with. When the other side is captured by far-right populism, the damage to democracy can be great.
From that point of view, Christian voters are a constituency that can play a key role in moving the right away from the likes of Trump.
Illustration: Mountain people
Their overwhelming support for him at the polls was essential to his success, but it seems to be at odds with fundamental Christian principles.
This suggests there is scope for a different kind of conservative movement in the US.
Christian democracy, a political ideology embodied by figures like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, contributed to establishing stable democracies in Europe in the aftermath of World War II.
The US was often deeply supportive of this process, yet never cultivated an analogous political movement at home. Now that it is facing a serious institutional threat of its own, it can perhaps learn from what it has long preached abroad.
Christian democracy is just what its label says: A form of democratic politics inspired by Christian values.
More specifically, Christian democracy has historically been based on three core principles.
The first is that the Christian tradition of natural law implies a commitment to the idea of the inherent dignity of the human person, which in turn sustains certain fundamental moral commitments — for instance, to the sanctity of human life, the importance of the traditional family and, more generally, moral authorities to guide human conduct.
The second is a moral critique of capitalism based on the assumption that Christianity is incompatible with materialism and commands a duty of charity toward the poor and needy. Contrary to a widespread misconception, it was precisely on these premises that redistributive “welfare” regimes were built in most European countries after World War II.
For, barring a few exceptions in northern Europe, it was primarily Christian democratic — not social democratic — parties that came to power in continental Europe.
Finally, the third core principle of the Christian democratic ideology is a resolute internationalism, which translates into a commitment to both supranational cooperation amongst established powers and a duty of solidarity with respect to less fortunate peoples and countries.
The role of Christian democratic parties and agents in the creation of the UN, the EU and the international human rights regime was decisive.
Given how different all this is from the direction taken by the American right of late, is there any chance that something of the sort might actually take hold in the US?
Far from a fanciful speculation, there is a clear constituency for a political movement founded on such premises in the US.
As Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for then-US president George W Bush, says in the Atlantic’s latest cover piece: “One of the most extraordinary things about current politics is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump.”
It is so extraordinary that it is hard to imagine Christian voters remaining loyal to Trump if faced with a better alternative.
There are several reasons why a political project blending conservative social values, a moral critique of capitalism and internationalism might be more appealing to the religious right in the US than Trump’s brand of nationalist populism.
To start with, Trump seems an unlikely champion of conservative social values. As a former pro-choicer who is currently embroiled in a legal dispute over hush-money he allegedly paid to cover up an extramarital affair, he is hardly a model of Christian character or behavior.
It is true that many religious conservatives have for now been willing to abstract from the president’s character in exchange for direct policy favors — such as the nomination of a US Supreme Court justice opposed to abortion rights.
However, there are a number of key policy areas in which Trump’s goals run directly counter to the religious right’s long-held political commitments and orientations.
For instance, Trump’s dogged determination to curb socially redistributive policies — like taxes for the rich and healthcare coverage for vulnerable groups — jar with the Christian values of solidarity and neighborly love, which previously found expression in the commitment to a form of “compassionate” conservatism.
Similarly, Trump’s exclusivist nationalism is in tension with Christianity’s inherent universalism, which traditionally found expression in the fact that US evangelicals have been the backbone of the nation’s extensive foreign aid missions.
To put it bluntly (as Pope Francis has also recently said): It seems unlikely that Jesus would have turned away people at the border on the grounds that they are not fit to be part of “us.”
Christian democracy demonstrates that religious conservatism need not be linked with nationalist populism.
American evangelicals can learn from this tradition, one that has influenced US Catholic thought, instead of becoming pawns of the far right.
As the Yale University historian Samuel Moyn reminded us in a recent article, this is a mistake the religious right already committed, in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s: hoping they could get more protection for religious values out of an alliance with secular authoritarianism than an alliance with liberal democracy.
The strategy quickly came back to bite them, as the likes of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler turned on their religious supporters in pursuit of their own political projects.
Of course, we are not arguing that Trump is Hitler or Mussolini. Times have changed and secular authoritarianism has taken different forms.
However, it is interesting to note that the way in which fascism and national socialism were finally defeated in Europe (not just militarily, but also politically) was through what Moyn calls an “epoch-making reinvention of conservatism” known as Christian democracy.
Perhaps it would be named differently and surely would take different forms.
However, it seems unlikely that the US can succeed in moving beyond the present political moment without a renewed form of political conservatism capable of liberating the religious right from its Faustian pact with secular authoritarianism.
Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti is assistant professor of political science at the City College of New York. Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins is a lecturer in religious studies at Yale University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath