Nationalism–ethnic or religious–is always dangerous

Regardless of who you are, nationalism is a violent prospect.

The exit polls are out after Donald Trump’s primary victory in South Carolina, and according to them, he enjoyed the support of 75 percent of Christian Evangelicals. This exit poll, as well as many other studies, suggest that Trump’s main bloc of voters are Evangelical Christians. It isn’t white workers disenchanted with the Democratic Party giving him his greatest support, but rather, Christians. 

David Brooks said it clearly in his column this week. Bidenomics are indeed successful; unemployment is down, and inflation is under control, but voters seem to shrug off those facts. Brooks contrasted “college-educated voters” who are “much more likely to focus their attention on cultural issues like abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. rights, and they are much more socially liberal than non-college-educated voters.” In contrast, “less-educated voters feel morally judged for being socially backward.” So to put it another way, it isn’t economic insecurity that motivates Trump voters, it is their conservative social views that they feel ostracized for having. Trump gives these voters a chance to see their bigotry as acceptable. It is painful to acknowledge this, but conservative Christianity gives their bigotry the same cover that Trump does.

Last Tuesday, we heard Justice Samuel Alito essentially make the same claim as Brooks. In the U.S., gay marriage is Constitutionally protected. But Alito thinks that Obergefell—the Supreme Court’s decision that made it legal—creates a set of values that labels people who oppose queer relationships “as bigots [to be] treated as such.” What Alito, Brooks, and Christian Nationalists want is a society that tolerates their bigotry. But, a society that tolerates bigotry, is a bigoted society. Granting dignity and human rights to vulnerable people doesn’t oppress anyone. Claiming that it does renders invisible the burden that our society places on the vulnerable, and artificially creates one for those opposed. Christian Nationalists act like they are being oppressed, as they lobby for the right to disenfranchise others.

So, as we can see, Christian Nationalism is on the ballot this year. Trump appeals to those who want their values codified as law at the expense of minorities and other groups.

I write this rebuke of Christian Nationalism as a queer and brown Christian. The values of a Christian Nationalist nation would certainly harm me personally. And needless to say, I care about others who would also be harmed. A society that values and tolerates difference is one where we can all be protected. The people harmed in a pluralistic society are ones who do not want to have their monistic or dualistic views challenged. Nationalism leads to totalitarianism, as history and current events show. Soviet Nationalism is currently destroying the independent Ukrainian nation. Israeli Nationalism is responsible for bombing, occupation, and death in Gaza. And Christian Nationalism is resulting in a direct threat to American democracy and pluralism.

 I feel called to raise my voice against Christian Nationalism precisely because I’m Christian. I would hope and encourage Jews and Muslims to do the same. To be sure, every group—Russian, Christian, Muslim, Palestinian, and Israeli—deserves freedom and dignity. The nationalisms that counter other nationalisms suffer from the same results and consequences. We can and should be working toward pluralism. The tenets of each of the faiths I mention here exhort their followers to tolerate difference, welcome strangers, and be hospitable to all. 

It is well known that the nationalist impulse is born out of fear and sometimes, the experience of trauma. I want to honor the pain that produces the urge to fight for simple political answers, but offer a warning that the solution to that pain is tolerance, not bigotry. That hospitality and acceptance is part of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith. The solution to our collective pain is mutual understanding; the solution is pluralism, not totalitarianism.