The Architects of Division: Katherine Stewart

Summary

Future Hindsight — “The Architects of Division: Katherine Stewart”

Host: Mila Atmos
Guest: Katherine Stewart
Date: March 27, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Future Hindsight explores the machinery behind American political division, with a special focus on how organized right-wing movements, powered by vast sums of money, propaganda, and Christian nationalism, are working to undermine democracy. Host Mila Atmos interviews journalist and author Katherine Stewart about her latest book, Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy. They discuss how America got here, who funds these anti-democratic efforts, why attacks on public education are key, and the gendered undercurrents of the movement, while also offering tangible steps for civic action.

---

Main Themes and Discussion Points

1. Rethinking Political Division & The Nature of the Threat

• The “Good Faith” Fallacy:
  Many believe that Americans’ political divisions are rooted mainly in economic and cultural worries, best addressed through “finding common ground.” But Stewart argues that organized forces have engineered division for political and financial gain, and that not all actors are seeking compromise.

  “The movement wants to burn down the house, not looking for a seat at the noisy table of American democracy.” (B quoting her book, 02:16)

• Nihilism as a Political Weapon:
  Stewart defines “reactionary nihilism” as the embrace of destruction and rejection of truth and shared values, with the right seeking to dismantle democracy in pursuit of a mythologized past.

  “I think of nihilists as people who deny that there’s any real value in the world as it truly exists and who deny that the truth itself has any value.” (B, 05:10)

  • This is powered by three forces: Money, Lies, and Christian Nationalism (“God”).

2. The Money: Who Are the Funders and What Do They Want?

• Key Deep-Pocket Funders:
  Not a religious monolith but united by anti-liberal goals. Notable families include the Corkerys, Barry Side, the Wilkes brothers, Tim Dunn, the DeVos-Prince family, and others.
  • They want to destroy regulations, dismantle government oversight, and protect or expand privileges and monopolies.
• Contradiction of Free Market Rhetoric:
  Stewart calls out the hypocrisy of espousing “free markets” while lobbying for government protection and subsidies.

  “A lot of people are going to get hurt if they succeed in destroying a public administration...and replace it with a privately controlled, corporate managed state.” (B, 09:28)

3. Lies: Propaganda, Disinformation, and Manipulation

• The Network of Lies:
  Coordinated campaigns spread panic—fear of the “deep state,” demonization of opponents, and outlandish conspiracy theories.
  • Case Example: The “Reawaken America” tour (organized by Trump allies) is a “pro-MAGA conspiracy fest” that bombards churchgoers with wild conspiracies meant to confuse and control (16:26).

  “When you go into these spaces, you hear every imaginable conspiracy... The thing that this is intended to do is confuse people, to really separate them from the facts, and that makes them easier to control.” (B, 17:01)

4. The Machine: Christian Nationalism as Mindset and Infrastructure

• Definition and Strategy:
  Christian nationalism is both an ideology (America should be a “Christian nation”) and an organizing machine—a web of pastor networks, think tanks, media, and political operatives deploying sophisticated turnout strategies.

  “Its strength is in this deep organizational infrastructure its leaders and funders have invested for five decades... you don’t need a majority to win an election. All you need to do is turn out a disproportionately mobilized minority.” (B, 29:31–31:28)

• Targeted Voter Mobilization:
  Unlike the liberal side’s focus on dialogue, the right zeroes in on base turnout, particularly in swing states and districts.

5. Attack on Public Education

• Why Public Education Is Targeted:
  The right resists pluralistic education and critical thought, preferring control through religious schools and voucher systems.
  • Notable quote from Jerry Falwell sets the agenda:

    “I hope to see the day when there are no more public schools. Churches will have taken them over and Christians will be running them.” (B, 23:07)

  • Spreading lies about “gender change factories” or “critical race theory” to build mistrust and justify purges of diverse or challenging curricula (25:59).

6. Gender Anxiety and Misogyny

• The Engine of Reactionary Authoritarianism:
  “Gender anxiety is... the rocket fuel of the movement.”
  • The right valorizes traditional gender hierarchies, blames feminism, and pushes “trad wife” culture, with women often collaborating for power within the system (34:04–36:47).

  “Throughout history... male supremacy has provided the backbone of authoritarian movements. Fascist parties always glorify the virtues of manliness... and despise the weakness of womanliness…” (B, 34:04)

7. Lessons on Movement-Building and Lessons for Democracy

• The Right’s Organizational Prowess:
  Decades of strategic, well-funded activism focused on courts, local offices, and long-term goals have paid off.
  • Stewart notes how the movement has become “much more radically anti-democratic,” no longer seeking accommodation, but dominance (39:57).

8. Solutions: The Separation of Church and State

• A Foundational Principle:
  Stewart calls for renewed defense of the Establishment Clause. She stresses the need for true neutrality, warning against taxpayer funding for religious schools and loss of pluralism.

  “Separation of church and state is one of our founding principles... The establishment clause is the first clause of the very first Amendment.” (B, 41:35)

• Scapegoating Progressive Christians:
  The movement brands “woke Christianity” as heresy, equating empathy and the social gospel with evil (44:37–44:50).

9. What’s at Stake if the Anti-Democratic Movement Wins?

• Toward Autocracy, Not Anarchy:
  The likely outcome is an authoritarian, religiously inflected regime, run by “sanctimonious hypocrites” and rife with suppression (45:19–46:34).

  “America’s never going to be the Christian nation that they say...it’s just gonna... end up with a country where you have one sector of... sanctimonious hypocrites imposing their supposedly biblical values on everyone else...” (B, 45:19)

10. Civic Action: What Can Individuals Do?

• Action Items / Civic Spark:
  • Get involved locally – school boards, town councils, community organizations.
  • Support democracy-building organizations.
  • Use your skills and time where they make the most impact.
  • Build a big tent—eschew “purity tests”—and focus on core pro-democracy values.

  “There are things we can only really do when we join together with others. Local action is really important...” (B, 46:50)

  • Remember, hope is in action; determination, not optimism, is key.

  “I think more Americans would prefer to live in a democracy... We need to really act like it, we need to mobilize like it, and we need to build a big enough tent to keep the the pro democracy majority together and mobilize accordingly.” (B, 48:38)

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “The movement wants to burn down the house, not looking for a seat at the noisy table of American democracy.” (B quoting her book, 02:16)
• “I think of nihilists as people who deny that there’s any real value in the world... the truth itself has any value.” (B, 05:10)
• “A lot of people are going to get hurt if they succeed in destroying a public administration... and replace it with a privately controlled, corporate managed state.” (B, 09:28)
• “When you go into these spaces, you hear every imaginable conspiracy... The thing that this is intended to do is confuse people, to really separate them from the facts, and that makes them easier to control.” (B, 17:01)
• “You don’t need a majority to win an election. All you need to do is turn out a disproportionately mobilized minority.” (B, 31:28)
• “Throughout history... male supremacy has provided the backbone of authoritarian movements.” (B, 34:04)
• “Separation of church and state is one of our founding principles... The establishment clause is the first clause of the very first Amendment.” (B, 41:35)
• “I think more Americans would prefer to live in a democracy... We need to really act like it, we need to mobilize like it, and we need to build a big enough tent...” (B, 48:38)

---

Key Segment Timestamps

| Timestamp | Topic | |------------|-------| | 02:16–04:11 | The "burn down the house" threat and why good-faith dialogue sometimes fails | | 05:10–07:34 | Defining "reactionary nihilism" | | 08:21–09:28 | Who is funding the anti-democratic movement and why | | 16:26–18:28 | Lies and conspiracies in practice (Reawaken America tour) | | 23:07–26:38 | Attacks on public education and their roots | | 29:31–31:28 | Christian nationalist machinery and electoral strategy | | 34:04–36:47 | The role of misogyny and gender in authoritarian movements | | 41:35–44:50 | The case for church-state separation & demonization of "woke Christianity" | | 46:50–48:25 | Action steps to resist right-wing authoritarianism | | 48:38–49:26 | Reasons for hope and the importance of majority mobilization |

---

Tone & Language

• The conversation is urgent, rigorous, and explanatory, grounded in Stewart’s investigative reporting and scholarship.
• Stewart and Atmos stress the need for moral courage and civic engagement, using clear, accessible language, and emphasize building coalitions over ideological purity.

---

Summary for New Listeners

This episode unpacks how moneyed interests, religious nationalism, and disinformation campaigns have converged to undermine American democracy. Katherine Stewart exposes how these groups operate—offering not “debate,” but organized opposition to pluralism—with sophisticated infrastructure directed at winning power for a hard-right, minority rule. She identifies the necessity of public education, the dangers of gendered backlash, and the urgency of rebuilding the separation of church and state. The episode concludes by urging listeners to act: Get involved locally, support democracy organizations, and focus on broad, coalition-based action.

If you care about democracy, this conversation will equip you to recognize the machinery behind division—and what you can do about it.

Transcript

[A]

Thanks to Shopify for supporting Future Hindsight. Shopify is a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere, giving entrepreneurs like myself the resources once reserved for big business. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com hopeful all lowercase and if you want to support Future Hindsight and all the work we do as an independent pro democracy podcast, please join us at the Civics Club on patreon. Go to patreon.com futurehiinsight now. Welcome to Future Hindsight, a podcast on a mission to spark civic action. I'm your host, Mila Atmos. I'm a global citizen based in New York City, and I'm deeply curious about the way our society works. So each week I bring you conversations to cut through the confusion around today's most important civic issues and and share clearer, actionable ways for us to build a brighter future together. After all, democracy is not a spectator sport. Tomorrow starts right now. For many years now, we've been thinking about Americans being divided, even polarized, as a result of economic anxieties and the culture wars. And that is in part true. But it's not the complete picture. There's actually lots of organizational work, propaganda, and gobs and gobs of money that have gone into preparing for an anti democratic politics, which is where we find ourselves today. And to help us understand how it all hangs together, we're joined by Katherine Stewart. She's been covering religious nationalism and the assault on American democracy for over 15 years. Her previous book, the Power Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism, is the base of the Rob Reiner documentary feature film God and Country and was awarded first place for excellence in nonfiction books by the Religion News association, as well as a Morris D. Forkosh Award. Her latest book is Money, Lies and Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy. Welcome Catherine. Thank you for joining us.

[B]

Thank you for having me.

[A]

So I just mentioned that Americans think of themselves as divided in their politics, and in response to this perception, much ink has been spilled to encourage us to dialogue across divides, to be better listeners and to somehow find common ground. And you argue that we misunderstand what's actually happening with the right. I'm gonna quote you now from your book. The movement wants to burn down the house, not looking for a seat at the noisy table of American democracy. End quote. Tell us more.

[B]

Well, I think this question is a really good reminder of how challenging the discussion of the fusion of religion and politics can be. And I think our default position in discussing anything religion related is often in favor of civility, which has frankly sometimes been a little bit of a handicap. Because here's the thing. We all want to believe. We're engaged in good faith conversations with people who may differ on some issues, but share our ultimate goal of getting along with one another, respecting one another's religion, one another's rights and histories and lived realities. But sometimes when you're dealing with a really kind of extremist movement, where I would say in this case, the politics leads the religion to like a degree that's hard to overestimate, sometimes this isn't the case. And we have to accept that in these times sometimes our inclination towards civility can be used against us. On my journey as a reporter, I've come across many examples where certain kinds of religion are being abused, clearly being abused and exploited for political ends. So, you know, no part of reporting on these issues is especially comfortable. But when our democracy and our most fundamental rights are at stake, we really do need to speak up.

[A]

Mm, indeed. Well, we're living in a moment that's incredibly scary for a lot of people. And I think that's being reflected in the way that opposition politicians are behaving. You know, for example, US Democratic senators don't appear to be really fighting back. And in general, I think we're living in a moment that makes little sense to most people. And the way that the wholesale destruction of government is being reported in the mainstream media, I would say that it comes across as underplaying reality. And I think that's partly because it's so depressing that the reporting acts like a bomb to self soothe, you know, but also it's partly because they don't understand. And of course, you actually predicted our current predicament in your book and you termed the phenomenon of the current American right wing politics as reactionary nihilism. What is reactionary nihilism and how does it explain the current moment?

[B]

Well, I think of nihilists as people who deny that there's any real value in the world as it truly exists and who deny that the truth itself has any value. And they see is it just another sort of casualty and the war for power? And I see the reactionary part as a sort of, you know, when these nihilists just want to destroy more than create something more than progress toward a better future. And when they talk about a future, they're really harkening back to a kind of fantasy version of a past that never existed in the way that they think it did. But it's also a past that embodies certain kinds of Reactionary elements, gender hierarchies, other types of hierarchies related to people of different ethnicities or different status in society. So I put these together to describe this movement as a kind of reactionary nihilist movement, because I think this movement is defined more by what it wants to destroy rather than what it wants to create. If you look at what the movement is doing, you know, they promised that they were going to smash the institutions of democracy because they frankly see no value in democracy and its guiding principles, the values of quality and pluralism. The idea of a functioning government with laws that are deliberated in public, guided by reason and subject to a fair vote among the people. And so this is sort of why I titled my book Money Lies in God, because I think it really explains three different features of this anti democratic movement. Money. Because money is a huge part of this story. The movement would be nowhere without a cadre of funders. There's huge amounts of money invested in the infrastructure of the movement by people who are the beneficiaries of the huge concentrations of wealth over the past decades at the tippy top of the economic ladder. And those huge concentrations have to stabilize the political system in really interesting ways. Lies or conscious disinformation is like another huge feature of the movement. And number three, God. Because the most important ideological framework for the largest part of this movement is Christian nationalism.

[A]

Right. Well, let's take them one by one on how we got here and how these three factors work together to accomplish this moment. So part one is money. The right wing ultra wealthy in the US have outsized influence on American politics, which is what you just said. Not only because they directly fund campaigns, notably, you know, Elon Musk spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the Trump campaign, but also because they spend big dollars in a coordinated and strategic way to fund think tanks, megachurches, and things like the Federal Society and the Council for National Policy. So who are the funders? The people who underwrite the efforts? And while they're not a monolith, generally speaking, what do these deep pockets really care about?

[B]

Well, what they really care about and who are they? First of all, I'm thinking about people like the Corkerys or Barry side or the Wilkes brothers or Tim Dunn and the people behind the Bradley foundation, members of the DeVos Prince family juggernaut, so many others that I really describe and get into in Money Lies in God. Here's the interesting thing. They're not any one type religiously. They're all over the place. Some are evangelical, some are Protestant, some are Catholic, some are Jewish, some are atheistic. But they agree on one thing, which is the need to crush liberals and liberalism and what they call the administrative state, because they want protective policies for their monopolistic businesses. They want no environmental regulation if they're involved in sort of polluting businesses. They want to pollute freely and make more money. And they also want, you know, like I'm looking at, you know, Mr. Musk, tax subsidies. So they call themselves sometimes free market fundamentalists. They say capitalism is fabulous, but they also want the protections from the government for their businesses, privileged contracts and the like.

[A]

Right. That's not a free market idea. To be clear.

[B]

You know, a lot of people are going to get hurt if they succeed in destroying a public administration subject to ethics rules and replace it with a privately controlled, corporate managed state. Or as we're seeing in the case of Elon Musk and his teenage doge crew, a kind of sledgehammer approach to smashing up the institutions of a functioning government. So this is where the lies fits in. There's been a tremendous propaganda campaign against government. When Americans are surveyed about the levels of waste and fraud and government, they always come up with ludicrously exaggerated figures. That's not to say that waste and fraud in government agencies doesn't happen. And there's often room for improvement as there is in the private sector. But people need to be reminded of very good things that happen when you have a functioning government and very bad things that happen in countries with kleptocratic or cronyistic governments or those with an absence of effective government.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So even though the sort of free market fundamentalists who are funding this movement say business is always amazing, infinitely better than government, many Americans know very well that many corporate leaders are really just out to flee to them while rewarding themselves and the people at the very top with these massive payouts. I mean, the health insurance industry is not the only one that's widely despised. So we really need some more truth telling on this front, right?

[A]

Well, we need some truth telling, but also we need to level the playing field for everyday Americans. And you quote Louis Brandeis, who famously said, we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both. And you have a few suggestions, for example, to abandon the religion of economism and the prosperity gospel. And that's maybe a hard nut to crack, especially since we have ardent believers in Christian nationalism. But in terms of public policy, what are your recommendations to combat this extreme wealth that is lopsiding our democracy.

[B]

Well, what's really interesting is that, you know, a lot of the movement leaders, it's a leadership driven movement. A lot of the movement leaders, you know, they hearken back to the late 1950s, 1960s, early 1960s, I remember in advance of the 2020 election. Franklin Graham, who, who was speaking on behalf of Trump, said he is nostalgic for America of the 50s and early 1960s and we're nostalgic for that era too, and that's why we support him. Let's think about what was happening in the 50s and 1960s. Back then, the average CEO made, I don't know, some 20 something times the average salary of the American worker. Unions were really strong back then, by the way. You know, so if you're in a union shop, you can afford a nice little house in a safe community and your kids can go to a public school, that's good because this is a great era of investment in public education. If you're the CEO, you can, you know, afford a second house, a country club, you know, maybe a boat, whatever. You're going to have a very nice standard of living. Well, Today the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company is making in the many hundreds of times the average salary of theirs. Let's say they have workers in America and many of them don't, but, you know, the average American member of their workforce. So, you know, we've just had over the last couple of decades a massive concentration of wealth among the very few at the tippy top of the economic ladder. And it's come to some degree at the expense of the ability of folks in the bottom, I would say 90% of our country to actually make it work. You've got two parents, you've got three jobs, and people are still struggling to afford a decent place to live. The groceries, the cost of, you know, whatever their kids might need. People like Jeff Bezos and Musk are just getting fabulously rich quite a bit at the expense of, of the overwhelming majority of American workers. So, you know, when we're looking at those tax rates, I mean, you have to wonder like, why do those folks at the tippy top pay fewer taxes a percentage than public school teachers? You know, we might start thinking about things like that.

[A]

Yeah, progressive taxation definitely should be a part of it. Or notably in the context of all the talk of Social Security, if we were to lift the cap on Social Security contributions, I think right now it's like $100,000 or $150,000. And there are many, many people who make more than that. And so they don't pay Social Security taxes on any dollar beyond that cap. And I think if we were to lift the cap. Well, a lot of people are saying, of course, the, that if we were to lift the cap, we would raise a lot of money for Social Security and make it more secure and then seniors don't have to live on poverty wages.

[B]

Yeah, I'm not a policy expert in those issues, but my book really does explain how these gross concentrations of wealth have destabilized the political system, because what it's done is it's made people at the very top quite defensive about their wealth. I think that, know they live to some degree in bubbles where they're surrounded by yes, people, but they have a sense that the amount of wealth they have is actually, you know, destabilizing the political system and perhaps unfair. And they feel defensive about that. They can sort of hear the cries from over the walls of their critics saying, hey, maybe you should be paying your taxes and paying your workers a little bit better than you are. And so they've bought into this sort of narrative of the greed is good and, you know, I got me mine and I've earned every single penny with my bare hands. Which is a kind of myth that we have in our country for many of the super wealthy.

[A]

Yeah. Well, this is where the lies come in. And I feel like not only do the lies, you know, obscure the fact how much money they have amassed in some sense and how they are manipulating the political system, but the lies are also for themselves. You know, the fact that they're telling themselves that they earned all of it with their bare hands and that makes them defensive. That's a good word for them, actually. So tell us a little bit more about the network of lies. The deep pockets are actually really strategic in building a whole network of organizations and media to propagate their values based or to help undergird the values based political movements. How do the lies get disseminated, whether that's right wing media on television or in churches? How does it all hang together?

[B]

Well, I would say the lies aren't limited by the way to the idea that government is always bad. There are massive disinformation or propaganda campaigns that exists to inculcate fear in the American people to make them think that they're being victimized by a deep state or quote, woke elite, that any political opposition to Trump is literally demonic or satanic. I discuss a number of these different propaganda and disinformation campaigns, including this engine of conspiracism called a Reawaken America tour. It's a pro maga conspiracy fest that takes place in mega churches around the country. They've done dozens of them. Each one draws thousands of participants. It was organized by some of Trump's most trusted allies, people like Mike Flynn and Clay Clark. One of the Trump sons, usually shows up to speak. You know, it's not officially in any official way a Trump rally, but it's like a Trump rally. And when you go into these spaces, you hear every imaginable conspiracy. It's all deep state. You know, the World Health Organization has the number 666 emblazoned on its doorsteps, and they're trying to microchip you, and they want to kill you off with vaccines and replace you with aliens. And I mean, just every mad conspiracy. And then, of course, the one conspiracy is that the 2020 election was stolen. That's a sort of overarching conspiracy in that Trump is like, you know, a savior. He's got God's hand on his shoulders. There's a lot of religious nationalism in these spaces. Like, when you look at the T shirts, you'll see a lot of B versus a lot of QAnon stuff. You'll see JFK is still alive stuff. I mean, you find every wild conspiracy in these spaces. And the thing that this is intended to do is confuse people, to really separate them from the facts, and that makes them easier to control.

[A]

Well, one question I had when I was reading your book and you were attending all of these events was, were you scared? Did you ever feel like you're really not safe?

[B]

You know, I never feel unsafe on a personal level, but, you know, I fear for our country. I fear for the future of our country and our democracy. You know, this is a movement that's been radically anti Democratic and I would say anti American from the start. They say that the US Is founded not on any principles, which it is, but on a specific religion and cultural heritage. They say that America is on the brink of an apocalypse owing to the rise of equality. The notion of equality is baked into our founding principles. They cast anybody who's not in agreement with their agenda as a woke communist. And we're including here, like, what they call rhinos or Republicans or true conservatives who want to actually preserve institutions of value. They have this idea that America won't be able to solve its problems through democracy. And so the rules simply don't apply anymore. And what they need is a strong man an authoritarian leader who puts himself above the law and who's going to seize the reins of power, scrap the rule of law in favor of the iron fist. So, in sum, they're promoting this idea that democracy, in the sense of a government, is representative of the people, respecting individual rights in a pluralistic society. They have this idea that this kind of government, a democracy, doesn't work. They want to smash it up and create something new, which is an autocracy.

[A]

Right. Well, you. You write at length about these ideas coming out of the Claremont Institute and how the Claremont Institute has influenced, especially the deep pockets to open up their wallets and underwrite these efforts. So what does the Claremont Institute talk about in the context of libertarianism and democracy? And how is this appealing?

[B]

Well, for anybody who doesn't know what the Claremont Institute is, it's a think tank that came together in the late 1970s around a charismatic political theorist. And in its early days, it was really trying to bolster America's founding principles. It was always conservative, but it wasn't crazy. And it really did see itself as sort of promoting the ideals of democracy. Over the years, it's become a kind of place for some of the most reactionary ideas, for distinctly illiberal ideas, and a sort of birthplace for a movement called the New Right, which has really been centered on not just the Claremont Institute, but also Heritage foundation, some other like minded think tanks. I think the simplest way to understand them, frankly, is an updated version of early 20th century fascism. Their main intellectual sources come from that period, or many of them. They say we're in a state of emergency, that the people are the folk, right. The little people need a leader who's above the law and going to save them from the forces of liberalism and equality, which they think represent an absolute threat. I mean, they're profoundly misogynist. They tap into all kinds of prejudice. They believe, as a matter of intellectual conviction that politics is nothing more than the art of lying and deceit and domination. So they eagerly participate in spreading misinformation to the rank and file and reserving a kind of esoteric truth for themselves in a small clique. They claimed that, you know, democracy can't solve all of our problems anymore. Some of their thinkers have advocated very openly for monarchical forms of rule. Some of them long for what they call a red Caesar, this idea that democracy is doomed. So we're going to get a blue Caesar or Red Caesar, and we may as well have a red Caesar, meaning like a red hard right monarch. Basically, it's like Deeply un American.

[A]

Yeah, it's deeply un American. And, you know, in the context of them always labeling the left writ large as evil, I thought this was pretty evil. But you say that one of the ways to combat the lies and to combat this kind of full onslaught on our thoughts really is to defend public education. And of course, they are 100% for the destruction of public education. How does that fit into the propagating of lies and advancing their agenda?

[B]

Well, the war on public education has a long standing history among the religious right in particular. Jerry Falwell made the agenda very clear in 1979. He said, I hope to see the day when there are no more public schools. Churches will have taken them over and Christians will be running them. And the reason they hate public education is because it teaches kids how to get along with others who are different. It teaches them skills like critical thinking. They don't want that. I mean, the religious right has objected to public education because they think that any form of education that doesn't have Christ as its foundation is a consequence of evil. So they don't understand the idea of neutrality. They don't believe in it. They think there's no neutrality. You're either affirming us or you're demonic or satanic. Right, Listen, you know, America has been religiously plural from the very start. You know, in the earliest days, of course, there were all these different sort of Protestant sects, some of which had been at war with one another in the old countries. And then, of course, they came to some sort of peace. But then things went crazy when Catholics started to immigrate to this country in large numbers in 1840s, you know, in two separate incidences, there were riots and people fought and died in the streets over the issue of the Bible in public schools. And the solution was really over years and over time, to keep public education, which has to serve irreducibly pluralistic public, religiously neutral, neither denigrating nor promoting any particular form of faith. But the religious right has never been on board with that. So there are a couple ways that they're doing it, a couple reasons they're doing it for. Number one, they want taxpayer money to flow to their schools, to private and religious schools. And that's why they've been like active proponents of vouchers, which then can find a religious school which is free to teach anything it wants, really. They don't have to adhere to certain standards. They can discriminate against teachers they don't like, or LGBT students or whatever, or promote anti abortion ideology in their student handbooks, which I've seen some voucher receiving religious schools do. And there's a case in Oklahoma where they're actually trying to set up a fully religiously funded charter school because they want taxpayer money, yours and mine, to actually go directly to religious organizations, which is something that our founders made clear shouldn't happen. But they're also softening the ground for this wholesale assault on public education by fostering mistrust in public schools, spreading the lie that public schools have become gender change factories, which they're not.

[A]

No, they're not. Definitely no.

[B]

Promoting these wild conspiracies about extreme stuff happening in the public schools. And it's having real consequences. I mean, a lot of public school libraries are actually purging their stacks of books by people of color because they've been accused of promoting critical race theory. And they're not. They just have books written by people of color. But all of a sudden this is being targeted as, oh, you're promoting critical race theory when you're not. I mean, you have teachers who can no longer teach about really important incidents in American history because they're accused of this moral panic about critical race theory, which is, by the way, not taught in public K12.

[A]

Right. It's only taught in select law schools. And not even all of them.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

We'll be right back with Katherine Stewart. So stay with us. You'll love this episode's Civic Spark. One small step we can all take to be more empowered and ignite collective change. But first, take a second to think about the most successful businesses. You know, those brands with sales going through the roof. We, at future hindsight are big coffee drinkers. So my mind immediately goes to brands like Chamberlain Coffee or Death Wish Coffee. What do these brands make you think of? Maybe a great product and a cool brand with brilliant marketing. But what about the businesses behind the business? That's the special ingredient that makes selling and for shoppers buying simple, because you just can't do it alone. For millions of businesses, that business behind them is Shopify. Nobody does selling better than Shopify, especially since Shopify is home to the number one checkout on the planet with a not so secret, secret shop pay that boosts conversions up to 50%. That means way fewer carts going abandoned and way more sales going cha ching. So if you're into growing your business, then your commerce platform better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling on the web, in your store, in their feed, and everywhere in between. And that's why businesses that Sell more. Sell on Shopify no matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. And that's what I love about Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Death Wish Coffee uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com hopeful all lowercase go to shopify.com hopeful to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com hopeful and now let's return to my conversation with Kathryn Stewart. I feel like this is the right place to talk about Christian nationalism and what you call the Christian nationalism mindset because they believe right now it's a time for the battle of our souls. But also they're not really Christian in a way that most of us understand Christianity, the public at large. You know, because you just mentioned also that part of the effort to defund public education is to enrich their own coffers of Christian schools. So what exactly is the Christian nationalism mindset? How can we understand that?

[B]

Well, Christian nationalism is both a mindset and a machine. So the mindset includes an ideology that says America was founded to be a Christian nation, a certain kind of Christian nation. Our law should be based on a reactionary reading of the Bible. But this ideology is a tool for a leadership driven organization machine that turns that mythology into political power. And the Christian nationalist movement is, as I mentioned earlier, leadership driven and also organization driven. Its strength is in this deep organizational infrastructure its leaders and funders have invested for five decades. And a range of right wing organizations, think tanks, networking organizations, policy groups, messaging platforms, data initiatives, and other features. I think an underappreciated feature of that sort of machinery of the movement are these very political pastor networks that I've written about in Money Lies in God, such as Watchmen on the Wall and Faith Wins. And then some pastor networks focusing on specific groups like Hispanic pastor networks or black pastor networks. What the leaders of the movement will do is it draw conservative or conservative leaning pastors into these networks. And they do presentations in churches around the country, sometimes drawing dozens or hundreds of pastors together. I've described these in my books. And they tell them it's your duty to get your congregants to vote their biblical values. You need to get them to do voter turnout. You know, in some of these cases, they, they spread lies about, you know, in 2020, election was stolen, you had dead people voting, et cetera, et cetera. And then they give them very sophisticated tools for turning out their congregations. And because they know Very well. You don't need a majority to win an election. All you need to do is turn out a disproportionately mobilized minority. Right. And they're very strategic about the regions in which they focus their efforts because they're not so worried about like blue estates like Massachusetts and Vermont. They're not as worried about those places. They're really worried about Florid and Pennsylvania and they'll do them all over the country. But focusing their efforts, you know, disproportionately on swing districts and swing states. If you can swing a district, you can swing a state and then you can swing the country.

[A]

Yeah, it's really strategic. And in a way, like you said, they've been spending this money for 50 years. And I feel like not very many people know that, like they are master organizers.

[B]

Yeah, well, I wrote really each of my three books to show how it's done. Look, they're using anti democratic tools. We would not want to spread lies. Those of us who support democracy, pluralism and equality wouldn't want to spread lies or disinformation. We certainly wouldn't want to inspire political violence. I mean, that's just a very anti democratic idea. But we would do very well to look at how they've developed their infrastructure because they're using the tools of democracy in many instances to destroy democracy. They really focused on voter mobilization, turning out their base. They're less focused, I think, than folks on the, you know, moderate liberal left are trying to, oh, let's reach out, you know, try and understand the other side. No, there's none of that talk. You get a lot of that talk on the side of people who are liberal, but you don't get any of that talk on the other side. Oh, reach out and understand them. No, you don't hear that. Go after your base, turn them out and go after low propensity voters and share your disinformation with them so they vote on your side.

[A]

Well, this was definitely the failure of the Democratic party in the 2024 election. They did not turn out their base. It's always, I feel like there's this misguided notion, always for so long that they're going to catch these crossover voters, you know, and it's like, no, how are you going to win is by turning out your base. And yet they did not do that.

[B]

Yeah, well, we saw the consequences of that in the election.

[A]

100%.

[B]

Exactly. Yeah.

[A]

Yes. So of course, not to be overlooked, and you mentioned this already, is the misogyny, you know, casting Women as inferior to men, promoting traditional families. And there's, of course, a huge rise of the trad wife and anti abortion. All of that is one piece. How does the attack on women fit into the Christian nationalist movement? But also, what you mentioned before about the people at the Claremont Institute, what's the function of this reactionary misogyny?

[B]

Oh, it's a function of reactionary misogyny. I think gender anxiety is frankly the rocket fuel of the movement. And the very interesting thing about misogyny is it serves a real purpose. I mean, let's just consider that the new president, right, has faced civil penalties for sexual assault, allegations of harassment from over two dozen women. A number of his choices face serious misconduct charges of a sexual nature. His vice president has said that feminism was a huge mistake and they're elevating people in the movement broadly that actually questioning the legitimacy of women's right to vote, such as Doug Wilson. Let's take a step back. Throughout history and around the world, male supremacy has provided the backbone of authoritarian movements. Fascist parties always glorify the virtues of manliness, by which they mean, you know, militarism, some form of brutality, and they despise the weakness of womanliness, which is how they interpret empathy, moderation, care, and compromise. They always appeal to the resentments of the disempowered, and they promise to dominate the objects of resentment, which for a great many of people happen to be women, great many men or empowered women who are easily blamed for all manner of ills. So where's this coming from? If you look at the Claremont Institute, they explicitly call for male dominance of government and society. Many New Right thinkers blame feminism for most or many of America's ills. Some of them actually advocate for replacing American democracy with a form of religious authoritarianism that argues women should be subordinate both at home and in religious settings. So, in short, they're male supremacists with an authoritarian political agenda. I mean, where does the male rage come from? There's a socioeconomic foundation for some of it. There's a fair amount of data that shows life isn't easy for young men in particular in a deeply unequal society. It's a source of the problem. But, you know, I want to point out there are a lot of women in this movement when I go to these conferences. And I think for some of these women, they're allying themselves with power. That's just a human thing that people do. Yes, but I think for some of these women, they think, well, in a gender unequal society, My best hope of dignity is by allying myself with this power and sort of affirming it. So I've noticed within the movement, you know, it's, the leadership is, is mostly men, but there's always room for a woman who's an anti abortion activist or active in this sort of, you know, mom sphere, like the Moms for Liberty type.

[A]

Mom for Liberty, Yeah. Yes, yes, yeah. There are always those reactionary women who I feel like, oh no, you're, you're standing on the wr. But I also feel like we shouldn't be having sides. We're all humans together and some of us are women and some of us are men. And like you said, it's simplistic, of course, in terms of being able to like punch down at an easy target. But I would venture to say that part of the problem is the economic inequality and the dire situation we have with people being underpaid across the board in general, so that everybody has to work. You cannot really have a household where you don't have two people working if you're an average middle income.

[B]

Oh, it's really hard. And you know, I've got two kids, they're wonderful. But you know, they're also a lot of work. And I think for a lot of women it's like very hard to balance a full time job. Given especially that a lot of these full time jobs aren't like eight hours and then you're done anymore. It's like, you know, we've had sort of erosion of rights for the workplace for a really long time and a lot of women are in jobs where they're actually not being treated particularly well or paid particularly well. And to balance that with like full time 168 hour a week caregiving, which is what it means to be a parent. It's right, you know, it's, it.

[A]

Thanks for the number.

[B]

It's a real challenge. So I mean, yes, yeah, I mean.

[A]

It is, it is a real challenge.

[B]

It's a challenge. So they think, wow, you know, I'd like to return to a time, you know, return, quote unquote. Because their version of the American past has never really existed quite the way they think it is, but they think, wow, wouldn't it be simpler if we could afford just to sustain our family on one salary? But here's the thing. The movement is driving support for political leaders who are promoting policies that are actually making it harder, not easier, for American families to succeed. Like to go back to a time when you could easily afford to sustain a family on one salary where the other parent could actually stay home if they want for a few years and take care of the kids and you could still afford a house and a decent standard of living. Like that's not what this movement is driving support for. You know, we have decades of. I hate the term neoliberal because people confuse it with liberalism, but we've had these decades of economic policies that have thinned out the standard of living for the average American while sending all that money up to people that should be top. And this seems to be what they still want to do. So the way this stuff interacts with gender inequality is really fascinating. I mean, there have been some really fascinating sociological studies about sort of certain kinds of gender norms in deeply economically unequal societies. And they're worth looking at because they kind of help you understand the Trump world a little bit. Just some of what we're seeing in our politics today.

[A]

Right. It exists in other places, or if it doesn't exist right now in other places, which it does, of course, but it also has existed in the past. So you've been covering the far right for 15 years, attending conferences, writing a book on the destruction of public education. And about this movement, you know, in general, how has it evolved in the last 15 years?

[B]

Well, it's evolved very quickly. First of all, when I started writing about this movement, the movement leaders still at that time represented themselves at just wanting a seat at the table in the noisy forum of American democracy. They said, we just want to, you know, have our opinions heard and, you know, we just want to have our free speech rights, et cetera. Today, the movement is much more radically anti democratic. They've learned from their successes as well as their failures. I mean, this is a movement whose leaders are very patient. I look at the sort of legal theory, the theories that they've sort of followed and promoted. They've made enormous gains through the courts in part by being incredibly strategic, bringing just the right cases to the right courts to sort of install these novel legal building blocks that are going to lead up to a big win. And it was clear even from the start the sort of radical ideologies at the core of some different sectors of the movement. But I think those radical ideologies are really front and center now, and they weren't 15 years ago.

[A]

Yeah, I kind of feel like somebody had, you know, looking back at all the things that they've achieved, for example, through the courts, I feel like somebody had like a master plan and then they just ticked these things off the box. So you have a number of suggestions for a path forward. And one of the things that you suggested was the separation of church and state as a solution. And I haven't heard that in a long time. I haven't heard that argument made in a very, very long time. Tell us more about the separation of church and state and how it really should look like.

[B]

Well, separation of church and state is one of our founding principles. It has the best piece of real estate in our Constitution. The establishment clause is the first clause of the very first Amendment. I don't think our founders intended to put it there for superficial reasons. And it exists separate and distinct from the free speech clause. Now, the religious right will say religion is nothing more than speech from a certain point of view. Well, is it really? I mean, religions have certain kinds of tax privileges that other forms of speech, both for profit and nonprofit don't have. Religions don't have to open their books to the irs. They get certain kinds of exemptions and tax benefits that you just don't get with other forms of speech. Religions are also exempt from anti discrimination law. And this sort of is part of the freedom of religion, one of the most important principles of our countries. But it's for that precise reason that we have separation of church and state. You know, they don't have to adhere to the laws that apply to everyone else, but for that reason they have to be kept separate and distinct from the institutions of government. Now, it doesn't mean you can't express your religious values in the public square or even if you're a politician or. And we see many politicians doing this while still acknowledging the religious diversity of our country. But this is a movement whose leaders do not believe in legitimacy of anything other than approved versions of religion. And a measure of. To the degree to which they don't see that legitimacy is how they treat progressive Christians. You know, I was recently at America Fest, which was Turning Point USA gathering. It's an annual gathering. This year it was, you know, Phoenix, Arizona, 20,000 hardcore MAGA supporters and speakers referred to progressive Christianity as Woke Christianity. And they said it's a heresy. And one of the speakers said, I've made it my mission to eradicate. I think he said woke Christianity from the American pulpit. And he actually wrote a book titled Woke Jesus in a paraphrasing the subtitle. I can't recall it offhand, but something like the heresy destroying the Christian church or something like that. And then there was another speaker who said, there is absolutely no biblical justification for voting Democrat. I mean, shows the degree to which the politics leads the religion here, not the other way around. But, you know, the kind of contempt with which movement leaders view progressive Christianity and progressive Christian leaders is, oh, here's the other thing. What. What counts as heresy. The social gospel. One of the speakers literally named the social gospel as part of a sin of progressivism that has infected the American church. I mean, for a lot of American Christians, the social gospel is the gospel.

[A]

Yes. And you're saying the social gospel, you're talking about things like being a good Samaritan, for example, loving your neighbor, caring.

[B]

For the least of these, you know. But this is a movement that's frankly declared a war on empathy. It's really very sad.

[A]

It's very sad. Well, you also say that it's an anarchist movement. I was really struck by that. We had Nancy Rosenblum on at the end of 24, and she talked about the project of ungoverning that was about to unfold, which is similar to what you just described in your book. But so let's say we agree it's an anarchist movement. What comes after the destruction of government, of public administration, of public education? What does it look like? How does it end?

[B]

Oh, my gosh, who knows? I think the term I might have used rather than anarchist is authoritarianism or fascism. And here's the thing. I think that there are these separate pieces and interest groups sometimes working for different aims, but they nonetheless end up reinforcing one another. But the collective outcome of their actions can be really unpredictable and lead to consequences that many of both leaders and rank and file neither anticipate nor want. What they think they're aiming for is a kind of imaginary version of the American past, somehow an America made great again. What exactly does that mean? America's never going to be the Christian nation that they say that they want. You know, our country's very diverse and. And in a diverse and unequal America, it's just gonna. They're gonna end up with a country where you have one sector of kind of. I don't know, what can I say? Sanctimonious hypocrites imposing their supposedly biblical values on everyone else while suppressing freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and political opposition, and, by the way, treading on the religious freedom of anyone who fails to conform.

[A]

Well said. So every week on future Hindsight, I ask my guest to share a civic spark. One small step we can all take to be more empowered and ignite collective change. So what's a good way to turn the insights that you've Shared with us into action.

[B]

Wow. I mean, the first thing is critically get out of bed. There's no time to stay back. This is a time for moral courage. There are so many actions one can take on the local level. For instance, I think there are things we can do as individuals, of course, like vote and, you know, reach people in our circles and tell their vote matters, et cetera. But there are things we can only really do when we join together with others. Local action is really important. Sometimes we really focus on the national picture and we get a little bit overwhelmed and they think, what can I do? But everybody has a school, board, town, governance that they can get involved with. If we don't get involved, those of us who support democracy, we're leaving space for right wing activists and the Moms for Liberty types, et cetera, to take over. So I think, you know, local engagement is really vital. I think it's really important also to support other democracy building organizations where they exist. There are so many avenues for engagement. You know, not every single avenue is going to be right for every person. So you kind of need to do a bit of research and ask yourself, what are my skills? What are my interests? Which kind of organization is going to benefit the most from my time and energy and perhaps money, if you have it, and then to sort of get yourself in the game in that way. And finally, I think we really need a big tent. We have to stop purity testing one another. We're not going to agree on everything, but if we can agree on more than we disagree with, and if we can agree on some core principles, then we can work together.

[A]

I totally agree, totally agree. It is time to no longer have purity tests. In fact, it was never a time, you know, for purity tests. That's all good advice. So looking into the future, what makes you hopeful?

[B]

Well, I think hope is in action. I love that phrase. I think it was Stacey Abrams who said, I'm not pessimistic, I'm not optimistic, I'm determined. But one thing that honestly does make me hopeful, okay, I'll go on a limb here, is that I think there are more of us. I think more Americans would prefer to live in a democracy based on the principles of pluralism and justice and equality than want to live in some kind of cronyistic, kleptocratic, authoritarian government with theocratic features. So I think those of us who reject the politics of conquest and division really are in the majority. We need to really act like it, we need to mobilize like it, and we need to build a big enough tent to keep the the pro democracy majority together and mobilize accordingly.

[A]

Hear, hear. Thank you very much, Katherine, for joining me on Future Hindsight. It was really, really a pleasure to have you on the show.

[B]

Likewise. So great to speak with you as well.

[A]

Katherine Stewart is the author of Money, Lies and Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy and has been covering religious nationalism and the assault on American democracy for over 15 years. Remember, civic action doesn't have to be complicated. It's about small steps that spark progress, like sharing this episode with a friend. Let's recap this week's Civic Spark and fire up our collective courage. Get up. This is a time of moral courage, and I know it takes courage, but we all have a little courage to spare, don't we? Stand up. And as always, start local. If the extreme right is going to keep organizing and occupying our community airwaves, then you can and should too. And while we're at it, let's stop purity testing each other. I know that this will help us get to where we want to go, strengthen democracy and make sure it survives. Next week, our guest is Michael Albertus. He's professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author of five books. His most recent recent is Land Power, who Has it, who doesn't, and how that Determines the Fate of Societies. That's next time on Future Hindsight. Now go ahead and hit that follow button on your podcast app. You see it right there. This way you won't miss a single episode of Future Hindsight in your rotation every week. And if you can't get enough of Future Hindsight, you're not alone. Let us jump into your inbox every week. Sign up for the newsletter [e-mail] thanks for tuning in. And until next time, see clearly, act boldly and spark the change you want to see. This episode was produced by Zach, Travis and me. This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.