Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:06]
A
From the historic campus of Hillsdale College
- [00:09]
B
in Hillsdale, Michigan, where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught, nurtured and honored. This is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners across the country.
- [00:25]
C
But the whole reason that we're in the mess of the administrative state to begin with is because Congress has given away its legislative power and is greatly reluctant to take it back.
- [00:37]
B
This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. That was RJ Pastrito, author of Government by the How It Happened and How It Might Be Tamed. We'll go in depth with him in just a moment. Also on today's program, Daniel Darling will take us inside his book in Defense of Christian Patriotism. First, we're joined by Dr. R.J. pastrito. He is dean of the Graduate School, professor of politics, and Charles and Lucia Shipley, chair in the American Constitution here at Hillsdale College. Dr. Pastrito, thanks for joining us.
- [01:14]
C
Thanks for having me, Scott.
- [01:15]
B
Also the author of a brand new provocation called Government by the How It Happened and How It Might Be Tamed. It's a short book. You can find it over@Amazon.com and elsewhere if you like. Government by the Unelected is the title for some listeners, it might be a familiar theme. I think we've talked about it here on the show previously. But as we begin, describe what you mean by that. Government by the unelected. Who are those unelected people and what kind of power do they wield?
- [01:44]
C
Yes, when we're talking about people, I guess the term that's been used for some time is the administrative state, which sounds kind of opaque and mysterious and sort of semi conspiratorial. But the provocation really came out of trying to make some sense of what the Trump administration has been up to in its first months. And so the Claremont Institute last summer asked me to speak to a variety of groups, its fellows, its interns, just kind of explaining and organizing all of the early and kind of fast and furious action that the Trump administration was taking with respect to trying to rein in the bureaucracy. And it was sort of happening in real time and the presentation of it in the press was confusing and certainly not sympathetic. And so they asked me to sort of unpack it. And what I did basically was start with the history of how we had gotten to this point where we have lots of rule by bureaucratic agencies who are not staffed by elected officials, but by sort of career careerists and talked about how this grew over the course of the 20th century, enabled by Congress, enabled by the courts. And then that led us to the present situation that the Trump administration is kind of currently in the midst of trying to rein in. And so the provocation is basically a kind of 60,000 foot view picture of how we got to the situation where we've got all these bureaucrats making lots of very important decisions for us, even though we don't vote for them. And then what are the prospects for undoing it if it can be undone?
- [03:28]
B
Are there particular figures in American political history who were most instrumental in bringing this administrative state into being?
- [03:37]
C
Yeah, I have done a lot of work on the American Progressives. I've written on Woodrow Wilson in particular. And that's one of the main reasons for my interest in these figures, because it really is a transformative moment for the country. And it's not because the idea of bureaucracy or administration is somehow novel to the progressives. Of course it's not. The American founders from the very beginning were in fact quite insistent on having a good, vigorous, strong national administration with respect to those things that it was proper for the federal government to do. But the Progressives, they understood that, but they also understood that administration as they envisioned it, had to be very different. If the government was going to take on all of the new things that they wanted it to take on, then we'd have to view administration more as a kind of independent entity. And so say from the point of view of somebody like Woodrow Wilson, who was a pioneer in the late 1800s, right around the turn of the 20th century, on this question, he said, look, the great problem with national administration now is that it's accountable to politics, it's accountable to elected officials. It's, you know, the people who are in these agencies have political interests and that's making things impure. That's not objective, it's not scientific. We have advanced education now. This is the 19th century after all, and this is the century of science and Darwin and all of that. And so we need to insulate administrators from these self interested political concerns. And that was really the turn of the Progressives. That led to the insulation of a lot of the bureaucracy from ordinary political accountability.
- [05:22]
B
Talking with Dr. R.J. pistrito, his new provocation is called government by the unelected. How it happened and how it might be tamed. You talk about this court case, Supreme Court case, Humphrey's executor, as a constitutional keystone for the modern administrative state. What did that case change that made everything else possible?
- [05:44]
C
Yeah. So if we're saying what's new about modern administration, about the progressive model of administration that we're now sort of living with, it's that you have folks who are in these agencies who are insulated from political accountability. Well, how do you insulate somebody from political accountability? How do you insulate any person from accountability? You, you limit other people's ability to remove them from their job. Right. So just like, you know, if you work for your employer, it's really hard for your employer to get you to do what he wants if he can't fire you. And likewise, what Congress tried to do and did in fact do during this period of the formation of the administrative state was to take large chunks of the executive branch to which they had delegated vast powers and to try to wall these entities off from the control of the President, which is a kind of constitutional oddity since the President is the only person in the Constitution who's given any executive power. He's given the total executive power according to Article 2. And so the Humphreys executor case was basically a court case where the upshot of it was the court gave permission to Congress to create officials in the executive branch or entities in the executive branch, but to protect them from at will presidential removal. And it had to do with the Federal Trade Commission. And there were some specific circumstances about that, but that was the upshot of it.
- [07:16]
B
In that case, invented these quasi legislative, quasi judicial powers inside the executive branch. Why was that move so disruptive?
- [07:27]
C
Yeah. So if the question is, well, how can you have some executive official or some executive agency but not have them accountable to the President? The court came up with a very odd way of justifying that. They said, well, you know, it's true that if this agency were exercising executive power, well then we could see the argument that the President would have to have control. But in this case, Congress has chosen to give to this agency quasi legislative powers and quasi judicial powers. And so because the agency isn't really exercising executive power, then it's okay for the chief executive to not have complete control. In other words, they justified one constitutional absurdity with an even worse one, which is to say they said it's okay constitutionally for Congress to give legislative power and to give judicial power to an entity in the executive branch. And so that allowed them to, in their minds, to make the case for limited presidential removal.
- [08:31]
B
Talking with Dr. R.J. pastrito again, his new provocation is government by the unelected. How it happened and how it might be tamed in 2024, the Supreme Court struck some blows against agency power, ending Chevron doctrine, expanding challenges to regulations. Are those decisions helping to restore some form of Republican government? Or is there a danger, though, that we're replacing rule by bureaucrats with rule by courts, and courts are also not electorally accountable?
- [09:01]
C
Yeah, that's a great question. And so the story, one part of the story that I tell in the Provocation is how coming out of the 1930s, the courts kind of enabled this growth of the administrative state by allowing, you know, the kinds of constitutional absurdities that I've just described in relation to Humphrey's executor. And more recently on the court, within the last decade or so, there are more originalists on the Supreme Court and they recognize that this is a problem. And they have started, certainly incrementally, but they have started to turn the corner on that and as you mentioned, to pare back the vast discretion of the administrative state that had been built up over decades. And so that's, I think what's going on in part in the Trump administration right now is that you have folks who are staffing it who've been watching this latest turn in the direction of the court, this increased skepticism, and they're trying to take advantage to pounce on that. And I think they'll be successful to some degree. I do certainly share your concern, though, that if the consequence of this is merely to take the power of the administrative state and to move it from one group of unelected officials in the bureaucracy to a different group of unelected officials in the courts, this doesn't really move the needle very much in terms of what's actually important, which is to try to restore some kind of genuine Republican, I don't mean Republican Party, small r Republican government. And so I think it can't escape notice that the courts are basically running the country right now. Every little thing that anybody doesn't like about the Trump administration is litigated. And you have very willing biased judges, the lower court level, who are just, you know, happy to intrude themselves wherever it is that they're asked, asked to go. And so this is, this is a danger.
- [11:03]
B
More in just a moment with Dr. R.J. pastrito. His book Government by the Unelected, How It Happened and How it Might Be Tamed. First, I want to make sure you know about the brand new Larry Arn Show. His guest, Jared Veld here, longtime NFL offensive tackle. What does it take to play in the NFL? We'll learn about that and much more in the New Larry Arn Show Hillsdale President Dr. Larry Arn interviews Jared Veld. Here they dive into his career, the work necessary to play in the pros and and how Veld here applies his life theory to everything he does, even cooking a next level chef with Gordon Ramsay. All that on the brand new Larry Arn Show. Find it at podcast hillsdale. Edu or also YouTube. The new Larry Arn show with Jared Feld here Hillsdale grad and longtime NFL star. We continue now with Dr. R.J. pastrito. He's written Government by the How It Happened and How it might be tamed Dr. Pastrito, in the Provocation, you point out that courts often reject policy changes justified by elections alone. Why is winning an election not considered a sufficient reason for regulatory change under the current doctrine?
- [12:23]
C
Well, you get to the core issue in asking that question because what's really going on at a higher level here, the big dispute is whether we are going to have government on the basis of the principle of consent or we're going to have government on the basis of claims to expertise. And our system of government obviously is founded on the former. But what the progressives really sought to do was to diminish the importance of the consent of the governed and to raise the power of those who claim expertise. And so that's kind of been the operating principle of the administrative state. So when you give to an agency the power to make certain rules or regulations, that agency isn't claiming to rule because the voters have consented to it, because they haven't. Instead, the whole claim is, well, we're specialists. We know something really particular about whatever it might be. It might be the environment, it might be trade policy, who knows? And therefore, what the courts have said when an elected president comes in and he says, well, I'm going to change some regulatory policy. Let's say, for example, you campaigned on reducing environmental regulation because you think it's been too costly and it's harmed business and harmed the economy. And you made that an issue and you put it before voters and voters agreed with you and they elected you to office so you could do something about it. And then if you turn around and order your Environmental Protection Agency to act accordingly and to reduce environmental regulation, you could well be sued. You certainly will be sued in court and you'll probably lose. Because what the courts have said, this sounds absolutely crazy, but what the courts have said is, no, the fact that you won an election and want to change administrative policy accordingly, that's not a real justification in our system, in our modern way of thinking. In fact, what you have to show is that expertise justifies this policy change.
- [14:27]
B
So can you talk a bit about the state Farm precedent, that case and how that effectively buttresses that argument that bureaucratic expertise is over Democratic choice?
- [14:39]
C
You bet. Yeah. This was a great example of what we were just talking about. This was about Ronald Reagan. He campaigned in 1980 and one of the keys to his election or the so called Reagan Democrats, these blue collar Democrats in places like the state where we're now sitting, state of Michigan, the automobile workers, Reagan went to them and said, look, you guys, your business being killed by these burdensome regulations. And so if you vote for, for me, I'm going to try to help the American auto industry by rolling back these burdensome and unnecessary regulations. That was a key part of his victory in 1980. So he wins, he comes into office and eventually his Department of Transportation decides to roll back certain automobile restraint, basically seat belts, airbags, automatic seat belts, these kinds of things. And following what he campaigned on, they tried to lighten up these regulations. They get sued by the insurance industry, the state farm sues them, of course, because if an insurer wants the government to make you drive a car in bubble wrap and go two miles an hour, that would be good for them. So in any case. But the court agrees with the insurance industry. And the court said, look, the fact that you won an election on this, that doesn't cut it with us. You didn't show enough scientific data. You didn't show that on the basis of expertise having nothing to do with the people who voted. Right. Get into office. And that is still good law. I mean, it's, I should say it's very bad law, but it's valid law these days. And so that's what somebody like President Trump is up against. And it really, they got hammered by it during his first administration. They've been much more careful about it this time around. They are trying to take more of the necessary administrative steps. Dot all the I's, cross the T's. They're still getting litigated like crazy, of course, but they're doing a little bit better job this time around.
- [16:31]
B
Dr. R.J. pastrito with us. His new provocation is government bonds. The unelected. Find it at Amazon.com and elsewhere. Professor of politics, among other things, here at Hillsdale College. All right. On the courts, everyone's seen these stories. District courts using injunctions to stall presidential policy, perhaps more so now than ever in the past, Supreme Court has taken some action here. Is that meaningfully reining in some of those district courts, or are there still workarounds down there?
- [17:00]
C
It doesn't appear to be reining them in much. What you're referring to are these so called nationwide injunctions where you would come before a district court judge in a particular case and the judge might rule against the executive, not only in your case, but in all similar cases all the way across the country. And the Supreme Court did address that in a recent case, in the CASA case at the end of the last term. But there were lots of loopholes in that. And so district judges have been able to come back and use class action certification or state lawsuits. There have been many ways around it. There's a lot of legal minutiae that goes into that. But, you know, the bottom line on this, Scott, is the district courts have shown a willingness to continue abusing their authority. And unless the Supreme Court is willing to step in more aggressively and more rapidly, there's no disincentive for these district court judges to continue doing what they're doing. They have lifetime appointments, unless they are to be impeached and removed from office by Congress, which seems unlikely even in of the worst cases. Then it's up to the higher levels in the judicial ladder. And so far, while the Trump administration has for the most part been winning at the Supreme Court, it takes time. The Supreme Court is disinclined to intervene. And so the district courts have been given a free rein. And it's really the place where the Trump administration's agenda has been stymied for
- [18:32]
B
the most part, moving from courts to Congress. You end the provocation government by the unelected by saying, the forgotten branch here is Congress. If Congress were to reclaim its Article 1 powers, how much of this problem would simply disappear?
- [18:48]
C
Yeah, almost all of it would disappear. And this is, I think, an important point to be clear on, because the argument I'm making in the provocation seems in one sense to say, look, we just have to give all of this power to the president because he's elected. And this is just because at least the people voted for the president and they didn't vote for the bureaucrats. And that's certainly true. However, there are sort of two ways in which the sovereign people are represented in our national government. One is, yes, through their elected president. The other is through their elected Congress. And it would be equally good, might even be better if they got real representation through their elected Congress. But the whole reason that we're in the mess of the administrative state to begin with is because Congress has given away its legislative power and is greatly reluctant to take it back back or even to exercise it in the most modest ways. And so that's why, to my mind, if Congress isn't going to do its job, if Congress isn't going to take back this vast discretion that is given to the agencies, which is, after all, the whole reason we even have the area of administrative law. It's the whole reason we're in court all the time, is because of this question of how much power has been given to these agencies. Then the only other solution that's consistent with our Republican principles is, is for the other elected representative, for the president to at least take back some control over these unelected bureaucrats.
- [20:16]
B
History would say Congress won't do that. At least based on recent history, President Trump has three years in his term, and then who knows what happens after that, Just in terms of who's elected next, is three years enough time to make a meaningful difference in this fight against government by the unelected?
- [20:31]
C
Yeah, that's a very good question. And it's hard to say. I mean, clearly the opponents to president's reforms are trying to run out the clock. That's what the whole strategy in the district courts is. The way that goes is you go in, you get a very, very quick temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, which is just supposed to be in place until the merits of the case are considered. But once you get that initial injunction, these people, they don't want any further consideration of the merits. They just want the clock running out. And so that's certainly disconcerting. It's also disconcerting that even with Republican legislative majorities in both chambers of Congress, there's an unwillingness to legislate. I just saw a story this morning pertaining to the possibility of another reconciliation bill, which Congress can do with bare majorities as opposed to a filibuster proof majority. They have the power to do that. They can do it once or twice more even before the midterm election. And it doesn't seem like they have the will or the ability to do it it at all. And so you can't even get, never mind if there are, if the other party is controlling Congress, the president can't even get his own party to legislate. And so this is, I think, very problematic because at the end of the day, I think what the Trump administration has been doing is nothing short of remarkable. Petal's been to the floor. But I think it is a question how much this can be sustained and how successful it can be over the long term if Congress, if the legislative branch is not a willing party participant, I simply don't know how much can be done. And so it is a right now it's kind of any port in a storm with the presidential action. But, you know, I'm somewhat skeptical over the long term, I regret to say.
- [22:20]
B
Dr. R.J. pastrito is dean of the Graduate school, professor of politics, and Charles and Lucia Shipley chair in the American Constitution here at Hillsdale College. His new provocation, government by the Unelected, How It Happened and How it Might. You can find it at Amazon.com and elsewhere. Dr. Pastrito, thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
- [22:42]
C
Thank you for having me.
- [22:44]
B
Up next, Daniel Darling takes us inside his recent book, In Defense of Christian Patriotism. I'm Scott Bertram. This is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
- [23:04]
D
Hi there. It's Bill Gray from Hillsdale College. Before you skip ahead, can I ask you a question or two? If you could teach 50 million Americans one thing, what would it be? Would you teach our great American story that this nation is unique, founded on self government and individual liberty? Maybe you would teach the truth about free enterprise, how hard work and opportunity allow anyone to rise. Or would you teach the gospel and the Christian faith that helps us live good and meaningful lives? At Hillsdale College, we're doing exactly that, teaching the best that's been thought and said. Through our free online courses, K12 programs, Imprimis, podcasts and more, we reach and teach millions every year with the principles of liberty that make America free. And with your help, we can reach even more. Your tax deductible gift today will help us teach millions more people to pursue truth and defend liberty. Just text the word give to 7 1844. You'll get a secure link to make your donation in seconds. That's give to 718 44. Thank you for standing with us. Now back to the show.
- [24:18]
B
Classical music is one of the greatest achievements of Western civilization. It took 2,000 years and the work of the greatest philosophical, scientific, political and religious minds to properly tune the piano and make great music possible. But classical music can be intimidating. In Hillsdale College's new free online course, the History of Classical Music, Chopin through Gershwin, you'll learn how to appreciate humanity's greatest musical accomplishments in the history of classical music. Concert pianist and Hillsdale College distinguished fellow Hyperion Knight explains how music has developed and what distinguishes the greatest musical achievements of Western civilization. To enroll today and secure your spot in this completely free online course, visit Hillsdale Edu Network. That's Hillsdale. Welcome back to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to check out the Hillsdale College Podcast Network, all the Hillsdale College audio you can handle at Podcast Hillsdale. Edu or wherever you find your audio, including YouTube. We're joined by Daniel Darling. He's a pastor and the author of several books including Agents of Grace and the New One In Defense of Christian Patriotism. Also currently serves as the director of the Land center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, a fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Daniel, thanks so much for joining us.
- [26:11]
A
Scott thanks for having me. So great to be on here with you.
- [26:13]
B
The latest book, in Defense of Christian Patriotism begins with your argument, your statement that America is suffering a crisis of ingratitude. How would you define that?
- [26:25]
A
Yeah, I really think there's a lot of Americans that the idea of patriotism, of loving your country seems cringe or even maybe even wrong. If you look at some of the polls, Pew Research Poll does this every year, less and less Americans feel patriot. And, you know, especially as we head into America's 250th, it's really an interesting phenomenon. And I think at the heart of patriotism is this idea of gratitude, gratitude for the country we've been given, gratitude for our ideals, gratitude for how good we have it compared to most of the rest of the world.
- [27:01]
B
So this is a big question the book addresses and maybe we shouldn't answer it all here, but the big question, what does it look like? What does it look like for Christians to fit, faithfully steward our God given citizenship?
- [27:13]
A
That's the question I really try to answer in the book. And for a lot of Christians, they've been told over the last couple decades that you have to choose either God or country, that to love your country is automatically form of idolatry, that you might be dangerous, you might be a Christian nationalist and all those terms. And what I try to do is interact with Augustine and C.S. lewis and Chesterton and I think ultimately the Bible that says it's not always a binary choice between God and country, sometimes it is, right? There are times where you have to say no to your country. You think of Diedrich Bonhoeffer going, trying to oppose the Nazis, or you think in the Bible of Peter and disciples refusing to not preach the gospel. But most of the time it's about ordering our allegiances in the proper ordering. And of course, God has to be first, but we can have lesser allegiances and one of those is allegiance to our nation. And I argue not only is it okay for us to be patriotic and good for us to be patriotic, but it's, I would say, required for a faithful Christian to love our country, the place God has put us. If we are, like Jeremiah tells the exiles in Babylon, to seek the welfare of our city, how can you seek the welfare of a city that you despise or that you loathe? If we're to love our neighbors as ourselves, how can we not be part of shaping the policies that affect our neighbors flourishing? If Romans 13 says that those who have political power are held accountable, well, we too share in that power because we're a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And so I think it's incumbent on Christians at some level to love the country they've been given, to participate in the country's preservation and shaping the policies. At some level, of course, everyone has different callings, different tasks, but at some level, it's. That's a part of discipleship.
- [29:06]
B
Some would say, well, how can you love America when so many things have been done in the past that are bad, that perhaps are evil in some way? Is it okay to love America when we know it isn't perfect?
- [29:19]
A
That's a great question. And I interact with this in the book. How do we think about American history? How do we think about the national sins that America's had? You think of chattel slavery and segregation. You think of some of the treatment of, you know, the Native Americans. You think about other abuses like that. Or if you're a conservative today, you think, how can I love a country that has legal abortion in many places where unborn babies are killed? How can I love this country? I think there's really two wrong ways to view the bad things in our history. One is to pretend they didn't happen, to whitewash them. Another one is to pretend that's the only story, to pull that thread, as if that's the only part of history. And a lot of our kids in our schools have heard a history similar to that, that America's only ever done wrong things, that it was designed specifically to subjugate people and all those kinds of things. Or there's some on the sort of dissonant right that say this whole project has failed and it's only ever resulted in all the excesses of modernity and the sexual revolution and expressive individualism. I think it's a wrong way to at.
- [30:25]
C
Look.
- [30:25]
A
Look at history. I think history has both. Has Good and bad. And if you look at the way the Bible looks at history, if you look at the Bible tells its own story of its own heroes. It does tell the story, warts and all, and yet it doesn't act like that's the entire story, right? And I think that's how we should look at, look at America. We can love our country and yet acknowledge her sins. And when you, when you are expressing patriotism and saying you love your country, you're saying you love the people, the place, the good things we've passed down, the symbols, the rich pantheon of heroes, and yet you're also saying we love our ideals that we've not yet fully lived up to the ideals of liberty and freedom and all those things. This is what some of the great social reformers in American history have done. If you think about Martin Luther King or Frederick Douglass, they revered the country, they revered the founding, they loved our ideals, and yet they urged people and they urged America to live up to those ideals. If you have nothing about the country that you love or cherish, then how can you urge it to get better? Love is a great motivation for repair. I'm a parent and I have children, and if I want my children to improve in an area to, to get better at something, if I keep telling them that they're hopeless, all they do is wrong things that they can't ever improve, well, that's not going to really motivate them to change. But if I tell them I love them and I'm proud of them, but I'd like to see them grow in an area, well, that's going to motivate them to change. And I think that's similar to the way that we should view our country.
- [32:07]
B
Daniel Darling with us, his recent book In Defense of Christian Patriotism. There's a language shift, and I was trying to think it goes back at least to President Obama, in which the freedom of religion turns into the freedom of worship or freedom to worship. What should we think about that change in language among some on the left?
- [32:31]
A
Yeah, it's a subtle shift, but it's an important shift. I think it's part and partial to some of the ways that the left misread, I would say, the establishment clause and other parts of the Constitution in the latter half of the 20th century. And this, this change from freedom of religion to freedom of worship is subtle. What they're saying is, oh, it's really good and right and okay, that you gather on Sundays to worship, or if you're Jewish, you gather in your Synagogues or however you worship, that's really good, and it's private. But if you let your faith determine the way you live, if you let it influence public policy, for instance, or other things that you care about, well, that's out of bounds. And what they're trying to do is appeal to this, I think, false idea of secularism that took root in the last part of the 20th century, this idea that we have a neutral public square. And Richard John Newhouse wrote 40 years ago in his book the Naked Public Square, that there's really no such thing, that the naked public square will be naked for not very long. Something will fill it. Someone's values will fill it. Every one of us bring our values to the public square. We bring it to our daily lives and the way we live. Some acknowledge it and some don't. And the question is, a lot of our thinking, whether it's in the media or in the courts, has sought to push that away or shame Christians for that. And I think we have to recover a sense of a robust faith, that our faith is lived out in all areas of life. Christians believe that faith is not restricted to what we do on Sunday. It's important that we gather on Sunday. We worship, but it infects our entire lives. Right? Abraham Kuyper said, there's not one square inch that God does not declare that is his. And this is how Christians believe. This is how most people of faith believe. And so I think that that shift, and you saw it really during the Obama administration when they were, you know, taking legal action against, for instance, the little sisters of the poor and others who, because of their faith, could not consent to subsidizing contraceptives or abortifacients. Same with companies like Hobby Lobby. It's like, well, it's great that you're Christians. It's really nice. We appreciate that. But you need to not let that affect some of these decisions. But for Christians, these are moral decisions. And so I think think that's a really bad reading of what the Founders intended. Thankfully. I think the courts in the 21st century have really pushed back on some of that idea. And rather than seeing the establishment clause as hostile to Christianity, hostile to faith, has pushed back on some of their decisions, particularly, you know, Trinity Lutheran, Hobby Lobby, the Fulton case, and others, where it's allowed a more robust expression of Christian faith while still honoring this experiment, that we don't want a state church, we don't want a national church. The Founders didn't want that. I don't think That's a good idea as a Baptist. And yet what we don't want is this idea that you push religion to the margins. Our founders understood that this democracy, this experiment in human government, will only flourish with a healthy, thick layer of religion and virtue. And I'd argue Christianity.
- [35:47]
B
Daniel Darling with us, his book in defense of Christian Patriotism. The Bible certainly says nothing about America specifically. The dates don't quite line up. But what does the Bible perhaps say about how Christians are to be patriotic?
- [36:03]
A
Yeah, that's a great question. I think the Bible has a lot to say about our relationship with the state and sort of the how we should think about that. Of course, the New Testament is written to people who didn't have the kind of power and agency that we have in America. Very few people in human history have had the kind of voice and vote and liberty to shape our country like we do. But the Bible does have a lot to say about the state. You know, that God has delegated power to the state in Romans 13, First Timothy 2 tells us to pray for those in authority that we might live a quiet, peaceful life. Jesus famously said, render to Caesar what Caesar and to God's what is God's? There are things that God has delegated to. To the state that we should respect, but then there are things that the state has no right over, the conscience and those kinds of things that there are different spheres that God has created. I think a country, a Christian number one, should see our citizenship as a stewardship that God has given this to us. How do we steward it well, and how do we preserve what we have for the next generation? I think secondly, to love our country in the right order. So if we love God first, then that will flow into our love for our country. And, you know, it will give us a sense of realism about what can be achieved in a fallen world. It will give us a sense of perspective that as good as America is, it's not the kingdom of God. And yet it should. The Scriptures also teach us a lot about gratitude and thankfulness, about the place that God has put us. Acts 17, Paul on Mars Hill talks about how God has put people in their places and their borders in certain times and seasons for his purposes. And, you know, it's not an accident that American Christians have been put in America in 2025. And I think we should not shy away from that. We should embrace that and, you know, be grateful that God has allowed us to live in a country like this, even though knowing that every nation and every kingdom will one day Give way to the kingdom of God.
- [38:03]
B
You quote or I think paraphrase Chuck Colson in the book, he's mentioned a number of times that politics shouldn't be seen as an ultimate prize, but as a use vehicle for human flourishing. What does that transaction look like? The accumulation of power to then affect the abilities for humans to thrive?
- [38:24]
A
Yeah, I think first of all, you know, there's a lot of conversations about power right now and a lot of the critics of conservative Christian activism also, you know, you center around power and you're grasping for power. I think a lot of those criticisms are unfair. But you know, power is something that can be avoided. It's something to be stewarded it. And whether you realize it or not, you have power. I think when it comes to politics, Christianity rather than being. We hear so many warnings, Scott, about the danger of Christians in politics and mixing the two and how bad it is. And there can be forms of political activism and Christianity that are unhealthy. But my argument is the exact opposite, that faithful churchgoing Christians are exactly the kind of people you want in politics. Because, you know, if you're going to church every week and you're, you're worshiping something that's transcendent, someone that's transcendent, something that is more powerful than the most powerful political leaders, if you're understanding the brokenness of the world and you believe that one day Christ is going to return and make all things new, then it gives you a sense of realism, of what, what you can actually do, that there's a lot of good we can do when Christians get involved. We can do so much good. And if you look through history, whether you read the great historians like Rodney Stark or Tom Holland or others who have documented that wherever Christianity has spread for the most part on the net, it has been good for society. There's a lot we can do, Scott, and yet we understand there's limits. And so when I think Christians in politics are helpful because when politics is not this all important thing that it's our everything, then I think we can engage it wisely. I think the danger comes in for folks who are not particularly religious. Politics becomes a God and politics is a poor God. It will never satisfy. We'll always be disappointed. There's always going to be an election we lose. There's always going to be a policy fight we don't win. There's always going to be scandals or whatever that disappoint us. So it makes a poor God. But politics can be a useful vehicle with a Dose of realism to do some good in a fallen world.
- [40:35]
B
Daniel Darling with us. His book is In Defense of Christian Patriotism. There's six ways listed the church can help renew America. Number four is strengthen families. And then there's another chapter altogether, the War on Family. What has the breaking apart of the family structure done to harm patriotism in America?
- [40:59]
A
Well, I'm glad you mentioned that. I. I really wanted to put, you know, in this book, I didn't just want to have, you know, a defense of patriotism and a defense of Christian political activism in our history and all those things. But in the back half, I wanted to say, okay, now that we're patriotic and love our country, want to preserve this nation and steward our citizenship, what does that look like? And it's not by accident that I put one of the first chapters in that section on the family, because I do really think that the family is the building block of a healthy society. And all the data shows us this. If you've seen the work of folks like Brad Wilcox at University of Virginia and others, Melissa Kearney at the Brookings Institute, all the social ills that we experience really have the root. And the breakdown of the family and flourishing has its root in healthy families. Children flourish best when they have a mother and father committed to each other at home, in marriage for life. That doesn't just say that if you grew up in a family that didn't have that, that you're doomed. Right. I mean, we believe in redemption and restoration and forgiveness and. And thank God there's a lot of churches and folks that are filling that gap. But as a society, we've had an experiment in the last 50 to 60 years, a social experiment, to say, what would it look like if families, you know, less families had fathers and we had all these sort of new sorts of families. Well, the experiment has not been good.
- [42:19]
C
Good.
- [42:20]
A
Right. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about this several generations ago and was widely ridiculed. And he's turned out he was right. And so I think one of the ways that we can be patriotic, one of the ways we can preserve our nation for the next 250 years, is really to invest in families, both at the policy level, any kind of sort of policy, things that can nurture and help families economically and socially, but also in civil society, our churches and our civic groups, what can we do to support struggling families and encourage marriage and family? And I think it's a really important thing if you really care, as some claim to do, about social justice, for instance, poverty and crime and all these issues. And you would really turn your focus in large part to strengthening families. It's not the only solution, but it's a huge factor in this. And I hope that we'll see a renaissance of marriage, a renaissance of healthy families.
- [43:14]
B
DANIEL there's such a focus these days on what's happening nationally, what's happening in Washington, D.C. what's happening with this president and this administration. And that's what leads virtually every national newscast these days and even local newscasts. Late in the book, you call for Christians to embrace localism. And I wonder if some might be surprised that how hard it seems to affect change on a national level so far away from us, perhaps how easy or how less hard it is to affect change on a local level.
- [43:48]
A
Yeah, that's a great question. I wanted to put that in the book because when you write a book like this on patriotism and politics and families, people, all of us, tend to think the big national headlines and the big national stories, and those are important. I don't think we should disengage there. But really, there are some issues that most people don't feel like they have the agency to solve nationally. Maybe they vote and they should vote. They get involved, they speak out. Those are all important things. But there are things we can do locally, and many of our toughest problems are best solved. The city, state and city and state and even, you know, community level. And I am most discouraged about the country when I think about some of these issues on a national level and how much we disagree and we're divided. But when I go locally and I see what folks are doing, whether they're non profits or churches or even people rolling up their sleeves and getting involved in, say like city government or school boards, there's a lot of good work being done. And so one of the things I want to say is, and this is particular, particularly when people say, okay, I want to get involved, what do I do? Well, not everyone has the same calling. You know, some are called to run for office, some are called to be commentator, speak or teach or all that. But for most people, it's what can I do in my community that is beneficial? Can I be involved in my church? Can I be involved in this charitable thing? Can I start a, a school or, you know, a Christian school or a, you know, a charter school or something like that? Can I help with an innovative program to feed the underserved in my community? Can I help get on the local city council or something and help make change? Those are things that are within grasp of most people. And Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book Democracy in America, one of the things he noticed well, he noticed a couple of things. One was that America uniquely had what he called the spirit of liberty and the spirit of religion sort of running parallel. But another thing he noticed was how local America was, that it was you had all these, you know, what Edmund Burke or Russell Craig, I remember called the mediating institutions that you had, these civic clubs and churches and all these things. And that's the strength of our country. And so when I talk about patriotism, it's not just feeling a swelling of pride when Chris Stapleton sings the national anthem at the super bowl, which you should, and I do, but it's also how can I be patriotic and steward my citizenship here in my where God has put me in this community, in this town, in a way that will help preserve it for the next generation?
- [46:12]
B
Daniel Darling is the director of the Land center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, also a fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the author of the book In Defense of Christian Patriotism. Daniel, thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
- [46:33]
A
Thank you, Scott. I really appreciate it and the work
- [46:35]
B
that you are doing that will wrap up this Italian edition of the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Dr. R.J. pastrito from Hillsdale's politics department and also Daniel Darling, his recent book, In Defense of Christian Patriotism. Remember, you can hear new episodes every week on this station. You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews or listen anytime to the podcast. Find it at Podcast hillsdale Edu or wherever you get your audio radio until next week. I'm Scott Bertram, and this has been the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.