I have been trying to understand terms I hear in current political discourse.

Let’s take, e.g., “Populism.” Okay. Populism, government for the people, opposes elites. Originally that meant economic elites, which were seen as controlling both society and the government. Populists were against corporate power, the banks, and the rich generally. That has changed. Now Elon Musk and Donald Trump are labeled Populists. Really? There seems now to be little of the traditional concern about the power of obscene wealth, and the populist movement–certainly not that of Trump and Musk–does not seek to break up or restrict corporate greed or banks. 

Modern populism now targets the cultural elite. This change may have been initiated in the 1960s by George Wallace, who denounced “pointy headed liberals” and Ivy League intellectuals (read, the Kennedys) telling ordinary people what to do. In his case it was the “cultural elite” telling his southern constituents what to do about civil rights. The modern populist has little concern about the economic elites getting more and more while ordinary people cling to their modest means. Instead, the concern is that they may be dislodged by an undeserving class of people (read, Blacks and immigrants) who have been anointed and protected by the cultural elites. In modern populism, the economic elites have won and go unchallenged.

Now. What about Marxism? Marxism was originally a movement to shield workers from the economic inequality created by an aristocratic ruling class. However, this concept, too, has changed. Terms like “bourgeoisie,” “proletariat,” and “means of production” have disappeared. Now, at least in the U.S., “Marxism” is preceded by “cultural.” [Many right-wing people see it as a Jewish conspiracy to subvert Western civilization.] A report published by the American Heritage foundation offers its definition of this ism: “Cloaking their goals under the pretense of social justice, [cultural Marxists] now seek to dismantle the foundations of the American republic by rewriting history; reintroducing racism; creating privileged classes; and determining what can be said in public discourse, the military, and houses of worship. Unless Marxist thought is defeated again, today’s cultural Marxists will achieve what the Soviet Union never could: the subjugation of the United States to a totalitarian, soul-destroying ideology.” Those protecting me from the presumed dangers of cultural Marxism, surprisingly, believe that the presentation of history and discourse in various forums can have enough power to destroy Western culture. Presumably these stalwarts know the “correct” history. How did they learn it? And their coy definition does not spell out what they mean by the reintroduction of racism (i.e., racism against whites?) or what privileged classes are being created. They certainly don’t mean economic elites.

The oxymoronic ism known as Christian Nationalism is somewhat new to me. Christian Nationalism, which is really American Christian Nationalism, which is really white American Christian Nationalism, maintains that this country was founded on Christian principles, or, despite the downfall of DEI, more inclusively, Judeo-Christian principles. First of all, there weren’t many Jews in the country at our founding. Ironically (and confusingly), those opposing cultural Marxism are often allied with Christian Nationalists even though those Nationalists are rewriting history. Historians who don’t just make things up maintain that Christianity, Judeo or otherwise, had little effect on our formation. For example,Thomas E. Ricks in First Principles: What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks and Romans and How That Shaped our Country (2020) reports that Christianity and religious influence in general was low in colonial America and remained subdued until 1815. Despite the first so-called Great Awakening in America in the 1730’s, in 1776 the states had only one minister for every 1500. Robert Putnam with Shaylan Romney Garrett in The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again (2020) similarly tell us that colonial era was not as religiously observant as myths would have it. At the Revolution perhaps twenty percent were members of a religious body, which had increased to thirty-four percent by 1850. Jill Lepore in These Truths: A History of the United States (2018) also concludes that this country was founded in one of its most secular eras.

Give yourself a little test. Think of all the Founders who were known for their devout Christianity. The list is not short; it is nonexistent. Instead, perhaps you thought of Thomas Jefferson who famously did a cut-and-paste job on his Bible to remove all the supernatural elements from the New Testament including the resurrection. Or consider Fergus M. Bordewich in The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government (2016) who said that while Washington was raised as an Anglican and had some sort of belief in God, “it is doubtful that he believed in the divinity of and resurrection of Christ, and he certainly did not consider the US government based on the Christian religion.” Many of the founding fathers were, in fact, proponents of Deism, a rational theology that acknowledges the existence of a creative force but does not recognize a supernatural deity directing the lives of humans.

Apparently, however, to the (white)(American) Christian Nationalists all this historical evidence is fake history, and they continue to maintain that the country was founded on Christian principles. They point to the Declaration of Independence which does refer to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” They fail to realize that both are given a decidedly un-Christian equal billing, and they ignore that referencing “Nature’s God” does not evoke Christianity. The Declaration also goes on to say “that all men are . . . endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” It is an unimaginable stretch to believe that that unambiguously refers to Yahweh or the Father or anything else Judeo-Christian. Note the Deist-like reference to “the Creator.” And, of course, neither God, Jesus, or even the Creator appear in the Constitution.

In addition, the notion that the country was founded on Christian principles takes a delusional reading of the Bible. At least I can’t find a hint of separation of powers in the Good Book. Or that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Or that only Congress can declare war. Or that the president can be removed upon a conviction for impeachment. Etc. Etc.

(John Butman and Simon Targett in New World, Inc.: The Making of America by England’s Merchant Adventurersdestroy another myth when they report that when Puritan leader William Bradford gave reasons for Pilgrims to go to the new world, he did not include religious freedom. The Pilgrims already enjoyed that in Holland. As has been true throughout our history for people immigrating here, they came seeking work.)

A second tenet of Christian Nationalism is that America, by divine inspiration, is superior to other nations. Many of these “Christians” come from religious traditions that proclaim that the Bible must be taken literally, but I have not found anywhere references to Jesus the Patriot or Jesus the (white) (American) Christian Nationalism. If Jehovah has whispered America’s superiority into some ears, could you tell Him to speak up so the rest of the world can hear it?

While present populists, opponents of cultural Marxism (significantly, no one seems to advocate for cultural Marxism), and Christian Nationalists all seem to come from the same right-wing pool, Democratic Socialists come from elsewhere. Some leading politicians give themselves this label, but I am struggling to understand their philosophy as well. (Many more politicians call themselves Democrats, but I have little idea what they stand for either. Republicans are easier to understand. They have no mind of their own, and back whatever Trump wants.) I look up definitions of Democratic Socialism, and I get different answers, not all of them consistent with each other. Some sources indicate that Democratic Socialists wish to have socialism achieved through democratic means, but then the definers quickly say that the Democratic Socialists don’t agree what “socialism” is. So far I have not heard the DS politicians seeking state control of all businesses or institutions (uh, no, that seems to be the bailiwick of Trump, see below). Instead, I hear them proclaim that government should commit to affordable housing, healthcare, childcare, food, and transportation; increases in the minimum wage; reversing the widening income inequality; and higher taxes on the super-rich. (If populism means “for the people,” this kinda sounds like populism to me.) At one time, these concerns would have been called liberal. Now they are labeled “left wing,” which indicates how far our country has lurched to the right.

Whatever Democratic Socialists do stand for, it is clear that they are in opposition to the widespread, Candide-like notion that a laissez faire government is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

However, there is another movement that rejects government neutrality in picking winners and losers so that efficient markets and only efficient markets can drive the economy and the rest of society. Surprisingly, this movement comes from our current president.

The president and a small, unelected group around him–let’s call them the Deep State–have sought or demanded control over many institutions including universities, cultural entities, think tanks, historical associations, and NGOs. Because of fear of or desire for government actions controlled by the president and his deep state, traditional and social media have altered their behaviors. Because of government power to affect them, individuals and companies have felt compelled to donate money to favored Trump projects, such as his inauguration or the ballroom. (None dare call it extortion, but then again, the Supreme Court says that the president can’t be prosecuted.) Corporations have felt compelled to expunge any traces of DEI and have gone well beyond avoiding affirmative action. In spite of proclaimed conservative principles, the current government wants to be involved in shaping corporate decisions. Despite the government’s saying that it is a threat to national security to sell chips to China, the president says you can do it if you give us a share of the profits. Give the president a “golden share” and you can buy the company.

This is not the capitalism that conservatives have touted as essential. This is not the laissez-faire in which markets control outcomes. It is the widespread intervention by a few into society and corporate economies. The decisions made by these billionaires and a few piker multimillionaires is beginning to feel a lot like a Russian-style government takeover ruled by oligarchs, but we dare not call it socialism. What would you call it? Suggestions?