Religion Part V: The History of the Religious Right

This post is a summary of the New York Times bestselling book Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted A Faith And Fractured A Nation, by Kristin Kobes Du Mez.

I purchased this book in my quest to answer a very specific question that has been burning in me since the 2016 election: How has Donald J. Trump drummed up so much unwavering support from so many Christians? This question is not to suggest that the opposing candidates of the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections were perfect alternatives -- no politician (or person) is without flaw or above critique. But when I consider the teachings of Jesus Christ, which the Christian faith was built upon and which I was raised up on, I cannot help but to question the overwhelming Christian support for a man who so starkly and so unapologetically contradicts such teachings.

Jesus taught love above all else; he taught to love your neighbor as your self, to love strangers, and to even love your enemies. He taught kindness and respect; to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He taught peace; to resolve conflict, promote harmony, and to end oppression and violence. He spoke against greed; "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God," reads Mark 10:24. Jesus clothed the poor, fed the hungry, and welcomed the foreigner with open arms. No strings attached, no ifs, ands, or buts. Period, full stop.

Donald J. Trump says and does quite the opposite. Since his rise to prominence in American politics, he has stirred up hatred against many different groups of people, including but not limited to: Muslims, Mexicans, Asians (those of Chinese descent in particular due to his "China virus" rhetoric), and the LGBTQ+ community. In addition to provoking fear and hatred against large groups of people, Trump has also been hateful and disrespectful toward a never-ending listing of individuals, some of whom include: the wives that he has cheated on, E. Jean Carroll and the many other women that he has sexually assaulted (the actual number of which we will never know, but many women have publicly accused him of assault, and let's not forget the "grab 'em by the pussy" video), and Barack Obama (remember Trump's promotion of the "birtherism" conspiracy theory, which threatened the safety of Obama's entire family, and again spread hate against Muslims?). Donald J. Trump promotes hate, not love. He also incites violence over peace (January 6, 2021 - need I say more?). When it comes to greed, it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for Trump to enter the kingdom of God. His net worth is estimated to be $5.5 billion, and the first row of his 2025 inauguration included three of the richest men in the entire world, who he has very close working relationships with: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg. And as for being welcoming to strangers and foreigners? Trump has built much of his support on the promise to build a literal wall between the US and Mexico, and has already signed many anti-immigration executive orders in an effort to launch the largest deportation operation in US history.

Trump is as un-Christian as they come. Yet he won 81% of the white evangelical Christian vote in 2016, and was given the 2024 election by many of the same Christians. How do MAGA Christians not see a contradiction between their faith and their vote? Where did the "Religious Right" even come from? How did we get here?! Jesus and John Wayne answered these questions for me, and then some.

As usual, I want to mention that this post is not meant to attack any specific personal beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their own place on the spectrums of religion and politics. I am simply trying to shed light on a subject that is largely relevant to today's political climate.

Du Mez begins her NYTimes bestseller by trying to define Christian evangelicalism, which proves to be a tricky feat. This is because the modern evangelical movement is not strictly theological, but rather it is heavily steeped in popular culture and politics. The National Association of Evangelicals define themselves according to four distinctives: 1. To uphold the Bible as one's ultimate authority, 2. To confess the centrality of Christ's atonement, 3. To believe in a born-again conversion experience, and 4. To actively work to spread this good news and reform society accordingly. In other words, evangelical Christians prefer to define themselves according to their religious convictions, and aim to spread their beliefs far and wide.

The problem with defining oneself as a "Bible-believing Christian" and trying to spread the word of the Bible to others is that the Bible has over 31,000 verses, many of which blatantly contradict one another. Which verses, then, should be followed? Which are essential to the faith? Which should be ignored or explained away? How one chooses to believe and follow the Bible is deeply subjective. It depends as much on the context of a person's life as the actual words written in the Bible, if not more.

Evangelical Christianity is therefore intertwined with the secular world - the world beyond the Bible and the faith. Religion can change culture, and culture can change religion. And the culture that white evangelicalism has created and sells is vast. From books and magazines, to contemporary Christian music, radio, television, and home décor. From watching Veggie Tales as a kid to consuming Fox News as an adult. Evangelicalism has infiltrated pop culture, and vice versa. "Evangelical pop culture is so strong that a few words preached on Sunday morning does little to disrupt the steady diet of religious products evangelicals consume day-in and day-out." This culture is precisely why Donald J. Trump has been put on a pedestal by the Religious Right, despite having nothing in common with Jesus himself.

The Christian evangelical culture that helped catapult Trump to the top of this nation did not always exist. Throughout the 19th century Victorian Era, there was no such thing as Christian nationalism. Men made a living by farming or working with their hands, so masculinity was a given. Christian manhood entailed hard work and thrift, and the religion as a whole actually emphasized gentility and restraint.

But by the end of the century, this model of manhood began to falter. With the growth of the corporate, consumer economy, more and more men began moving to cities and earning a living by punching a clock rather than working in fields. Additionally, increasing numbers of women were starting to attend college, enter professions, ride bikes, wear pants, and have fewer babies. Old ideas of manhood began to seem insufficient. And so white, native-born protestant men started to assert a new kind of rougher, tougher masculinity.

This new type of masculinity was perfectly encapsulated by Theodore Roosevelt. Once ridiculed for his high voice, tight pants, and "weak" demeanor, Teddy Roosevelt went west to re-invent himself as a cowboy of the Dakotas. He created a rugged image of hypermasculinity for himself in America, and then shifted his stage globally by helping bring about the Spanish-American war, which also led to the creation of the first United States volunteer cavalry, nicknamed the Rough Riders.

Manhood was quickly becoming defined as a need to "protect" dependents, even if violence was needed to do so. This was modeled by the south, where white masculinity long championed a sense of mastery over women, children, and slaves. Many Christians reconciled this blossoming type of masculinity with their older traditional Christian virtues by convincing themselves they were "taking back the church." Christian men set out to "re-masculinize" their religion by offsetting the more "womanly" virtues of the faith. Former baseball player Billy Sunday was one such man, sharing these ideas across the nation with no nuance of any kind, and quickly becoming one of the most influential preachers of the early 1900s.

It wasn't until the 1940s that evangelicalism really started to take off though. Before then, fundamentalists like Billy Sunday (who claimed to value a literal or "plain" reading of the Bible) had trouble uniting different Christian denominations under one common umbrella. To remedy this, the National Association of Evangelicals was created in 1942 by a group of fundamentalist leaders wanting to unite as "a mighty army." Their plan was to knit together the disconnected universe of fundamentalism through books, magazines, radio broadcasts, Bible schools, and evangelical colleges that would reach millions.

The main face of this entire effort was Billy Graham, a handsome young minister from North Carolina. Graham was 6 feet 2 inches tall, had a square jaw, and lifted weights. Before becoming religious, he had always thought of religion as "sissy," and well suited for "old people and girls, but not for the real 'he man' with red blood in his veins." As part of his own Christian conversion narrative then, he drew on athletic and military metaphors to make the point that his faith did not conflict with his rugged masculinity. He insisted that Jesus was a star athlete, a great commander at war.

A continuous sense of embattlement was what fueled the evangelical movement. There were early hints that the movement would become militaristic, but the attack on Pearl Harbor and America's subsequent entrance into WWII was the event that solidified the pro-war stance of evangelicals. During WWII, Billy Graham helped to pioneer the Youth For Christ movement, which consisted of large rallies that appealed to the patriotic spirit of the time and taught the young that the world needs to be saved from sin.

It was Billy Graham's 1949 Los Angeles Crusade that really put him on the map and pushed the movement forward. Two days before the start of the LA crusade, President Harry Truman announced that Russia had successfully tested the atomic bomb. Fear swept the nation as imminent destruction seemed a very real possibility. In response, Billy Graham preached that "communism is a religion that is inspired, directed, and motivated by the devil himself who has declared war against the almighty God." He called for Cold War America to clean up its act, and rid itself of sin, crime, drinking, and sexual immorality. He called for stability in the home so that there could be stability in America, and insisted that a properly ordered family was a patriarchal one. Graham preached that wives should run to kiss their husbands after work, give love at any cost, be attractive but also cultivate modesty, keep the house clean, and don't nag and complain all the time. He taught that men were "God's representatives" and should be the protectors and providers of the home, as well as give their wives a box of candy or roses from time to time. This celebration of the traditional American family during such a terrifying time in history proved a very effective angle. By preaching that Satan and communists were united to destroy the American home, evangelicals clung evermore tightly to the values that they held most dears as a coping mechanism. These patriarchal teachings pushed evangelicalism further into mainstream American culture than ever before.

Additionally, the myth of the American cowboy began to resonate in both the Christian and secular world. First there was Teddy Roosevelt. Then at the start of the Cold War, Billy Graham caught the eye of Stuart Hamblen, a hard-drinking celebrity "cowboy singer" who became a born-against Christian after hearing Graham's teachings. Hamblen stopped drinking, smoking, and gambling in the name of Jesus, but continued his career as a country-western singer, which began to bridge the gap between the mainstream and evangelical entertainment industries. Hamblen's image of a rugged, individualistic cowboy tinged with righteous authority stuck with evangelicals. It signified an earlier era of manhood, when heroic white men enforced order, protected the vulnerable, and wielded power without apology. Although mythical and nostalgic for a time that never truly existed, the American cowboy fit the bill for what evangelical masculinity was shaping up to look like.

This explains how John Wayne became such an American icon even among evangelicals. John Wayne did not have a born-again experience like Billy Graham or Stuart Hamblen. He was a hard drinker and chain smoker, and did not value the traditional family - he was married twice, had multiple high profile affairs, and a string of abuse allegations. It was not a shared religion that attracted evangelicals to John Wayne, but rather their shared ideals of masculinity. Wayne became one of Hollywood's biggest stars by embodying a heroic cowboy soldier during the Cold War era of fear and uncertainty. His films were politically charged, and involved valiant white men battling nonwhite populations (including Japanese, Native American, and Mexican populations).

Wayne was more than just a movie star though. He was a conservative activist that eventually gained a cult-like following of Americans in awe of his rugged cowboy image. Wayne's militant masculinity and conservative activism helped to recruit young men to the Vietnam War efforts - Wayne even ridiculed those who did not enlist as being "soft," despite securing a deferment in order to avoid serving in a war himself. He also propped up white supremacy, saying "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in authority and positions of leadership and judgement in irresponsible people." This crassness was part of his appeal, and would become a pattern among evangelical heroes.

Despite not living his life by the standards of traditional Christian virtues, John Wayne came to symbolize a nostalgic yearning for a mythical Christian America, a return to traditional gender roles, and a reassertion of white patriarchal authority. These values were infused into Christian evangelicalism and spread far and wide through the growing national network of evangelical institutions and infrastructure. Over the course of about 15 years, Billy Graham helped to create a vibrant religious consumer culture of books, radio programs, and television, and drummed up huge support for colleges, athletic organizations, and so on. He also helped evangelicalism work its way into politics.

In the mid-1900s, most Southern Baptists identified as democrats. Billy Graham himself was actually a lifelong registered democrat. Between the 1950s and 1980s though, partisan politics transformed in large part due to evangelical efforts. This political realignment ultimately came about as a defense of white patriarchal values, with attitudes about family values, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the Civil Rights Movement playing large roles.

Fresh off his LA crusade, Billy Graham began to criticize the Truman administration, calling the president cowardly, and signaling to republican leaders that they could woo the evangelical vote by aligning their views on morality and foreign policy. Graham helped republican President Dwight Eisenhower get elected by mobilizing religious support, and even helped him select Bible verses to be read at his inauguration. Early in his presidency, "one nation, under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance, followed by "In God We Trust" being added to American currency. Graham and Eisenhower were convinced that communism was the greatest enemy every known, and that Christianity, along with a strong military, could help wage the Cold War.

In addition to their engagement in the Cold War, fundamentalists were among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Vietnam War. For conservative white Christians, their militant faith required an ever-present sense of threat to fight against. They believed that violence was inevitable with sin lurking in every heart, and used this to justify American brutality in Vietnam. Billy Graham even remarked that he had "never heard of a war where innocent people are not killed" in regards to the My Lai massacre in which American lieutenant William Calley faced trial for the murder of 500 Vietnamese men, women, and children.

Another threat that evangelicals came up against was that of the Civil Rights Movement. This movement argued that America had never been a country of liberty and justice for all, and demanded equality among the races. Most fundamentalists and southerners were staunch opponents of civil rights, but some evangelicals started out in cautious support of this movement toward equality. Billy Graham at first agreed with integration, personally removing ropes between the black and white seating of his crusades, and praising the Brown v Board of Education ruling to desegregate schools. Graham feared that the movement was unfolding too quickly though, and began to withdraw his backing as activists demanded more and more government intervention when it came to equal rights. Evangelical leaders soon changed their tune and began to insist that it was not the role of the government to interfere in issues of racial justice, but rather it was up to Jesus to change human hearts. Many Southerners even began turning to private Christian academies to uphold segregation, and argued fiercely for whites-only Christian schools to keep their tax-exempt statuses, insisting that the revoking of these statuses impinged on parental rights to teach their children as they saw fit.

Many evangelicals found it too difficult to accept that the sin of racism ran deep through the nation's history - a nation they saw as Christian. The Civil Rights Movement was too harsh a critique for evangelicals to face. By pulling support for the movement, evangelical leaders like Billy Graham ended up giving cover to more extremist views on race within the insurgent Religious Right - views that have made their way through history and can still be found in many modern Christian spaces.

After Eisenhower's presidency, Billy Graham almost endorsed candidate Richard Nixon for the 1960 election, but backed out at the last minute, paving the way for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to win out. Eight years later, Billy Graham went all-in on Nixon's 1968 campaign. Despite not being particularly religious himself, Nixon knew that conservative evangelicals could be a key demographic for him. He understood that anti-communism abroad, and "moral values" and "law and order" at home could win the vote. He also leaned heavily on the Southern Strategy to help draw the vote of former segregationists. Knowing the democrats had overseen federally mandated desegregation efforts and that Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act into law, Nixon used the republican party's defense of "state's rights" to appeal to white southern voters. Nixon won by learning to speak the language of the so-called Silent Majority, capitalizing on the political realignment that was underway and that would come to shape American politics. He worked to identify himself as a born-again Christian, instituting religious practices in the White House and appealing to evangelical values through ceremonial politics.

As evangelical Christianity continued to infiltrate the US government, a steady stream of evangelical teachings continued being pushed out into the country by rising leaders of the movement.

Fundamentalist megachurch leader Jack Hydes taught that young boys should be turned into men by playing with guns, cars, and footballs. They should be taught to fight, and be rugged in order to defend their homes and those they loved. Hyde himself was known for angry outbursts and a nasty temper, and he even encouraged violence from his own son at a young age. He preached that boys who engage in "feminine activities" often end up as "homosexuals." He pushed dress codes in his church that required men to wear jackets and ties with tight hair cuts, and women to wear skirts below the knee. Women were to submit completely to male leadership and their husbands. Girls should obey immediately and without question or argument. Hyde insisted that teaching daughters this proper behavior would do future son-in-laws a "big favor." He also encouraged corporal punishment of young children, including infants. Spankings should last at least 15 minutes and leave stripes. Hyde even advised parents on how to avoid arrest if authorities were notified of severe lashings.

Child psychologist James Dobson held similar views about punishment. In his book "Dare to Discipline," which has sold over 2 million copies since its release in 1970, Dobson encouraged parents to reassert authority over their unruly and naturally sinful children by spanking them with a belt or switch, which should be kept in plain site in order to intimidate. In subsequent books, Dobson enforced distinct gender roles. This was in response to what was happening in the world around him. The 1970s saw a growing economic independence of women, increased divorce rates, and the removal of "homosexuality" from the American Psychology Association's list of mental disorders. Dobson resigned from the association because of this in 1973, and began articulating what he believed to be "critical differences" between men and women: men like to hunt, fish, and hike, while women like the "stay at home and wait for them." By the end of the 1970s, Dobson blamed feminists for tampering with traditional gender roles, and the media for confusing men about their masculinity and their place in society. He was not alone in his fears against changes in gender expression, though - evangelicals as a whole felt the country was in crisis, with an assault on God-ordained gender roles occurring. Dobson became a fixture in many homes, and as a child psychologist he brought patriarchal evangelicalism even further into the secular world.

Men were by no means the only ones to create and reinforce such patriarchal values throughout recent history. Women played a large part as well.

When a woman by the name of Marabel Morgan began to feel that her marriage was on the rocks due to her mistake of becoming a nag and a shrew, she decided to achieve marital bliss by devoting herself wholly to her husband and giving him the honor he was due. She then turned her marital solutions and advice into a book titled "The Total Woman," which became the best-selling nonfiction book of 1974 with more than 10 million copies sold. In her book, Morgan gave women tips on how to "become the sunshine" in their homes. She advised on meal prepping (dinner salads should be prepared right after breakfast), weight loss, learning not to nag, treating your husband like a king with all of his needs being catered to (especially if you are a working woman - you do not want to risk threatening your husband's masculinity with your paycheck), and putting his "tattered ego" back together at the end of the day by admiring his muscles and whiskers. Advice also focused on intimacy. You should look feminine, soft, and touchable as well as smell good. You should make yourself sexually available to your husband at all times, seven nights in a row, as a sizzling lover. Morgan insisted this advice was Biblical, as God's plan was for women to be under the rule of men, especially sexually. She promised that her advice would keep men at home and more attentive, which would inevitably help sons too, as boys should not learn to identify too much with their mothers because this would open the door to homosexuality. Morgan's ideas of femininity hinged on assumed ideas of masculinity, even if they were not always explicitly stated: men were entitled to lead, have all of their needs met on their terms, have a fragile ego, and have a vigorous libido. This other side of Morgan's coin gave men a model of masculinity. "The Total Woman" became a staple in many conservative households during its time.

For those wondering why women would follow such demeaning and dehumanizing advice - living for the sole purpose of serving another - the answer is that it was the easiest (and sometimes only) option. Women feeling trapped and resentful in their marriages found it easier to cater to their husbands than to join the side of "women's liberation." Feminism encourages women to have identities separate from the men in their lives - to have autonomy and find fulfillment outside of marriage and family. For women confined to their homes with few employable skills, feminism was not always an option. It was easier for many women to play the hand that they were dealt.

One of the first women to follow Morgan's advice was a good friend by the name of Anita Bryant, who eventually went on to become the spokeswoman for evangelical anti-gay activism. This activism was not so much a longstanding opposition to the Gay Rights Movement of the 60s and 70s, but rather it was rooted in the cultural and political significance being placed on distinct gender roles by conservative Christians. Same-sex marriages challenged the most basic gender assumptions of the evangelical worldview, and therefore had to be fought against.

The woman who most clearly turned the personal political for evangelicals was actually a catholic woman by the name of Phyllis Schlafly. Her popularity reflected the new alliances being made among conservative women of various Christian backgrounds. Schlafly had a master's degree in political science and worked at the American Enterprise Association. She also ran a campaign for a republican for congress, and even ran for congress herself. Despite her successful career, Schlafly championed "traditional" womanhood. She insisted that her involvement in politics was a "lifetime hobby," and her campaign slogan for congress was, ironically, "a woman's place is in the home." She claimed that her main job was at home as wife to the wealthy lawyer Fred Schlafly, and as the mother of six children.

Schlafly's biggest influence in politics was the sabotage of the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA was originally introduced in the 1920s, and stated that equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the US or by any state on account of sex. The 1960s saw a resurgence of feminism with the amendment being revived, and in 1972 it was approved by both houses of congress and was sent to states for ratification. This same year, a friend of Schlafly's asked her to speak on the ERA, but she had no interest in the amendment at the time. Schlafly later came across conservative critiques of the ERA, and quickly started speaking out against it. Schlafly insisted that the notion of women's oppression was absolutely ludicrous, as no one enjoyed more privilege than the American woman. Despite the legislation simply giving women equality under the law, Schlafly claimed it was an attack on womanhood. She claimed that men and women are different and that legislation should not try to erase this. Women have babies and men do not, so a woman's rights and duties are only to have children and be protected by men. This is achieved through the family structure and through the chivalry of men, so legislation is not needed. Traditional gender roles are necessary because of biology, and anyone who has a problem with this should take it up with God.

Schlafly even went as far as to demonize feminism. She claimed that ERA "fanatics" are actually a threat to the traditional family structure - that equal opportunities and equal pay for equal work is actually a radical plan to wage war on women who like being housewives and homemakers. She insisted that work outside of the home is unfulfilling and that pay is overrated. She warned that the ERA would end up forcing women into military service and would make women more vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Schlafly almost single-handedly convinced conservatives that it was feminists who were violating women's rights by forcing them into roles they did not want, exposing them to danger, and depriving them of masculine protection. She was also deeply concerned about abortion rights, as her Catholicism had a long history of condemning abortion even when the woman's life was at stake.

The Equal Rights Amendment was the first major issue that conservatives rallied around after losing the legal battle for segregation. And much of the language against the ERA mirrored that of earlier segregationists. Those against civil rights used language like "forced busing," and those against the ERA stated that women would be "forced" into the military and other dangerous roles if the amendment was ratified. Like segregationists, anti-ERA activists also spoke out about "potty issues." Schools and public facilities previously integrated restrooms, and now conservatives were claiming that the ERA was threatening to turn public restrooms into unisex spaces. One state legislature even stated "I ain't going to have my wife be in the bathroom with some big, black buck!" This blending of racism with the perceived sexual vulnerability of white women stemmed from white fears of imagined black aggression. Both segregationists and anti-ERA activists ran huge misinformation campaigns in order to rally conservatives against imagined existential threats to the nation.

Morgan unified white Christian women around shared domestic identities and gender roles, and Schlafly converted these same women into political activists. This put gender at the center of the emerging evangelical political identity, with "family values" being used to reassert patriarchal authority.

Jerrry Falwell, a baptist minister and the founder of Liberty University, then helped launch the "Moral Majority" in 1979, an organization and movement designed to train and mobilize the Religious Right. Falwell preached that communism needed to be fought, insisting that Christianity sanctioned military aggression and the right to bear the sword. He also insisted on fighting against the moral decay of America. According to Falwell, signs that the country was in decay included welfarism, income-transfer programs, divorce rates, homosexuality (with AIDS being proof of "the wrath of God upon homosexuals"), federally funded daycare, and the Domestic Violence Prevention and Treatment Act. This act was especially concerning to Falwell, as he feared it would do away with physical punishment as a mode of childrearing and "eliminate the husband as head of household." He was also concerned about a bill that would enable women to sue their husbands for rape. Falwell's defense of the traditional American family was his linchpin.

In the summer of 1980, both liberals and conservatives alike were greatly concerned about the fate of American families. Current president Jimmy Carter, thinking both side of the aisle could come together to find common cause, organized a White House conference to address current issues that American families were facing. Liberal leaders and conservative leaders such as Falwell were invited. The problem was: Who got to define "family?" Conservative leaders ended up walking out of the official conference in protest of their definition of family being threatened. The Religious Right was built upon the "traditional" family, which left no room for single parents, gay couples, and other adaptive family models. The following month, Falwell, Schlafly, and Dobson joined forces by holding their own rally against the demise of the traditional family structure. These leaders also united in their efforts to unseat Carter in the upcoming presidential election.

To evangelicals, Carter was a disappointing president on all counts. The irony of this is that he was one of their own - Carter was a southern, born-again evangelical. In his earlier years, Carter had a very successful career in the US Navy. He only resigned in order to return home to help run his family's humble farm after the death of his father. Once home, Carter became deeply involved in his local community - he was a Sunday School teacher, and served on local boards for civic organizations such as libraries and hospitals. He eventually got involved in politics and became a State Senator, promising to read every bill before casting votes, and attacking wasteful government practices. He also fought to repeal laws that discriminated against African Americans (which were still very prevalent in the south). Carter was elected to the presidency in 1976 with the support of evangelicals, who had chosen him to restore the nation's moral footing in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Evangelicals quickly turned on him though when they realized he was not the macho man they had hoped for. The national media labeled Carter a "wimp," and it stuck. Despite being the most Christ-like of all the American presidents - always telling the truth, helping the homeless, attempting to bring peace and unity to the country and abroad - Jimmy Carter was disliked by the Religious Right, for evangelicals had placed patriarchal power at the heart of their cultural and political identity.

Bypassing the man who had shared in their faith, the Religious Right chose candidate Ronald Reagan as their new leader in the 1980 presidential election. Reagan actually began his political career as a democrat, supporting the ERA and the legalization of therapeutic abortion, and opposing the anti-gay agenda. By 1980 though, Reagan had changed his tune to become much more conservative. He was lured to the right by anti-communism, Christian nationalism, and a nostalgia for a mythical past. Reagan took on the role of the stern authoritarian father. He became tough on crime (only the street crime of threatening black men, though - the crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse were not of concern), turned against the ERA (for it "denigrated stay-at-home mothers and would force women into combat"), supported prayer and the teaching of Creationism in public schools, and kept James Dobson as a regular consultant.

Reagan also did away with the Fairness Doctrine, a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy that required radio and television broadcasters to: 1. Present controversial issues of public importance, and 2. Do so in a way that reflected differing viewpoints. In other words, media sources using public airwaves were required to present messages from both sides of public debates. This prevented radio and television station owners from sharing only their opinions and unchecked misinformation to unsuspecting listeners. It prevented echo chambers. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine opened the doors for right wing media to begin destroying public trust in traditional media sources like NBC, ABC, and CBS. It was a strategy to eliminate the need for media to present unbiased information to the public, paving the way for the massive media divide that defines modern America.

The 1980s solidified the democratic party as that of liberals, African Americans, and feminists, with the republican party being one of conservatives, traditionalists, and segregationists. George H. W. Bush, too, slowly aligned himself with religious conservatives in order to take the 1988 presidential election. In 1991 Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, despite Anita Hill's sexual assault allegations against him. These allegations were of little concern to evangelicals, who had been conditioned to not believe women or take them seriously. Schlafly even scoffed at Hill's allegations, accusing feminists of inflating rates of harassment and abuse, and blaming the victims themselves when the abuse was real.

Bill Clinton then took the 1992 election, which was a nightmare for evangelicals. Clinton was a democrat, a draft dodger, and a marijuana smoker. He also had a problematic wife who was a feminist career woman that advocated for civil rights and children's rights. This triggered fear, resentment, and disdain among conservative women. Clinton immediately faced backlash from the Religious Right with his intent to open up the armed forces to all people wanting to serve (regardless of their sexual orientation) and when he signed the 1994 order allowing women to serve on combat ships and fighter planes. To evangelicals, this went against "God-ordained" gender differences. The right also claimed that this would expose women to the threat of sexual assault.

Clinton's Lewinsky scandal, as to be expected, stirred up even more anger from the right. Evangelicals seemed to be less concerned with Clinton's predatory behavior though than they were with how the scandal was handled. Schlafly lashed out, stating that the president was "flouting the law and lying about it on television, while hiding behind his popularity in the polls." Dobson, too, spoke out on the scandal, declaring that he found it "profoundly disturbing" that the rules were being re-written for Clinton...

The 1990s also saw the Cold War come to an official end. This took away the sense of embattlement that evangelicals were used to and thrived upon. Without a clear enemy to fight, confusion arose around what it now meant to be a man. This disconcerting lack of a threat lead to the creation of the Promise Keepers, which was an organization that encouraged men to remain masculine protectors, but in a much softer way than evangelical culture had previously allowed. Men that joined the Promise Keepers confessed their shortcomings, promised to be better husbands and more attentive fathers, and vowed a higher level of respect to women. This movement swept the nation, with James Dobson promoting it on his radio program in 1997, and a slew of books encouraging "soft" masculinity popping up all over bookstores. Many conservative women were completely on board with the movement, as it seemed like a progressive solution to some of the oppression and resentment that they had historically felt. The problem with the Promise Keepers movement was that it still existed within a patriarchal framework. Men were still assumed to be heads of household, and women were still expected to submit to the will of men. The movement even attempted to take on the issue of racism, but again missed the mark by framing racism as a personal failing. The Promise Keepers did not address structural inequalities, and failed to support any political or social policies that would actually benefit black communities.

The purity culture wave also hit during this decade, with young girls being taught modesty and abstinence above all else. Evangelical girls were taught that boys were created with nearly irrepressible, God-given sex drives, and that it was up to them to reign in the libidos of men. Girls were to avoid leading men into sexual temptation until married, in which case wives were then tasked with meeting their husbands' every sexual need. Conservative Christian families even bought their girls silver purity rings to remind them of the value of their virginity. Evangelicals had far less to say about male modesty though, and instead emphasized the rewards that awaited boys who remained abstinent until marriage - a delayed gratification that their future wives were obliged to give them. Despite claiming to be deeply concerned about government overreach, evangelicals did not seem to mind that by 2005 over 100 abstinence-only sex education programs had received 104 million dollars in federal funding.

The era of soft patriarchy was a short-lived one, with the pendulum beginning to swing back by the end of the 20th century. In 1996 Fox News was created. This news network did not frame itself in religious terms, but it more than fit the cultural and political values of evangelicals. The network was patriarchal right from the start, channeling the masculine rage and resentment that was brewing among conservative white men who sensed their cultural displacement due to lack of a true battle to fight. In 2001 a book titled "Wild At Heart" was then published by John Eldridge, which encouraged militaristic masculinity, spoke of capes/swords/six-shooters, and insisted that God made men to be dangerous, completely dismissing the charge that Jesus instructed his followers to turn the other cheek. This book sold over 4 million copies, and many more testosterone-riddled copycat books quickly followed.

Then on September 11th of 2001, a new battle presented itself, and evangelicals were thrilled to have a masculine and heroic president back in the oval office to lead the crusade in the middle east. In October of 2001, eight out of ten Americans supported George W. Bush sending troops into a ground war in Afghanistan as retaliation against the al-Qaeda terrorists of 9/11, who were being given cover by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Many saw this as a necessary war. The Iraq War, on the other hand, was a much harder sell to the American people. Many believed there were other options. The National Council of Churches urged Bush against a preemptive strike, and the Vatican also warned about preemptive war, insisting that it would be a crime against peace. In contrast, evangelicals were in favor of a second war, with leaders writing to Bush in 2002 in full support of a preemptive strike. In 2004, Jerry Falwell then gave a sermon insisting that "God is pro-war." The militant faith of evangelicals was back in full swing, with Islam replacing communism as the new American enemy.

In fact, evangelical Christianity was even physically infiltrating the US military. Colorado Springs, the home of the United States Air Force Academy, eventually became the location of 3 air force bases, an army fort, and the North American Air Defense Command. With local tax breaks, and the Nazarene Bible College being the first to establish itself within this vicinity, many other evangelical organizations began to follow, making Colorado Springs a growing epicenter of evangelical power. Before long, around 100 Christian organizations, megachurches, and colleges surrounded the army bases. The air force soon became a Trojan Horse for evangelicals to infiltrate the military, with 40%of active military personnel identifying as evangelical by 2005.

Evangelical Christianity also spread deeper into mainstream media in the 2000s. In 2008, TLC gave all of America a glimpse into the lives of the evangelical Christian family the Duggars in their new television series called "17 Kids and Counting" (later changed to "18" and then eventually "19 Kids and Counting"). This show shed light on many of the values and habits of extreme evangelical Christians, including their homeschooling. Since the 1980s, Christian homeschooling was on the rise, and by the 2000s nearly 1 million children (2/3 of which were religious) were being homeschooled. Homeschooling was often used as another mechanism for instilling and reinforcing Biblical patriarchy.

The A&E show "Duck Dynasty" then aired in 2012, which followed the Robertson family. This family consisted of big, burly, and bearded men that were rugged hunters, along with their perfectly made-up and accessorized wives and daughters, who always had a home-cooked meal ready for them when they returned home. Duck Dynasty did not consist of in-your-face Christianity, but it did spread more subtle messages of evangelical faith, culture, and rigid gender roles to an unsuspecting audience.

By the 2008 election, most evangelical Christians had pretty strong opinions on the presidential candidates. Barack Obama was problematic not only because of his political party and ethnicity, but also because of his particular flavor of Christianity. Obama stood against culture wars and insisted that America needed true liberty and justice for all in order to prosper. He was also extremely intelligent, understanding the country's need for nuance and grace. Nuance was not the brand of evangelicals though. Dobson was perhaps Obama's biggest critic, accusing him of distorting the Bible to fit his own worldview, and of misinterpreting the constitution. Most evangelicals favored republican candidate John McCain, who chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin was a Bible-believing Christian, a Creationist, and was pro-guns and anti-abortion. She became a culture warrior, disparaging liberal elites and undermining the masculinity of liberal men like Obama. Despite being a woman, which undoubtedly concerned many, 76% of evangelicals cast their ballots for the McCain/Palin ticket.

The other 24% of evangelicals who helped Obama to win the 2008 election were wanting to expand their list of moral values to include the issues of poverty, climate change, and human rights, all of which Obama promised to address in his presidency. And address these issues he did. Most of Obama's acts as POTUS absolutely outraged the evangelicals who opposed him, which further strengthened their sense of embattlement and their will to organize. Immediately following Obama's win of the election, Schlafly hosted a "How To Take America Back" conference which covered the topics of how to recognize living under Nazis and communists, how to counter the homosexual movement, and how to stop socialism in healthcare. Despite not having the power to stop the Obama administration from moving forward with its campaign promises, evangelicals were playing the long-game, just as they always had.

In his first term, Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law, which made health insurance more affordable and accessible to many low-income Americans, and better protected consumers from the abuse of insurance companies. Additionally, the ACA included a contraceptive mandate, which evangelicals argued was a hostile government overreach that could coerce Christians into participating in practices they abhorred. Another individual's right to pregnancy prevention was unacceptable to evangelical Christians. Then in 2015 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, which evangelicals argued would force Christian business owners to serve gay clients, apparently again impinging on the rights of said Christians. Around this time was also the revival of the bathroom debate, with conservatives being enraged at the idea of transgender people using the restrooms of their choice. Evangelicals claimed that they were being marginalized by the rights and freedoms of others. They claimed that this was not an issue of rights, but rather it was an issue of women's safety, for men could now start posing as transgender women to attack real women in their own restrooms. This fury at the threat of fake transgender women in restrooms reflected longstanding assumptions about predatory male behavior, uncontrollable male sexuality, and female vulnerability. Yet those opposing transgender bathroom rights have never been able to get to this root of their own fears: Men. "Fake transgender women" are, very simply, men.

Gender was at the heart of evangelical opposition to the Obama administration. A perceived threat to the "traditional" family structure kept evangelicals rallied around what they called their religious freedom. The Religious Right's idea of religious freedom was, of course, never meant to be equal for all religions. Evangelicals only want their own version of Christianity to be upheld. They want men to remain in power and to be the head of every household. They want women to put the role of wife and mother above all else. They want to deny the existence and humanity of the LGBTQ+ community. And they want to control/stop government funds from going to any person or group of people living outside of their evangelical ideals.

Enter: Donald Trump. The evangelical infatuation with Trump was not instantaneous. He was very untraditional. But the more evangelicals paid attention to his 2016 run for the presidency, the more they began to see that he was a perfect fit for them. Like many earlier republican candidates, Trump changed his tune to fit that of his audience. Once pro-choice, Trump was now against abortion and promised to appointment Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. He also stoked other familiar evangelical fears (against feminists, liberals, the LGBTQ+ community, Muslims, Mexicans, and the erosion of religious freedom) in order to win over conservatives. He promised to protect Christianity at a Liberty University convocation. He promised to protect the people against "evil-doers." He spoke in black and white, eliminating nuance of any kind, in order to rile up his well-targeted audiences and deepen already-forming political divides. The manufactured fear that evangelicals were feeling created a longing for an aggressive and heroic protector, and the Religious Right had finally found their guy in Donald Trump. He praised white hypermasculinity, was unrestrained by political correctness, and would very clearly break the rules for the "right" cause - the evangelical cause. Trump's bigotry, sexual assault allegations, and mockery of "family values" (through his divorces and infidelity) were of no concern to evangelicals, for these Christians were used to dismissing sexual misconduct and explaining away problematic male behavior. Trump said exactly what evangelicals wanted to hear. For them, their vote was not the lesser of two evils, but rather it was a morally sound choice

For conservatives who did choose Trump as the lesser of two evils, their votes were also largely out of fear of the alternative. With all of the liberal progress made by the Obama administration, white men in particular (and many white women, too) were feeling threatened by a potential loss of status. Fears of being displaced if another democrat (and a woman, no less) took office were prevalent among conservatives. Trump pandered to white supremacy, allowing white male fear of displacement to outweigh other factors such as economics. To many white men with unconscious biases, equality can feel like something is being taken away from them - like there is only one pie, and their piece will be reduced if minorities are given equal rights and opportunities. Trump's long-term goal was always to make America fight over the single pie, while he happily runs the rest of the bakery.

Trump's power over the bakery that is America was given to him by evangelicals, white supremacists, and outright fearful people being fed a steady stream of misinformation. In order to retain this power, Trump now has to continue fueling the chaos and confusion currently defining the country. He has to continue to please his evangelical and white supremacist constituents, as well as keep the general public misinformed and living in fear.

Trump did this in his first term by appointing Neil Gorsuch (extremely conservative), Brett Kavanaugh (extremely conservative, with multiple sexual assault allegations against him), and Amy Coney Barrett (extremely conservative and religious, with anti-abortion and other anti-feminist beliefs) to the Supreme Court, all three of whom helped to overturn Roe v Wade - a huge win for evangelicals. Trump's relentless fear-mongering of immigrants (Mexicans in particular), the LGBTQ+ community, Asians, etc. also caused a rise in hate crime. Additionally, his pathological lying and spreading of misinformation led to the January 6, 2021 insurrection, for which he has faced no punishment whatsoever.

This term, Trump is picking up where he left off. Upon taking office again, he immediately pardoned all January 6th rioters, including those who took violent action against authorities and had already been convicted and sentenced. He has been hiring a steady stream of his most loyal, and often extremely unqualified followers, some of whom include: Elon Musk (an unelected billionaire with many conflicts of interest) to lead to new Department of Government Efficiency, Russell Vought (a Christian Nationalist and key author of Project 2025) to direct the Office of Management and Budget, and Pete Hegseth (a Fox host with many allegations of sexual assault, public drunkenness, and financial mismanagement) to be Secretary of Defense. Trump has also begun deporting immigrants, some to camps in Guantánamo Bay (possibly illegally according to immigration experts). He has begun stripping back LGBTQ+ rights and Diversity Equity and Inclusion initiatives. He has even defied a court order by a federal judge in Rhode Island, with Vance suggesting that judges should not be allowed to control the executive's power. Furthermore, Trump is attempting to keep the public as misinformed as possible: He has allowed Meta (Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, where many Americans get information from) to stop fact-checking, he has ordered investigations into NPR and PBS with an eye toward unraveling federal funding for all public broadcasting, and he plans to completely eliminate the Department of Education.

With an uneducated, uninformed, and deeply divided public, with his own absolute immunity "as it relates to core constitutional acts," and with an unwillingness to obey court orders, Trump is effectively trying to dissolve democracy and the system of checks and balances that America has operated on since its inception. He is attempting to lead our country into a dictatorship. And evangelicals have been preparing for this their entire lives. They have been all too ready to throw their unwavering support to anyone promising to wield patriarchal power for the "good" of their Christian nation. This past month has been the closest they have ever gotten to a Christian America, and it is a very slippery slope that we are on. But as Du Mez says at the conclusion of her book, "What was once done might also be undone."

Conclusion

The evangelical movement picked up momentum and turned American politics into what it is today from a place of fear. And these evangelical fears did not come out of nowhere - they have been being carefully stoked for decades. For generations now, evangelicals have been taught to be afraid of communists, feminists, homosexuals, the government, the United Nations, Muslims, immigrants, etc. - all in the name of upholding patriarchal Christian traditions and family values. Evangelicals have been primed to respond to their fears by searching for a strong man with God-given masculinity to save them. This has led to a militant religion that does not properly reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Although Du Mez does believe that early evangelical fears were genuine (such as the fear of communism), at some point in American history the evangelical desire to consolidate and increase militaristic power began to precede fear. In other words, power was propped up through the manufacturing of fear. This fabricated fear is rampant today. Transgender athletes are not harming anyone. Immigrants are not negatively affecting the vast majority of Americans (in fact, they are likely doing the underpaid labor that most Americans refuse to do, and are usually paying taxes to a government that does not help them in return due to their legal status). Christian freedom is NOT under attack. The Religious Right and Donald Trump are just trying to convince the country that these manufactured issues should be feared because there is power to be gained and retained from doing so.

According to cognitive linguist George Lakoff, family values are the KEY divide in modern society. He explains that morality is imagined through metaphor, and family metaphors reside at the core of people's political worldviews. Liberals and conservatives have competing family metaphors: conservatives embrace a patriarchal family or a strict father metaphor, while liberals favor a nurturing parental model, regardless of number or gender of said parents. This is the root of the problem when it comes to evangelicals. Many are so set in their patriarchal worldviews, that they are unable to see nuance or to understand other ways of living. And they fear what they do not understand. They fear that the existence of the LGBTQ+ community, feminism, and social programs helping those different from them will somehow destroy their own way of life. They do not understand that different ways of living are not only okay, but can also be just as beautiful as theirs. Instead of loving and supporting their neighbors as Jesus instructed them to, evangelical Christians have given in to fear. But love will always trump fear, pun completely intended. "What was once done might also be undone."

Sources:

Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted A Faith And Fractured A Nation, book by Kristin Kobes Du Mez

Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets, documentary on Amazon Prime Video