A new movement is making itself known in the American zeitgeist. Christian nationalism, or Christonationalism, is climbing in its reach, erupting in influence among younger generations. Figures such as Nicholas J. Fuentes and other online creators have had a significant role in the shift, often bringing with them a host of white nationalist beliefs. This shift has demonstrated itself to be in part a reaction to the libertarian and neoconservative leanings that characterized the conservative revitalization around 2016’s election season, built in part due to Donald Trump’s isolationist rhetoric.
To understand this shift, we must first analyze the nature of intellectual eras. Intellectual eras capture the culture in response to previous and parallel movements, often pioneered by figures who are reactionarily pushed by circumstance (typically brought about by the previous intellectual era) to advocate change. The up-and-coming intellectual era is spurred on by its solution-oriented or diagnostic framing of ongoing problems in the previous movement. Its novelty is found appealing, particularly by newer generations, but decreasingly so by older ones. The most steadfast of the younger generation that grew with the roots of the intellectual era reach the age of acquiring political, economic, and social power, using said power to plant the seeds given to them by their era. Once this new era has taken hold, its intellectual edge becomes normalized and no longer embodies the intellectual, but instead the popular. Whether through circumstances brought on by this intellectual era, another place’s intellectual era, or a contrarian instinct, the overlooked aspects of the movement are blamed by opposition on the foundation of the current intellectual era, catalyzing the growth of an opposing intellectual era that was previously niche.
So—what do the Christonationalists believe? Furthermore, what is Christonationalism? Stephen Wolfe’s book A Case for Christian Nationalism summarizes the beliefs of this rising intellectual era well, advocating for the institutionalization of Christianity. The previous libertarian intellectual era reinforced the secularized brand of Christian morals in the state, deriving from Enlightenment thought. For the true pursuit of good, Christonationalists find such a secularized brand woefully insufficient. Wolfe cites an Anglican Christonationalist who said in 1885 that it was not useful to call one thing religious and another secular, thereby following that government should be explicitly religious. It shouldn’t be compartmentalized to the church and clergy. Wolfe defines Christian nationalism as, “a totality of national action consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation, as a Christian nation in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ.” However, this is almost identical to Wolfe’s definition of nationalism itself, which he describes as, “a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a nation, as a nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good.” Such a similarity in definition leaves some questions unanswered about what Christonationalism actually is, particularly the question of what constitutes the nation. Is it ethnically based? Is it religiously based? Or perhaps it’s determined by one’s state demonym? Wolfe elucidates his views further on, limiting nations by all those aspects which constitute their particular identity (as opposed to the universal).
Wolfe’s definition of Christonationalism is echoed by figures such as Nick Fuentes, especially with more of a nativist, white nationalist focus. Nick Fuentes argues for the preservation of America’s founding stock, i.e., white Europeans (while also admitting to the realities of racial coexistence). Wolfe’s view of nations being limited by their particular aspects complements white nationalism. According to Wolfe, it’s natural and good to live with your tribe and dwell among similar people. We should prefer our own and mind our own business. Cultural particulars are required as a prerequisite condition for pursuing the highest good, with language serving as an example. Wolfe follows by adding that nations may exclude foreign Christians when doing so harms their nation-building and goodness. White nationalists would add that, because genetic race is often a piece of ethnicity, it thereby follows that other races may be excluded because they will detract from the nation. Such an extrapolation ignores the reality of assimilation and the high importance of culture relative to the low importance of genetic race in said process.
Whether or not the aforementioned views of racial exclusion bear any validity, their increased popularity is undeniable. Online, video clips of Nick Fuentes and others espousing similar views consistently garner millions of viewers. NBC recently reported on a whites-only community in Arkansas founded by Eric Orwell, who recently spoke to Fuentes, that reportedly disallows African Americans, Jews, and homosexuals. While figures like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson have shifted to a more Christonationalist framework, they have not adopted the white nationalist views often accompanied with it. Nonetheless, they signify the growth of the movement in their own rhetoric. Largely, all these figures share the commonality of opposing the perceived status quo of conservatives while pushing in an alternative direction. The Ayn Rand-respecting, small government, free market advocate that could once be found in even Trump’s cabinet is no longer satisfactory to many American conservatives.
The retaliation against libertarian sentiments is not unfounded. Christonationalism places more of a focus on responsibility over freedom, expecting small actions towards the greater collective good as well as larger sacrifices of the self, mirroring the lessons of Christ. Wolfe correctly points out that a mother nursing her child is good for both the child and the nation, as it collectively serves the community and the individual at the same time through the potential positive consequences of the action. “One can hardly expect extraordinary in a nation where the ordinary is absent,” states Wolfe. He outlines relief from poverty and religion as preconditions for people doing well. In not fearing big government, Wolfe’s Christonationalism takes steps that neoconservatism has failed to. Nonetheless, it fails to recognize the potential danger of intertwining Christianity with the state. Although Christian rulers, laws based on Christian doctrine, and undergirding Christian frameworks may exist in a state with benefit and without direct negative consequence, theocratic frameworks that align governing institutions with church institutions create a conflict of interest for state rulers and clergymen that may result in either one pursuing their work in search of power and glory over good. Religiously mandated rulers, as famously outlined by Machiavelli and Hobbes, possess the most power of all due to bearing perceived control beyond life itself. Additionally, forcing Christonationalism from the intellectual to the popular may lose its pragmatic ability to ensure better and more pious citizens. It risks becoming a low-resolution version of itself that has no luster for younger generations who could replace it once they gain power. The intertwinement of white nationalist thought within Christonationalism may cause a rubber band effect, wherein the silent social discomfort of a large portion of Americans causes not only a secular reaction, but likely an anti-Christian intellectual era.
De Facto Times 