The Daily Beast Podcast - Listen Closely: Trump Wants to Be a ‘Messiah’ Figure for Evangelicals

Episode Date: January 19, 2024

The former president has been ramping up the “spiritual” language he uses on the campaign trail, according to author and this week’s guest on The New Abnormal, Sarah Posner. Plus! A talk with professor and author Jason Stanley about his book “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Kedden, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears.

We have such a great show for you today. Jason Stanley, the author of How Fascism Works, the Politics of Us and Them, joins us to tell us about how well fascism works and why Republicans seem totally fine with it. Then we'll talk to MSNBC columnist Sarah Posner about her recent piece, Trump's Iowa Caucus Wins shows his power over evangelical voters. And she'll tell us about how Trump's religious and spiritual rhetoric Eric is increased and why he's viewed as God's chosen candidate by people who would call someone God's chosen candidate. But first, let's have some fun. So since we last talked, Danielle,

and listeners, the Iowa caucuses happened and surprising, absolutely nobody, Donald Trump crushed the field with over 50% of the vote. I guess Ron DeSantis came in a very, very distant second, and Nikki Haley came in a tiny bit behind him. Again, none of that was. unexpected. It's, you know, sad and it's tragic. But on the other hand, would Desantis or Haley winning be that much better, Daniel? No. Being as how one, for the debates that we had to stomach, for you, dear listeners, they didn't attack Donald Trump. They didn't show themselves to have the gall, the ovaries, the balls, whatever the fuck you want to call them, to stand up to him and to differentiate themselves from Donald Trump at all. What they showed is a

that they are scared, shitless of him, of his base. And so if the voter has a choice between somebody new or Donald Trump, they're just going to go with Trump. Trump or Trump-like-ish. You're just going to go with Trump. So the outcome was exactly what we expected. I'm sure DeSantis's wife was very upset, though. Yeah, but you raise a good point. Like, there's a reason, for those of us who are old enough to remember, there's a reason that New Coke didn't work.

and you know you had coke classic sitting there they kept that on the shelves and they had new coke and whatever and nobody wanted the new coke everyone wanted the coke classic that's exactly what we're seeing here like you said why would you want new trump when you've got old trump and i think that's what you know Vivek ramaswami who so sad has dropped out of the race you know that's sort of what he discovered at least partially was that you know he spent all of the debates kissing up to Donald Trump even more than the rest of the crew. And I remember watching the debate and thinking, well, if you think Donald Trump is so great, why are you running against him? And, you know, very clearly, that's what Republicans thought too. On top of the fact that as some interviews with Iowa voters showed, they didn't like the color of

his skin. And they kept bringing up 9-11, which is interesting, since he's not from that part of the world. That's exactly what you expect. And I think that brings us to Nikki Halley, Danielle, because she said something. interesting the other day in a TV interview in New Hampshire, because we're all on to New Hampshire and pretending that New Hampshire matters the way we pretend that Iowa matters for political purposes. She told Fox News that not only is America not a racist country, it has never been a racist country. Danielle, I was a little shocked when we were talking before we started recording to hear that you agree with her. I was taken aback by Nimrata.

And the reason for that being, I believe that she was governor at one time from South Carolina. I'm pretty sure that there was an interview or a few where she talked about her own parents meeting and having to deal with racism. Donald Trump said when asked if she could be, vice president said she doesn't have the right complexion. Now, I'm pretty sure I look at Nikki Haley. She doesn't seem to have acne. She doesn't seem to have any type of skin affliction. She seems to be melanated. And so for her to have the audacity to say that America has never been a racist country,

my response to that would have been like, then what made you want to change your name? What made you want to change your name in assimilate? Because mind you, of all of the things I hate about Vevac Ramaswami, and there are so many, He put that to Nikki Haley's feet and said, like, so why did you change your name? With her, with Ted Cruz, with these other people that want to gaslight you into believing that America's never been racist. I'm like, have you been to the African American Museum in Washington, D.C.? Have you been to the lynching museum in Alabama?

Have you read a history book? Or did you just use it for your fireplace? because to make that kind of distinction and then also on top of when asked, why did we have a civil war? And she acted as if somebody asked her what paper she read. You know what I'm saying? Like it was like the biggest you gotcha question ever. Why did we have a civil war in this country?

Oh, wow. That's just so difficult. Slavery, you idiot. Right? It would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous if these people were not creating policies to make the masses. just as ignorant as they are choosing to be. Yeah. Look, what she's trying to do here is she's not saying there aren't racists in America.

What she's trying to do is split the difference between saying, yes, there are some racist people in America, but there is no systemic racism. If you've read any decent history book, you know that systemic racism was baked in back in the 1700s. The fact that black people were not considered human beings, I'm not really sure how you get more systemically racist than that? I don't know what you need to just go back and look at the origins of this country. And to say something like she said is just, I know what she's trying to do, but it's ignorant. You know, with some Republicans, it's easy to tell that they're just ignorant. And with some, it's easy to tell that they're not ignorant, but they're saying what they know

Republicans want to hear. I suspect with her it's the latter, because I don't think she is in general an ignorant person. I don't think she's ignorant, for example, of the fact that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I think she tried to do that QT too clever by half thing and sort of nod to state's rights and shit like that, even though she knows full well why the Civil War was fought and what state right, quote unquote, we're talking about here, the right to own other people. She'll nod and say, yes, there are racists in America. And then she can say, well, that's why, you know, as you pointed out, she's written in her book, she talked about being cast as Pocahontas in a school play when she was in kindergarten. As she wrote, this was despite the fact that she wasn't that kind of Indian. So she knows

full well there's racism in America, but what she's trying to do here is say, yeah, there's racists in America, but America is not racist. There is no systemic racism. And again, for a lot of people who say that, I think it's just straight up ignorance. And for her, I do think she knows better. And honestly, that's probably worse. I don't think any of these people fucking know better. And honestly, like, I'm tired of pretending that they do. They don't. They are gaslighters. They are people who will do anything in order to get power. And you say something long enough, you believe it. And so when you say nothing about books being banned, when you say nothing about violations to the Constitution, when Nikki Haley launched her campaign, mind you, she did it on the backs of trans girls who wanted to play sports and thought that that was a great idea to make them the target and attack of her campaign. And so to look around, I don't know, none of these people fucking know better and they don't want to know better. And more so, they want to make sure that

you don't know any fucking thing, right? And that to me is what's so insidious about their behavior and their movements over their last eight to nine years is that they don't know any better and they want to make sure that you have absolutely no access to information or critical thought so that you can be as vapid, as ignorant, and as depraved as they are. Speaking of vapid, ignorant, and depraved, Donald Trump. That's all I got, really. That's it. Okay.

End of the show. We'll get to the E. Jean Carroll trial in a second in his behavior here. but I want to touch on something that he posted on truth social on Thursday morning. This goes along. He's been saying for a while now that he should have full immunity as president from anything he did, which I think personally is a nice way of him admitting that he broke the law. I don't want to say he's now gone insane because he's been insane for a long time. But let me read you this very long post that he did on social media.

He posted in all caps, by the way, so you have to read this. I'm not going to shout it. You have to hear it as him shouting. A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him slash her to properly function. Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term end. Even events that cross the line must fall under total immunity or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad. There must be certainty. Example, you can't stop police from doing the job of strong and effective crime prevention because you're not. You can't stop police from doing the job of strong and effective crime prevention because you're you want to guard against the occasional rogue cop or bad apple. Sometimes you just have to live with great but slightly imperfect. All presidents must have complete and total presidential immunity or the authority and decisiveness of a president of the United States will be stripped and gone forever. Hopefully this will be an easy decision. God bless the Supreme Court. What I find interesting about this is he's tying himself now to dirty cops, to bad cops. And he's basically saying for the same reason that I can't be held accountable for anything I did as president, we have to tolerate bad cops

and cops who cross the line. I hate to say it because I don't want to give him credit for this, but in terms of his base and who he's talking to, this is exactly what they want to hear. It's exactly what they want to hear. And first of all, I just want to go back to what he said in his screaming post, which is that even events that crossed the line, which makes it very clear that Donald Trump knows where the lines are. Because what his lawyers have argued and what the Republican Party has said over and over again,

he just doesn't know any better. He doesn't really understand, oh, you can't take him at his word. Oh, he doesn't get it. Because we're supposed to believe that Donald Trump is at once a septanagerian toddler, which is a scientific anomaly in it of itself,

as well as a genius. But he states here that he knows what the line is, even when it's crossed. So the thing here that I find just so, I mean, hypocrisy, we're just so far beyond. But if Donald Trump's argument is that presidents should have absolute immunity and be able to do whatever, whenever, and however, and never be held accountable for that, then please, Andy, tell me why Republicans then right now are trying to impeach Joe Biden?

Because if they believe what Donald Trump says, which is that presidents should be able to do anything and everything, then what are they going after Joe Biden for? Because I honestly don't get it. Yeah, it's a good point. I suppose, I don't know. I suppose the answer to that would be, okay, what he meant is legal immunity, but it's okay for Congress to do impeachments. That's the only thing I can think of. But take that a step further, and I'm not the first person to say this, but isn't he here giving Joe Biden license to have him killed? Isn't he here giving Joe Biden license to say, I am stripping Donald Trump of his American citizenship?

I can do whatever I want. I can't be held accountable for it. None of this makes any sense, which is no surprise coming from Donald Trump. But also what he's describing is not a president. He's describing a dictator. Right, which he says that he'll be. Exactly. Look, if you needed any more proof, I don't know why you would at this point, but if you needed any more proof that what he wants to be is not the president of the United States, he wants to be the czar of the United States, the furor of the United States, whatever term you want to use. He wants to be the authoritarian head of the United States. He wants to be untouchable. He wants to do whatever the hell he wants with impunity and immunity. This is not just what he wants. This is what MAGA was. wants. This is what Steve Bannon wants. This is what Stephen Miller wants. This is what the people that

are voting for Donald Trump want. They want a dear leader. They want a guy who can do whatever the fuck he wants and not be held accountable under law. There's a lot of times that we talked about this, I think, on the last episode, when people will say, well, this is not who we are as America. And you look at them and say, well, yes, it is. Look at history. That's exactly who we are, you know, when something shitty happens. This is one time I will go ahead and say, this is not who we are as America. We don't, for all our faults, we do not elect dictators. You know, we're not supposed to have dictatorial rule. And for people who claim to revere the founding fathers as much as Republicans do, boy, if there's one thing the founding fathers were clear on, it was a warning against the possibility of a

dictator and setting us up to minimize that possibility. I want to read another quick point. I want to read another quick piece and exchange between the judge and one of Trump's attorneys, because I just want people to understand, again, explicitly, everything that you just said and what they want. This is in the E. Gene Carroll trial? No, the absolute immunity. Ah, okay. The judge says, could a president who ordered sealed team six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached be subject to criminal prosecution? Trump lawyer. If he were impeached and convicted first, judge, Judge, your answer is no? Trump lawyer.

My answer is qualified yes. That's what you're describing as a dictator. And they'll say, well, no, because we're saying Congress does have the power to impeach and convict. And if they did that, then the president could be held accountable under the law. That's just not the way it works. To say that you could assassinate your political rivals and assuming you have Congress in your pocket and you're not impeached and convicted, that that then becomes, something legal and constitutional. I don't even know what political theory that falls under. It's just, it's just so insane. There is no political theory it falls under. And then think about the trickle down from that.

So then if you're running for Congress and you want to offer your political opponent, you want to have, oh, I don't know, like what happened, I believe it was in New Mexico where the Democratic offices were shot up. Do we understand the kind of violence that will be unleashed? And if you're using, the president as the commander in chief and saying, well, the president gets to do whatever they want, then what is to stop anyone from doing whatever it is that they want? There is no example. There is no model. There is no moral model under Trump supremacy. There is nothing. Everything goes out the window and everything is up for grabs. So if you decide, if he is elected and has an inauguration in 2025 and decides that he wants to arrest Nancy Pelosi, arrest Barack Obama, Joe Biden,

and hold them indefinitely in Guantanamo, which his base would cheer. Oh, sure. You can do that. He can do that. No trial, no nothing. You know, it just will be what it is. Do people understand, like, what we become? I just don't know if it's being starkly laid out.

Like, they stood before a judge and said, He could order a sealed team six to execute a political rival. And unless Marjorie Taylor Green thought it was a bad idea, then, you know, then fuck it. Yeah, I think these people watched the Purge movies and thought, hey, that's a great idea, but it should be every day. It shouldn't just be one day or the year. It should be every day.

Folks, I am very happy to welcome to the new abnormal. Professor American philosopher, author Jason Stanley. Jason Stanley is the author of a myriad of books, but the one that has caught my attention, and basically, I think in a lot of ways, went viral post-January 6th, 2021, is how fascism works, the politics of us and them. I want to start off with the fact that that book came out a couple of years before the insurricular. but a couple of years into the Trump administration.

And I want to get a sense from you, Jason, why you felt that America needed to be aware what was happening, but what could happen in this country that we never saw coming. Right. So one thing that I wanted to do with that book was remind people about our past. We live in a country that influenced the classic European fascist movements. The Ku Klux Klan is Robert Paxson called them the first functionally fascist organization.

Jim Crow was a racial fascist regime. So people ask, could it happen here? It did happen here. So now what differentiates the sort of past American fascism, which you might think is what Donald Trump is referring to when he talks about making America great again. In the past, in say, Jim Crow, which we know was a regime that influenced Hitler. He talked about the United States as his model in Mind Kampf of a racial state. But what differentiated, say, Jim Crow from these traditional mid-century European fascist movements was the occult of a leader. There wasn't like Charles Lindbergh tried to almost played that role of the fascist leader, but failed. This addition of a charismatic, demagogic leader who's willing to harness the fascist mentality of racial supremacy,

of patriarchy, of anti-LGB sentiment that draws together Christian nationalists and white nationalists and business leaders into a movement behind him. Well, we hadn't had that, but Trump looked very much like that. It looks like we have the background. We know the United States can host a fascist social. and political movement. Much of the country was under a racial fascist regime until the mid-1960s. And now we have a charismatic demagogic leader who is poised to represent himself as the representative of that so-called lost cause. What makes this moment, you know, and when I say this moment, I'm thinking about, you know, Donald Trump descending from the escalator in 2015 till now, right?

So I'm looking at this moment as the last nine years. And when I think about the last nine years, even though Donald Trump was only president for four of them, his hold over this country and his expansion of what I refer to as Maga supremacy has been unlike anything that we have ever seen. What has made this moment the last nine years so ripe for this type of demagogue? Well, I think there's a sort of general. consensus on the right and the left, that the status quo is unacceptable, that there's sort of, as it were, corruption or rot. And so there's different responses to that, right? One response is the kind of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, response of let's go after the super wealthy and the financiers and, you know, the status quo is rotten. We can all see that. And the other kind of

response is the fascist response. Let's target the supposed cultural elites. the intellectuals, the supposed degenerates, the minorities, and let's restore the grandeur of white men, essentially. This is the problem. And this is often the case when there's a kind of consensus that the status quo is broken. I would trace it back to the financial crisis. And the Obama administration's failed response to the financial crisis locking in the status quo. Trump was right that the system is corrupt.

who could deny that. So when you have that as a background, I mean, we've had numerous presidents, Clinton's leaving with tens of millions of dollars, the Obama's, everybody leaves political office incredibly wealthy. That is a broken system. And when you have a broken system, you have conditions that are ripe for a kind of revolution. And change can be regressive or progressive. And the kind of change we're seeing is regressive. And it's headed by a figure who has a genuine connection with his supporters about the brokenness of the system. Talk to me about the genuine connection that you feel and see and that clearly, right? I think that Democrats, for the last nine years, we thought that if we provide enough facts,

if we provide enough infographics, if we provide enough information, that somehow we will unbind this umbilical cord that has attached Donald Trump to white America, that somehow it will be severed. The more information we can provide them about this man, it has a grifter with 91 charges and four indictments, and he's a thief and a crook and dissolve this university and try and dissolve these businesses that they will see, but they don't. Right. It is like this undying allegiance to this man, and I don't understand, and I don't think any of us, and maybe you do understand why this bond, this umbilical cord can't be severed. Right. Just a minor point here. I mean, there's no question that Donald Trump is the president of white supremacists and white nationalists. However,

he has more black support than any Republican in modern history. So we're looking at someone who is a genuine charismatic authoritarian. And I think it's patriarchy. We also have to really focus on. He's a macho authoritarian leader, and that appeals across many demographics. When you're looking at such a leader, when you're looking at this kind of group that draws together people from very different groups who hate each other. It's not just one element here. There's a number of different elements, but it's a fascist political, social and political grouping. You're drawing together sort of anti-LGB Christian right, racist, white nationalists, business elites, super well, wealthy people who see that their interests are going to be furthered by smashing democracy.

So now I think one thing you see in the literature on mid-century fascism, it's said again and again by, for example, the Frankfurt School, that the fascist leader transforms politics into spectacle. So that's just right out there from the literature in the 1940s. So politics becomes a story, a narrative, a good versus bad, becomes entertainment. And all the lawsuits have created this situation where Trump is the protagonist in a story. And what he's saying to his supporters is, I represent you in this story. And they represent the corrupt system. You know, the system that gave trillions of dollars to the banks rather than you.

Everyone knows the system is corrupt. So if you're running against that system and you're saying, that system is attacking me, that system is taking me as the enemy, then everyone is resentful of the forces that have crushed them in poverty and low-wage jobs in having to see black people on TV rather than just white people, and having women gain positions of power. Everyone's resentful for reasons both legitimate and illegitimate

gets captured by this story, and the protagonist of this story is saying, I am you. So there are some definitely legitimate, about the system. And there's a whole bunch of illegitimate complaints that, for example, we've gotten more equal, we have more minority, we have more black Americans and non-white Americans in positions of power. We have more women in positions of power. Those are progressive changes that are good, but people are resentful of those as well as resentful of being in in low-wage jobs. So, and then the billionaire class sees that Trump is getting their agenda done for

them. He's drawing in the working class into a movement that will slash their taxes, remove government regulation. But the main thing is this spectacle element. It's a story. Everyone who feels aggrieved and resentful, he is telling them by the changes, the system, he is saying, I am you and you can get revenge by cheering me on, by voting for me, by supporting me. And everything they say, all the badness they voiced upon, him he owns, which is a very powerful thing. I am a dictator. I'm going to be a dictator. So his bond is the creation of this kind of story-like aspect, this spectacle, where he's the protagonist representing anyone who feels resentful for any reason makes him a hero to his supporters. And they want to feel that. And he tells them the people that you're resentful of and

angria, both for reasons legitimate and not legitimate, the best revenge you can take is have me in power. Everything that you just laid out is just so resonant and so clear. And I'm sitting here and I'm listening and I'm thinking to myself, well, then there's no way out. You know, you're the philosopher and author. So you tell me, where in history do we see a country that is careening towards fascism that has been labeled a backsliding democracy that somehow finds its way out, outside of a Hollywood movie. Where does that happen? What Hollywood movie does that happen in? Fair point. I've often thought of leaving the United States for another country, but then I don't. And why don't I? Well, because of the civil rights movement. Because the United States is the one country

that has fought and at least temporarily beat back the tide of fascism without a war. The civil rights movement, people went to Alabama, Mississippi. If I had to do the civil rights movement, I'd do it in Vermont or Maine. I don't know. I wouldn't go to Alabama. That seems too dangerous. But it was an incredibly brave thing. The Jim Crow regime was racial fascism and a nonviolent movement defeated it.

So we do have those resources here. The problem is the more that this fascist movement that we're seeing incorporates, becomes more multiracial, becomes directed, say, more specifically against LGBT and intellectuals and journalists. Fascist movements, they need scapegoats. So scapegoating just black people probably won't work because it's a large enough part of the country. we've had that resistance movement, but, you know, scapegoating political opponents, I don't know, you need a large enough movement, nonviolent resistance movement. We've done that before. That's what the civil rights movement was. But you need a very clear agenda to defend democracy and bring usually

the targeted groups together in an alliance. And we're seeing too much division right now among the different targets. What I see right now inside of the Democratic tent is a lot of division in terms of not just issue. My issue is abortion or LGBTQ rights or racial justice or climate change. It's not just an issue divide that we are seeing. It's one where I find myself on a regular basis now telling people that this election is not about Joe Biden, that you don't have to love Joe Biden. don't have to want to have a beer with Joe Biden. What you need to want is a continuation of your

rights and not a backsliding of your rights that we are seeing that I've slowly been shipped away by an unelected body in the Supreme Court. And so I wonder though if like in 2020, just pointing out Donald Trump's obvious flaws and criminality is enough of a coalescing message to bring these factions within the Democratic Party together. No, you need a vision, a unifying vision. Joe Biden is a retail politician. He's a very good retail politician. He's a very good senator, say.

He gets stuff done. He's gotten a lot of stuff done. But he's not a charismatic unifier with some kind of bold message that can bring together a fructitious coalition of the sort that the Democratic Party is. I think people have to see that these agendas of LGBTQ rights, climate change, racial justice, labor rights, labor movement, they're all linked. And they've been, it's very clear from the history of, from anti-fascist literature and writing, like Du Bois's Black Reconstruction that they're linked.

I mean, Du Bois in Black Reconstruction says the end of, I think rightly, the end of reconstruction, it unified. So what we're seeing on the right is we're seeing the billion. unify with like construction workers around race, around patriarchy, around desire to suppress women's equality, anti-immigration, Christianity, religious animosity against minority religions. We're seeing, and what you need is you need a class unification on the other side. What happened with reconstruction, with the end of reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow was the wealthy people in the South and the North decided that it was too dangerous to poor whites and

poor blacks unify in a labor movement. So they would appeal to race to divide them. So that's an example of how the labor movement and racial justice are necessarily intertwined. There shouldn't be any union members voting for Trump. I mean, Trump has sided with corporations time and time again. So we need those alliances again. We need alliances between I mean, the working families party is a, they're a small party, but they give you the right idea, Maurice Mitchell, to, you know, say, look, they're targeting all of us. It's not just that a gang boss, is that they're targeting all of us. That's how this works. Like, if you're for racial justice, you need to be for LGBTQ rights. Climate change, Trump says, dig, dig, dig. He's promising to

rapidly accelerate the demise of the world. You know, it's no accident that. that he's ended Roe v. Wade, trying to destroy the climate, is trying to destroy any kind of black history or education about our past, is trying to remove the right to abortion, is going after our LGBTQ citizens. This is no accident because all of these agendas are linked. So those of us who are the targets have to start seeing our fates as linked. And with that, Jason Stanley, we will have to bring you back again because I fear that where we are headed is a place that we won't be able to return from and that the alarms are not loud enough that need to be sounded. So appreciate you so much for making the time to join the new abnormal and hope to have you back again soon. Thank you so much, Danielle. It's an honor to be in conversation with you.

Something I've been talking about quite a bit with various guests on this podcast is Donald Trump's increasing power and influence within the Christian right. And my next guest has been chronicling this for quite some time now. Joining me now is MSNBC columnist and the author of the book Unholy how white Christian nationalists powered the Trump presidency and the devastating legacy they left behind. Sarah Posner. Sarah, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Andy. So you wrote an excellent piece for MSNBC.com earlier this week. And your thesis, which I agree with 100%, is that in the year of our Lord 2024, Donald Trump is the de facto, if not the day jury leader of the Christian right. How did the Iowa caucuses back up this thesis?

Trump obviously was the winner and he prevailed over both Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, who have both been long before Donald Trump came on the scene, very well liked in the Christian right by the base and by the leadership. And in fact, Bob Vanderplatz, who's the head of this very influential Iowa Christian right organization called the family leader, endorsed Ron DeSantis. And you would think that his endorsement would mean something to Iowa's white evangelical voters, but it obviously did not. I mean, it meant something obviously to a few of them, but not enough to be Donald Trump. And so I argued in the piece, and I think that there's more evidence for this, that Donald

Trump basically has cut out the middleman of these Christian right kingmakers. He doesn't need them anymore. In fact, they're a drag on somebody else's campaign. He is the figurehead for the movement, and they don't. really need these other state or national leaders anymore to tell them what to do. So back in 2016, as you note in the piece, Ted Cruz actually won the Iowa caucuses, and he was sort of also a favorite of the Christian right. So what has changed since then to make Trump just, I guess, so much more popular within that group? Well, I think what Trump's presidency made apparent was that

despite years of claiming that they were a silent majority who was using the democratic process to win elections for their favored candidates and then use the legislative process to pass the legislation that they wanted. The Christian right base is actually really just fine with authoritarianism. And while the leadership spends a lot of time on the nitty-gritty of policy and how we're going to draft this piece of legislation or this regulation or are you this legal case, the base just likes Donald Trump bombast saying it like it is, telling them that they're great, bringing them to every seat at his table. And so I think what changed between 2016 and 2024 is that back in 2016, it mattered to Iowa's white evangelicals

that Bob Vanderplatz endorsed Ted Cruz. It mattered to them that there was a group of other evangelical leaders who had endorsed Ted Cruz. But then over the course of that primary, obviously, the base grew increasingly enamored of Donald Trump so that now it's full circle. And the Iowa base now is completely enamored with Donald Trump. So what is the significance of these leaders

who always tried to bolster their own standing with the base by being the kingmaker? in these primaries. They're completely irrelevant now because the base loves Donald Trump and they can't do anything to change it. Yeah, I was thinking about all the names that we used to hear. It just felt like we'd hear them all the time, the James Dobsons, the Ralph Reeds, the Gary Bowers, etc. Are they irrelevant right now because of Trump? Is it just that simple? It is that simple because they used to play a role in shaping what the primary electorate wanted out of the presidential candidates. But it is a simple. It is a simple. It is a In my reporting over Republican primaries over the years since 2008,

I was finding that the base was growing increasingly skeptical of the leadership's ability to pick the right candidate for them. In 2008, there were a lot of people in the base who really liked Mike Huckabee. They were really upset that the leadership didn't endorse him. And then they ended up with John McCain, who they thought was like, you know, a mushy moderate and not, you know, from their world. And then in 2012, they liked people like Rick Santorum, but then they ended up with Mitt Romney. And then in 2017, they were worried about Donald Trump.

But Donald Trump did not really have to win their endorsement because he had already won the primary. He had the voters. And so there was a lot made of that meeting that they had in 2016 at a big ballroom at a hotel in New York, where they kind of shook hands on the Supreme Court nominees and other policy things that the religious right wanted Trump to accomplish for them. But really the impact of that meeting was not that the religious right got what they wanted, but more that they indicated that they were willing to submit to Trump's authority to use a turn of phrase that's often used in evangelical land. And so while you might think that they extracted a promise from him in exchange for getting their voters out for him, he didn't really need them to do that.

It was more like this big show where he could say, a thousand evangelical leaders came to New York to see me and they thought that they would support me. And that was basically how it went over the course of his presidency was that they basically showed submission to him. He was the one who was in authority. No matter what he did, they weren't going to back away on their support for him. But another thing that happened over that period, too, was that Trump was really tight, not necessarily with, you know, the Tony Perkinses or the Ralph Rees, although he was tight with them in a way that, you know, they would go to the White House and talk policy with him. But he became increasingly connected to the charismatic world within evangelicalism, which is much,

less rooted in policy objectives and more rooted in prophecy and signs and wonders and miracles. And so he really elevated that wing of the religious right, which explains a lot about why his base is not really rooted in reality and they still believe the stolen election lie and all the rest. Yeah. A thing you note in your piece is that the Christian right has long portrayed itself as believing in quote unquote family values as being steeped in morality. you know, we had Jerry Falwell's group was the moral majority.

Is it possible this was maybe a teeny tiny bit hypocritical or even untrue? It was untrue, but I think a big reason why they were able to portray themselves that way was that it was a storyline that the political press really bought into. After 2004, when George W. Bush won re-election and the religious rights succeeded in passing all those gay marriage bans, the term that they, adopted for themselves, values voters, was a term that was also adopted by the political press without really questioning it, right? But if you look back on that now, banning people from getting married was not a values move. It was an authoritarian move. It was a socialist move, right? And so it's really

not so much that they changed, but I think that they for a long time got away with phrases like the moral majority or the values voters as a mask for what their true intentions were. So what is it about Trump that has made him so beloved in this white evangelical community? It's obviously not his personal lifestyle, at least based on what they claim, you know, with the marriages and the paying of porn stars and whatnot. He's not a religious person at all. And yet they are just enamored with him. Well, I think the base was just taking.

with him in 2016. And when you look back at what he was saying at his rallies in 2016, he was basically saying, you know, we're going to close the border to brown people and Muslims. We're going to give you your country back, your country that's been governed for eight years by a black, maybe Muslim man who wasn't maybe born here. Right. So he was signaling to them all these things that they actually cared about more than quote unquote values. or morals, right? And the leadership was so habitually entrenched in this playbook where they would, you know, they would make the presidential candidates come to them and, you know, get on one knee and say, oh, this is my salvation story. I have never wavered on wanting to ban abortion.

I've never wavered on wanting to ban LGBTQ rights. The rest, right? I believe in the Christian nation. Right. And then they realize that the base isn't really. buying any of that. They've got all these candidates up there who fit the bill for the Christian right, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, you know, and the base isn't going for them. And so then they had a sort of kind of backended and say, oh, well, like, you know, we talked to him and he said he's going to nominate these Supreme Court justices. And then this narrative arose where, huh, well, there's something in the Bible that says that sometimes God chooses an unlikely leader to lead a nation at a very pivotal juncture in its history.

And that is now, you know, the Supreme Court just made marriage equality the law of the land. We're freaking out about it. And so maybe God has ordained this very unlikely person to lead America. You know, so then it became this whole storyline that he was like King Cyrus in the Bible and, you know, he was God's anointed. And I think when you have the base of Charismatics who were really, really, you know, in the Trump world, they're going to be. by a storyline that God anointed, God ordains this very unlikely figure.

This is so fascinating to me. And I mentioned in the intro that I've been talking about the subject a lot. And one of the reasons is that because I've noticed that Trump's rhetoric, particularly in the past few years, has become more and more infused with the notion of spiritual warfare. He says things like, I am your retribution. And it's also become very sort of messianic. I alone can save you. I'm assuming none of this is accidental.

It is absolutely not accidental, right? I wrote another column a few weeks ago about his use of the phrase cast out in reference to his perceived enemies, talking about casting them out of government or casting them out of public life. And that is a phrase used in evangelicalism and particularly in the charismatic world for casting out demons. And his charismatic audience really believes that they are way. spiritual warfare against demons and demonic enemies of Christianity and America, right? And so when you see him talking about the deep state or making references to QAnon or talking about his enemies in this very us versus them battle commander kind of way, this is designed to trigger the base that really believes that they are waging war to save Christian America and Trump is their leader. Trump is the leader God anointed to carry out this battle and save America from its enemies. Maybe this is an odd question, but where do you think this is coming

from? And I guess more to the point, who do you think this is coming from? I find it hard to believe that Trump himself is picking out phrases like cast out. Like who in his inner circle do you think is inserting this stuff and making his speeches more and more about sort of this spiritual warfare? Obviously, it would be speculation on my part to talk about who's writing his speeches. But Trump has for a long time been friends with the televangelist Paula White, who comes from this world. And they've been friends since the mid-2000s. And she was his spiritual advisor during his campaign. She was an advisor to his faith-based office in his White House when he was president.

So she's been around him an awful lot. you know, she very frequently was at the White House during his presidency. She spoke, gave a prayer on January 6th that before his speech at the ellipse. And this is very much the language that she would use, but it's probably not just her. She has brought him into this world and brought people from this world to him to a degree that we've never seen a Republican president do. Both Bushes, for example, were a lot more reticent about public appearances or even private appearances. with people from this wing of evangelicalism. So I think that he's just been more immersed in this world.

And I think because they, for such a long time, they were sort of seen as the fringe wing of evangelicalism. And he made them feel like, oh, wow. Like, we're in the driver's seat now because we're close to the president of the United States. And then for him, it's like he's a bunch of people around him who tell him that God anointed him. A lot of people talk about his relationship with the religious right as being transactional in terms of the Supreme Court nominees and overturing Roe and all this. But to me,

this is like also a transactional situation. Because for these people, their world is very competitive in terms of making money and seeking notoriety. And so, you know, they get a boost from being close to Trump. And he certainly gets a boost from people running around saying that got anointed to save America. Yeah. I mean, that's got to be right up his alley. You close your MSNBC.com piece by saying it's not an exaggeration to say white evangelicals. support for Trump has altered the trajectory of the country. Anyone who wants to write the ship needs to understand how. Do you think enough people get that and maybe equally important?

Do you think enough of the media really gets that? No, because I think people think of the Trump base as just kind of your typical Trump rallygoer and his, you know, Maga had and, you know, yelling stuff or talking about Q and on. I think, you know, the relationship between evangelicalism and Q&N and Q&N, is poorly understood as well. I think the common perception of it is that Trump motivated all of these voters on his own with his rallies and everything else. But it underestimates what a powerful role the Christian right plays in getting voters to the polls, not just in the actual get out the vote on the day of the election, but just in the entire universe of Christian right mobilization and

groups that are not necessarily part of churches, but, you know, advocacy organizations and all the rest, there's a robust reinforcement mechanism inside evangelicalism that keeps people in the fold and also get them to the polls on election day. If you don't really understand how that works, you might think that Trump's support was just organic and he was just really good at getting people to the polls in 2016. And, you know, the Christian right played a huge role in actually getting people to the polls. Then in terms of him continuing to be standing as president, despite impeachment number one, the religious right was behind him and really putting pressure on Senate Republicans to not convict him for the Ukraine impeachment. And obviously, the Christian

right was very much behind January 6th, even though some of them came out and denounced the violence, they very much promoted the stolen election lie both rhetorically and also legally. I mean, remember Mike Johnson, who's now Speaker of the House, was a big promoter in court of the stolen election lie. So I asked you if you think enough people understand this and if enough of the media understands this. Do you think Ron DeSantis understands this a lot better than he did, say, a year ago? Yes.

You brought up the overlap or the intersection between white evangelicals and QAnon. And again, I think that's such an undercover story. It's a huge overlap, isn't it? Yes. I mean, I think polling shows that there's a huge overlap. But I have to say that in addition to that, when I first heard about QAnon, my first thought was that somebody who was evangelical themselves or very knowledgeable about the evangelical world. had made it all up to trigger evangelicals. So, you know, they're always in a moral panic about pedophiles and the homosexual agenda and all of that.

And going way, way back, they've had conspiracy theories about pedophiles working, you know, inside the federal government, putting child porn on people's computers and that sort of thing. And, you know, the baby eating conspiracy theory that's also part of Q&ON is very much in line with how they have demonized parenthood for many, many years, that they harvest baby parts and, you know, that sort of conspiracy theory. So I think that for evangelicals, Q&ONN was kind of a familiar narrative. And so in that way, I felt like it was tailor made for not just Trump's base in general, but specifically for them. Sarah Posner, thank you so much. This is an utterly fascinating topic for me and I could talk to you for hours, but our producers would fire me, so I can't do that.

Maybe some other time. Maybe some other time. Sarah, thank you so much. And I haven't read your book yet, but I did order it the other day. I'm really looking forward to reading it. Thanks again for being here. Thanks so much for having me. Danielle Moody. Andy Levy. Danielle, close out this week with an amazing, fuck that guy. Oh, this is amazing. You know, it's amazing that white, rich, are just able to just go off the dome about how they feel about Donald Trump and face no kinds of repercussions for it whatsoever.

Jamie Diamond, who is the CEO of J.P. Morgan, was on CNBC, and he was admonishing Democrats while on CNBC saying, quote, I wish the Democrats would think a little more carefully when they talk about MAGA, that they are basically, quote, scapegoating Trump supporters and that Donald Trump was right, quote, about some things, you know, immigration and kind of right on NATO. And I just want to pause and say, Jamie Diamond, shut the fuck up in all honesty. Donald Trump was right on immigration. What part? Was it the part where he was putting children in cages? Where it was the part where his attorneys were arguing before

judges saying that he doesn't need to provide them with sanitary conditions or soap or toothpaste. Is it the part where we believe that Mexicans and are rapists and murderers? Was it that part that was good? Was it the part where Donald Trump said that he was going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it? Was he right about that part? What part of immigration was Donald Trump right about? Was it the part where he said that he was going to institute a Muslim ban and then did?

Was it the part where he said that we don't have good immigrants coming? They're coming from those shithole countries. Was it that part? These rich white cis hetero men sit on top in their fucking marble fortresses and get to look down and make comments about, well, I didn't really like some of it. I didn't like the way he said some things because the way that Donald Trump says, quote, unquote, some things will never affect you. His policies will never affect you. So what Jamie Diamond stated is that he doesn't give a fuck about anyone else,

about anyone in this country who isn't rich, white, or wealthy. He also made comments and talking about Democrats need to play nice. I'm sorry. Was it the Democratic Party that referred to their political opponents as vermin? You know, using Hitler's language about extermination? Is it the part about Donald Trump that he agrees that he should be a dictator on day one? the tax cuts must be so fucking good in order to get on CNBC to talk that type of hot trash and know that you can do so without any repercussions whatsoever.

So for that reason, Jamie Diamond and all of that billionaire class that are just hedging their bets right now, fuck that guy and fuck those guys. Yeah, I just cannot believe that we are now, what, like nine years into this maggot, if we want to start it at 2015. and there are still people out there saying, hey, you need to understand MAGA voters. You know, you need to pay attention to what they're saying. I understand them just fine. I know exactly who they are.

I know exactly the things they like. I know exactly the things they hate, which is generally people who don't look like them or who don't live their lives like them. And I don't need to understand them any better. I'm sorry. And I'm really sick and fucking tired of being told by people like, Jamie Diamond and so much of the news media right up to and including the New York Times that we have to understand these people better. No, we understand them just fine. They are not shy about saying who they are.

They are not shy about agreeing with Donald Trump when he says that illegal immigrants coming to this country are poisoning the blood of America. And is that the thing that Jamie Diamond likes about him when he talks about how he's not wrong about immigration? Because I sort of find that hard to believe, But like you said, tax cuts are a hell of a drug, particularly for the wealthy. And boy, it's amazing how they can get tunnel vision and the things that they can let slide if it's going to increase their bottom line by a couple of percentage points as if they're not rich enough already. But yeah, I just stop telling me I need to listen to MAGA people and I need to understand and really get what they're saying. I get what they're saying.

Again, they're not shy about it. Like we're acting like this is a bunch of shrinking violets. No. They're out there telling black people what they think of them, telling Jews what they think of them, telling LGBTQ people what they think of them. We know. So yeah, fuck that guy. So Andy, how are you closing out this good, good week with your fuck that guy? Sort of along these same lines, I guess, in that they're letting us know exactly who they are. There's a new bill that was introduced by Republican lawmakers in Kentucky that will criminalize homeless encampments. and the idea here is that there will be designated specific areas for homeless people. Any place that they are that is not one of those encampments, one of those specific areas,

will be illegal. Okay, so that's bad enough. But the bill goes a lot further. The bill gives, this is according to truthout.org, the bill allows for the justifiable use of quote unquote defensive force against unhoused people. people, if they are committing unlawful camping on the owner's property. So if a homeless person, I don't know, falls asleep on your lawn, you are allowed to kill them. This is all of a piece. And it would be nice to think that, well, this is insane and it will never pass. It has 45 co-sponsors

right now in Kentucky. Kentucky does have a Democratic governor, Andy Bashir, who I assume would veto something like this and then we just have to hope that it's a veto proof in terms of the numbers of people who would support it in the Kentucky legislature. I don't trust any of that anymore. You know, it used to be you could say, oh, well, yeah, there's always crazies that introduce some insane bill or something like that and they never go anywhere. They do go somewhere now sometimes. And one member of, I guess, the Lexington City Council says he's a shame that this bill even came into fruition. So that's good start. But the idea that something like this could get 45 co-sponsors in Kentucky's General Assembly and the idea that they are just saying, hey, if you see a homeless person on your property,

go ahead and shoot them. It speaks to where this country is going. And this is of a piece with hundreds, if not thousands of other pieces of legislation going on all across this country. It needs to stop. And it doesn't look like it's going to any time soon. So I don't know else you say other than fuck those guys what they want more guns more hate no laws that's maga supremacy fuck those guys hope you enjoy checking out this episode of the new abnormal we're back every tuesday friday and sunday if you enjoyed it please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going this podcast is a daily beast production with production by jesse canon and shamus calder want more great listens check out our comedy podcast the last laugh and our star-study

the Daily Beast podcast at the DailyBeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.