First up, let’s agree that Christian Nationalism is a problem. Separation of church and state is a worthwhile principle. Also, laws instituted to guard this principle, such as that churches are considered tax-free non-profit organisations, as long as they do not participate in election campaigning, are good.

Here is a news clip, whose first minute I will talk about a bit:

In the video, the pastor of the Gospel of Inclusion Church (or whatever church it is) says the following, “We are looking for politicians who are going to be looking out for the people who are most marginalized, the way that Jesus did.” The reporter makes no issue about this, sees no problem with a church or pastor “looking for politicians” (and presumably mentioning particular favoured ones from the pulpit), even though the erosion of the separation of church and state should be evident in this instance. Since I regard Christian Nationalism, normally a right-wing/Republican trend, a serious problem, I also regard the erosion of separation of church and state a problem on the other side of the aisle. Yet here it is treated as of no concern when the phenomenon occurs on the Democrat side. Overall, does anyone remember a single case of a church losing its tax-exempt status over politics? I know churches pastors getting sued in fraud and embezzlement cases, but not for endorsing a politician from the pulpit.

It can be observed that this particular issue is just one element in a broader set of ploys that keeps the American two-party system in place, limiting people’s voting choices to just the two parties. Another element is that Democrats have been engaging in the following scheme: Fund a Republican whacko, leading him to win Republican primaries, then stop funding and win against him in the final elections. Indeed, why stop this scheme if it mostly works and gets Democrats elected, but what of the occasions when it fails? As a matter of course, the scheme gives air to extremist views, polarising the country. What if Trump can be viewed as an extreme consequence of this scheme?

Take also the election theft narrative. In my memory, Democrats deployed the election theft narrative first in the W elections (in 2000 against Gore and in 2004 against Kerry). Democrats complained about potential rigged elections (and voting machines were a theme already back then) but did nothing about it, as it was just a slight rhetorical pressure tactic for them. However, Republicans have now taken the narrative and make frivolous lawsuits with it, and as a consequence they may appear as more serious to many voters, because election fraud is a serious crime, supposing it actually occurred. The lesson here is that a mere light accusation in such a serious matter for mere rhetorical purposes also has consequences – if repeated, it has accumulating and devastating consequences in the long run.