Who’s Afraid of (talking about) the Christian Right?

Refuse Fascism Episode 215

Annika Brockschmidt  00:00

The role that Christian nationalism or Christian fascism plays on the American right is that it’s really the glue that holds together various, at times, warring factions that don’t necessarily like each other very much, or that even agree on sort of some basic ideological tenets. This is, I think, where J.D. Vance is such an interesting figure. He almost functions like a hinge between differing factions. Without understanding Christian nationalism, you cannot understand how the GOP today functions, how it got there, how the American right works, and what holds, these very differing coalitions, what holds them together.

Sam Goldman  01:01

Welcome to episode 215 of the Refuse Fascism podcast, a podcast brought to you by volunteers with Refuse Fascism. I’m Sam Goldman, one of those volunteers and host of the show. Refuse Fascism exposes, analyzes and stands against the very real danger and threat of fascism coming to power in the United States. In today’s episode, we’re sharing an interview with author and senior correspondent for Religion Dispatches, Annika Brockschmidt. 

But first, thanks to our patrons who make this show possible, become one today at Patreon.com/RefuseFascism. Thanks to those wonderful folks who got their refuse fascism t-shirts to support the show and spread the imperative.You can get yours today, ust see the link in the show notes. After listening to today’s episode, I hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review the show and help people discover this resource and join the community. Thanks to those who already have done this, like Please Help Players did earlier this month on Apple podcast, giving us five stars, saying: “Appreciate! Thank you all.

Today, we are going right into the interview, because it covers a lot of ground and is in depth and timely. Annika helps unpack how specific, distinct and overlapping forms of theocratic Christian ideology and identity weave together the 21st century American fascist movement. Together, we walk through why mainstream media and the Democratic Party attempt to deflect, paper over, and deny this indisputable fact, and why people who buy into that denial are constantly surprised and disoriented when fascism advances. We dive into the particular role patriarchy plays in this dynamic, where the cruel domination of women and violent reassertion of oppressive gender roles are central to their worldview and the society they are intent to bring into being. 

Our discussion took place before the latest Vance podcast clip resurfaced, where he claimed that women like those he went to Yale with, who chose professions instead of child rearing, “choose a path to misery.” In this same 2021 interview, Vance whines that men in America were, “suppressed in their masculinity.” Make no mistake, the GOP did not miss these statements in Vance’s background in opposition research. These views are selling points for the fascist movement and a force of attraction for too many men across society seething with male grievance. Lastly, we touch on bleak developments in Germany, where fascists are poised to make advances in a wave of elections beginning today, September 1. With that, here’s my interview with Annika.

I am so delighted to welcome back onto the show Annika Brockschmidt. She is a trained historian, author, freelance journalist. She writes for German and U.S. news outlets. You can find her on Religion Dispatches or In These Times, and she hosts multiple German podcasts, and wrote two bestselling books on the history of the religious right and the Republican Party — her latest of which is titled — I’m giving the English version so as not to be rude to my guest — the title in English is The Arsonists:  How Extremists Took Over the Republican Party. Welcome Annika, thanks for joining me.

Annika Brockschmidt  04:40

Of course, thanks for having me again.

Sam Goldman  04:42

I wanted to talk with you about something that I know that you spend a lot of time thinking about, writing about, unfortunately, immersing yourself in, and that’s the Christian nationalist movement in the United States. Christian nationalism has been, in my opinion, the center stage in the GOP march to the White House — although mainstream media would love you to believe otherwise. On the final night, for instance, of the RNC, shortly before Trump took the stage, we saw Franklin Graham expound on America as a Christian nation that has lost its way, and can only be found through Christ, via Trump. 

We saw Senator Tim Scott, along with a multitude of others, frame Trump’s rise as a biblical prophecy. I wanted to get your thoughts on what role Christian nationalism, and specifically, what we on the show would refer to as Christian fascism, is playing right now, in this home stretch to this election that they’re really putting on like a biblical plane of a religious war, the final battle. And how do you see this having evolved over time?

Annika Brockschmidt  05:46

I think the role that Christian nationalism or Christian fascism, depending on how you want to name it, really plays at the moment on the American right is that it’s really the glue that holds together these various, at times, warring, factions that don’t necessarily like each other very much, or that even can agree on sort of some basic ideological tenets. This is, I think, where J.D. Vance is such an interesting figure to come in, just purely from an analytical standpoint, is that he sort of functions as — I’m not sure if this is the right word in English to use, so bear with me — he almost functions like a kind of sort of hinge between certain differing factions. 

You have the national conservatives, you also have the tea lights, you have the right wing libertarians, but you also have the sort of Claremont Institute, bro-y- manosphere, incel types, that, at the same time, try to paint Trumpism as this sort of intellectual movement, or to give it in a sort of pseudo-intellectual sheen. Vance is right at the middle of this and there’s more groups, there’s the post liberals, there’s the Catholic extremists, then you have the sort of standard, more evangelical religious right, but you also have new voices within the religious right that are coming to prominence. I think you’ve done some work on your podcast on the New Apostolic Reformation and the growing influence of more charismatic rhetoric in Christian nationalisms. 

We’re seeing a lot of rhetoric around spiritual warfare outside of spaces where you would expect this sort of language, which, of course, is especially concerning. Matthew Taylor has done a lot of work on this. It basically means that we are now putting a theological framework that potentially justifies very worldly violence to advance political goals. W’ve seen this in the Republican Party in the last couple of years, their willingness to embrace political violence instead of just merely flirt with it. I mean the fact alone that Donald Trump is still the head of this party, effectively, I think, is saying enough on this. So that’s really the role that Christian nationalism, or Christian fascism, plays at the moment, is that all of these different groups in this big coalition that makes up the American right can get on board with that. I don’t mean to sound flippant, but that was also sort of the vibe that I got when I went to NatCon, the Nationalational Conservatism Comference, I think it was in early July. 

You could kind of tell that there are still these tensions between the different factions of the right. Some of them met during these couple of days in D.C. at this conference. J.D. Vance was the star speaker who closed out the whole conference. Back then, we didn’t know he was going to be VP yet. I think he was chosen the week after. The message that kept being sort of drilled down was — albeit passive aggressively, sometimes, they allowed themselves little digs, especially against libertarians, but against factions they didn’t quite like or align with — the message was: We need to be united; We need to essentially make it till November. I think that’s why it’s so important that Christian nationalism at this conference really was in the foreground, to an extent that I found really striking.

Sam Goldman  09:18

I remember you doing, at least, what was it? A four day conference or something like that? You did in depth coverage of it. For those of us fortunate enough to not have to be there, along with Ben Lober, I believe. I found it very, very helpful and, of course, disturbing. I was wondering, having, again, unfortunately, immersed yourself in this world for some time, what stood out to you, if anything is surprising or different?

Annika Brockschmidt  09:46

What I  find especially disturbing was the casualness with which open white nationalist talking points were being peddled. This wasn’t just in sort of the breakout sessions that were being held in smaller hotel rooms, smaller conference rooms, but also on the main stage. If Jack Psobiec isn’t the most offensive speaker, or Stephen Miller, even, at your conference, that is quite the conference. That was — especially as someone who’s a German historian by training — in my sort of university days, 

I was focused on the history of German fascism, especially with specific focus on the Holocaust and the excesses of genocidal violence during World War Two, and in the run up to it — there was a casualness of a certain distinctly fascist vocabulary, not used by all speakers, but used by enough of them on the main stage of that event that it really struck me. It was this interconnection between the emphasis of “ensuring a genetic future,” essentially breeding to secure the future of the movement — which is something that is not entirely new. This natalist sentiment is new to the American right, but it was really, really startling to see it center stage at an event that I think, actually, rightfully claimed to now represent the mainstream of the Republican Party, which didn’t necessarily four years ago to the same extent. 

Also, talk of degenerates; talk of our political enemy doesn’t procreate, we procreate. And the constant appeals to this large majority male audience to “get a wife and produce kids,” and then to send these kids to the correct schools — again, I’m paraphrasing — so they don’t become indoctrinated, but can essentially be fighters in this fight for the future of the U.S. as a truly Christian nation, again, paraphrasing. The interconnection between this idea of who makes up the true nation; Who’s a real American? That’s at the center of Christian nationalism, of course, but to see it connected so closely with this openly pro natalist argument, to see it repeated as often, was quite disturbing.

Sam Goldman  12:18

Related to what you were saying, recently, I was watching a clip of Doug Wilson, a fringe preacher with increasing influence at the highest levels, said that in the Republic he envisions, a Hindu would not be able to hold office. This sounds — to us, to those listening, to most people — completely wild, and it is, but it’s also reflected in U.S. history and echoes in current policy debates. For example, in New Jersey for the first hundred years of this country’s [existence]. Even, I think, Catholics were barred from public office, and it wasn’t until last year, 2023 that the state dropped its requirement that people sign an oath recognizing and honoring god to even officially campaign for state political office. 

I’m hoping that you could tell us a little bit about what kind of system are these Christian nationalists — the people that you spent time with at this convention, and part of the larger movement that they’re a part of — what kind of system are they envisioning, and how do they see this possible? Whether you’re thinking short term, within the next five years, or within the next fifty or hundred, what are they going for, and how do they see this as possible?

Annika Brockschmidt  13:30

I thought it was quite interesting, because this kind of gets into the real nitty gritty of one of those tensions that I was speaking about. Because, of course, at this very conference where Doug Wilson was speaking — and he didn’t just get any speaking slot, but he was on the stage with Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. That’s quite the statement to put Wilson on the stage with Mohler, because, as you said, Wilson was for a long time, I think, considered a very fringe figure. That has to do with his very radical theology. He’s called it a theology of fist fighting. 

Just to give you an idea of how he thinks and what this theology is like: amongst many other organizations in Moscow, Idaho, he’s founded a Christian college. The motto of that college — the English translation, the original is in Latin — reads: “For the Faithful, Wars Shall Never Cease.” And so he really understands that in quite a literal way, I would say. Somebody who’s done a lot of excellent work on Wilson, and who, I think was one of the first voices who, a couple of years ago, alerted the sort of scholarly community to the fact that Wilson’s influence, which had always been sort of relegated to the sidelines because he was so openly radical at a time where that was seen as maybe uncouth by “respectable” evangelical teachers, was Kristin Kobes Du Mez, who, in her book, Jesus and John Wayne, really cleverly analyzes how — even though for a long time, Wilson would have not been allowed at a stage such as this, where we have arrived, apparently, in 2024 — his influence was palpable even in mainstream evangelical circles, long before he stepped onto that stage at NatCon in D.C. this year. 

What I find interesting is Wilson, he was part of a panel essentially with Al Mohler, and the whole thing was moderated by Yoram Hazony, who is Jewish. One part of the question that Hazony asked both Mohler and Wilson was: What would this society that you imagine, what would it look like?” I find it interesting that while on stage at NatCon, Wilson sort of hedged a bit. If you’ve read his stuff, if you’ve heard what he preaches, you would not have been surprised that a few days after NatCon, he went further and said that in the Republic I envision, Hindus would not be able to hold political office.

I think that’s quite interesting, that there seem to be at least some things that you still can’t say at NatCon confidently, even though you can sort of signal it. The sort of — not sure if there’s an English expression for this, I’m trying not to butcher your language by doing a direct translation, there’s a German expression, which is essentially saying you’re trying to do the splits by hitting both topics, but not committing to either — he’s sort of doing a sort of a dance on a tightrope, so to speak, by signaling to the hardcore Christian nationalists what he wants without actually saying: What I want is what would essentially be sort of a confessional state. Which, interestingly, is also what a hardcore Catholic integralist would want; sort of a state where, let’s say, citizenship is tied to a certain public confession to certain Christian credo, or in that case, that the integrality Catholic sort of creed. Which I think is an interesting parallel, considering that Wilson and, let’s say Adrian Vermell probably don’t agree on a lot, but they would agree on this sort of authoritarian version of society that they kind of envision, but that they’re — at least when speaking in front of an audience where you can expect there to be press, or where you can expect that it will be broadcast further — they are still not really saying the quiet part out loud, but really, really starkly signaling what the quiet part, in fact, is. 

That was also very apparent during NatCon, for example, Yoram Hazony gave a short speech where he really, I think unwittingly, summed up this conundrum that NatCons, but also the American right at large, because they want to build international networks of fiercely nationalist and fascist or fascist adjacent movements abroad, they need to signal some kind of version of religious pluralism, while, at the same time, their very political project means that there can be no religious pluralism. So Hazony chose to sort of try to square the circle by saying: Oh, we can debate and debate and debate, and we have so many disagreements between… the fact, you know, the Protestants fight with the Catholics, and everybody fights with each other, but we need to be united, and we really should solve this problem by just putting the Ten Commandments on the wall. And then claimed that that would also be something that a devout Muslim or Hindu, who is conservative would be okay with. Which is a wild claim. 

But that was one of the examples where the argument in itself didn’t make sense, because Hazony was saying: You know, we can argue about what version of the Ten Commandments we put on the classroom wall; We can argue about what version we put up there after we put it up there. Which, again, makes no logical sense, but that’s because you cannot square that circle, because the quiet part, which is getting increasingly louder, is a Christian nationalist state or society as they envision it would mean that there are first and at best, second class citizens, and that the amount of rights that you have depends on your willingness to accept and support what is essentially Christian supremacy, because that’s really what Wilson and his ilk are arguing for.

Sam Goldman  19:53

One of the things that I’ve been thinking about a lot — you talk to the tension and the dance that they’re doing — is that more leaders within the GOP and within movements aligned with those goals are loudly stating their Christian nationalist aims and their Christian nationalist identity; wearing it as a badge of honor, instead of trying to: No, no, that’s not what we’re saying, that’s not what we believe, that’s not us. I think that that there’s this contradiction or confusion in that, on the one hand, they’re being very overt, wearing it proudly, but you wouldn’t see that reflected in the majority of mainstream news analysis that people living in the United States would see or would hear from the Democratic Party leaders or whatnot — that much more emphasis as people do get close to talking about the danger of MAGA, for instance, whether it’s the media or Democratic Party leadership or spokespeople, one thing they avoid like the plague is talking about the theocratic element of the threat. 

That’s not to say that there isn’t an alarm being sounded on Project 2025, but any religious aspect of that — Project 2025 as a fascist blueprint, or anything like that — is off limits. Instead, it’s framed as like greed, grift or narcissism, insanity, dementia, just like hate — it’s just hate as a word. I’m not saying there isn’t hate involved. Obviously it foments and it’s fueled by this hatred, but it has a source and it has a direction. I just was wondering what’s missed when we refuse to recognize, confront, or talk about how these reactionary strains of Christianity — which is not all Christianity, and certainly not all Christians — are an animating element of 21st century American fascism.

Annika Brockschmidt  21:47

I think what we can see here with the sort of hedging around, even just the term Christian nationalism — I haven’t heard the term used by the Harris campaign, maybe I’ve missed something. As you said, there has been, I will say, considering what I would have expected the Democratic Party to focus on, I was actually pleasantly surprised by the fact that they’re focusing so much on Project 2025. That being said, the bar is, maybe not exactly in hell, but very, very low when it comes to that. That’s not necessarily praise. It just means that my low expectations were exceeded when it comes to this specific document. However, what’s behind it, I think, is this, what I think is quite a dangerous calculation that when you want to essentially appeal to the broadest coalition of Americans, in order to prevent Trump from getting another term in the White House, is that, essentially, you don’t touch anything that could be seen or could be interpreted as an affront to patriotic, red blooded American Christians.

I’m being slightly snarky. It really reminded me of — I don’t know if you can remember, but I think this was during the January 6th committee — Liz Cheney was being asked by a journalist, can’t remember who it was, she was being asked about Christian nationalism and why it didn’t play a bigger part in their report, and she said something, I can’t remember the exact words, but she said something to the extent of, that alluded to, that it’s essentially a smear against patriotic Christians. Which also shows, in a way, how fragile this coalition is — You know, we just saw a DNC that included Adam Kinzinger — how fragile this very broad coalition is, that the Harris world’s campaign is trying to sort of keep together and expand even. 

However, I think we’re in danger of sort of grasping the various strands of the political project of the American right, but failing to see the bigger picture. Because I think if you’re not someone who’s like, super plugged into the American right — first of all, good life choices, I applaud you, however — I think people who aren’t plugged into the goings on of the American right sometimes struggle to understand how all of these seemingly random bits fit together. I don’t think you can really explain what’s happening with the Republican Party and what has been happening for the last decades without the framework of authoritarian Christianity, and how it’s merged with fascist elements and basically given us the GOP as it is today. 

I don’t know how it is in the U.S., but I would imagine it’s quite similar, I encounter that [this] often: I get people at book events asking: Ah, we see these headlines, and there’s some of this stuff that’s being said by the GOP is very radical, but it doesn’t make sense to us — not just in the fact that they don’t agree, but there’s a framework that’s missing. Because campaigns are won by how you talk about, yes, policy, but also how you talk about, and how media talks about — especially in perceiving that campaign — what the other side wants. And yes, Democrats have been successful in pointing out Project 2025 is radical and bad. 

At the same time, I would imagine that it’s quite difficult — and again, I’m looking at this with sort of from the European lens — I would imagine it is quite difficult to point out Christian nationalism as a framework when you as the Democrats are currently trying to reframe patriotism and American exceptionalism, which is a form of nationalism, as sort of this isn’t just something that’s privy to Republicans, but we are reclaiming it. There are aspects of this strategy that I think are good; sort of, don’t let Republicans define what Middle America is. Don’t let them define what freedom is. But you do get into a sort of big messaging problem, because if you are sort of trying to reclaim, let’s say, a soft nationalism — which I again from a European perspective, especially a German perspective, I can’t get on board with the concept of a positive nationalism just because German history, so I see the intention.

I see that there’s a good intention behind it — I just think it muddies the waters, and it basically means that Democrats can’t point to the larger framework of Christian nationalism, because, yes, their big differences, Christian nationalism is a spectrum, and there’s been loads of reporting on it — in the past in admittedly niche places, but if you know where to look for it, you can find it — on how a sort of softer version of Christian nationalism that is not explicitly exclusionary, although it is exclusionary by definition, has also been used by the Democrats. They try to use it in a positive way to paint a sort of 2022 or 2024 version of Reagan’s shining city on a hill. But I think that would mean a reckoning with both American exceptionalism, forms of nationalism that I don’t think the Democratic Party is ready for. 

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe now is not the time for this, but again, I do feel very uneasy when, in the sense of: We need to hold the forces together, we can’t touch this very glaringly obvious framework that holds all of this together, because we can’t be alienating any potential voters — I think the Christian nationalist vision of the U.S. that the GOP is painting is a vision that, if communicated in this framework, at least from the data that we know wouldn’t convince a majority of Americans. I’m not a political strategist, so maybe there’s internal polling that suggests we should not do that, definitely not, we’re going to alienate the mythical swing voter. I’m skeptical about that. I’m willing to be proven wrong, but just from my perspective, German background, trained historian, it does worry me that it is not front and center stage.

Sam Goldman  28:25

I agree with so much of what you laid out and share those worries. The only thing that I guess I would add to it at this moment, maybe I’ll think more later and add some thoughts in, but I think that there’s the difference — and I think people in America, more than other places, struggle with this — between our government and the people. I think that in this country, it’s all gladiators; it’s all our political proxy, and people’s deep connection, and — to me, personally — very weird ways with those in positions of government — similarly to how my mom has a relationship with every MSNBC host [AB acknowledges], people have with their political leaders. 

But I think that if people were able to see the difference between the people in the government, both here and in other places, and see that those in power make choices that are very, very different than the choices that we make, and the basis on which they make their choices are very different than the basis we should make our choices on, therefore, regardless of what those in positions of political power in this country, we have, I would say, an obligation — if we’re serious about confronting this threat — to look at it and to not want to evade talking about Christian nationalism or its impact. There’s a need for us to go there. I thought as an example of a way to do this — it’s not the only one, but — there’s Bad Faith, which is a documentary that talks about this threat, and does it, including the voices of lots of people who are moved by their faith, their Christian faith, to oppose it. There are tools, and there are ways that people can get to work on this, because it’s not going to go away, just if we don’t talk about it.

Annika Brockschmidt  30:14

Oh, definitely. I completely agree with that. I’m a member of the media, and so I would say this is also a place for media criticism, because while you do see the occasional op ed, if something big happens, there’s a very shocking headline somewhere if, oh, God forbid, another J.D. Vance audio is unearthed tomorrow, we might see another op ed by a religion scholar or a journalist who’s been researching the far right for a long time and therefore has the tools to understand and decode and unpack all of this. 

At the same time, it is the obligation of newsrooms — and depending on how those newsrooms are structured, maybe not necessarily, every single editor, because not every editor can decide what pieces they commission, there’s different levels of how much freedom you have there, but — there is an obligation of the media to have finally learned from their mistakes from 2016, from 2020. There are moments of optimism that I have when I see, again, the occasional op ed by a trusted scholar who hasn’t been shown this amount of a platform before. 

However, I do genuinely believe that without understanding Christian nationalism, you cannot understand how the GOP today functions, how it got there, how the American right works, and what holds these very differing coalitions that make up the American right, what holds them together. You cannot understand that without Christian nationalism and the fact that this is not one of the recurring motives of mainstream media coverage of this presidential election, given who Trump surrounds himself with, that is just a media failure of quite colossal proportions, I would say.

Sam Goldman  32:10

Yeah, and this culture of the fear of offense when a Christian theocracy is incredibly offensive to people who care about the lives of women, of trans folks, of children, of so many… of humanity, I would argue. I wanted to shift to something that I find very offensive: patriarchy. I think that we are witnessing something like a patriarchy renaissance right now, where traditional gender roles are being aggressively reasserted in innumerable ways. This is being presented as the solution to everything from crass materialism to empty individualism, from loneliness to the demise of the white race, from the acceptance of transgender people to challenges to the power and privileges that are supposed to belong [manly voice] exclusively to men [usual voice] by dint of being men. 

While this has been part of the fascist program for decades, we’re now seeing statements and writings from J.D. Vance and Josh Hawley and Heritage Foundation leader Kevin Roberts, seemingly lifted straight from the sermons of what used to be fringe churches and the feeds of Trad wives [slang for un-liberated from ‘traditional’] and alpha male influencers, and you can look at the way that, like Walz is seen as like this, immasculine, what? [AB: A Cuck, essentially.] “Tampon Tim” or whatever it was. It’s also reflected in policy initiatives, ranging from bans on abortion to trans healthcare, no fault divorce, gay marriage, to efforts to gut DEI programs and the social safety net.

I just wanted to see: How have we seen this develop over the past few years? What should this tell us? And, you mentioned it earlier, so I wanted to return to it: the unity between the Trump, thrice divorced, current pussy grabber, I’m sure, but former pussy grabber in chief, to these more pious figures, that we might see in his previous time in the White House was exemplified by Pence, but there are new figures in that world today.

Annika Brockschmidt  34:17

What I find really interesting is that, because you just mentioned Pence, the selection of J.D. Vance as Trump’s running mate signifies a lot of things… when it comes to your question, I think the most important thing it signifies there is: Trump doesn’t need to convince white evangelicals anymore, he has them — if the polling and the last election results 2020, where he got an even bigger majority of white evangelicals’ votes than even in 2016 is any indication. However, what I think is interesting, and I keep coming back to Vance here, because I think he’s a figure that can really tell us a lot about how those relationships between the different factions of the American right, how they function, is that he appeared at NatCon.

Sorry, I keep coming back to NatCon, just because it was such a dark signifier of what I think is quite a significant shift. Right wing conferences are usually majority male, unless they’re exclusively marketed to women, such as various Moms for Liberty conferences, etc., but the emphasis put on the connection of saving America as a true Christian nation, and getting the birth rate up — essentially to breed to secure the future of this political project — that’s quite a jarring message. That was, again, at the front and center of this conference. That’s jarring in itself, but, just as someone who was sitting in the room listening to this — I was prepared, this didn’t come as a big surprise, but — it’s still specifically jarring when this talk is being peddled to an audience of mainly men, about how the only “honorable thing” is to marry and have kids, as many kids as you can. 

We see this natalist obsession — it’s a very patriarchal natalist obsession in J.D. Vance, who it seems, bestows yet another horrific unearthed recording upon us every day where he shares his utter contempt for women who, for whatever reason, don’t have children or childless people in general, which is quite ironic coming from a converted Catholic to say the least — but I digress. As you pointed out, what’s important is that this isn’t just talk. This is a part of a sort of shifting of alliances. The fact that J.D. Vance, I can’t remember whether it was from ’21 or ’22 maybe you remember the quote where he said: “If I were to advise Trump, I’d tell him to fire every mid level bureaucrat.” That video went viral a while ago, and he’s talking to a podcaster with a very prominent beard, not much hair on his head, called Jack Murphy. Jack Murphy was not just a Claremont fellow — a Lincoln Fellow of the Claremont Institute, 2021 — but is also, let’s call it, a “manosphere” influencer. I think that’s the diplomatic way to put it, who is famous for, amongst other things…

Sam Goldman  36:15

Sorry  to interrupt, but it is such a gross term, like it’s gross manosphere, it’s gross!

Annika Brockschmidt  36:18

Isn’t it grim? It’s horrendous. He’s famous, for example, for suggesting — and this is why I don’t think it’s exaggerated to say that the GOP is actively courting the incel vote — that guy that J.D. Vance went on a podcast with to talk about how he would gut the administrative state, is famous for saying that feminists need rape, and that he would offer rape to feminists as an “olive branch.” This is not just a random influencer who’s buddies with Andrew Tate or whatever, but this is a former fellow of the Claremont Institute. 

So the misogyny and the contempt for women and the hatred for women, I would say that you can really feel in, not just whatever Jack Murphy utters in his swamp, but also, and this is the second point, in the policies that underlie this rhetoric. There’s a political playbook behind the misogynistic rhetoric — a political playbook that sees women, not as fully formed people, or LGBTQ people, with rights to bodily autonomy and choice, but basically at best, as incubators who should breed as many children as possible. Depending on who you’re listening to, there’s also a second role for conservative women that’s seen as acceptable to those on the right if they don’t want to focus on only being mothers and homemakers, and that is the role of essentially amplifiers of the patriarchy. Those women who tell other women what they should be doing with their lives. 

As my colleague, Sarah Jones, who also attended NatCon and suffered through it with me — she has this great piece on especially these sort of two options that are present for women within the American right — either you become a mother and a homemaker, or you are essentially just an amplifier of the patriarchy, and you drill the message home to other women. There’s a great piece out on that, I think it was in The Intelligencer, as she writes for New York Magazine. 

Besides those two roles, and that was very apparent at NatCon, there’s nothing there. By the way, because you just mentioned trad wife influencers, what I thought was very interesting is that at the NatCon panel that was titled something like about the post-Dobbs future, or something, which was essentially a pro natalist panel, there was a woman who works at the Heritage Foundation — very young woman, mother, she was currently pregnant, she brought her small child with her on the conference — and she actually referenced trad wives influencers, and said, “I would rather — so young women — you follow tradwife influencers than Khloe Kardashian,” which I, as an avid student of trash TV, found quite interesting, given that Khloe Kardashian is easily the one with the most problematic gender politics of the whole clan — but that’s a different topic. 

But I found that quite interesting, that specific shout out to tradwife influencers, and this play to we need to make the esthetic appealing. We need to make the packaging of this patriarchal hellscape appealing to women. You really see this also in the way that femininity is acceptable as a form of presentation within the American right. Remember when Senator Katie Britt gave the response to Biden’s State of the Union — she really personified this vision of conservative, traditional femininity. Yes, she is a senator, but she is also giving this address from her rightful place a very creepily empty kitchen. The, like, violent misogyny behind this political project is something that the more this movement radicalizes — and there’s really not an off ramp to it, the ideology is sort of self radicalizing — the more this movement radicalizes itself, the more this crass, violent misogyny will step to the forefront. More importantly, it’s not just rhetoric, but there’s real policy proposals behind it.

Sam Goldman  41:23

I wanted to emphasize, again, that last part. I thought that so much of what you said was so helpful, and the connection between the ideas and rhetoric and then these very real world consequences, these deadly consequences, straight up enslaving consequences, that we’re seeing in red states across the country, but people should not be deluded into thinking that they’re safe in their blue bubble, because the goals and aims are really nationwide, from bans on trans healthcare to the rights of LGBT people to marry, the rights of women to exist as independent human beings, not as incubators, really is stark and accelerating. 

This idea that we can push it back, that there is a way to get this genie back in the bottle — I know it’s a terrible phrase, I’ll try to think of something else and replace it — there’s no reset here. That isn’t to say that we can’t change things, not at all, but just leaving them as it is, I can only think of what that movement does if Harris wins. Let’s be clear, I don’t want Trump to win. I know people are confused by this, but you can actually criticize multiple things and not want Trump to win, and it is really, really bad, really bad, that we are in a situation where if you say anything, the answer is: [angry voice] “Then, you want Trump to win?” No, that’s silly, people. You need to be able to think critically. I’m sorry that our education system that I’m a part of has failed you. But I think that, like, there is this idea that, like, if Harris is able to win the popular vote, if they win the electoral college, then we’re good on numerous levels. That’s very dangerous to think. 

First of all, we shouldn’t discount the possibility that Trump could win, but that’s a whole separate conversation. I wanted to get your thoughts on what I think is a very real, real threat — I don’t want to say 100% on anything, but I think we would be kidding ourselves if we didn’t say that it was at least extremely probable, if not out certain — that Trump and the Republi-fascists would refuse to accept a Harris win. That is a real threat, and then it would go beyond what even happened with the 2020 election. I wanted to get your thoughts on how you see this playing out in terms of that scenario. 

Annika Brockschmidt  43:51

That’s a really, really important point. This is not just sort of me checking vaguely the vibe of the GOP. We have seen very, very clear signs that point towards a movement that, just like in 2020, is planning, should they lose or should the result be close, will not accept a loss. There was a big piece in The Guardian, I think, in July, that really focused on this, and that laid out that in the state of Georgia — I think it was in August. Maybe the Guardian piece is also from August — essentially, the Republican controlled state election board in Georgia has just now adopted a new rule that essentially makes it easy for local election board members to drag their feet indefinitely on certifying an election. 

Basically, you don’t really need grounds anymore to get an inquiry. You can just claim there was fraud, and that’s enough to hold up proceedings indefinitely unless a higher court maybe steps in, maybe not, it’s unclear. So we are in uncharted legal territory as well, which is what makes this situation more confusing. Trump has, multiple times, or he has at least refused to essentially committing to accept election results even if he loses. We’ve had a lot of sort of prominent and important figures on the right, amongst them, Mike Howard from the Heritage Foundation, saying stuff like: There’s no chance that this will be a free and fair election. 

So they are setting the groundwork. I think it’s important to stress that: Yes, Trump also did that in 2020, but I think there’s at least two factors that make our situation now different from 2020, and more dangerous. First of all, Trump and his allies have had four years. We see this in Project 2025, and we see it in their preparations to contest a potential election loss. It essentially just means they had four years to prepare. They’ve had time. They’ve had four years to come up with a strategy. They’ve had four years to shift their messaging. At the height of the pandemic, 2020, they tried to claim: Oh, mail in ballots mean that Democrats are cheating. 

This time, because the pandemic isn’t at its height anymore, we don’t expect such a high percentage of mail-in ballots, that doesn’t really work anymore as a conspiracy theory, or it’s not as persuadable, even to people who are inclined to believe them anyway. So now they’ve pivoted back to there is non-citizens or other people who aren’t allowed to vote. There’s non citizens on the voter rolls. We need to purge the voter rolls. There’s variations of this, often tied to versions of the great replacement conspiracy theory. So this isn’t just talk. This isn’t just chatter. We’ve seen lawsuits that are being filed, for example, by the RNC itself, by right wing organizations like the sort of harmless sounding Public Interest Legal Foundation, and others, essentially to lay the groundwork to shape the impression, even before the election has started, that there is, in fact widespread voter fraud.

Sam Goldman  43:55

As fascism is global, and on this show, we do not see ourselves as the center of the universe, us being people that live in the United States. I wanted to get your thoughts, your insights on what’s happening in Germany with these elections, where it is seeming very likely that AfD will will gain power in at least certain states. We’ve done some coverage on the situation in previous episodes, but now the elections are about to happen, and I was hoping you could fill us in some

Annika Brockschmidt  47:54

I can only say keep your fingers crossed for Germany in September. We’ve got three statewide elections coming up. On the first of September, we’ve got elections in Tulingen, in Thuringia and in Saxony, and then on the 22nd of September in Brandenberg, so these are all states in the north east, east of Germany. If we can trust the polling, these elections will be pretty disastrous for democracy in these states, because the AfD, which is short for Alternative for Germany, Alternative für Deutschland which is our far right extremist party, is expected to actually win in Tulingen, and is locked in a sort of head to head race with our conservative party, the CDU in Saxony, so it’s bad, it’s really, really bad. 

Depending on how this goes, what we’ll see is how, especially the Conservative Party on this state level, will be willing to move if they’re going to be willing to pick a fight, essentially, with a national party organization, with the CDU, because there is technically, basically a ban that forbids CDU members to coalesce with the AfD, and that also goes for the state and local level. So we are potentially now at a crossroads, because my worry is that, essentially, if the percentages work out and there can be a conservative, fascist majority in these states, I would not bet on the CDU, on our conservative party on the state level, to not take it. 

Don’t know if you saw the news, but there was an Islamist terror attack, I think, last Friday, where three people were killed and more were wounded in a in a knife attack that was claimed by ISIS, by the Islamic State. So you can only imagine what these last couple of days of campaigning have been like in these state level elections. But also on a natinal level, because it’s not just the AfD who is really lurching even further right, but also, let’s say, these sort of mainstream democratic parties. Just to give you an idea of how catastrophic it would be should the AfD come to power, for example, in Tulingen — where they are likely to be the strongest party in this election on the first of September — German libel laws very, very strict, so it gives you an idea of how extreme of a right wing politician you have to be in order for a German court to rule that you can legally call the head of the Tulingen AfD called [Björn] Höcke, a fascist, and that is what a German court has ruled. 

So this is the guy who could head the state of Tulingen from first of September onwards. I’m not going to lie, it is looking pretty bleak. Right wingers are using the recent terror attack to crack down on asylum and on immigration, and at the moment, centrist and even left leaning or liberal parties don’t really seem to have a counter strategy, and in some cases, they seem to be trying to lurch farther right, to try, in some misbegotten attempt, to get some AfD voters “back,” even though research on the field of Political Science and right wing populism tells us that is not how that works. It’s pretty bleak, I’m not gonna lie.

Sam Goldman  51:30

We’ll be thinking of you all and following the story and covering it as this unfolds and the results.

Annika Brockschmidt  51:38

I’m so sorry that I ended on such a depressing note.

Sam Goldman  51:42

I’s my fault, because I teed you up for that. How else was that going to end? The joyful thing is that this conversation happened, and I am so glad that it did, and I appreciate you taking the time to talk with us, to share your perspective and expertise. For those who can read in German, we will link — you fancy people, or you’re just Germans — can find a link to Annika’s book. You can go to the show notes to find Annika’s wonderful analysis, not what she’s writing about from NatCon that is up on Religion Dispatches, her latest In These Times piece. What did I miss? Where should people go to connect more with you? We can link to the podcast for those who can understand German.

Annika Brockschmidt  52:34

Oh, sure. So if you could speak German, there’s a podcast that I host called Kreuz und Flagge, which is German for the cross and the flag. We do actually have some episodes that also feature English speaking experts with no dubbing over, as Germans are otherwise wont to do, which drives my English speaking partner up the walls, because he has discovered that every English speaking film is synchronized into German, and there’s no attention paid to whether or not the lip movements align, but that’s a different topic. But yeah, so you can find me there, you can find me on Bluesky, where I am increasingly more active as Elon Musk’s hell site descends further into just a maelstrom of horrific, horrific, horrific, horrific extremism. You can find me if you put in my name, or if you want to avoid the absurd amount of consonants, you can also just type in my handle, which is called @ArdentHistorian.

Sam Goldman  53:38

Thank you so much. 

Annika Brockschmidt  53:39

Thank you.

Sam Goldman  53:41

Thanks for listening to Refuse Fascism. Want to help this show reach more people at a time when it’s needed most? Perfect. As people rightly agonize over the fascist threat, help grow the community we need by literally wearing refuse fascism across your chest, by purchasing one or more of our refuse fascism t-shirts or tank tops — see the show notes for the link to get yours. If you want to take a step further, become a patron for as little as $2 a month at Patreon.com/RefuseFascism. Whether you can give $2 a month or $25 a month, it all makes a difference in producing and promoting this independent all volunteer weekly pod. We’ll be having our next patron only event later this month. So patrons, please fill out the poll on our Patreon page to let us know what you’re interested in. Thanks for your support. 

If you can’t give now, or if you already did, share this show with others. Send it to your friends and family, coworkers, neighbors, whoever, or go and share it with some strangers by rating and reviewing on Apple podcasts, wherever you listen or comment on our social posts or YouTube uploads. It makes a difference and is so appreciated. And of course, follow, subscribe wherever you listen, so you never miss an episode. As always, we love hearing from you. Find us on social media, @RefuseFascism Find us on YouTube, at Refuse_Fascism. Be sure to hit that subscribe button if YouTube is your jam or leave a voicemail, see a link in the show notes. If you want to reach me, find me at that bad place, [whispers] Twitter — @SamBGoldman, drop me a line at [email protected] or over on the tiktoks, @SamGoldmanRF. 

Thanks to Mark Tinkelman, Richie Marini and Lina Thorne for helping produce this episode. Thanks to incredible volunteers, we have transcripts available for each show, so be sure to visit RefuseFascism.org and sign up to get them in your inbox until next Sunday, In the Name of Humanity, We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America!