Mediaboss Marketing

When Joko Widodo, popularly as Jokowi, was sworn in as Indonesias seventh President in 2014, optimism surrounding the state of democracy in the country seemed at its peak. At a time when dynasties traditionally dominated Indonesias political arena, the ascension of Jokowi, who was a carpenter and furniture businessman before becoming the governor of Jakarta, was hailed as a beacon of hope.

Jokowis election almost 10 years ago represented the height of democracy in Indonesia, Vishnu Juwono, associate professor in public governance at the University of Indonesia, tells TIME. He was seen as an outsider, and hes benefited from the democracy system.

But as the curtains fall on Jokowis decade of rule, he may be remembered more for ushering in a new era of democratic decline. Even his capstone initiative, what was meant to be a sprawling monument to his legacythe development of a new capital called Nusantara, to replace the existing capital in Jakarta beginning as soon as next yearlooks to embody such a backsliding.

Since it was announced in 2019, the ambitious project to relocate Indonesias capital from the island of Java to the island of Borneo has been mired in skepticism and criticismfrom inadequate public consultation to land disputes with indigenous communities to concerns about Chinese investment that critics say is making Nusantara a New Beijing. But a more insidious implication, observers caution, is the undemocratic nature that the new capital, tucked hundreds of miles away from Jakarta and set to operate without elected local leaders, will bring to the fore of what is currently the worlds third largest democracy.

While Indonesias current capital, which houses 10.5 million of the countrys 278 million people, may be the epicenter of the Southeast Asian nations economic activity, over the decades it has become increasingly uninhabitable. Jakarta residents regularly battle heavy traffic congestion, widespread flooding, and hazardous pollutionthe metropolis was earlier this year ranked as the worlds most polluted city when thick smog shrouded its residents. The city is also sinking at an alarming rate, with some forecasters estimating that a third of its land could be submerged by 2050.

As Indonesian authorities continue to look for ways to save the existing capital, a province some 800 miles away offers a clean slate devoid of Jakartas woes. Its on the lush hilly landscape of East Kalimantan that authorities decided to build the new national capital of Nusantara from scratchhailed not just as a solution to Jakartas congestion and sustainability crisis but also as a crucial next step in Indonesias development.

When we agree to move forward as an advanced country, the first question that needs to be answered is whether in the future, Jakarta as the capital city is able to bear the burden as the center of government and public services as well as center of business, Jokowi said in 2019 as he reignited dormant plans to relocate the government.

But what Nusantara represents is not so much a solution as a distraction, civil society groups and academics argue. Local authorities have long dragged their feet on addressing Jakartas urban environmental issueseven a court ruling in 2021, which found Jokowi and other senior officials guilty of negligence for the citys air pollution, has done little to trigger reforms.

It reflects really an escape plan of the failure of successive administrations in Jakarta to take on and manage the problems of Jakarta, Ian Wilson, a senior lecturer specializing in Indonesian politics at Australias Murdoch University, tells TIME. The problems of Jakarta will remain, regardless of Nusantara. Its quite disingenuous, I think, to suggest that Nusantara will help solve Jakartas problems. It will only solve them insofar as politicians will no longer feel any obligation to deal with them or even to speak to them.

But Nusantara doesnt just represent an avoidance of dealing with Jakartas troubles. It also looks set to further detach the countrys seat of government from its center of civic society, distancing decisionmakers from dissent. Jakarta has long been a stage for some of the most important moments of Indonesian politics: student-led protests led to the fall of authoritarian leader Suharto in 1998; in 2016 and 2017, amid growing religious conservatism, Islamist protests against Jakartas then-Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama saw him jailed for two years for blasphemy; and in 2020, protests against an omnibus law on job creation that many workers feared would curtail their labor rights led to the Constitutional Court ordering the government to amend parts of the legislation.

Similar projects in other parts of the world provide a glimpse into how new administrative capitals, built ostensibly to relieve clogged cities of their population burdens, can come at the detriment of public participation and protest. Critics have claimed that Naypyidaw, Myanmars notoriously desolate administrative capital unveiled in 2005 by its military regime, serves to shield the countrys military leaders from uprisings. Similarly, observers say that in Egypt, the New Administrative Capital, helmed by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and that has been under construction since 2015, is designed to benefit the military and the military-aligned government, in part by diminishing the significance of traditional protest spots in Cairo.

[These] new capital cities are built as pet projects of a particular administration, but also involve a process of disentangling government from broader civil society, says Wilson. I think its very difficult to not see Nusantara in those terms, when we see the broader analysis of the last 10 years of the Jokowi administration, which has seen a real democratic decline.

As for Nusantarawhere 16,000 Indonesian civil servants, members of the military, and police officers are due to move in next year and there are plans for an eventual population of 1.9 million by 2045how the new capital city itself is set to be run has already raised concerns among local observers. Unlike the rest of the country, which is governed by elected mayors or governors, Nusantara will be governed by a Capital City Authority helmed by chairpersons appointed by the President.

When you have this authority that runs the city and somehow it is not connected to all those people who live in that city, the notion of citizens doesnt make sense, Sulfikar Amir, an associate professor of sociology at Singapores Nanyang Technological University, tells TIME. He adds that Nusantara, the way it has currently been designed, will have only tenants and users, not citizens.

Nusantara, says Sulfikar, doesnt really represent the democratic system thats supposed to be the foundation of our city governance across the country. He says he worries, however, that the central government will believe that this is a perfect system that should be implemented across cities in Indonesia.

Known for his laser focus on economic growth, Jokowi has delivered the results. But under his leadership, Indonesia has also seen increased online censorship and a crackdown on critics, as well as legislative changes that critics say infringe on democratic valuessuch as the passage of a controversial criminal code last year that criminalized unauthorized protests or criticisms of the President.

Jokowi has also unabashedly begun fashioning his own political dynasty, having installed his family members in key state positions over the last several years. Last month, his 28-year-old son Kaesang Pangarep was named the chairman of the Indonesian Solidarity Party, a youth party, despite having no political experience. Meanwhile, Bobby Nasution, the Presidents son-in-law, became the mayor of Medan in 2020the same year that Gibran Rakabuming Raka, Jokowis eldest son, became the mayor of Surakarta. And just this week, Gibran was announced as the running mate to defense minister and leading presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto, after the Constitutional Courtwhich happens to be headed by Anwar Usman, the Presidents brother-in-lawcontroversially ruled that 36-year-old Gibran was eligible to join the presidential ticket despite the statutory age requirement of 40.

Furthermore, out of the three presidential candidates running to succeed Jokowi, only former Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan has vocalized doubts about Nusantara. While Jokowi has remained tight-lipped about who hes endorsing, his legacy will likely, according to current polls, be shouldered by his son Gibran andperhaps more concerninglyPrabowo.

A former military commander, who for two decades had been condemned internationally for rights violations, Prabowo twice unsuccessfully campaigned against Jokowi for the presidency in 2014 and 2019, before Jokowi helped rehabilitate his image by appointing him to his cabinet. Long known for his vehement opposition to democratic reforms in the country, Prabowos ascension, observers worry, could result in an even sharper centralization of power and turn toward authoritarianism for the country.

To be sure, Jokowi has maintained his popularity throughout all these maneuvers, boasting an 82% approval rating earlier this year. But if the start of his presidency heralded high hopes for Indonesian democracy, the end of itmarked by a swanky new capital and the paving of the path for Prabowo to potentially rule from ithas mostly dampened any optimism about the direction in which Indonesias democracy is headed.

Indonesia is still a functioning democracy, this is without a doubt, says Wilson. But nonetheless, there have been very strong, autocratic trends, and I think Nusantara needs to be understood within that context.

Original post:
Indonesia's New Capital Is a Monument to Its Democratic Decline - TIME

Democracy relies on education for its legitimacy and its strength, Wahl said. In theory, its the reason our University was founded. While Jefferson is himself a highly contentious figure, our university has inherited the ideal that democracy depends on an educated citizenry.

Wahl said democracy is sustained by people who are willing and able to engage in meaningful dialogue with others, especially those with different opinions.

[Philosopher] John Dewey believed that democracy is a way of life, one that depends on people cultivating minds that are flexible, willing to experiment, and willing to entertain the ideas of others and respond dynamically, rather than rigidly, to other possibilities for how to live together, she said.

Wahl has studied political dialogue in many settings, but much of her work focuses on university campuses. Recently, she was tapped to be the faculty lead for the Education Schools collaborations with the Karsh Institute for Democracy.

Last school year, Emily LeGree was making final tweaks to her class schedule when she stumbled across the Political Dialogue course.

I thought it sounded interesting, because I am so frustrated with the way the U.S. government is right now and how polarized it is, the third-year youth and social innovation student said. So I wanted to take a class where we can learn more about that and how to bridge the divide a little bit.

In the course, students study the theory of political deliberation and dialogue. Then, they practice having in-depth discussions about current events with their classmates.

Wahl begins the course by helping students create their own discussion guidelines, to establish a foundation of trust. Each week, they gather in a circle and dive into current events last fall, the nine students in the class spent a lot of time on COVID vaccine mandates. Wahl is there to guide the conversation, but she always lets students take the lead.

I was scared at first, but I loved it, said Carolyn Carbaugh, who also took the class last fall. Dr. Wahl was able to effectively create an atmosphere built on open communication and intellectual exploration. There was a sense of security that came with our group members respect for one another.

A theme of Wahls work is that politics is inseparable from other dimensions of human experience. She said that trying to separate a persons emotions and experiences from their political views is futile. Ultimately, all politics are personal.

In discussions, students do more than argue about whether specific policies are right or wrong. They share personal stories and explore deeper topics about their hopes for society.

LeGree said the course was challenging, and at times, frustrating and emotional. Theyre hard conversations, and it gets heavy, she said. It was almost like a group therapy session. Dr. Wahl would help us make sense of the difficulties we were having in a conversation from a theoretical perspective and help us understand why all of us see things differently. She was able to connect the pieces for us in a broader way.

Wahl is not nave. She doesnt believe all the worlds problems can be solved by just talking it out. It can cause harm and not everyone is prepared to have a healthy dialogue. But she believes talking serves an important purpose.

Its very, very rare for anybody to change their mind about political issues. But they do frequently change their mind about the people on the other side, Wahl said. I think what they see is that theres actually a whole range of beliefs and aspirations that are recognizably good.

Carbaugh said one of her biggest takeaways from the course was that there is value in a political discussion where the only agenda is to listen. I learned that not every political discussion needs to be an argument, she said. It helped me surrender this idea that I need to change people and that all political discussions are a zero-sum game.

The goal is to create more opportunities for students to engage with politics in healthy ways.

For LeGree, the course sparked a friendship that she might not have otherwise found.

Its funny, because [my closest friend from the class is] the one I disagreed with the most politically, she said. We would butt heads the most in class, and we are such different people. But its good because it broadens my view on things.

Were both people who know what we believe in. Im very passionate about what I believe, but its not fair for me to be so strong in my views that I dont listen to anyone else. I think hes found that, too.

Read more from the original source:
For Democracy, Talking Is More Important Than Agreeing - UVA Today

A report from Northwestern Universitys Medill School puts it bluntly: The loss of local journalism that were seeing in the United States is a crisis for our democracy and our society. I couldnt agree more.

We rely on free and vigorous news media for the effective functioning of our democracy, at all levels of government. An informed citizenry is an empowered citizenry.

When we lose news coverage, we lose oversight of our public officials. We need the press to be constantly looking in every nook and cranny where our politicians are working. Americas founders recognized this, enshrining freedom of the press in the First Amendment.

Early American newspapers, of course, were often partisan and aligned with political factions, but they played a crucial role in creating an identity for the new nation. The French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, a keen observer of the young American republic, wrote that its newspapers were the power which impels the circulation of political life.

We still rely on news media to understand the workings of government. Newspapers, especially, play a key role in civic education and community engagement, which are essential to good governance. While serving in Congress, I learned that visiting a local newspaper office was a great way to learn what constituents were thinking.

But trends in business and technology have devastated local news. With the rise of the internet, Americans increasingly got their news online; many concluded they didnt need to read the local paper. Newspapers relied primarily on advertisers to make money, but businesses found they could better target their ad dollars online. Newspaper revenue declined precipitously.

Closings and mergers followed. The U.S. has lost more than a quarter of its newspapers since 2005, according to the Medill School. Most of the newspapers that have shut down were weeklies serving small towns and rural communities. Thats been the trend here in Indiana, where a third of all weeklies disappeared in a recent 15-year period. Readership of the states newspapers shrank by half.

More than one in five Americans now live in what scholars refer to as news deserts, communities that lack or are at risk of losing local news sources. Seventy million people live in counties without a newspaper or served by only one paper. The newspapers that remain employ fewer journalists.

Studies have shown that, without strong local news, theres more corruption in government, and taxes and municipal-bond costs are higher. Not surprisingly, voting rates are lower when no one is covering elections. As Americans increasingly get their information online or from partisan cable TV, political polarization grows more extreme. Fake news and conspiracy theories proliferate. This is an important cause of the dysfunction were currently seeing in Congress.

Its true that news media have evolved throughout our nations history. Radio and TV disrupted the news business before the internet; and, if print newspapers go extinct, people will still seek out news.

We are seeing some encouraging signs with the growth of high-quality, reliable online news organizations, some of them following a nonprofit model. But digital-news outlets employ relatively few journalists compared to the newspapers of the past, and they tend to be concentrated in affluent urban areas and state capitals. Rural communities and small towns are increasingly left without local news.

On a positive note, the situation is widely recognized as the crisis that it is. Universities, nonprofits, and advocacy groups are working to find solutions. Major philanthropies such as the MacArthur and Knight foundations are pledging hundreds of millions of dollars to revitalize local news. Civic-minded individuals and organizations are stepping up to buy local newspapers or start new ones.

Its essential that these efforts succeed. The future of our democracy and our society depends on it.

Lee Hamilton, 92, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU ONeill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.

See more here:
OPINION: Loss of local news is a crisis for democracy - The Central New York Business Journal

What do two of the youngest city councilmembers in California have in common? Both believe that young people belong in politics. Creating Citizens, The Commonwealth Clubs education initiative, is excited to host Councilmember Janani Ramachandran and Councilmember James Coleman as they talk with high school students about the role of young people in civic life.

Both city councilmembers, born and raised in the communities they now serve, find themselves as the youngest members of their respective city councils. As they work to empower their communities, they find they must constantly navigate a much older political ecosystem that isnt always the most welcoming to young faces.

The councilmembers will be joined in conversation with Dr. Stephen Morris. Dr. Morris, the CEO and Co-Founder of the Civic Education Center, has spent 20+ years working in education. Together, they will discuss local government and how everyone, from politicians to students, can work with people they disagree with.

See the original post here:
Creating Citizens Field Trip Series: Democracy at the Local Level - Commonwealth Club

Johnson, a Shreveport, Louisiana, native, entered politics after spending more than two decades defending conservative Christian causes as a litigator at the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, and throughout his career, he has argued in courts and drafted legislation to outlaw same-sex marriage and restrict abortion.

That was one reason I reached out to Du Mez, who combed through his long record of statements about his beliefs and influences to help me understand how his faith drives his politics. As he understands it, this country was founded as a Christian nation, Du Mez told me. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnsons understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government.

I talked with Du Mez about Johnsons roots in the Christian right, the figures in that world who have shaped his understanding of American politics, and the anti-democratic turn she has watched the Christian right take in the past several years particularly the striking way it coincided with attempts by former President Donald Trump, and Johnson himself, to overturn the 2020 election.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Katelyn Fossett: I want to talk to you a little about Mike Johnsons worldview and the belief system that has shaped him.

Kristin Kobes Du Mez: He is incredibly standard in terms of being a right-wing, white evangelical Christian nationalist.

Fossett: Tell me a little more about what makes someone a Christian nationalist. Does he use that phrase to describe himself?

Du Mez: I dont know that he uses that. But I feel comfortable applying that; its not in a pejorative way. Its simply descriptive. As he understands it, this country was founded as a Christian nation. And he stands in a long tradition of conservative white evangelicals, particularly inside the Southern Baptist Convention, who have a distinct understanding of what that means. And this is where evangelical author and activist David Barton comes in.

Johnson has said that Bartons ideas and teachings have been extremely influential on him, and that is essentially rooting him in this longer tradition of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism essentially posits the idea that America is founded on Gods laws, and that the Constitution is a reflection of Gods laws. Therefore, any interpretation of the Constitution must align with Christian nationalists understanding of Gods laws. Freedom for them means freedom to obey Gods law, not freedom to do what you want. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnsons understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government.

Youll see this in some of his speeches. In his speech on Wednesday, he incorporated a G.K. Chesterton quote about the U.S. being based on a creed. And he said the American creed is We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.

But he goes much deeper than that, and really roots that in what he would call a biblical worldview: The core principles of our nation reflect these biblical truths and biblical principles. He has gone on record saying things like, for him, this biblical worldview means that all authority comes from God and that there are distinct realms of God-ordained authority, and that is the family, the church and the government.

Now, all this authority, of course, is under this broader understanding of God-given authority. So its not the right of any parents to decide whats best for their kids; its the right of parents to decide whats best for their kids in alignment with his understanding of biblical law. Same thing with the churchs role: It is to spread Christianity but also to care for the poor. Thats not the governments job.

And then the governments job is to support this understanding of authority and to align the country with Gods laws.

Fossett: Tell me more about David Barton.

Du Mez: Barton is a very popular author in conservative evangelical spaces, and he is the founder of an organization called Wallbuilders. It is an organization that for decades has been promoting the idea that the separation of church and state is a myth. He is a self-trained historian. Some would call him a pseudo-historian. Hes not a historian I can say that, as a historian. Hes an apologist. He uses historical evidence, cherry-picked and sometimes entirely fabricated, to make a case that the separation of church and state is a myth, and it was only meant to protect the church from the intrusion of the state but that the church is supposed to influence the government. Hes the author of a number of very popular books.

Back in the early 1990s, Jerry Falwell, Sr., started promoting his teachings. I noticed that Johnson said he was I think about 25 years ago introduced to David Bartons work, and it has really influenced the way he understands America. And that would be around that same time.

Its really hard to overstate the influence that Barton has had in conservative evangelical spaces. For them, he has really defined America as a Christian nation. What that means is that he kind of takes conservative, white evangelical ideals from our current moment, and says that those were all baked into the Constitution, and that God has elected America to be a special nation, and that the nation will be blessed if we respond in obedience and maintain that, and not if we go astray. It really fuels evangelical politics and the idea that evangelicalism has a special role to play to get the country back on track.

I should also add that Bartons Christian publisher back in 2012 actually pulled one of his books on Thomas Jefferson, because it was just riddled with misinformation. But that did not really affect his popularity. And again, these are not historical facts that were dealing with. It really is propaganda, but its incredibly effective propaganda. If you listen to Christian radio, you will hear them echoed. Its just this pervasive understanding of our nations history that is based on fabrication.

Fossett: Ive heard this idea from reporters and analysts that Mike Johnson is sort of a throwback to an earlier era, mostly the George W. Bush era, when there was this split, and alliance, between the business establishment and the social conservatives, which included evangelicals. Im wondering if Johnson is in fact an evangelical like those earlier ones, or if he represents something new in evangelical politics.

Du Mez: First, I would say that any kind of split between the business conservatives and the social conservatives is not so clear-cut. Its important to realize that one of Johnsons core principles of American conservatism as he reiterated them in his speech on Wednesday is free enterprise. For conservative evangelicals, they dont really see much of a tension between these, whereas the pro-business, old-school conservatives certainly would.

So hes very much rooted in this longer history of the Christian right, and his years working with the Alliance Defending Freedom, an American Christian legal advocacy group, certainly has placed him at the center of things. Thats an incredibly important organization and really a hub of the Christian right for decades now; it would have put him in close contact with the movers and the shakers of the Christian right for a long time. So hes rooted there. And he also has this nice-guy persona. That may seem like a bit of a throwback in the era of Trump.

But he is very much of this political moment in terms of his level of commitment to democracy. He spearheaded the congressional efforts to overturn the election. He is on the record as an election denier. Some have suggested thats why he got the votes to be elected speaker. Hes a Trump supporter and Trump supporter in this regard, specifically: election denial.

Ive noticed also in listening to his speeches that he is explicit about describing this country as a republic and not as a democracy. Inside these conservative Christian nationalist spaces, that is par for the course: that this is a republic, and it is a republic, again, founded in this biblical worldview, and that its not a democratic free-for-all. And so again, this is Christian supremacy.

If you align with this value system, then yes, you have the authority to shape our laws. If you do not, you have no business shaping our laws. He once said: We dont live in a democracy, because democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. Meaning, the country is not just majority rule; its a constitutional republic. And the founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like.

I think thats really important here: His commitment is not to democracy. Hes not committed to majority rule; he seems to be saying hes committed to minority rule, if thats what it takes to ensure that we stay on the Christian foundation that the founders have set up.

Now, he would say that theres really no tension here that, again, if the Constitution represents this kind of biblical worldview that he suggests the founders embraced, then theres going to really be no conflict. But hes on record repeatedly talking about our nation being a republic, and in one case explicitly saying this isnt a democracy, and that also is a very common theme in Christian nationalist circles and in conservative evangelical circles generally.

Fossett: I want to make sure I understand; how do these Christian nationalists see the distinction between a democracy and a republic?

Du Mez: When you press them on it, youll get different answers. What theyre doing is suggesting that the authority of the people in a popular democracy is constrained by whether or not peoples views align with they would say the Constitution, but what they mean is a particular interpretation of the Constitution one that understands the Constitution as being written to defend a particular Christian understanding of this country.

If you want to see what this means well, one of his core principles is human dignity. Well, does that extend to the dignity of gay citizens or trans citizens? No, absolutely not. His understanding of human dignity is rooted in his understanding of biblical law. One of his core principles is the rule of law. But clearly, hes comfortable with election denialism. So all of these core principles freedom, limited government, human dignity are interpreted through a conservative Christian lens and his understanding of what the Bible says ought to happen and how people ought to behave.

One thing Ive spent a lot of time thinking about is whether weve seen an anti-democratic turn among the Christian right or if it was always at the core of the movement. And certainly if you listen to the kind of rhetoric of what we call Christian nationalism today, its been around a long time; they always understood America to be a Christian republic.

But I think what has escalated things in the last decade or so is a growing alarm among conservative white Christians that they no longer have numbers on their side. So looking at the demographic change in this country, the quote-unquote end of white Christian America and theres where you can see a growing willingness to blatantly abandon any commitment to democracy.

Its really during the Obama presidency that you see the escalation of not just rhetoric, but a kind of desperation, urgency, ruthlessness in pursuing this agenda. Religious freedom was at the center of that. And it was, again, not a religious freedom for all Americans; it was religious freedom to ensure that conservative Christians could live according to their values. Because they could see this kind of sea change on LGBTQ rights, they could see the demographic changes, and inside their spaces, they have really played up this language of fear that liberals are out to get you, and you cannot raise your children anymore.

This kind of radicalizing rhetoric has very much taken root through conservative media echo chambers. So I really see Johnson as very much a part of this moment. But he is also somebody who is offering to rise above it and to stand in and to restore the nation to its Christian principles. When he uses the rhetoric of being anointed by God, for this moment, thats really the context.

Fossett: If the long trend was away from democracy, its kind of an unusual convergence of interests that Trump even though he is not a figure from the Christian right is the one who actually ended up calling an election into question. He seems to represent an opportunity for the part of the movement that would like to water down democracy, even if he isnt the preferred candidate of Christian conservatives in a lot of other ways.

Du Mez: Right. For Christian nationalists, this is Gods country, and all authority comes through God. And the only legitimate use of that authority is to further Gods plan for this country. So what that means is any of their political enemies are illegitimate in a sense, and those enemies power is illegitimate, and they need to be stripped of that power. And its really been kind of shocking for me to have observed these spaces in the last handful of years, where conservative evangelicals are much more comfortable in just making that plain and no longer feeling a need to pay lip service to democracy or voting rights or those sorts of things.

The disturbing thing to me is that Im a Christian myself, and I understand how this language of Gods authority really does resonate with conservative Christians across the board.

When push comes to shove, is your allegiance to God or to democracy? I see people talking about democracy as an idol. Democracy is not biblical, youre not going to find democracy in the Bible. At the end of the day, if you are a Christian, do you want to honor God first? Or some secular system? And the answer is kind of clear.

View original post here:
The Christian Nationalist Ideas That Made Mike Johnson - POLITICO - POLITICO