God I wanted to like this book.
I suppose it was an enlightening bundle of facts.
It has no point of view of course. Or rather it has an NPR point of view which is essentially the same.
It stops way to soon (like nixon time for the well researched stuff) to be of any use today.
If it could have kept up giving the facts up til a few years ago it would at least have been useful.
It is easy to read it and hear about all the awful things the republicans did and think that the author obviously has a point of view against these things he describes but he really doesn't. Any trumpster out there could read this and think boy those republicans should have gone farther.
It is a Vapid book. ( )

An educational read that leaves me frustrated that many people don't try to educate themselves. "If you say something enough times, to those saying it, it becomes truth" couldn't be truer. ( )

An interesting book to read in this moment when the religious right is ascendent and so openly devoted to corporate interests. ( )

A mind-blowing look at the way corporations and politicians used religion to gain power and money. Recommended reading for everyone. ( )

A highly researched investigation into the origins of American civic religion as currently manifest in its emphasis on the "Judeo-Christian" tradition and particularly the theme of "One Nation Under God."

Kruse writes books with explosive subtitles with provocative theses that are laid out with impressive detail and saturated with primary source quotations. While most attempt to make sense of America's "civic deism" beginning in the 1950s, Kruse goes back to the 1930s with the coordination between certain religious leaders who espoused a "Christian libertarianism" and who found the New Deal to be pagan socialism and the corporate titans of the day who were looking for some good PR and image rehabilitation. The story centered on Fifield and Vereide and their promotions interweaving "Judeo-Christianity," "freedom of association," "free markets," and the like, and all in contrast to the current government which to them was socialist, pagan, and threatening these values.

By the 1950s they found their man in Eisenhower, who very much was about developing a more religious character to the nation. Kruse lays out exactly how Eisenhower promoted a "civic deism," encouraging religious belief and participation, "whatever it was." Yes, it was critiqued for its hollowness and vacuousness, but the appeal worked. All the forces behind the "Christian libertarianism" of the 30s and 40s supported Eisenhower, and Eisenhower responded with all kinds of appeals for civic religion: America became "one nation under God," in contrast to the godless Communists; Eisenhower promoted the National Prayer Breakfast; all kinds of pageantry was on display, often funded by corporate titans behind the scenes, espousing the strength of America as its faith, with few being confused about the nature of that faith: somewhat Jewish, but very much Christian. The message was sent, and heard loud and clear: to be a good American meant to have a faith in God, particularly in Christianity. Religious participation increased to a heretofore unseen level in America, and one which would never be eclipsed.

And yet Eisenhower was a bit of a "poison pill" for the "Christian libertarians," because he had no interest in dismantling the New Deal state. Instead, the very things the "Christian libertarians" were trying to paint as pagan and socialist, and their skepticism of the government, was instead "baptized" and made part of this "Christian nation" and its ideology. Whereas promoting this civic deistic religion was a "right wing" thing to do in the 30s and 40s, it lost its partisan association in the 50s and became a bipartisan project. Kruse details how "under God" was added to the pledge at this time and the establishment of "In God We Trust" as the national motto.

Kruse then describes the limits of this civic religion as it would become manifest in the 50s and 60s. Generic appeals to being under God were one thing. Gideons pushing the KJV on schoolchildren was perfectly fine to many, but deeply offensive to Jewish people, Catholics, and a few other groups. The imposition of a particular prayer in the state of New York led to the beginning of questioning about prayer and devotional time in schools; it would soon be entirely dismantled. Kruse does well at documenting, in detail, the response to these actions, especially the advancement of a school prayer amendment to the Constitution, and how the fault line developed between the institutional heads who generally spoke for Christian denominations and the "common man" and the "common preacher" who did not maintain the same fears or concerns.

Kruse then compares and contrasts the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations, demonstrating how the latter consciously attempted to turn back the clock, as if 1960-1968 did not exist, with Billy Graham prominent in his activities, a religious service in the East Wing of the White House, and a very deliberate appeal to the conservative religious voter. But Kruse demonstrates well that it was no longer unifying the nation, but a source of division. Kruse ends his main thesis in this period before 1972, but in an epilogue brings the story to the Obama years: the rise of Reagan, the faith talk of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, and all of it coming back to the development and advancement of the civil deistic religion over this period from 1935 to 1955.

There is a lot here worthy of consideration. Kruse does well at showing that while "Christian libertarianism" was one way of looking at Jesus, it was by no means the only one; FDR had a Christian faith, and associated his New Deal work with that faith. One could imagine an America in which the social safety net was understood in Christian terms and lauded and valued as such. It is worth noting that Fifield may have been politically right-wing but theologically was liberal. He rejected those aspects of the Gospel story that did not fit his libertarian and free market conceptions. While today those who are religiously liberal tend to do the opposite, and emphasize Jesus' concern for the oppressed, it's a good reminder that once one is untethered from the text one can go in a host of directions and in the end distort what God has made known in Jesus.

Kruse provides great benefit in providing an often unacknowledged dimension in the explosion of religiosity in the postwar period. No doubt there would have still been a resurgence in faith even if there were not this sustained "marketing" of civic deism by the Eisenhower administration; nevertheless, what Eisenhower wrought has implications which last until today. The message, again, was that a good American goes to church. The driver was not faith but patriotism and citizenship. Throughout faith was secondary to the American project, and it has ever been thus since. To this day America has broad majorities who have faith in God; and yet, when probed, it is evident that faith is not deeply in what God has done in Jesus. It barely knows the substance of what the Bible teaches, but is very strong on the USA. It has advanced the agenda of the USA in whatever the USA has done, especially the agenda favored by conservatives. It does not handle critique of American policy or agendas well. And it certainly has not weathered the demographic battles of recent days well: American Evangelicalism today is not known as much for embodying Jesus as it is the GOP agenda, and has reached its apotheosis with the current executive, who in his life embodies almost everything which Jesus would be against. Such is almost the inevitable conclusion when conservative ideological nationalism is the driver, and faith is in the backseat.

No argument: some who came to the pews because they wanted to be good Americans learned of the Christ, repented, and followed Him faithfully. Many of their children would become immersed in Christianity and would practice it. It wasn't a terrible move. But it benefited the state, and a particular political ideology, more than it benefited the Kingdom of God in Christ, and the latter has suffered because of it.

Highly recommended for consideration. ( )