JD Vance, Kamala Harris, and the Benefits of Citizenship

Christian nationalism at the intersection of race, gender, and who has the right to receive from our government

At a recent rally, Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance said the following about current Vice President Kamala Harris, the now (most likely) Democratic candidate for President:

Now, I want to say something about our likely opponent, Kamala Harris, because she said a couple of days ago that I showed no loyalty to the United States, that I have no loyalty to the United States. I don’t know, Kamala. I served in the United States Marine Corps, and I built a business. What the hell have you done other than to collect a government check for the past 20 years?

It was the last sentence that stood out to me. Once we begin to unpack it, we see there are several layers, particularly as it relates to Vance’s Christian nationalist proclivities¹ and those of his intended audience.² Below I want to quickly outline how and why this one sentence likely resonates with a broad swath of Americans who embrace Christian nationalism. Essentially, it activates their commitment to in-group loyalty around preferred views of race, gender, and the benefits of citizenship in a truly Christian nation.

Now, this is not the first time JD Vance made derogatory remarks about political rivals. In 2021 while running for office in Ohio, Vance referred to a collection of Democrats (including Harris) as:

a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too. How does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?

Here we can see some of Vance’s assumptions around an ideal American—married, with children—alongside assumptions around the ideal life that protects people from being miserable—being married, with children. Of course gender also plays a role in that being a “cat lady” is obviously viewed with disdain.

But let’s look again at his remark from earlier this week about Vice President Harris:

What the hell have you done other than to collect a government check for the past 20 years?

There are three primary angles through which this one statement will resonate with fellow Americans who embrace Christian nationalism: race, gender, and who is worthy of the benefits of citizenship and service.

Race

One of the four main cultural elements of Christian nationalism is a commitment to strict ethno-racial boundaries.³ In particular, these ethno-racial boundaries guide “national identity, civic participation, and social belonging. . . [where] A ‘Christian nation’ is generally understood to be one where white, natural-born citizens are held up as the ideal, with everyone else coming after.”⁴

This is why we generally refer to Christian nationalism as white Christian nationalism. As I write in AMERICAN IDOLATRY,

the “white” of white Christian nationalism does not necessarily refer to the skin color or racial identity of an individual American who might embrace it. Rather, it refers to “whiteness,” the values, habits, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that result in the organization of society in such a way that white Americans, as a group, tend to have greater access to power, privilege, wealth, and other benefits bestowed by various social institutions. Therefore, nonwhite Americans can still participate in and perpetuate systems or cultural frameworks, such as white Christian nationalism, that serve to uphold a racialized society in which one group tends to benefit at the expense of other groups.⁵

Catch that middle part—white Americans, as a group, tend to have greater access to benefits bestowed by various social institutions. They are considered ideal representations of a true American and so (obviously) they should receive any and all benefits without question. Those outside the ideal group—not so much.

One benefit bestowed by government: access to employment in various forms in the state apparatus.

Gender

Gender is another cultural element closely intertwined with Christian nationalism. In a Christian nation a traditionalist social hierarchy aligns most closely with God’s design for a flourishing nation. This means that men lead, women support, and marriages are to be between only men and women who are committed to having babies.

In one study I, along with Sam Perry, show that Americans who embrace Christian nationalism are much more likely to hold very gender traditionalist views. They will be more likely to agree with statements like, “Men are better suited emotionally for politics than women,” “It is God’s will that women care for children,” “A preschool child will suffer if his or her mother works,” and “A husband should earn a larger salary than his wife.”

Understanding this element of Christian nationalism makes sense of Vance’s previous comment about “childless cat ladies” ruining the United States—women are to support men, probably not work, and should certainly bear biological children.

By extension, embracing Christian nationalism is linked to a greater likelihood of believing women like Vice President Harris aren’t the best choices for political office. They shouldn’t “collect a government check”.

Benefits of Citizenship

Sociologist Josh Davis has a wonderful paper where he directly links Christian nationalism and opposition to racially-coded government spending (PDF available here). He shows that white Americans who embrace Christian nationalism are more likely to support government spending in the form of border control or crime reduction, things they see as ways to control minority populations. They are much less likely to support government spending in the form of welfare or health care, things they see that might benefit minorities. As Dr. Davis writes,

white Americans who more strongly adhere to Christian nationalist ideology are more likely to oppose spending for policies that are racially-coded to benefit minorities (like welfare) and favor spending for policies that are racially-coded to punish minorities (law enforcement, border patrol).

It is this type of “covert” expression of racism that serves to uphold and perpetuate the current state of affairs that continues to reproduce structural inequality for minorities—whiteness.

So Vance is plucking a particularly resonate note when he denigrates a Black woman who has served in government for twenty years by saying she has merely collected a “government check.” In particular, Vance is raising the specter of minority women receiving something they shouldn’t from the government, something he believes they haven’t earned. As we can see from the above, this aligns with the racialized and gendered aspects of Christian nationalism.

This country was made for white men and their families, and the benefits of citizenship, whether in receiving social services or even enjoying the right to serve in government, are best reserved for them.

Of course the irony is Vance has collected government checks both in the military and as a senator and is running for higher office where he hopes, for the foreseeable future, he will continue to collect a government check.

But in a properly Christian nation, he’s entitled to this. Vice President Harris—not so much.

Odds and Ends

Earlier this month I received some more good news: AMERICAN IDOLATRY won a second book award! This time it was the 2024 Midwest Book Award Winner for Religion/Philosophy.

Christian nationalism continues to be of broad interest given all that’s happening around us. Here are a couple of my recent media hits, in case you’re interested.

Op-ed columnist Yvette Walker for The Kansas City Star asks, “So Josh Hawley advocates Christian nationalism. Does he really know what that means?”

I also just found that Josh Hawley “fired back” after the above op-ed was published, first by declaring he didn’t read it, and then going on to describe his own definition of Christian nationalism, which isn’t Christian nationalism, thereby underscoring the premise of Walker’s column. You can’t make this up!

A recent USA Today article explored how religious supporters of Trump might react after the assassination attempt on his life and drew on my work and some comments I sent along.

To end: I’m finally feeling 100% after having pneumonia in mid-June. Y’all, I’ve never felt pain in my lung like that. I hope you all stay safe and healthy out there the rest of the summer. This fall is going to be. . . well. . . a lot.

Onward, together!

1. Regarding Vance’s Catholic Christian nationalist and integralism stances, see Ruth Braunstein’s and Jack Jenkins’ and Aleja Hertzler-McCain’s fabulous and absolutely must-read columns at Religion News Service.

2. Over half of Republicans (54 percent) are Adherents or Sympathizers of Christian nationalism according to 2023 data from PRRI. Compare that to 23 percent of Independents and 15 percent of Democrats.

3. I wrote elsewhere about how Mike Johnson provides a clear example of these 4 various elements.

4. See AMERICAN IDOLATRY, p. 29

5. See AMERICAN IDOLATRY, p. 36