Give to help Chris continue to make Truce A lot of evangelicals are now single-issue voters, and that issue is abortion. But that was not always the case. In fact, for a great deal of American history, abortion was largely seen as a Catholic issue. There are, of course, exceptions. But most evangelicals and Protestants were divided on the subject, even favoring abortion when it came to preserving the health of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest. On this episode, Chris interviews historian and author Daniel K. Williams about the history of the abortion debate in the United States. A major turning point was the availability of elective or "on-demand" abortions in places like New York. As evangelicals grew more upset with the moral decline of the country, they lumped abortion together with gay and lesbian rights fights, the proliferation of pornography, and decided that it needed to stop. Plus, big money through New Right PACs entered the field, and politicians were soon chosen on their allegiance to pro-life legislation. Sources: Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade by Daniel K Williams Reaganland by Rick Perlstein The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald Romper Room on YouTube CBS Sunday Morning excellent story on Sherri Chessen Article on thalidomide Oyez.org for the Supreme Court cases Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley American Experience article on Comstock Laws New York Times video on the Population Bomb (good stuff!) The US Constitution Frances Shaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America by Barry Hankins Discussion Questions: Why was abortion considered a Catholic issue in the mid-1900s? How did the Griswold case impact the Roe case? How did changing sexual mores contribute to the pro-life movement? How did the 1970 opening of New York to elective abortions impact public opinion? What is "abortion on demand"? How did Reagan's endorsement of the HLA shift Republican politics? Was Reagan successful in helping the pro-life movement, or was he merely throwing them a bone to get votes? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue making Truce In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United States went years without using the death penalty. Not a single person was killed by injection, firing squad, hanging, or electric chair. But by the late 90s, we were killing around 100 convicted criminals per year. What happened? In 1972, the Supreme Court handed down its decision Furman v. Georgia, which negated state capital punishment laws across the country. This meant that some of the worst criminals in the country were suddenly given new sentences. And Americans... lost their minds. Within just a few years, new laws were written, and the Court decided to approve many of them. The death penalty long had a prejudiced bent, disproportionately killing people of color. The NAACP worked hard to end the practice, but those efforts were soon undone as American opinions toward the death penalty abruptly changed. My special guest for this episode is Maurice Chammah, author of Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty Sources: Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty by Maurice Chammah The Death Penalty: An American History by Stuart Banner (an excellent source!) Reaganland by Rick Perlstein The Hijacking of American Flight 119: How D.B. Cooper Inspired a Hijacking Craze and the FBI's Battle to Stop It. by John Wigger Listen, America! by Jerry Falwell Romans 13 (and 1 for a fact check) The US Constitution September 26, 1973 (page 94 of 98). (1973, Sep 26). The Ottawa Citizen (1954-1973) Retrieved from https://wsl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/september-26-1973-page-94-98/docview/2338669544/se-2 Oyez.org coverage of Furman v. Georgia Oyez.org coverage of Gregg v. Georgia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4G_O_Z55fQ Pew Research data on crime Discussion Questions: What are your thoughts on the death penalty? Why was the Furman case so important? What did it decide? Should juries have guidelines when considering a death penalty case? Why is the death penalty so popular among evangelicals? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue to make Truce Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could deny tax-exempt status to private religious schools that practiced racially discriminatory policies. Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian institution, prohibited interracial dating and marriage among its students based on its religious beliefs. In 1970, the IRS revised its policy to deny tax-exempt status to private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies, prompting Bob Jones University to file suit after losing its exemption. The university argued that the IRS's actions violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. The central question for the Court was whether the government's interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education outweighed the burden on religious freedom imposed by the denial of tax-exempt status. The case thus pitted two core constitutional principles against each other: religious liberty and the government's interest in promoting equality. In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s position. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the majority, stated that tax-exempt status is a form of government subsidy and that organizations seeking this benefit must serve a public interest. The Court held that eliminating racial discrimination in education was a "fundamental, overriding interest" that justified the burden on the university’s religious practices. It emphasized that the government is not required to subsidize discriminatory behavior, even when it is religiously motivated. The ruling had significant implications. It clarified that tax-exempt status is conditional upon compliance with fundamental public policy, including civil rights laws. The decision reinforced the principle that religious freedom, while protected, does not allow institutions to violate core public values when receiving government benefits. This case remains a key precedent in balancing religious liberty with broader societal interests in equality and nondiscrimination. Sources: The Story of Bob Jones University v. United States: Race, Religion, and Congress's Extraordinary Acquiescence by Olati Johnson. Paper Number 10-229. God's Own Party by Daniel K Williams https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/574/#tab-opinion-1955051 1980s Republican Party Platform In Search of Another Country by Joseph Crespino McNamar's testimony, pp.225, Hearing Before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, February 1, 1982. (Thanks to the Senate Historian's Office) “The Bob Jones Decision: A Dangerous Precedent” by Kenneth S. Kantzer. September 2, 1983, issue of Christianity Today. Randall Balmer article for Politico that narrows the blame for the bonding of evangelicals to the GOP to race Before the Storm by Rick Perlstein Majority opinion in the Bob Jones case New York Times article in which Bob Jones assails the Supreme Court (page A23), May 25, 1983 “Bob Jones, in Sermon, Assails Supreme Court” Discussion Questions: Why is the tax exemption so important to this story? Why is it important to churches and religious institutions? How would revoking the tax exemption change giving to those institutions? Some evangelicals (like CT) denounced the racism of BJU, but still thought the IRS overstepped its bounds. What do you think? Which institutions in the US should be tax-exempt? Which shouldn't? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce! Do you love Truce? I love making Truce! Together, we can continue this important show. Would you help Chris reach his goal of $40,000? You can send a check to: PO Box 3434 Jackson, WY 83001 Or give through Patreon, Paypal, Venmo, or a credit card on the website! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue to make Truce George Wallace was, as historian Dan Carter put it, "the most influential loser in American history". He was the governor of Alabama and lost multiple bids for president of the United States. In the process, he spread his racist views throughout the country. Wallace is a vitally important figure in American history. His success in pulling in votes from racists attracted the attention of establishment politicians. He showed men like Richard Nixon that there was a significant voting bloc out there willing to vote based just on their fears about race. In this episode, Chris speaks with historian and author Dan T. Carter about his book The Politics of Rage. Wallace Bio (AI Generated) George Corley Wallace Jr., born on August 25, 1919, in Clio, Alabama, rose to prominence as a controversial figure in American politics. A graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law in 1942, he served in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. After the war, Wallace embarked on a political career, serving in the Alabama House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 and as a circuit court judge until 1959. His early political endeavors were marked by a moderate stance on racial issues. However, his political trajectory shifted dramatically in the early 1960s. In 1962, Wallace was elected governor of Alabama, campaigning on a platform of staunch segregationism. His infamous declaration, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," during his inaugural address in 1963, epitomized his commitment to maintaining racial segregation. That same year, he attempted to block the enrollment of African American students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, at the University of Alabama, an event that became known as the "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door." This act of defiance against federal desegregation efforts brought national attention to Wallace and solidified his reputation as a symbol of resistance to civil rights advancements. Wallace's political influence extended beyond state politics. In 1968, he ran for president as the candidate of the American Independent Party, advocating for states' rights and appealing to disaffected white voters. He carried five Southern states and secured 13.5% of the national vote, demonstrating significant support for his segregationist views on a national scale. Despite his presidential aspirations, Wallace's influence remained strongest in Alabama, where he served multiple non-consecutive terms as governor. A pivotal moment in Wallace's life occurred in 1972 during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. While campaigning in Laurel, Maryland, he was shot by Arthur Bremer, leaving him permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Despite this setback, Wallace returned to Alabama politics, winning the gubernatorial election in 1974. His later years in office were characterized by a shift in his political ideology, as he sought to distance himself from his earlier segregationist positions. Sources: The Politics of Rage by Dan T. Carter National Park Service article about the 16th Street Baptist Church Curtis LeMary's announcement speech History.com article about George Wallace being shot Nixon Library audio tapes collection Nixon talking about Wallace on tape Rolling Stone magazine, October 24, 1974, “The Ministry of George Wallace” by Joe Klein. Questions: Had you heard of George Wallace before? Why was Wallace important? How did Wallace's moderate successes change politics in his era? One prominent person speaking negatively about another race can significantly impact public opinion. How could his bloviating give permission to white people in the north to be openly racist? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce We talk about racism in the United States like it only happens in the South. But the nasty truth is that the North is also guilty of racist behavior. This is evident in the way that we behaved when schools were integrated by bus. Brown v. Board of Education called for public schools to integrate. However, it took decades for many public schools to carry out this directive. It wasn't until the 1970s that the Boston schools were forced to integrate. But how? Schools are frequently attended by children who live in a given school district. But the North had divided itself up by race, forcing black people to live only in certain areas of a city. Black children were not going to white public schools because they simply didn't live in white neighborhoods. This was de facto segregation at work. So when schools were called to integrate, they had to come up with a plan. They would bus students between schools, thus integrating them. But there were problems. In Boston, they started this program by cross-populating poor schools with poor schools. So the quality of education didn't go up. Violence broke out across the city as parents and children alike struggled to welcome people who looked different than them. In this episode, I'm joined by Dr. Zebulon Miletsky, Associate Professor, Africana Studies and History at Stony Brook University. Sources: Before Busing: A History of Boston's Long Black Freedom Struggle by Dr. Zebulon Miletsky Boston Against Busing by Ronald P Formisano Boston Globe (1960-); Sep 26, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Boston Globe pg. 1 and 32 Nixon's radio address about integration The Busing Battleground PBS documentary (worth a watch!) GBH's coverage of busing American Archive video collection on busing Discussion Questions: Integration was going to be difficult. How should it have been handled? Would you send your kids to a potentially unsafe school? What if it meant helping to integrate it? Was the uproar over integrated busing about more than just race? Why is it that black parents sometimes didn't want their kids going to formerly white schools? How do people like Ms. Hicks build a political career on a single issue? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make the Truce Podcast In 2 Samuel 24 David is told that he must buy a certain piece of land in an act of repentance for his sins. The man who owns the land says that he'd like to give David the land and the animals to sacrifice. But David turns him down, insisting that he won't give to God something that cost him nothing. This story demonstrates something that may be missing from the Christian world today. Sacrifice should cost us something. Sacrifice should be a sacrifice. In the 1970s, school districts in the North and South were told that they had to integrate schools. This move was opposed by people of all sorts, including some Christians who worried that if segregation academies lost their tax-exempt status then Christian schools would too. This is the sad story of how some evangelicals with large followings came to oppose school integration. Our special guest is Daniel K. Williams, author of the excellent book God's Own Party. I also feature a clip from Angie Maxwell author of The Long Southern Strategy. Sources In Search of Another Country by Joseph Crespino Boston Against Busing by Ronald Formisano Reaganland by Rick Perlstein The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald 2 Samuel 24 Article on NPR God's Own Party by Daniel K. Williams Discussion Questions Sacrifice requires sacrifice. What are your thoughts on that statement? Do you believe in school integration? How should it have happened in the 1970s? Would you have wanted your kids to be bused to a different town if it meant a more multicultural experience? Why did some evangelicals with large followings think they needed to tie themselves to the GOP? How do we reconcile with the history of religious segregation academies? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue Truce. Update: I would like to apologize for an error I made in the original version of this story. I stated that tuition payments to private schools are tax-exempt on the federal level. They are not. They sometimes are on the state level. The episode has been edited to reflect the correct information. When Brown v. Board of Education passed the Supreme Court in 1954, segregationists stepped up their efforts to keep black children out of their schools. If they couldn't use public schools, they'd establish their own private academies. In the 60's the Supreme Court struck down mandatory Bible reading and prayer in schools, causing some Christians to establish private Christian schools. This movement had unfortunate timing in that it lined up with the segregation academy movement. To our shame, many Protestant schools were segregation academies. But this story isn't so easy. In this episode and the next, we'll explore the strange twists and turns of the private school movements of the 1960s and 70s. They illustrate just how tangled evangelicals are with schools, taxes, and racism. Sources: In Search of Another Country by Joseph Crespino Reaganland by Rick Perlstein The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald Article on Jeffersonian Ideology The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro (especially books 1 and 2) Oyez.org article about the McCullum Case Interview with Austin Steelman, professor at Clemson University Oyez.org article about the Plessy case Oyez.org article about Brown v. Board Department of Labor article about the 1964 Civil Rights Act Oyez.org article about the Green case Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue making Truce I made these episodes a few years ago, but since it is the 100th anniversary of the Scopes "Monkey" trial, I thought we should revisit them! Tennessee was the first state in the United States to crack down hard on the teaching of evolution in public schools. Others had dabbled, but Tennessee went all the way. The ACLU wanted to challenge the validity of the case in the courts. In order to do that they needed an educator to teach it, get busted, and be brought to trial. At the same time, the town of Dayton, TN, needed a boost. After the biggest employer closed down, it faced serious economic trouble. What if the men of Dayon could manufacture a court case to draw the attention of the nation? They found a young teacher named John Scopes and convinced him to participate in their scheme. They booked Scopes, even though he probably never taught evolution. The ACLU had its case. Soon, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow hopped on board, and it went from a publicity stunt to something for the history books. This is the event that some historians (wrongly) point to as the death of Christian fundamentalism in the United States until it was revived by the Moral Majority. One man fighting for the biblical idea of creation and another for godless atheism. But the real history is far more complex. Edward Larson, professor at Pepperdine University, joins us to discuss the trial and his Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Summer for the Gods”. Helpful Sources: “Summer for the Gods” by Edward Larson Rhea County Heritage and Scopes Trial Museum Worth a visit! Court Transcript of the Scopes Trial (easy to find online) “A Godly Hero” by Michael Kazin Discussion Questions: What events led to the Scopes trial? Why did the ACLU feel they had to try the Tennessee Law? Who should decide what is taught in schools? Teachers? Parents? Lawmakers? Or some combination? What were William Jennings Bryan’s motives for joining the prosecution? What were Clarence Darrow’s motives for joining the defense? Should prayer be allowed before a trial about religion? Should Christians get involved in what is taught in schools? To what degree? Dayton, Tennessee’s plan to boost tourism William Jennings Bryan’s crusade against Darwin Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make the Truce Podcast Hal Lindsey published The Late Great Planet Earth in 1970. It was a HUGE hit, selling over 35 million copies by 1999. It was also produced into a film narrated by Orson Welles. That film was shown in movie theaters and church basements and made a splash. The movie is a repackaging of premillennial dispensationalism, which I covered last season. It presents a particular vision of end-times theology, which wrongly predicted that the world would end around 1988. We're going to discuss the book and movie because they have had a real impact on the way that some evangelicals see the world. I'm joined on this episode by Ray McDaniel, pastor of First Baptist Church in Jackson, WY, and Melvin Benson of the Cinematic Doctrine podcast. Chris on the Cinematic Doctrine Podcast Hamilton Ernest Scared Stupid Ernest Saves Christmas Gremlins Sources: National Endowment for the Humanities article The Late Great Planet Earth book and movie Cortney Basham's Master's Thesis The Day of the Dolphin trailer Imdb.com Questions: Have you ever seen The Late Great Planet Earth? What did you think of it? The book and movie echo the Bible in that a false prophet can be identified when their prophecies don't come true. Hal Lindsey's predictions have been wrong for decades. Does that make him a false prophet? What impact do books and movies like this have on the Christian culture? If a book or movie like this does some good (like bringing some people to Christ), but also makes false prophesies, is it still valuable? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support the work of the Truce podcast at www.trucepodcast.com/donate In the last episode, Chris and his brother Nick started their journey along the Camino del Norte, part of the Camino de Santiago in northern Spain. Now, join Chris as he looks at some of the forces on pilgrims hiking the trail. From the Twelve Tribes religious group and their Yellow Deli restaurants to a spiritual guru in Guemes, people are trying to leverage hikers. Despite this being a Catholic pilgrimage, most of the people we've met on three hikes have not been people of faith. Why is that? In this bonus episode, Chris hopes to restore your faith in humanity and encourage you to listen to those around you. Jesus died for our sins, but if we're not out there telling people, how will they know? Get out there and be the Church! Sources: The Twelve Tribe's document on the Confederate South Interesting article about the Yellow Deli Guemes albergue's official website about Ernesto Discussion Questions: Why are there so many forces trying to reach pilgrims? Are you open to reaching spiritual pilgrims around you? If you were on the hike, what would you say to people who think all religions are the same? What are some simple graces that you've seen in your life? How can you be the Church to your community? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give a little help Chris make Truce On this bonus episode, Chris takes you along with him as he hiked 250 miles on an old Catholic pilgrimage route called the Camino de Santiago. The Camino has a complex history and is actually comprised of more than one trail. The Norte, the oldest (if you take the Primativo), is along the northern coast, the Frances runs east-west through the middle, and the Portuguese routes are north-south from Lisbon to Santiago. You can walk from Turkey following a Camino, or from France. There are webs of them all across Europe. Many lead to the bustling city of Santiago de Compostela in the west of Spain. With lots of tourist traffic, ice cream shops, restaurants, and lodging that caters to pilgrims. The trails converge on a large square and a giant cathedral. This cathedral, started in 1078, as legend has it, is the resting place for the bones of Saint James, one of Jesus' apostles. If you approach the altar, you'll find a door to the right down a set of stairs. Inside, you can see a silver box containing the relics. Pilgrims have travelled there for over a thousand years. Some for religious purposes, others as criminals who were forced to walk as part of their sentence, a journey that could take years, and claimed the lives of many. Others hiked to absolve their sins, something Pope Calixtus II declared could happen if they did it in a year where St. James' Day fell on a Sunday. In the 12th and 13th centuries, as many as a quarter of a million pilgrims made one of these journeys. Today, these routes are experiencing a renaissance. As hundreds of thousands more walk for their own reasons. To the chagrin of seasoned hikers who think the routes are too crowded. In this two-part series, you'll hear Chris and his brother Nick as they talk with people about the Camino, as they share Jesus with people, and find their way on this ancient route. Any packing list is going to be incomplete, because everyone likes their own things! But you REALLY should consider keeping it light. You will have more fun and fewer injuries if your pack stays light. Rain poncho 2 x hiking shirts 1 x hiking pants 1 x hiking shorts mini toiletries shoes (already broken in) hiking poles a broad-brimmed hat app with maps and GPS (we like Camino Ways) sun glasses journal and pens plastic bags for dry stuff light jacket 2 x hiking socks (I like the dual-layered kind) a small bottle of sunscreen cash (at least 3--400 euros) because not all albergues take cards medicines water bottles a tennis ball (to massage your tired feet!) and more! Sources: https://caminoways.com/the-history-of-the-camino-de-santiago Whaling museum Discussion Questions: What leads people to hike a long trail? Would you ever hike a pilgrimage route? Why do so many people have difficulty with the Christian Church that they would go on a pilgrimage route without being religious? How do you interact with strangers? Are you ever in places where you can meet them? Could you share the gospel with a stranger if you had the opportunity? What to pack for the Camino de Santiago Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce. A little goes a long way! In November of 1965, a young lawyer published a book called Unsafe at Any Speed about the dangers of driving a Chevy Corvair. The car could become unstable and possibly flip if driven in poor conditions or without proper training. The lawyer? Ralph Nader. It took a while for the book to find its audience, but soon it was on bookshelves across the US and made a celebrity our of Nader. Soon he and his "Nader's Raiders" were on a spree, advocating for consumer safety. This movement was met with skepticism and fear in the industrial community. Who did this guy think he was? Americans didn't need "big government" looking over their shoulders! Well, that's what big corporate leaders thought. They set out to dismantle the consumer safety movement and to convince conservative religious people that safety was actually creeping government interference. My special guest for this episode is Rick Perlstein, author of The Invisible Bridge and Reaganland. Sources: Chevy Corvair ad Reaganland by Rick Perlstein Road and Track article about the Corvair Washington Post article about the UAW strike One Nation Under God by Kevin Kruse Article with fun pictures from the Ad Council campaigns Christian Reconstruction by Michael McVicar Reagan's "I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help" Listen, America! by Jerry Falwell p73, paperback, Bantam edition, August 1980 Discussion Questions: What do you think about the government involvement in the Chevy Corvair? How has product safety impacted your life? Is the government small, big, or somewhere in between? Do you remember Ralph Nader? Is it okay for big business to use advertising to change American minds about the government and economics? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce Gerald Ford's administration was in trouble. The country was experiencing stagflation, where prices were going up but employment was going down. What could he do? He announced his desire to lower taxes. This proposal was met with opposition by... Ronald Reagan. Reagan was worried that these cuts would increase the national debt. Then, just a few years later, Reagan changed his mind. Two major things happened. One was the invention of supply-side economics (also called trickle-down economics) and the other was the tax revolt of the 1970s. Supply-side economics was invented by an economist named Arthur Laffer. His ideas were based on an old concept but with a new twist. Laffer and his friends published their ideas in The Wall Street Journal and shared them with people like Dick Cheney. Author and historian Rick Perlstein joins us for this episode. His books are The Invisible Bridge and Reaganland. Sources: The Invisible Bridge and Reaganland by Rick Perlstein NPR story about Laffer's napkin legend International Inequalities Institute study of supply-side economics Investopedia article comparing inflation rates Reagan's "Restore America" speech Ford Library's documents about Reagan's inaccuracies in his speech Federal Reserve article about inflation. Here's another History of COVID stimulus payments Investopedia article on Keynes Zombie Economics by John Quiggin Historical tax bracket rates Proposition 13 article Discussion Questions: What is supply-side economics? How does it compare to Keynes' ideas? Does the Bible specify a tax policy? Where did you first hear about trickle-down economics? Who benefits from it the most? Rick Perlstein, former President George HW Bush, John Quiggin, and many others say that supply-side economics is bogus. What do you think? Why might supply-side economics appeal to some evangelicals? To people of the 1970s? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue making Truce A small group of men calling themselves The New Right had a major role to play in bonding some evangelicals to the Republican Party. Yet many Christians don't know who these guys were or how they used money and influence to accomplish their goal. Let's meet the fellas. One was named Paul Weyrich. Weyrich's contribution to the movement is that he knew how to organize people, a skill he learned from watching liberal protests. He was a former radio newsman from Wisconsin, member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church when he thought the Roman Catholic Church became too liberal. He saw how liberals were organizing in the US and decided to do something similar with conservatives. The goal was to bring together politicians, activists, money, and the press to have a unified front. Organizational skills were his secret weapon. Howard Phillips was a follower of RJ Rushdoony's Christian Reconstruction plan. He gutted the Office of Economic Opportunity for Richard Nixon and then founded a think tank called The Conservative Caucus. He said "we organize discontent" meaning that the New Right used emotional issues to rile up their base. Then there was Richard Viguerie. He was the king of bulk mail. The New Right used his services to advocate for their kind of politicians, for Anita Bryant, and to raise money. His company RAVCO was investigated for fraud. These men and more were vital in bringing some evangelicals into the Republican Party. Our guest today is Rick Perlstein, author of amazing history books like Reaganland and The Invisible Bridge. Sources: Reaganland and The Invisible Bridge by Rick Perlstein Mobilizing the Moral Majority: Paul Weyrich and the Creation of a Conservative Coalition, 1968-1988 by Tyler J. Poff pages 22-23 The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald Weyrich, Memorandum, April 16, 1973, Paul M. Weyrich Scrapbooks. But accessed through Mobilizing the Moral Majority: Paul Weyrich and the Creation of a Conservative Coalition, 1968-1988 by Tyler J. Poff page 18 Christian Reconstruction: RJ Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism - by Michael McVicar Memo from Gerald Ford Library The 1974 Campaign Finance Reform Act James Robison at the Religious Roundtable Discussion Questions: What was meant by "we organize discontent"? Is this a statement Jesus would have made? Have you ever heard of the New Right guys before? Google Paul Weyrich and watch videos of him talking. How does he use language to stir fear in others? Are there issues that politicians can use to push your buttons? What are they? Why? Why are some evangelicals driven by these push button issues? How was the New Right able to use issues of sex to steer some evangelicals? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help make Truce more sustainable The Compelled podcast is hosted by my friend Paul Hastings. It's a testimony show that walks listeners through people's lives so that we can hear how God continues to set people free through faith in Jesus. This episode is part of an ad-swap that Chris did with Paul to get the word out about Truce, but it also serves as a reminder to us that God is still working in the lives of His people. You can learn more about the Compelled podcast at https://compelledpodcast.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue to make Truce Milton Friedman is one of the most important economists of the last hundred years. His ideas were quoted by many evangelical writers in the 1970s and 80s, despite his not being a Christian and few of his ideas being in the Bible. Figures like Jerry Falwell loved the guy. Ronald Reagan adopted many of his ideas, though they disagreed on things like the increasing national debt. Friedman played a major role in the popularization of the school voucher concept. Essentially, some people want to allow parents to have a say in which school their children attend. If they want to take the children to a private school, they believe that the government should give them a certain amount of money that would have gone to the public school and give it to the private one. Those who disagree say that this would defund already underfunded schools. Friedman also believed that teachers should not necessarily be certified and that the free market would weed out the bad ones. Stanford professor Jennifer Burns (author of Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative) returns to help Chris explore this complicated subject. Sources: Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative by Jennifer Burns Reaganland by Rick Perlstein Free to Choose A helpful Britannica article on Friedman Listen, America! by Jerry Falwell. Paperback, August 1980 reprint version Bantam edition Divided We Stand by Marjorie Spruill Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman Discussion Questions: Had you heard of Friedman before this episode? What are school vouchers? How could school vouchers be seen by some as a tool of segregation? What would it mean if parents had to keep track of every teacher their children learned under? How are schools currently funded in the US? Why does that matter? How are some schools wealthy while others are poor? What should be the role of wealthy people when it comes to education? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce Milton Friedman may be the most famous American economist. His research and theories have profoundly shaped the modern American economy. But few of us can clearly articulate what he taught and what it means for our times. Friedman's career was defined by the aftermath of the Great Depression. He worked in the government administering the New Deal, but never really agreed with it. He joined the faculty at the University of Chicago and built a department around him that taught a version of free-market economics known as monetarism. Essentially, monetarism is the idea that inflation is a product of how much money is in circulation. Friedman did not like the Federal Reserve or the gold standard, instead, advocating for a standard 4% increase in the money supply every year that would not be shifted. By setting a rule, he hoped to do away with an entire governmental department. Friedman and his co-authors ventured into areas that other economists thought, perhaps, unwise. They used economics to explain things like marriage and school choice. He was also a proponent of school vouchers. Stanford professor Jennifer Burns joins Chris today to explore the many facets of Milton Friedman. This is the first of two parts. Sources: Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative by Jennifer Burns The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Part to Power by Robert Caro https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laissez-faire “Keynesian Economics Theory: Definition and How It's Used” Investopedia article https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/one-hundred-years-of-price-change-the-consumer-price-index-and-the-american-inflation-experience.htm Reaganland by Rick Perlstein Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman Milton Friedman: A Concise Guide to the Ideas and Influence of the Free-Market Economist by Eamonn Butler Friedman on the Donahue show in 1979 Discussion Questions: Had you heard of Friedman before this episode? If so, what did you know about him? What does "laissez-faire" mean in economic terms? Does it line up with the Bible in any direct way? Why do you think so many conservative Christians lean toward laissez-faire? How bad was the Great Depression? If you had worked for the government during the Depression, what would you have advocated? Why are some people against the New Deal? What did the New Deal mean to starving people during the Depression? How does a fear of communism play into anti-New Deal sentiment? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce William F. Buckley Jr. helped change the face of conservatism in the US because he gave it intellectual backing. But that doesn't mean that his ideas were accepted completely. He had several nemesis within his own movement that tried to derail him. One opponent was the John Birch Society. Buckley's whole modus operandi was to make conservatism respectable. But Robert Welch and other members of the JBS were using their movement to spread bogus conspiracy theories. They were actively discrediting the movement that Buckley tried to build. So Buckley, National Review, and Barry Goldwater tried to bring it down. Another enemy was Ayn Rand. Buckley and Rand were libertarians, but they disagreed on something important: religion. Rand was an ardent atheist, while Buckley believed Christianity and conservatism were inseparable. When Buckley started Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) he discovered that his young followers were incorporating many other ideas into their ideology. Rand's writings were impacting the students. So Buckley had to work to expel those ideas from YAF. Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard was another enemy. Rothbard actively encouraged his followers to split YAF and leave the organization. Extremism leads to extremism. Extremism lends itself to ideological purity, which means that groups like YAF were destined to split and split and split again. Buckley has his work cut out for him. Sources Buckley: William F Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism by Carl T. Bogus. The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism by David Farber Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus by Rick Perlstein God and Man at Yale by William F. Buckley Jr Heather Cox Richardson's YouTube series on the history of the GOP Hoover Institution article on the impact of Buckley and Firing Line Reaganland by Rick Perlstein The Incomparable Mr. Buckley documentary The Sharon Statement Discussion Questions: Extremism leads to extremism. Do you agree? The desire to keep a movement ideologically pure is not unique to Buckley. Discuss that desire. When is it important and when does it lead to issues? Rand and Buckley disagreed on the role of religion. Why did that put them at odds? Why would Murray Rothbard want to split YAF? Why are youth movements so important to politics? To religion? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue the Truce Podcast. Senator Robert Taft couldn't get the nomination. He tried to be the GOP's nominee for president three different times but could not get elected. Conservative Republicans' failure to get nominated by their own party was a source of much frustration. What could they do? Concerns of conspiracy spread through people like Phyllis Schlafly whose book A Choice Not an Echo claimed that "elites" were steering the party. It was into this world that a bright young man with an untraceable accent found his appeal. William F. Buckley Jr. was born into a wealthy family that was deeply Catholic and driven by concern over the New Deal. They were libertarians and wanted a small government. Buckley lived a childhood of privilege, riding horses, playing piano, and mostly private education. His first book, God and Man at Yale, was a sharp critique of his alma mater, stating that they should have done a better job promoting laissez-faire economics and religion. The book was a smash hit, in part, because Yale fought its charges in the press. Buckley followed it with a rousing defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy's tactics in the early 1950s, but the book was published just as the senator was revealed to be the demagogue he was. So Buckley decided to shift his effort to creating a journal of opinion that would appeal to conservatives. National Review became the "it" publication for conservatism in the US, and the most successful journal of opinion in the country. Its greatest impact was giving conservatism an intellectual voice in an era when the "liberal consensus" dominated. Buckley then went on to start in the PBS television show Firing Line, a funny thing for a libertarian because the show was sponsored, in part, through government funding. Buckley succeeded in giving conservatism an intellectual voice. In the process, he won his greatest victory: convincing Ronald Reagan to become a conservative. Sources Buckley: William F Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism by Cart T. Bogus. The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism by David Farber Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYgv7ur8ipg&t=3018s Firing Line Episode 113, September 3 1968 Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus by Rick Perlstein God and Man at Yale by William F. Buckley Jr Heather Cox Richardson's YouTube series on the history of the GOP National Review. 1st edition, November 19, 1955. Page 6 (gives a helpful breakdown of what the magazine stands for) Hoover Institution article on the impact of Buckley and Firing Line Reaganland by Rick Perlstein The Incomparable Mr. Buckley documentary Discussion Questions Do you have any personal connection with Buckley? Did you see his shows or read his writings? Why did conservatism need an intellectual voice? How did conservatism change between Bob Taft and Buckley? Buckley believed in a limited government, one that incorporated Christianity. Would you like his version of the American government? Buckley claimed that he wasn't racist, but believed that black people were incapable of governing themselves. That they should earn the right to vote in the South. Is this racism? National Review welcomed segregationists to write in the journal. Would you read a publication like this? Buckley advocated for a smaller government but also stared in a TV show on public television. Does this strike you as hypocrisy? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices