in which Daryl Hart attempts to float above the fray, February 9th, 2026.

Introduction.

We're an article about Christian nationalism, and it is replete with true observations about this and that,

and yet somehow assumed a stance that sought to remain

well above the fray. Because we live in a time when this is clearly impossible, he was forced

to conclude by saying nothing much in particular. There is no real spot above the fray. A lot of

these true observations were historical in nature, and so I found myself nodding along as I read.

Yes, so-and-so did that. And I quite agree that another

personage did another thing, and the first thing was before the second thing. But what does it mean?

What are we supposed to do about it now? What he was seeking to do was place the rise of Christian

nationalism within its historical setting, thus explaining why it was happening at all and why it was

happening now. Okay, but if you do not want

this reaction to be happening now, what should be happening now? Heart throws a bunch of stuff out there,

which has resulted in my response taking the form of an erudite sprawl. Just stick with me. It should

make sense by the end. A very short section. Heart objects to the

appeal that Christian nationalists are making to our Protestant political heritage. In the course of that,

he says, quote, as sensible as a plea for a return to older playbooks might seem, the favorite era

chosen by Christian nationalists for inspiration, comes across like the awkwardness of the autistic

kid in class, who knows way more than his classmates, but has no sense of how he comes across

in classroom banter. Hart. I will address the Protestant point a bit later on. This is the place

where I want to remind people that Hart says things like this. Quote, Nero did not violate God's

law if he executed Christians

...