Interview by Oliver Croft
Mar 10, 2025
Dr. Nicholas Pruitt is a historian specialising in 20th-century American religion and politics. His research focuses on the intersection of religious communities with social and political developments in the United States, with particular emphasis on Christian nationalism and religious pluralism. Previously, he has examined how religious groups responded to and shaped American political discourse during the Cold War era. His first book explored mainline Protestant involvement in American political and social developments, and his current research investigates Christian nationalism in the 1950s, examining how anti-communist rhetoric intersected with religious conceptions of American identity. Dr. Pruitt’s work illuminates the historical parallels between mid-century religious polarisation and contemporary political discourse, which frame many of the themes explored in this interview.
What first attracted you to 20th-century religion and politics in the United States?
Ever since I was an undergraduate, I have been interested in the relationship between religion, society and politics in US history. As I studied history more, I became captivated by the 20th century and the amount of change and controversy and the evolution of ideas, military conflicts, and commitments overseas. All of that caught my interest in this century, and in particular, looking at how different religious communities were responding, making sense of and contributing even to American developments at the time. I have always been interested in how religious communities contributed to American political and social developments, but also look at how social and political developments shaped these communities.
Was there anything in particular that inspired your current research into Christian nationalism in the 1950s?
Probably two things. One, my prior book has some overlap, so I had a previous introduction to the polarised discourse, the anti-communism and cultural paranoia and how politicians exploited this. I had some exposure, but it wasn’t the central element in my first book. The second thing that got me interested was a student presentation several years ago, whilst I was teaching a US history course, on the famous speech that Senator Joe McCarthy gave in 1950 claiming that the US government was filled with communists or communist sympathisers. I had not thoroughly read the speech in the past and wasn’t fully aware of how McCarthy was using thee theme of an atheistic Russia versus Christian America. So I went back and read it, and that really captivated my interest about how anti-communist fears in the early Cold War intersected with an understanding of America as a supposedly Christian nation.
How would you say the rhetoric of contemporary Christian nationalists compares to that of their mid-century predecessors?
That’s a great question. I feel like this is at the heart of what I’ve been researching right now and what I’m discovering is there are so many parallels. It’s almost eerie how familiar the discourse and language today is to that in the 1950s. The level of polarisation, misinformation, conspiracies, and even the outright criticisms of democracy as an idea, are there today as they were there in the 1950s.
Your research highlights how midcentury Christian nationalism united different Protestant groups under a shared cause, despite theological and social divisions. How did this broad coalition impact political discourse and governance in the 1950s, and do you see similar dynamics shaping contemporary populist movements?
That’s a question I’m still working on, to be honest. Within religious communities, there are always internal debates and divisions that are very important to the people who are living in that moment. What I find interesting is that in the 1950s Christian nationalism acted like a glue that brought these groups, that were normally at each other’s throats, together. They still don’t like one another, usually, and I’m thinking more particularly of conservative and liberal Protestants, but they sometimes end up supporting similar organisations, and they often articulate very common narratives about America being a Christian nation. I think today, there is a greater separation between what we would call mainline or progressive Christian communities and more conservative evangelicalism. By the 1970s and 80s, there was certainly a huge divide between these two groups. But I’m arguing that in the 1950s they’re not that far apart from one another on the ideological spectrum, and even in some of their institutional commitments.
You describe how midcentury Christian nationalists viewed secular governance as a weakness. How did this belief influence policy debates on church-state separation, and do you see echoes of this challenge in modern governance, particularly with populist leaders who invoke religion in their platforms?
Many of the people who were identifying America as a Christian nation in the post-war and early Cold War era still, at least on paper, claimed to support the separation of church and state. It had become a hallmark of the American tradition stemming from the First Amendment. At one level, therefore, wanting to see more Christian elements woven into policy and government institutions seems disingenuous. But as a historian, I’m also trying to make sense of that seeming contradiction. I would say the criticism of the idea of separation between church and state has only grown in the US. My current project ends in 1962, and I ended there because that enters a new phase of US history with this topic. Because in ‘62 there’s a Supreme Court case that is among conservatives, infamously known as the court case that ended prayer at schools. All it did in reality was say that schools cannot sponsor official prayers in schools and force that on students, using the idea of the separation of church and state and First Amendment liberties. This was a rallying cry for a lot of especially conservative evangelicals that were beginning to form and unite by the late 60s and 70s. Roe v Wade is another flash point for them. I think there has overall been a decline in the commitment to the idea of separation of church and state, even though Americans oftentimes claim the idea of separation. I see it repeatedly in the documents I’m reading. They do a lot of intellectual gymnastics to try to get around this idea, to overcome the cognitive dissonance here.
In your book, you note that mainline Protestant churches played a key role in advocating for pluralism but ultimately lost influence, while conservative evangelicals gained political power. Do you see this as a cautionary tale for contemporary religious and civic groups advocating for inclusivity today?
I would not argue it is a cautionary tale as such. These groups called Mainline Protestants are more moderate to liberal on certain issues and policy decisions, especially their leadership, are more progressive driven. The rank and file, however, are more conservative in these groups. I think this idea of advocating for inclusivity should be more of an inspirational tale. I would say for religious communities today, regardless of the costs, it is an important issue to battle for. I think that recognising diversity, but still understanding a common shared nationhood is a very important, although slightly paradoxical, ideal in America. I hope the story I told in my first book is a more inspirational tale for religious communities that are thinking about how to respond to modern debates, especially on immigration. Having said that, I will say that my subjects, despite taking more progressive positions, still had many blind spots. Mainline Protestant groups overlooked, or simply ignored, the deportation of Mexican Americans in the mid-20th century. They advocated for certain immigrant groups, but not for others. The refugees they were resettling were white European refugees after World War Two. They’re not looking at the other refugee crises happening in places like South Asia, for instance. And so they are very selective, and they include with their ‘liberal positions’ conservative caveats. So we have to complicate that narrative, and I think there are some cautionary tales in that as well – of progressive agendas having unintended consequences and their blind spots. I think it hopefully gives people today a greater awareness of the diversity of the positions within religious communities. Just because you identify religiously as one group or another doesn’t mean you are stuck with one position on any form of political issue. History demonstrates that there’s a wide variety of options for you.
In the 1960s, both progressive and conservative religious groups used media-radio programs, publications, and public statements to influence policy debates. How do you think today’s polarised media environment affects the ability to foster constructive discussions about immigration and pluralism?
I would say that radio and even early television programming were becoming dominant sources of media consumption for many Americans and a lot of religious groups, whether they were liberal or conservative. I would also add that there were religious groups that were far-right, quasi-fascist as well as some that were sympathetic to a more socialist position. So, there was a wide variety, even outside of just conservative and liberal categories. But they all used media in different ways at the time. A lot of misinformation and conspiracies were transmitted through these media outlets, and these communities often found solidarity at times in different forms of media, just as they do today. The echo chamber effect was there in the 1950s. People were hearing what they wanted to hear from like-minded people. There was not, I think, a good, constructive dialogue and exchange of different ideas, and the sensationalism that we see on full display today was there in the 1950s. I have been looking at the publication of Gerald L.K. Smith, a former follower of the populist Share Our Wealth movement during the Great Depression. He spread hate speech in his publications and reinforced a lot of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, for instance, that the New Deal was a Jewish initiative to take control of government policy. So similar challenges we have today with cable news networks and social media were there earlier in history too, and I do not think people have good answers or an immediate solution for how to create a more healthy media culture.
Given that polarisation has deepened in many democracies, what lessons can be drawn from the political and religious debates surrounding the 1965 immigration reforms for leaders trying to manage diverse societies today?
I think they should work hard to understand where people are coming from. And for me, this is a fundamental skill of doing history – empathising with other people. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with other people, to be clear, but you do need to try to understand them. What’s their logic? Where are they coming from? As a historian, I study, lots of people that I do not agree with and whose ideas are repulsive at times. But I’m still trying to understand what their internal logic is, and what the motives are for what they’re doing. I would encourage leaders today to work to even hear those constituents that they feel like they don’t represent, or that they feel like they’re working against. I’m not arguing that they find a middle ground or anything like that. What I am arguing is they understand where different people on the political spectrum are. Just hear them, hear their arguments, and I think that would help them to respond to, and critique if need be, other people. America is based upon an electoral process. And so if you are trying to capture more voters and reassure the people you’re representing that you have their best interests in mind, I think that starts with listening. That’s a lost art in American political culture. That being said, in my research I’ve encountered moments when Congress, whilst considering a bill, will hold committee hearings that are open to the public to come and present their opinions. I find that reassuring, in a way, that there is this political space, where democratic discourse can happen and where hopefully leaders are listening. Whether they’re on a panel or just speaking to their constituents, it is imperative that they hear from the many perspectives that are out there. There are issues that leaders need to be taking strong positions on, but I don’t think they’re helping their cause by simply writing off large groups of people and not even listening or trying to understand their perspectives.
What do you think further research into this field should focus on?
I think what scholars are struggling with is capturing the voice of the rank-and-file members of society. So much history written up until now is through the voices and the sources of people at the top who either are political lobbyists or religious leaders. They have a lot of pull, and their documents are easy to access. But I think the question now is: how do we capture what an average person going to church on Sunday is thinking, how they’re rationalising all of this? And that’s much more difficult because of the lack of source material, but I’m trying to think creatively in that regard. And I’ve seen a lot of other historians using, not only history, but ethnography, oral history, anthropology, and many other disciplines, to try to answer this more effectively. I think that is what should be prioritised next in the field.
What advice do you give to an aspiring academic?
I would tell them not to listen to all the critics who say the humanities is a dying field. There are certainly challenges. For instance, in the US there’s a rapid decline in humanities programs, which is quite scary, but statistically, I’ve seen articles that demonstrate that a humanities degree does provide financial stability in the long term. I do believe that a history degree makes you a very multifaceted and professional person. And we see history students go into several different fields that you wouldn’t expect. It may have something to do with the skillset of processing large amounts of information and thinking critically. It’s about understanding and hearing people from different perspectives. All of these are critical skills, and I think a lot of employers are catching on to that. But I would also say in the United States right now, we see a lot of interest in history. The downside is that there’s a lot of bad history being used through media channels, particularly social media, and so I think we need more historians just to get out there and inform the public of more responsible historical interpretations. I think, from a social and civic angle, it is at a crisis point, and we need more people committing to study history. Some people are very adamant about interpreting, for instance, the founding of the United States in a certain way, and painting George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in a certain light. It seems as if the narrative of history is increasingly up for grabs, and people are taking it and running with it, exploiting and manipulating history for their purposes. And to be fair, all historians bring a little bias to the table. At any rate, we teach students to be aware of that and to try to counteract that. But many people are just blatantly manipulating history now which is very concerning.