James Carse’s The Religious Case Against Belief provides a fascinating framework for analyzing political rhetoric, particularly that of Donald Trump’s recent address to Congress. While Carse focuses on religious contexts, his insights about belief systems, boundaries, and poetic authority offer valuable tools for understanding Trump’s speech and the political moment it represents.
Boundaries #
Trump’s address exemplifies what Carse would recognize as a mature belief system. It creates clear boundaries between supporters and opponents, establishes Trump as the ultimate authority, and provides a comprehensive explanation of America’s problems and their solutions.
The speech begins by immediately establishing a boundary: “America is back,” Trump declares, drawing a line between his administration and those preceding it. He reinforces this boundary throughout, contrasting his achievements with “Joe Biden, the worst president in American history.” His characterization of Democrats sitting “before me” who will not “clap, will not stand, and certainly will not cheer” further solidifies this division.
Trump amplifies this boundary with specific policy reversals: terminating the “green new scam,” withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, and ending “woke” DEI policies. Each declaration serves to strengthen his belief system’s boundaries and intensify its opposition to alternative viewpoints.
Carse notes that belief systems typically provide clear moral guidelines. Trump’s speech establishes moral boundaries on issues like gender identity: “Our message to every child in America is that you are perfect exactly the way God made you.”
By invoking divine authority for this moral position, Trump exemplifies what Carse describes as the tendency of belief systems to claim divine sanction for their moral frameworks. The assertion of authority extends to positioning himself as divinely chosen:
“I believe that my life was saved that day in Butler for a very good reason. I was saved by God to Make America Great Again.”
Carse points out that belief systems often rely on claims of divine authority to strengthen their position. By suggesting divine intervention in his survival from assassination, Trump elevates his authority beyond mere democratic selection.
Creating a Political Mythology #
While Trump’s rhetoric primarily exhibits characteristics of belief systems rather than religion in Carse’s framework, he does attempt to tap into elements of American civil religion. He constructs a mythology of American greatness that extends beyond his specific policies:
“Our ancestors crossed a vast ocean, strode into an unknown wilderness and carved their fortunes from the rock and soil of a perilous and very dangerous frontier. They chased our destiny across a boundless continent. They built the railroads, laid the highways and graced the world with American marvels like the Empire State Building, the mighty Hoover Dam, and the towering Golden Gate Bridge.”
This mythological dimension resembles what Carse describes as a belief system’s “historical narrative or mythology” that provides a distinctive story of origins and development. Trump connects his policies to this larger American mythology, positioning himself as the continuation of a heroic national narrative.
Voluntary Nature of Belief #
Carse notes that belief is ultimately voluntary–no one can impose belief on another. Trump’s speech acknowledges this dynamic when he discusses his political opponents:
“Nothing I can do. I could find a cure to the most devastating disease, a disease that would wipe out entire nations or announce the answers to greatest economy in history or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever recorded, and these people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand, and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements.”
This recognition of the voluntary nature of belief aligns with Carse’s understanding that authority ultimately derives from the willingness of followers to accept it. However, Trump frames this voluntary nature as irrational resistance rather than legitimate alternative viewpoints, reinforcing the belief system’s tendency to delegitimize opposition.
Caricaturing the Opposition #
Carse observes that belief systems often construct elaborate caricatures of their opponents. Trump’s speech demonstrates this technique masterfully. Rather than engaging with the actual positions of his opponents, he creates simplistic, exaggerated versions that are easier to dismiss.
Consider how he characterizes environmental policies as the “green new scam” rather than addressing the complex economic and environmental considerations involved. Similarly, he reduces diversity initiatives to “the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion” without acknowledging their intended purposes or nuances.
Trump portrays immigration advocates not as people with different views on border policy but as those who want “murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and people from mental institutions and insane asylums” released into the country. This transforms policy disagreements into moral failings, painting opponents as either dangerously naive or malicious.
This caricaturing serves an important function: it eliminates the need to engage with opposing viewpoints on their actual merits. By creating straw-man versions of his opponents’ positions, Trump invites his audience to reject them without serious consideration.
Blocking Critical Thinking #
One of the most powerful aspects of Trump’s rhetoric, viewed through Carse’s framework, is how it systematically dismantles the capacity for critical thinking among his audience. Carse identifies how belief systems create a comfortable serenity by encouraging followers to dismiss their doubts.
Trump accomplishes this in several ways. First, he overwhelms listeners with a rapid succession of claims and achievements: “We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplish in four years or eight years.” This barrage of statements leaves little cognitive space for evaluation or skepticism.
Second, he pre-emptively dismisses potential criticism by framing opposition as inherently partisan rather than substantive: “I look at the Democrats in front of me and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy.” This technique encourages his supporters to reflexively reject any criticism as politically motivated rather than engaging with its content.
Third, he employs what Carse might call “willful ignorance” by presenting misleading or incomplete information with absolute certainty. When discussing Social Security, for instance, he claims there are millions of centenarians receiving benefits, including “one person between the age of 240 and 249.” Rather than acknowledging database errors or record-keeping issues—a nuanced approach requiring critical thought—he implies massive fraud that only he can fix.
The result is a rhetorical environment where doubt itself becomes suspect. Trump’s supporters are invited into what Carse calls a “boundary” of acceptable thought, where questioning the leader’s claims feels like betraying the group rather than exercising healthy skepticism.
Authority and Higher Ignorance #
Carse distinguishes between the authority of power and poetic authority. Trump’s speech overwhelmingly demonstrates the former. He repeatedly emphasizes his executive orders and actions taken without congressional approval: “The people elected me to do the job, and I’m doing it.” He presents himself as the definitive solution to complex problems: “it turned out that all we really needed was a new president.”
What’s notably absent is what Carse would call “higher ignorance”—the awareness of what we cannot know. Trump’s speech contains almost no acknowledgment of uncertainty. When discussing the Ukraine-Russia conflict, he states, “I want it to stop,” presenting himself as capable of resolving a complex geopolitical crisis through sheer willpower.
What higher ignorance might look like: A leader exhibiting higher ignorance might say, “We face real challenges with Ukraine that don’t have simple answers. I invite all parties to negotiate with courage. Every option deserves thorough exploration. Complex problems might benefit from citizen input–perhaps a diverse jury of Americans could help us deliberate on our approach. Success requires both decisive action and humble recognition of our limits. I am grateful that dialogue remains possible. We’ll move forward with both confidence and an open mind.”
The Power of Opposition #
Carse observes that belief systems “feed on opposition.” Trump’s speech demonstrates this principle repeatedly. He energizes his supporters by identifying enemies—illegal immigrants, Democrats, bureaucrats, previous administrations. The speech gains emotional power from these contrasts rather than from positive vision.
Consider his handling of the border crisis. Trump doesn’t simply outline his immigration policy; he weaves a narrative of dangerous invaders being stopped by his decisive leadership. The emotional climax comes with stories of Americans murdered by “illegal alien monsters.” The opposition isn’t just political—it’s existential, with clear moral demarcation between protectors and threats.
Comfort Through Certainty #
Trump’s rhetoric offers what Carse might call the “seductive quality” of belief—the comfort of certainty in an uncertain world. Throughout his address, Trump presents himself as having definitive answers to complex problems:
- On inflation: “We will defeat inflation, bring down mortgage rates, lower car payments and grocery prices.”
- On crime: “We’re going to get these cold-blooded killers and repeat offenders off our streets.”
- On international disputes: “My administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal.”
These declarations provide psychological relief from the anxiety of complexity. Rather than acknowledging that inflation involves global market forces beyond any president’s control, or that crime has multi-faceted causes, Trump offers simple narratives with clear villains and straightforward solutions. The appeal of such certainty is powerful—it eliminates the discomfort of ambiguity and replaces it with what Carse calls “the comfort of certainty.”
Missing Horizons #
Carse distinguishes between boundaries (which limit thought) and horizons (which invite exploration beyond current understanding). Trump’s speech establishes firm boundaries but rarely acknowledges horizons—the possibility that reality might exceed our current comprehension.
On complex issues like immigration, international trade, or urban crime, Trump offers certainty rather than nuance. His solutions are presented as straightforward and absolute: imposing tariffs, building defenses, or enforcing harsher penalties. There’s little recognition that these issues might contain contradictions or paradoxes that defy simple solutions.
What horizon-thinking might look like: A leader embracing horizons might say: “We need diverse voices at the table because the best solutions often come from unexpected places. No single perspective—including my own—captures the full complexity of issues like immigration or crime. Our policies should create space for experimentation and revision as we learn more. This could include supporting journalism through programs like Seattle’s Democracy Vouchers, where citizens direct public funds to media they value, ensuring a wider range of perspectives shapes our national conversation.”
Civitas Over Communitas #
Carse contrasts civitas (formal structures created by rulers) with communitas (organic connections that emerge between people). Trump’s vision leans heavily toward civitas—structured, top-down governance where his authority establishes order.
The speech emphasizes enforcement, punishment, and control: deporting immigrants, punishing criminals, imposing tariffs, and removing federal workers who don’t comply. What’s less evident is communitas—the natural bonds that form across differences. Trump speaks of “unity” but defines it as others joining his vision rather than a mutual exchange of perspectives.
What communitas might look like: A leader embracing communitas might say: “The greatest solutions to our challenges often emerge not from Washington but from communities themselves. I’ve witnessed extraordinary examples of Americans from different backgrounds, faiths, and political views coming together to solve local problems. They create solutions no government program could design. Our role is to identify these successful local initiatives and elevate them to the national level.
“Tools like the Polis online platform show how technology can enhance this community wisdom. Polis lets citizens submit ideas on important issues and vote on others’ suggestions. The platform’s algorithms identify areas of consensus and points of disagreement. This creates a clear picture of where communities agree, regardless of political differences. We can use these insights to develop policies with broad support. By starting conversations at the local level and scaling what works, we build solutions that truly reflect what Americans need and want.”
Fostering Belief Over Understanding #
Throughout his address, Trump employs techniques that strengthen belief rather than encourage questioning. He uses emotional anecdotes featuring victims of crime, heroes who sacrificed themselves, and businesses investing in America. These stories aren’t presented to explore complex issues but to reinforce predetermined conclusions.
When discussing cancer rates among children, Trump mentions they’ve increased by 40% since 1975 and that autism rates have risen dramatically. Rather than exploring the scientific complexity of these issues, he presents Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as having “the best” people to “figure out what is going on,” reducing a complex scientific question to a matter of having the right authority figure in charge.
What understanding-based rhetoric might look like: A leader prioritizing understanding might say: “The rising rates of childhood cancer demand our attention and our humility. The scientific community has identified multiple potential factors—from environmental exposures to detection methods to genetic interactions. Rather than rushing to simple explanations, we’re committed to supporting rigorous research that examines all possibilities, even those that challenge our preconceptions. Our children deserve nothing less than our most careful thinking.”
The Paradox of Trump’s Approach #
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Trump’s speech through Carse’s lens is its paradoxical nature. Trump positions himself as both an institutional authority (as president) and as a disruptive force against established power structures (the “deep state,” bureaucracy, previous administrations).
He simultaneously claims to represent the government while promising to dismantle much of it: “The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over.” This mirrors what Carse identifies as the tension between belief systems and the poetic authorities that challenge them. Trump attempts to occupy both positions—the defender of boundaries and the visionary who transcends them.
Feeble Appeals for Unity #
Trump’s speech represents an attempt to balance what Carse would identify as civitas (formal governmental structure) and communitas (organic community). Trump explicitly recognizes this tension:
“It’s our presidency.”
At points, he appeals to shared American identity beyond partisan divisions:
“From the patriots of Lexington and Concord to the heroes of Gettysburg and Normandy… Americans have always been the people who defied all odds, transcended all dangers, made the most extraordinary sacrifices.”
However, these appeals for unity quickly return to partisan boundaries, demonstrating the challenge of creating true communitas within a political framework designed for opposition:
“So, Democrats sitting before me, for just this one night, why not join us in celebrating so many incredible wins for America? For the good of our nation, let’s work together and let’s truly make America great again.”
Conclusion #
Viewing Trump’s Congressional address through Carse’s framework reveals both its power and its limitations. As a belief system, it provides certainty, clear boundaries, and a sense of mission—qualities that inspire strong loyalty. It establishes Trump as the ultimate authority who can solve problems through decisive action.
However, what’s missing is what Carse identifies as crucial to lasting religious traditions: an openness to mystery, a willingness to question, and an acknowledgment of what lies beyond our comprehension. Trump’s speech offers solutions but rarely acknowledges complexities. It provides answers but discourages questions.
In a political context increasingly defined by rigid belief systems, Carse’s insights remind us that sustainable governance, like enduring religious traditions, requires more than certainty—it needs the capacity to evolve, to question itself, and to remain open to perspectives beyond its current boundaries. Whether our political discourse can develop this capacity remains an open question.
