In a Substack article titled “Do you know what time it is? Or, An animal that won’t defend itself will get eaten!”, Steve Tanner described contemporary American politics in existential and survival-oriented terms.
The article appears to argue that the United States is experiencing moral and cultural decline and that conservatives and Christians must actively defend the nation’s foundational identity and institutions.
Critics argue that rhetoric portraying political disagreement as a civilizational struggle or survival conflict can contribute to fear-based politics, deepen social division, and encourage an “us versus them” view of democratic society.
The article also aligns with themes Tanner later expressed publicly regarding the United States as a nation fundamentally grounded in “Judeo-Christian principles” and the need to “rebuild the walls” protecting those values.
Definitions and Context
Existential political rhetoric frames political disagreement as a matter of survival: if one side does not defeat the other, the nation, faith, culture, or way of life will be destroyed. This differs from ordinary disagreement about policy, priorities, or values.
Zero-sum politics treats political conflict as if one group can only gain when another group loses. In democratic systems, that framing can make compromise appear to be surrender rather than a normal part of self-government.
Affective polarization refers to hostility or distrust toward people in the opposing political camp, rather than disagreement over specific policy positions. The Pew Research Center has documented rising negative views between Republicans and Democrats, including growing shares who describe the opposing side as immoral, dishonest, closed-minded, or unintelligent.
Why Critics View This Rhetoric as Misleading or Harmful
Critics argue Tanner’s framing presents contemporary political conflict in survival-oriented terms rather than democratic terms. Democratic systems are designed to resolve real disagreements through elections, debate, lawmaking, constitutional limits, and protected rights — not through a permanent struggle between enemies.
The United States faces serious disagreements over religion, education, immigration, abortion, race, speech, and the role of government. Critics argue that describing those disagreements as existential threats risks encouraging fear and mistrust rather than persuasion, compromise, and democratic accountability.
Tanner’s references to “Judeo-Christian principles” also reflect a broader debate about religion and American identity. The United States has deep Christian cultural influences, but the Constitution does not establish Christianity as a national religion. The First Amendment protects both religious exercise and freedom from government establishment of religion, extending constitutional protections to Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and people of all faiths or no faith.
Critics further argue that rhetoric about “rebuilding the walls” around a particular religious or cultural identity can imply that some citizens are more authentically American than others, a concept they view as inconsistent with pluralism, equal citizenship, and constitutional neutrality.
Supporters of Tanner’s views may argue he is expressing legitimate concerns about moral decline, religious liberty, cultural change, and the preservation of traditional values. Critics counter that framing democratic disagreement as civilizational warfare can erode trust in democratic institutions and deepen political polarization.