You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
Local news, community stories, and the conversations that matter most.
Now, more Daybreak with Brian and JB.
A little change this morning because the big news coming out about the Iran War, which we usually do at the top of the hour, is based close to home and really falls under the big category Parker of
Mm-hmm.
We need to know it's a wake-up call in more ways than one time for some you need to know Well, Jamie, you know this and I'm other people may have may still know it or have forgotten today is the day the deadline because a president can start a military action but without congressional approval but in 60 days they have to get congressional approval and today
is the day that the president would have to get congressional approval.
But as is always the case, this administration is trying to skirt the law and they are saying that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April.
Now that's an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement further furthers an argument laid out by Pete Hegseth
during his testimony in the Senate yesterday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war.
I'm talking to myself.
Let me finish.
Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
We still have a military blockade in place
Yes.
Well, we started, we did make the decision on February 28th to bomb Iran and everything since has come because of that decision.
Right.
So you are, you are exactly right.
Did, did the president make that decision on his own?
I don't know, but.
Either way, today's supposed to be the day.
Now, a senior administration official, spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the hostilities began Saturday, February 28th.
Those have terminated.
Now, the official said the U.S.
military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two weeks ceasefire, but that's not... It's because it's a
There's no peace agreement.
There's no declaration.
There's nothing.
You're just hanging on.
So the ceasefire has been extended Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz as you know and the Navy is maintaining a blockade just like we said before Now I I kept I read something from somebody who was in Trump's first administration in the Defense Department and they said that theoretically What they would advise this administration do is just rename it rename start a new operation renamed something else close to
this one and call it a self-defense mission.
So that that's another way they could skirt the law.
Now, if I'm Congress, which we know is really starting to, the Republican support of this war is starting to splinter for a variety of reasons, which we talked about before.
At some point, they're going to say, listen, you got to come to will he knows they'll rubber stamp it.
But you got you can't keep
putting us over in the corner and not paying attention to us.
I think, and part of I think the consternation on some of the GOP members is the fact that they've been in office long enough, literally, to some of them to remember what it was like during all of the other Middle East self-defense missions or wars.
These were ongoing.
They were years and years and years of troops in and out of trying to keep a peacekeeping mission of certain attacks.
I mean, that's essentially what they were.
And there was really never an end in sight, which was the problem for a lot of GOP members when this particular war started is that they were afraid that that's what it was going to turn into.
And it turns out that that's what it has turned into.
Now, here's my next question.
Is Ron aware that the war is over and that the ceasefire agreement is the end of the war?
Because they want to
a
No, it's... and we did have that deal, and you're correct, it was working, and now it's hilarious yet unbelievably frustrating to hear not only the president, but Pete Hegseth and everybody else just screaming out anytime they're asked about the cost of the war, whether it's the cost of oil, the cost of human lives, the cost to taxpayers, all they yell out is, what's the cost of them having a nuclear warhead?
They didn't have one.
I don't
Lynn and Golden Valley chiming in listening on WCFW 93.5, the tap in Eau Claire.
She says, I see a lot of GOP claiming they are still against the war.
They do not want to be forced to go on record voting.
Yes.
That's exactly what it is, especially in midterms where they're losing.
And the war is, is incredibly unpopular among independence Democrats and Republicans.
So no, you're absolutely correct.
But we have other
It is.
So there's a leaked memo now, apparently, from consultants to U.S.
Representative Tom Tiffany's campaign as he runs for governor.
And it gives voters a glimpse into how a Republican campaign sizes up its potential competition from the Democratic side.
Now, in this particular case, Tiffany's consultants were raising a warning about state representative Francesca Hong's early momentum.
in the Democratic primary field and even went as far as suggesting a strategy for how to prepare for a general election contest against a candidate who identifies as a Democratic socialist.
As a counter, Hong's Democratic rivals have pointed to polling showing her as the only candidate losing in a hypothetical matchup with Tom Tiffani.
Now, in a statement on Hong's candidacy, Tiffani's camp said that the campaign is prepared to, no matter the outcome of the Democratic party,
because they are all selling the same recycled agenda Wisconsin has endured for seven years, higher taxes, bigger government, and fewer choices for families.
Now, we need to take Francesca Hong seriously is the name of this memo.
And it warns in the subject, that's the warning in the subject line, and it was prepared earlier this month by some consultants to Tom Tiffany.
They cited polling that shows Hong's early strength.
and in a Marquette poll that was released in late March, around March 24th, Hong led the field with about 14%, followed by former Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes at 11%, and the rest of the field, because remember, there are seven gubernatorial
candidates
absolutely and depending on who you're you're asking that's all within the margin of error uh the memo compares Hong to other potential democratic candidates tiffany could face in the november 3rd general election viewing her as someone whose nomination
quote, virtually guarantees elevated democratic enthusiasm and turnout in Dane County and the Milwaukee media market where statewide races are decided.
Now, in contrast, yeah, this memo also
This is where it gets tricky and you're right because the memo also contrasts that by saying that more moderates and establishment democratic alternatives would likely produce lower base motivation and depressed turnout.
Now, Francesca Hong is 37.
She represents with
Wisconsin 76th Assembly District in the heart of Madison.
She's been in that seat since 2021.
She earned a claim in her early twenties as a chef in Madison, becoming co-owner and co-chef of Morris Rahman, which closed in 2024 after seven years in business.
So I think this is fascinating.
I think that whether you want to look at this is just Francesca Hong or not.
I think it also tells you exactly how the Tiffany camp is going to basically
portray any Democratic gubernatorial candidate no matter who it is.
So it's it's to sell more discord among the Democrats.
It's also to try to disenfranchise rural Democrats, Democrats outside of the Milwaukee and Madison markets.
So, you know, you're but could also backfire because if you're, say you're in Green Bay or say you're up north and you're a Democrat.
And now you hear Tom Tiffany go, Well, that
That was a real Tom Tiffany's campaign.
It wasn't Tom Tiffany.
It was this memo, maybe a legit memo, maybe not.
We don't know, but the memo is out there and you're going, oh, so he doesn't think we can decide an election?
Well, we'll show the Republicans, won't we?
Yes, we will.
There's so much more, but we have to take a breather and get a little swipe and or stay in our lives on Friday.
We'll see what Frank brings to the table on the Civic Media Network.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get
We hope that you are having a great start to your Friday morning.
It is time for Swiper's Day.
This is one of our favorite segments simply because we get to leave the politics aside for a mere seven minutes.
Our senior producer, Frank, joins us so we can talk some pop culture.
How are you today?
I'm going to read some pop culture headlines.
Brian and Jamie will have to decide whether to swipe on to the next one or say and hear more about the story.
In the event of a tie, producer Parker gets to be the tiebreaker.
Story number one, Taylor Swift drops a massive hint.
I'm in the same boat as Jamie, I don't know what it could possibly be about.
I'm staying.
T-Pain is her publicist?
T-Pain.
T-R-E.
I thought you said T-Pain.
No, that would be.
T-Pain is a savant.
Who knew?
Marketing genius.
He was on a boat.
All right.
But no.
As you guys said, we don't know if she's got a new song for the Toy Story movie or she's going to be a voice in it, or this was just somebody goofing off and joked around.
talk of town right now.
Let's go, brother.
So obviously this is not really a new thing in the corporate world when it comes to abuse of power.
However, I will say this is a bit of a twist to it.
J.P.
Morgan, executive director Lorna Hajini has been accused by a male employee for making him her quote sex slave at work.
See, I know how to hook you in.
I know how to get you.
No, I wanna.
Ryan doesn't care about Olivia Rodrigo's music.
She's a singer, right?
Yes.
She is.
Okay, yeah.
Why'd she upset us?
So after dropping a new hit single and announcing an album, a tour was sure to follow and yesterday Olivia Rodrigo announced the unraveled tour and a lot of fans are upset and I'm talking about the fans that live in the Midwest.
Rodrigo will only be playing four total shows in the Midwest.
two nights at the United Center in Chicago and two nights at the shot and scene center in Columbus, Ohio.
And that
is
So there is a theory that there will be a second leg of the tour because she's mostly the East Coast, the West Coast with just those two dates in the Midwest.
But you also look at people like Harry Styles, who came to the U is coming to the U S and is only doing a residency at Madison Square Garden and isn't even going over to the West Coast.
Wow.
So.
I don't know what to think of this.
Well, he's busy.
He's got
I know.
Network.
Now back to more of Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.
I'm Brian Noonan.
According to a recent report from the Public Religion Research Institute, one third of Americans believe that the United States should be a Christian nation.
Women are just as likely to hold that belief in Christian nationalism as men.
Joining us to talk about that phenomenon and what it means for the future of our country is Andrew Whitehead.
Andrew is a professor of sociology and executive director of the Association of Religion Data Archives at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis.
Andrew, a long title.
Thank you for being here.
We appreciate your time today for purposes of clarity.
Define for us Christian nationalism and when did it start to grab hold in this country?
Yeah, it's a great question and it's good to be with you both this morning.
So Christian nationalism, the definition that we use that is empirically supported using data is a desire to see a very particular expression of Christianity fused with American civic life.
and wanting the government at all levels to defend and preserve that close fusion of, again, this very particular type of Christianity as central to understanding who we are and what we're all about as a nation.
And as we look back over the course of the history of this nation and even before, this particular expression of Christianity has been influential and bound up in how the founding fathers, those in the 18th and 19th century saw themselves as Americans, and then especially through the 20th century.
And what we see today really is kind of an outgrowth of the rise of the moral majority, which was happening in the 1970s.
And so it's been with us for a very long time.
Yeah, that's a really good question.
So first of all, with Christian nationalism, when we're talking about that Christianity of Christian nationalism,
Again, it's a very particular expression of Christianity.
So the folks that embrace it, they do adhere to those kind of orthodox historic beliefs that we kind of associate with that religion.
But it also brings with it what I like to call extra cultural baggage.
So when they hear Christian, they're not only thinking about, let's say, the divinity of Jesus, but that this country is made by and for a very particular type of people like
white Protestant Christian men who founded this country and that narrative is key.
But also they want this country to look a particular way.
And so a lot of the work that we do in social science is kind of highlighting that extra cultural baggage that comes with it.
So it is a slice of Christianity, but there are a lot of different expressions of Christianity in this country.
And this is only really one type that wants to see itself at the center.
And so that is key to kind of understanding what we're talking about with Christian nationalism.
He's a professor of sociology and director of the Association of Religion Data Archives at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
So based on this report that I referenced earlier, Andrew says a majority of Republicans, 56% in fact, were either Christian nationalism adherents or sympathizers.
What have you found to be the correlation between the Republican Party and Christian nationalism?
Yeah, so this is a very key point, a great question.
So when we look at what's called the rise of the moral majority in the 1970s, these are people like Jerry Falwell, who some might have heard of.
They were really influential in tying together what they saw as a lot of evangelical Protestants, very conservative kind of white religious people who weren't really involved in politics.
They wanted to bring them in to the fold of the Republican Party.
And so they really worked to say that, hey, if you're a Christian like us, the Republican Party is where you should be.
And so that tightened especially in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan as they
were supporting him instead of Jimmy Carter, who actually was an evangelical and was known as the first evangelical president.
And so that's where you really see this tight tie together.
And since then, we've seen that continue to grow to where if we look at data over time, you'll see a greater and greater percentage
of evangelical Protestants, conservative Christians, making up a larger majority of the Republican Party.
And so Christian nationalism is a key part of that.
Because again, it's this desire to fuse together their brand of Christianity with American civic life and to say that this country is ours, it's always been ours, and should maintain itself as ours.
And so they have a particular view of where we should go as a nation.
so this
Yeah, so race since Christianity first came to these shores before the founding of the US Race and and racism has been intimately intertwined with that Meaning that those people that were bringing Christianity here had to make sense of why this land should be theirs
And what that meant for the indigenous populations that were already here.
And also as they brought slaves from Africa, why they should continue to enslave those people on this land.
And so when we look at that history, we see that was really when Christianity equaling white and a citizen got tied up with race.
And so that kind of gave them, they felt as though this was God's plan for this nation.
And so that's been with us.
forever.
It's not saying that folks now necessarily believe that, but the repercussions of that belief and with race are key.
And so as slavery was, was in this land, and we see the separation of who can be Christian or not based on that.
And then slavery ends, Jim Crow begins, race has always been a part of religion in the US.
And so with Christian nationalism, this ideology, race is a very key part of that.
And so one thing that I like to point out with this is as we survey the
American public, when we ask questions to help us know, do they embrace Christian nationalism or not?
None of those questions mention race at all, just as if they think this country should be Christian.
But what we find over and over is that when they imagine that Christian and we ask them questions about race, we see that Christian nationalism is one of these strong predictors.
of believing that this country is for and should be for white Americans.
And so again, when they imagine Christian, race is tied up in them as a key part of that.
So as we try to understand this current administration and Project 2025, this is kind of a keyhole through which we can understand why race and as they call it DEI is something that we should be afraid of rather than trying to embrace a pluralistic democratic society.
where people of all races and immigrants too should have the opportunity to become true citizens and to participate in democracy.
So now we're seeing that as many women as men are embracing Christian nationalism, which seems to go
Contrary to, as Jamie pointed out, their own self-interest.
So a lot of these tenants are completely anti-female there, whether it's the head of Christian nationalism saying the 19th Amendment was one of the worst mistakes we've ever made, or taking away reproductive rights.
What then is the draw of Christian nationalism for women who really are going to be subjugated under that belief system?
Yeah, I think there's a couple of ways that we can try to understand this and make sense of it.
One is that with Christian nationalism, that cultural baggage that I mentioned earlier that gets brought along with it, they legitimate the goodness and reality of that cultural baggage, like the fact that men should be the leaders, women should submit and follow.
They legitimate it in the will of the Christian God.
And so if God has commanded this, then who are we to say any different?
And if God has said, for your nation to flourish, it needs to be ordered in this way where men lead and women submit and follow.
And so that is a lot to ask of people to say, well, you know, even though if God commanded it, you should do something different.
And so in that sense, it is a very strong pull.
But then too, what we see as well is that for women who embrace Christian nationalism,
they see the way that they protect their status and what they are in the movement as being connected to a man.
And if the man is doing what he should do, then they'll be taken care of and that their families in this order will be blessed by God and that they'll be able to do what they need to in this country and have access to the civil benefits and civil rights.
And so they're not really worried about
those things that you mentioned right access to reproductive rights or voting because again they're connected to in this family unit to men who will make sure that all of all of their desires and needs will be taken care of and so that's that's the way that it's talked about and as they view it.
Yeah, so this is something that I've written on quite a bit and I really, it's a really good question.
It's something we really need to be aware of is that Christian nationalism at its root we find over and over is anti-democratic in the sense that they have a particular vision for what this country should be.
And to the extent that democracy allows them to achieve that vision, it's fine.
But if it begins to impede them in achieving that vision, they're willing to do away with it again because they feel as though this country in order to survive has to be blessed by God and God has commanded that this country should look again the way that they believe it should look.
And so they'll set it aside.
And so we see with Americans who embrace Christian nationalism, who are even just sympathetic with it, as Brian mentioned at the top here, about a third of Americans, we see they're much more likely to embrace authoritarian leadership, that we want somebody to come in and take control and enforce order.
They're much more likely.
It's small numbers, but they're more likely than other Americans to embrace political violence.
And so, yeah, when we look at all of these kind of aspects of what it means to live in a democracy where everybody has access to voting, to civil rights, and that we compromise, Christian nationalism over and over really pushes Americans in a direction where they're not willing to compromise, and they really don't want to work with others.
They want to achieve that particular vision.
He's a professor of sociology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Just got a little bit over a minute, Andrew.
So what you just described seems to be what's happening now.
There is a small number of people embracing a potentially authoritarian regime.
Is there a way to reverse this trend?
Or are we on a path now that we're going to have to see?
just how it ends.
I absolutely believe that there is a way forward for those that do believe in a pluralistic democratic society.
There are a lot of things pushing back against that, but working together in our communities
accessing voting, making sure others have access to vote.
And we've seen these social movements come together.
And so the more that we do that and recognize that we do have power together and trying to open that up to those that maybe are on the margins and making sure that they have access to it as well, will be the way forward for us all so that everyone, right, can have access to liberty and justice and not just a few.
It's very enlightening, very interesting.
Andrew Whitehead has been our guest.
He's a professor of sociology and the executive director of the Association of Religion Data Archives at the Center for the Study of Religion in American Culture at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Andrew, thanks again.
That was really interesting and a little bit alarming.
But we
Network.
Better than expected, it's Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.
Let's go.
It's a great.
song.
I love that song.
It's one of the classic instrumentals.
I was an oldies jock too.
So, you know, some of these things just stick with my brain.
So I'm saying, so take it up.
Yeah, some of these things stick with my brain.
52 minutes, 752, eight minutes
I was never nearly that cool as an oldie.
You weren't a puker?
No, I was not.
I was never that cool.
That's okay though.
It is a beautiful day though on a Friday, a little cool.
If you're one of those crazy people who's already put plants in the ground, hopefully you covered them last night because there's some frost all lingering.
I was at Costco and like down the road after Mother's Day they have beautiful months.
Well, they had some other kind of hanging basket early and I saw all these people buying these baskets and I was like I'm gonna buy one hanging basket just for Debbie for the deck.
It'll be nice
Oh, man, I couldn't have gotten more disgust.
How could you buy flowers before Memorial Day or Mother's Day?
This
It does.
So a New York jury ruled that an art publisher created unauthorized versions of an artist's work, the artist who created that love sculpture, somewhere toward the end of his life.
But Johnsonville is saying, no, no, no, ours is authentic.
So, a jury awarded the for-profit Morgan Art Foundation 102.2 million dollars in
damages.
So, that was the guy who was on the office, right?
Robert Indiana?
There was a different, somebody else Indiana was on the office.
Anyway, he sued his art publisher, Michael McKenzie, that according to the New York Times, McKenzie's attorney said he may appeal this, but in a civil complaint filed in 2018 after Indiana's death, the Art Foundation challenged the authenticity of several artworks said to be done by Indiana and alleged that McKenzie interfered with the foundation's trademark rights and copyright for several of Indiana's pieces, including a variety of love prints and metal works.
Now, the 20-foot-tall red brat sculpture unveiled at the Johnsonville headquarters in the fall of 2018 was said to be modeled after Indiana's iconic love sculpture.
And if you look at it, you say, yeah, of course it was.
It stacks the L and entitled O on top of the V and the E. However, the R in brat doesn't follow the same tilt as the O in love.
fact, yes, they're saying that although the broad sculpture is not explicitly named in the original complaint, a court filing from the defense said Indiana and his caretaker, who was assigned as Indiana's power of attorney, granted McKenzie
permission to produce the Indiana's artwork like USA Fun, Wine, Hope, and Brot.
The defense also said in the filing that Indiana would examine works and improve them and the Brot sculpture was developed by Indiana, Johnsonville,
and Mackenzie's art publishing company, American Image Art.
Johnsonville is not and has never been party to this lawsuit.
Johnsonville spokesman said in his statement to the Sheboygan press, the jury verdict did not make any findings regarding our broad sculptor.
Wow.
It still looks great.
I just hope I'm important enough one day that people care about anything that I've ever done or say to this degree.
Like that you would have to go through this much trouble in a court of law with other people involved that of anything that I've ever done that people care this much.
It's never going to happen.
That's cool.
I can live with it.
But I just think these cases are, I get they're important, but I also think they're hilarious all at the same time.
Well, Indiana did get several hundred thousand dollars in royalties for doing this, and he said he hoped that the Johnsonville sculpture would increase exposure for his other works.
Win-win, I guess, because that's what we're all talking about.
I didn't realize that this sculpture was at Johnsonville.
Now I got to
I feel like this is one of those places.
And let me tell you, there are some crazy Wisconsin road tripping things that you can do in this state.
I mean, there are some really quirky roadside attractions.
Giant fish.
There's all kinds of things.
There's like a silo that looks like a beer can, all of that kind of stuff over by La Crosse.
All right, well, if you're listening on WMDX, you'll be going to the Stephanie Miller Show, but you can still listen to us if you want on the Free Civic Media app or go to Facebook, our page, Daybreak with Brian and Jamie, or go to the YouTube stream and you can catch the last hour of this program.
But if you miss it and you want to catch it later, yeah.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.