Matt Walsh identifies as a "theocratic fascist" on X (formerly Twitter): Let’s take a look at how his theology could be operationalized and how we can push back against it.

Matt Walsh, an avowed theocratic fascist. Image captured from his July 23, 2025 video about Rep. Maria Salazar of Florida.

To join me on stage for Midday with Cassandra around 1 PM EDT weekdays, use this link: https://studio.restream.io/edo-xdco-unr

To join me on stage for The Path Forward at 6 PM EDT weekdays, use this link: https://studio.restream.io/edy-bdnb-csp

Remember, I strongly encourage and seek out view-point diversity. We gain nothing by regurgitating echo-chamber content. I actually prefer to listen to those who oppose my right to live freely, openly, and honestly in the country for which I served. I also prefer to engage in discussions, and even research, that is founded upon the idea that to be successful over the long term, we need to design such things using a balanced adversarial approach.

Cassandra Williamson

30 July 2025, Wednesday

Hardy, Kentucky

Matt Walsh, who identifies as a "theocratic fascist" on X (formerly Twitter) at https://x.com/MattWalshBlog, presents an interesting subject for a blog post.

I believe Walsh distinguishes himself from other Christian Nationalists by being more self-aware and honest about his convictions. While I disagree with his views, I appreciate his candor and willingness to embrace what he believes, unlike many of his counterparts in the US.

Walsh frequently asserts on his Twitter account that women should primarily be in the home, bearing children. He consistently argues against women holding leadership positions over men, serving in combat roles in the military, or acting as captains or patrol officers in police or other law enforcement agencies, as well as leading fire departments.

Although Matt's theological framework differs significantly from Shia theocracy in Iran, his brand of theocratic fascism manifests in similar operational ways.

I contend that Walsh's theocratic fascism is fundamentally flawed and unsuitable for a pluralistic, multicultural nation like the United States. A critical question to address is how to effectively counter its appeal to a substantial segment of the American population.

The 'Honest' Theocrat: Deconstructing Matt Walsh's Appeal and Its Threat to Pluralism

On his X (formerly Twitter) profile, commentator Matt Walsh makes no secret of his political endgame. In a social media landscape rife with dog whistles and carefully crafted euphemisms, his bio contains a startlingly blunt phrase: "Theocratic fascist."

For many, this is an immediate, self-evident disqualification. For others, particularly those within his orbit, it’s seen as a kind of defiant honesty. This raises a critical question: Is Matt Walsh simply more self-aware than other Christian Nationalists, and if so, what does that teach us about the nature of his ideology and how to effectively counter it?

There is a form of "honesty" at play here. Unlike many figures in the Christian Nationalist movement who couch their ambitions in softer terms like "restoring Judeo-Christian values" or "reclaiming America's Christian heritage," Walsh leans into the most extreme framing of his position. He isn't hiding the ball. He is telling you, plainly, that he desires a society governed by a specific interpretation of Christian doctrine, enforced by the full power of the state.

This disarming frankness is a powerful rhetorical tool. In an era of deep distrust in institutions and politicians, such bluntness can be mistaken for authenticity. It projects a confidence that appeals to those who feel that the modern world has lost its moral and spiritual compass. But what, exactly, is he being "honest" about?

The Vision: A Return to a Patriarchal Order

At the core of Walsh's "theocratic fascism" is a rigidly defined social hierarchy, with a particular focus on the role of women. As you've noted from his public statements, his vision is one where women's primary functions are domestic and child-bearing. He has been explicit and consistent in his view that women are not suited for leadership roles over men.

This isn't a peripheral opinion; it is a foundational pillar of the society he wishes to build. His arguments against women serving as:

●     Combat soldiers

●     Police captains or patrol officers

●     Fire department chiefs

●     Corporate or political leaders

...all stem from a single, cohesive worldview: that there is a "natural" or divinely ordained order, and that order places men in authority and women in subordinate, supportive roles. To deviate from this is to court societal decay. For him, a woman leading a platoon of male soldiers into battle is not merely a question of policy, but a symptom of a civilization in rebellion against its own nature.

Operational Theocracy: A Distant Mirror

While his theology is vastly different from the Shia Islam that underpins the government of Iran, the operational outcome he advocates for is strikingly similar. This is a crucial distinction. The comparison isn't about equating Christianity with a specific branch of Islam; it is about comparing the mechanics of theocratic governance.

Consider the functional parallels:

1.    Enforcement of Religious Morality: Both systems propose using state power to enforce a specific religious moral code on the entire populace, regardless of individual belief.

2.    Subordination of Individual Rights: The rights of the individual, particularly women, are secondary to the preservation of the state-sanctioned religious and social order. Personal autonomy is sacrificed for a perceived collective "good."

3.    Fusion of Religious and State Authority: The clear line separating civic law from religious doctrine is erased. Laws governing dress, public behavior, family structure, and professional life would be dictated by the ruling theological interpretation.

In this sense, Walsh’s "theocratic fascism" would function like other theocracies. It would create a society where full participation and rights are contingent on adherence to the dominant ideology, with sex being a primary axis of social control.

The Fundamental Flaw: An Antithesis to American Pluralism

Herein lies the profound danger of Walsh's vision and its utter incompatibility with the United States as a pluralistic, multicultural nation. The American project, enshrined in the Constitution, is built on the premise that the state shall not establish a religion (First Amendment, Establishment Clause) and that individuals are free to practice their faith—or lack thereof—without government coercion (First Amendment, Free Exercise Clause).

A theocracy is, by its very nature, the antithesis of this principle. It would necessarily render non-Christians, and even Christians who subscribe to a different theology, as second-class citizens. It would strip away the hard-won rights of women to self-determination, LGBTQ+ people of their rights to exist, career choice, and leadership. It would dismantle the foundational promise of a nation where rights are inherent to the person, not granted by a dominant religious faction.

How Can We Push Back Against His Appeal?

Simply calling Matt Walsh a "fascist" is ineffective; he has already claimed the term. Countering his influence requires a more strategic approach that goes beyond mirroring his rhetoric.

1.    Focus on the Consequences, Not the Label: Instead of getting bogged down in debating the term "theocratic fascist," focus on the tangible outcomes of his vision. Ask his listeners and potential sympathizers directly: Do you want your daughter to be legally barred from becoming a CEO or a police officer? Do you want your neighbor, who may be a Muslim, a Jew, or an atheist, to have their rights curtailed by law? Frame the debate around the lived reality his policies would create.

2.    Champion the Alternative: The Virtue of Pluralism: We must do more than just play defense. We need to make a passionate, affirmative case for the benefits of a pluralistic, liberal democracy. This means celebrating the fact that people of different faiths and backgrounds can coexist peacefully. It means highlighting the innovation, strength, and justice that arise from a society where an individual's potential is not limited by their gender, race, or creed. We need to tell a better, more compelling story about America.

3.    Expose the Inherent Contradictions: Walsh and others often use the language of "freedom" and "liberty" to critique what they see as liberal overreach. The key is to demonstrate how their proposed solution—a theocratic state—is the ultimate form of overreach, crushing individual liberty in the name of a state-enforced morality. The ultimate contradiction in their platform is advocating for a "free" society that would be profoundly unfree for a majority of its citizens.

Matt Walsh’s "honesty" is not a virtue; it is a tactic. It is the brazen declaration of a deeply illiberal project. While we can acknowledge his self-awareness, we must not be mesmerized by it. The most effective response is to meet his stark vision with an equally clear and compelling defense of the principles he seeks to destroy: liberty, equality, and a society governed by the people, not by a single interpretation of God.