Does religion make the United States kleptocratic?

To address this question, let us begin by defining "kleptocracy." What is it? In short, it is rule by thieves. (The Greek word "klepto" means "I steal," the same as the "klepto" in "kleptomaniac.") A kleptocracy is a governmental system led by corrupt rulers (kleptocrats) who use their power inappropriately—to steal funds, to control the public, to exploit natural resources—for their own personal gain.

What are some examples of kleptocracies today? This is arguable, as it depends on many factors and who is judging, but countries like Azerbaijan, Honduras, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have all fallen under this umbrella. Russia has also been called a kleptocracy, and, unfortunately, some scholars and journalists have also used the term to describe the United States under Donald Trump's presidency (partly because of the way that Trump's business interests and his presidency are tied together.)

However, let us return to the pre-Trump era, shall we? Let us focus on Jared Diamond's Pulitzer Prize-winning 1997 book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies and the more specific question of whether or not religion makes the US a kleptocracy.

Diamond, a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA, offers a more specific definition of kleptocracy in chapter 14, which is entitled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy." Here, he says that a kleptocracy is a government that transfers wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper classes. (There is a fine line between a kleptocracy and a good government, he says, at least in terms of public perception: all governmental systems take funds from the people. If the public is pleased with how those funds are being used, the government is functioning well. If the public does not approve of how those funds are being used, it might be a kleptocracy.)

So where does religion come into play?

Let us go back into chapter 14. In this part of the book, Diamond lays out four general categories of societal units: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states. These social structures often included religious structure. Structure, Diamond argues, developed around the human need for organization (and, ultimately, their own survival.) In human history, these structures as a result of organizational requirements, and you had to join to survive:

While nomads and tribespeople occasionally defeat organized governments and religions, the trend over the past 13,000 years has been for the nomads and tribespeople to lose.

Diamond goes on to say that the development of religion in societal units is closely tied to power:


Descendants of those societies that achieved centralized government and organized religion earliest ended up dominating the modern world. The combination of government and religion has thus functioned together with germs, writing, and technology as one of the four main sets of proximate agents leading to history's broadest pattern.

Okay. Does religion make the US a kleptocracy? (Here is an accompanying question: would the US still be as powerful without religion?) Let us consider Diamond's methods of how kleptocrats gain power. He names four, but we do not need to get into all of them here. One of the methods is most relevant to this discussion: Diamond says that kleptocrats can win public support by constructing or referencing religion. (In chiefdoms, chiefs are often religious leaders as well, and they are able to use that role to persuade the public not only to obey their rule, but to worship them too.)

Let us go back to the US, which is a state and not a chiefdom. Think about this: in what ways do American politicans, past and present, refer to religion? When and how? Is religion, or a reference to religion, ever used to smooth over public unrest or to explain a policy change (like a tax bill) that ultimately benefits the wealthy? If you can think of a few examples of this, you have your answer.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/08/15/kleptocracy-in-america-pub-72836