University of Texas expert on the pope and politics as the papal conclave begins
Professor Eric McDaniel teaches in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin and also researches how religion influences American politics. He talked to KXAN's Avery Travis and Will DuPree about the impact and influence of the next pope.
Watch the video above to see the full conversation, or read a partial transcript of the conversation below. Some responses were edited for clarity.
Avery Travis: What kind of moment does the Catholic Church find itself in right now, and how might that impact this conclave process and the selection of the next pope?
Eric McDaniel: I think the Catholic Church finds itself in a time where it's trying to figure out where it stands in terms of global politics, as we're seeing a rise of religious nationalism, a rise of populism, a push back against institutions. Where does this institution find its place? But also, with the drastic change in culture and — what are the demands that are put on a global institution when you have drastic cultural changes, but also drastic changes in global politics?
Will DuPree: And we really saw that come to a forefront during Pope Francis's tenure. I mean, he spoke publicly about issues like LGBTQ rights, immigration, climate change. What kind of expectation do you have about whether that would continue under a new pope?
McDaniel: I think some of it will continue, but it may not be as intense because there was a good amount of pushback on it. One of the things that Pope Francis was pointed out for doing is speaking out quite a bit about the child abuse scandals and to what extent they will continue with that. So, I expect many of the things that he was pushing forward to continue, but some to be pulled back because they did ruffle several feathers. And speaking of where we fall within the global context, you have to be very careful.
Travis: Even after his death, we know that Pope Francis will have an impact on who will be picking his successor. So, talk about the make-up of this voting body of Cardinals, and Pope Francis's influence on that, and then how that influences the next pope?
McDaniel: Well, I think it's important to note that because the pope has nominated so many of these Cardinals that they are individuals he felt were in line with his vision and trying to continue the vision on. To what extent they will carbon copy it, I do not expect it to be so. But I do think his vision will be clearly there amongst the Cardinals that are seated.
DuPree: We will be watching whether that white smoke will come up after a few votes, or maybe it drags on for several days — starting on Wednesday — so we might have to have you back to follow up on that. But we've got one more topic we want to address with you. Professor McDaniel, President Trump just announced at least last week that he would create a religious liberty commission, and that is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. What's your understanding about how that will work? And share your thoughts about the role that Dan Patrick might be able to play in that?
McDaniel: Well, religious liberty is a very big issue, and it's something that the Founding Fathers debated. We think about [Thomas] Jefferson and [James] Madison and the arguments they made, really, about the strict wall of separation of church and state, and that what Madison wanted in the Constitution was a little bit watered down, and we never really fully agreed upon what religious liberty is. And many religious groups — whether they be the dominant Christian groups, which has kind of been the dominant force – feels that they're being set upon, along with minority religions. So what religious liberty is, is something that's going to be highly, highly debated. And I think that Lt. Gov. Patrick has an idea of what he thinks of his religious liberty, and will try to have that be the focus of the investigations or how they try to push policies related to religious liberty going forward.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KXAN Austin.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump meets Putin: Will Alaska be our Yalta?
President Trump, hostile to law at home or abroad, hopes to win a Nobel Peace Prize by giving parts of Ukraine to Russia to end the war there. He would arrange this by meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, on American soil, flouting the finding of the International Criminal Court that Putin is a war criminal and must be arrested wherever he sets foot. Unlike the 125 countries that accept the ICC's jurisdiction, the U.S. does not recognize the court and has even tried to punish its officials for indicting Trump's friend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Another Republican president, Herbert Hoover, faced a problem similar to that posed by Russia's war on Ukraine. In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, officially part of China but coveted by Japan for its resources. The U.S. was not prepared to intervene militarily, but Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson announced in 1932 that the government would not recognize any political or territorial change accomplished by force. Hoover's U.S. did not belong to the League of Nations, but most League members endorsed what became known as the Stimson Doctrine. Japan, however, denounced these happenings and withdrew from the League in 1933. The Stimson Doctrine did not stop the invasion of China, but it helped build broad recognition of Imperial Japan's threat to global order. The doctrine shaped U.S. and European refusal to recognize the Soviet takeover of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the 1940s. When the three small Baltic nations finally broke free of Soviet rule in 1991, the U.S. and its partners immediately recognized their independent statehoods. The United Nations Charter, signed by Russia as well as the U.S., also bans trans-border aggression, prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. In 1994, Russia, the U.S. and the United Kingdom signed the ' Budapest Decl a ration,' which banned them from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, 'except in self-defense' or otherwise in accordance with the U.N. Charter. As a result of this declaration and other agreements between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their Soviet legacy nuclear weapons. When Russia violated that commitment by invading Ukraine in 2014, the U.S., U.K. and France provided Ukraine with financial and military assistance and imposed economic sanctions against Russia but ruled out direct intervention with their own forces. Trump now follows the calamitous 'might makes right' precedents set at Munich in September 1938 and Yalta in February 1945. At Munich, leaders of the U.K., France and Italy authorized Adolf Hitler to seize a key region of Czechoslovakia in order to achieve 'peace in our time' — only to open the door to Nazi aggression soon after. At Yalta, a dying Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill consigned Eastern Europe to the USSR in return for Stalin's empty promises of free elections and democracy. As David E. Sanger and Luke Broadwater recently put it in the New York Times, Yalta symbolizes what can go wrong when great powers carve up the world: 'smaller powers suffer the consequences and free people find themselves cast under authoritarian rule.' It is noteworthy that although FDR valued his alliance with Moscow, the U.S. stood by the Stimson Doctrine in the Baltic region. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky bristles at both the suggestion of ceding territory and the prospect of talks being held without Ukraine. 'Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace,' he said. They will never work — Zelensky said that Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done.' For Trump, however, what counts are facts on the ground. Brought up to date by his emissary Steve Witkoff — a dilettante with zero knowledge of Russia — Trump believes that Putin still holds the cards. Some experts, to the contrary, believe that the only way Putin does not eventually fold is if he is rescued by Trump. Trump is an unreliable partner for Ukraine and potential plaything for Putin to flatter and manipulate. Walter Clemens is an associate at the Harvard Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and professor emeritus of political science at Boston University. He is the author of 'Blood Debts: What Putin and Xi Owe Their Victims' (2023) and 'The Republican War on America: Dangers of Trump and Trumpism' (2023).
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Liberal Jimmy Kimmel announces Italian citizenship. Ciao, baby!
Unfortunately, I've never been to Italy, but I've visited other countries in Europe. We can enjoy the beauty in other parts of the world and learn a lot from other cultures. But I still return to America happy to be home. I love my country, and I'd never become a citizen of another country, let alone do so because of America's current political climate. Yet, that's exactly what late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel just did. During an appearance on the "The Sarah Silverman Podcast," on Aug. 7, Kimmel said he obtained Italian citizenship and alluded that it was because of President Donald Trump, though he didn't expressly say that. "A lot of people I know are thinking about where they can get citizenship," Silverman said. Kimmel replied, "I did get Italian citizenship." "What's going on is as bad as you thought it was going to be," Kimmel said. Silverman replied, "Way worse." "It's so much worse. It's just unbelievable," Kimmel said. "Like I feel like it's probably even worse than he would like it to be." It's not clear if Kimmel plans to move to Italy or continue to live and work in the United States. Did someone forward you this newsletter?Sign up here to get it delivered in your inbox every Thursday. It's free! Kimmel has long been a harsh critic of Trump. Ironically, as Trump makes dramatic changes that will help the American people, late night talk shows like Kimmel's have taken a hit. "Late Show" host Stephen Colbert's show was canceled in July, even though his ratings beat Kimmel's and 'Tonight Show' host Jimmy Fallon's. Trump, not one to shy from trash talking his political foes, has predicted that Kimmel and Fallon will be canceled next. I have a sliver of respect for liberals who make good on their threat to leave America when a Republican is elected. At the same time, it's silly. We are blessed to live in the most powerful country in the world, and it's the people who elect our president, Republican or Democrat. If a person as wealthy and famous as Kimmel isn't happy to live in America because of Trump, by all means, don't let the door hit you on the way out. When an intelligent and funny guy like Kimmel says America under Trump is worse than he thought it would be, what does he mean? Our economy is thriving, the border is secure, taxes have been cut and there might soon be peace in the Middle East and Ukraine thanks to Trump. I guess that's not enough for Kimmel, So, enjoy the gelato. I'll enjoy my freedom. Read more from me and my colleagues:
Atlantic
19 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Trades National Security for a Deal With China
After making a show of getting tough on China, President Donald Trump desperately needs a trade agreement to prove that his disruptive tactics get results. This week, the United States and China agreed to extend their negotiations, avoiding—for now—another round of tariffs that would have hurt business between the world's two largest economies. But the president's newfound willingness to allow the export of vital AI chips to China indicates that an eventual deal could imperil American interests. Eager for a pact, Trump may give up more than he receives. In 2022, then-President Joe Biden prohibited the export of advanced AI chips to China. Just four months ago, Trump expanded those restrictions. This week, though, Trump confirmed the details of an unusual arrangement effectively reversing that move: The American companies Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices will be allowed to sell certain chips to Chinese firms if the companies give the U.S. government a 15 percent cut of the revenue from these sales. In essence, Trump sold exemptions to technology-export controls that many experts consider crucial to protecting American security. In a letter last month, Matt Pottinger, who was Trump's deputy national security adviser during the president's first term, and 19 other policy professionals urged the administration not to allow the sale of Nvidia's H20 chip to China, calling the decision a 'strategic misstep that endangers the United States' economic and military edge in artificial intelligence.' Derek Thompson: The disturbing rise of MAGA Maoism Trump may see the arrangement not as a national-security issue but as a business deal: There's a lot of money to be made selling chips to China, and now the U.S. government will materially benefit. But Trump must also realize that he's made a concession to Chinese President Xi Jinping. Beijing has persistently demanded that Washington remove U.S. export controls on advanced chips, and Xi personally pressed Biden for relief without success. Trump justified his flip-flop by arguing that the H20 chip is not among Nvidia's most high-powered products. He's right about that, but it's far from outdated. Chinese companies crave the H20 to help them deploy AI services. Indeed, the demand for the H20 appears to have alarmed Chinese authorities, who would prefer that local companies use homemade alternatives. Even as Beijing fights the U.S. restrictions, officials have tried slowing the rush by signaling in state media that the Nvidia chip is unsafe. Although Chinese designers have developed a similar chip, they are unable to produce enough, also due to U.S. restrictions that prevent them from using the top chip manufacturer, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Trump has left the door open to further concessions. Because China's tech industry still can't match Nvidia's AI chips, Beijing is likely to prod Trump to ease restrictions on more advanced semiconductors. Rather than firmly committing to export controls, Trump suggested on Monday that he would be open to permitting Nvidia to sell China downgraded versions of its most powerful chips. Xi has every reason to ask for more. Trump's desire for a deal gives Chinese leaders leverage. And given Trump's pattern of sudden policy reversals, he has likely left an impression that anything could be on the table. Beijing is clearly all in on the negotiations. According to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the Chinese government sent 75 officials to the most recent round of talks, in Stockholm in late July, compared with his own skeleton crew of 15. 'Xi now feels more emboldened to probe for a wider range of potential concessions, not only economic but also security concessions,' Ali Wyne, an expert on U.S.-China relations at the International Crisis Group, told me. Wyne fears this could lead to a 'lopsided bargain' in China's favor. Thomas Wright: Trump wasted no time derailing his own AI plan Xi has already gained on his top-priority issue: Taiwan. He urged Trump to approach Taiwan 'with prudence' during a phone conversation in June, according to the Chinese government's official summary. Washington then reportedly canceled meetings with Taiwan's defense minister, a step that surely pleased Beijing, which strives to isolate the island's government. The Trump administration also appears to have discouraged Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te from making stopovers in U.S. cities while en route to Latin America for diplomatic visits. Xi has done little in exchange. Beijing's most significant goodwill gesture was a June decision to restrict the sale of two chemicals that are used to make the illegal fentanyl circulating on American streets, an issue of utmost importance to the Trump team. But Beijing's action on curtailing the fentanyl trade will likely remain conditional on Trump's good behavior. Trump recently called on Xi in a social-media post to buy more U.S.-grown soybeans—which would be great for some American farmers, but is hardly an even swap for China's access to high-tech chips. Meanwhile, Xi has deftly created and deployed levers of pressure. Amid the escalating trade war in April, Beijing imposed controls on the export to the U.S. of rare-earth metals—an industry that China dominates—and then used their easing as a negotiating tool. In the end, Xi may not get all he wants. But he is winning just by talking. China's leaders have apparently learned that they can distract Trump from more strategic issues by haggling with him over tariff rates and soybean sales. The desire for a deal has so consumed the Trump team that any grander strategy to contend with China's growing power seems to have gotten lost. Last week, Trump imposed high tariffs on India in an attempt to compel New Delhi to curtail purchases of Russian oil—angering a potential partner in the global competition with China. Friendlier relations with China are certainly better than open hostility. The question has always been: At what cost? Trump may eventually seal a trade deal with China that benefits him, but not necessarily the nation.
