The Religious Right and Trump's Victory

[Fuzzy Bear]

In looking at the returns, one of my observations is that Trump very much had it both ways on the issue of religious conservatism.

Trump won Evangelicals convincingly.  He did so because (A) he promised to appoint conservative SCOTUS Justices, (B) he indicated that he would not use government to interfere in the operations of churches, and (C) because Hillary Clinton is a uniquely loathsome figure amongst Evangelicals, advocating Partial Birth Abortion on demand, actively willing to use unbelievers to work changes in doctrines of churches, and her advocacy of policies that, in the eyes of Christians, undermine the role of the Nuclear Family in society.

But Trump also reversed the slide in states which sharply trended Democratic, beginning in 1988, and being cemented in 1992.  I'm talking about PA, MI, and WI (which he carried) and NH, MN, and ME (where he improved).

This second group of states became more Democratic at the Presidential level, in part, because of a rejection of the GOP's embrace of the vocal Religious Right.  These folks were anathema to many middle-class Republican voters in those states.  They agreed with moderate Republicans such as Labor Secretary Lynn Martin who stated after the 1992 GOP loss that it wasn't enough for the Republicans to want to be folks' political party; now they wanted to be people's church as well  That sentiment resonated with many traditional GOP voters, who left the GOP with less fanfare than Reagan Democrats left the Democratic Party.

In Trump, these folks had a relief from this.  Yes, the Evangelicals voted for him, but Trump never tried to be folks' pastor.  These voters saw Trump as going along with an established platform, but not someone who was going to meddle in their private lives or lecture them on personal morality.  Trump provided the socially conservative public policy without the moralizing, which is something these voters could swallow.

This is my own theory as to a driving force in politics over the last 28 years.  I wonder if anyone else sees this in part or in whole.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do the Jesus voters even have that much influence anymore? More and more people are becoming irreligious, thanks in large part to the repeated hypocrisy of the so-called "born again evangelical conservative Christian" Republicans who have exploited religion for their own personal gains. It's hard to take them seriously when they preach about the "sanctity of marriage" and then get caught committing adultery, or they call themselves "pro-life" but they pay for abortions for the women in their lives.

One good thing about Trump's election and the evangelicals who supported him is that their hypocrisy has been validated. They've collectively determined that in order to be an "evangelical," you must vote Republican regardless of whom the nominee is. Forget the fact that Trump owns casinos (as many evangelicals believe gambling is a sin) and let's just ignore #Pussygate and who cares that Trump was pro-choice up until he decided to run as a Republican and then pulled a Romney and flip-flopped. Yeah, I'd say the days of the evangelicals calling the shots in the GOP are long gone. No longer can they preach the sanctity of marriage when they've supported a twice-divorced greedy plutocrat (but I guess to them, the only way one can be forgiven for those sins is to be a Republican. If you're a Democrat, you must be subjected to all the fire and brimstone eternal damnation pits of Hell rapture because Democrats support baby killing and homosexuals destroying "traditional marriage," whatever that means).

Give me a break.

The "sanctity of marriage" is, I agree a faux argument, and not the reason I oppose SSM.  I oppose it because the Bible, the Inerrant Word of God, clearly and unambiguously states that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sexual activity between anyone other than a man and his female spouse is sin.  SSM has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage".  I oppose it because I consider it an affront to God.

And, yes, it is very true that a number of Christian officeholders have been caught cheating, divorcing their spouses, marrying their staff assistants, etc.  That's sin as well, and it is also an affront to God.  That being said, this is a personal lifestyle issue, while issues like SSM, abortion, etc., are policy issues, and an election in America is a binary choice, the outcome of which will have ramifications on public policy.  I've voted for lots of candidates, Democrat and Republican, whom I though to be tawdry individuals, sometimes in place of folks who were more upstanding on certain levels, because my choice of candidate would advance the public policies I thought important.

To call Christians "hypocrites" because they voted for Trump is not accurate, and not fair.  If a Christian were elected to office and got caught sleeping with his female staffer, that would be hypocrisy (or, at a minimum, sin).  But that's not what Christians are doing. 

Do Evangelicals have power?  They are an important GOP constituency.  No Republican could be nominated with the opposition of Evangelicals, and the pro-life stance has become a litmus test for Republicans over time; pro-choice Republicans at the Congressional level or higher are a rarity, as pro-life Democrats are.  I'd consider that power, and I'd consider that relevancy.  I don't believe that a Bill Weld, no matter how minimalist government a platform he came up with, could be the GOP nominee, even in today's environment.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do the Jesus voters even have that much influence anymore? More and more people are becoming irreligious, thanks in large part to the repeated hypocrisy of the so-called "born again evangelical conservative Christian" Republicans who have exploited religion for their own personal gains. It's hard to take them seriously when they preach about the "sanctity of marriage" and then get caught committing adultery, or they call themselves "pro-life" but they pay for abortions for the women in their lives.

One good thing about Trump's election and the evangelicals who supported him is that their hypocrisy has been validated. They've collectively determined that in order to be an "evangelical," you must vote Republican regardless of whom the nominee is. Forget the fact that Trump owns casinos (as many evangelicals believe gambling is a sin) and let's just ignore #Pussygate and who cares that Trump was pro-choice up until he decided to run as a Republican and then pulled a Romney and flip-flopped. Yeah, I'd say the days of the evangelicals calling the shots in the GOP are long gone. No longer can they preach the sanctity of marriage when they've supported a twice-divorced greedy plutocrat (but I guess to them, the only way one can be forgiven for those sins is to be a Republican. If you're a Democrat, you must be subjected to all the fire and brimstone eternal damnation pits of Hell rapture because Democrats support baby killing and homosexuals destroying "traditional marriage," whatever that means).

Give me a break.

You're trying to apply logic and reason to people (using the term very broadly) who think the Earth is 6000 years old and global warming is hoax. THEY DON'T CARE. All their religion is to them is an excuse to believe what they want to believe, and do what they want to do. Jesus H. Christ could descend from Heaven, backed up by the thundering voice of the Lord Almighty and say "be nice to you fellow man, and don't vote Republican" and they'd go shoot some people with different skin color or who speak a different language and then go rape some women before voting straight R. And then they'd spend the next six weeks repeating whatever excuse Rush Limbaugh and Trump fed them.

Not all Evangelicals believe in a Young Earth.

Few give a crap about your opinions, however.  At least in regard to what you think about them.  Your opinion is likely not based on any kind of firsthand knowledge.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hillary Clinton is a uniquely loathsome figure

Truer words are rarely spoken, but I' a little surprised that evangelical protestants would nominate The Donald.  Still, maybe you're right.  He simply played all the cards right.  He certainly didn't seem to "moralize."  I wouldn't think it possible for such an amoral person to moralize anyway.  

J. D. Vance pointed out in an interview that Ted Cruz was the GOP choice of REGULAR churchgoers.  Trump was the choice of Evangelicals that were not regular churchgoers, or lapsed churchgoers.

I'm an Evangelical and a regular churchgoer.  I'm not looking for my President to be my pastor.  I'm not happy with Trump's lifestyle, but he will enact policies that are far more compatible to a Christian World View than Hillary Clinton would.

What ISSUE can anyone here name that an Evangelical Christian ought to be more enamored of the Hillary Clinton position than the Donald Trump position?  If you can find one, where do you think an Evangelical Christian would put that issue on the hierarchy of issues?  Saying "Trump's a Whoremonger!" may or may not be true, but even if he is, that doesn't impact public policy at all.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Religious Right is dying.  Compassionate Evangelicalism and Progressive Christianity are on the rise and growing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Religious Left" equivalent to the Religious Right that starts making its way into the mainstream political consciousness in the 2020s or early 2030s.

I've never identified as a member of the "Religious Right", and I find guys like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed more than a little smarmy.

I do believe, however, in the Bible as the Infallible Word of God.  As such, that has implications for my voting.  I've not always voted for the "pro-life" candidate, for example, but there are certainly reasons in Scripture which would cause me to ask myself why I'm NOT supporting a pro-life candidate.  I don't think God views the GOP as "His" party of choice.  But I do think God holds me responsible for how I vote, and the implications for that vote on His Will being done.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Religious Right is dying.  Compassionate Evangelicalism and Progressive Christianity are on the rise and growing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Religious Left" equivalent to the Religious Right that starts making its way into the mainstream political consciousness in the 2020s or early 2030s.

I've never identified as a member of the "Religious Right", and I find guys like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed more than a little smarmy.

I do believe, however, in the Bible as the Infallible Word of God.  As such, that has implications for my voting.  I've not always voted for the "pro-life" candidate, for example, but there are certainly reasons in Scripture which would cause me to ask myself why I'm NOT supporting a pro-life candidate.  I don't think God views the GOP as "His" party of choice.  But I do think God holds me responsible for how I vote, and the implications for that vote on His Will being done.

I would think of your voting patterns this way.  We're saved by GRACE, and not by WORKS.  And as believers in Christ, we have soul liberty to live our lives.  1 Corinthians 10:23.

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

Being Saved involves acknowledging Christ as Lord, and not just as Savior.  Salvation is not accomplished by works, but it is evidenced by "Good (Godly) Works".  

The liberty we have in Christ is not license to willfully sin.  If a person is living their life in that manner, it begs the question as to whether or not this person truly believes that Jesus is Lord as well as Savior.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The coalescence behind Donald Trump has exposed how hollow the "moral politics" approach endorsed by the Religious Right truly was. While the legitimacy of their "preaching" methodology is likely severely reduced as a viable political tool, the antipluralistic, exclusionary nature of the politics they endorsed lives on in Trump's anti-multiculturalism, at least for now. I personally think both sides of the spectrum are missing the mark on how culture works. I find the anti-multiculturalists that fear perpetual and multiplying non-assimilated groups and unabashed cultural purists that decry "cultural appropriation" as equally foolish. Culture is a dynamic, living thing that is constantly reshaping itself based on the inputs it receives. Believing that one's culture is "under siege" from out-groups or that other cultures are being "corrupted" by the predominant one are understandable reactions, but they require a subscription to misguided binary thinking in order to uphold.

For the record, I think liberals have taken it a bit too far as well. I don't agree with the efforts to force Christian bakeries or flower shops or photographers to provide services to gay weddings or to mandate privately held religious organizations to provide contraceptives that go against the owner's beliefs. I also don't think these are necessary actions prescribed by liberalism; the left is ideologically supportive of pluralism, and while there are certainly some flashpoints that will continue to be hotly contested (like abortion), I see no reason why Evangelicals need be inherently excluded from a left-leaning vision of America. On the other hand, the politics of the Religious Right was inherently exclusionary on its foundation. I agree with Libertpaulian that Evangelicalism is likely to adopt a more "compassionate" phase in the near future ---especially if Donald Trump fails to actually achieve any of their goals--- and that discrimination of certain rights based on sexual orientation will be as frowned upon 30 years in the future among the religious as discrimination of certain rights based on race is now.

Granted, you claim not to fall under the label of Religious Right and your reasoning for generally supporting socially conservative candidates is understandable and acceptable. However, while I'm not so sure that most Christians necessarily invoke the concept of grace as a "license to willfully sin," I am wholly under the impression that many do emphasize the "Jesus as Savior" aspect as an excuse to justify their treatment of others and to exempt themselves from introspection of their behavior.  I consider this to be a product of the tribalistic identity politics the Religious Right inspired and that it corrupted the "forgiveness" ethos and reshaped it onto a framework of ingroup-outgroup dynamics. When religion dressed up as politics was transformed into a politics dressed up as religion, and social conservatives began taking greater cues from the Republican platform than they did from scripture, it became more important to reward possession of the correct labels than possession of the correct morals; it became more important to believe correctly than to demonstrate that belief through "good godly works.".

That's been my perspective from the outside looking in. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective from the inside looking out.

I could comment extensively on this.  I do agree that Christians have compromised their witness with some of their more hamhanded forays into politics.  In supporting Trump, I would frequently point out that I wasn't asking anyone else to do so, and that I was not signing off on Trump as a "better Christian" than Hillary Clinton.  I don't think it's wrong to say that whatever their personal standing with God, Donald Trump represented and advanced a more "Christianized" point of view, whereas Hillary Clinton (or, at a minimum, many of her supporters) wishes to actively use public policy to diminish Christian influence in American society.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What ISSUE can anyone here name that an Evangelical Christian ought to be more enamored of the Hillary Clinton position than the Donald Trump position?  If you can find one, where do you think an Evangelical Christian would put that issue on the hierarchy of issues?  Saying "Trump's a Whoremonger!" may or may not be true, but even if he is, that doesn't impact public policy at all.

Well, I don't know the specifics of Evangelical Christians. But for Christians in general, here are two important ISSUES:
I strongly believe that Jesus, being a messenger of peace and not of violence, would be strongly in favor of strict gun control.
And, as he himself healed the sick, I suspect he would not be in favour of repealing the Affordable Care Act, instead he would support transforming it into a single payer system.

For all I know, Pope Francis would agree with me. (Yeah, I know, he ain't no evangelical)

I have a tough time with Jesus being more concerned with gun control than with abortion, especially partial birth abortion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What ISSUE can anyone here name that an Evangelical Christian ought to be more enamored of the Hillary Clinton position than the Donald Trump position?  If you can find one, where do you think an Evangelical Christian would put that issue on the hierarchy of issues?  Saying "Trump's a Whoremonger!" may or may not be true, but even if he is, that doesn't impact public policy at all.

Well, I don't know the specifics of Evangelical Christians. But for Christians in general, here are two important ISSUES:
I strongly believe that Jesus, being a messenger of peace and not of violence, would be strongly in favor of strict gun control.
And, as he himself healed the sick, I suspect he would not be in favour of repealing the Affordable Care Act, instead he would support transforming it into a single payer system.

For all I know, Pope Francis would agree with me. (Yeah, I know, he ain't no evangelical)

I have a tough time with Jesus being more concerned with gun control than with abortion, especially partial birth abortion.

I didn't mention abortion. Of course I can understand being against abortion - and the death penalty, by the way -  from a Christian point of view. But that doesn't exclude endorsing common sense gun control. 

There is debate in Christendom as to the Death Penalty.  I am on the side of those who view it as against the will of Jesus, Himself. 

Scripture does, very much, distinguish "innocent" life from all life.  The Fourth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." translates to "Thou shalt not murder.", and makes a clear distinction between the taking of innocent life and taking life in self-defense, or in carrying out the legally prescribed death penalty. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

As a Christian I was very surprised that Christians backed President Trump the way they did.

They didn't. Calling themselves Christians does not actually make them Christians.

If you think that people (using the term loosely) voting for Pussygrabber von Puppet were Christians, then you should also be very angry at the United States for destroying the noble and well-intentioned supporters of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Then, again (A) you're not a Christian, and (B) you have expressed your contempt for Evangelical Christians in more than one post.

You have a right to post whatever you want.  You don't have a right to experience credibility, and you deserve none in terms of this post.  I doubt you know what a Christian is.

I will say this:  Lots of folks have different ideas as to who Jesus Christ was, is, and forever will be.  Not all of those ideas lead to Salvation by Grace.  Belief in some of them leads to Eternal Separation from God and the Lake of Fire.  Who Jesus was, is, and forever will be is a question, the answer to which has Eternal Consequences

[Fuzzy Bear]

I hope this trend continues.

I don't.  If you had asked me about this ten or twenty years ago I'd have said sure, I'm getting sick of politicians interjecting their religious beliefs into campaigns and anything is better than those who wear their religion on their sleeves, but now I have seen the alternative.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and their campaign styles, are disgusting.  One was crude and the other was insulting.  One is addicted to his mobile phone and the other is addicted to platitudes and overconfidence.  This election was probably the most peurile I've seen.  As much as I am loathe to say it, I would prefer the holier-than-thou types to the low-brow campaigns that these two narcissistic individuals waged.

I see it differently.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump despise each other. If they had ran their campaigns under the pretense that they were forced to be civil with one another out of obligation then it would've come across as a complete lie. Nobody would've believed it. If either of them tried to out Jesus each other it would've been nasuating; at least to me it would have. Being nice to eachothers face or to the other when speaking in front of a public audience while simultaneously hating one another would've been exposed right away. Not sure how many people would've preferred watching that.

Sanders and Trump redefined how a politician speaks in a lot of ways. The fake rhythm and cadence, the timed pauses, the right inflection at certain points in their speech, etc. All of these tactics were thrown out the window by these two. Watching Ted Cruz speak then hearing it switch over to Trump was a breathe of fresh air. Cruz just reeked of slime and a used car salesman demeanor that drove me nuts.

If I had to pick between Ted Cruz/Romney/Hillary style of campaigning and speaking vs the Trump/Sanders way, then I would prefer the latter. One is cruel and honest about it; while the other is a lie that everyone can see.

I agree with most of this.  Possibly all of this.

I've said this before, but the backdrop to this election is that millions of Americans have been screwed over and their lives destroyed by folks with a civil tone, good manners, and clean language.  And a good many of the people doing the screwing are folks who are quick to cut people off when they express their anger, suggest that it's "not constructive to blame others" and suggest that everyone "move on".

Trump and Sanders were "blamers".  They were folks that called the well-mannered screwors out.  Hillary, on the other hand, called a huge swath of the American people out, calling them "deplorable" and members of the "Alt Right".  Not too swift, eh?  In some ways, it's amazing that she beat Sanders in the primary.