Since Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the summer of 2016, I have struggled to understand the way in which many evangelicals have responded to his nomination, both during the election and in its aftermath. I grew up among the “Theologically Orphaned Generation” that was steeped in a culture that emphasized the necessity of virtue and moral character for those who would serve the public, both in the church and in politics. That background left me bewildered by the willingness of so many evangelical leaders to support Trump despite acknowledging his lack of virtue.
When I have asked evangelical friends and family about their choice to support Trump in the election, I have encountered a consistent response. That answer was summarized well by Os Guinness in an interview with Collin Hansen of Beeson Divinity School during the spring of 2017:
Guinness’ answer is striking. He seems to indicate that evangelical support for Trump was weak and entirely dependent on the nature and structure of the two party system. Had we a parliamentary-style democracy (as in Great Britain) with many parties, then Christians might not need to make these kinds of trade-offs, but given the binary choice of Donald Trump (and Republican control of the White House) or Hillary Clinton (and Democratic control), many evangelicals chose the lesser evil in voting against Democrats and Clinton.
As time has passed since the election, I have begun to wonder if there have been unintentional consequences from the vote for Donald Trump. Were Guinness’ claim true and the vote against Clinton the only motivation for the evangelical vote for Trump, one would expect evangelicals to be willing to abandon Trump after the election, or to support serious investigations into his potential abuse of power. After all, they were apparently voting for him with the recognition that he was flawed and that he would not be the best person for the job of President. Further, with Mike Pence as Vice President, the alternative to Donald Trump should be much more palatable to Evangelicals.
What we have seen, however, is precisely the opposite. Evangelicals have proven to be the most loyal demographic group to Trump. There has been a drop in their support during the first year in office according to the Pew Research Center’s survey at the end of 2017, but since then it has rebounded.
Now, there are those who argue against using self-identification to identify who evangelicals are and how much they support Trump. The argument has some merit, and yet I believe it matters that people who think that they are evangelicals have proven so loyal to him. Among friends and family, I know too many who voted for Trump based on their religious identity as evangelicals, all of whom have made some version of Guinness’ argument, to dismiss the polling data as fundamentally flawed.
What can explain their enduring support for a President they voted for under duress?
I believe that the answer to this question reflects what voting for someone does to the voter. The work of political scientists Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels provides a helpful perspective on this point. They and other scholars in their field have demonstrated the most voters voting behavior is shaped by their group identities. Among those identities is party affiliation, and the tight linking of evangelical self-identification with the Republican party since the 1980s is widely recognized. In looking at how people assess political parties, individual politicians, and even particular issues, Achen and Bartels make a compelling case that people’s views are shaped by those with whom they identify. Even on issues such as abortion, there is compelling evidence that voters’ views shift over time to conform to those held by the party with which they identify. We also tend to assume political parties and politicians with whom we identify agree with the positions we hold, whether they do or not. As Achen and Bartels summarized their findings, “group identities drive views of the political world.” (p.242)
In cases in which we have no strong position (which is true of most people on most issues), we shift our views to fit with those held by those with whom we identify. Research undertaken following Trump’s victory demonstrated precisely this dynamic: Republicans shifted their policy preferences to follow those stated by Donald Trump when they diverged from traditional Republican positions.
Based on this scholarship, then, evangelicals’ persistent support of Trump makes sense. By voting for him, they identified with him and are now invested in his success. Rather than maintaining the critical distance implied by Guinness’ defense, choosing to support Trump and voting for him changed the political identity of many evangelicals and appears to have shaped their interpretation of political issues in a meaningful way. Threats to Trump’s presidency were threats to this new identity, creating long-term consequences for this vote under duress.
Such analysis should be compelling to Christians. Jesus Christ suggested this link between self-identification and one's moral imagination in the sermon on the mount: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24) To choose a person to be a leader will shape one's thoughts and desires--it cannot be neutral.
Similarly, much of James K. A. Smith’s work over the past decade has focused on how humans are “liturgical animals” that are shaped by their acts of worship. Our moral imaginations conform to the liturgies in which we participate, leading us to interpret and experience the world in accordance with that vision of the Good.
As Christians (including evangelicals) continue to work through how they ought to engage in politics, we would all do well to consider the ways in which such engagement conform us to the image of those we support. I worry that the emphasis on thinking the right thing in the dominant strains of the evangelical culture of my youth has made it too easy for many to believe that they can maintain meaningful distance between their internal thoughts and their external actions. Such conceit depends upon significant distance between our internal self and the external world that is increasingly implausible and requires a new conversation about what this means for Christian political engagement.
I am excited about the potential for constructive cultural engagement growing out of a more-accurate understanding of human nature. I long to participate in such substantive dialogue with other Christians concerning the many ways in which we shape and are shaped by our interaction with the world. While such an approach may be overwhelming and raise uncomfortable questions, these seem to be unavoidable. Political science, theology, and the Sermon on the Mount appear to converge in arguing that the way in which we engage politics (and our culture at large) has profound implications for the shape of one’s mind and soul.
When I have asked evangelical friends and family about their choice to support Trump in the election, I have encountered a consistent response. That answer was summarized well by Os Guinness in an interview with Collin Hansen of Beeson Divinity School during the spring of 2017:
Collin Hansen: …what would you say that you learned, perhaps about yourself or about evangelicals, in the aftermath of the presidential election?
Os Guinness: I'm not sure I learned too much about myself in the election. Evangelicals, though, they were roundly attacked for, say, the 81% who voted in Donald Trump, and I thought unfairly. There's, I think, a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the President. As I understood it, the evangelicals I know, it wasn't that they voted for Trump, because they knew he's an extraordinary character who's got some obvious flaws. But it was more that they voted against not just Hillary, but all the henchmen and women who she would have brought in with her. Because culturally speaking, if that particular party had got in, apart from the grace of the Lord and revival, the culture and its trends in America might have been irreversible.
So it was a vote against that, rather than for Trump. And the way I put it is I think President Trump is God's wrecking ball, stopping America in its tracks, the direction it's going, and giving the country a chance to rethink. Now we're not putting our hope in the President or in politics, but you have a window to regroup, to rethink. The Church profoundly needs reformation in all sorts of areas. So that is a breathing space.
Guinness’ answer is striking. He seems to indicate that evangelical support for Trump was weak and entirely dependent on the nature and structure of the two party system. Had we a parliamentary-style democracy (as in Great Britain) with many parties, then Christians might not need to make these kinds of trade-offs, but given the binary choice of Donald Trump (and Republican control of the White House) or Hillary Clinton (and Democratic control), many evangelicals chose the lesser evil in voting against Democrats and Clinton.
As time has passed since the election, I have begun to wonder if there have been unintentional consequences from the vote for Donald Trump. Were Guinness’ claim true and the vote against Clinton the only motivation for the evangelical vote for Trump, one would expect evangelicals to be willing to abandon Trump after the election, or to support serious investigations into his potential abuse of power. After all, they were apparently voting for him with the recognition that he was flawed and that he would not be the best person for the job of President. Further, with Mike Pence as Vice President, the alternative to Donald Trump should be much more palatable to Evangelicals.
What we have seen, however, is precisely the opposite. Evangelicals have proven to be the most loyal demographic group to Trump. There has been a drop in their support during the first year in office according to the Pew Research Center’s survey at the end of 2017, but since then it has rebounded.
Now, there are those who argue against using self-identification to identify who evangelicals are and how much they support Trump. The argument has some merit, and yet I believe it matters that people who think that they are evangelicals have proven so loyal to him. Among friends and family, I know too many who voted for Trump based on their religious identity as evangelicals, all of whom have made some version of Guinness’ argument, to dismiss the polling data as fundamentally flawed.
What can explain their enduring support for a President they voted for under duress?
I believe that the answer to this question reflects what voting for someone does to the voter. The work of political scientists Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels provides a helpful perspective on this point. They and other scholars in their field have demonstrated the most voters voting behavior is shaped by their group identities. Among those identities is party affiliation, and the tight linking of evangelical self-identification with the Republican party since the 1980s is widely recognized. In looking at how people assess political parties, individual politicians, and even particular issues, Achen and Bartels make a compelling case that people’s views are shaped by those with whom they identify. Even on issues such as abortion, there is compelling evidence that voters’ views shift over time to conform to those held by the party with which they identify. We also tend to assume political parties and politicians with whom we identify agree with the positions we hold, whether they do or not. As Achen and Bartels summarized their findings, “group identities drive views of the political world.” (p.242)
In cases in which we have no strong position (which is true of most people on most issues), we shift our views to fit with those held by those with whom we identify. Research undertaken following Trump’s victory demonstrated precisely this dynamic: Republicans shifted their policy preferences to follow those stated by Donald Trump when they diverged from traditional Republican positions.
Based on this scholarship, then, evangelicals’ persistent support of Trump makes sense. By voting for him, they identified with him and are now invested in his success. Rather than maintaining the critical distance implied by Guinness’ defense, choosing to support Trump and voting for him changed the political identity of many evangelicals and appears to have shaped their interpretation of political issues in a meaningful way. Threats to Trump’s presidency were threats to this new identity, creating long-term consequences for this vote under duress.
Such analysis should be compelling to Christians. Jesus Christ suggested this link between self-identification and one's moral imagination in the sermon on the mount: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24) To choose a person to be a leader will shape one's thoughts and desires--it cannot be neutral.
Similarly, much of James K. A. Smith’s work over the past decade has focused on how humans are “liturgical animals” that are shaped by their acts of worship. Our moral imaginations conform to the liturgies in which we participate, leading us to interpret and experience the world in accordance with that vision of the Good.
As Christians (including evangelicals) continue to work through how they ought to engage in politics, we would all do well to consider the ways in which such engagement conform us to the image of those we support. I worry that the emphasis on thinking the right thing in the dominant strains of the evangelical culture of my youth has made it too easy for many to believe that they can maintain meaningful distance between their internal thoughts and their external actions. Such conceit depends upon significant distance between our internal self and the external world that is increasingly implausible and requires a new conversation about what this means for Christian political engagement.
I am excited about the potential for constructive cultural engagement growing out of a more-accurate understanding of human nature. I long to participate in such substantive dialogue with other Christians concerning the many ways in which we shape and are shaped by our interaction with the world. While such an approach may be overwhelming and raise uncomfortable questions, these seem to be unavoidable. Political science, theology, and the Sermon on the Mount appear to converge in arguing that the way in which we engage politics (and our culture at large) has profound implications for the shape of one’s mind and soul.
Very interesting idea: The physical act of voting for Trump causes a bias in his favor. It does seem like a possibility.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this during my lunch break. I have been wondering the same thing, why are all these christians still support this guy? This provides some insight as to why perhaps that is. We all like to think we are so rational... it does make me a little uncomfortable, that perhaps I or anyone else can be so oblivious about why we think what we think and how inconsistent we can be.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting. It brings to mind the power of 'group think' and the power of confirmation bias. If something is acceptable and right to my group then it must be right. If I made a choice then my perception of reality might be skewed to make my own choice the right one. This is true in so many different scenarios and I can certainly see where this has been true in my ideas and beliefs also.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's exactly the same kind of issue. It raises serious challenges for the traditional justifications for our political institutions that have not really been dealt with, or adequately considered, from the reading I've done.
DeleteI think there seems to be a vindictive quality in the support of Trump. That is, pleasure is seeing the left upset about his decisions and laws. It seems to come out of the feeling that things have been out of control for so long that a rethink time was necessary or even deserved.
ReplyDeleteIn a conversation yesterday with someone, “Society is just changing too fast. We need a chance to slow down.”
I've heard similar things as well, especially more recently. The desire to slow the pace of change is an interesting and traditionally conservative one, although it appears to be disconnected from most of the policy positions actually adopted by this administration.
DeleteIt is funny to think about the Trump administration as being a moment to slow down for contemplation, since that does not seem to be the dominant mood in Washington based on the reporting...
The most glaring part of the Guinness quote, to me, is that he seems quite at ease with the notion of unleashing a "wrecking ball" and accepting whatever happens to the nation (and the world) as long as it somehow - were are not told how - gives the church time to reform itself.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for me to imagine a more self-obsessed worldview than that, especially coming from a church leader. Or, a more wrong-headed one.
I absolutely agree that choosing to support Trump has created a feedback loop in which people, who first supported him for a particular reason, like abortion or because they simply could not face a world with a President Hillary, are NOW being changed by Trump.
People are being pulled into his worldview. They are supporting his behaviors, and, frankly, displaying his attitudes. I have experienced, first hand, evangelicals now questioning why we should even care about immigrants. Essentially, they have joined Trump is writing off immigrants as nothing but illegal people, who drain our country. Hard to figure how this attitude conforms to the values of Christ, but real easy to see how it conforms to those of Trump.
To be sure, Trump is a wrecking ball. But, what Guinness failed to understand is that this wrecking ball is also aimed at the hearts and minds of Christians.
I have many thoughts on this, but little time at the moment to respond. A very thought-provoking post. Thank you for posting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Guinness. The country needed a chance to regroup and rethink and Trump is fulfilling his promise to shake up the status quo - on alliances, strategic priorities, trade, many things. This will take time to shake out and I hope the "country" is actually "thinking", not just reacting and hoping for a return to status quo. Maybe our tariffs and contributions to world problems are out of balance. These and other things need to be reviewed as the world changes yet in our busy world, nothing gets reviewed once decided unless there is disruption. Trump is a narcissistic, petulant, fussy human being but his legacy will be a lot of valuable opportunities to "rethink".
ReplyDeleteI do agree that people quickly identify with groups they are in. Even on the playground when teams are formed by randomly counting off "one, two, one, two" fierce revelry results. Today it seems humans are even more polarized to play all games for keeps! Christians have a role in showing love in the midst of political differences by respecting others and the opinions they share.