A by now cliche objection to evangelical Trump voters is that it discredits their evangelical witness. A few quick observations:
i) Some Trump supporters make the mistake of defending his character. But we should be able to separate the man from the policy. Something I've been saying for a long time.
ii) Consider just a little of what's at stake if secular progressives prevail:
• Legalize killing newborn babies. No opt-out clauses for medical professionals
• Terminate custody of parents who refuse to mutilate their children
• Do irreparable damage to maturation by proscribing puberty blockers and sex-change operations for minors
• Wage psychological warfare on normal boys
• Use public education to brainwash the young in nihilism
• Euthanize the developmentally disabled
And the list goes on and on.
iii) Apropos (ii), why should we put our image ahead of protecting the innocent? When does so-called "evangelical witness" become a euphemism for moral vanity?
iv) Apropos (iii), why should our Christian image be hostage to those who hate Christianity? Why should they dictate what constitutes an evangelical witness? That's just narcissistic pandering for approval from enemies of the faith.
I think comments like Franklin Graham's that "this thing with Stormy Daniels is nobody else's business" *rightly* discredit his evangelical witness. Such a comment (and much other excuse making, what-about-ism, and naivete about Trump) would discredit people even with fair-minded hearers, so they ought to be beneath us. But not because of vicious people who cannot be satisfied. Rather, because the comments and blind or naive defense are mentally and morally and corrupting in themselves.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible for someone to vote for Trump reluctantly without saying such silly things or developing such traits. It seems often to be psychologically difficult, though. I've seen quite a few people develop from reluctant Trump voters to obsessive Trump fans. I wish it weren't that way. As a conservative I find that it lessens my respect for them far more than the vote itself.
I don't follow Trumps Twitter wars, but from what I incidentally read, his recent comments about Stormy Daniels show that he's the same cad he always was.
DeleteSteve, you were willing to let Trump lose and Hillary Clinton win to impose and/or continue the evil policies which you mention in this post. I'm glad you've finally seen the light and that Trump won despite never-Trumpers such as yourself. I hope he wins again in 2020, but it's no sure thing, unfortunately.
DeleteYou have a very unreliable memory. I opposed Trump during the primaries. After he won the nomination, I repeatedly defended the moral legitimacy of voting for him. I wasn't a NeverTrumper after the nomination.
DeleteBTW, part of rationality is to make judgments based on the available evidence. In the run-up for president, all we had to go by was Trump's career as a Manhattan playboy. Now we have three years of his presidency. I've revised my view upwards because I now have evidence that wasn't available at the time.
BTW, this is hardly the first time I've defended the Trump administration.
DeleteAh, brings back memories of 'Christian' writers editorializing at length why a vote for Hillary is REALLY the better way to reduce abortion.
ReplyDeleteIf America were not in the midst of a civil war, the never-Trumpers would have a point. In normal times, Trump’s character flaws would disqualify him.
ReplyDeleteBut in culture war, the primary political question is whether a candidate is hostile or friendly to your side. Whomever the Dems nominate in 2020, he’ll be our enemy (“us” being Christians, and also whites and any others who support traditional American morality and culture.) But President Trump has shown himself to be a friend.
If, during WWII, the Germans had accused General Patton of infidelity to his wife, would we have demanded that he resign?
In combat or in politics, it’s foolish to take advice from your enemies.
For a non-liberal Evangelical Christian the choice should be clear.
PS: Apparently most people cannot vote for someone unless they think he’s good, judging by whatever standards they deem relevant. Most people apparently can’t vote for the lesser of two evils, even though less evil is more good. I think this explains a lot of Evangelical Trump excuse-making. I wish they wouldn’t make the excuses, but their vote is sound.
Well stated!
DeleteI think dangerous morally ambiguous times such as war may very well call for ruthlessness in order to do what's right. Ruthlessness that we couldn't and shouldn't stomach under normal circumstances. I think Robert Kaplan's Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos argues along these lines.
DeleteIn fact, I'd venture most Americans including liberals are perfectly fine with the notion of an anti-hero or dark hero so long as we're not discussing political or religious issues. That's evident by the immense public popularity and critical acclaim of (say) certain Western films like Unforgiven and True Grit (2010). William Munny and Rooster Cogburn are both mean, hard men, outlaws, and in fact killers. No one would like them in person. However, there's a certain sense of relief and sometimes even satisfaction in watching them serve cold justice to those who deserve it.
Another example from popular culture is Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight which shows it takes a dark knight rather than a white knight to clean up dirty Gotham.
Moreover, even the high-browed have a certain respect for the anti-hero figure. Take Homer. Odysseus and Achilles are severely flawed individuals. Petty, ignoble, dark and brooding, placing their men at risk for their own self-centered reasons, and (perhaps worst of all for the Greks) utterly hubristic. Yet many literary critics write papers, books, and so on which reflect a kind of appreciation for them.
In history, Patton is a great example. He had plenty of disagreeable and indeed unethical personal qualities, but even the Nazis feared Patton because they knew what he could and would do.
Also, as much as we rightly loathe Putin, there's a certain respect for what he's willing to do in service of his nation. And it's why even Democrats lost tons of respect for Obama when he made his red line speech against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but when Assad crossed that red line, Obama backed down.
I'm rambling, but point being I suspect even his enemies would grudgingly admit they respect Trump if they could be candid for a moment. But the state of politics today doesn't allow one to give such ground. And I don't know if someone like Pence would be capable of being as ruthless as Trump can be against Democrats.
For that matter, Obama was quite ruthless when it came conservatives and Republicans.