Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where Honor and Christian Values Intersect
I’ve been surprised a lot of things over the past couple of years. Surprised at the outcome of the 2016 election. Pleasantly surprised at how conservative the Trump administration has been in a variety of ways. However, I think what has surprised me the most has been the reaction to these developments.
The left’s reaction is understandable, even if it is out of all proportion to reality. After all, they were beaten unexpectedly, which humiliated them. Within their reaction is also an element of existential panic — rarely does a single party control so many of the levers of power in the government. Think “2009 in reverse.”
For this, they have nobody to blame but themselves. This animation shows how the Democrat party has moved inexorably to the left over the past 20 years:
In polarized era, fewer Americans hold a mix of conservative and liberal views https://t.co/KNlbNeMyUt pic.twitter.com/TzCf3EPZzX
— Pew Research Fact Tank (@FactTank) October 23, 2017
The consequences of their leftward lurch are that they stand essentially at a historically low ebb in terms of controlling local and state elected positions. When viewed through the lens of the left’s problems, the right ought to be ecstatic. Yet, we aren’t.
As we all know, there is considerable internecine disquiet on our side of the aisle, much of it centered around the person of the President himself. Curiously, nobody seems to disagree that Mr. Trump’s biography and habits leave something to be desired. Even more curious is that except for the most deranged Never-Trump types (specifically the Jen Rubins, Bill Kristols, and Max Boots of the world) there is general agreement that he has governed in a fashion which conservatives universally agree has been productive for our stated policy goals.
The part that I said was surprising has been the lengths to which some — especially, Christians — have gone to defend the President. Previously frowned-upon behaviors in politicians like “lying” or “infidelity” suddenly elicit no more than a shrug from many Evangelicals and similar groups.
This development has left many people confused. Why the turnabout? Aren’t Christians who are nominally committed to notions like honesty, fidelity, faith, humility and temperance concerned that a President who acts in a fashion antithetical to those values will have the effect of enabling people to engage in those frowned-upon behaviors?
On top of that, pointing out that those previously stated norms have been violated will typically get you tossed in the category of wanting to help the left. It’s vexing. The answer to why this is has nothing to do with pointing out Trump’s assault on their values, however.
They’re upset about it because they think you’re insulting their honor. Let me explain.
Everybody is a mixture of identities. In the case of most Christians, their values and their identities are practically inseparable. However, American Christians — particularly those ranging from Appalachia to the South — are possessed of multiple strands of identity, which sometimes evince different priorities than their nominal affiliations might suggest. Many of them descend from Scots-Irish stock which is rich in its valuation of honor. They’re clannish. Stubborn. Those familiar with Jim Webb’s Born Fighting (or J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy) will understand what I’m talking about.
Donald Trump is nothing if not an exemplar of that sort of Scots-Irish attitude. He confronts and shames those who challenge his honor. He doesn’t “play the Ref” or appeal to intellectual arguments, but busts his opponents in the mush. Even if he doesn’t reflect the Christian values which are so closely related to the identity of many of his supporters, he reflects a different, and at times more deeply held aspect of their being — an affiliation of which Christian values are part but not paramount. Everybody will remember this conversation being played out over and over at Ricochet: “But he fights,” was a not-uncommon refrain heard during the primary and election of 2016 — a strong rallying cry for some yet one which rings hollow to many people who don’t share that identity.
The President may not be one of them, but they believe he is with them, nonetheless.
As a result, what we’re really seeing is a sort of culture-clash within the tent of Conservatism itself. The call to solidarity which the President’s brash and courageous attitude evokes results in his followers interpreting an attack upon Him is an attack upon them … and the honor of their people.
How closely American Christians choose hew onto to President Trump is going to leave a mark much longer lasting than his Presidency — more upon them than him, surely — and it would seem as if it’s worth at least thinking about which part of their identity they’re seen serving in doing so.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Interesting take, Shawn. It reminds me of a comic who talks about the differences between men and women. With women, everything is tangled together like spaghetti. With men, they have separate boxes for everything so nothing touches anything else. Part of what you seem to be saying is that those in question have put Trump into the clan honor box, not the Christian values box.
Oh good grief. So now if you support the president, you’re abandoning Christian mores. I was wondering what they’d try next. This was a doozy though.
Methinks thou analyzest too much.
Just what are we supposed to do? Trump was certainly not my first choice, nor my last – among the Republicans. There was and is plenty not to like about him. One enduring characteristic (I didn’t say “endearing”) is that he is not a Washington insider. And for enough people, never mind their religious / philosophical / political stripe, that proved enough for him to win. Consider that the insiders have, time and time again, talked the conservative talk, then stabbed us in the back. Why should any conservative trust any Washington politician?
And once the choice was between him and Her Annointedness – at this point unarguably the most corrupt person ever seriously to be considered for the office of President – do you mean to suggest that we should support her instead? She, who among many other things stated plainly that we were just going to have to change our fundamental beliefs? Is Trump “for us?” One thing for certain: Her Annointedness was, and remains, solidly against us.
Where would we be now if more conservatives, including evangelicals, stayed at home on election day, in response to the terrible alternatives with which we were presented? Where would the Supreme Court be in four years? I think there is plenty reason to believe that a Clinton II SCOTUS would indeed take upon itself the mantle of the Supreme being, and we would indeed find our fundamental beliefs “changed.”
Except they wouldn’t be. Western culture’s decay assumed warp speed under the Obama administration. As I watch the world as we know it crumble, I constantly glance at a sign above my desk: “I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.” – Martin Luther
I appreciate this piece. I am a Christian, but I don’t vote on leaders based on their religion. No earthly leader will be anywhere close to a perfect (or even a good) representation of a Christian. I vote on leaders, in part, on how much the candidate will leave me alone to exercise my religion. Between Trump and Hillary, I believed Trump would be less intrusive in my religious life. I think too many pollsters/analysts have been brainwashed about the Christian moral majority. They think Christians would repudiate a candidate like Trump, but I beleive many Christians are in a survival mindset…they want a candidate who will protect religious freedom…and if that candidate appears to be the guy who is a divorced, skirt chasing, big money player, so be it. Hillary was part of an administration that sued nuns for refusing to pay for birth control and threatened debilitating fines on private business for exercising religious beliefs. (Plus, hillary is the architect of the sluts and nuts offense against Bill’s victims…not a very Christian position for the supposed Christian Hillary) Both candidates were pretty odious, but this world is not my home and every human leader is flawed. I pull the lever for the best one I can get and pray I’m not wrong.
I love how everybody keeps telling Christians what they believe and that the Christians are hypocrites for not living up to the definition being imposed on them. Maybe the issue in understanding Christian’s support of Trump is that people do not understand Christianity, and do not seem interested in trying to understand it.
It seems to me I remember a quote that might apply, “Render therefore unto Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” Jimmy Carter was a God-fearing Christian. Ronald Reagan was a divorced and remarried actor. Hitler was a monogamous, animal-loving, non-smoking vegetarian. Churchill was hardly an example for the children. FDR had affairs, smoked, and drank.
We don’t get to vote for Jesus or God in elections. Elections are the things of man. We have to make choices that don’t always mean voting for the most saintly candidate, but the one who will do more of what we want, and what most of us here want of Washington is to be left alone.
If I may quote Martin Luther once again, “This is most certainly true.”
I have one small bone to pick. Way less than “all the levers of power” are in the hands of one party today. Yes, elected offices are in R hands, but the main wielders of power, the “press” and the Bureaucracy remain firmly in the hands of the Left, and those seats of power have proven to be at least as powerful, if not more, than the elected government. Public employee unions make it extremely difficult to dismiss bureaucrats, and a plurality of US citizens still get their information from the drive-by media. Until those reservoirs of power are brought under control, change will be slow or not take place at all.
I find it interesting that an avowed atheist (correct me if I am wrong Majestyk), is preaching to Christians about who they should support or not.
I wouldn’t categorize myself as a Christian, but I have a feeling as to why the Christian and in particular the evangelical community has supported Trump so vociferously. Unlike the Democrats and most of our Republican elites, Donald Trump may not agree with the evangelicals about morality and may violate their good Christian morals and sensibilities, but at least he doesn’t look down on them for their beliefs.
Can I get a witness?!!!!
I really have had quite enough of this.
Well-intentioned as these opinings are, I’ve had enough of Rubins, Timpfs, and McCulloughs hoping they can convince Christians away from outdated beliefs while also trying to advise us on how to better follow those beliefs.
Oh this isn’t new. Ricochet’s contributors have been calling Christians hypocrites for a couple years now. I expected that eventually they’d grow tired of leveling this same smear, but I guess not.
I don’t find it interesting at all. I find it boring. Because I’ve heard it over and over and over again. If I had a dollar for every time an atheist preached to me about how Christians are supposed to live, I could buy Joel Osteen’s house.
Thanks for giving us another NeverTrump contributor who calls us hypocrites, Ricochet. (Like we didn’t already have enough of those.)
Wait, where did the OP say that?
I think the issue is that these were self-identified metrics. Christians used to poll one way and now poll another. It’s not us telling Christians what they believe, its Christians telling us how their beliefs have changed. I understand the reasons for that they have been explained quite a lot, that doesn’t change the fact that it happened, and those pretending it didn’t happen at all are the ones ignoring reality.
The part that I said was surprising has been the lengths to which some — especially, Christians — have gone to defend the President. Previously frowned-upon behaviors in politicians like “lying” or “infidelity” suddenly elicit no more than a shrug from many Evangelicals and similar groups.
This development has left many people confused. Why the turnabout? Aren’t Christians who are nominally committed to notions like honesty, fidelity, faith, humility and temperance concerned that a President who acts in a fashion antithetical to those values will have the effect of enabling people to engage in those frowned-upon behaviors?
I don’t think Maj is preaching to anyone about who they should support – just describing why certain beliefs have changed based on polling.
That was descriptive, not normative – read the rest of the post. Do you deny the shift in polling of self-described Christians on this issue? Or do you deny the flaws in the President? Or do you deny the OPs explanation for the sift? Which is it where the OP is making a normative vs descriptive argument?
Only if you believe that what people tell poll’s reflect any form of reality. Or that polls actually measure reality instead of trying to warp reality to the pollsters point of view. Personally I have not answered a poll honestly in about 20 years if not longer.
The responses of Trump supporters (not all Trump fans) to criticism of Trump’s sins and foibles are influenced by patterns of criticism. After months of the well represented NeverTrump faction refusing to acknowledge arguments of priorities and persistently pushing character flaws front and center, criticisms of that nature quickly trigger expectations of similar obstinance and cheap hits. In other words, Trump supporters have been primed to equate laments about Trump’s character with general dismissal of his value as president.
If cut a little slack for the good that has come of voting for the patriotic ringleader rather than the treasonous felon, those supporters might be more willing to grant the reasonable points of Trump’s harsher critics.
Okay fine. Nothing means anything other than what we want it to mean. Reality is meaningless unless it confirms our beliefs. D
This is probably true, but we’re at a point of mutually assured destruction. No one wants to give an inch because it makes them look weak or something stupid.
Your analysis, while containing a kernal of truth, seems to ignore the fact that Trump’s Primary support tended to be strongest in the Northern states. It might be that theories of this nature (which are seldom meant to be complimentary toward people in the Appalachians and/or the South) say more about the cultural prejudices of people attacking Trump than it does about the motivations of Trump defenders.
Trump’s behavior is closer than Clinton’s is to Christian. And I had to vote for one of them.
You my friend place too much faith in other people’s social metrics / science and think it is reality. Being a Christian myself and basically surrounded by them and living with them everyday I know they have not changed their world view because of Trump. So should I believe my eyes and experience or some “science” and “polls” made by people with agendas I do not know that do not reflect reality I personally experience? When I was getting my degree one of my many stat professors told me that all stats and polls need to be ran by a smell test to be sure they are correct. Frankly most of what are considered statistic and polls that are currently being pushed by the media would have gotten me flunked out of class back then. But we were interested in measuring things back then and not shaping public perception or grabbing media fame.
There’s a lot to unpack here. First and foremost is the misrepresentation of Christianity. Where scripture talks about what is expected of us it should be noted that these are personal commands from God to us as individuals. They are not what we are to demand of others and certainly not that by which we are asked to judge others by. This kind of holier-than-thou attitude is addressed in Christ’s parable of the speck and the plank (Recounted twice in the Bible, Matthew 7:1-5 and also Luke 6:41-42.)
Of the Commandments of Saul (Alinsky, that is) is #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” And we must recognize that is what is happening here. But you must first truly understand the rules. When most people try to use Christianity as a political cudgel they are demonstrating that they truly don’t understand it to begin with. Where Christ tells us to feed the hungry, clothe the poor and attend to the sick, there is no mention of how we can prove our worth and righteousness to God by outsourcing any of it to the government or to our elected leaders.
Throughout the New Testament there is a recurring theme in the letters of the Apostles: The devil’s way is division. Using Christianity to sew division is the worst.
In the face of data, you present anecdote. “No one I know voted for Nixon…”. I’ll take the data we have until you present other data.
So were Christians lying to Pew pollsters in the past?
As Arthur Brooks explained at the Podcast Summit, data is good but stories are better. It’s why we lose. It’s cold, it’s faceless and in politics it’s usually the loser’s refuge. Data can tell me that of 10 men in a room there’s been 6 divorces. Stories tell me someone is a serial monogamist who’s been married seven times and the other nine are faithful to a fault.
Tell that to the data scientists that helped Trump win the election.
The only problem I see with your analysis is that I’m not so sure that Christians are disproportionately Scots-Irish (in spite of being at least partially both, myself). What you’re describing should apply to a great many liberals as well, and their hatred of Trump is fairly unhinged.
I do agree that it is frustrating when Christians attempt to defend Trump’s behavior, rather than acknowledging bad behavior when they see it, while supporting Trump in his presidency (and perhaps lamenting that the left has created a situation that makes such a thing necessary). But I also think this problem is much smaller than it appears.