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
I don’t understand. The Pew tweet references “consistently liberal” vs. “consistently conservative” with respect to Democrats and Republicans. It doesn’t say anything about Christians at all. Or are you referring to a different poll?
See the above scripture reference. It happens all the time.
Christianity is not data. It is a personal relationship between a God and an imperfect creation of God. It’s not about polls or data.
That’s a non sequiter. GOTV efforts are not analogous to messaging. Unless you’re arguing that Trump’s entire campaign was just poll tested slogans with no substance. Which would be disingenuous since he seems to be doing pretty much what he said he would try to do.
Then we’re referring to a different poll than what is referenced in this post.
I’ve addressed this a few different times, in different contexts… As a Christian who knows other Christians and spends time with them, I can pretty confidently state that Christian views of morality, and Christian beliefs, have not changed.
When a pollster calls you up in 1998 and asks what you think about infidelity (and whether you vote), you are more likely to be answering the question “do you support Clinton” than “do you support infidelity.” In the case of Clinton, the answer to both questions was likely the same. Given Trump’s treatment in the media, if a pollster calls up and asks the same question, I think you are far more likely to answer the unspoken question: “do you support this guy?”
What this tells me is that, for some reason or another – and I can think of a great many reasons – people are not answering the questions being asked, and Christians tend to support our current president. Interestingly, one thing they tend to love about him is his treatment of the press, which has been pretty blatantly anti-Christian for quite some time. And it surprises anyone that they don’t answer the questions asked?
What this really means is that, for now, national discussions about morality are on hold. When the press asks questions about morality, it is solely as a blunt instrument to hit Trump. The fact that they do this so blatantly has the unintended consequence of essentially clearing Trump of the blame he surely deserves. So right now, for a lot of people, the conversation is a sham, and under Trump, they are refusing to play the game.
To even ask why Christians “have rejected their beliefs” is to miss the much bigger, and much more obvious picture.
I mixed up the polls, my mistake, I meant polls such as this one:
https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/
The polling has changed – there are lots of very valid reasons for why Christians have changed their beliefs on these metrics, not the least of which is they spent the last 8 years getting attacked from every angle by the Obama Administration. That doesn’t change the fact that the polling has changed. Yet here we are constantly denying that reality.
Who is claiming that Christianity is data? Does polling tell us nothing about any group? As Charles Murray tells us – data tells us nothing about the individual but a lot about populations.
It has been said a hundred times before, but what the heck: Both candidates were vicious liars and vain opportunists. But only one promotes the slaughter of innocent children and a political framework that has oppressed or butchered countless people around the world.
You needn’t agree that it was better to vote for the lesser threat than to tolerate the worse. But anyone who can’t grant the reasonableness of the proposition does nothing but sew enmity. While continuing to justly criticize the President’s errors, one can grant the reasonableness of emphasizing the practical strategy of party politics by not fueling the Left’s memes. Errors of strategy, if so they are, do not highlight a failure of principles.
“Be wise as serpents” is among the many interwoven threads informing Christian ethics. It means making difficult choices in a fallen world. Applying Biblical guidance to contemporary and specific scenarios is a challenge that has not abated for thousands of years.
Ah – you mean the question of whether personal immorality is not “disqualifying” for public office. That’s a difficult one, because it doesn’t distinguish between the choices. It’s pretty easy to answer that question if the choice is between Clinton and GW Bush; you say “of course!” But you’re not really thinking about it. It is one of the many things that disqualifies Clinton in your mind.
If the choice is between 2 republicans, you might still answer “yes,” because all else being equal, you’ll pick the guy who you view as more moral.
But what if the choice is between Hillary and Trump? There, if immorality is disqualifying, who can you choose? Your option is to simply not vote. So of course it isn’t disqualifying. Does that mean it isn’t important? How about the other question. White Evangelicals less likely to “prioritize strong religious beliefs.” Well, if you’ve already determined that the election is a binary choice between Hillary and Donald, how exactly do you prioritize strong religious beliefs?
Reading those polls, my only thought is “well, of course this is the case.” How else could anyone possibly answer those questions? This is, once again, not a change in the “beliefs” of even those White Evangelicals polled. It is a change in circumstance, and that applies to literally everyone.
I think what he means is exactly what I’m saying. I can give you a dozen perfectly reasonable explanations – and I have – for why these poll numbers would exist. To draw the conclusion that Christians have abandoned their beliefs is to make a very personal statement, based on political polling that was in no way designed to answer such a question.
addendum to my comment #38:
One thing I also think is very important, but that frequently gets overlooked, is the difference between personal morality and morality in office. The big juxtaposition often cited is between attitudes toward Bill Clinton and those toward Trump. But keep in mind that Trump’s infidelity was out of office; Clinton’s was literally in the oval office!
So the questions about whether immorality is disqualifying are so amazingly candidate-specific that they tell us very little. In the middle of impeachment proceedings where the country is discussing the stained dress and cigars under the desk, it is hardly surprising that a great many people would find that behavior disqualifying. But when you believe that the president is doing a good job, and you hear constant stories where reporters have dug up someone to complain about a previous affair or immoral act? Well… at that point, is it really any surprise that those same people who reacted to Clinton would respond differently? That they would pick this out as a “gotcha,” rather than a serious, question? Or that they might say “well, I like what he’s doing in office, and whatever immorality he may have doesn’t seem to be diminishing his work?”
Quite frankly, I see all of those “vastly different answers” as 100% consistent with a set of beliefs that remains constant.
now – if we’re already having a conversation about Trump, and a Christian friend tries to argue with me that cheating on your wife is actually ok because Trump did it… well … thankfully, that has never happened. There have been some famous Christians who have made some ill-advised defenses of the man. That isn’t good – but I have zero reason to believe that those are not exceptions, rather than the rule.
Consider the possibility that Evangelical Christians voted for Trump for the same reasons the rest of us did. He was the better choice. Maybe they continue to support Trump because of the unexpectedly good job he is doing as President.
And maybe, just maybe, they will continue to be the same individuals they have always been – no matter who is President.
Believe it or not, there are rational reasons for supporting Trump. Evangelical Christians are just as capable of reasoning as the rest of us.
Or maybe the information that reaffirm your world view and call it data.
I’m with you on this one, O People of The Book – but how many of you do exactly this to a certain other group of Believers?
I find it really funny that everyone who has been offended by this post, effectively validated the behavior described in it by being personally insulted when reading the first half of it.
I like Ben Shapiro’s analysis. He said that we knew going in that Donald Trump had a sleazy sexual history. We knew going in that Hillary Clinton was a thoroughly corrupt leftist who viewed her opponent’s supporters as deplorables.
We believed that Donald Trump had respect for Christian values even if he was not the perfect exemplar. Furthermore, what ever his past, we had reason to believe that in his advanced age, he has accepted Christ and (one hopes) repented of his past sins. He may not admit his fault to man, but we hope has repented to the Lord, who really counts.
Repent or not repent, his goal of making America Great Again resonates. We know the left has been working hard these past 70 plus years to reduce the greatest nation on earth to just another also-ran.
I don’t agree with all of his policies, but I agree more than disagree. I see him doing what he thinks best for the United States, not what’s best for whatever may get his party re-elected. I see him as favoring religious freedom, not enforcement of some politically correct ideology that labels Christians as haters.
I think this is a good summary.
You find it funny that people feel insulted when they are insulted?
I think this is the key of where you are wrong, and it is really pernicious, because you are playing the game of identity politics, just like the left.
See, asking why Christians can support Trump is asking why Blacks voted for McCain. It is seeing Christians as an identity group, and wondering why on Earth they would vote for someone not in their group. Of course, unlike my McCain example, it is not like the other choice was any more of their group. Indeed, voting for or supporting Clinton would have all the same issues as supporting or voting for Trump. Apparently, for the atheists, the only way for Christians to be true to their identity group is to not have voted at all.
Or, they accept that, as an identity group, Christians voted for Trump understanding that Trump would better serve their interests than Clinton, but, that is seen as selling out their morals. Indeed, I see this attack on the faithful by the non faithful as a projection of the highest order. If Christians can be shown to be no better than anyone else (newsflash: they aren’t and never have been) in society they can be undercut. And this gets to the core of the conservative attack on Trump supporters: Being publicly against Trump is to demonstrate high morals. What better way to play the game of “I’m more moral than you!” than to cast Christians, the holders of Western Morality, down to size as just another identity group, trying to feed at the trough.
Trump ran as a patriot, as a businessman, and a dealmaker. Trump did not run on being a “moral leader” and, to my knowledge, religious people who voted for him did not do so with the expectation that he was going to be their “moral leader.” (Trump is, to my mind, more moral than Clinton, but that’s an extremely low hurdle to clear.)
If I can distill the thinking of religious people who voted for Trump, I think it would be something like, “We had eight years where our faith was under attack and our ability to practice our religion in the public square was steadily eroded. This philandering businessman with three ex-wives–I have some qualms about him. He’s definitely a mixed-bag and I hope my kids look elsewhere for role models. But I don’t get the impression that he’s going continue to attack our beliefs like his opponent would. With him in office, the worst-case scenario would be 4 to 8 years of benign neglect, which at this point wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.”
This is the sort of have you cake and eat it too, situational ethics, that made me always suspect of social conservatives. If morality really is so personal then I trust such moral concerns will be kept out politics going forward?
This response wins the “non-sequitur of the week” award.
Left, right, center, left again…….find an un-flawed candidate willing to run for president who appeals to everyone’s morals, politics and hairstyle preferences and I’ll eat my hat. Someone has to run and be voted in – the self-righteous on the left brought us the flawless Kennedys, The Clintons, Carter etc. You try to live your life right, and pick the person who promises to stand up for what you believe is good for the country and the world – that’s all you can do – – its going well so far.
Please explain how this is situational ethics. It is not an eat your cake and have it too* situation at all. Voting is not some great moral act. While anti-Trump and Never Trump advocates want to say otherwise. Voting is voting. You vote for the person who is most aligned with your values and wants.
I, for one, and sick of the virtue signaling from those on the right, making the political, personal. I thought that was the domain of the left, yet here we have, over an over, the right making the same arguments against Trump supporters of any stripe.
What we really have is the “Deplorables” vs. the elite.
*The other way that you used makes no sense, btw – I can have a cake and then eat it, I cannot do it the other way around.
I think it’s true – but that was merely phase I. We’re now in a phase where (as this thread demonstrates) where people have internalized Trump and can’t concede that their vote for him was merely strategic, AND they feel the need to impugn people who (correctly) point out Trump’s manifest flaws. That’s the part that I’m confused about. I have written more than one piece arguing that “Party Trumps Person” but I also worry about losing a larger war for having won a smaller battle.
Did you read the piece at all? Who’s the “they”?
These variations of “no True Scotsman” from Christians are essentially a shell-game. I used to be a Christian as well. There’s my card. Now I have as much right to talk about it as you or anybody else. FYI I would call myself a proponent of “Strong Agnosticism” from a purely technical perspective.
If you read what I wrote, the implication you should get is that people aren’t only possessed of one (i.e., the Christian) identity. That’s only natural. Christians I think cross the line however when they go from merely voting for Trump out of political expediency or necessity to fully embracing him as “King David” or some fulsome nonsense.
But I’m also curious about the conditions of that support as well. Is there anything the guy could do or say that would peel Christians off? How about the proverbial “shooting a guy on 5th Ave.”? What if it turns out he procured abortions for his various conquests? We know he gave money to Planned Parenthood. At any rate, all of this stuff is very conveniently ignored in Trump when people wearing a different jersey who have done the same things get their hide taken off.
Asking people to display a bit of consistency doesn’t seem unreasonable, does it? The very same people who lament the decline of the family, the rise of SSM and various other apocalypses who turn around and support the twice divorced, philandering, SSM-supporting Donald Trump.
None of this means Trump can’t do good things – I concede that readily – but it does bring to mind the idea that we ought to keep this person at arm’s length.
But this all fits neatly into my thesis: Trump holds a different cultural identity marker which many of his supporters share.
Feisty! Drew, with Dragon Energy is “likes to fight guy.” Thanks for confirming my thesis.
(I’m not Never-Trump, but thanks anyways.)
So your thesis is that people don’t like to be insulted and you are happy when you insult people they get insulted because it confirms your thesis.
Can’t concede? People have been saying for two years now that it was a matter of strategy, and quite frequently on these pages, every time this subject comes up. You haven’t been listening.
The location and timing of the infidelity makes one better than the other. Not for nothing, Bill Clinton committed plenty of adultery while not in the Oval Office as well. I guess it was just the BJ in the OO which was the disqualifying act?
Got it.
Me too. But the election was 18 months ago. I think the threat of the Hillpocalypse is well and truly over and we not need replay that fact over and over to consider what things Trump is doing and has done while in office. So, continuing to invoke the election as some sort of justification for his current behavior doesn’t exactly wash.
Drop the election. That’s over and dead.
How does Trump’s behavior in the interim justify the rabid defenses we’ve seen here in this thread from people who are nominal Christians?
It’s one thing to have a transactional relationship with the guy. You vote for him, he does the things you want when he’s elected. Totally understandable. I happily concede Trump has done good things and I may even vote for him in 2020. But that doesn’t mean I’ll waste one breath defending him from charges that he’s a lecher or even a good person.
He’s a barbarian we’ve hired to sack the Capitol. Why lift a pinky defend such a guy when he does things that I know you don’t agree with?
It’s almost as if there’s an identity which people share with him that they fear will be damaged if Trump is attacked. Who said that, I wonder?
See Drew, the thing is, if Christians make a strategic choice about what is best for them, they are selling out!
This is all “What’s the Matter with Kansas” except now people on the right are joining with the left to attack Christians.
And Shawn considers it a victory that people respond to being called sell outs by being insulted.