Why do White Evangelicals prefer Trump when they have Better Options?

Why do White Evangelicals Prefer Trump when they Have Better Options?

In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, approximately 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. Since then, they have remained some of Trump’s strongest supporters. This is somewhat strange, because his life runs contrary to evangelicals’ most cherished virtues. This must be unpacked a bit. Evangelicals are a subsection of Protestant Christianity which claim that their lives are guided by Biblical principles. Although this is somewhat true at an individual level (honest, hard-working, dedicated to their family, etc.), this is not accurate at a political level. Numerous surveys reveal that fewer than 15% of evangelicals have their political positions shaped by Scripture on important issues of our day (immigration, foreign policy, environment, health care, etc.). Their most important political concern has been to reduce the number of abortions taking place. Since Reagan, Republican presidential candidates have promised to re-shape the Supreme Court with enough conservative justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. During his presidency, Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Court, and as a result, Roe was overturned, and the legal status of abortion has been returned to the states.

Although Trump lost the 2020 election, he is running again and is way ahead of his Republican rivals: Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy. My question for white evangelicals is the following: Why do you continue to support Trump when his lifestyle runs contrary to core Christian values and you have better options? Here is a small sample of his character flaws.

Trump is a racist. He began his campaign in 2015 by declaring that Mexicans were drug pushers, criminals, and rapists. In 2018 he called African countries, plus Haiti and El Salvador “shithole” countries.
Trump is a womanizer and treats women as objects. In his Access Hollywood tape, Trump affirmed “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
He is a bully. In his rallies, he demeans others based on their physical handicaps, their looks, etc. instead of using reasonable, logical arguments.
He is a compulsive liar. On the day of his inauguration, he lied about the size of the crowd, then told hundreds of significant lies during his presidency, including the allegation that he won the 2020 election. You can google “Trump and lies” for a long list with evidence.
He is narcissistic. His demands for “loyalty” required people to violate the Constitution and their conscience. For those who violated their religious convictions, they have brought shame and disrepute to their faith.
His vanity has led him to make false predictions. He predicted that under his leadership, Republicans would win so many elections, they would “get tired of winning”. That turned out to be false. Republicans lost the 2018 midterm election, the 2020 presidential election, and the special election in Georgia. They underperformed in 2022. Republicans are, in fact, tired of losing with Trump.
His many crimes have led him to be charged with 91 counts in federal courts. It is likely that he will be found guilty of some felonies by the time of the election in November, 2024.

I know people who refuse to acknowledge any of these defects. This was understandable during the heat of the 2016 and 2020 elections, but is totally unreasonable today. There are better options: Haley, DeSantis, and Christie. They are fallen human beings (just like me). They have their own defects (just like me). They probably have skeletons in their closets (just like me). I have significant disagreements with each of them and some of their policies. Nevertheless, they all have been governors and have experience in constitutional positions of leadership. Each of them has a basic minimum integrity as public servants. Each of them would be a better option than Trump.

For further reading, I suggest the new book by Tim Alberta: The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory. American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.

Violence Begets More Violence

A week ago, Hamas viciously attacked Israel with missiles and ruthless kidnappings. This attack took the Israeli government by surprise, but Israel then responded by bombing Gaza. These mutual attacks have been bloody. Thousands of people have already been killed and more than a hundred people are being held hostage by Hamas. It is understandable that Israel wants to get revenge and they are poised to launch a massive ground assault in Gaza. Although this is understandable, it is also immoral and shortsighted. Their announced goal is to permanently rid Gaza of Hamas leadership. It is a flawed plan for the following reasons:

Hamas leaders are probably hidden away in underground tunnels throughout Gaza, making it difficult to capture or kill them. In this pursuit of Hamas leadership, a ground assault will become prolonged and will lead to the death of many Gazan civilians.
In addition, the Israeli government is cutting off food, water, and electricity to the 2.5 million civilians who live in Gaza. This is already producing a humanitarian crisis of gigantic proportions and the death of numerous innocent people.
Although Israel currently has the empathy and support of much of the world community, that will soon evaporate if large numbers of civilians lose their lives.
A ground assault will lead to the death of the hostages, not their liberation.
Neither the Israelis nor the United States have proposed a viable exit strategy. When will enough of the Hamas leadership be destroyed for Israel to claim victory? How many civilians will have died?

Positive actions do exist and should be pursued:

A ceasefire should be implemented immediately which would permit humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.
The U.S. should lean on Egypt to open their border crossing into Gaza to permit refugees to escape.
Neutral countries should step up to mediate and promote a long-lasting peace that would lead to the removal of Hamas leadership and would promote a two state solution and self-government for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Continued “justified” violence is not the answer. It would only lead to more senseless violence.

Is Affirmative Action “Racist”?

Is Affirmative Action “racist”?

Conservative media commentators frequently label Affirmative Action as “racist”. I understand why they want to do this. They are applying a word that has a negative connotation to a policy they don’t like. Nevertheless, that label is neither accurate nor helpful. Racism is essentially defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group”. The important words are prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism. Affirmative action policies did distinguish Afro-Americans from other races, but was it was designed to help level the playing field for black Americans, not to implement prejudice against them. Applicants from other ethnicities were at a relative disadvantage, but it was usually minor. This was an unintentional consequence and is sometimes known as collateral damage.

It is helpful to look at collateral damage in similar situations. Whenever an organization gives a benefit to a certain category of people, those not in that category are at a relative disadvantage, but this is not necessarily “wrong”. For example, many restaurants give a “Senior Citizen” discount to customers who have reached a certain age (usually 62 or 65). Younger customers pay more than senior citizens for the exact same meal, but we don’t denounhce this preference based on age as “age-ist”.

Many people acknowledge “financial need” as a valid criterion for considering educational scholarships. As a result, richer students pay more than students with financial aid scholarships for the same education. Should we label this collateral damage based on financial need as “classist”? Few would do so.

There might be valid reasons for opposing affirmative action, such as trying to demonstrate with evidence that the playing field has now become level. But just labeling it as racist is not accurate nor useful. May we use language in ways that enable good communication and not distort it.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

So states the Good Book in Isaiah 5:20. The prophet Isaiah pronounced God’s judgment on those religious and political leaders who misrepresented God and distorted the Lord’s teaching on moral issues. To be sure, there are some ethical challenges that are “gray areas” in which right and wrong are not clearly discerned. On these issues sincere people might disagree.

Nevertheless, there are other topics where positions are clearly right or wrong and attempts by leaders to blur these distinctions do indeed deserve God’s judgment and our repudiation. One such issue is taking place before our eyes in Florida. On Wednesday, that state’s Board of Education approved a new curriculum for the teaching of Afro-American history, including slavery in the United States. Instructions for teaching this history to middle schoolers is that students learn how slaves developed skills which could be applied “for their personal benefit”.

I hope my readers would agree that slavery in the United States was horrific. Thousands upon thousands of Africans died in the voyage across the Atlantic. Many more died due to the hard labor and harsh conditions of slavery itself. Black families were torn apart. We fought a long, bloody civil war to rid ourselves of this evil institution. Although some slave owners were not as bad as others, they all benefited from the involuntary labor of the slaves. (Some of my ancestors owned slaves, and therefore, I benefited indirectly from that slave labor). Although many slaves were resilient and endured horrific slavery with God’s help, this does not soften the evil of slavery itself.

The obvious results (and probable purpose) of Florida’s educational curriculum and guidelines are to distort our history and put a benevolent aura upon a sinful system. This is calling evil good and deserves our repudiation. I call upon Florida’s Board of Education to rewrite their guidelines to make their history curriculum more in line with what truly happened.

Revisiting Affirmative Action: The Starting Point is Still Not the Same for Everyone

Last week I wrote “The Supreme Court: What Happened to Conservatives and Freedom?” on my blog in which I lamented the Supreme Court decision overturnng Affirmative Action and its negative decrease in freedom for private universities.

Several people responded and asked me questions about my post. I decided to write a follow up piece to further explain my reasoning.

Racial discrimination (the use of race or skin color to distinguish people) has generally been practiced in the United States to benefit some (usually white people) at the expense of others (people of color, especially African Americans). Centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, exclusion from elections, gerrymandering, “separate but equal” practices in education, exclusion from benefits of the G.I. Bill, Redlining, etc. have had horrible consequences for people of color. People like me (I am a white male of the upper middle class) have an unfair advantage in the race of life. We don’t all start at the same place. Through no effort on my part, I began the race far ahead of many others.

Racial quotas and affirmative action were a different kind of racial discrimination. They used the race factor to partially offset the horrific consequences of historical racism in our country. They partially compensated for the sins of our past. They partially narrowed the gap at the starting point. They partially leveled the playing field. People of color have made significant gains in education, earnings, political life, etc., but I still have an unfair advantage.

The overturning of Affirmative Action by the Supreme Court last month essentially claimed that racial equality has already been achieved in our nation, that the starting point is the same for all people. This disregard for history and reality is blindness at best and probably contains some hypocrisy as well.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it” claimed Chief Justice writing for the majority position. He was arguing that we should be “color blind”. Nevertheless, he wasn’t being totally truthful, because federally funded military academies (such as West Point and the Air Force Academy) are permitted to continue considering race in admissions decisions. The reason? A vague statement that military academies may have “potentially distinct interests”. Military leaders argue that our nation needs officers who have educational experience in racially diverse settings. Business and political leaders make similar arguments.

My God is not “color blind”. Neither should we be “color blind”. We should acknowledge how racial distinctions have been used in the past to widen the gap. Let us acknowledge racial distinctions now to narrow that gap. The soul-searching question for me, and for those like me, is whether we want to let go of our unfair advantages.

The Supreme Court: What Happened to Conservatives and Freedom?

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued a ruling that essentially overturned Affirmative Action. Universities and colleges, both public and private, can no longer use race as a criterion for admission purposes. In the last 24 hours, much has been said and written in favor and against the decision. Nevertheless, there has not been much commentary regarding the ruling and its relationship to freedom. This is somewhat strange because it was the six conservative justices who united to overturn Affirmative Action. Conservatives claim to enhance freedom. They usually rail against the intromission of big government in the affairs of its citizens. They have violated their convictions with this decision.

During my teaching career, I have taught at various institutions of higher education. Two of those schools are Wheaton College and Whitworth University. Both are private schools, and both believe that greater diversity (economic, racial, and social) in their student body and faculty leads to better education. (Wheaton College had strong abolition values at its beginning and has included African American students since the mid nineteenth century.) Now, both schools are formally prohibited from seeking racial diversity on their campuses. Their institutional freedom has been curtailed. The ruling unnecessarily reduces freedom. On this particular aspect of institutional freedom of action, most people agree that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court got it wrong.

Memorial Day and our Unjust Wars: Let’s be Honest

This might not be a popular blog, but I submit it to your conscience. This past weekend, our country celebrated the national holiday of Memorial Day in which we honor those soldiers who gave their lives in our nation’s wars. Republicans and Democrats generally agree regarding the honoring of veterans, but both sides are failing the integrity test. Let me explain.

Our country, like most nations around the world, affirms that we practice Just War Theory (JWT). We claim that we will not go to war unless the basic four criteria of JWT are met (just cause, just intent, last resort, legitimate authorization). We also affirm that we will wage war according to JWT principles, like civilian immunity. What should we do when we fail to meet JWT conditions? An honest analysis shows that most of our wars have not been just. (See the book “The Wars of America: Christian Views”, edited by Ronald Wells, for such an analysis of each of our major wars). Our typical response is to slide down the slippery slope of excuses, alibis, or rationalizations. We avoid talking about our moral failures or we try to change the rules in midstream.

Let´s take the war in Iraq as an example. We spent twenty years, the lives of thousands of soldiers, over 100,000 civilian Iraqi deaths, and $1.7 trillion dollars for a war that was not justified. Allegedly, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had a close relationship with al-Qaeda. He was a terrible tyrant, but no weapons of mass destruction were ever found nor evidence of communication with al-Qaeda. The war was never authorized, neither by the U.S. Congress nor by the United Nations. The highly respected Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, made the case for war at the UN Security Council. The UN correctly did not approve the request, citing the lack of credible evidence. Being a man of integrity, General Powell later acknowledged his deep regret for having been used as an instrument to disseminate false information that led to a war with over 100,000 deaths, mostly civilians.

How should we remember unjust wars? Only a cheap, false patriotism would celebrate these wars. We would do well to learn from the ancient Israelites who confessed their sins on their annual Day of Atonement. We must learn to hold accountable our officials who gloss over their actions as “good intentions”. Good intentions are not enough. If Just War Theory is to be accepted as a valid national policy, we the people need to demand that our leaders do not take us into deadly wars that are not justified. My faith tradition teaches that if we deny our sins, we are liars and we deceive themselves. But if we confess our sins, we can find forgiveness. Unjust war involves the cheapening of human life. Our society has the highest gun violence in the world which points to a similar devaluing of lives. Let’s acknowledge our mistakes and find healing for our nation.

Further reading: “When War is Unjust” by John Howard Yoder and “Terrorism and the War in Iraq” that I wrote together with Rene Padilla.

Nobody is Above the Law: Neither Donald Trump nor Hunter Biden

According to my understanding, we are all equal in the sight of God. As a consequence, we should be equal in the sight of the law. No one is above the law. Neither fame nor fortune should enable people to escape from paying for their crimes. It is healthy and necessary for societies to implement a justice that includes restitution and restoration.

What does that mean for the contemporary U.S. political scene? Most Democrats want former president Trump to be held accountable for his actions. And many Republicans want Hunter Biden, son of the current president, to be held responsible for his actions. The alleged crimes are not comparable. Trump has been accused of tax evasion in New York, vote tampering in Georgia, the unlawful keeping of national security documents in Mar-a-Lago, leading the treasonous January 6 insurrection, obstruction of justice, etc., whereas Hunter Biden has been accused of tax evasion and taking advantage of his father’s influence to obtain a highly paid consulting job in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the principle is the same, nobody should get special treatment. If you commit a crime, you need to pay.

Charges, indictments and a guilty verdict against “our guy” will help the “other side.” Conversely, a guilty verdict applied to the “other side’s guy” will probably help our cause. Nevertheless, we must rise above partisan interests. First and foremost, we must seek truth and justice. Yes, this issue is about Donald Trump and Hunter Biden, but it is also about us, our sense of justice, our integrity. Do we really want what is just, or do we want to win at all costs? We also are on trial. Are we innocent or guilty?

Public Policy and the “Separation of Church and State”? A Way Forward.

This is a thorny issue. On the one side are people who argue for a complete separation of church and state (the secular position). On the other side, many religious people claim that their Scriptures clearly distinguish right from wrong and that public laws should replicate this (the theocracy position). In my (not so humble) opinion, both sides have overstated their case. This is a tough issue, but there is a way forward.

People on the secular side argue for a complete “separation of church and state”. This phrase was enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, but it does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Some from the secular position seem to have forgotten that many of the important laws in modern, secular societies (that they do agree with) had their origin in Scripture. Laws against murder, theft, and perjury historically came from the Ten Commandments. These usually came about via church/state alliances but have been reaffirmed by citizens in pluralistic societies today. On the other hand, other laws which were religiously motivated (example: the “dry laws” that prohibited sales of alcohol in the Bible Belt South or the “Blue laws” that prohibited supermarkets from opening on Sundays) have generally been dropped across the country.

People on the theocracy side believe that they know God’s will for society, based on their interpretation of their Scriptures and that should be applied to all (like the prohibition of murder). A contemporary example of this is the pro-life position of many religious people in which they affirm that the fetus’s life should be defended as of conception. Many pro-lifers had opposed the Roe v. Wade decision because it was made by members of the Supreme Court in 1973 and not by elected officials. Although Roe v. Wade has now been overturned federally, the legality of abortions is being decided at the state level.

Problems with both extreme positions should motivate us to a third way. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom to all people to choose their own religion…or no religion at all. I might not agree with their choices, but I defend their freedom to choose. Their religious choices probably influence them on a wide array of issues, including public policies. That is fine and appropriate. Freedom of conscience means that people can arrive at their opinions in the way that they prefer. Nevertheless, if they want to codify their opinions into law, there is the next step which is quite difficult. In democracies, they must persuade a majority of their fellow citizens of the appropriateness of their policies (at a district, state, or national level).

This challenge can be seen in what happened in Kansas. With Roe v Wade being overturned, people in Kansas voted on the legality/illegality of abortions in their state. Although Kansas is a “ruby red” state which traditionally votes Republican, 59% voted to keep abortions legal. The pro-lifers failed to persuade a majority of Kansas inhabitants of the “rightness” of their position. Their position would be made stronger if they supported policies that would help pay maternity costs or provide child care or other programs that would be consistently “pro-life”.

What is the third way? People have the right to acquire their personal opinions in the way they prefer. But to codify these opinions into laws, they need to persuade a majority of their neighbors about the “justness” of their positions. They are free to use religious arguments, although non/religious arguments might be better. Democracy is messy. Sometimes your positions win, sometimes they don’t. That is why freedom of speech and elections are important.

Liz Cheney and the Future of the Republican Party – Three Scenarios

Liz Cheney has been the Congressional Representative from Wyoming since 2017. She grew up in a political family and her father, Dick Cheney, was Vice-President during the George Bush administration (2001-2009). She herself has been known as a conservative Republican on all major policy issues. She was a rising star and she chaired the House Republican Conference from 2019 to 2021 (the third most powerful position in the Republican congressional contingent). Then the January 6, 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol took place, promoted by former president Donald Trump. Based on her interpretation of the events and her moral integrity, she voted to impeach Trump. She has co-chaired the House January 6 Committee and believes the former president is a serious threat to our democracy. As a consequence, she is either viewed as a heroine in courage by many traditional, conservative Republicans or as a villain by many Trump supporters.

After losing the primary election last week in Wyoming for her House seat, she is considering running for president in 2024. She has affirmed that such a campaign would be, in part, an attempt to restore traditional core values to the Republican party and to make sure that Trump would not return to the White House. Does she have a future in the GOP? Before we look at the three main scenarios, let us look at the current situation.

Mid-Term Elections / A few months ago, it looked like the Republicans would pick up 20-40 seats to gain control of the House of Representatives and also win enough races to obtain a majority in the Senate. Given recent legislation victories in Congress and backlash to the Roe v. Wade reversal, it is now likely that Democrats will retain control of the Senate and lose far fewer seats in the House. Although many of Trump’s favored Senate candidates have won their primaries, some are underperforming in their campaigns for the general election (Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania, Walker in Georgia, etc.)

Trump’s Legal Problems / The legal cases are mounting against Trump, his children, and his closest associates (the classified documents in Mar-a-Lago, the January 6 event, tax evasion in New York, the attempt to overturn the election in Georgia, etc.). It is likely that the former president will be indicted for some of his actions.

Here are the three most likely scenarios for Republicans leading up to the 2024 election.

Scenario 1 – It is possible that Trump survives his legal problems, launches his candidacy for the presidency, and obtains enough votes in the primary elections to win the Republican nomination. He is still the most powerful person among the Republican base. Nevertheless, his attraction for independent voters has plummeted. (Many Democratic pundits think he would be easily defeated in a general election.)

Scenario 2 – It is also possible that Trump decides not to run again or that his legal baggage becomes overwhelming. Republican voters would likely choose a candidate who has supported Trump but does not have his negative baggage. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is the most likely candidate, but other options include Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, or others.

Scenario 3 – There are other candidates who have distanced themselves (a little or a lot) from Trump, who are contemplating a run for the presidency. These include Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, John Kasich, and Larry Hogan, among others. Given the nature of the primary election rules, it is possible that a candidate wins the delegates from a state by only winning the plurality of votes, not an absolute majority. This is what Trump did in 2016. He won pluralities in many states (mostly between 15% and 30%), but more than any of the other 16 major candidates. If the anti-Trump voters could coalesce around one candidate, then Liz Cheney would have a chance of winning the nomination (albeit a long shot).

Republican voters will have their opportunity to choose their party’s future. May they choose well.