As an Evangelical in America today, during the 2016 election and the aftermath of the new administration, I was placed in a strange position in which I never envisioned myself. In the past, voting has been easy. I always had an option that I thought was representative of my values and whose personality and conduct was generally unobjectionable. This election was an entirely different story. Very few Americans, let alone Christians, saw the Trump Train coming. When I first did see it turn the tracks and start heading full speed toward our party, I pled with my fellow Republicans and especially Christians to go out and vote this man down in the primaries. Why did I do this? Because Donald Trump was the most liberal candidate of the bunch on policy and because as everyone can see on a regular basis, he is unbridled, unfiltered, and generally unconcerned with decency in his interactions. The most recent debacle this week with MSNBC host Mika Brzezinsky is just more of the same type of childish and indefensible sniping that has characterized Trump’s entire ascent and probably entire life.
When this uncontrollable train barreled through the primaries and demolished the other 16 Republican candidates, like many other Evangelicals, I was devastated. Most of us had split our votes between Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich, which was a huge part of the reason for Trump’s primary win- we did not have one clear person to consolidate our vote behind.
Paired with the unprecedented amount of coverage he received from a media who at that time thought he was ratings gold and never envisioned a win for him, the other candidates were finished. It was then that reality set in not just for Evangelicals, but for the entire nation- we were stuck with what was for many of us two unthinkable candidates: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Faced with this choice, many good people voted Third Party. There are many days I wish I could say that I had, and I came very close, but the reason I closed my eyes and pressed the “Trump” button on the voting machine with some degree of horror and disbelief are not very complicated. One of them is self-serving and one of them is altruistic. They both deal with the sharp swing to the Left in the Democratic party of recent years.
The first reason, the one that serves my cause directly, is what has been called the “religious freedom” debate. Evangelicals are a voting bloc like any other, and one that the Democratic Party has not just ignored, but openly mocked. We are seen as backwards, under-educated fools who believe in a sky fairy and base all of our decisions on cultishly following an ancient book rather than reason. It seems that in the Democratic Party, Christians are allowed to hold traditional religious beliefs- just not to openly base their decision making on them.
Many Christians’ fears of an increasingly secular Democratic Party which seems not only to actively oppose Christian beliefs, but also anyone who would espouse them, was recently brought to the forefront again by Bernie Sanders’ interview of a nominee for the Office of Management and Budget, Russel Vought. Bernie seemed to apply an unconstitutional religious test to the nominee, citing his writings which expressed an adherence to the mainstream Christian teaching that a belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Mr. Vought’s piece had argued that the Muslim faith was in error because of its rejection of Jesus Christ. This belief pertaining to the afterlife should in no way inhibit the man’s ability to do his job, yet Bernie seemed to think that a Biblical teaching on the afterlife was bigoted. Bernie specifically said the belief was “Islamophobic” and demanded to know if the nominee thought it was “fair” to all religions. Then he said, “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about. I will vote no.” This may not be a comfortable belief for Mr. Sanders or one that he agrees with, but Mr. Vought believes this about ALL other religions, not just the Muslim religion. In fact, many major religions believe in the exclusivity of their own religion for salvation. Mr. Vought is not Islamophobic. He is merely an orthodox adherent of Christianity. So now, Christians can be turned down as candidates for a position merely for…openly believing what Christ himself taught.
This is not a strange incident or one that I was even surprised to hear about. Traditional Christian belief is increasingly less politically correct, and to the Democratic Party, being politically incorrect is enough to eliminate one from consideration for a job position. It is this attitude that leads many Evangelicals to align themselves with the Republican Party for their own self-preservation.
In a similar vein, the second issue- the one that is the single largest reason Evangelicals like myself voted for Donald Trump, is the abortion debate. There used to be some room for compromise on this issue, but not in the modern Democratic Party. Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, and politicians like Elizabeth Warren have taken a further Left stance than many people in their own party. Studies have repeatedly shown that the majority of the nation- Republican and Democrat alike- do not support unrestricted abortion,
but these politicians do. The chair of the DNC, Tom Perez, recently stated that ALL Democratic candidates for office should be pro-abortion. Where does that leave people like me and even people who are already in the Democratic Party who do not agree with that part of the platform? Now it is all or nothing. Support this issue and bow at the feet of Planned Parenthood, or get out.
Donald Trump was so objectionable to me that I would have considered voting Democratic and I would have been many times more likely to vote Third Party or not at all if Hillary Clinton had not taken the absolutely most extreme stance she could have taken on this issue. As it stood, with her position to support abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy, I did not see how I could possibly vote for her. With Bernie taking the same stance and actually voting to keep it unrestricted in all 9 months for purely elective reasons, REGARDLESS of the health of the mother, I could never have voted for him, either. Elizabeth Warren, another rising star of the party, would like not only unrestricted abortion, but taxpayer funded abortion. To someone who actually believes that living human beings, particularly ones capable of pain, are being killed by inhumane methods with no anesthesia- torn limb from limb, burned to death in the womb, having scissors inserted into their skulls– what amount of mean tweets, petty behavior, or even faulty policy could outweigh this atrocity? Nothing. That is the answer- nothing short of supporting something equally heinous. As Dennis Prager often points out on his radio show, when faced with Hitler’s atrocities, the United States sided with Stalin, another brutal dictator. In this election, Trump was our Stalin. We chose an evil to prevent a greater evil.
Republican senators continue to put forth bills that would restrict- not abolish- abortion and put it more in line with the other developed nations of the world. These laws are the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act, etc. These laws attempt to eliminate the procedure for a fetus that can feel pain (except in cases protecting the life or health of the mother, etc.) or to simply make the procedure less barbaric. The nature of many of these techniques should shock even those who support some legalized abortions, but Democrats like Clinton and Sanders are not shocked. They call these procedures “Women’s Health Care”- at any stage- and if I do not support “Women’s Health Care” that ends the life of a developing or fully formed human in a brutal fashion, then I don’t belong in the Democratic Party. So again, THIS ISSUE is why Evangelicals voted as a large bloc for Donald Trump despite his manifold failings, not because we think he exemplifies a godly leader, and not because we are unashamed of his antics. We are ashamed, but our shame is worth it to prevent these human rights violations from continuing a day longer and becoming taxpayer funded.
Despite the many failings of the Republican Party, the Evangelical vote will probably continue to lean toward anyone who 1.) Does not oppose people with traditional religious views 2.) Has conservative-to-moderate views on the abortion issue. For the time being, almost no one of that description can be found in the leadership of the Democratic Party. If either of these things were to change in the Democratic Party, a candidate like Donald Trump would make me run toward them, but the only trends I see are in the opposite direction. I am a fiscal conservative, as well, but it matters to me far less than the issues mentioned above. I cannot say if I would vote for Donald Trump again in 2020. That will entirely depend on the candidates put forth by the Democratic and Independent Parties and the rest of this president’s term. Many of his policies I do not object to (although some I do), and some I have been pleased with, but most of what he says I find disturbing. If a reasonable, moderate, and viable Third Party ever does emerge, I could easily see myself jumping on that band wagon, as I actually identify in many ways as more of a conservative Independent than a Republican, but for the foreseeable future we are stuck with this two party system where we are really forced to vote for the policies of the party, and not the man or woman at the helm.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to Click here to Subscribe!About the Author
|
Jackie Chea is a blogger from San Antonio, Texas who holds a B.A. in Psychology and an M.A. in Community Counseling from the University of Texas at San Antonio. She writes on political and cultural issues from a conservative, religious standpoint. She lives in the Lone Star State with her husband Nick, her 5-year-old son Lincoln, and her rescue dogs. |
An unholy alliance indeed.
But it isn’t a surprise any more, is it?
Organized evangelical religion in America has long lost any claim to moral high ground – from helping Uganda in drafting laws for the judicial murder of LGBT people to the obscenity that is “Prosperity Gospel,” there’s just not far to fall any more to descend to supporting someone as nakedly amoral & self-obsessed as Trump.
“I cannot say if I would vote for Donald Trump again in 2020.”
After all that has happened, you’ll need a cast-iron stomach or a missing ethical compass to support the man who has the official endorsement of the KKK. America is arguably now less strong & less safe then at any time since WW2 solely due to its epic deficit of leadership. The optics of Trump sulking alone at the G20 Summit are a perfect metaphor for an Administration intent on alienating its allies while it warmly praises murderous fascist thugs like Putin, Erdogan & Duterte. The health-care bill alone will cost tens of thousands of jobs & tens of thousands of Americans – at best – will die for no good reason beyond profit. Deregulation will kill at least as many Americans over again, poisoned by corporations who need never pay a price for their manslaughter, because now it’s all perfectly legal. Not fetuses – living, breathing Americans who are now marked for death by Executive Order.
As for abortion, history tells us what happens when it becomes illegal or simply too hard to get: multitudes of poorer women die or end up crippled for life. Meanwhile the well off simply take a “European holiday” & get abortions there with ease. Canada has free unrestricted access to abortion on demand – & adjusted for population, consistently performs fewer of them than the US. What reduces abortion rates is no mystery: good comprehensive Sex Ed & easy access to contraception … both staunchly opposed by the same religious fundamentalists who decry abortion as murder.
I can empathize. If it hadn’t been for the Scalia seat – or if Hillary hadn’t been the nominee (making the case for PBA in a debate!), then I might have voted for the Democrat. Even so, I didn’t vote for Trump, but then I don’t live in a swing state and the fate of our electoral college votes was a foregone conclusion. I knew casting a write-in ballot wouldn’t make any difference either way. I don’t know if I’d have acted differently had that not been the case.
Well Jim, that wasn’t a very friendly response.
>Organized evangelical religion… helping Uganda in drafting laws… “Prosperity Gospel”
I’m not religious, so I’m certainly not an expert on evangelicals, but it sure seems like you’re using a set of outliers to portray the entirety of a group as unethical – kinda like, oh let’s just pick an example at random – kind of like suggesting that all Mexicans are rapists or working for the drug cartels.
>The optics of Trump sulking alone at the G20 Summit
That’s mainly because he’s insisting NATO members live up to their commitments rather than act as free riders and because he rejected a pseudo-treaty on climate change which was never ratified (and could never get ratification). To a lesser degree it’s also because he’s regarded by most of Europe as highly objectionable and uncouth – which he definitely is.
>As for abortion… multitudes of poorer women die or end up crippled for life.
Except that we can look to quite a few countries where you can plainly see that that just isn’t true. Moreover, here in the U.S. we see that there was no significant difference in mortality in the years just prior to and just after RvW.
>What reduces abortion rates is no mystery: good comprehensive Sex Ed & easy access to contraception
Those are two things (among many- eg, economic downturns & canceling medicaid funding for abortion are two others) which can cause a reduction in the abortion rates. There’s a point of diminishing returns with sex ed & access to contraception, and at least with the latter it’s likely been reached already.
Also, I’m not sure how true it is to say that evangelicals oppose these things. I’ve never heard them say that don’t think people should be able to get contraceptives, or even that they’re against Title IX. I’ve only heard them say that employers shouldn’t have to pay for it if they think it’s immoral. I’m also not convinced that they’re opposed to schools having classes where children learn about how birth control works. Some (understandably IMHO) don’t like the idea of someone they don’t know teaching their children “how to know when you’re ready to have sex.” I think some probably would also like to be able to opt out of sex ed for their own kids, but that doesn’t amount to opposing sex ed altogether.
In the end, though, I think what matters is that focusing on ‘reducing the rate’ evinces a wholly different mindset than that of someone who sees it as a form of homicide. Imagine if someone were to say, ‘We know that it’s going to happen no matter what, so we’re going to enact reforms to reduce the rate of domestic violence.’ That actually happened. It was one of the arguments for prohibition. But do you know what’s been most effective at preventing domestic violence? Making stricter laws and changing law enforcement policies to ensure the laws were enforced – and more generally changing societal attitudes to make it clear that it was not acceptable.
oops: I meant Title X.