Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Of all the developments that have come along with Donald Trump’s capture of the Republican Party, few have been as unexpected as his robust support among conservative white evangelicals. What caused these socially conservative voters to embrace a candidate who built his brand on values so strikingly dissimilar from theirs? Why have many evangelicals gone so far as to actually uphold Trump’s values as a virtue in our current political moment?

I come to the question both as a political scientist and as a friendly observer of, and by some definitions, a participant in, the world of conservative white evangelicalism, who also did not vote for Trump and remains deeply Trump-skeptical. As a political scientist, I think it’s important to try and explain this recent evangelical political behavior in the context of broader questions about our current political moment, and religion and politics. As a friendly observer of conservative evangelicalism, who thinks categorical support for Trump is both unwise and harmful for evangelicals in the long term, I think it’s even more important to understand the reasons for that support. After all, understanding why it happened is the first necessary step to persuade evangelicals that it’s ultimately self-defeating. So, as a political scientist and a friendly observer/participant, I’d like to offer a theory: Donald Trump appeared at a time during which many evangelicals’ rising expectations had turned, rather rapidly, into existential fear. Trump was uniquely positioned to exploit that moment and win over evangelicals. Yet while that support is very real, I also think it is shallower and more conditional than it appears.

kalm wrote:Interesting theory pertaining to a surprising and important political alliance.

Unsurprisingly, those who actually go to church are less inclined to support to Trump. As Cleets sometimes suggests, the same might also be true for those who actually read the bible.

Of all the developments that have come along with Donald Trump’s capture of the Republican Party, few have been as unexpected as his robust support among conservative white evangelicals. What caused these socially conservative voters to embrace a candidate who built his brand on values so strikingly dissimilar from theirs? Why have many evangelicals gone so far as to actually uphold Trump’s values as a virtue in our current political moment?

I come to the question both as a political scientist and as a friendly observer of, and by some definitions, a participant in, the world of conservative white evangelicalism, who also did not vote for Trump and remains deeply Trump-skeptical. As a political scientist, I think it’s important to try and explain this recent evangelical political behavior in the context of broader questions about our current political moment, and religion and politics. As a friendly observer of conservative evangelicalism, who thinks categorical support for Trump is both unwise and harmful for evangelicals in the long term, I think it’s even more important to understand the reasons for that support. After all, understanding why it happened is the first necessary step to persuade evangelicals that it’s ultimately self-defeating. So, as a political scientist and a friendly observer/participant, I’d like to offer a theory: Donald Trump appeared at a time during which many evangelicals’ rising expectations had turned, rather rapidly, into existential fear. Trump was uniquely positioned to exploit that moment and win over evangelicals. Yet while that support is very real, I also think it is shallower and more conditional than it appears.

https://thebulwark.com/why-did-evangeli ... O5nOBBE0l0

Gil Dobie wrote:

kalm wrote:Interesting theory pertaining to a surprising and important political alliance.

Unsurprisingly, those who actually go to church are less inclined to support to Trump. As Cleets sometimes suggests, the same might also be true for those who actually read the bible.



https://thebulwark.com/why-did-evangeli ... O5nOBBE0l0

From the Trump supporters I know in person, the typically voted for him because of the party stance on abortion and legal immigration, the desire for a conservative Supreme Court, or their pure hatred of Hillary Clinton. It's really just that simple.

Gil Dobie wrote:

kalm wrote:Interesting theory pertaining to a surprising and important political alliance.

Unsurprisingly, those who actually go to church are less inclined to support to Trump. As Cleets sometimes suggests, the same might also be true for those who actually read the bible.



https://thebulwark.com/why-did-evangeli ... O5nOBBE0l0

From the Trump supporters I know in person, the typically voted for him because of the party stance on abortion and legal immigration, the desire for a conservative Supreme Court, or their pure hatred of Hillary Clinton. It's really just that simple.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
From the Trump supporters I know in person, the typically voted for him because of the party stance on abortion and legal immigration, the desire for a conservative Supreme Court, or their pure hatred of Hillary Clinton. It's really just that simple.

So they're still idiots.

Ivytalk wrote:I’m just an active regular churchgoer in a mainline Protestant denomination that has been co-opted by progressivism. Ain’t no existential fear there.

GannonFan wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
From the Trump supporters I know in person, the typically voted for him because of the party stance on abortion and legal immigration, the desire for a conservative Supreme Court, or their pure hatred of Hillary Clinton. It's really just that simple.

I agree with that, people spend a lot of time trying to postulate how folks voted for Trump when the answer is as simple as you made it. This ain't rocket science.

It’s important to note one caveat in this story. If we disaggregate the polling data on white evangelicals from the 2016 primary to look at regular church attendance, rather than evangelical self-identification, it becomes clear that those who regularly attended church were less likely to support Trump than those who self-identified as evangelical but were not regular attenders. In his newly published book Alienated America, Tim Carney makes a compelling case that these regular churchgoers were less receptive to Trump’s broader message of social isolation and the death of the American dream. Existential fear, in other words, was less all-encompassing for regular attenders because they have more social connection. This analysis is almost certainly correct, but it’s important to note that most of these regular attenders came home to Trump in the end—and have, with some exceptions, generally supported him since. I believe the existential fear I describe remains the most helpful explanation of this political behavior even for these regular-attending latecomers, though Carney’s argument may imply that the attitude gap between regular vs. irregular attenders among self-identified evangelicals may persist in ways that are relevant to a 2020 primary challenge.

By accident or design, Trump did two things after winning the nomination that firmly consolidated evangelical support. First, he had the Federalist Society produce the list from which he would pick judges to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts. Second, he picked Mike Pence as his vice president. Though he’s despised by social progressives for numerous reasons, Pence’s bland, Midwestern style and self-evident social conservatism were reassuring to evangelicals in ways Trump could never be.

So...the closer to church and God the further from Trump?

Ivytalk wrote:I’m just an active regular churchgoer in a mainline Protestant denomination that has been co-opted by progressivism. Ain’t no existential fear there.

Chizzang wrote:kalm don't even get me started...
The average self-righteous American christian fundamentalist would follow Satan himself
if they thought it would get them a seat at the table where the adults sit

Evangelical Christianity has been getting thumped from every side - even from fellow "Christians"
for the last 25 years and the loss of numbers at positions of influence is significant

Our society is drifting in the opposite direction of Fundamentalism
Christianity will always be popular in America
but not in the form that Evangelicals desire

Trump is their very last gasp

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I agree with that, people spend a lot of time trying to postulate how folks voted for Trump when the answer is as simple as you made it. This ain't rocket science.

I don't necessarily disagree, but this snippet from the article is interesting in that light...

It’s important to note one caveat in this story. If we disaggregate the polling data on white evangelicals from the 2016 primary to look at regular church attendance, rather than evangelical self-identification, it becomes clear that those who regularly attended church were less likely to support Trump than those who self-identified as evangelical but were not regular attenders. In his newly published book Alienated America, Tim Carney makes a compelling case that these regular churchgoers were less receptive to Trump’s broader message of social isolation and the death of the American dream. Existential fear, in other words, was less all-encompassing for regular attenders because they have more social connection. This analysis is almost certainly correct, but it’s important to note that most of these regular attenders came home to Trump in the end—and have, with some exceptions, generally supported him since. I believe the existential fear I describe remains the most helpful explanation of this political behavior even for these regular-attending latecomers, though Carney’s argument may imply that the attitude gap between regular vs. irregular attenders among self-identified evangelicals may persist in ways that are relevant to a 2020 primary challenge.

By accident or design, Trump did two things after winning the nomination that firmly consolidated evangelical support. First, he had the Federalist Society produce the list from which he would pick judges to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts. Second, he picked Mike Pence as his vice president. Though he’s despised by social progressives for numerous reasons, Pence’s bland, Midwestern style and self-evident social conservatism were reassuring to evangelicals in ways Trump could never be.

So...the closer to church and God the further from Trump?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
From the Trump supporters I know in person, the typically voted for him because of the party stance on abortion and legal immigration, the desire for a conservative Supreme Court, or their pure hatred of Hillary Clinton. It's really just that simple.

So they're still idiots.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: So they're still idiots.

So: defending the unborns' rights, wanting immigrants to come here legally and desiring a conservative supreme court makes one an idiot?

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So: defending the unborns' rights, wanting immigrants to come here legally and desiring a conservative supreme court makes one an idiot?

Well, you get to call people with whom you disagree idiots. Why can't the rest of us?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree, but this snippet from the article is interesting in that light...



So...the closer to church and God the further from Trump?

But that doesn't make sense, the part you quoted actually says that it didn't matter if they were church going or not, the still ended up voting for Trump. I just bolded the part you quoted but seem to have drawn a different conclusion from.

Like I said, the deeper you dig the further you get away from what Gil said in terms of why people voted for Trump - keep it simple. This is like an Occum's Razor moment if one was so inclined.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I agree with that, people spend a lot of time trying to postulate how folks voted for Trump when the answer is as simple as you made it. This ain't rocket science.

I don't necessarily disagree, but this snippet from the article is interesting in that light...

It’s important to note one caveat in this story. If we disaggregate the polling data on white evangelicals from the 2016 primary to look at regular church attendance, rather than evangelical self-identification, it becomes clear that those who regularly attended church were less likely to support Trump than those who self-identified as evangelical but were not regular attenders. In his newly published book Alienated America, Tim Carney makes a compelling case that these regular churchgoers were less receptive to Trump’s broader message of social isolation and the death of the American dream. Existential fear, in other words, was less all-encompassing for regular attenders because they have more social connection. This analysis is almost certainly correct, but it’s important to note that most of these regular attenders came home to Trump in the end—and have, with some exceptions, generally supported him since. I believe the existential fear I describe remains the most helpful explanation of this political behavior even for these regular-attending latecomers, though Carney’s argument may imply that the attitude gap between regular vs. irregular attenders among self-identified evangelicals may persist in ways that are relevant to a 2020 primary challenge.

By accident or design, Trump did two things after winning the nomination that firmly consolidated evangelical support. First, he had the Federalist Society produce the list from which he would pick judges to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts. Second, he picked Mike Pence as his vice president. Though he’s despised by social progressives for numerous reasons, Pence’s bland, Midwestern style and self-evident social conservatism were reassuring to evangelicals in ways Trump could never be.

So...the closer to church and God the further from Trump?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I’m just an active regular churchgoer in a mainline Protestant denomination that has been co-opted by progressivism. Ain’t no existential fear there.

Methodist? I was raised heathen basically, but they were always the most fun.

houndawg wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Methodist? I was raised heathen basically, but they were always the most fun.

A Methodist is just a Baptist that can read

Grizalltheway wrote:

houndawg wrote:
A Methodist is just a Baptist that can read

Hey, I didn't say SOUTHERN Methodist.

Grizalltheway wrote:

houndawg wrote:
A Methodist is just a Baptist that can read

Hey, I didn't say SOUTHERN Methodist.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So: defending the unborns' rights, wanting immigrants to come here legally and desiring a conservative supreme court makes one an idiot?

Well, you get to call people with whom you disagree idiots. Why can't the rest of us?