What the Endorsement of Donald Trump by Phyllis Schlafly says about the state of Evangelicalism

I really don’t like to delve into politics unless I have to. It feels dirty to write this post in some ways, and I really find this particular election cycle depressing. However, there are times when politics intersect with faith in a way that warrants a closer look, and this is one of the occasions.

Late in December, Donald Trump gained an interesting endorsement. Phyllis Schlafly, long of Concerned Women for America and the Eagle Forum, came out in favor of Trump. It isn’t just the endorsement itself, but the “why” of the endorsement that I find troubling.

First, some background on Trump. I grew up in the 1980s, when Trump first came to the attention of the world as an obnoxious trust fund baby with the morals and values of a Gordon Gekko. His serial marriages to a string of Eastern European beauties younger than himself was legendary - as was his bragging about his adultery and disdain for his ex-wives.

As far as that goes, nothing much has changed, from his insulting statements about his ex-wives to his creepy “I’d sleep with her if she wasn’t my daughter” quip.

And that’s before you get to his creative use of bankruptcies to enrich himself at the expense of his creditors; his slander of African Americans, Hispanics, women, and people with disabilities; and his disconnect from actual facts about pretty much everything. And it’s not like he stands for some conservative principle. More like raw arrogance, power, and violence. Disagree with him, well, he’d like to punch you in the face. 

And then there is the narcissism. Good lord! He’s transparently self absorbed and arrogant, even for a politician.

Honestly, I doubted that I would see another serious presidential candidate exceed the sleeze factor of Bill Clinton. (I’m sorry, hitting on 20-year-old interns is sleazy.) That this candidate would become a front runner among Evangelicals is astounding. I mean, the GOP tried to impeach Clinton on the basis of his affairs and the lies he told about them, and now someone even slimier may well be their nominee? What gives? 

Furthermore, there is nothing remotely Christian about him or his worldview - something Evangelicals have claimed for decades was an important factor in choosing a leader. 

I had a pretty good idea before the Schlafly endorsement as to what was going on here, but I didn’t think it warranted a post. After all, most of us have that 5% of friends, family, and acquaintances who are just a little off. Uncle Fred, who makes racist comments at Thanksgiving. Aunt Edna, who waxes nostalgic about the good old days before the wetbacks arrived. You know the sort.

But for a major player in the Religious Right to go over to someone so personally opposed to the morals and values the Religious Right has claimed to stand for all these years is a big deal.

Even more shocking is that her reason for endorsing him matches what every single person who I know who has endorsed Trump has given as the reason.

Any guesses?

“The rich guys are putting the money in. They want to bring in the low-wage people. That’s the way they think they’ll make money,” she said. “But that’s not the way America will prosper. America was built because we had a great growing and prosperous middle class. We need to rebuild that again. I’m willing to give a new try to somebody else.”

That’s right. It’s the low-income brown skinned people who are ruining America! If we could just be white and middle class again…

Even worse, she has said Trump is the “last hope for America.” So, if we can’t keep America white, it is the end for us? I’m pretty darn sure that is what she means.

In fact, the central theme of the Trump campaign is one of White Nationalism. Many have pointed out (correctly) that Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since George Wallace in 1968. (His inauguration speech as governor included the infamous words, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.”)

That’s why it is of interest to me who the Trump supporters of my acquaintance are. Things they have in common: all consider themselves Christian, all are white, and all support Trump because he will deport the Mexicans.

Statistically, too, the supporters who drove the Trump bandwagon before others jumped on were overwhelmingly white, and 85% over the age of 45.

Just an aside, most of the GOP candidates are to some degree opposed to immigration, but Trump took it to a new level. His supporters, from what I can tell, want all undocumented immigrants deported immediately, even if they came to the US as infants. And also that we shut the border, allowing zero immigration from Mexico, legal or otherwise. Oh, and force Mexico to pay for it.

Here’s a fairly representative quote, from Michelle Goldberg’s piece on Trump.

I sat next to John Jensen, a 70-year-old farmer. He’s an ultraconservative, but when I asked whether he was bothered by Trump’s record on abortion and gay marriage, he said, “That’s Mickey Mouse stuff compared to what’s really going on in this country. We’re $20 trillion in debt. We got aliens all over the place. I harvest wheat out west, and all the little towns are full of aliens.” 

See, just like Schlafly, he believes the biggest problem facing America right now is that there are just too damn many brown skinned people here, and they are the reason we are in debt. The reason for all our problems. Those people are. 

Fear. Fear of losing economic and social privilege. We no longer have the power and wealth we used to. It must be the fault of someone else. Someone who looks different from us. It is those people who need to go.

(Does this sound a bit too familiar to students of history? Hmm.) 

The reason I think this has something to say about Evangelicalism is this: it’s not just that Trump has strong support from a significant percentage of Evangelicals.. True, he is, and continues to be, the most popular candidate, and his approval rating among Evangelicals remains disturbingly high.

However, many Evangelicals also loathe Trump, so this isn’t a clear-cut issue. 

The fact that Ted Cruz and his longstanding connection to the Lunatic Right (such as Kevin Swanson and Glenn Beck), a faux-historian, David Barton, who tells outright lies, and the Christian Reconstructionist movement is the other popular Evangelical candidate is something I find equally disturbing - if less surprising.

What is more telling, in my opinion, is that a nakedly racist appeal - one that seems to me and others like me - to be completely contrary to the teachings of Christ - can be embraced by a luminary within Evangelicalism, and there isn’t really any horror.

I have seen plenty of posts warning that Trump doesn’t really meet the ultimate Religious Right litmus test (abortion), but pretty much zero horrified about his White Nationalism.

Well, maybe this is understandable, since calling for the deportation of Mexicans appears to have become its own purity test within the GOP these days. (Good grief, how much the GOP has moved to the right since I was a kid...)

Not just that, but I have gotten embroiled in several heated conversations about the issue of immigration and refugees, and it has been so disappointing at how many “Christians” are passionately opposed to any immigration. Legal or illegal, but particularly no more Muslims or Mexicans.

And I still can’t get an answer as to how that position fulfills “love your neighbor as yourself.” Instead, I have been told how tired they are of people questioning their religious beliefs. Oh really? Can’t take the heat? Or is Stephen Colbert (a devout Catholic) right about this?

There are arguments on both sides of the question as to whether immigration is a net benefit to the United States or not. I believe one can come to a logical conclusion either way and maintain intellectual honesty.

But what isn’t really disputable is whether immigration benefits the immigrant. Particularly in the easy case of the person brought here as an infant. That person would clearly suffer if deported. So how is that being loving? The answer is that it isn’t. Sorry. You can’t just wiggle out of that one.

(By the way, arguing with these people is much like arguing with Doug Wilson supporters. Even though everyone outside the bubble can see that he is a White Supremacist who defends slavery, they won’t actually admit he is racist.)

Returning to what this says about the state of Evangelicalism, here is the question:

Why is there no outcry about the endorsement of Trump? There surely would be if Schlafly had endorsed someone who was pro-gay-marriage. There probably would be if she had endorsed someone who was “moderate” by GOP standards. But naked racism is okay? 

She has just endorsed the same candidate as KKK leader David Duke - for the very same reasons. And the silence is deafening.  

Shouldn’t the continued popularity of Trump cause some soul-searching as to the spiritual state of Evangelicalism? 

One common statement many have made about why they support Trump is “He says what everyone is thinking, but are too afraid to say.”

That’s a scary thought, because apparently what a great many people are thinking is unvarnished racism and White Nationalism, anger, fear, and hate.

I can only conclude that this is the result of decades of spiritual malpractice. For too long, “Christian Morality” has been defined as sexual rules, gender roles, white middle class culture, and - of course - abortion. As long as you get those right, you can be as greedy, selfish, materialistic, and power-worshiping as you like, and nobody will make you uncomfortable. Put a rainbow on your profile picture, and all hell breaks loose. Suggest that the last hope for Christendom lies in the material prosperity of the white middle class - and call for the removal of low income brown skinned people - as if there was anything remotely Christlike about that...and...crickets.

***

Just a couple of observations:

1. Schlafly illustrates the fact that for a significant portion of the Religious Right, “Christianity” looks like 1950s Middle-class white culture. A time when [white] men could support a family on one income, and the wife was at home with the kids, cooking and cleaning in heels and pearls. That’s why the “greatest threat” to America turns out to be brown skinned people who (allegedly) lowered wages for white males, so that they couldn’t support a family on a single income. (Leaving aside other issues, like the decline of private-sector unions, and the mechanization of manufacturing, which Schlafly doesn’t appear to believe are potential causes of declining wages. Nope, just the brown people.)

   

It never even occurs to Schlafly that the people she wants to keep out are seeking to be able to have a decent life for themselves. Their goals and welfare don’t matter, just the “real” Americans.

2.     I wish more people were aware of the origins of the Religious Right as a political force. The primary sources for Paul Weyrich’s account of the rise of the Right as we know it are readily available online. This article from Politico gives a decent summary.

If you actually look at history, the original political goal was the protection of the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and others who wished to remain segregated after the Civil Rights Act. So yes, it was in fact Segregation which united the Religious Right. And now it has come full circle, it appears, with many of the original players (Schlafly, Liberty University, the younger Jerry Falwell, and so on) going for a White Nationalist candidate.

3.     We can no longer plausibly deny that white Evangelicalism is plagued with deep-rooted racism. As it is, the lack of outrage that there will be no justice for 12 year old Tamar Rice is telling, and many of us found the white Evangelical response to Ferguson to be appalling for its lack of compassion and outright racism. But the embrace of Trump has really brushed away any remaining pretence. When push comes to shove, racism wins over any moral considerations. Not to discount the existence of racism in younger people, because it exists there too, but statistically, the White Nationalist push is coming from Evangelical Baby Boomers. There are a number of reasons why young people are fleeing the church. But this is one reason.

4.     My prediction: If (when?) Trump becomes the GOP nominee, you will see the vast majority of Evangelicals vote for and support him. In part because he will have an (R) next to his name. But also because the vast majority of Evangelicals have become single issue voters. Because the candidate with the (D) will not be calling for the outlawing of abortion, they will “hold their noses and vote for Trump.” And an increasing number of the next generation will be wondering exactly why they should take Evangelicalism seriously when it comes to morality.  

5.     Maybe one reason we Evangelicals have embraced a narcissist peddling a message of hate and greed is that we have all too often embraced narcisistic celebrity religious leaders who preach the same message. And not just the Prosperity Gospel sorts either. Mark Driscoll, C. J. Mahaney, Doug Wilson, Doug Phillips, Bill Gothard...

***

I linked this above, but I think it is well worth reading. (Hat tip to a relative for sending this my way.) 

Donald Trump Embodies What's Wrong with American Religion

Money quotes: 

When religion enters politics, politics can more easily adopt the mask of religion. Deep theological and moral traditions of reflection can be usurped by a shallow civil religion that carries not a touch of the prophetic power or ethical formation that Christianity or Islam or Judaism holds. American civil religion is the religion of Americanism, commandeering the rhetoric of piety for the sake of simplistic nationalism and selfish indulgence.

The problem with civil religion is that it has no moral core, and when put under the pressure of a polarized culture it can become very uncivil. Trump lashes out against migrants and American Muslims, not because they are a real threat, but because they are culturally weak; they are convenient minorities, relatively powerless targets of American incivility and rage.

***

I should have included this earlier, but better late than never. While I applaud Max Lucado for acknowledging that Trump lacks common decency, his article has several glaring omissions. 

Decency for President

First of all, note that he mentions that Trump has insulted women and people with disabilities. 

Note what he did NOT mention: That Trump has also insulted African Americans, Hispanics, and Muslims. 

Why didn't you mention that, Max? 

Also, why didn't you mention at all that Trump's biggest problem is that his campaign is based on racism? Can you not say "racist" and still keep your audience? 

***

Before commenting, please read my comment policy.

In particular, I will not tolerate racist comments. If you cannot explain how your policy regarding people different from you actually benefits them, I’m deleting your comment. The majority voice within Evangelicalism right now is already that of white supremacism and xenophobia. I’m not giving you a platform.

Likewise, I will delete any comments which endorse any candidate.