Why do evangelicals vote for Trump, given his character, morality? I sometimes wonder if the evangelicals who ask this question do not understand their brethren. There are several reasons: 1) As voters we essentially have four choices, the Democrat, the Republican, a third party or don't bother. Most people will vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, practically speaking, two choices. (I voted third party and will probably do so again.) 2) In 2016 and 2020, Trump was strongly pro-life. Being pro-life is one of, if not the, most important issues to many evangelicals. Thus many viewed him as the superior choice. And now, while not as strong on the topic, he doesn't disparage those who are strongly pro-life. (As an aside, I suspect that many evangelical elites aren't strongly pro-life and maybe moderately pro-choice, but different topic.) 2) Trump never referred to evangelicals as "clinging to God, guns and religion" nor did he refer to them as "deplorables". 3) The notion that the Clintons or the Bidens have greater character than Trump is laughable. Given two candidates of poor character, why not choose the pro-life candidate who doesn't disparage you or your belief system?
Wow. So much to unpack from the rube gallery. I will try and be brief.
"The Christian Nationalist movement is a loose mixture of these latent dispositions including American exceptionalism, populism and suspicion of elites, deep resentment coupled with nativism, and political reassertion. Collectively, these sound like themes of every Trump rally. His coalition is not based on an evangelical theology, but an evangelical habitus—which is most pronounced among the large number of self-defined evangelicals who are less educated and attend church less frequently."
What is this movement really Mr. Seel? I know I must be for some a part of this - based mostly on what I am and have been reading- but I don't understand the interrogations, which as opposed to arguments, is exactly what they come across as. I only wish we could count on your audience this coming Strong Church Conference starting next Monday (2/26) at Dream City Phoenix. Rest assured, there will be no guards at the door. No Loyalty Oaths demanded. People will not be thrown into the river and expected either to rise or float. No. The dialogues will indeed be open - and that includes Q&A.
So, if you have any disagreement or theological perspective to challenge the Barnetts, or Eric Metaxas, or Jack Hibbs, or Franklin Jentezen, or David Barton or any number other speaking attendees - you would as anyone there be free to do so.
It's not about a bugaboo or a boogeyman. It is about a fundamental - a great word describing faith as well - one that I believe only fell from favor during the rise of Secular Humanism starting with the Warren court (I defer to David Barton and recommend his excellent historical references for the audience here) right through the needed course correction beginning with Rehnquist - fundamental rights as free men and as defined by our constitution as bestowed by God - not men.
The assertion that the Enlightenment is a dead bygone era. That the first amendment is not to be qualified at the discretion of our educated betters who deign to decide to lord over us in some new dark middle age - where education (and an extensive vocabulary - with or without a law degree) determines a fitness to occupy 'elected' office - or more importantly - the vast appointments that increasingly constitute centralized state and federal government.
There is so little to what you say that differs from the average globalist bunk. Yes, Trump is disgusting, dangerous and demented - but - let's try and learn from him so we too can appropriate the method to his madness for good purpose. Just as the good NGO's are doing 'God's work' now invading America just as they did Europe from 2014 to date.
No, the average American still believes that we elect those who govern us, and that Washington's fascination with all things foreign over priorities domestic, this truth, fundamentally, makes Trump an historical figure to whom his fate is tied to the fate of this nation.
The rise of the derogatory designation 'Christian Nationalism' is but another extension of name calling. It is a direct threat to Secular Humanism and their allies. It is growing rival. And all rivals are local. The don't become 'national' until some news organization decides it's time to report on them.
I can understand this threatens you. I have heard all the hand wringing nonsense. How it is us that constitutes 'violent threats' when actual violence is evident all about us - and how important it is that the police have less and less resources (Particularly from hollowed out forces where good men and women who flee knowing their careers if not freedom will be sacrificed with the first high profile media saturated case) to enforce law and order.
My answer to you sir is find a quiet place to ride out the storm if you don't have the backbone to stand up. I have been hearing similar accusations of racism and the like since Sheriff Joe & SB1070 here in Arizona, in fact before that when arriving in '99. The wasteland of buried bodies is south of the boarder - to the tune of hundreds of thousands.
The truth is the wisdom of the American People is prevailing - despite the propaganda of the legacy media and its proven affiliation with deep state actors from the CIA to the FBI to Democrat DOJ - all of this has been gradually torn away via Trump since 2016.
It is happening here as it has already in Europe - the same way the left swept first from Mao's China to Europe then lastly to America in the 60's & 70's. Trying times certainly, but certainly worth the struggle.
Thank you John Seel for this analysis. Very helpful.
I'd vote for you doing a similar analysis of rhetorical strategies currently employed on the Left either generally or by individual political figures. I think those figures are less effective than Trump in terms of rhetoric, but they are effective with some significant number of Americans - if my neighbors and friends are representative - and I'd benefit from your understanding of why.
Good analysis. This is something that caught my attention back in 2016. I’d never particularly liked Trump, he seemed like just another reality television personality, but when he addressed the loss of blue collar manufacturing jobs to globalization he struck a chord with me. I hadn’t heard that theme since Pat Buchanan in the 90s. Then I followed his rhetorical style more closely and I could see he was making fools of everyone. Something he plays to great effect is the “dumb card.” He uses his Queens working class tone to his advantage. He sounds dumber than he is, this tends to draw out the arrogance of his detractors--people who spend their lives trying to sound smarter than they are. They attribute his statements to ignorance, when in fact he’s playing them. When he’s vindicated his supporters vicariously enjoy his victory over his condescending opponents. It’s a sight to behold. The smart set are too full of themselves to see how he’s using them.
As one who thinks he should be able to be called an evangelical at least according to the more historical definitions (I am a Christ follower seeking to bring others to follow Christ), voting for Trump (at least after the primary in 2016 in which I voted for Carson but in SC so I knew Trump would be nominated) was easy. His proposed policy and principals most align with Godly governance. End of story. His past immoralities dimmed in comparison to the abject evil that HRC and democrats in general these days are foisting on the USofA. In 2020 I wish he could have shed Pence and run with another VP but he now had a record of, if not Godly governance, at least more Godly. In other words he did his best to do what he said he would do and we saw the results. Bottom line I question any Christian that would vote for his opposition (at least in the 16/20 general elections) over him in a general election as to how deeply they believe the Christian faith. For those that abstained I have a little more understanding but great disappointment because...well look around you!
I think Christian "never Trumpers" have much for which to answer. You are why we don't get nicer things.
I supported Ted Cruz in 2016, then voted for Trump over Hillary in November. There was no primary opposition to Trump in 2020, and I voted for him over Biden in November. I supported Ron DeSantis in 2023-2024, and it appears that I will vote for Trump yet again in November.
Contrary to the article, this resistance to Trump is not because I have a different habitus than most evangelicals. It is because I recognize, from a lifetime of experience observing and participating in politics, that there is a huge gap between effective campaigning and effective governing. This is a dilemma affecting both major parties and spanning decades, at the very least since the spread of television.
Trump accomplished something important in 2015-2016: Changing the frame, refocusing the political discussion on topics such as immigration and trade and whether they were good for everyone or only for a few. That led to a large bloc of voters identifying with him, as the article says. They became convinced that Trump was the ONLY politician who identified with them, leading to a cultic fanaticism that persists today.
But the politician who connects with you does not necessarily have any governing skills. Trump's fanatics give him credit primarily for two things that are standard-issue GOP Establishment politics: The economic stimulus of the Paul Ryan tax cuts, and the judicial appointments that are straight from the Federalist Society influence. How ironic that his main accomplishments were pushed through by the GOP Establishment that his fanatics ridicule at every opportunity.
As a fanatic myself on the importance of reducing immigration, I follow that issue closely. I can never forget the week when my emails were full of alerts concerning a bad immigration bill winding its way through Congress. I was contacting Representatives and Senators. A reporter asked Trump a question about the bill as he walked outside the White House (I forget where he was going). Trump was startled, asked "They are really proposing that?" etc. He was completely clueless. Anyone connected to immigration reform knew about it, but not Trump. But I am sure he had time to engage in twitter spats that week with CNN reporters and the like.
So, yes, Trump talks about issues like immigration that connect with his voter bloc. Talk even accomplished something: The tough talk discouraged immigrants from trying to come here during the first couple of years of his administration. Eventually, I want actual governance.
Well-said. I think this piece by Nate Hochman on why Trump beat DeSantis so soundly is a useful complement to this discussion:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-inside-the-desantis-campaign/
Why do evangelicals vote for Trump, given his character, morality? I sometimes wonder if the evangelicals who ask this question do not understand their brethren. There are several reasons: 1) As voters we essentially have four choices, the Democrat, the Republican, a third party or don't bother. Most people will vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, practically speaking, two choices. (I voted third party and will probably do so again.) 2) In 2016 and 2020, Trump was strongly pro-life. Being pro-life is one of, if not the, most important issues to many evangelicals. Thus many viewed him as the superior choice. And now, while not as strong on the topic, he doesn't disparage those who are strongly pro-life. (As an aside, I suspect that many evangelical elites aren't strongly pro-life and maybe moderately pro-choice, but different topic.) 2) Trump never referred to evangelicals as "clinging to God, guns and religion" nor did he refer to them as "deplorables". 3) The notion that the Clintons or the Bidens have greater character than Trump is laughable. Given two candidates of poor character, why not choose the pro-life candidate who doesn't disparage you or your belief system?
The left properly understands that politics is the art of rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies.
The Trumpian right now understands this as well.
Wow. So much to unpack from the rube gallery. I will try and be brief.
"The Christian Nationalist movement is a loose mixture of these latent dispositions including American exceptionalism, populism and suspicion of elites, deep resentment coupled with nativism, and political reassertion. Collectively, these sound like themes of every Trump rally. His coalition is not based on an evangelical theology, but an evangelical habitus—which is most pronounced among the large number of self-defined evangelicals who are less educated and attend church less frequently."
What is this movement really Mr. Seel? I know I must be for some a part of this - based mostly on what I am and have been reading- but I don't understand the interrogations, which as opposed to arguments, is exactly what they come across as. I only wish we could count on your audience this coming Strong Church Conference starting next Monday (2/26) at Dream City Phoenix. Rest assured, there will be no guards at the door. No Loyalty Oaths demanded. People will not be thrown into the river and expected either to rise or float. No. The dialogues will indeed be open - and that includes Q&A.
So, if you have any disagreement or theological perspective to challenge the Barnetts, or Eric Metaxas, or Jack Hibbs, or Franklin Jentezen, or David Barton or any number other speaking attendees - you would as anyone there be free to do so.
It's not about a bugaboo or a boogeyman. It is about a fundamental - a great word describing faith as well - one that I believe only fell from favor during the rise of Secular Humanism starting with the Warren court (I defer to David Barton and recommend his excellent historical references for the audience here) right through the needed course correction beginning with Rehnquist - fundamental rights as free men and as defined by our constitution as bestowed by God - not men.
The assertion that the Enlightenment is a dead bygone era. That the first amendment is not to be qualified at the discretion of our educated betters who deign to decide to lord over us in some new dark middle age - where education (and an extensive vocabulary - with or without a law degree) determines a fitness to occupy 'elected' office - or more importantly - the vast appointments that increasingly constitute centralized state and federal government.
There is so little to what you say that differs from the average globalist bunk. Yes, Trump is disgusting, dangerous and demented - but - let's try and learn from him so we too can appropriate the method to his madness for good purpose. Just as the good NGO's are doing 'God's work' now invading America just as they did Europe from 2014 to date.
No, the average American still believes that we elect those who govern us, and that Washington's fascination with all things foreign over priorities domestic, this truth, fundamentally, makes Trump an historical figure to whom his fate is tied to the fate of this nation.
The rise of the derogatory designation 'Christian Nationalism' is but another extension of name calling. It is a direct threat to Secular Humanism and their allies. It is growing rival. And all rivals are local. The don't become 'national' until some news organization decides it's time to report on them.
I can understand this threatens you. I have heard all the hand wringing nonsense. How it is us that constitutes 'violent threats' when actual violence is evident all about us - and how important it is that the police have less and less resources (Particularly from hollowed out forces where good men and women who flee knowing their careers if not freedom will be sacrificed with the first high profile media saturated case) to enforce law and order.
My answer to you sir is find a quiet place to ride out the storm if you don't have the backbone to stand up. I have been hearing similar accusations of racism and the like since Sheriff Joe & SB1070 here in Arizona, in fact before that when arriving in '99. The wasteland of buried bodies is south of the boarder - to the tune of hundreds of thousands.
The truth is the wisdom of the American People is prevailing - despite the propaganda of the legacy media and its proven affiliation with deep state actors from the CIA to the FBI to Democrat DOJ - all of this has been gradually torn away via Trump since 2016.
It is happening here as it has already in Europe - the same way the left swept first from Mao's China to Europe then lastly to America in the 60's & 70's. Trying times certainly, but certainly worth the struggle.
Thank you John Seel for this analysis. Very helpful.
I'd vote for you doing a similar analysis of rhetorical strategies currently employed on the Left either generally or by individual political figures. I think those figures are less effective than Trump in terms of rhetoric, but they are effective with some significant number of Americans - if my neighbors and friends are representative - and I'd benefit from your understanding of why.
Good analysis. This is something that caught my attention back in 2016. I’d never particularly liked Trump, he seemed like just another reality television personality, but when he addressed the loss of blue collar manufacturing jobs to globalization he struck a chord with me. I hadn’t heard that theme since Pat Buchanan in the 90s. Then I followed his rhetorical style more closely and I could see he was making fools of everyone. Something he plays to great effect is the “dumb card.” He uses his Queens working class tone to his advantage. He sounds dumber than he is, this tends to draw out the arrogance of his detractors--people who spend their lives trying to sound smarter than they are. They attribute his statements to ignorance, when in fact he’s playing them. When he’s vindicated his supporters vicariously enjoy his victory over his condescending opponents. It’s a sight to behold. The smart set are too full of themselves to see how he’s using them.
As one who thinks he should be able to be called an evangelical at least according to the more historical definitions (I am a Christ follower seeking to bring others to follow Christ), voting for Trump (at least after the primary in 2016 in which I voted for Carson but in SC so I knew Trump would be nominated) was easy. His proposed policy and principals most align with Godly governance. End of story. His past immoralities dimmed in comparison to the abject evil that HRC and democrats in general these days are foisting on the USofA. In 2020 I wish he could have shed Pence and run with another VP but he now had a record of, if not Godly governance, at least more Godly. In other words he did his best to do what he said he would do and we saw the results. Bottom line I question any Christian that would vote for his opposition (at least in the 16/20 general elections) over him in a general election as to how deeply they believe the Christian faith. For those that abstained I have a little more understanding but great disappointment because...well look around you!
I think Christian "never Trumpers" have much for which to answer. You are why we don't get nicer things.
I supported Ted Cruz in 2016, then voted for Trump over Hillary in November. There was no primary opposition to Trump in 2020, and I voted for him over Biden in November. I supported Ron DeSantis in 2023-2024, and it appears that I will vote for Trump yet again in November.
Contrary to the article, this resistance to Trump is not because I have a different habitus than most evangelicals. It is because I recognize, from a lifetime of experience observing and participating in politics, that there is a huge gap between effective campaigning and effective governing. This is a dilemma affecting both major parties and spanning decades, at the very least since the spread of television.
Trump accomplished something important in 2015-2016: Changing the frame, refocusing the political discussion on topics such as immigration and trade and whether they were good for everyone or only for a few. That led to a large bloc of voters identifying with him, as the article says. They became convinced that Trump was the ONLY politician who identified with them, leading to a cultic fanaticism that persists today.
But the politician who connects with you does not necessarily have any governing skills. Trump's fanatics give him credit primarily for two things that are standard-issue GOP Establishment politics: The economic stimulus of the Paul Ryan tax cuts, and the judicial appointments that are straight from the Federalist Society influence. How ironic that his main accomplishments were pushed through by the GOP Establishment that his fanatics ridicule at every opportunity.
As a fanatic myself on the importance of reducing immigration, I follow that issue closely. I can never forget the week when my emails were full of alerts concerning a bad immigration bill winding its way through Congress. I was contacting Representatives and Senators. A reporter asked Trump a question about the bill as he walked outside the White House (I forget where he was going). Trump was startled, asked "They are really proposing that?" etc. He was completely clueless. Anyone connected to immigration reform knew about it, but not Trump. But I am sure he had time to engage in twitter spats that week with CNN reporters and the like.
So, yes, Trump talks about issues like immigration that connect with his voter bloc. Talk even accomplished something: The tough talk discouraged immigrants from trying to come here during the first couple of years of his administration. Eventually, I want actual governance.