A very good article was published at Politico.com on how we ended up with a Trump candidacy that has been so successful. There is an impressive, and slightly lengthy quote as to how Trump was able to get ascendancy in the Republican Party:
But in truth the Trump takeover of the GOP occurred, to quote an old line from Hemingway, “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” What had to happen first, before Donald could step in and slap on his own brand in a short period of time, was the gradual “de-branding” of the party at the hands of its own leaders, especially over the past 7½ years since Barack Obama entered the White House. That’s when the party decided to abandon any ideas about governing in favor of one singular idea: “No to Obama.”
The events of this week supply an apt illustration. You might think there wasn’t much connection between the Republicans’ insistence on Wednesday that they wouldn’t even talk to Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and Trump’s humiliation of his Republican rivals the night before. In fact, both events help explain why this strange outsider from New York now basically owns one of America’s political parties. Trump could succeed only because the GOP rendered itself so incoherent that no one knew what the party really stood for anymore, except for something negative—the party of No. No, we won’t talk to him. No, we won’t listen to you. No, we can’t even agree on what we disagree about. No. No. NO.
Trump was the perfect candidate to come along, kick in what was left of the party’s empty ideological husk and then rebrand it as only he, the master, can do. First, of course, Trump earned his bona fides with the Obama-hating base by being the most negative Obama candidate of all—the loudest voice in the “birther” movement. But then he quickly won over the base by forming some positive, if rather crude, platform ideas that were welcomed, perhaps, largely because no one else had any ideas other than the old tax-cutting, trickle-down bromides. Those had been the lingering core of the Republican brand, but had lost much of their political traction as the party’s base of angry, undereducated whites watched their fortunes dim as the rich enjoyed their tax relief. The same Republican leaders and pundits who have been complaining that Trump’s simplistic notions about immigration (“build a wall”) or trade (“start winning again”) are unworkable and unRepublican haven’t had the courage to spell out any clear new ideas of their own.
Trump is a leader. Whether you agree with him or not, he projects the personage and authoritative talk of a leader. You may call him this or that. You may not understand how he has captured the imagination of conservatives. But, you must admit that he knows how to project an image of leadership and is able to articulate various ideas in a simply and understandable way. Even though he may not define his ideas, even though he may sound contradictory at times, even though he may appear to retract the next day, yet he projects an aura of leadership, an aura of a person that—right or wrong—will at least take you somewhere rather than keep you nowhere. And, as the article points out, the Republican Party establishment decided that nowhere was the place to be.
It was not that the Republican Party establishment proposed alternate plans. It was that no plans were proposed. “No” was the only word they knew. So, no progress was made; no laws were passed; no conservative agenda was put into effect. The anger built up, and the first challenge that the Republican Party establishment faced was the Tea Party. But, the Tea Party also had no integrated message other than opposition to President Obama, utterly false conspiracy theories, and a general message that social services must be decreased and taxes must be decreased, while insisting that military spending must be increased. What most Republicans were unwilling to admit were the coded xenophobic, racist, etc., messages. These messages were powered by the Republican Party establishment. They subtly condoned and often indirectly referred to birtherism, the supposed non-Christianism of President Obama, the supposed desire of President Obama to destroy this nation and Israel, etc. These remarks were often of the type of claiming that they did not know the truth, thereby being able to later claim that they had never actually agreed with the conspiracy theories. By engaging in this type of of deceptive talk, they were able to plausibly deny that they had ever agreed with the Tea Party.
But, as Senator Marco Rubio admitted in his exit speech, this led only to a sense of betrayal. Even the very Tea Party people who were elected were unable to make progress because they did not know how to navigate the system and were either neutralized or co-opted by the establishment. Finally, Trump rose up and provided the leadership that was so lacking. “No” is insufficient to power a movement, and Trump knows that.
But, what about the Evangelicals? In the 1980’s, the Moral Majority rose up. The idea was that Christianity was the faith of this nation and needed to be defended. But, Evangelicalism itself was coopted. The image at the beginning of this post shows a woman holding a sign that says, “Thank You, Lord Jesus for President Trump.” There have even been prophecies spoken by Charismatic Evangelicals that say that God has raised up Trump as a sign for the nations. Actually, in part I believe that. But, I believe it in the same sense as he raised up the Assyrians and Babylonians in order to teach Israel some very special lessons. The Moral Majority was fully coopted and desalted. Now, up to 40% of Evangelicals support Trump for President, going up to 60% in Alabama. A movement which wanted more Christians involved in politics has descended into a movement in which there is no clear trumpet (pun intended) and which is internally divided. Now, it is no longer necessary for the candidate to be a Christian, or even very pro-life for 40% of Evangelicals. It is only necessary that he be against President Obama, against taxes, and against government involvement in nearly anything, most especially worker wages. Being somewhat pro-life is all that is required. It is more important that they be anti-government, anti-taxes, and anti-Obama. How low that 40% has fallen.
You may say that the same thing is happening in the Democratic Party. But, no, it really is not. The anger that is found in many is also showing up in the Democratic contest. But, no one is suggesting that if Bernie Sanders does not win that there will be riots or that his supporters will not vote for the Democratic candidate, or that he will begin a third party, etc. He is indeed a challenger. He is focusing the anger of the anti-establishment folk in the Democratic Party. But, unless the young Bernie supporters refuse to vote, the Democratic Party establishment is not in the same space as the Republican Party establishment.
I was a registered Republican in the 1980’s. But, the party left me behind. I no longer qualify to be a Republican. Even more, I have seen that the promise of the Moral Majority was a false promise based on false premises. The end result of the Moral Majority has not been the transformation of this country, but the transformation of 40% of conservative Christianity into a rather angry reflection of a particular political-economic view that is anti-science, anti-vaccination, anti-Obama, anti-living-wage, pro-the-rich-can-do-what-they-want, borderline racist, and anti-any-reasonable-solution to the immigrant children who have grown up in this country without a proper visa. Fortunately, they still retain their anti-abortion views, and that is a blessing. But, they use their anti-abortion views to stigmatize any other Christian who might come to a different conclusion on whether the lesser of two evils is to vote Republican or Democratic.
I most definitely do not agree with various of the views of the Democratic Party establishment. I do not support several points in their social agenda. But, to vote Trump and the Party of No is simply not a reasonable option. You may very well reach a different viewpoint. But, you have very little ground to claim that voting Democratic in this election is not a Christian choice. Finally, if you are part of the 60% who did not vote for Trump, and if Trump ends up being the nominee, I am convinced that you need to consider voting the other party as being the lesser of two evils.
Leave a Reply