Trump Derangement Syndrome, Desperation Thinking, and Facing the Questions
Image
Mostly, the sound and fury over Christianity Today’s editorial advocating President Trump’s removal from office seems to be following the now-familiar pattern: reaction aplenty, reflection—not so much.
It seems that “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” cuts both ways. The left wing version (LW) can’t seem to see the difference between Trump and Hitler. The right wing version (RW) seems to have trouble seeing the difference between Trump and the Messiah. These TDS sufferers perceive everyone around them in these extremes as well, so regardless of what’s actually being said, what they hear is binary. Either you’re echoing our (extreme) view and are one of “Us” or you’re one of “Them,” expressing the extreme opposite.
Trump himself suffers from the right wing version of Trump Derangement Syndrome, as his reaction to Mark Galli’s editorial demonstrated. Galli’s analysis offered both positive and negative observations about President Trump, but both Trump and his hordes of fellow TDS-RW sufferers immediately boiled it down to “Doesn’t sound like Us. Must be Them”—or pretended to. I don’t honestly know which is worse.
Those unafflicted by TDS of either the LW or RW variety can see some valid points in Galli’s arguments, as well as some weaker ones. They can distinguish one claim from another and weigh the supporting facts and reasoning for each, and possibly come to a better understanding of some of the thinking on these matters—even if it’s better understanding of what they disagree with, and why.
Which brings me to the purpose of this little entry into the fray. If you see the perspective voiced by Mark Galli (and others) as reasonable, even if you disagree, congratulations on being TDS-free! Hang in there. You’re not alone, and you really haven’t lost your mind. Everyone else has.
If you’re still a Trump-defender but haven’t slipped into full-blown TDS, I want to make you more uncomfortable, because I think it might help. (The TDS cases are beyond my skills.)
I know there are some pretty conflicted Trump supporters out there! One sure sign is how oversensitive some of them are. Criticize Trump just a little, and you get a noticeably disproportionate response. This is symptomatic of TDS-RW also, but the milder forms tell me I’m dealing with a person who is probably pretty insecure about the position they’ve carved out. They don’t want to criticize Trump at all, but they’re conflicted. Part of them keeps insisting something’s wrong. It makes them grumpy.
For TDS-free evangelical Trump-defenders, then, three questions:
1. Can it ever be wrong to take an action even when all the alternatives will have worse outcomes?
The answer is yes. I don’t know why this idea is controversial for Christians, but I’ve gone multiple rounds in forum discussions and some definitely find it hard to accept or hard to understand. Stated positively, the principle is this: Sometimes it’s wrong to do A even though all the other options seem guaranteed to result in disaster. I’ll get to how this relates to supporting President Trump below, but first, a biblical example—King Saul.
When the men of Israel saw that they were in trouble (for the people were hard pressed), the people hid themselves in caves and in holes and in rocks and in tombs and in cisterns, and some Hebrews crossed the fords of the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. Saul was still at Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling. He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. So Saul said, “Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings.” And he offered the burnt offering. As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. Samuel said, “What have you done?” (1 Samuel 13:6–11)
Some time later Saul followed the same pattern by keeping some of the spoils from the defeat of Agag (1 Sam. 15:20-21).
On both of these occasions Saul was afraid and desperate. He saw a situation where severe, lasting defeat would certainly occur if he chose to take the moral high ground and follow the instructions he had been given.
Desperation breeds an unhealthy focus on “But what will happen if I don’t?” It can lead us to re-characterize a choice between right and wrong as a choice between “the lesser of two evils.” In the sense of “two options with negative outcomes” the latter does happen. But a Christian is never so desperate that he has to do wrong in order to avoid disaster. In that case, he doesn’t get to avoid disaster.
Frequently, what I hear from Trump supporters is desperation reasoning: He’s got problems, but if we don’t help him win, what will happen?! Abortion! Loss of religious liberty! Economic decline! So even though he’s clearly a foolish, proud, and dishonorable man, let’s put him in charge, because he’ll do some things we’re desperate to see done!
My advice: calm down, figure out what’s right and do that. Stop being desperate. Saul’s desperate moves did work pretty well. But they brought disaster of a completely different kind for Saul and his family.
Returning to the question, I phrased it deliberately. If it can ever be wrong to do A when all the other options seem certain to have worse outcomes, that puts a sober responsibility on each of us. We have a duty to look at our choices and ask the question: Is Option A wrong even though it has the best likely outcomes? Why or why not? I don’t see many in the Trump-support camp answering these questions.
2. Does how we think matter?
On the topic of “how to think about Trump” (which is different from what to think about Trump), I’ve encountered an unusually high degree of impatience—a dogged determination to avoid looking away from outcomes to consider the process of ethical evaluation itself.
I keep going back to it for two reasons:
- God cares how we think, not just what we believe, what we do, and what results we achieve.
- If we use the right thought process, we’re more likely to correctly identify the right thing to do.
Reason 2 should be self-evident. Reason 1 is clear in passages such as these:
Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. (1 Cor. 14:20)
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. (1 Cor. 3:18)
for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. (2 Tim. 1:7)
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, (1 Pet. 3:15)
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, (2 Cor. 10:5)
In the case of support for, or criticism of, President Trump, we really shouldn’t think we’ve fulfilled our calling as Christians if rejecting “what They say” and echoing “what Our people say” is as far as we’ve gotten. That isn’t even a start at loving God with our minds (Matt. 22: 37).
3. Is it possible to achieve short term success in ways that produce long term failure?
Shortsightedness continues to dominate Trump-defense rhetoric. It’s almost as if Trump defenders believe:
- Future leaders can’t undo the accomplishments of whoever is in charge today.
- Policy victories have more enduring power than changing the values and principles of a culture.
- There is no need to win over anyone who doesn’t already agree with Trump’s policies.
- There will never be a need for any future leaders in conservatism after the current generation.
Well, the fourth bullet is possible (Parousia). But how could anyone believe the first three?
Here’s the connection: If future leaders can undo what Trump accomplishes, and if changing values and principles is more enduring, and if there’s a need to persuade larger numbers of voters of conservative ideas, what sort of strategy does that demand?
It calls for leadership that is, for starters, not completely alienating toward everyone in the political center and center left (we know the far left is unpersuadable). Maybe it calls for leadership that at least tries to make reasoned arguments for policy positions. Maybe it calls for leadership that thoughtfully addresses the idealism and questions of young potential leaders.
Maybe it calls for a leader who’s personal character and beliefs sort of align at least a little with the spirit and principles of conservatism, rather than one who passionately fights for the letter while actively denying the spirit.
President Trump has done some good things. Can they compensate for the long term damage of his egoism, lack of restraint, and moral tone-deafness? I honestly don’t know. I have serious doubts. But too many evangelical Trump supporters aren’t even considering the question.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 144 views
[Aaron Blumer]Thanks for clarifying that that post was a quote and not my words.Actually, no, I did not write those words. Those words are a direct quote from that article. Looking back on that post, I see that I did not make that clear so I would like to make that clear now. Since I am not able to edit that post any longer, perhaps you can go back and edit my post to show that what is in that post is a direct quote?
Yes, I’ll edit that.
[Aaron Blumer]it is a matter of conscience
Yes, it is. This means my conscience (which I’ve supported with quite a bit of facts and reasoning) says it’s wrong. It doesn’t follow that if one’s conscience says X is wrong, it’s only wrong for him. My conscience also tells me abortion is wrong.
I don’t want to try to lay all of this out here again and I’ve written on the topic of matters of conscience before. An excerpt.
2. Stand. A conviction of conscience doesn’t call for cowering in a corner or yielding to the views of those who differ. It’s neither safe nor right to yield when the conscience calls us to stand. “He who doubts is condemned if he eats.” (Rom.14:23). Thinking we have to have “chapter and verse” in order to be firm is a serious mistake and has lead many to compromise and harm their relationship with God. The same thinking has led others to twist Scripture for support when it would have been enough to say, “this is what I have to do because I can’t do otherwise in good conscience.”
3. Persuade. Differences of belief on matters of conscience don’t require a Christian version of political correctness that remains silent for fear of hurt feelings. Though Paul warned believers to avoid “disputes over doubtful things” (Rom14:1), he was not teaching that a person with a conviction on a matter of conscience should never attempt to win others over to his point of view. Paul himself engages in a little of this persuasion in the context. He wrote, “I am convinced by the Lord that there is nothing unclean of itself” (speaking of foods), yet he did not prescribe this position for everyone. It was subtle persuasion. Sharing what we believe and why we believe it, even on matters of conscience, is an important part of how we teach and admonish one another (Col. 3:16).
Even within the category of “matters of conscience,” all questions aren’t equally weighty. In the case of who we put on the throne of a nation, it’s a somewhat high-stakes question. Not quite on the same level as “should Christians ever eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol?”
So, while I think the “posture of conscience” applies, some vigor is appropriate.
It is, indeed, high stakes! And if one Christian is convinced it would be wrong not to vote for Trump, while another is convinced it is wrong to vote for him, which is sinning? Both, if they vote against their conscience. And that is why I believe you are wrong for trying to tell another Christian that he is sinning by voting for Trump. In the end, it is indeed a matter of Christian liberty, a matter that is not clearly defined in scripture.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Larry]I figured you would respond this way, since this is the way that makes sense. That’s why I was questioning your logic about Trump. You said, “You have judged it’s better to not vote for Trump. Fine. But you can’t turn around claim you are not responsible, to some degree, for the results.” If a person who votes for a law is not responsible for results that happen, how does a person who does NOT vote for a particular person for president become responsible for results that happen?Anytime abortion is restricted, and especially so if abortion was outlawed, women are going to find ways to abort a baby if they are feeling desperate. Some of these ways cause permanent bodily damage and even death to the mother, as well as killing the unborn child. The mother’s death would then be an indirect result of the restriction on abortion, so would the people who put the restriction in place be culpable? Would they be unable to avoid responsibility by declarations or denials?
You know, if we outlaw breaking and entering, some people are going to get shot when they break into and enter someone’s house, and they are going to die. Therefore, we should not outlaw B&E. Anyone who votes to outlaw B&E are responsible for the death of those who are shot during a B&E.
Hopefully that makes it easy to see this isn’t a real issue.
Of course if someone is endangered, injured, or killed while they are breaking a just law, it is not the fault of the lawmakers or the Law Enforcement for that.
If a person who votes for a law is not responsible for results that happen, how does a person who does NOT vote for a particular person for president become responsible for results that happen?
You left out an important word: “Just” law.
When a law is just, the consequences are built in. We are responsible for justice. So if we fail to vote for justice, we are liable for the outcome. If we vote for justice, those who do not live justly are responsible for the outcome of their failure to seek and live by justice.
So abortion is a matter of justice and so is B&E. We are responsible to pursue justice and therefore must pursue both.
Consider the opposite: If you fail to vote to outlaw B&E, you are responsible, to at least some degree, for the results of that. You are not as culpable as the person who actually breaks in and enters. But you are responsible to the degree that you failed to pursue justice.
So with abortion, outlawing abortion is a matter of justice. Those who break a just law are responsible for the outcome of it. Those who fail to pursue justice a just law outlawing abortion are also responsible for the outcome of it.
If a person who votes for a law is not responsible for results that happen, how does a person who does NOT vote for a particular person for president become responsible for results that happen?
Another difference is that with presidential elections in the USA, at least for now, it’s a choice of X or Y. Whereas with legislation, one votes for X or not X.
So it’s not like Congress is faced with voting for either a severe law against B&E, or a law funding abortion clinics, one of which WILL PASS. In that case, if you and 3 of your friends said, “I don’t like either bill, so I’m abstaining.” And then the abortion funding passed by one vote, well, by abstaining you helped that pass.
[Dan Miller]But when I look at presidential candidates, I study their positions and ask myself, “Am I for X or not for X”? Am I for Y or not for Y”? Am I for Z or not for Z”? Your phrase “at least for now” is an operative phrase. It’s highly unlikely for a third party to win the presidency, but it’s not impossible. If enough people vote FOR the third party Z, the third party Z would win.If a person who votes for a law is not responsible for results that happen, how does a person who does NOT vote for a particular person for president become responsible for results that happen?
Another difference is that with presidential elections in the USA, at least for now, it’s a choice of X or Y. Whereas with legislation, one votes for X or not X.
[Kevin Miller]It’s highly unlikely for a third party to win the presidency, but it’s not impossible. If enough people vote FOR the third party Z, the third party Z would win.
We don’t want to get into multi-party politics. Two party politics has its failings, for sure, but read about late 19th and early 20th century Austria and you’ll see the mess having many parties can do to a country.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]And extreme partisanship with two parties also causes a mess. My thought is that if the Republicans continue on with their support Trump, there could very well rise a party that consists of Never Trumpers, independents, and fiscally conservative Democrats. At that point, the current Trump Republicans would become the third party. It’s not impossible. History has examples of parties disappearing and new ones taking their place.We don’t want to get into multi-party politics. Two party politics has its failings, for sure, but read about late 19th and early 20th century Austria and you’ll see the mess having many parties can do to a country.
fiscally conservative Democrats
Hahahaha. They are getting more liberal and socialist all the time.
I study their positions and ask myself, “Am I for X or not for X”? Am I for Y or not for Y”? Am I for Z or not for Z”?
You can look at it that way, but we don’t vote that way.
It would be interesting if we did. So we vote and then if no one gets >50%, we vote again. And until someone gets >50%, we keep doing it.
[Dan Miller]And they say Republicans are getting more racist all the time.fiscally conservative Democrats
Hahahaha. They are getting more liberal and socialist all the time.
[Kevin Miller]And extreme partisanship with two parties also causes a mess. My thought is that if the Republicans continue on with their support Trump, there could very well rise a party that consists of Never Trumpers, independents, and fiscally conservative Democrats. At that point, the current Trump Republicans would become the third party. It’s not impossible. History has examples of parties disappearing and new ones taking their place.
I’m going to drop the subject because it’s really beyond the scope of the conversation.
Back to the conscience and sin, as that’s the real topic of discussion here.
:)
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Dan Miller]Suppose on election day, the voting for X takes place at 10 am, the voting for Y takes place at 12, and the voting for Z takes place at 2. Each voter could only come at one time because each person only gets one vote. In each voting time, the vote would be “Am I for the candidate or not.” The way we make that decision is the same whether we vote at separate times or whether all the names are on one ballot. We are still looking at each candidate, knowing we only have one vote, and we are asking, “Am I for a particular candidate or not?”I study their positions and ask myself, “Am I for X or not for X”? Am I for Y or not for Y”? Am I for Z or not for Z”?
You can look at it that way, but we don’t vote that way.
It would be interesting if we did. So we vote and then if no one gets >50%, we vote again. And until someone gets >50%, we keep doing it.
Now if we did it at separate times, we might just know at 10 am that the first candidate is the winner with over 50 per cent, but that doesn’t change the fact that for each candidate, voters have determined whether they were for each candidate or against them.
[JNoël]So does what you are saying here apply to discussions about alcohol? If a person believes drinking one alcoholic drink is a sin, are they wrong to point out why they think it is a sin? After all, drinking just one drink is a matter of Christian liberty, isn’t it?It is, indeed, high stakes! And if one Christian is convinced it would be wrong not to vote for Trump, while another is convinced it is wrong to vote for him, which is sinning? Both, if they vote against their conscience. And that is why I believe you are wrong for trying to tell another Christian that he is sinning by voting for Trump. In the end, it is indeed a matter of Christian liberty, a matter that is not clearly defined in scripture.
I’m not trying to get into a long alcohol discussion here, but specifically a discussion of what JNoel wanted to get back to when he said “Back to the conscience and sin, as that’s the real topic of discussion here.”
[Kevin Miller]If a person believes drinking one alcoholic drink is a sin, are they wrong to point out why they think it is a sin? After all, drinking just one drink is a matter of Christian liberty, isn’t it?
Key phrase highlighted/italicized above.
My answer to that specific statement: absolutely not.
But I believe they are wrong to dogmatically proclaim it is sin, to tell another Christian that they are living in sin if their conscience allows them to do something that another Christian’s conscience does not.
Do you believe Aaron is simply pointing out why he believes voting for Trump is a sin? Because it really doesn’t look that way to me.
And don’t get me wrong; I’m not offended in any way - because I didn’t vote for Trump, and I’m likely not to do so this year, either. But this conversation is about those whose consciences prevent them from doing anything but voting for Trump to keep the left out. I have the luxury of living in a state which, since 1928, has only voted for a Republican president four times. So I can write in whomever I desire without a chance of impacting the election. But many have a legitimate reason to vote one way, the other, or the third, and, for them, it really does matter a lot.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Discussion