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
The CT article and the follow-up have made me seriously consider subscribing to the magazine. Might very well do it.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I was thinking about that also. Actually did subscribe to National Review when they published their Against Trump issue in 2016… though, at the time, I thought ‘You guys should have done this in 2015!’ It was too late to stop the Trump train.
Got an interesting email response this morning with some push back—from someone who didn’t want to log in and post I guess. I’ll try to respond later, but it will be some hours before I have the opportunity. But in general, the email assumes that if you aren’t adamantly anti Galli-article, you’re pro-Hillary. Because if Hillary is really bad, Trump can’t also be really bad… I guess. Despite the cognitive disconnect that requires (TDS-RW?), there may be a few thoughts to glean from the email, so I’ll take a closer look when I get the chance.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
From dictionary.com:
Vote: to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot:
Endorse: to approve, support, or sustain:
I personally do not approve of Trump’s behavior or his moral failings. I did not support him in the 2016 GOP primary because I did not believe he was qualified for the office and I did not trust him. I certainly did not sustain him in any way via financial donations.
But given the two options, Clinton or Trump, I did express and signify my will or choice in the matter of which one of the two I would rather have be president.
I don’t like Mr. Trump, and I voted for him against Clinton. Both can be true. Looking ahead to 2020, given I live in a state with no party registration, and given Trump has no primary opposition, I might well ask for the Democrat primary ballot so as to have a say in who I will not be voting for in the general election. It does not mean I endorse or support that candidate, but rather I would be signifying my will as to which one I would prefer run in the general election.
It seems to me that 90% of all the debate raging about how to vote could easily be wiped away if people would realize that voting is not the same as endorsing.
Bingo! That difference makes all the difference.
G. N. Barkman
[Darrell Post]I see you consider there to be a difference between giving a financial donation and giving a vote, that one is support or “sustaining,” but the other one isn’t. However, if the goal is just to keep the worse person out of office, would there really be a difference? Wouldn’t the financial donation also just be a reflection of your choice to keep the worst person from winning the election rather than being an endorsement of the person getting the money?I personally do not approve of Trump’s behavior or his moral failings. I did not support him in the 2016 GOP primary because I did not believe he was qualified for the office and I did not trust him. I certainly did not sustain him in any way via financial donations.
CT isn’t worth subscribing to anymore. I was a subscriber mainly to access back issues of CT and Books & Culture (no longer published, unfortunately). I canceled my subscription. Not any real value anymore.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
I was going to buy a subscription to the Times of London for Christmas. I may still do that. But, at $3.25 per month/$39.00 per year, I will certainly now subscribe to CT.
I didn’t agree with Galli’s interpretation of the infamous phone call, but I appreciate his basic point. I also really liked CT’s follow-up piece. I also liked Russell Moore’s book Onward. In short, I seem to appreciate what a lot of so-called “moderates” have to say about the intersection of Christianity and culture.
CT won themselves a new subscriber with these articles.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
For the record - I did not vote for Trump. Also for the record, while I am more than a 0% in likelihood of voting for him the next time, it is still highly unlikely.
[Darrell Post]I personally do not approve of Trump’s behavior or his moral failings.
This line of reasoning fascinates me most, because so many who disapprove of Trump call on it as one of their main reasons.
What moral failings are you referring to?
Frankly, I don’t care much about his behavior, as everyone leads differently, and if one takes a look at how British parliament runs, Trump would likely fit in really well over there. We’re not used to it in America, because our President is supposed to act more dignified (in public). I find Trump’s transparency refreshing. I expect, with the exception of likely profanity, we see a very similar Trump in public as how he acts in private.
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)
- It’s not about leadership style.
- Not about acting dignified.
- Not about the difference between voting and endorsing.
I really didn’t think I had to prove that he has serious character problems, but maybe I need to bite the bullet and write that one. It’s just very hard to write because the quantity of examples is so overwhelming. … and it feels silly because it seems so obvious.
Just read Proverbs, collect all the descriptions of how a fool behaves in contrast to how a wise person behaves. Proverbs doesn’t give Christians the luxury of calling this kind of behavior just another leadership style.
As for voting vs. endorsing, I didn’t use the word vote at all in this one (one reference to “voters”), but I have to resond to this…
Vote: to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot:
This would be significant as an “I don’t endorse; I just vote” defense if it weren’t for the fact that when you “express or signify will or a choice” you are signifying your choice of something—or someone—in particular.
All the ethical issues involved in endorsing still exist when “signifying the choice of.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
His policies have been good on the whole. His appointments even better. We’re not saved by politics, but we have to be wise about what policies we want to see in America in the future, and vote accordingly.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[WallyMorris]CT isn’t worth subscribing to anymore. I was a subscriber mainly to access back issues of CT and Books & Culture (no longer published, unfortunately). I canceled my subscription. Not any real value anymore.
Yeah, I tend to agree. They are mostly pathetic in their content in recent years. Basically useless. I have all the issues from the beginning in my Logos library, however. There is useful material early on.
If you want a good edifying magazine, however, I can recommend one!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Is it possible to achieve short term success in ways that produce long term failure?
As I posted in another place, this is the question I think you are failing to wrestle with. You can achieve the short-term success while producing long-term failure. And that is what many of us think the greatest danger here is. You are willing to sacrifice the long-term on the altar of the short-term.
The idea that Trump is demeaning the office of the presidency ignores history. Trump is an outspoken clown who is profane, immoral, and often mean. But this has happened for generations. This is not new.
figure out what’s right and do that. Stop being desperate.
Yes. This is what those on the other side (whether Trump supporters or not) believe. The question is, What is right? You haven’t made the case yet.
Desperation says, “We gotta get Trump out of office no matter who replaces him.” Trust says God can work through a flawed person.
You see, Aaron, your arguments don’t promote your position. They work equally well against you, and perhaps better.
Trump will be gone in 5 years at the latest. But the judicial appointments he makes will last for decades and those are what determine the society we live in. Yes God is sovereign and the church has no right to expect governmental help or approval. But we are Christian citizens with a duty to work for the betterment of our society as Christians. To abdicate that duty for short-term gain seems hardly Christian to me. Why does it to you?
[Aaron Blumer]It’s not about leadership style.
Not about acting dignified.
Not about the difference between voting and endorsing.
I really didn’t think I had to prove that he has serious character problems, but maybe I need to bite the bullet and write that one. It’s just very hard to write because the quantity of examples is so overwhelming. … and it feels silly because it seems so obvious.
Just read Proverbs, collect all the descriptions of how a fool behaves in contrast to how a wise person behaves. Proverbs doesn’t give Christians the luxury of calling this kind of behavior just another leadership style.
I submit to you that the way he acts on Twitter and in other public venues is part of the persona he wants to display because it energizes such a huge portion of the population – his voters. Your argument about the way he acts in comparison to what Proverbs displays is, frankly, irrelevant. What he does is far more important than how he acts.
Regarding his alleged character problems, I challenge you to come up with anything since he has been in office worthy of his removal. His greatest opponents, those most certainly not filled with the Spirit, have done their absolute best to find something, anything, that would give them grounds to remove him. The best they could come up with is obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. The former has already proven to be a baseless accusation and will go nowhere. The latter is nothing more than his leadership style, as it has also been proven repeatedly that other US presidents have done far worse than Trump and were never impeached, starting with Mr. Obama. If his Moriarties can’t come up with anything more substantive than that, then I’m confident you cannot, either. Complaining about his lack of control of his tongue and even his pride really just amounts to nothing more than “he’s mean. He shouldn’t be president.” It really seems rather childish.
Side-note: I can’t believe I’m defending Trump. It’s just the more I learn of the positive impact he is having, the more I am willing to overlook his childishness, his bullying, his ego, and every other visible ridiculosity that he embodies. Maybe he himself has no idea, but what I see is that God is using him to advance things that favor Christianity. This is the first time in my life that I see a president who is trying to advance conservative values winning. In politics, you cannot kill your opponents with kindness. Trump is over the top, for sure, but he is winning. It’s rather refreshing.
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)
Aaron wrote: All the ethical issues involved in endorsing still exist when “signifying the choice of.”
Not at all. I am considering voting in the 2020 Democrat primary for a truly horrible candidate with whom I disagree with on virtually everything. The reason for my vote is to express or signify my will or choice in the matter of who will be the Democratic Party candidate in the 2020 general election for president.
Voting is simply not the same as endorsing. If these terms were the same, then there would be no reason for both terms to have developed into common usage. Approving, supporting, or sustaining all suggest positive affirmation. Voting lacks that basic component. Someone on death row might be given the opportunity to signify his will and choice in the manner of death, electric chair or lethal injection. The condemned votes for one of them, without supporting, approving of or sustaining that method of death. This illustration holds up, as many voters back in 2016 spoke of their options using such morbid analogies. But they still exercised their right to express their will or choice in the matter.
I totally agree with you Aaron that Trump doesn’t hold up well under the scrutiny of the book of Proverbs. But when neither candidate does, I can still signify my will or choice in the matter of which of the two Proverbs-failing candidates I would rather have in office and picking judges that will affect the rest of my life and the direction of the country for decades to come.
JNoel, I wasn’t referring to anything specific, just speaking in general terms. I am thankful that Trump has performed much better at being president than I had feared going in to this. He was last on my list of GOP primary candidates, but unless something drastic changes in the next 11 months, I expect to vote for him in 2020.
Is it possible to achieve short term success in ways that produce long term failure?
As I posted in another place, this is the question I think you are failing to wrestle with. You can achieve the short-term success while producing long-term failure. And that is what many of us think the greatest danger here is. You are willing to sacrifice the long-term on the altar of the short-term.
The idea that Trump is demeaning the office of the presidency ignores history. Trump is an outspoken clown who is profane, immoral, and often mean. But this has happened for generations. This is not new.
figure out what’s right and do that. Stop being desperate.
Yes. This is what those on the other side (whether Trump supporters or not) believe. The question is, What is right? You haven’t made the case yet.
Desperation says, “We gotta get Trump out of office no matter who replaces him.” Trust says God can work through a flawed person.
You see, Aaron, your arguments don’t promote your position. They work equally well against you, and perhaps better.
- Number of people Trump persuades to think conservatively who weren’t already: 0
- Number of potentially persuadable people Trump’s character turns off to conservative ideas: probably millions.
- Length of time it will take for voters to elect a far left candidate: 1 to 5 years.
- Length of time for voters to elect a far left majority in both houses: 1 to 5 years.
- Length of time for far left to undo most of what Trump has accomplished: a few years.
So… electing (and continuing to support) Trump because Hillary just had to be defeated in this vote right now is the long term strategy, but holding out for a leader of decent character and authentic conservative values is short term thinking? Right.
On the other questions: how is it right to knowingly put such a man in office? Only a results argument can support that. Pure pragmatism… It’s time to call it what it is.
Trump is an outspoken clown who is profane, immoral, and often mean. But this has happened for generations. This is not new.
Who said it was new? So now, if something is old, that makes it wise and good? Nothing is much older than pride (Gen. 3) envy, and murder (Gen. 4). Are we really not seeing the the problem in claiming the moral high ground and backing a low-life as our leader? That has never, ever worked as a long term strategy. How could it? And even if we could find it “working” somewhere in history, it’s never, ever been right.
This is where I take a deep breath, let it out slow and probably walk away. I can’t persuade the unpersuadable. I can only point out what’s there—sometimes what’s painfully obviously there—and be content that I did what I could.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion