"Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump"

This statement is a pious fiction:

“Millions of religious conservatives…will vote not so much for Donald Trump — with his uncouth speech and incessantly immature tweets — as they will vote against the worldview of the Democratic platform.”

People can tell themselves they’re voting against the Democrat platform, but the objective truth is they are casting a vote for Donald Trump. This article isn’t a dose of political realism, it’s rationalization.

If there were a pro-life Democrat on the ticket, I’d seriously consider voting for that candidate over The Donald. I may not vote at all in 2020 if there is no alternative to The Donald.

[pvawter]

People can tell themselves they’re voting against the Democrat platform, but the objective truth is they are casting a vote for Donald Trump. This article isn’t a dose of political realism, it’s rationalization.

While your statement might be technically true, as those of us who voted for Trump in 2016 had to put our selection by his name rather than by an actual selection of “NOT Hillary Clinton,” it was not a rationalization for those of us voting for him as against HRC. It was a realization that accomplishing a vote that would keep HRC from becoming president had to be done that way. And BTW, given the current crop of people vying for the nomination against him, and absent anything that changes my mind, I’ll be doing the same thing again.

I know, such a vote is always denounced as pragmatism rather than a principled choice. I can still believe, however, that voting for better outcomes for the unborn, the courts and the working classes IS in fact a principled choice, regardless of the one that holds the office. We’ll have to agree to disagree on my motivation.

I will not be voting for deacon or for pastor in November. Of all the candidates running for president/vice president, Mike Pence is the only one I am aware of who seems to have a clear Christian testimony. As a Baptist, I believe that each of us has individual soul liberty in the voting booth. That means that I personally have to make a decision and I base my decision based more on policy positions and Trumps track record on implementing policy than on his communication style and moral failings. I also understand that others will disagree on how I and most evangelical Christians view policy issues. Having said that, I think we need to be careful not to suggest that people are betraying their faith by voting Trump.

[dcbii]

pvawter wrote:

People can tell themselves they’re voting against the Democrat platform, but the objective truth is they are casting a vote for Donald Trump. This article isn’t a dose of political realism, it’s rationalization.

While your statement might be technically true, as those of us who voted for Trump in 2016 had to put our selection by his name rather than by an actual selection of “NOT Hillary Clinton,” it was not a rationalization for those of us voting for him as against HRC. It was a realization that accomplishing a vote that would keep HRC from becoming president had to be done that way. And BTW, given the current crop of people vying for the nomination against him, and absent anything that changes my mind, I’ll be doing the same thing again.

I know, such a vote is always denounced as pragmatism rather than a principled choice. I can still believe, however, that voting for better outcomes for the unborn, the courts and the working classes IS in fact a principled choice, regardless of the one that holds the office. We’ll have to agree to disagree on my motivation.

I didn’t make any comment about your motivation. You can love Trump or hold your nose and vote for him, but either way you are voting for him and supporting him. That’s how this works. It’s not just a technicality.

[JD Miller]

I will not be voting for deacon or for pastor in November. Of all the candidates running for president/vice president, Mike Pence is the only one I am aware of who seems to have a clear Christian testimony. As a Baptist, I believe that each of us has individual soul liberty in the voting booth. That means that I personally have to make a decision and I base my decision based more on policy positions and Trumps track record on implementing policy than on his communication style and moral failings. I also understand that others will disagree on how I and most evangelical Christians view policy issues. Having said that, I think we need to be careful not to suggest that people are betraying their faith by voting Trump.

I don’t hear anyone suggesting that a vote for Trump is a betrayal of the faith. At least I’m not.

[pvawter]

I didn’t make any comment about your motivation. You can love Trump or hold your nose and vote for him, but either way you are voting for him and supporting him. That’s how this works. It’s not just a technicality.

Maybe by calling it “rationalization” you’re commenting on my thinking, not my motivation, but it sure sounds like the latter. Nonetheless, I still think I know more about what I’m thinking on it than you do.

And yes, I can still see my vote as “against Clinton,” without giving even an ounce of support to her opposition’s character or personality. “Support” means a whole lot more than “well, better you than the alternative.”

I could also argue that you are rationalizing that a vote for someone who will not win isn’t support for either of the others. However, since one will get in, no matter what you do, your vote simply means you support either, something I’m sure you’d disagree with.

Finally, it’s hardly a “pious fiction” that I voted against the Democrat worldview, since that is indeed what I did.

I don’t hear anyone suggesting that a vote for Trump is a betrayal of the faith. At least I’m not.

I am sorry if you thought that was directed at you or any other poster on this thread. I should have clarified that it was directed at so many of the articles that I have been reading lately that have that theme. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I probably would have said, before further thinking, that my opposition to the Democrats is just about abortion and gun control, but it’s really more comprehensive than that.

Let’s get started. The Great Society and the “War on the Poor” (sometimes mislabeled “War on Poverty”) did to poor families what three centuries of slavery and Jim Crow failed to do—destroy the black family, and then poor families in general. The Department of Education has squandered a trillion + dollars on “education” and not moved average test scores one iota. Ask any urban dweller about projects like Cabrini Green, the Robert Taylor Homes, or Pruitt-Igoe. Medicare’s current cost is ten times the projection.

Closer to today, the Obama administration’s “disparate impact” criteria for describing racial bias is resulting in cities and school districts not being allowed to discipline racial and ethnic minorities—giving rebellious kids carte blanche to assault their peers and teachers, and turning entire districts of cities into war zones. “Environmentalism”, for the left, means funding cars powered by coal and subsidizing integrated circuits built without environmental protection in China, along with digging up the Bolivian desert for lithium to power it all. Then you’ve got windmills killing eagles and other birds and biodiesel projects which, by plowing under jungles, release more carbon dioxide in their creation than Europe creates in a year.

Our welfare programs keep feeding cheese and butter to people who cannot digest lactose, and the chief health issue of the poor is obesity. We are funding art that can only politely be called “smut”, and broadcast outlets that all too often serve as propaganda channels for the left. And the list goes on and on…..

…and I’m not a diehard Republican—more of a libertarian actually—but the long and short of it is that I’ve had to hold my nose many times to vote for candidates I didn’t really like simply because huge portions of the liberal worldview simply are counter to basic human nature and science, and thus end up in disaster.