PRRI: Among white evangelicals, Ron DeSantis currently rates more favorably than Donald Trump or Nikki Haley
“DeSantis’ net favorability among white evangelicals is +36, placing him at a slightly higher net favorability than Trump. Haley’s net favorability among this group is +20. White evangelicals are more than twice as likely to say that they have not heard of Haley (42%) than they are to say the same of DeSantis (18%).” - PRRI
- 338 views
2024 will likely be a repeat of 2016 when most evangelicals actually voted for someone other than Trump when they had a chance. The evangelical support of Trump was the big lie of the 2016 election. It simply wasn’t true until the very end when the only alternative was Clinton.
I’m having difficulty seeing it as a big lie when we have guys like Jeffers and Graham and other prominent evangelical leaders cheerleading for Trump at every opportunity.
Also, many evangelicals vocally supported Trump after the nomination, not merely as “well, if we have to, I guess,” but in near messianic terms (and some actually messianic terms).
Maybe it’s fair to say evangelical support was “somewhat exaggerated”?
I did read somewhere some rhetoric from Jeffers recently that was a bit more ambiguous on that point. And if memory serves, Graham has been a bit more tepid as well recently. So… there’s hope.
Less likely: that evangelicals will learn that outcome-only reasoning in voting doesn’t (ironically) result in the desired outcomes. What have we gained from the Trump era? Some coercive (policy) gains, some better judges, but no progress in persuading people to look more conservatively at the issues. (Contrast the Reagan era, when there were so many won over by him, the phrase “Reagan Democrats” became a thing… not to mention the independents that swung for him. In Trump, we have had a candidate who can stir up his base—sometimes to extremes—and nothing more.)
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.
I don't entirely disagree with Aaron. However, we not only gained a large number of conservative judges, including a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which is huge, but we also did NOT get Hillary Clinton, and the leftward floodtide that her administration would have unleashed. We're getting it now under Biden, four years later, primarily because conservative "Never Trumpers" swung the vote to Biden. The leftward lurch under Biden is overwhelming. I doubt we will ever see it rolled back substantially. Big picture politics requires voting for the lesser of two evils in order to prevent victory for the greater evil.
Will I support Trump in the Primary? No! Will I vote for him if he gains the Republican nomination? Probably. I do NOT want another Trump presidency, but I want another four years of a Democrat administration even less.
G. N. Barkman
I’m having difficulty seeing it as a big lie
What’s the difficulty? It’s a math problem. You can add up numbers of the vote in the primaries and easily see that most of the GOP and most evangelicals voted for someone other than Trump when they had another option. Talking about Jeffers or Graham or whoever won’t change that. So it’s a lie because it isn’t true. So why do people tell it?
It seems pretty easy to see it as a vote of principle over pragmatics, that there were many for whom the future of the country was more important than making some sort of protest vote or sitting out. It is obvious that evangelicals (and many others) preferred multiple people to Trump and then preferred Trump to Clinton, and it should be obvious why.
I guess there might be less confusion if we specified what we mean by “the lie of evangelical support for Trump.”
- If we mean “the lie that quite a lot of evangelicals voted for him,” clearly not a lie.
- If we mean “the lie that many evangelicals rooted for him, nearly deified him, and many did so before the nomination,” also not a lie.
- So what does that leave? The indirect evidence that evangelicals voted for other options in the primary. OK. That would require “The lie” to be “Evangelicals supported only Trump in the primaries.” That would be a lie. But who is saying that?
As for the Trump votes, when people act for a specific outcome in the near future, this is called pragmatic. It’s often a good thing. I don’t mean it pejoratively every time I use it. I’m a pragmatic guy like 80% of my day… at least.
Rejecting an act that would one believes would get a good outcome because he believes it would be wrong (especially knowing there will be no outcome, or possibly a costly one) this is rejecting the pragmatic in favor of principle.
This is not really my opinion. It’s just what the language means.
Could people vote for Trump driven by principle? Yes. I have no doubt that many did. Many also didn’t. And the question of motive doesn’t exhaust the ethical question. If a parent denies basic medical care for their child, on the principle that Christians should only pray, never take medicine, and the child dies, the parent is still negligent, though they made a “principled” choice.
It can happen with outcomes and short-term vs. long term also. Using parenting again, if a parent plops his toddler in front of a video every time the child fusses, on the principle that it’s a parent’s job to ensure his child’s happiness, he’s still being short sighted and pragmatic, though there is a principle involved. I suppose, it could be argued that subjectively the parent is making a principled choice. Objectively, he is not, because he is not setting the child up for long term thriving.
but we also did NOT get Hillary Clinton, and the leftward floodtide that her administration would have unleashed. We’re getting it now under Biden,
It’s worth noting here that the vast majority of this sort of thing is limited to the lifespan on the current administration. Obama flushed a bunch of Bush policies. Trump flushed a bunch of Obama policies. Biden flushed a bunch of Trump policies. This stuff is very fluid. I’m not saying none of it matters, but it’s not enduring accomplishment.
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.
Except when it is.
Liberal judges appointed by Obama and Biden issue court decisions based upon leftist ideology for years, regardless of who is in the White House. The push to legalize same sex marriage, begun under Obama is now the law of the land, and will doubtless never be repealed. Transgenderism promoted by the Biden administration will not likely be reversed under a Republican president. Enlargement of an already obese federal government under Biden will not be shrunk in the future. When federal agencies are created or enlarged they are almost never reduced. A conservative may slow the rate of acceleration but reduction never seems to happen. Reagan tried.
In other words, it matters a great deal whether the White House is occupied by a Republican or a Democrat. Some things may be "undone" by a new administration, but others remain entrenched. "Big Picture" voting looks beyond the merits of individual candidates to the larger influence of a political party on public policy. If Democratics take a yard whenever they gain power and give back twelve inches when Republicans win, they've gained two feet. When they win again, gain another yard and later give up a foot, eventually they gain ten yards. Gradually, their power becomes so entrenched there's no way to reverse it. That's how the frog gets boiled.
Some might consider such thinking pragmatic. Maybe, but I consider it principled.
G. N. Barkman
I think the same sex marriage is an interesting case. Obama was not a big fan of the idea until the culture shifted on that. He was more follower than leader.
Time Mag has an interesting timeline article on that: https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/
But I certainly don’t disagree that some of the policy US Presidents put in place has enduring impact. But in the case of Obama and same-sex marriage, whatever he contributed was more culture than policy. There wasn’t a new comprehensive federal law. Instead, a legal challenge, a court case. And it’s pretty clear that at least one of the Justices was greatly influenced by changing attitudes in American culture as a whole.
So here’s an idea. If a president’s impact on the culture is more powerful than his impact on policy, how should that inform how we use our influence to choose presidents? How should that shape what we value in candidates and what kinds of people we put in that chair?
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.
I guess there might be less confusion if we specified what we mean by “the lie of evangelical support for Trump.”
The lie is the unqualified statement that 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump. While nakedly true, it is misleading to the true state. So why is it continually said? Perhaps because the truth doesn’t have the same effect. The fact is that most evangelicals preferred someone else to Trump until the someone was Clinton. To present it as any other thing is misleading.
This is not really my opinion. It’s just what the language means.
No, that’s not really “just what the language means.” IMO, that’s a very simplistic (and slightly condescending??) response. Pragmatism is a philosophy that the ends justifies the means. And of course motive doesn’t exhaust the question. But your medical example is a good one. People frequently do things that are bad in the short term that will lead to good (or at least better) in the long term. The parenting illustration is also helpful. We as parents frequently do things that are bad in the short-term particularly for our own well-being and peace, for long-term good. The question with respect to politics is what is the long-term good?
And that’s why this matters: We can all agree (or at least should all agree) that Trump is an immoral man who did some very bad things. We should also agree that he was better than Clinton by orders of magnitude.
In every situation, we have to weigh good and bad outcomes and they are almost always in terms of degrees.
It’s worth noting here that the vast majority of this sort of thing is limited to the lifespan on the current administration.
This is inaccurate. We still have judges that were appointed by Reagan still on the bench. That outlasted Bush I, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, Trump, and now Biden. That is six administrations and forty years. That is an enduring accomplishment. Do you that Clinton would have appointed justices like Barrett, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh? Of course not. Would Trump have appointed Justice Jackson? Of course not. But you were willing for that long-term damage to happen to avoid the short-term damage of Trump and his character, all while believing apparently that Clinton or Biden’s character was somehow better. It wasn’t better.
If a president’s impact on the culture is more powerful than his impact on policy, how should that inform how we use our influence to choose presidents? How should that shape what we value in candidates and what kinds of people we put in that chair?
This is perhaps the strongest argument against your position. The culture created and encouraged by Biden is incredibly different than that of Trump. Again, it is hard to imagine much debate about that.
I don’t like Trump. I wish he would go away and never come back. But I also recognize that pragmatism for short-term gain at long-term expense is a very poor way to run the country. If one’s principle leads one to destroy what it is ultimately trying to save, it is a bad principle, isn’t it? Cutting your nose off to spite your face isn’t wise medical treatment.
Wanted to put this bit in context…
Aaron Blumer wrote:
Rejecting an act that would one believes would get a good outcome because he believes it would be wrong (especially knowing there will be no outcome, or possibly a costly one) this is rejecting the pragmatic in favor of principle.
This is not really my opinion. It’s just what the language means.
It wasn’t my aim to be condescending here… I’m trying to retire an argument that really should be dismissed. There are several better arguments.
Regarding the language…
prag·ma·tism
1: a practical approach to problems and affairs
tried to strike a balance between principles and pragmatism
2: an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - philosophical definition, too long to quote.
Dictionary.com
noun
- character or conduct that emphasizes practicality.
- a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
Pragmatism means thinking of or dealing with problems in a practical way, rather than by using theory or abstract principles.
[formal]
She had a reputation for clear thinking and pragmatism.
Brittanica… illustrates where the popular use and the philosophical use connect…
pragmatism, school of philosophy, dominant in the United States in the first quarter of the 20th century, based on the principle that the usefulness, workability, and practicality of ideas, policies, and proposals are the criteria of their merit.
Bringing this back to my counterargument, and the argument we should really let go: it doesn’t work to say that voting for Trump because “the future of the country was more important than…” is not a pragmatic choice but that rejecting Trump “as a protest vote” is pragmatic.
One of those two acts references outcomes and the other does not.
But, as an aside, my refusal to vote for Trump was not a protest vote. I wasn’t trying to make a statement, though if enough of us did it, a statement of sorts would probably be made. But that was never my own aim, and I’ve read enough to know that for many who rejected that option, protesting wasn’t the goal either.
For many of us, the goal was to not participate in directly helping an unqualified person gain power. I fully accept that this indirectly helped another person gain power who is worse in many ways (not in all ways). I reject the idea that indirect consequences are the same as direct acts. I’ve supported that distinction at some length already, though I don’t mind doing it again. (Have taken a break from that long enough that I’m not completely tired of it now… for a while.)
Larry wrote:
It’s worth noting here that the vast majority of this sort of thing is limited to the lifespan on the current administration.
This is inaccurate. We still have judges…
Again, context helps clarify what my point was…
Aaron Blumer wrote: It’s worth noting here that the vast majority of this sort of thing is limited to the lifespan on the current administration. Obama flushed a bunch of Bush policies. Trump flushed a bunch of Obama policies. Biden flushed a bunch of Trump policies. This stuff is very fluid.
I’ve acknowledged many times that the judges are an enduring accomplishment of the Trump administration. I’ll grant, too, that these judges’ court rulings are, in many cases, going to have some enduring positive outcomes also.
… what if outcomes are not everything? What if some other factors matter?
About liking and not liking candidates: I’ve voted for some candidates I didn’t like. It’s never been about that for me. Many have framed what happened in 2016 and 2020 like this:
- there were the people stood up for the country and voted for Trump
- the rest refused to vote for a guy they didn’t like
Well, I’m sure some just vote on the basis of like and dislike. There might be millions of voters doing that. The case I’ve made against voting for candidates of that sort—and the case lots of others have made as well—does not add up to “don’t like.” That’s a straw man.
Back to ‘pragmatism’ vs principle
I’m aware that principles were a factor for lots of Trump voters. I respect that. I’m grateful for it. It makes the whole thing a lot less depressing! It remains true, though, that I’ve never heard an argument in favor of a Trump vote that didn’t reference outcomes. Almost all of them reference short term outcomes, though a few look ahead a bit (e.g., judges).
I’m perfectly happy to dismiss the accusation of ‘pragmatism’ from my own criticism of Trump voting… I’m not even sure I ever put it that way. But what I’ve observed is relentless appeal to outcomes—and only select outcomes vs. others that are ignored.
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