Conservative Christians as Trump Enablers

"Choosing Donald Trump" was written by Stephen Mansfield in 2017 after the 2016 election.  He seems to have mixed feelings about Donald Trump, but is an ideal person to explain how Trump was able to capture the Evangelical part of the American electorate of 2016.  Stephen has written numerous books including a few dealing with religious involvement of a few American presidents.

Donald Trump seems to be the most un Christian president of all time.  His behavior and misquoting the Bible would normally make him an outcast among church goers.  But he had been made aware of the crucial role of Evangelical voters.  

He had been sent to a Military Academy supposedly to teach him some humility.  Surprised (or maybe not) to learn Playboy with its philosophy made its way to the young students.  One aspect of the school was that new students had to endure extreme humiliation. from the seniors.  He learned from a sports coach how to deal with that and those strategies endured his whole life.  Attack the attackers.

 His formal education included the Wharton School of Economics.  The author points out that Trump already knew as much about his specialty, real estate as most of the professors.  The author suggests Trump wanted the prestige of attending an Ivy League school.

With his father's guidance he developed a strategy that started with identifying neglected properties, fixing them up, seeking higher class tenants and advertising.

Norman Vincent Peale was a family friend.  With his "The Power of Positive Thinking" he impressed Fred Trump who took his family to Marble Collegiate Church to hear the uplifting sermons.  Peale catered to Wall Street crowd and was against the New Deal.  Trump's first marriage was officiated by Peale and his two sisters also were married there.  Both parents had their funeral services performed there.

In 2002 Trump had been attracted to a tv program about Paula White which emphasized the importance of vision, a topic Trump was interested in and thought she had the best perspective.  Hard to say what motivated each partner.  Perhaps she saw an opportunity to bring a high profile celebrity to her fold.  Perhaps he saw her as a vehicle to expand his contacts for a long range project.  Over time they did get together.  Her brand of open minded religion and self improvement appealed to an increasing congregation.  She brought Trump to meet with a wide range of religious leaders.  In 2015 as he was fine-tuning his plans for the presidency he asked for her help.  She brought him in contact with the Evangelicals, but also Catholic and Orthodox leaders and even some Jewish religious leaders.

From there he learned of one of their pet grievances.  Back in 1954 Lyndon Johnson had become incensed  about that tax exempt institutions were intruding on political decisions and managed to push legislation which is known as the Johnson Amendment to punish with loss of tax exemption if they attempted to influence political issues or endorse political candidates.  It was not targeted at churches, but they soon fell under its jurisdiction.  Many voters agreed churches should stay out of politics, but religious leaders felt a moral imperative to guide government decisions.

From some of the Evangelicals he learned the central role Jerusalem played in their aims.  A Biblical interpretation maintained that there would be a second coming, but only if the Jews controlled the most holy city of Jerusalem.

Abortion was abhorrent to many of the religious leaders.  There were many non religious affiliated people who also were repelled by abortion.

Barack Obama was abhorred for his stand on abortion including insisting that his medical health plan had to include abortion.and towards the end of his presidency he promoted same sex marriage.  Hilary Clinton was an even more strong advocate for both abortion and gay rights. 

Evangelicals are not blind to Trump's many faults and many strive to rationalize that he was most likely to achieve some of their objectives.  One thought was that he was like Cyrus the Great who achieved Biblical approval despite being considered an idolator as he helped free up Jews to go back to Israel. 

 The author is not a fan of Trump, quoting him:  "When you are in business you need to get even with people who screw you.  You need to screw them back...go for the jugular; attack them in spades."  Many comments are made about Trump's un Christian behavior which the author does not approve of.  On the other hand he seems to be pleased with some of Trump's religious agenda.

Mike Pence is not mentioned, but obviously was a reassuring partner for on the edge evangelicals.  When he wouldn't support Trump's plans to overcome election results he was dispensable.  

Once in power Trump did move the American Embassy to Jerusalem.  He also was able to appoint conservative Supreme Court judges to reverse the Roe versus Wade rulings.  He tried to negate the Johnson Amendment, but was stymied.

 Our current election campaign is already giving an ideal Evangelical agenda which is concerned about contraception and some suggest they would like to reverse same sex marriages.  As I write this post Trump has been solidifying his Evangelical support after his guilty verdict which many vehemently denounce.  A song has been written to declare that he is the "Chosen One".  Trump claimed the whole trial was "bullshit" and surprisingly many believers chanted the same word out loud.

A progressive agenda is under assault not only by bigots, but the general population turned off by excesses.  Our education system may counteract some of this, but they are under assault as well.  The most conservatives had already identified education as one of their tools.  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/05/monopolies.html

 We can't blame the Trump disaster all on the Evangelicals as he cultivated other enablers  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html

What about those "hicks"

A tv pundit before the election pointed out that many liberals who would be aghast at prejudice against blacks, gays or other minorities really look down upon rural residents.  Michael Ignatieff author and former leader of the Canadian Liberal Party realized the biggest divide in Canada was between rural and urban citizens.  Read more: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/04/fire-and-ashes-by-michael-ignatieff.html

I lived in a small, but well off city Oshawa until my last two years of high school which were completed in Haliburton, a touristy rural area. Afterwards visited my parents for a few years and had one friend still there, but when my parents moved I only visited as a salesman. 

At the University of Guelph, known for its agriculture and veterinarian programs I of course met lots of Aggie students.  They were not at all stupid, or unsophisticated (for the most part).  After graduating and several jobs I found myself as a salesman who very often worked in small towns and rural areas as my prospects were mainly pet stores, feed stores,veterinarians and tack shops.  I found more success in smaller centres, partly because I felt more comfortable.  In the cities the buyers were hardened to sales people as they saw many, many of whom were aggressive.   In smaller areas many of the buyers seemed grateful that someone would take the trouble to visit them.

Were there other differences?  Certainly.  Country music which I had avoided was popular.  Gun culture was more noticeable, but connected to hunting.  A big difference was that most people did not lock their house or car doors.  Everybody knew everybody and in general were more friendly.  I found myself liking some country music, tolerated friends who liked to hunt and adapted in other ways.  My urban girl friend (now my wife) was shocked at my casual attitude about going outdoors in the dark.  More thoughts from my experiences:http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/10/the-rural-urban-divide.html

A couple of developments highlighted some differences between rural and urban citizens.  A few years back the Ontario government which was Liberal decided they would shut down some gambling sites located at racetracks known as Slots.  They had been a source of money for the racetracks (and local municipalities, etc.) and had propped up horse owners and race track employees.  This was very upsetting to the race horse trade as it was threatening to jobs and breeding programs.  The government maintained that it only hurt fat cat owners, but in fact it threatened about 50,000 workers and many municipal budgets.  Apparently the provincial government had been lobbied by American casino interests who were hurt by the racetrack competition, most notably in Windsor, Sarnia and Fort Erie, all border towns.  The Slots policy had little impact on Liberal voters who were mostly located in urban voting districts.  The rural areas were mostly strong Conservative voting areas.  At the time the Liberal party was not hurt by this policy.

To any Americans it should be noted that the labels liberal and conservative did indicate political party preferences, but there was overlap at the party level with many voters of both parties being centrists.  The socialist party, the New Democrats were also strongest in urban centres and were not as concerned about the racetrack impacts.

Another interesting difference was noted when I got involved with selling tooth brushes for dogs.  As you might imagine it was a hard sell.  Strangely I had more success in urban areas where many city dwellers could understand the health advantages of brushing the teeth of their beloved pets.  I later learned there were social benefits that would reduce dog bites.  Still most city people felt the idea of sticking their hands in a dog's mouth was yucky.  Rural people, especially farmers saw no problem with handling animals in their mouths, but thought the brushing idea ridiculous and I got laughed at a lot.  They were hardened to treating animals as commodities for either food or work.   Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/06/rural-and-urban-contrasts-towards-pets.html

I am now well past my high school years and the world has changed.  But one trend is still happening and that is urbanization.  With that, many rural migrants feel they have lost something and a few urban dwellers tire of the rat race.  With the mass media we all are little more turned on by country music trends.  Urban crime (in the media) especially in the States has many people concerned about protection. 

I remember reading a book by Norman Vincent Peale where he pointed out that in cities it is easier for people to find other like minded people than it is in rural areas.  My last two years of high school reinforced this notion.  Most of the students were bused in from a huge area and that restricted after school activities.  My basketball team attracted those who walked to school (like myself) and those with parents/friends who could drive them after games and practices.  I found myself socializing with a wider range of ages than I had in the city.  Young people were aware of many city attractions and many yearned to leave for the city lights and jobs.  Often a student would find in universities and colleges new ideas not compatible with their upbringing.

Looking at the United States the rural urban divide is very real.  The Constitution has made small states and rural areas disproportionately powerful and it has caused the majority of voters, losses they find hard to accept.  One example would be the composition of the Supreme Court that has been set to the advantage of small states and rural voters.  That one institution has rippling effects concerning gun rights, abortions, welfare, elections and voting rights, etc.  Some would argue that such power hurts everyone.

Rural people are not stupid, and contribute to the welfare of urbanites that are not always appreciated.  Food is one very obvious one and many city dwellers have little idea where their packaged food comes from.  A slower pace of life in an insane world has its merits.  I once worked for a company that discovered that their best managers came from small towns and rural areas which is how I got hired.  Country people are thought to have a good work ethic.

In Canada we have had exchange programs where French and English students live in another language.  On an international scale student have lived in foreign countries.  These exchange programs help us understand other people.  Many urban children would have their eyes opened by more contact with their rural citizens.  At the time when my parents "forced" me to move to a small town in a rural area I was very resentful, but looking back it was one of most important moves of my life.  We would all benefit if we could better understand those country hicks or city slickers.

The photo is of city folks visiting a rural area.