During a recent town hall event, progressive billionaire and activist Tom Steyer had the following exchange with a woman in the audience:
WOMAN: I have a concern at what appears to be an overwhelming support by the evangelicals for Donald Trump. I would ask maybe for Democrats or anybody else who belongs to a church to address this issue, to ask their congregation to think about this a little bit more and churches who don’t go along with this administration to speak out loudly, and that is my wish.
STEYER: I think what you’re saying is something that is actually really important in America today. And there is a deliberate attempt to mix religion and politics. And we’re seeing it; and I think it’s important that people be aware of it. And I think that that combination explains a lot of the people who really can’t see any way to reject this president.
It appears that Steyer is using his answer to push a progressives narrative that supporters of the president lack the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. In other words, while there’s a minuscule grain of truth in what Steyer is claiming, his radical oversimplification of what’s truly occurring among supporters of the president is misleading.
We live in a political system in which two parties are dominant. The Democratic Party holds numerous views that are antithetical to conservative Christian beliefs, including on-demand abortion. The views of the Republican Party, while certainly not perfect, are more closely aligned with conservative Christian doctrine. Regardless of the specific presidential candidate on offer, conservative Christians are generally going to vote for the Republican because they know that under a Republican administration, the Democratic Party’s ideology, to which they are vehemently opposed, will not be advanced. They also know that despite any character flaws a Republican president may have, he will more than likely follow the track, advancing conservative ideals. Additionally, it’s understood that at the very least, a Republican president, regardless of his personal flaws, will not actively push progressive ideology.
For the most part, the Trump presidency has been good for conservatives and Christians. Textualist judges have been nominated and appointed to the Supreme Court (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh); religious freedom has been safeguarded (Masterpiece Cakeshop SCOTUS ruling); the lives of the preborn have been more robustly defended (Trump reinstating the “Mexico City Policy”).
While Trump’s personal behavior is often morally repugnant, what has occurred under his watch as president has largely fallen under the umbrella of what’s considered morally good by conservative Christians. While a Democrat might not be as visibly flawed in personal character as Trump, their policies would certainly advance an immoral agenda.
This is why religious Americans are tolerating Donald Trump. It’s not as if they are unable to see his bad behavior; it’s that they know the alternative would be catastrophic from the standpoint of moral political policy.
Steyer’s oversimplification implies that conservative Christians are foolish, confused by the religious and political landscape before them. Quite the opposite is true. Christians who support the president are well aware of his moral failings, but understand that his presidency has generated long-term political benefits and short-term safeguards that outweigh his less than savory personal behavior.