An Origin Story of Religious Populists
Conservatives spend a lot of time asking themselves; how did we get there? The answers are plentiful, from economic change to media proliferation. But what about the evangelicals? The evangelical presence among elected officials remains small, but evangelicals make up a sizable portion of the Republican electorate, especially in deep red states. Evangelical support was tricky at first. Polling data suggested that Republican voters who regularly attended church preferred Ted Cruz by a notable margin. It was only when Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination that evangelical voters moved en masse to support the man who once bragged that the “great” Norman Vincent Peale had once been his pastor. For the record, the number of evangelical pastors who have positive thoughts about Peale is roughly equal to the number of people who are satisfied with their degrees from Trump University.
Nevertheless, Trump made all the right overtures on abortion, religious liberty, and federal judicial appointments, and his position vis a vis Hillary Clinton left evangelicals feeling that they had no other option but to support the Republican nominee. Again, even many Never Trump conservatives were willing to tolerate the transactional argument that many voters – evangelicals included – made in 2016. The question at this point is this: why haven’t evangelicals broken up with Trump, given his many foibles and missteps?
The explanation lies in the fact that most evangelical voters are not conservative, at least not in the traditional sense the term is understood. They are not Burkeans, nor Kirkian traditionalists, nor Buckleyite fusionists. That may be true of a handful of pastors, theologians, and lay people (it was true in my home – my late father, a Southern Baptist pastor, introduced me to Mona Charen, George Will, and William F. Buckley), but not the rank and file. Instead, they are religious populists. The average evangelical voter did not come to the conservative movement or the Republican Party via National Review or Firing Line, and today, they are not kept abreast of conservative thought and policy via the usual print outlets like NR, Commentary, the American Conservative, or the late, lamented Weekly Standard.
Perhaps it’s unfair to criticize a working-class Baptist family for not reading John Podhoretz each month, but that’s not the point. Ideas are formed somewhere, and if evangelical political thought wasn’t formed within the broad swath of the conservative press, where was it formed?
Evangelical political thought was, and is, formed through talk radio, cable television, and parachurch organizations like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association. In his recent book The Radio Right: How a Band of Broadcasters Took on the Federal Government and Built the Modern Conservative Movement, the Cato Institute’s Paul Matzko details how talk radio from the 1960s onward grew the conservative movement beyond the intellectual class. It wasn’t the luminaries at National Review and other assorted outlets that turned millions of voters towards the Republican Party. In Matzko’s telling, it was radio hosts like Billy James Hargis and Carl McIntire who developed popular radio followings by espousing a loosely evangelical anti-Communism during the 1960s. As the moral majority grew in the post-Nixon years, it set the stage for voices like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Today those voices are found on cable television and social media, with the presence of megachurch pastors always lurking in the background.
With their emphasis on the inerrancy of Scripture, evangelicals like to think of themselves as a people of the Book. In truth the overwhelming emphasis is not just on the Bible, but the act of preaching within the church service itself. It is the sermon that takes priority over all else. That’s nothing new in Protestantism; the Reformers placed a very high importance upon the public proclamation of God’s Word. What is different for evangelicals over the last one hundred years is the combination of urgency and apocalypticism. On its own, urgency isn’t anything novel — the Puritans and the Wesleys all preached the need to repent and believe right now. It’s the apocalypticism that really turns many evangelical voters into populists.
Twenty years ago American bookstores were teeming with copies of the Left Behind series, a set of novels based around the eschatological notion of premillennialism — the idea that Jesus Christ would return at any minute to rapture His Church, leaving behind an unsaved world plunged into chaos before Christ’s final return after seven long years. It is a compelling narrative, but as a theological concept, it’s relatively new. This notion of the end times only dates back to the late 19th century, but it spread rapidly and became one of the defining markers of fundamentalists and evangelicals in the 20th century. (Confessional Protestants remain skeptical of the idea). More importantly, premillennialism gave teeth to a long-standing Christian concern that the end of time is imminent, and earthly matters take on greater intensity.
Conservatism shared that urgency during the Cold War. But as communism subsided, intellectual conservatives recognized that many policies were in flux, being pushed and pulled during each successive Congressional term. The exception to this rule is the federal judiciary, where lifetime appointments mean that a united Senate and White House have the power to shape the national’s legal system for a generation. Once evangelical voters understood the gravity of the judiciary, especially in relation to abortion and, more recently, religious liberty, apocalyptic urgency took over.
Long before Donald Trump became the face of the Republican Party, evangelical leaders took issue with the Democratic filibuster of judicial appointments. The 2005 Justice Sunday initiative from Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council was led by James Dobson and Tony Perkins, and featured bright evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and Al Mohler. The theme of this event is familiar to observers today; people of the Christian faith are under attack, and the party that appoints federal judges has the power to radically shape the nation’s trajectory. While most evangelicals might prefer one of their own to be the executive who oversees such a project — a hope that flamed out under George W. Bush — the executive vehicle for such a mission remains secondary to the ultimate goal, hence the lack of concern with all of Donald Trump’s personal foibles.
Leaving aside the novelty of premillennial theology, one of its chief flaws is that it becomes an ideological lens for viewing all of the Christian life, from the study of Scripture to the view of history itself. It leaves the believer incapable of evaluating things on their own terms, preferring instead to fixate on a narrow interpretation of doctrine at the expense of a wide swath of Christian experience. Thankfully this theology has begun to wane even in many evangelical circles, but the apocalyptic impulse remains and many evangelical leaders still possess a Flight 93 outlook that compels them towards certain political conclusions, making them ripe for exploitation at the hands of the populist demagogues that fill the media, the White House, and far too many pulpits.
The post-Trump era will begin soon, either with a Biden victory in 2020 or a lame duck second term. As conservatives and Republicans look for a way forward, they must reckon with the fact that one of the GOP’s most significant voting blocs is committed to conservatism only to the extent that it lines up with prior religious convictions, and those convictions often do not expand far beyond abortion and religious liberty. Populism struggles mightily with the conservative view of restraint, both in terms of political rhetoric and governance itself, and evangelical populists are no different
What about all the social issues? Drugs, social justice, unwed motherhood, gay rights, Hollywood, statues and flags, et cetera? What about respect for the military and law enforcement? What about the budget? In my experience, social conservatives are far more likely to be budget hawks (except if they get into Congress, in which case they won’t touch entitlements).Report
Those were never bedrock conservative principals/issues, unless they gave conservative politicians a way to implement some sort of social control over groups they believed inferior (e.g the War on Drugs). They are also not bedrock Evangelical issues – if I read the OP correctly – except where they intersect with the weak populist affiliation for “religious liberty.”Report
I recall Mike Huckabee, for instance, talking some about the social safety net and how he thought it might be a good thing, if it worked in a certain way. I’m not super familiar with the details, but saw multiple pieces about this.Report
I remember discussing “The Late, Great Planet Earth” by Hal Lindsay back in the 70’s with others in my church youth group. Our conclusion was, “don’t take this too seriously, people have been saying stuff like this for centuries, and it never quite worked out”. At least, that was my takeaway.
Apparently a lot of people DID take it seriously and are forming their view of global politics around it (or around the ideas in it without knowing their origin). What’s up with that, Marge?
Nice piece.Report
But rather than pointing at COVID as a sign of the apocalypse, Evangelicals overwhelmingly downplay it of even call it a hoax. For most people, sides matter more than ideas.Report
Conservatives haven’t been deficit hawks since 1981, haven’t believed in judicial restraint since the Roberts Court started legislating on their behalf, and haven’t had any principles since they embraced Trump. Why are we still pretending otherwise?Report
Because on Jan 21, 2021 at precisely noon Eastern time, the deficit will become an existential crisis to America.Report
God willing.Report
May we be so lucky!Report
There are two kinds of deficit hawks, (a) the ones who think we can get out of it through cutting foreign aid, military or nom-military spending, or raising or cutting taxes, and have hope that it’ll happen, and (b) the ones who realize deficits can only be cut by entitlement reform and have no hope at all.
The Roberts Court hasn’t been legislating. It’s been negotiating with legislation, which is just as bad, and usually when it does so it goes against the conservative stand.
Evangelicals haven’t abandoned their principles under Trump; they’ve abandoned their standards.Report
W started two wars and didn’t even budget for them, just kept asking for more money when he ran out. Not a single “conservative” pundit or publication said a word.
Trump was running a trillion-dollar deficit, before COVID, at full employment. Not a single “conservative” pundit or publication said a word.
The Roberts Court unilaterally repealed the 15th Amendment.Report
W prosecuted two wars. One of them was initiated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and subsequent UN resolutions. There was never a resolution to that war, only a cease fire which was repeatedly violated. The other was initiated by a Taliban attack on US soil. The wars were not fully funded. Historically, wars rarely are fully funded. In a better world, the only two causes of budget deficit would be wars and the difference between actual and estimated government revenue.
In any sane world, the government cannot distribute largesse it doesn’t have to the ruling class. In a democracy, the ruling class is the people, and they’re as greedy as any French aristocrat. If you listened to conservatives in the past four years, you would have heard a lot of opposition to Trump’s spending, but less than there should have been, and almost none from elected officials in a position to address it. It’s very hard for a budget hawk to be optimistic.
The Roberts Court didn’t repeal the amendment. I doubt you even believe that. It’s not a serious statement. If that was your first swing I have to assume you have no argument.Report
Yes, it did.
Section I guarantees that voting rights shall not be abridged by any State. Section II gives Congress the power to enforce Section I. The Roberts Court stripped Congress of that power on the grounds that, in its opinion, it is no longer needed.Report
“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem. Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And §4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States—an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty. This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.” Id., at 334. Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were scheduled to expire after five years. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, §4(a), 79 Stat. 438.
“Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed,
they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that
the conditions that originally justified these measures no
longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions. By
2009, “the racial gap in voter registration and turnout
[was] lower in the States originally covered by §5 than it
[was] nationwide.” Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist.
No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 203–204 (2009). Since
that time, Census Bureau data indicate that African-American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by §5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent. See Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, Reported Voting and legistration, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States (Nov. 2012) (Table 4b).
“At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, “the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 203.”Report
Read Ginsburg’s dissent. She demolishes this “Why do we need a fire department now that fires are getting put out” hogwash.Report
It’s more like “why should we turn off the fire hoses now that the fires are out”. The Court would allow Congress exceptional latitude if the problem were still exceptional; the fire department is still there. What isn’t there is a systematic discrimination sufficient to justify treating states differently.Report
Interesting bubble you live in there.Report
W prosecuted two wars. One of them was initiated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and subsequent UN resolutions.
W?Report
He prosecuted an ongoing war in Iraq and a new one in Afghanistan.Report